BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Composition Contest Rematch

This is a rematch between larztheloser and I for the composition contest we had: http://www.debate.org... The rules will be pretty much the same, and here they are: In the first round, larz should give me a theme to work off of. We'll then give each other our themes in each round. Compositions must abide by the themes, to help assure that each one is made from scratch. Our entries should be no less than 1:30, and should be embedded to the page from YouTube. Any style is permitted, but only midi sequenced recordings should be used. Voters should rate whoever they consider to be the winner on a scale of 1-7. Alright, good luck (again).
Debate On The Debate

My opponent has violated the terms of the debate, which clearly (clearly) state that a forefiture in round 2 is an automatic forefiture of the entire debate. They also state that a forefiture in round 3 is a forefiture of whatever property and assests my oppoenet currently holds, including children and non-vital orgrans. I hope, for his sake, that he doesn't have to meet my repo guy.
Debate On The Debate

This debate is just for fun and laughs. Basically, anybody who accepts this debate will have to debate on the following: -the rules of the debate -the structure of the debate -the voting of the debate These are topics and arguments that I always wanted to debate. Let's be honest here, some of these debates are just ridiculous because of the stupid rules and foundation of the debate, making it harder to argue and win. First round is only for acceptance; the others are for debating - that is the only two rules that you follow. From then on, both opponent and myself may break the rules as we please.
Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

This is a simulated presidential debate between walle_ras and I. He chooses his stance, and I choose mine. In this debate, we shall both campaign for President in the United States, as Independent candidates, with our own stances. There shall be an Electoral College [of judges] to vote on this debate, consisting of (if they accept the nomination): 16kadams (Texas), ResponsiblyIrresponsible, 1Historygenius (Wisconsin), Subutai, Theunknown, Zarroette, whiteflame, bladerunner060, Blade-of-Truth, and bsh1. I thank the Electoral College for voting. This debate shall require the presentation of platform in Round 1, followed by presentation of foreign, economic and domestic policy. Debate StructureRound 1: Con presents platform, Pro presents platformRound 2: Con defends and refutes, Pro defends and refutesRound 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends Round 4: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defendsRound 5: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro refutes, defends and concludesDefinitionsForeign policy and economic policy should be pretty self explanatory. Domestic policy considers basically business, education, energy, health care, law enforcement, money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal rights and freedoms, but mentioning all of these topics is not necessary. Further, other topics may be added. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering, semantics and kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside the debate. Arguments and sources may not be posted in the comments section or in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. My PlatformForeign Policy: Non-interventionism, no-aggression policy, universal non-violence policy. Domestic Policy: Environmental protection, expanding energy resources via. OTEC, nuclear power, tidal power, solar power, wind power, etc. , strict animal welfare reforms, extensive personal rights and freedoms e. g. pro homeschooling, reduce and shut down affirmative action, stop state death penalty and limit to federal death penalty, begin on measures stopping the DP, adopt a cosmetic animal testing ban (not clinical). Economic policy: Major tax reform - first begin with a flat income tax, then graduate to removing income taxes and adopting a progressive consumption tax, remove the small fiscal stimulus but prepare in case of recession, limited capitalism, lessened-to-no minimum wage. Note this isn't an all-encompassing list. I may list things in my argument not in this list.
Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

Let me summarize the debate and show you *why* you should vote Tejretics (Con). Walle_Ras' motions:- Encourage deflation to control inflation- Abolish the Federal Reserve, thus further increasing deflation- Build a useless and costly border fence along the Mexican border- Stop all environmental protection and deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming with no justification- Keep changing position on tax, first saying he's pro flat income tax then changing his position in accordance with mine- Change the secular roots of the United States by making it a non-secular Christian nation and making Christianity the official religion of the state, but allow others to practise their religionMy motions:- Abolish the income tax and shift to the more efficient Bradford X-tax- Maintain the current economic stability and remove the fiscal stimulus- Use more cost-efficient and effective methods to control illegal immigration from Mexico- Advocate nuclear power- Lessen and eventually remove the minimum wage to control unemployment - Remove the estate tax and other unnecessary tax burdens- Stop the state-level death penalty and lessen practise of the federal death penalty - Create strict animal welfare policies, such as lessening the horrendous practises at slaughterhouses, etc. Please vote Tejretics 2016. DO NOT vote based on personal bias; instead, vote based on the *debate* itself.
Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

(1) No Disagreement here. I agree with you about the flat tax. (2) The minimum wage is a feel good measure and I agree, it must be abolished. (3) I am pro fiscal stimulus. But wait, fiscal stimulus is anything that stimulates the economy, right? Therefore, my tax umbrellas count? RIght? Domestic policy (Would someone tell me in the comments how to underline and bold text?) (1) No, let them have a civil union but not a marriage. I don't want seperation of church and state. The church is protected from the state not the other way around. It is unfair. You will legalise the slaughter of millions? First it is abortion then it is killing infants, then toddlers, and soon teens. Do you want him to be president? We need to nip this in the bud and remember, despite all these fancy names they are made in God's image. It is death. (Can someone clarify how to post pictures? I want to post a picture of a baby who survived her abortion and is now armless.) (2) A border fence will help the economy not hurt it. Illegals are taking jobs that American's used to do. A border fence would cost 40 billion at the top estimate. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... We wouldn't need this if we didn't have illegals sapping our economy. If you desire more stats I can gladly supply as long I have found my Arguing with Idiots book. Please establish how it will kill the economy please. (3) I shall advocate against senseless regulation on all fronts. If we want to destroy this planet it is our right. Granted I think we shouldn't, it is the only planet we have, but we have the right. If I want to 'go green' I will do it by making tax exemptions to 'green' energy industry. http://paulmacrae.com... Man made global warming is a myth. The sun causes it. We agree in nuclear energy. Let the uranium fission. Foreign policy (1) Let Afghanistan go and destroy ISIS with maximum prejudices. They will kill us all. Walle Ras for a better tomorrow, an Austrian tomorrow.
Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

Foreign Policy: I will stop our foreign dependence on oil using tax umbrellas. I will stop giving money to foreign aid. If people want to do that they can. We should not rebuild countries we destroy in war. I shall also do my very best to not allow ISIS to threaten American citizens. I shall also build a border fence. It will save billions. Domestic Policy: I will slash to the bone spending. Taxes will go down. It will take years but I will wean us off of law and free stuff. I will also stop stealing from Social Security. IF you put money in there you will get it back. I promise. I also promise that freedom will rise. I will cut nannie state laws. You do not need the government in your life more than necessary. As taxes go down and inflation reaches a low percentage the economy is going to bust. It is a result of Obama's policies. But after a few months prosperity will permanently return until inflation begins again. I will fight it. Inflation is defined as an increase in the amount of money. Causes money to lose value so prices rise. (Whatever Happened to Penny, Candy Richard J. Maybury P.179) I also want to stop the war on drugs. Economic Policy: I stated this in Domestic Policy, but I will say it again. I will lower government spending and taxes. I will lower inflation and stop subsidies, which are poisoning the economy. I will sell the post office to the highest bidder. It is a drain. I promise that I will imitate Grover Cleveland. I will also not have a minimum wage. It will cause hurt to the people you want to help. (The economics of the Hauxley's Proxy(?)) In conclusion I am a PRO freedom, christian, Libertarian. I am ready to uphold the constitution at all costs. I will lead America into prosperity.
Free and Open Source Software is superior to proprietary software.

I'm glad I have no more rebuttal to do. Clearly my opponent's forfeit at this critical stage shows he has given up on the debate. I was initially going to post a third argument, but now have decided to make it easy for my opponent. If you can rebut my two arguments above, you win. You have not done so, you will not do so, therefore you don't win. Extend my arguments. Thanks.
Free and Open Source Software is superior to proprietary software.

Be it resolved that FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is superior to proprietary (closed source) software. When a piece of software is free and open, it empowers the user. They themselves are free to do what they wish with the software. The user can modify the software to better suit their needs, improve the design and share said improvements with other members of the community. Similarly, when the source code is available to the community at large, the user is no longer dependent on a single manufacturer for support should a problem arise. There is an entire mobilized community of users able and available to troubleshoot and solve the problem. More superficially, free software is, well, free. It is available to all users, regardless of their financial circumstances. FOSS can be developed and ported to hypothetically any operating system, appealing to a broad audience.
Drugs

Ok, I am against Drugs being legalised; therefore, I shall be arguing that drugs should be illegal.Attn: Voters.As to reiterate what I had said before, please take in mind that my opponent had plagiarised. He admitted this but has not apologised; instead, he shows the opposite of remorse. * This comment can be found at the following: http://www.debate.org... "Look I'm sorry. Now be a good Christian and forgive me."I mustn't dwell on this for too long, so I shall begin my arguments.Lets go! 1. The prohibition of drugs in some countries have shown to be effective.Recent goverment surveyed statistics from individual countries have released reports with substantial evidence that the prohibition of drugs such as cannabis/marijauna etc in countries of any economic state have shown to have a stabilisation or decrease of drug use in that area. Here is a report map showing so. This shows which countries in the world have drugs such as marijuana prohibted or not. This map shows the countries which have an increase or decrease in drug use.When we refer to both images above, we can see a correlation in which the countries which have certain drugs prohibited, have caused the use of drugs to decrease in the areas. Unfortunately, we can see that the countries that don't have prohibitions of drugs, have resulted in an increase of drug use. Therefore, inorder to ensure that the overall drug use in the world decreases or stabilises, we have to enforce prohibitions. I rest part of my case. 2. Drug laws can deter the use of illicit substances A recent Austrailian department of Health report shows that over a quarter of teenagers who were asked "why they wouldn't try drugs"; these 29% said that they wouldn't try illicit drugs due to the fact that there was a prohitiion on the use. http://en.wikipedia.org...Due to the embargo on drug sales and importation, this has caused the prices of drugs such as cocaine, heroin and canabis to increase by 50%; this itself has shown to be a large factor of deterrance in the use of drugs and furthermore has caused the number of sales to greatly decrease.3. Drugs are harmful.It is a truism that all currently existing drugs have been shown to be harmful on a large scale; there is a plethora of reports/ evidence showing that drugs are harmful and have caused the inducing of death on many instances. As you can see, more deaths caused by drugs had happened to males. It is also evident to see the peak years where there were increases and decreases in drug use. In the period of the 90's to the 00s, we can see that there was an increase in drug-related deaths; this was due to fact that more drugs were being created and sold and that drug prohibtion was less enforced then. From 09 and onwards, there has been a strong decrease in drug-related deaths due to the fact that there was a successful referendum for drug prohibitation. This is a substantial reason for why drugs should be illegal.
Drugs

Ok, I would like to say something first. I was surprised by my opponent’s quick argument response; I was surprised by the vast quantity of my opponent’s argument. This is when I started to hastily find some points to refute etc. After the many minutes and hours of preparing my argument, I got suspicious and very doubt-like, so I decided to go over my opponent’s legitimacy. And guess what?.... MY OPPONENT HAS PLAGIARISED! My opponent’s argument was completely plagiarised, word for word, verbatim! He hadn’t written any of his “argument”. This is probably why my opponent’s response was so quick... My Claim against my opponent: I have proof that my opponent had plagiarised: When tracing the sources of my opponents arguments, I found the following websites: http://www.spiegel.de... http://www.rense.com... http://www.wnd.com... http://cannabisnews.com... http://www.uk420.com... There are other ones as well, but they all have the same text... My opponent has provided no real or legit arguments and has breached a very serious violation of conduct. I usually give people a second chance in an instance like this, but since you are the instigator, you don’t deserve a second chance. I withhold the right to post my argument in the next round due to what has happened. I wonder how my opponent will respond. I urge the voters to penalise my opponent for his actions and I urge the floor to side with me.I will present my argument in the next round
Drugs

I accept!Definitions:Drug- "a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body." : "an illegal and often harmful substance (such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, or marijuana) that people take for pleasure." : " something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness"Harmful- "causing or likely to cause harm." Harm-" physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted."All- "used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing."Should-" indicating a desirable or expected state."Legal- "permitted by law."Definition sources:https://www.google.co.uk...http://www.merriam-webster.com...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk... s://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> https://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...
Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced

This debate will be about politics and more specifically obamacare. I will argue that Obamacare is a disaster and needs to be repealed and replaced the (Con) will argue that Obamacare should stay how it is now. Rules: No personal attacks, Keep debate on topic, use evidence to back up arguments Round 1: Will be accepting rules and conditions Round 2: Each side presenting main arguments Round 3: Each side presenting rebuttals Round 4: Final arguments and closing statement.
abortion

"I believe that even "a clump of cells" is still life.... it is forming into something so precious that god has given you" I never denied it was life. I never even denied the unborns humanity. What I did deny was whether the unborn are people. You have not even touched this aspect of my argument. "I think abortion is wrong in any and all ways." You still have to prove it. "if you want to have sex then you will have to deal with the consequences." My case has been basically dropped by my opponent. I believe I addressed this above. Extend my attack.
Tier Tournament 2 [Top], R2: Let Anyone Work Anywhere

It's an honor to get this opportunity, as phantom is one of the first debaters on this site whose arguments really stood out to me, specifically in the previous Tier Tournament. I hope and believe that this debate should provide a solid challenge to us both. The topic as it stands, "Let anyone work anywhere," is something I feel the need to clarify. First, I'd like to expand the topic to its full length. Full topic: There should be no law in any nation restricting access to jobs to individuals from that nation. I think the definitions here are straightforward and simple, though if my opponent would like clarification, he may request that any one of these words be defined. Note how the topic is phrased here. This is not a discussion of immigration policy since we are not discussing citizenship. This does not involve the ability to collect government benefits, it does not affect anyone's capacity to vote. This is a discussion of the capacity of individuals from any nation to take jobs from a willing employer in another nation. The burden of proof will be mainly on me, as I am advocating for a substantial shift from status quo. If my opponent wishes to propose a counterplan, he may do so, but that places an equal burden on him to defend it. He may choose to defend the status quo as well, and thus the current system that restricts access to jobs in many nations to their own citizens. The structure of the debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance, clarifications. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation. R4: Rebuttals and conclusion. (If you wish, I can expand it to 5 rounds, but I figure 4 is enough. The character count, set at 10,000, is also negotiable) I await my opponent's acceptance.
Why the Future is Safe

I'm not sure if the Instigator is still interested in the website, but I'll accept nontheless.I won't make any arguments, but I will make a few obversations.Observation 1: The Instigator needs points for something... What exactly do you mean by "points" for what topic? Is it for school?Obvervation 2: The Instigator wants me to make arguments for him. That's not how debate works. If you do need information, I recommend Google and Yahoo Answers. Google grants you webpages for research, and if you're too lazy for researching, to go Yahoo Answers, where other people can answer your question.Obvervation 3: While I can't make your arguments for you, I can look for where your own arguments could be improved. Debate isn't always about who is correct. Sometimes, it's about what is correct.And, for clarification, here's some definitions:Future: time that is to be or come hereafter (Basically, 2017 is the future. At least at the time of me posting this.)Safe: secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk (Basically, being safe is being free from harm)Harm; to our health and population.So, Pro, tell me what you have so far, and I'll give my opinion on it.
World War III Part 2

1) Fine its a tie2) As for Israel, they would probably be invaded by the Arab countries (its happened before in the past multiple times, http://en.wikipedia.org...) so seeing as how your nations (Russia, North Korea, etc.) consist of the nations invading other nations I think that most of the middle eastern countries would be on your side whereas Israel would be on my side (nations being invaded like South Korea)As for your second point, I agree to the terms but of the countries you believe would join your side, the reasons you offered are a little, off. " France would help United Kingdom and Russia because over the years, they have been major allies"First of all, France and Russia havent been allies in anything since WWII, and France and the UK HATE each other, theyve fought so many wars against each other over the years I fail to see how they would work together... in fact the French hate just about everybody so I think that they would side against whoever were to invade them..."Canada and India are very good friends of Russia" No they are not, Canada is part of NATO so if anything they would side with the US because they are trading partners. 80% of all Canadian exports go to the US and about 2% go to Great Britain, Russia didnt even crack the list so Canada would be a very close US ally. As for India their trading partners are similar to Canada with 40% going to the US and Germany with only 11% going to UK and Russia (Russia again not cracking the list) but I dont feel that these ties are large enough where they would enter into this conflict...http://www.india-exports.com...http://www40.statcan.gc.ca...Poland, Ok Poland is pretty close with Russia so you can have Poland (they have really bad history with Germany anyway so I dont really have an argument)As for Australia, well we ended the pacific theater so they wouldnt provide much to our future arguments anyway, I think we should leave them alone and focus on the Middle East and Europe like you said So to summarize the new members of the allied and armed forces, Armed forces (Pro)North Korea = beaten but savedChina = alive and wellRussia UKSaudi Arabia (hates Israel)Egypt (hates Israel just as much)Syria and Lebanon (hate everyone but really hate Israel)Iran (hate Israel and the US)Poland (hate Germany)Allied forces (Con)USCanadaGermanySouth Korea = survived and now safeJapan = alive and wellIsraelNeutralFrance (they hate the UK and Germany)Switzerland (they are always neutral)Sweden (same as Switzerland)IndiaAustralia + New ZealandI can only imagine how confused the voters are right now. There is going to be a part 3 to this debate and trust me that will be the end of it, right now we are just debating which teams would join which side to really focus on debating for part 3.....Ill post a link to that debate at the end of the next round
World War III Part 2

Okay Cool! How about I get a few more countries who hate Israel and you get lots more countries who are going to fight with Russia in Europe? This round is the last round so I'm not going to actually debate you but I want to get everything organized so we can get into the war early in Part 3. Many other surrounding countries are hateful of Israel while many more European countries will fight Russia and it's allies. I won't use North Korea. You w't use Japan and South Korea. I will use China even though much much much less! Imabench will start Part 3. Please DON"T VOTE AS YOU PEOPLES DID IN THE LAST DEBATE!