BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Trading card game.

Debates in general are made around fact and opinion and for you to say that my argument(s) were bad, because I used a mix of opinion and amount of players is wrong, in a debate you should use a majority understanding to get what you need or desire which in this case was taking into account the number of players. Rebuttal- You say that Yu-Gi-Oh is more affordable than Magic, due to the constantly upgrading of decks, now I will agree that in magic you need to 'upgrade' it more in you wish to play in tournament, but the same thing can be said and Yu-Gi-Oh, I went and looked at the standard tournament deck for Yu-Gi-Oh and its around 300-600$ if not more, so when you tell me to the average person it would be possible to play in a tournament you would be wrong, the average recreational player that I talked to would never spend over 50$ for a single deck. Next you go off to say 'It has many different styles to playing and you can win in many different outcomes. Such as using primarily trap/trap cards or going on the offensive using monsters' when the same can be said about Magic, the trap cards in Yu-Gi-Oh are basically the same as the Scorsese, enchantments and Instants that can be found in Magic and of course the monsters. Next statement; You say 'You say that it is the top card game, but as many card/board games go it will soon fall as other games or higher technology games come to take its place just like what happened with Yu-Gi-Oh' Now yes at a time Yo-Gi-Oh was the top selling card game, but it has fallen off, and why do you think that is? Things that are the best stay on the top and are the best, when Magic has been around and has always been near if not on the top as it is now. Your move my dear IAlwaysLoseDebates
Best Trading card game.

I will state my reasons of why I think that Yu-Gi-Oh! is a better card game Reasons: 1) It is also very affordable such as magic but once you have a deck you don't have to constantly upgrade. If you have a decent deck every card would always have a good use while in Magic a new card could possibly disable a outdated card. 2) As you also said, almost every card game takes skill and has a learning curve mainly because they are built on strategy. So this reason applies to both card games that we are debating. 3) It has many different styles to playing and you can win in many different outcomes. Such as using primarily trap/trap cards or going on the offensive using monsters. As you said that a magic deck is around $15, which Yu-Gi-Oh! is also based around, but if you are constantly playing Magic and want to continue winning you are almost forced to upgrade and you would have to pay more as my opponent has stated; though that is a downfall, mainly because many people who play the game are not able to afford to continue to buy cards and start to get tired of the game because of their disadvantage. You say that it is the top card game, but as many card/board games go it will soon fall as other games or higher technology games come to take its place just like what happened with Yu-Gi-Oh! We should also take into consideration that my opponent said that it is a mix between amount of players and opinion. Your turn, Mr. IAlwaysWinDebates
Best Trading card game.

Now it wasn't as popular when we were kids but it was still something I avidly played, and love. Now please keep in mind with something such as Yu-Gi-Oh we are only talking about the card game, not the anime or manga. Argument: Magic the Gathering is as of now, the most popular trading card game, and it hasn't gotten that title for any reason, now first I will bring up some reasons why the game is great. 1) The learning curve, there are lots of different things you need to learn about the game such as what the effects do, but this could be said about most trading card games, and once you get the hang of it the learning curve is not that large. 2)Cost as a recreational game, you don't have to pay much money you can get a deck for 15$~, now of course if you wan'ted to get more, or get the rare cards you could also go and spend thousands. 3) With the growing popularity of the game growing, it would be easy to find people to play with and easy to jump back in if you ever wan'ted to. Your turn IAlwaysLoseDebates.
Why republicans should never hold ANY govt. position

What, were you expecting me to concede this easily? You offered no good argument so far. You haven't even proved your claims that they disregard the working class and minorities. I would agree with you, but you have offered weak points so far. I'm not just a brick wall, I do change my opinion from time to time. The most revent change in opinion had to do with the minimum wage. I used to be a supporter of the minimum wage, but now I'm not. Then years ago I used to be a right-wing libertarian, now I'm a libertarian socialist. I do change my view if I realize I am wrong and have insufficient facts to back things up. You just haven't offered any evidence or facts, but merely opinion. Opinion doesn't persuade me.
Why republicans should never hold ANY govt. position

I don't dispute that the republicans are awful. Democrats are awful too though. Democrats and republicans both support the wealthy, for the most part. Both have been shown to bail out the wealthy corporations, both tend to do what their donors want, etc. As this study shows, rich elites have the most influence over our government[1], and this is regardless if there are republicans or democrats in power.So until we get a viable third party that isn't bought and sold by the wealthy, we need a divided government. A divided government means we would have 1 or more branches of the government of a different party. As I suggested, I think congress should be republican-controlled, the presidency should be democratic controlled, and the supreme court should be a tie in my opinion. So, 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate. This is the best combination because it prevents terrible policies from being advanced, and it means the federal government gets less done which is a good thing. We should leave things up to the states anyways. Source:[1] https://scholar.princeton.edu...
Why republicans should never hold ANY govt. position

My opponent didn't really offer much argument in round 1, so I won't do much either to keep things fair. I would like to ask my opponent to offer good arguments in the next round so that there is more to discuss. Now, I will state some generalities as well, since my opponent did. Due to that both parties, democrats and republicans, are pretty terrible, I don't want either to have complete control of all branches of government, thus republicans would be necessary to stop the democratic agenda, perhaps we should have congress be republican controlled and the presidency democratic controlled, and democrats are necessary to stop the republican agenda. I believe both are detrimental to the United States, and we need a divided government in order for nothing to get done that is harmful for the US. So, while we have a two-party system, I believe republicans in the government are necessary.It should be noted that I am not a republican, nor do I exactly support republicans. I'm actually a socialist myself, so I don't have a bias in favor of republicans.
Craft is the more prominent feature of literary art than inspiration.

"Practice makes perfect" I couldn't have said it myself. This, as you put it, "inspired drivel" has guided people throughout history. Within the numerous people this saying inspired, is the basketball player, Michael Jordan. According to Advisortoday.org Michael Jordan devoted, "thousands of hours of practice" to develop his nearly perfect shot; proving that the rule of practice makes perfect is genuinely true. What you need to realize is that those hours were not spent watching and critiquing the shots of other basketball players, but instead were spent physically on the court with a ball in his hand, shooting at a metal rim. Similarly, you cannot rely purely on what you read to influence how you are able to write. In the middle of your argument, you stated in reference to a child learning to speak, "Of course he have the ability to speak, but if he don't use it he will lose that ability forever." Similarly, you may have the ability to write, but if you spend 50 years of your life reading philosophical novels' and then attempt to scribe what you have learned, you will find that your writing skills are in a derisory state, and that you will not be able to adequately describe your discoveries through writing. Also note that you did not address the comment that I made, "inspiration is motivation." If you are motivated to do anything, it is derived from inspiration. Using your example of a child learning the English language, this child is motivated (inspired) by innate feelings of curiosity. Of course you would not be able to write without words, but you would not have words without innate inspiration. Additionally, you answered my original question, "How does reading another's work motivate one to write?" by describing the situation of a writer with a case of writers block, after completely scribing all of his beliefs. You then suggested an easy fix for this case would be reading another authors work to "evoking" the "ideas" of the writer. Well, isn't "evoking ideas" a synonym for finding inspiration? There is no other way to put it, without inspiration a writer cannot write. Furthermore, if a writer cannot write then he will lose all of his writing talent.
Craft is the more prominent feature of literary art than inspiration.

"Practice makes it perfect." Many people write inspired drivel. It takes hard work and practice to be great. "Inspiration is a necessity, while craft is a tool." I think you have to consider that statement again. the simplest example I can say is language. When a kid is born, he is not "born with" the language but, he is "learning" the language. Of course he have the ability to speak, but if he don't use it he will lose that ability forever. So, he have the "inspiration" but not the "tool" and hence, he won't have any use with his "inspiration." As you said "inspiration is just the motivation behind writing". That motivation won't always make a good writer. It needs work too. "How does reading another work motivate one to write?" I considered that question as well. But think about it. Suppose, you are an inspirational writer and you wrote so many works. But now, after you have written down all of your ideas on a piece of paper, you wouldn't know what to write next. So you try reading the famous works of other writers. I don't mean plagiarism, but, when you read a book based on a certain theme, you are evoking your ideas relating to that theme.
Craft is the more prominent feature of literary art than inspiration.

Inspiration is a necessity, while craft is a tool. Viewing other peoples work does nothing more than assist a writer by teaching him a variety of rhetorical devices, and new diction. Inspiration is the motivation behind writing. One cannot scribe without motivation, therefore one cannot write without inspiration. Viewing others work is not a necessity, and if you describe it as such, then I query - How does reading another work motivate one to write? If a writer should find motivation through another literary devices than the writer is inspired by their aspiration for knowledge, and by the knowledge that the separate author has provided for them. Without inspiration one cannot write, and if one cannot write then his talent will rapidly decay. Craft is purely a tool used by an eager writer to improve, but is not a necessity.
Resolved: Rehabilitation Should Be Valued Above Retribution

I haven't devil's advocated for Shylock in a long time so this should be fun. One quick comment about burden of proof. The burden of proof rule exists to resolve situations where either both sides have made a compelling argument or niether side has made a compelling argument. If both sides have made a compelling argument, the side with the "burden of proof" wins, and if neither side made a compelling argument, the side without it wins. In all other instances, debates are judged according to who, on balance, made the better argument. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that burden of proof does not rest on a single debater in this context, nor does it have any bearing on who needs to make a case in the debate. I'm absolutely happy to make a constructive case, however, this does not affect burden of proof in any way. Convention dictates that the side bringing the claim has the burden of proof, and debate convention further stipulates that this is almost always pro, so I think it's safest for voters to presume pro has the burden of proof in this debate. Given that this is the semi-finals of a big tournament, this actually works in pro's favor, so I can only assume pro will be alright with this. My apologies for that rant, the way that phrase gets tossed around is one of my pet peeves. I did ask if it was OK to clarify this in the comments. I look forward to reading my opponent's opening contentions and wish him good luck for this debate.
Resolved: Rehabilitation Should Be Valued Above Retribution

This is for Spinko's Elo tournament. Burden of proofThe BoP rests neither fully on myself or my opponent but we should each make a case. I for rehabilitation and con for retribution. Definitions Rehabilitation: to restore to a positive state, such as in restoring a criminal to good standing in societyRetribution: punishment enacted due to the receivers deserving of it Disputing the definitions is fine but should be done in the comments section prior to accepting the debate. Guidelines/rulesNo abusive semantics. First round is acceptance. For the second round, I will present make case. My opponent is free to take one of two options. (1) Refute my case while making one of his own. (2) Make a case of his own but leave rebuttal till the next round. For the last round, no new arguments should be made. The round should be used mainly for rehashing and concluding the debate.
knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement

PRO hasn't defined the topic, so I'll define it. 1. Knowledge: Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. 2. Truth: The quality or state of being true. 3. Belief : An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 4. Disgreement: The state of agreeing REBUTTAL: Now I'm going to rebut my opponent's points. 1. Knowledge is NOT truth as you can know something that is not true like knowing a rumor for example. 2. Belief is not disgreement, it is nearly the opposite as you are agreeing with anything you believe, not disagreeing with it. 3. CON isn't a lier for the following reasons: 1. Because you started the debate without knowing who will accept it, and you called somebody you don't know a lier. 2. Because you've got no evidence that I'm a lier Adil Muhammad, Qatar.
God Exists

DEFINITION:"God is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being who created all of existent matter and life." [1]The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments.The BOP will be SOLELY ON ME - I will have to affirm that God DOES exist. My opponent only has to cast doubt on my proofs.You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 8,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for fourteen days. [1] http://www.debate.org...
Nuclear Weapons have benefited humanity

nuclear WMDs are horrible they have simply led to the ever-present fear that a spiteful authoritarian regime will simply decide to destroy the world. yes, you are correct it did lead to the surrender of Japan in world war 2 but today many people live in fear that they will simply be blown away by the blast that can be caused by a push of a button. but the problem can be solved we can lead more peaceful and less fearful lives all we need is total de-proliferation and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, though it would need all of them to be destroyed, and for all countries to sign a treaty that they face complete eradication if they were to take any steps to make or research nuclear weapons. of, course there are some caveats to the most perfect of plans, this only has a few: of course, lets take the example of Iran the united states has a treaty with them and it requires nuclear inspectors to confirm destruction of nuclear weapons, of course, this does take several years, and this does take commitment on both parts; then there is the fact that they may hide income evavisly secretive but that would simply be solved by the oversight of inspectors and dedicated administrators; then there is the fact that well " they won't be able to enforce it if they don't have nuclear weapons" well the fact is simple we can't that's why it would take global effort and commitment. now many of you might be saying well it does help keep a stable world but the world will be more stable and safe if this is achieved. also, there are other ways to end wars: simply using other bombs; diplomatic pressure; military intervention; invasion; simple negotiations. yes, mutually assured destruction is very real and present today so to keep the world safer for the future we must bring an end to the nuclear weapons. we can't mutually assure destruction if there are no nukes to destroy with. now it may seem that it's impossible and it's really close but if we work together, if we work for the future we can get total disarmament and stop the spread of militarization.
Nuclear Weapons have benefited humanity

When the first nuclear bombs were used in warfare it lead to the surrender of Japan in less than one month and since we have had a unprecedented period of peace with no war between the top economies of the world for seventy years due mostly in part to the existence of Nuclear Weapons and MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. One of the most tense standoffs between in history, The Cold War would have surely escalated to warfare if not for MAD.
Abortion is Wrong

You still are not reading my arguments to their full, your questions will be explained. The only reason I say that you should have an abortion if the woman's life is in danger is because the mother has a much higher probability of survival. It's the same as when a paramedic is diving down to a family in a car under water. The paramedic will always go to save the male in the best shape first, not the women or children. This sounds wrong, but the man has a higher chance of survival, therefore it's more logical to save him first and not the others than to save none at all. Does that make sense now? You still need to give me a reason for abortion. Sadly, I won't have another chance to try and refute it, but feel welcome to post an argument.
Abortion is Wrong

"But really, I didn't mean that abortion will be off limits under any circumstance: if the woman's life is in danger, then we should act on trying to save the mother's life." "So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger." -You seem to keep insisting that it is wrong to have an abortion, unless, of course, the mother's life is not in danger. But that is going against your own argument, which has no logic to me. "My main point will be that the fetus is alive and human. If it is, then we have no right to kill it and decide its fate." "...there is no such thing as 'partially alive.'" "Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value." -You are absolutely correct, their value is the same, if you choose to believe that. And there is such a thing as "partially alive". Go back to my example; a brain dead person does not have those abilities anymore that defines himself/herself as fully alive, thanks to your definition from Oxford you provided me so kindly with.
Abortion is Wrong

You may not have read my argument as thoroughly as you should have. First you are wrong in saying the fetus is fully developed at the end. We are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's. Therefore using your same logic, I wouldn't be killing a 6 year old girl, I'd only be stopping her development. And the ability to feel is only an ability that will develop as well, just like the ability to tie your shoes, or ability to shop online. Let me reiterate, just because someone is not fully developed, it doesn't depreciate their value. Comparing this to a brain-dead person is just as invalid. We are just as incapable of responding, thinking, or acting when we are asleep, or in a coma, but still, we cannot justify killing the person. Lastly, in your main point, you say, "The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed...," but there is no such thing as "partially alive." I already proved that it is alive. And I already proved that you can't kill someone based on its level of development. So there is still no good reason to have an abortion, given that the mother's life is not in danger.
Abortion is Wrong

I will make my main point across, then I will respond to your argument in the later rounds. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of abortion is: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus (1) Let's focus on the first part of the definition. It is a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy. The fetus is not fully developed until the end, of course, so one can assume that you would not necessarily be killing, just ending the development. I'll try to compare it to someone who is brain dead. The person can not think, respond, or do anything. It is only being kept alive by artificial machines. If you were to stop the machines, then it would die. But one can probably assume the person would not be feeling pain. So, you're right in part, that the fetus is alive. Just as the person who is brain-dead though, it is not fully developed to feel. So the fetus is alive, but will not feel any sort of pain. MAIN POINT: The fetus is partially alive, not fully developed. You are not harming the fetus, just ending it's development. That makes it acceptable to stop a pregnancy. Sources: (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion is Wrong

Hello, and happy holidays to you as well! I look forward to having a friendly debate on this issue. I will begin by saying that I do not want this to turn into a religious debate. Thank you. Abortion is not wrong for many reasons. One reason is that it is the parent deciding whether or not to not have the baby. The child is the parents' responsibility to take care of the baby, and if they are not responsible or can't take care of him/her, then what other option is there? What if the woman is at imminent risk?
Abortion is Wrong

1 reason? I can give you tons of reasons right now why you CAN get an abortion: -The parent has no money (You need money to raise children and your family might not support you) -The parent can't have the baby adopted (Nobody might want to adopt your child) -The parent needed to go back to school (To get a better education to become more experienced) -The child could be "disabled" and the parent might not want that (I know this is wrong, but it's a reason some might choose) And that doesn't even involve miscarriages. I hope I have given you sufficient evidence as to why you CAN have the option to have an abortion. I have enjoyed this debate. You put up a very good fight. Maybe we might debate sometime in the future. ;)