BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Great Britain won the Revolutionary War

Evidence for why the British won the Revolutionary War1) The US flipped sh*t over the Royal BabyI mean seriously, you could not go on facebook for a week and a half because of all the stuff about the Royal Baby that people were posting. If we truly did win the Revolutionary war, then America wouldnt be giving two sh*ts about the Royal Baby! You think people in China or India who were colonized by the British too gave a sh*t about the Royal Baby? hell no!The fact that this country absolutely lost its mind over the Royal Baby even more then England did indicates that the British did win the Revolutionary war, and that we are still the property of England. 2) They speak English, we speak English. Coincidence?...... I THINK NOTBefore England came to the US, no one spoke EnglishAfter they came, people spoke EnglishWhen they allegedly 'lost', PEOPLE STILL SPOKE ENGLISHIt just doesnt add up....3) The states in the northeast are called 'NEW ENGLAND' for f*cks sakeClearly the biggest sign that someone has been conquered by a country is if that country RENAMES YOU TO NEW _______ . If we won the Revolutionary War do you really think the patriotic founding fathers would have allowed for half of their country to stay under the name of their former conquistadors? No sir, not on Washington's watch.... However, we still are known as 'New England' to this day which indicates that we are still owned by England and that they won the war4) They killed more of us then we killed of them(Every troll debate needs one moderately serious argument)Americans killed 39,000 British and 7,000 of their allies, The British killed 50,000 Americans and 8,000 of our allies. Numbers wise they won the war
Satellite Communication

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information that may be unclear to readers and/or your opponent. You can also explain what you mean about points in your affirmation if they could possibly come across as unclear. Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why your affirmation should be accepted. This should include factual information (Please cite your sources), logical reasoning, and all the benefits such an action would cause. You can also refute any reasons you might think could be brought up as a con Thanks and good luck on the debate!
New Zealand should abolish their defence force

I know the topic is a bit strange. Nevertheless, I hope that whoever takes this will be willing to actually have a serious discussion about it. That means: do not take this debate unless you're going to finish all the rounds, and do not take this debate to troll it. To clarify the motion, "New Zealand" refers to the New Zealand Government, and the defence force refers to the New Zealand Defence Force - including the Royal New Zealand Navy, the New Zealand Army, and the Royal New Zealand Air Force, but not the New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. Abolition would be a process that would happen gradually over the course of a few years, as military assets are sold and so forth. Otherwise all words in the motion have their usual dictionary meaning. Being a citizen of New Zealand I recognise that I may have a unfair advantage in this debate, so my opponent may go first (if they choose) and gain the benefit of an extra round. You'll have 8000 characters to make your case every round, and 72 hours to post them. Good luck!
Banning Football

P1. On the contrary, studies have shown that repeated blunt trauma to the brain cased chronic traumatic encephalopathy a degenerative disease, found in more than 20 deceased football players. P2. First, you have the suicide death of former NFL player Dave Duerson who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. P3. Second, after his death he left a hand written not requesting that his brain be give to the NFL brain bank. P4. An analysis by a neurologist confirmed that Duersin did suffer from C.T.E. P5. Perhaps this is the reason why he did not shoot himself in the brain in order to preserve it. C. Therefore, these inquiries solidified the reform in the N.F.L.'s training camps with a new rule " No tackling It's just practice". NYT BP
Banning Football

Despite intense research efforts around the world, the molecular causes of Parkinson"s disease are still unclear, it is now widely accepted that there is no single "cause" that triggers the disease. Instead, Parkinson"s disease likely results from a confluence of inherited and environmental factors that interact in complex ways to set disease processes in motion. (parkinsoninfo.org) Ali never regretted ever getting in the ring but said "If I wasn't a boxer, I wouldn't be famous. If I wasn't famous, I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing now." Not everyone who plays football will gets injured or have permanent brain damage, everything in life has an inherent risks and rules are improving conditions. Athletes have the freedom to choose.
Banning Football

P1: Parkinson's disease has been linked to the immediate effect from receiving trauma to the brain. P2: for example; boxer Muhammed Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at the age if 42, while studies conclude most persons diagnosed with Parkinson's disease are over the age of 60. P3. Furthermore, engaging in football entails receiving blunt trauma to the brain, and the damage that occurs is irreversible. P4: Studies should involve both present and former boxers to further corroborate the long-term damage that boxers receive while engaging in this sport. . Although playing any physical sport is an individuals choice, one could reconsider the monetary gains and notoriety involved as opposed to safety. George Gigney (Boxing News)
Banning Football

The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research found 243 football deaths recorded between July 1990 and June 2010. So that means about twelve people die each year from playing football. Football is a demanding sport but so is bicycling and swimming, most people like me do these activities more than playing football and if we look at the numbers one could say that it is more dangerous than football. According to the CDC about ten people die each day from unintentional drowning"s (cdc.gov). The NHTS there were 726 bicycle deaths in 2012 (nhtsa.gov). No one wants to ban swimming or biking because it"s too dangerous. Football provides more than just a game for the spectator it brings together people from different backgrounds, provides lessons in team effort, discipline and a sense of camaraderie that can last a lifetime. Injuries are a part of sports and death may result from playing sports. The decision to play any sport or participate in any physical activity is the individual"s choice.
Banning Football

Banning foot all may not be beneficial to the sport fanatic, but would be beneficial to the players, although it may not be realized at the moment. Football is such a physically demanding sport, and who knows what type of damage the player is being subjected to through the constant tackles one incurs,therefore banning football is prevalent to the players. Otherwise perhaps conducting surveys could further support my position with statistical data. To further corroborate the injuries these surveys should be done utilizing current football players as well as those that are retired. It would be interesting to see how this investigation develops. The main focal point should not consist of the monetary value but the long-term health of players.
Is Oral Sex Healthy

You could achieve the exact same benefits from masturbation. The difference is, masturbation won't give you Aids or other STD's, and can not lead to "accidents. First off, here's my argument on the blower. AID's and sex go hand in hand. You might as well inject yourself with the virus, since you're so willing to put it in your mouth. That goes for all STD's. Here's my argument for the one on the receiving end. How many of you guys have ever gotten your "member" caught in your fly? Imagine that, but with larger teeth, and muscles capable of exerting hundreds of pounds of force with one involuntary jerk reaction. The risks with oral sex outweigh the benefits, and in reality, is a safety risk that people should avoid.
Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

Wow. I didnt expect my opponent to forfeit. Seeing as he did indeed forfeit my points still stand unreffuted. Both of my contentions witch are,1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied.Also I seem to win the issue of religion and tradition being a major factor as why gay marriages will most likely not be legalized federally in the u.s and other countries which deny gay marriages.So for the sake of equality what should we do? Simple offer civil unions as another major options so that gays can pursue happiness as well.We also see in this debate that cons counterplan approach fails.For these reasons and cons forfeit i believe a pro vote is justified.
Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

I accept this debate with the following definitions in place:marriage: A state of union in which to (or more) consenting individuals are formally recognised as being together, commonly recognised by society and law.civil union: a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to, and usually less than, those of marriage. [1]In this debate, I hope to show how civil unions would be worse in comparison to marriage in a modern society. However, I wish to add a specific rule to make this clear: civil union should not be defined as being the same as marriage, except with those of the same sex for one and one of different sex to the other. This, in essence, is defining marriage as the same thing as civil union, and does not solve any problems. One can easily recognise that the only difference is discrimination between two sexual orientations, without any real difference: it's simply a different but equal argument. In this case, we essentially legalise same sex marriage, but call it civil unions. In other words, we legalise same sex marriage. This would be a tautology in which we have legalised same sex marriage. 1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

Structure of this debate. 1-acceptance/introductions 2-positions 3-rebuttals 4-rebuttals 5-rebuttals/summary I am for gay rights, and was for gay marriages until I had this idea in witch gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in America because marriage is usually religious though it could be debated if marriage was first introduced by religion or not. It cannot be debated that regardless of origin marriage is usually conjunctive with religion and has been embraced by religion throughout time and is present modernly. As we know most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs( Im against tradition because others values potentially can cloud potential development of personal views.) and is likely going to become the premises of why gay marriages will probroly never be approved on a federal level. Gay people shouldn't marry but instead introduce a new type of union. It will have the same purpose of marriage but will not involve anti-gay religious believers or those guys who read the vows who are religious(I forget what there called.) Since this is the acceptance/introductory round I will post and name this type of union next round........Side note.... Their are many avenues that one could take to tackle this debate. I honestly want to debate a female because they tend to have acceptable views of rights to me. Though it doesnt really matter what gender or species accepts this debate.....lol....It's highly probable that my opponent may use the one man one woman rule, or the naturallity argument if they are against gay unions derelict of any circumstances most likely for moral reasons. Id rather avoid these types of arguments due to repetition but if you are compelled to do such then go for it. I request that if my opponent uses this logic please post why this logic should be acceptable and upon what premise this is based. As for personal opinions i ask that one explains their logic from A to Z witch is the logical way to explain logic. I intend for this debate to give me a broadened perspective on how people feel about gays having a separate type of union( or one at all) and if people find it acceptable and if this proposal could potentially work at resolving the gay marriage problem. Thanyou I appreciate whom or whatever accepts this debate.....lol
Xbox 360 is better than PlayStation 3

Sure, there is a lot in common between the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but the PS3 can do more and can do anything better. As I stated before, the games are better, the online is better, and the value is better. Playstation also has a similar program to XNA called Playstation Mobile which helps small developers make games for PS3, Playstation Vita, and mobile phones. As I explained before, the Xbox is not really cheaper. Restating that it's cheaper doesn't make it true. The PS3 presents a much better value for the consumer. As I stated before, I'm not going to claim that Playstation is the most original but to claim that Kinect is a groundbreaking piece of technology is laughable. Motion hand gestures existed long before Kinect did, in fact Sony used motion gestures with the Eye Toy on PS2. The Kinect is derivative, trivial, and irrelevant. Most of all though, there aren't any good games that use it. Now here is where your hollow argument really starts to fall apart. Using anecdotal evidence that you "have not heard many good reviews from Sony's customer service" is a classic example of confirmation bias. I could say that I have heard bad things about Microsoft's customer service and it would hold just as much weight as your argument because you posted no proof or examples. On the other hand, Microsoft probably needs good customer service to deal with all the angry customers who's Xboxes got the red ring of death because they are made of cheap, low quality parts. The argument that the 360 is more multiplayer based is also anecdotal, the PS3 has many great multiplayer-only or multiplayer-centric games such as MAG, Starhawk, Warhawk, Dust 514, LittleBigPlanet, and more as well as superior single player experiences like the award winning Uncharted series, Infamous, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and many more. I would also argue that PS3 has a very robust library of exclusive "complex games" like White Knight Chronicles, Ni No Kuni, Demon's Souls, etc. As I said before, the PS3's library is much more diverse than that of the 360 with more high quality games. It's clear you have no examples or proof to back up any of your claims, you're just using the classic console war argument of "the console I bought is better because I own it." I have provided specific examples that directly refute each thinly veiled argument you make, the outcome of this argument is already pretty clear.
Xbox 360 is better than PlayStation 3

Yes There is a lot in common between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Xbox is innovative and has fun creative new features such as XNA which is the service that allows users to create their own games for Xbox marketplace and to review other peoples games too. Xbox is also cheaper. Ps3 steals everything that Nintendo does such as motion sensitivity) (PlayStation Move is pretty much a Wii controller with a ball on it.) Xbox has Kinect which takes motion games to the next level. "You hands are the remote." Another thing is: Xbox cares about their customers. I have not heard many good reviews from Sony's customer service. The Xbox 360 is a more multiplayer based experience, the PS3 offers better singleplayer exclusives, and the PC is a more complex system for gamers who like to delve into complex games (i.e RPGs - Role Playing Games and JRPGs - Japanese Role Playing Games).
Xbox 360 is better than PlayStation 3

The Xbox 360 was released a year before the PS3, and as a result of this there is a greater choice of games available. There are approximately 100 more game titles available for the Xbox 360 than the PS3, and this is a great advantage to have because the ultimate aim is to provide gamers with as many titles and choices as possible. Xbox Live is the online arena that people can play multiplayer games in, against any other player from any corner of the world. Though there is a membership fee to be paid to Microsoft for enjoying this purpose, experienced gamers will attest that this arena is far better than that of the PS3 (also known as the PlayStation Network). One of the biggest reasons why people may choose an Xbox 360 is the price. The console comes in many different bundles, but it is definitely cheaper than the PS3. This is a major factor for many potential buyers, and no matter what anyone says, it does make a difference. The new motion sensing platform for the Xbox 360 is known as the Kinect, and this is a revolutionary new technology where you do not need to use a controller at all. A camera, a motion sensor and a voice detector observe your movements and your speech and this allows you to stimulate the game in real time. Hence the You are the controller tagline by Microsoft. Playing games on the Kinect is truly a great and novel experience, while the PS3 Move has simply copied the technology of the Nintendo Wii.
Xbox 360 is better than PlayStation 3

I am just an 8th grader trying to practice for the debating team in High School. I am starting to think that it depending on what kind of person and their style of games. Determining which one is "better" depends on the person using the game console, because each console offers a wide variety of differentiating features - some will love one console, and others will hate it. To figure out which console is better for you, you can easily go to each platform's website and compare specs. Get the one that offers you what you need, and has the games you want to play! Look at what you need to buy separately from the console for it to work as well. Be sure to check out the controllers for each. Having a controller you enjoy is important! I cant wait to see what Xbox 720 and PS4 have to offer. Cant wait for Xbox 720 illumiroom! Great job debating!
Death Penalty

Proby hasnt been on here in 6 days, so thats probably why he didnt post back, seeing as he set the response time for 15 minutes. So I will take this time to answer his question about NC. North Carolina has executed 44 people, I think, that might be a few numbers off. There are also like 100-something people on death row as of recently. I think it might be in the 140s.
Death Penalty

Dear Proby, I am not going to debate this topic with you in a traditional voting style format. You simply asked me why I don't believe in the death penalty, so I will answer your question. I am not going to try to convince the viewers or you what is right, so theres no need in voting. Death as a punishment is very severe, and I am a Christian, so I do not believe in killing people, and I do believe in forgiveness. The best solution is to lock them up and let God deal with them once they die.
Starcraft II is superior to Starcraft I.

Resolved: StarCraft II is superior to StarCraft I. Definitions: Superior: "better" (I simply refuse to have an elaborate semantics debate!) Requirements: Round 1 - Introductions. Round 2 - Aff & Neg present cases. Round 3 - Rebuttals/CXs from both sides. Round 4 - Voting issues. Good luck to the contender.
We are calling out Pope Francis.

The dread is in the head. Mr Purple's not under your bed. How long have you got, do you think. Before you rot and stink So be your own boss Don't be carrying a cross For all those losers Those anguish choosers Those rebel cause boozers Because they don't give a damn About the caring sharing man Nor does Francis He just dances On his balcony prances To those adulated glances Pious Nun romances So stop calling Stop falling For their disguise For their lies And peace be with you Your friends an family too.
We are calling out Pope Francis.

The purple one is not who you think it is it is the one-eyed, one horned purple people eater that lies within the purple circle of viciousness, that does onto another what has been done unto us all. 2far4u2 Its supposed to go; do unto another what you would have them do unto you, the way that it is meant to be. Sonoofcharl hopefully doesn't think lightly of this as he walks upon thin ice. Not upon the water as we cannot. Should we have very little sympathy for those that have very little sympathy? For empathy is a lesson learnt as it leaves a lesion the likes of a welt. A scare that never heals. A burden of responsibility. If you Sonoofcharl do not know of the road lest travelled that what's best to be forgotten but needs to be remembered. Then, as I have said, don't think lightly of this calling out, for this is a notice to the Pope and all other religions and beliefs that all Christians and Moslems are paining for a resolve. All other religions and beliefs are saying go to hell or pay in your next life as a rock or a flee or whatever it may be. As a stone is overturned a monotone reveals a location. To put one cornerstone upon the Earth (Mother Nature) is the church, mollusc, temple, synagogue, steeple that we all exist within. Peace be with you as our praise and glory for Nature should not be in vain.
We are calling out Pope Francis.

Dread is assumption. Dread is a lack of confidence and ability. Churches and mosaics are merely architecture and decoration. They are inanimate and have no conscience. They do not regard people's dread. Starving, freezing, homeless children are a consequence of a flawed society, based on hierarchy, selfishness, greed and the worship of money. Mainstream religions are one of the foundation stones of our flawed, hierarchical, selfish, greedy and money worshiping society. He will stand on his balcony and wave to you. But it's no good calling Francis out. Because he's not coming out to play. Peace be with you too.
We are calling out Pope Francis.

What I am against is the fact that all temples churches and mosaics need to for there own sake and save the starving and the freezing and the homeless children, for all we ask is for less dread throughout the world. Before it is too late. I would like to see dread disappear altogether I no we need some despair to appreciate joy. But what is the use of dread? abolish dread maybe that is evils real name. Peace be with you as all praise and glory belong to our existence creator Nature. Amen
We are calling out Pope Francis.

The biggest problem in the world is when good people do nothing. This is a crisis a crisis of prejudgement. I have been asking you mob to change your ways for way too long pull your pants up and get with the program. My church he said is but one stone upon another not a building of them. You have lost sight of the stars in the heavens. bring it all back down to Earth and let Nature run its course. For these are the days to get busy, you slackers. Peace be with you as all praise and glory belong to Nature. Amen Ps: and a very big thank you to Mother Mary and Jesus Christ. M8s of 8s.