BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Endangered Species are protected more than Humans (A Debate about Abortion)

Pro=against abortion Con=for abortionArgument:At this point in time America's society is so messed up. The public thinks it's OK to have sex with anyone and that they can do that outside of marriage. There are so many cases of abuse and neglection and men who don't treat women right (vice versa). This is not good because it this is where abortion comes in [like a wrecking ball]1 But is abortion really fine? How about fair? Does abortion affect anything? Now take a look at the beginning of this video. . http://www.youtube.com... President Nixon, upon signing the Endangered Species Act law, did not realize how [later] presidents would ALSO sign legalization laws such as. .. well, all it really is is a law letting you kill babies! That's all! ! Roe vs Wade started in his last year of being president. Not to put blame or put scapegoat on him but did he really go that deep into endangered species yet didn't do anything about his country's legalizing of abortion? Sorry for the bad usage of words here. Bear with me, please! You can tell, from yard signs that say things like 'save the grey wolves,' that our society is messed up. Those same people who have the yard signs advertising their "sympathy" for endangered animals probably one voted for the legalization of abortion, which in my opinion is most definitely murder. For example, many times I have seen these words: the howl of the wolves is emblematic of our country's last wild areas, a reminder of strenght and beauty of our natural world. What about the human world? Aren't babies more valuable than animals, or have we changed our mind about the propering of a country? Isn't the next generation more important than our wild areas? ! Be prepared for a heated debate because this such a big issue :)
The UIL should adopt PFD as a sponsored event

Hey guys! It's been a while since we've been able to hang out, so I wanted to pop in and say hey. As usual, and as will likely be the norm until I graduate I'm completely devoid of time (figuratively speaking of course) and have about a million things to do. So being the masochist that I am, I've decided it would be an absolutely fantastic idea to have a quick debate on here. I mean it's just been so long. So before beginning there are some clarifications I'd like to offer- 1. I may forfeit a round of this debate via time-out. If it comes to that please forgive me and the the win with grace. 2. the UIL will be understood as the Texas academic/athletics association for elementary through high school students known as the "[1]University Interscholastic League" 3. PFD will be understood as "Public Forum Debate" as is practiced and sanctioned by the [2]National Forensics League 4. This debate is meant to be light hearted, but by no means a joke debate. Evidence is encouraged but only as a mean of strengthening warrants to arguments, not as warrants in and of themselves. What I mean is that your arguments should have warrants independent of evidence, I want your analysis. 5. Definition debates are discouraged, but if you insistent on their necessity I'll cover them as they arise 6. It would be optimal if some-one with experience in the UIL would accept this debate, but it's not necessary. = Sources Cited = [1] http://www.uiltexas.org... [2] http://nflonline.org...
DBZ vs Naruto

sO IN nARUTO THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED...i DONT REMEMBER... but they each have different number of talks. Their beasts inside people. Once unleasahed!!!!MASSIVE POWER CAN KILL ANYONE!!! U AIN'T GOT NU IN ON MEH!!! Plus there is also blood and Naruto Is the BEST SHOW EVER. MORE INTERESTING THAN YOUR LITTLE COMEDY
AOW War Scenario: Russia v. India

Let the war begin! MANPOWER Total Population: 1,236,344,631 Available Manpower: 615,201,057 Fit for Service: 489,571,520 Reaching Military Age Annually: 22,896,956] Active Frontline Personnel: 1,325,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 2,143,000 LAND SYSTEMSTank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 6,464 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 6,704 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 290 Towed-Artillery: 7,414 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 292 AIR POWERIncludes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 1,905 Fighters/Interceptors: 629 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 761 Transport Aircraft: 667 Trainer Aircraft: 263 Helicopters: 584 Attack Helicopters: 20 NAVAL POWERAircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 202 Aircraft Carriers: 2 Frigates: 15 Destroyers: 9 Corvettes: 25 Submarines: 15 Coastal Defense Craft: 46 Mine Warfare: 7 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM)Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 897,500 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 3,300,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 5,476,000,000 bbl/day LOGISTICALWar is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 487,300,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 340] Major Ports and Terminals: 7 Roadway Coverage: 3,320,410 Railway Coverage: 63,974 Serviceable Airports: 346 FINANCIAL (in USD)Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $38,000,000,000 External Debt: $412,200,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $295,000,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $4,990,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km)Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i. e. invasion). Square Land Area: 3,287,263 km Coastline: 7,000 km Shared Border: 13,888 km Waterways: 14,500 km May 1st 2020Following the annexation of all of the former soviet republics by Russia, India grows uneasy. May 3rd 2020PM Nardena Modi orders India to bolster its defences against enemies. May 5th 2020Alahambad and Bombay prepare troopsMay 10th 2020Millitary drills commence and navy is deployedMay 11th 2020Indian millitary issued flagsMay 12th 2020Borders fenced and closed, martial law is implemented.
AOW War Scenario: Russia v. India

First of all I am sorry I did not know that we had to use our own names.Thank you for the debate thus far.Continuing the warAugust 12th 2015Outraged by the missile and new annexations, PM Kylar declares a draft for the millitary from the nation he has left. India scrapes together a force of 600,000 men in Dehli. Border fences are erected and Dehli is enclosed and surrounded by soldiers, weapons and picket lines.August 14th 2015A further 120,000 men burst into Punjab state and seize it back from Russia and restore the airport for transport.August 15th 2015The Indian navy is deployed to the Arabian sea in full force.August 17th 2015Fierce fighting near Dehli resulting in 120 casualties for India, 400 for Russia. Morale increases as Russia is driven back for the time being.August 19th 2015The UNSC again calls for a ceasefire but it is rejected.August 21st 2015India's millitary seizes the majority of Kashmir and several states fall back into its controlAugust 22nd 2015PM Kylar is elated and declares "time of rememberance." ceasefire for 3 hours. Then fierce fighting resumes.August 24th 2015India's morale boosted millitary pushes into Kashmir and liberates it.
AOW War Scenario: Russia v. India

My advesary has been a worthy opponett and I thank him for this debate/war.Round IIIIndia's exiled PM Modi does not give up easily on Punjab and the rest of his nation. Pledging to liberate "his beloved fatherland," he moblizes all the men he can muster.The remaining states under Indian control assault Russia's millitary with all their strength, liberating Shimla and centering around Bombay. New Dehli and Allabad also prepare for war.Flags are unfurled and the Indian millitary prepares for an offensive on Kashmir.Fierce shelling commences, and mortars are fired. Communications are restored somewhat, and India's eastern border is liberated as the push towards Kashmir continues with a vengance.Heavy casualties on both sides 20 days into the offensive forces India to withdraw just 25 miles from Kashmir.But Modi will not yield to defeat so easily, and announces an assault to free the Himscal-Paradesh area of his nation. Fighting is fierce but India prevails in the liberation, pushing towards Kashmir once again.At the border of Kashmir, India pushes through, fighting hard, and enters the east of it, determined to "reclaim the land due to us, and no one else."The UN Security Council imposes a call for a ceasefire 9-5 with Russia abstaining.India pushes deep into Kashmir, nearing the heart of the Russian stronghold in Kashmir.Over to you, Russia
AOW War Scenario: Russia v. India

This is a good debate that I am happy to revise.Round IIEconomy India submits UN Resolution to the UN Security Council asking for blocking of sanctions, and for Russia to have sanctions imposed on it. The UN Security Council votes on the resolution 10 days later, passing with the United States, China, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Spain, Angola, Lithuania, Nigeria and France in favor. Russia abstains, and Chad, Chilie, New Zealand, Jordan and Venezuela vote against it. DiplomacyIndia strengthens millitary ties with the United States and United Kingdom. Millitary drills helped by the United States continue.WarfareIndia downs Russia's internet with a cyberattack. Launches millitary offensive against Russian annexation of Kashmir. Loses 1,200 men, but presses storming Kashmir borders.
On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO.

or "Left blank as agreed upon. " If you take this path of action, no substance can be included in R4. No kritiks of the resolution. No trolling. No semantics. ThinkBig waives all rights to add definitions, change structure, or any other aspects of this debate. Should he attempt to do so, do not weigh these ideas when voting. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance. Thank you to ThinkBig for accepting this debate. I look forward to an excellent and challenging discussion. Link to DDO Voting Guide:. http://www.debate.org...
On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO.

Thank you for the kind words and for the amazing debate. This was a great discourse and I hope we can get some good votes. Since there isn't any structure to round 5, I will simply use this round to summarize the main points and give one final appeal to the voters. We both agree that there are improvements to be made, however, this debate is about the current voting standards and their impact on debate. org. To properly analyze the, we must look at how debate. org was before the standards and where we stand today. As I have shown in the example of Contradiction vs. WriterDave, prior to the vote standards, there were far less quality votes and less quality feedbacks. Moreover, vote bombs were a huge problem and they had to be countered. This resulted in votes being wasted by having to be countered time and time again. Thankfully, the new standards resulted in a clear understanding of what was expected by the voters and we now have a way to remove bad votes without having to waste good ones. Although vote moderation may cause a lack of votes, they have certainly improved their quality of votes. Even though mods make mistakes, they aren't out to "get you" and aren't out to make debate. org less enjoyable. They are simply there to ensure that the votes meet the proper standards. Our moderators work very hard to ensure that debate. org is a fun and enjoyable place. They are willing to work with the community to improve the members to improve their voting and debating. They are often quick to acknowledge their mistakes and don't hold their mistakes against that person. For these reasons, debate. org is a better site because of the current vote standards. Restating the Cost/Benefit analysisPotential Costs-Less votes-Possible mistakes by moderatorsPotential benefits-Higher quality votes-Higher quality debates-Higher quality membersThe resolution is negated because debate. org I have shown that debate. org is a better site because of the standards in place.
Gay Marriage

Thanks for the debate, Pro! Because it would obviously be unfair to make any new arguments in this last round, I ask only that judges extend my pervious analysis and measure our advocacies based on the merits we each describe in our last arguments. I think that even without making new arguments last round, I have clearly won this debate. My opponent dropped several of my most important arguments, such as the fact that as long as there are married and unmarried adults that someone is being prioritized, and the fact that single persons are disadvantaged, despite my opponents' having several free rounds to pick them up. My opponent also dropped my argument that anything that is done to make marriage better makes it harder to get rid of long-term, which means that Pro's "improving" marriage is actually making inequality simply last longer. The impacts flow to my case, and Pro has little to no offensive arguments. S/he mentions that getting rid of marriage is unrealistic, but bear in mind that s/he also suggests legalizing marriage for any number of persons with any number of genders, while simultaneously getting rid of tax breaks, which is basically my advocacy, but more complicated and much more difficult ("corrupting" state marriage rather than privatizing it). Pro conceded most of the points, basically imitating my counterplan, and yet did so ineffectively. Thus, it is absolutely clear that Con has won this debate. That being said, I thank my opponent for her/his patience during this debate. I had travel-based academic obligations over these past two weekends, which is largely the cause of my being unable to post previously. Thanks also to the readers for your time and effort. Thanks to your contributions, debating online is a fun activity. :)
Gay Marriage

At first I thought you were being genuine and professional, but I would never ask those who are reading this to agree with me. I think that they should make their own, unbiased decision. Clarification: I am referring to state-based marriage. Clarification2: Will be included below... Look, con, even if I agreed with you, I doubt the millions of married people in the US would simply allow the government to make their state-sanctioned marriage unofficial. That would be like trying to take people's firearms away, it just will not happen. Marriage is a tradition, and I doubt that people will not want a government recognized partnership. We live in a democracy, the government cannot do whatever it wants. The hardcore conservatives (which have a significant amount of power in the US govt,) would never allow their traditional 'biblical' marriages to be made unrecognized by the government. As we are talking about real life here, and not a hypothetical scenario, if a solution simply cannot work on the grounds that the people will not accept it, than we may as well just forget it. I think the best we can do at this point is allow LGBT couples to jump on the marriage bandwagon as well, as it is not stopping altogether, whether we like it or not. Here I will lay out the boundaries of what I wish to define marriage to be - Marriage age federal (not chosen by states) maybe ages 16-18 for marriage to be legal. - Gender is not made a factor in marriage at all - No more state-sponsored tax-breaks or benefits for married couples - Full adoption rights for LGBT married couples - Polygamy and Polyandry allowed (as long as all husbanded/wives agree) On my last ground I will refer to the fact that most anti-gay marriage activists don't even want them to get unofficially married! They just flaunt their religious right to oppress others...
Gay Marriage

I am happy to see that I have an intelligent opponent. Best of luck to you. (Yes, I am referring to state politics within the United States...) Argument #1 - Marriage affects a lot of things. Taxes, court cases, job acceptance, as I said, a lot of things. - You haven't given me any reasoning as to why marriage should not be allowed between same-sex couples. - Even though "purely social or religious marriage is available everywhere in the United States" the reasons I have listed above I think give a good reason for you to explain why LGBT couples cannot benefit from them. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals.
Gay Marriage

I accept the debate that the State should not sponsor/recognize same-sex marriage. Obviously we are taking about state-instituted marriage. Naturally, purely social or religious marriage is available everywhere in the United States: It is just that this marriage is not recognized by the State. I also would prefer that the State be limited to politics within the United States, but am open to other interpretations. However, please make sure to specify that next round. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
Parents should choose whether or not there teens may engage in sexual intercourse

Thank you for challenging me to this debate, jcatster724. Good luck. Let's begin: "If parents can choose whether or not they can have sex, should they have complete control over their child's romantic life?" No. Our romantic lives and sex lives are completely different things. The romantic life includes things such as going on harmless dates and such; on the other hand, the sex life can lead to having a child at a very young age, which can affect the teenager's life significantly. Controlling the teenager's romantic life is a bit ridiculous, but controlling the teenager's sex life is reasonable. "Parents shouldn't be allowed to make this decision for their teen, only the teen should." In my opinion, I don't think it would be very smart to allow a typical teenager decide if he wants to have sex or not. Most of the time, the teenager would obviously choose to have sex, not thinking of the potential life-impacting consequences that could possibly be ahead of him/her. The typical teenager isn't capable of choosing the logical option in these type of situations due to lack of the development of certain parts of their brain, therefore the adult should make the decision and not the teenager. https://brainconnection.brainhq.com... "What happens is if parents do not allow there kids to have sex, it leads to situations where they may attempt to have sex in an unhealthy environment, leading to teen pregnancy or STDs. IF parents do allow it to happen, it can lead sex taking place in a better environment (a house) with protection." If the first part happened, this would be completely the teenager's fault, since they chose to be disobedient. This is partially proving my previous point: teenagers aren't capable of making the logical decisions due to the lack of development of certain parts of their brain. Most of the time, they just do what they want to do. And the second part is correct; this is why parents should be in control of it. If the teenager has sex without the parent's opinion, this situation could also lead to the teenager having children or having an STD. "The parents choice is irrelevant, because either way the sex will happen." This is an assumption. Not every teenager wants to have sex at their age (though most do), coming from myself; I don't want to risk having a child at such a young age. If the sex happens even after the parents tell the teenager not to, then that's the teenager's problem with disobedience. In summary, the parent should be in control of the teenager's sex life because the typical teenager is not capable of making logical decisions due to development reasons, and if the parent says no and the teenager disobeys the parent's orders, and has sex in an unsafe environment, then that is the teenager's fault for not listening.
Parents should choose whether or not there teens may engage in sexual intercourse

cole.bonds, you're making an insane argument here. If parents can choose whether or not they can have sex, should they have complete control over their child's romantic life? Parents shouldn't be allowed to make this decision for their teen, only the teen should. What happens is if parents do not allow there kids to have sex, it leads to situations where they may attempt to have sex in an unhealthy environment, leading to teen pregnancy or STDs. IF parents do allow it to happen, it can lead sex taking place in a better environment (a house) with protection. The parents choice is irrelevant, because either way the sex will happen. The parents choice only determines the safety steps taken.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Pro has merely re-stated his arguement. He says, "Authority is irrevelant," but it actually is highly relevant. As pointed out with my Bill Gates' bank account example, simply saying something does not make it true. The games "says" I'm playing, but in no way does it prove that I am. By going back to the game to show that I'm playing is using circular logic, much like saying The Bible is God's word because it says so. This fallacy should be clear to those reading.
My opponent has just lost the game.

I cannot lose the game, because I am not playing the game. The game can say that everyone is playing, however the game has no authority to do so, and no power to force it. I can say "every penny in Bill Gates' bank account belongs to me," but that does not make it a fact. Pro has to prove that something that has authority over me is forcing me to play the game. If we adhere to Non Aggression Principle and Self Ownership, I have absolute authority over my body and my mind. Nothing else has authority unless I willingly give it away. If it is forcefully taken, it forfeits its right not to be aggressed against, so I can forcefully retake without further violations. Thank you,
Free Health care in the United States

Health care should be free for all Americans. Most people, even with good jobs, can't afford to be treated because of the high prices that come from seeing various doctors. These doctors then prescribe medicine that even under insurance are expensive. So most health issues go untreated. With so many health issues going untreated that can lead to a spread of diseases as well as a shortening of the life-span of our people. For all of the taxes that we pay we should be afforded the opportunity to see those taxes go back into the upkeep of the health of those who pay the taxes. Without taxpayers the money that comes from taxes, which is how we pay for almost all of our expenses in the United States, wouldn't be as vast. So if the government issued free health care to it's people it would be a sure way of ensuring the safety as well as the upkeep of it's main beneficiaries. In fact where would the country be without its people? Since our economy runs off of people spending money why not change what people are spending money on? There are many Americans who need insurance but can't afford it so they do without. Then, there are those who are middle class but spend so much money on Health care that they spend less on what drives the economy. So if the government invested money in the people by ensuring Health care more people would be tempted to embrace Health care, or at least healthy lifestyles. When the people's lives are ensured they not only will be healthy now but that will lengthen the life span of our people. The increase in life span means that we are spending more money on just buying things, not only that we need but what we want. With life-spans increasing that means that there will be even more people to buy things for a longer period of time than we currently have.