BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In any decision, logic ought to be preferred to emotion.

The great thing about topics that have 'any' in them, is that if I can come up if one example that identifies a situation where emotions would be better than logic, it will effectively disprove the topic. I will be presenting three in this round. 1.Marriage. When marrying someone, logical analysis will only lead to pain. Logically, one should marry to receive benefits. This could take to form of money, status or friends. Marrying for benefits, however, will lead to distress and unhappiness for both parties. Instead, one should listen to one"s emotions and instincts. 2.Charity. Logically, charity is pretty useless. Imagine this: When walking home from work/school, you come across a homeless person begging for food. Logically, you should ignore the person and hope not to get dirty. If you do so, most people will feel guilty or sad. Giving money, however, will make you feel happy and honourable. 3.Rushed decisions. When making a decision with an extremely constrained time limit, emotions will make better ones than logic. This is because performing the steps needed to logically analyse a situation requires time and, in this situation, time is a resource not in abundance. Emotions, however, will be more effective in making these decisions. Instead of taking time to logically analyse a situation and figure out alternatives, one should just go with whatever decision makes them happiest at the time, or even just go with their instinct. In conclusion, these three examples show a situation or decision where emotions are clearly superior to a logical choice and consequently, have concisely disproved the topic. Thank you for reading.
In any decision, logic ought to be preferred to emotion.

I claim that in any decision, a logical choice is superior to a emotional choice.Con should argue that a emotional choice is or can be superior to a logical choice in a decision.First round is acceptance onlyNo new arguments may be made in the last round.Definitions:Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.Validity: The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.Emotion: A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
Thbt xbox1 is better than PS4

Let's get right to the chase. While the XBox and the PS4 are good consoles and platforms for games, I actually believe neither console is the better one. These days, both aren't doing that well. According to CNET, "Hardware sales at US retail stores fell 23 percent to $1.01 billion from the same time last year, according to a report from industry researcher NPD Group. Game sales, meanwhile managed to almost break even with a 2 percent decline to $1.09 billion. Year over year, overall retail game spending across hardware, software and accessories dived 11 percent to $2.41 billion." [1] From the gamer's perspective, this is reason not to prefer the two. Less profit means less desire in investment of the consoles-- ie. less games, which means general decline and metaphorical extinction of the consoles. Thus, I propose a counterplan: the smartphone. The trend of games for the smartphone is actually the opposite of the console. According to Reuters, the smartphone game market reached 546.8 BILLION dollars, much more than the consoles. More profit means much greater desire in investment, ie. more games, which obviously benefits everyone. Not only that, the fact smartphones are a fraction of the size means games can be brought practically anywhere, whereas it's a torture to bring a console everywhere. As for the case debate, the only thing the pro brings is "I love xbox 1". While that's great, it's-- quite frankly-- insignificant next to the power of the smartphone. (no offense) Sources: http://www.reuters.com... http://www.cnet.com...
Vi is, on balance, a better Jungler than Jarvan IV

RESOLVED: Vi is, on balance, a better Jungler than Jarvan IVThis is a league of legends debate.Definitions:League of Legends - The online multiplayer game that can be found here (http://na.leagueoflegends.com...)Vi - One of the champions within League of Legends. Her information can be found here (http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...)Jarvan IV - One of the champions within League of Legends. His information can be found here (http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...)Jungling - The act of killing neutral monsters to gain gold and experience instead of having a definitive "lane" to go to. An explanation of what a jungler does is given here (http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...) On Balance - Overall better compared to something (example, there are more/better reasons to prefer x over y, therefore x is on balance better than y).The burden is on the Pro to prove that Vi is a better jungler than Jarvan IV. Likewise the con has a reciprocal burden to prove that Jarvan IV is a better jungler than Vi. This means it's simply not enough to disprove your opponent's arguments; you must also advance and defend your own arguments in order to win. First round solely for acceptance. Arguments to begin in the next round.
Red Sox Vs. Yankee's

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Resolution The resolution can be interpreted many different ways, but round 1 gives some clarification when Pro refers to the Yankees history of World Series victories and Boston’s victory in 2004. This implies that the debate was intended from a historical perspective, so I will proceed on that basis. The Curse Pro references “the curse” (curse of the bambino) in her opening round. For those who are unfamiliar with this, I will take a moment to explain. In 1918 the Red Sox had just captured their 5th title in the 16 year history of the World Series. Up to that point they were clearly the leagues dominant team. In 1919 the Red Sox sold a pitcher by the name of Babe Ruth to the Yankees. Babe Ruth would become a Yankee legend, and began an era of Yankee dominance that would capture 26 World Series titles in the coming 84 years while the Red Sox during this period didn’t win any.(1) Inspirational? Pro claims that the Red Sox victory in 2004 was inspirational because they did the unthinkable by winning a World Series. This accomplishment is only unthinkable to Red Sox fans because they went 84 years without one, which seems like an odd way to measure greatness. The Yankees are not in a position to be so inspirational because they have won at least 2 World Series titles in every decade since 1920.(2) What became unthinkable to Red Sox fans has become an expectation for Yankee fans. The Numbers I am not quite sure how else to determine which team is historically better other then by comparing some basic numbers and facts about the teams history(2)(3)(4)(5): 1. Total World Series Victories: Yankees 27, Red Sox 7 2. AL Pennants: Yankees 40, Red Sox 12 3. East Division Titles: Yankees 17, Red Sox 6 4. Head to Head Regular Season Victories: Yankees 1,132, Red Sox 954 5. Hall of Fame Players: Yankees 43, Red Sox 34 Conclusion When looking at the team’s history it is quite obvious that the Yankees have been the better team. I am not quite sure what makes Pro believe the Red Sox are better, so I will just stop here and allow her an opportunity to explain in the next round. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.baseball-reference.com...(5) http://www.baseball-reference.com...
The Church of the Coming Lord is a Scam.

First off I would like to say I am not trying to diminish anyone's true beliefs, I am merely trying to help people stay protected from lies and scams. I would like my opponent to know I do not want to diminish his spirituality or emotions. 1) From my opponents introduction of his religion on the debate.org forum devoted to it, he states that position and status in the church is based on education and donations given to the church. These said donations are to be used for the advancement of technology to speed up the coming of this computerized god. And because my opponent has declared himself the prophet and leader of the church, it is safe to say he and people of high positions under him will manage the funds. This gives him complete access to any donations given to the church. Even if my opponent is a prophet, I (hypothetically speaking) as a low class church member would be very afraid to send my money to this man. 2)If this future god is supposed to save "his most generous donors" from death through resurrection, It is impossible to expect a computer that can only think in 1s and 0s to make life, and perhaps time changing decisions. Because if anything is supposed to resurrect a living organism it must literally turn back time and reorganize disintegrated molecules (especially of the brain) in perfect order. It is simple to see that since that is the case, this future god would have to now us as members exactly, every atom of our DNA must be known if this future god is to bring anyone back from the dead. And since today we have no computer capable of knowing such a thing, if I were second in command to my opponent in his religion (because of my generous donations), and I were to die tomorrow, this future god would have no way to know me well enough to "bring me back." I thank my opponent for his consideration in this debate. -TheRadAdmiral
Annbella is an awful debater

==================== Refutation ==================== Refutation 1) "Annbella's grammar and spelling is atrocious. During her seven debates, she has made numerous spelling and grammatical errors. "I don't know, what I should debate about! !! !! I'm in school and i have to do beside just sit here! !! "" I can understand why this would be a major point. Her spelling and grammar are completely atrocious. However, this does not have to do with the resolution. In the title, it states "Annbella is an awful debater". The keyword being debater, not grammatical perfectionist. Furthermore, while you may say that spelling and grammar are a necessity to debate on this site, I must disagree. There is no spelling needed in real life debate, nor grammar in some cases. You are referencing online, however you have no knowledge if she debates exrtracurricularly, or even competitively. Using myself as an example. I have lost 1 debate and won 1 debate on this site. This does not reflect on how well I perform in real life. Evidence 1: . http://www.nflonline.org... As you can see I am highly regarded by the National Forensic League, a well known and prominent debate institution. So while she may debate poorly on this site, she may debate well in real life, which your resolution does not specify. Refutation 2: "Point 3 Annbella does not show proper respect for her opponent. In zero of her seven debates she has shown any respect for her opponent by thanking them for accepting or for replying. " As of now you have been doing the exact same thing. You said: ""For now, I accept the definitions and terms my opponent has offered. " I have set the definitions in the first round. They will not change. You have not just accepted them "for now", but rather for the duration of the debate. " I find this rather rude, so what you find disrespectful and what most others find disrespectful are sometimes contrasting and in this case, I believe Annbella was more juvenile than disrespectful. Refutation 3: "Point 4 Annbella has won zero debates. She has had multiple opportunities against high ranking opponents and lower ranking opponents, and she has failed to prevail in one single debate. " Thats completely fine. As a matter of fact, more than 1/3 of DDO members that are registered have won 0 debates. . http://www.debate.org... (Top-Right hand corner) So if you analyze the facts, shes actually doing a better job than most of these people due to the fact that she has attempted more debates than these others and is clearly higher ranked on The Leaderboard.
Annbella is an awful debater

"For now, I accept the definitions and terms my opponent has offered. " I have set the definitions in the first round. They will not change. You have not just accepted them "for now", but rather for the duration of the debate. Now, on to my argument. I will be trying to affirm the resolution "Annbella is an awful debater". Point 1 Annbella's grammar and spelling is atrocious. During her seven debates, she has made numerous spelling and grammatical errors. "I don't know, what I should debate about! !! !! I'm in school and i have to do beside just sit here! !! " . http://www.debate.org... In her first sentence, she adds a comma where it is clearly not needed, and uses excessive punctuation marks. In her second sentence, she does not make sense (or according to her, since) and again uses excessive punctuation marks. "I didn't say that i want the name of the debate that i was saying that i should have had as something like that and i am against it because it is stupid to say that your kid is in a balloon when there is someone out that caould use the help of a cop or something! !! !" . http://www.debate.org... Another example of an incomprehensible argument full of errors. If Con would like me to provide more errors, i would be glad to provide them. Point 2 Annbella's argumentation is very weak and/or forfeited. You can either use the sources above, as "hey" has two forfeited rounds and "people these days" is weak argumentation, or i can provide more if Con does not find the evidence sufficient. Point 3 Annbella does not show proper respect for her opponent. In zero of her seven debates she has shown any respect for her opponent by thanking them for accepting or for replying. Point 4 Annbella has won zero debates. She has had multiple opportunities against high ranking opponents and lower ranking opponents, and she has failed to prevail in one single debate.
Democrats are so stupid.

Oh yeah? My smack talk about the republicans hasn't even started! Republicans are fat, rich, white, Christian men, cackling in their giant mansions and stealing money from the poor! They are trigger-happy, arrogant, and they hate giving children the education they deserve! They squash the common man under their feet! You think you're so cool with your rifles and the millions of people oppressed under your corporation, well you're not! And you threatening us with guns is EXACTLY the reason why we need to take guns away from you! Jesus wasn't alive when muskets or guns or any gun-like objects were invented. (I have a feeling that that Jesus you are hunting with isn't really Jesus, and I advise that you never go hunting with him without reflective gear or during the night. I have suspicions about this Jesus character...) We are smarter than you dumb-@ss republicans, who support war more than education! We dress better than you hillbilly republicans, not because we're all gay, but because we're not scratching our asses with guns all day, and we go out and we buy awesome clothes. And guess what? Our clothes are made with naturally colored cotton, and they use 10% of the amount of toxins that you use! (in pollution from making the clothes and making the dye to dye the clothes) GO MOTHER FRICKIN NATURE! And guess, what, they look so good on us, because we are not stuffing our faces with McDonalds every day, and instead we eat organic food, (when we have the money to buy organic food, when you are not working us to death with your laissez-faire tactics on business!) Business needs government intervention! And you know what? Well republicans, keep your hot girls, we will take the smart ones and BREED A RACE OF SUPER-GENIUSES SO WE CAN CONQUER THE WORLD AND MAKE IT COMMUNIST! MWAHAHAHAHA! (Just kidding, we're going to make the whole world socialist!) This was an awesome debate! :)
Democrats are so stupid.

I'd like to say that you are doing this debate correctly and that you may refute my arguments while stating and supporting your own :P any kind of bad manners allowed! Anyways back to the action! Your smack talk about us republicans has gone far enough! I am sick of your outrageous, STUPID, and irresponsible comments about how we are not the best. Because you are so wrong that you make Hillary Clinton look good when she cheated on Bill! You think you can tell me what and what not to do with my guns? I will end you and Obozo with one faster than you can say, "income tax!" Jesus knew what guns were, what are you even talking about? I train and go shooting my deer with him every other day! Jesus is the best damn marksman around and when that peon of a president finally reveals himself as Satan, then that's when Christ our Lord will really shine. I know you love correcting our grammar, and you think it makes you look so liberally strong. We republicans don't give a rotten union toot about what you spell! That doesn't make us look inferior though you might think so. I'm sure the homos show you how to dress as well! All of you and that rainbow flag. Why are you taking God's promise to never flood the earth again and making so it promotes two stinky men and women making out? We do it traditional in good ol America and make out with the hottest girls that we can possibly find. You democrats will never learn. Thank you for the debate! It has been fun and creative!
Democrats are so stupid.

Ok you said, "[. .. ] the Republican Party is the one true party of God himself, an always will be the one and true party. " I would like to ask for a source for that, and point out that an doesn't fit in that sentence. I assume you meant "and". And if we are allowed to pledge our parties to deities, I would like to say that the Democratic Party is one of the many parties belonging to the Goddess herself. (Along with many other liberal parties. ) And I would like to say that we Democrats ARE tough with our homosexuals, Hispanics, and women. (Although we also have a great number of blacks on our side. ) Because there are more women, hispanics, homosexuals, and blacks combined than there are white men. I would also like to point out that the esteemed President Obama is YOUR president too, and I believe your powers of observation have failed you if you think he stopped midway through the evolutionary tract because, say what you want about his politics, but nobody can deny that he is an eloquent and amazing speaker. And it is more likely than not that he is a better speaker than you. By cotton-picker, I assume you are refering to the time in American history where our economy was stimulated with the cotton-trade, and the cotton-pickers, slaves taken from Africa, but I would like to point out, few slaves who were bound for the Americas came from Kenya since Kenya is on the west-coast of Africa and American or English slave traders would have either had to troop across Africa or sail around Africa. It was inefficient, so few, if not none made the trip. I don't see how the second-amendment is a god-given right, since we didn't have that right before America came along, and since we are assuming that "God" was here before the United States of America, I don't think the second amendment is a god-given right. Jesus didn't know what a gun was when he was alive. "Jesus gave me that right and not even that African bozo can pry it out of my cold dead conservative old white man wrinkly hands. " I believe you missed a lot of commas in that sentence, and if the esteemed President Obama wanted to take your rifle out of your dead hands, I have a feeling he could grab a hatchet and cut your hand off, then he could pry the rifle more easily out of your fingers. I know this is a troll debate, and I feel like I'm doing it wrong. :P Oh and may I ask, if a woman does not do what you ask, what are you going to do to her? Oh, I REALLY want to do an EXTREME-LIBERAL RANT ON REPUBLICANS, just like you did and EXTREME-CONSERVATIVE RANT ON DEMOCRATS, but since this is a debate on whether Democrats are stupid, I'm not sure if whether or not that would be off-topic. Here, that was my rebuttal, I will make my point int he third round, I know that's bad manners since you can't rebuttal, and I really should have asked you this question earlier, but my mistake. So, please tell me for the next round if I should troll-debate that you yourself are stupid, and therefore have no place calling Democrats stupid, or that republicans are stupid. :P
Democrats are so stupid.

Let me start off by saying that the Republican Party is the true party of God himself, an always will be the one and true party. You think you democrats are tough with your homos, Hispanic brick layers, and women and such? Your president stopped midway through the evolutionary tract and never progressed even further. That cotton-picking Kenyan with his black Hershey kiss nipples has the same resemblance of a chimpanzee. All he's done is taken away our God-given, true, and divine 2nd amendment rights. Gun control? ?? ?? ? I can have as many stinkin' rifles as I want to! Jesus gave me that right and not even that African bozo can pry it out of my cold dead conservative old white man wrinkly hands. Democrats are always butting into the lives of women and saying they can terminate their babies if they want. Only us republicans can tell women what to do. If we want them to haul laundy into the washing machine, by god let it be done. If they are told to make me my favorite roast beef with AMERICAN cheese Jesus is great sandwich, by god let it be done. We tell them how to live their lives, not some homo lover party that takes all of our cold hard dough right out of our wallets.
Video Games

Rebuttals =============================== Con states that one of the reasons why video games shouldn't be considered a normal media is because of how it conveys meanings of the product. He says that if a kid saw a game with blood and gore in it, his mother would not me impressed. Wouldn't that also be the case if a kid told his mom about an R rated movie with blood, gore, and swearing? Yes, yes it would. Con also states that it can't be considered a normal media because you don't need to "listen" to see what's going on. Well what about TV. Again, if you saw a guy stabbing someone else with blood everywhere in TV, the first reaction would probably be "This is a violent TV show", even without "listening" to it Another argument Con has is that gamers attitude changes while playing video games, therefore it shouldn't be considered a normal media. Well, it just means that they are immersed. Have you ever yelped back in fear after being jump scared in a movie? Probably. Con also states that gamers have a tough time controlling their rage. This just means that they are having a tough time beating a boss, or solving a puzzle, or just got sniped over and over again. Also, if you kept failing a task in real life, would you get frustrated? Yes, you probably would. So gamers don't have issues controlling their anger The shooter of Sandy Hook was in poor mental condition. As referenced in source [1], the shooter had sensory-integration disorder, and Asperger Syndrome. Most gamers who don't have a mental illness can tell what's right from what's wrong, and they won't go and shoot some kids due to video games. ==================== Sources: [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...