BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

so first my opponent claims I have no warrants either, I can attest to you and assure you this is untrue. but even if it where this attack is abusive because he makes it as a general claim and doesn't tell me where I have no warrants. If this where a debate of opinions then there could be no clear winner. However we all understand that via context of the Pro's constructive, this is a debate over fact and actuality. Obs 1- First, it's nice that you've assumed I've never run a K, they exist outside of policy mind you. Second I need not to have run a Kritike to understand what one is. just in the same way that I need not have ever been in a bicycle race to know what one is, or the mechanics thereof. Finally, to all of the voters, I ask you to follow the link my opponent provided, Tell me if in any of the links on the page you go to talk about philosophy. Obs 2- Arrogance is bad because it makes an intellectually stimulating debate impossible. You will be too attached to your stance to learn anything from the debate, and it will make an actual debate imposible. and second I'm going to take a moment to research who last years' national champion in Domestic Extem was. .. It was Chesterton high school's Tyler Fabbri, . http://speechgeek.com... and lo and behold, he does Puff debate. a. No, actually I'm not. I've done Puff right around 4 times in my entire life. I just happen to enjoy it an see it's value. b. Extend my link on Tyler Fabbri. c. This point was completely satirical; I've made my point here. Obs 3- Those kind of judges are only existant in Policy. They're called Stock Issues Judges, also they don't exist in Puff, only kind, beautiful, incredibly talented Judges exist in Puff Obs 4- I plan on being a debate coach for a living, I did LD. Also extend my point on Ted Turner Obs 5- a. It is an argument, it point that since Policy debaters have more time to debate a round, they will naturally be able to run more arguments. b. It would seem my opponent dropped my argument here, and instead claims they simply get to learn a topic backwards and forwards. Point being there are good and bad to both sides. Puff you debate more topics and learn more about the world, Policy you debate one topic again and again and again and learn it till you're sick of it. Obs 6- 3a, link? evidence? proof? non exist, we must assume he made this up. This arguemnt is the equivalent of gossip Obs7- Not true, every time I've ever had a cross-fire it was an incredibly enlightening period. And again extend my second round point; this is not a canon practice, it's recognized as incredibly rude. Since I actually covered all the pro attacks (Since I adapted my style to my opponent's last speeches each round). My opponent has no attacks extended. Now my opponent didn't cover my points in their final speech, So since they dropped all of my points I'll just extend everything on the Con case as voters.
Corruption Must be Needed

I will, however, proceed to disseminate and rebut some of my opponent's more self-defeating statements. "Corruption does hurt the General population as people do seek to gain money and power for there own gain like former Administrator of General Services Martha N. Johnson. Yet corruption has always existed and in a sense helped the United States. " My opponent, in his very own words, has named corruption a harm to the general population and people. I'm sorry, but when was the last time you've heard that giving more money and power to one person or political entity is absolutely necessary? The fact that it exists does not make it a necessity. "While certain individuals do pocket funds for personal gain, that's when it's time to control it. Corruption can become ramped and actually severely damage the nation and render it ineffective like we see in Afghanistan. " I'm delighted that you'd further support my case with your statements. The fact that it needs to be controlled when it gets out of hand also serves to further augment my arguments. It must also be mentioned that many of my opponent's statements ("While this [corruption] may be immoral, it does have a good side. " "Corruption in the world must always be needed in the world. " "Corruption is a cycle in the world of politics and business. You can even say its a 'necessary evil'" etc. ) are not supplemented with any factual or historical support. They are, therefore, completely unfounded. It is similar to me saying: 'My Toilet grew hairy legs and walked away. ' which is absolutely true because I said so. My case stands firmly above my opponent's compelling lack of proof.
Corruption Must be Needed

Corruption in the world must always be needed in the world. People will argue that corruption, whether it's in government or any other section, must be stopped. Corruption does hurt the General population as people do seek to gain money and power for there own gain like former Administrator of General Services Martha N. Johnson. Yet corruption has always existed and in a sense helped the United States. Andrew Jackson's 'spoil systems' argued political loyalty in exchange for positions. While this may be immoral, it does have a good side. The government, if played right, can get a lot accomplished when there is little obstacles standing in the way. We see today the how hard it is for Republicans and Democrats to even talk about a compromise and how they refuse to give in the other side to the point of a government shut down risk."FDR replaced the Judical branch with loyal supporters to enable his laws to be passed. Corruption is a cycle in the world of politics and business. You can even say its a 'necessary evil'. It keeps the government and business stable at times. While certain individuals do pocket funds for personal gain, that's when it's time to control it. Corruption can become ramped and actually severely damage the nation and render it ineffective like we see in Afghanistan. If we tried to complete stop corruption, it could never be done. While it does have negative effects, it is amne "
Corruption Must be Needed

Alright beginniger, look forward to the debate Corruption in the world must always be needed in the world. People will argue that corruption, whether it's in government or any other section, must be stopped. Corruption does hurt the General population as people do seek to gain money and power for there own gain like former Administrator of General Services Martha N. Johnson. Yet corruption has always existed and in a sense helped the United States. Andrew Jackson's 'spoil systems' argued political loyalty in exchange for positions. While this may be immoral, it does have a good side. The government, if played right, can get a lot accomplished when there is little obstacles standing in the way. We see today the how hard it is for Republicans and Democrats to even talk about a compromise and how they refuse to give in the other side to the point of a government shut down risk."FDR replaced the Judical branch with loyal supporters to enable his laws to be passed. Corruption is a cycle in the world of politics and business. You can even say its a 'necessary evil'. It keeps the government and business stable at times. While certain individuals do pocket funds for personal gain, that's when it's time to control it. Corruption can become ramped and actually severely damage the nation and render it ineffective like we see in Afghanistan. If we tried to complete stop corruption, it could never be done. While it does have negative effects, it is a nessesary part of the world of Politics and Government and it can be good depending how it's done. "
The Big Bang Theory Can Also Supports Theist Beliefs

My opponent has never responded in this debate by refuting my arguments and thus the resolution is negated. Look at my Round 2 case and you will find that it both counters any possible idea that god could have created the universe by utilizing the big bang. All possible scenarios of god doing this have been properly explained as impossibilities in the 2d round. Vote Con, because my opponent has not done anything to present a case for his side other than utilizing my own mistake that I have already addressed fully. He has not refuted my Round 2 argument that proves the Con true and thus he has lost this debate. Thus a strong Con vote is advised and justified on the resolution: The Big Bang Theory Can Also Support Theist Beliefs. Thank you voters for your time in reading this unfortunately brief debate and I hope that in the future my opponent will not drop the entire case of his opponents by forfeiting. "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg, you can't pick it up".
The Big Bang Theory Can Also Supports Theist Beliefs

Simply put, nobody is able to prove why the Big Bang happened: "According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. " http://www.big-bang-theory.com... We know what happened after, we can theorize about the current existence of similar conditions; yet we can't prove where the big bang came from or why did it appear. Therefore, because their is a lack of a possible rational scientific theory that can be used to prove "why" it happened we can assume that a higher deity is responsible; or some higher mystical being. Thus it can't be used to support aetheist beliefs, because as of right now their is no rational as to the cause of the Big Bang. Thus the world of religion can apply here as it proves why the Big Bang happened; essentially God or a mystical higher power created the Universe. This is actually one of the reasons I believe the Big Bang is so widely accepted is because that it is the closest thing to the proof that their is a god or a higher deity; because simply put scientists are baffled as to the big question of "Why". It was simply a phenomena that can't be explained today thus it can't support rational aetheist beliefs.
Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use

Rebuttal for your reason 1) You left out all the good physical and health benefits of marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease,The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder,While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease,Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.Rebuttal for reason 2) When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone! We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?Rebuttal for reason 3) But only 9% of people who experiment with marijuana before addicted.Rebuttal for reason 4) Refer back to by first rebuttal in this round.
Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

First, be it noted that the resolution concerns only Reggie Bush's current career statistics. We are evaluating Reggie as if his career ended at this very moment. Therefore, the fact that he is "not in his prime" is not a concern of this debate. Success compared to other second-strings is also irrelevant. This debate concerns expectations placed upon a #2 pick in the NFL Draft. My opponent has not challenged this. If anything, second-string status is an indicator of limited success. Clearly, Reggie has, thus far, failed to acheive the career statistics of those with similar draft position. As my opponent has accepted my definitions, and measures of success, it is clear that Reggie Bush's career statistics are not indicative of "success" as defined. I urge a vote in the contradiction of this resolution. Thank you for the debate, and thanks for reading.
Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

This is how your definition of success goes. -meeting, or exceeding expectations With this understood, what are the expectations of a back up runningback? Surely it isn't to recieve 1049 yards per year is it? That is successful for a starting runningback, so obviously it CANT be bad for a back up! >>>1. The "fact" that he is not in his prime is irrelevant, we are considering only career statistics. This concerns only his career thus far, not his level of potential, or quality as a halfback/wide receiver. What you're doing is comparing statistics in your head to what Reggie Bush's are. But that will never add up because people aren't expected to produce the same numbers once they reach a prime. Hence, it's called your PRIME. Seeing as how success is based on expectations, it is entirely relevan, is it not? >>>>2. His back-up status is unimportant. As I have stated, we are utilizing current career statistics, rather than indicators of quality. As I said before, success is based on expectations. Back-ups aren't expected to to get the amount of yards per year that a starter does, yet he still gets them. Once again, it is entirely relevant. >>>>4. You have accepted my definition of success, as well as my measures of expected and actual success. Given that you have failed to refute my point, it stands. What point? Have you made one? I've proved how your definition flows to my side, so then what do you stand for? My side? Your stance is to say he hasn't been successful. Mine is to say he has been successful. Seeing as how my ENTIRE "case (if you will)" is against your 1 point of "reggie bush is unsuccessful," how is this not negated?
Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

1. The "fact" that he is not in his prime is irrelevant, we are considering only career statistics. This concerns only his career thus far, not his level of potential, or quality as a halfback/wide receiver. 2. His back-up status is unimportant. As I have stated, we are utilizing current career statistics, rather than indicators of quality. 3. The statistics I procured are the sum of all yards gained by Reggie Bush. Therefore, your argument against this is irrelevant. 4. You have accepted my definition of success, as well as my measures of expected and actual success. Given that you have failed to refute my point, it stands. Thank you
Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

My opponent has made an attempt to skew the word "successful" in his favor and take the words "on-balance" out of the resolution....(crackofdawn_Jr is this what you were talking about?) It's ok though, I'll play in your field. First off, when i say "on-balance" I mean compared to other players. It has nothing to do with benefits and harms, but it does have something to do with good and bad performances. On-balance was to get you to take a look at career statistics oppose to a certain BAD GAME which would have been the attempt of a true manipulator. So, yes, it is needed. An as for the successful presentation. Lets take into effect that he's a back-up player (not a starter), the fact that he is NOT yet in his prime, and the fact that he is NOT a true running back. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moving onto your first argument.... >>>Actual success is best reflected by yards gained. Again, this may be contested. Reggie Bush's total career yards are at 3,149. Average career yards of halfbacks taken as a number two draft pick are at 7,814. Clearly, Reggie Bush has yet to meet or exceed expectations with his career statistics. Thank you for posting this debate --The whole problem with this argument is that Reggie Bush is not a true running back. He is an even mix of being a WR and an RB (meaning half and half). You can't apply something like rushing yards, to a slot reciever/ scat back. Simply being because he isn't getting the amount of carries a normal back is getting. His touches are split between recieving and rushes. Where a normal runningback will get attempt around the range of 293-363 rushes, reggie bush is only getting 106 rushes. Now, when this happens, what you must resort to are yards per carry. Let's take adrian peterson for example (arguably the best running back in the league) and LaDainian Tomlinson (the best running back before him). They both averaging 3.8 yards per carry. Reggie bush is averaging 3.7 yards per rush. If he were to get the 293-363 yards per carry that every "true" running back got, then he would have anywhere from 1,084 to 1,343 yards per carry! Which is more than successful. Not to mention, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BACK UP PLAYER! Being that he isn't a full running back, you must add his rushing yards with his recieving yards (being that they're about evenly split). Doing this, he is at nearly 1 thousand total yards consistantly! In 06' it was at 1307 yards. In 07' it was at 998 yards. And, in 09', with him being injured for multiple games and only playing 10 games (a high school season amount), it was still at 844 yards. This said, do you honestly think averaging 1049 yards per year isn't successful for a hybrid position who isn't even starting?
Resolved: Reggie Bush has had,on-balance, a successful NFL career.

I negate: Resolved: Reggie Bush has had, on balance, a successful NFL career. Observations: "On balance" is irrelevant to this resolution, as we are not comparing relative benefits and harms. Success is comparative. Therefore, my definition of success hinges upon expectations. This resolution concerns only Reggie Bush's current career statistics, compared with the career stats of any other player. Definitions: Successful: meeting, or exceeding expectations. NFL career: career football statistics. I believe the statistic most reflective of expected success is placement in the NFL draft. My opponent may contest this if he wishes. Therefore, Reggie Bush's expected success is comparable to halfbacks with similar draft placement, at number two draft pick. Actual success is best reflected by yards gained. Again, this may be contested. Reggie Bush's total career yards are at 3,149. Average career yards of halfbacks taken as a number two draft pick are at 7,814. Clearly, Reggie Bush has yet to meet or exceed expectations with his career statistics. Thank you for posting this debate.
people should stop cursing and it should be illegal

Fine. My opponent is saying "if everyone went with the Bible the world would be a better place," correct? I am too ignorant and I need enlightenment. Could my opponent please tell me how if everyone went with the Bible the world would be a better place? What in the Bible would make the world a better place? Would this achieve perfection? My opponent has not explained at all how the world would be a better place if people went with the Bible. I have yet to see a reason to agree with my opponent.
people should stop cursing and it should be illegal

Many things are against the Bible including eating pork. Pork is legal, I suppose you don't like that either. The Bible is not an authority on how human beings should behave.Cursing is merely a string of words that tend to be used in a hostile or vulgar manner. Profanity should be legal. It is a way of expressing oneself in a vulgar manner. Words are not capable of harming other people. People harm themselves by giving value to certain words.
Did man really walk on the moon in 1969

Let me start by saying that despite my position as "con" I am actually taking the role of "pro" since sandy_james is against the idea that man walked on the Moon in 1969. Basically, our roles are switched. I do believe that man walked on the Moon in 1969. First of all, people actually witnessed this huge rocket go up into space the same day, so we know that Armstrong and Alden at leas made it past Earth. Also, it is a bit hard to explain away the flag that is currently in position on the moon, and the mirrors there that allow astronomers here on Earth to measure the distance between Earth and the Moon with lasers.
Socialism

I will be attempting to disprove socialism as a model that will hold back humans from their true potential and can make fallacious decisions that would hurt the country. Republic. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. The Republic was chosen by our founding fathers because they knew that there is a difference between an ordinary citizen and a politician. The politician knows what is best for the country. The politician has a better education. The politician knows how to handle difficult situations that ordinary citizens do not know how to comprehend. That is why Americans vote for who they think would be the wisest man to lead a country. America is now the number one super-power thanks to the kind of political strategies we have used, and we intend on using it. For example, lets give a great historic example of what the government did that historically people did not want. Slavery in America was practiced throughout America. Black people were treated as second class citizens. Abraham Lincoln was voted by the people, because the people trusted that he would be the right leader. But, if the country was socialistic, than America would still have slavery because the majority of people agreed with slavery. People were out-raged by the fact that slavery was illegal. You can say that the northerners were not mad, but black mistreatment was prominent during the twenties, thirties, forties. If we were socialist back than, slavery and mistreatment would probably still be illegal. My opponent also tries to criticize America's form of government when it has clearly worked, In the 1930s, people were suffering the great depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt pulled us through it, but he encountered World War 2. The American people wanted to stay out of the war, but Roosevelt joined because he knew Hitler was a threat. If the government was socialist, America would not have done anything, and Hitler could have controlled the world. Our government is not sad, but great. Socialism sounds like a good idea, but it is too idealistic and can lead societies into the wrong direction.