BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tournament III: On balance, living in a society of anarchy is better than living under a dictator

Tournament III: On balance, living in a society of anarchy is better than living under a dictator It need not be said, the rule of a dictator and his cabinet is despotic harsh and rule. History shows dictators and their subordinates committing the worst acts in human history, Qey Shibir, the red terror, the Khmer rouge, the Nazis. My argument is to defend a lesser of two evils, anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of any "real" government, a place where the people live under their own intrinsic interests. The opposition in this case is dictatorship, the autocratic rule under one man. The bare argument in this case is which better supports human happiness, citizen utility. Now, when based solely on history and the present states there are very district differences in dictatorship and anarchy. In anarchies there are high crime rates and levels civil disorder, to cite known anarchies: Post colonial Somalia and the French first republic. It is true then that the "life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" but given the alternative, dictatorship, it begins to beckon a lighter perspective. Dictatorships have resulted many well known events of the last Century - the Holocaust, Pol Pot's killing fields and the red terror just to name a few. The tyranny of a dictator is no new event, dictators, to go back to the days of true monarchy, also had other terrors lost to pages of history: the Ottoman Sultans Devshirme hunts, Nero's mass murders and Cromwellian ethnic cleansing of the Irish. Even Aristotle, a man who lived over two millennia ago, who first wrote about the concept of the dictator, the Aesymnetes, tied it to tyranny. In theoretical terms and after taking into account the utility of every individual citizen ante dictatorship, anarchism proves to be favourable. In both systems an 'enemy' exists, in anarchy it's your fellow man's interests, in dictatorship it is the state's will. In anarchy the worst that could happen is your neighbour killing you for property rights, in a dictatorship it is the iron fist of the ministry of interior. Given the great difference in power and influence the lesser is to be favoured of the greater. Somalia - http://news.bbc.co.uk... France - Journal of the Terror – Jean Baptiste Clery Holocaust - http://www.britannica.com... Cambodia - http://www.mekong.net...
North Korea is a super nation

Kim Jong Il is dead. Secondly, North Korea is not a super nation for one main reason, it does not listen to its citizens. If a country stashes 30% of the money from citizens for themselves, how are they a good country? Also, North Korea does not have many resources, other than nuclear weapons. Even then, nuclear weapons are not natural. For example, the United States are considered a supernation since they have money, power, and NATURAL resources. North Korea does not have any natural resources, other than water. Nuclear weapons are just a means to fight people without actually fighting them. Also, destroying Seoul will not do anything for them. They will only gain control of one city out of almost 200 countries in the world. It would a complete waste on their part. My closing argument with Round 2 as well..... North Korea will only ever be a super nation if people start seeing it as a good country. For example, the United States are globally loved because of how happy their citizens are and how good their country is doing.
North Korea is a super nation

I have never heard the term "Super Nation argument" other than this debate. They are a supernation because they aren't in the spotlight most of the time, but the truth is much bigger. Their government has a collective stash, called the "Legislative Collection" where 30% of the profit from the citizens go to the private stash of funds for Kim Jung Il and his government. They also have a stash of Nuclear Weapons that could destroy Seoul in a matter of days. North Korea also has 1 million of their 35 million population in the military.
North Korea is a super nation

North Korea is not a super nation. Have you ever heard their name being thrown around in the super nation argument? Super nations usually have a lot of things going well for them. For example, North Korea is not happy in the sense that a lot of people there are educated properly, like Cuba, but the dictator does not care about the citizens needs or wants. In a dictatorship, countries are drowning in debt and poverty. Kim Jong-Un only does what he thinks is right. If someone complains about their problem, it goes unheard. Infrastructure is never developed
The US government should cut military spending

Yes, we do need to make a point. But we have a different threat at hand. They are a new threat, one that we haven't seen before. Our military is equipped to fight organized militaries. They are not organized, so we do bombings which are ineffective. On top of that, if we do kill them, then ISIS will call them martyrs. If we go down onto the ground with our troops then they will say it's a war against Christianity and the west. What we need to do is: 1. Work with other countries in an international coalition 2. Focus on stabilizing territories 3. Help educate people in stabilized countries about ISIS 4. Resettle people in stabilized countries 5. Take out the grunts 6. Stay vigilant Yes, we should take out ISIS. No, we shouldn't go in guns a' blazing. And no, we don't need more military funds to do so. We just need a new strategy. And there are other issues at hand, and if we work with other people the burden of defeating ISIS/ISIL will be less of a burden for each country, and such a large military is not as necessary. Thus we can make small cuts (which honestly won't effect much. It can be with the nukes. We don't need 2,000 and a lot of money goes towards it. ), and put some of the money towards NASA or other organizations which are greatly under funded. Now it's time for me to prove why you should vote pro. Ahem. .. Reasons: [1] Con has made several exaggerations in his arguments (ie "we are ALL going to die") [2] Con has shown little sources on how his strategy could be useful [3] Con has made several spelling mistakes ("abundanbtly," "wew," etc. ) [4] Con has not made arguments against all oft he claims I have made. He said nothing about NASA and when I talked about corruption and the ineffectiveness of the Pentagon and the military in general, con only spoke about how 2,000 nukes would destroy the world, yet I made no statement saying that we should use our nuclear arsenal.
The US government should cut military spending

Claiming that we will all die is a huge exaggeration. In 2015 we had a military budget of 598.5 million dollars. China, the second biggest military is 5x smaller. Saudi Arabia is about 10x smaller. Regarding nuclear power, we have thousands more than China. I assure you with over 2,000 nuclear bombs we won't be killed by Muslims. But let's say, for the sake of the argument, we did triple the military budget as you proposed. Well that would be roughly 1,795,500,000 dollars, so nearly 1.8 trillion. With a t (that's nearly triple from what we had in WW2.) That would be 10T53; of the US GDP. Now let"s compare that to NASA. NASA has a budget of 18.4 billion; .5T53; of the national budget. Let's say we quadrupled it"s budget (it's really low, so it doesn't have as much as an effect if we triple it), we would have a budget of around 70 billion. We would be able to: Make 38 Curiosity rover in 1 year, 1 new ISS in next 6 years, Have new space shuttle programs in the next 2 years of a cost of $196 billion, Make 31 Hubble Space Telescopes in 1 year Or have a Manned mission to Mars in just a few years. Now what would the military do? Well according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon hid 125 billion dollars in administrative waste. According to Time magazine, Pentagon workers wasted 1K on strip clubs. One security journalist wrote that budget day was "his Christmas." Of course this is all ignoring the enormous amount of money tripling the military budget would add to the debt, but that's a story for another time. Sources: https://www.google.com... http://time.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.military1.com... https://www.cbo.gov... https://www.quora.com... https://www.quora.com...
The US government should cut military spending

I, pro, will be arguing that we should make slight cuts to military spending and put the money towards NASA. Con will be arguing that we should either fund the military more or keep the spending the same. Rules: 1. Don't troll 2. If you need extra time, message me or mention it in your final argument. 3. Round 1 will be for accepting the debate and your opening statements 4. Try not to use logical fallacies 5. Max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put your argument in a Google document.
Physical Education in school is necessary.

Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or other offensive language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not permissible. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books and authors. The topic of this debate discusses the usefulness and necessity of Physical Education class in middle and high schools. Physical Education, abbreviated P.E., is known as gym class. Discussion of recess in elementary school is also relevant. Physical Education is a gym activity that is treated like a real course in school: grades are issued, attendance is required, etc. This definition does not include after-school extracurricular events, including sports teams. I will be taking the Con/Against position of this debate. I don't believe Physical Education is a necessary class in school. For debating purposes, let us assume schools have P.E. classes as mandatory. I wish good luck to my contender in this debate.
Physical Education in school is necessary.

I'm sorry I missed the deadline for my rebuttal. I think that P.E is needed in school's across the country. Countless physical therapist's agree that children need daily exercise to stay healthy. Since most children don't apply themselves to work out at home. School is an excellent place for it. It was also proven that daily exercise will build a child's confidence, raise academic scores, help them maintain a healthy body and weight, and help them sleep better. http://www.livestrong.com... My opponent brought up the excellent point that children could use P.E time to study or do home work. But if a boy cut off the Xbox 360 for an hour or two after school to study. Or if a girl held of text messaging her "BFF's" about the newest Justin Bieber song to open a textbook. Students wouldn't have a problem in school. So I keep my belief that Physical Education should be mandatory in schools.
Physical Education in school is necessary.

We all know physical education. From recess when we were kids in elementary school to gym class in college, some form of exercise class is mandatory in many schools. However, this P.E. class is not a necessary course. Therefore, it should be removed or made optional. First of all, let us examine the current situation: required P.E. classes are now in session in almost every school in the U.S., but what percentage of these classes are productive to the least? Many students are unenthusiastic about exercise, and not too many coaches take their work seriously. Sure, coaches can be serious, but they tend to focus their efforts on the most "athletic" students, especially in lower-quality public schools. This information was gained through personal experience; no official sources were used to prove this. Second, P.E. class is excessive. It uses time that could be used for other more important classes. I've heard of students that struggle with mathematics or reading, yet they still spend time on physical education rather than studying for the next big test. One argument I believe my contender probably will bring up is that exercise is important, as it improves brain function. However, who says P.E. is the only way to gain this exercise? Extracurricular activities (sporting teams) offer the same benefits of Physical Education without using up any time during the school day. Furthermore, P.E. class, if not removed, should at least have no grade assigned to each student. Some students are more enthusiastic about sports and exercise than others. Let's examine the following situation: a school is holding a fitness test in P.E. today. Each student runs a mile on the track, and their time is used to calculate their grade. Kids that can't run but probably do well in other classes, will have to face one bad grade from Physical Education, an already unnecessary class. Because of unfairness to this particular student, Physical Education does not need a written grade assigned. Therefore, I keep to my opinion that P.E. class is unnecessary and should be made optional.
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie

"As for the Chinese wanting to kill Mulan, this only makes her cooler. Mulan is a good movie because she's so darn cool and awesome, she's on the Chinese wanted list. Is Elsa on the wanted list? No."Actually being on the Chinese wanted list makes you lame. Only losers get on that list."My opponent tries showing people dead...in the water. But people float on water. Even when they're dead. These people obviously aren't dead yet, since they aren't floating on the water."My opponent fails to realise one thing; when you die in the water you don't immediately float."This guy is only alive because he's crossing his two arms behind his back. That's the only way to survive without dying while floating on water. Otherwise you're dead if you float on water. You need to sink to be alive"The mafia kills people then ties a block of concrete to their foot, and tosses them into the ocean. My opponent claims that the mafia is weak and the mafia ain't weak. YOU TALKIN' TO ME PUNK! See? Not weak."Opponent tries saying Hans is stronger than Anna. But he's not that much stronger than Mulan. He already was half-dead when Anna went in to finish him with his ridiculous giraffe neck"Giraffes are cool but on a less serious note, he is stronger than Mulan because the Chinese use tin swords to save a few dollars and Mulan doesn't have side burns. Only evil badasses have sideburns And you get ladies."My opponent tries saying how Mark Twain was stupid. Well, it was just all an act of him to be bad with money. Seriously."No not seriously, it's a troll debate."He knows how to get into your mind and destroy your brain. Look at him staring into your soul. He also secretly knew how to use money very wisely and even came up with a good quote about how smart he really is."Thanks.In conslusion frozen rocks for all of my reasons. Sherlock is just as good as Frozen.
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie

FINAL ROUND!!"Let it be" means happiness...? This makes no sense. As for the Chinese wanting to kill Mulan, this only makes her cooler. Mulan is a good movie because she's so darn cool and awesome, she's on the Chinese wanted list. Is Elsa on the wanted list? No.My opponent tries showing people dead...in the water. But people float on water. Even when they're dead. These people obviously aren't dead yet, since they aren't floating on the water. This guy is only alive because he's crossing his two arms behind his back. That's the only way to survive without dying while floating on water. Otherwise you're dead if you float on water. You need to sink to be alive. Opponent tries saying Hans is stronger than Anna. But he's not that much stronger than Mulan. He already was half-dead when Anna went in to finish him with his ridiculous giraffe neck.My opponent tries saying how Mark Twain was stupid. Well, it was just all an act of him to be bad with money. Seriously. He knows how to get into your mind and destroy your brain. Look at him staring into your soul. He also secretly knew how to use money very wisely and even came up with a good quote about how smart he really is. My opponent tries saying that cold is cool and kind. But this is too general, and does not apply to Olaf as my picture mentioned above (source in comments if you can't see it), he is an evil drone of Elsa.In conclusion Frozen is horrible. Elsa should have been replaced with Sherlock Holmes. VOTE ME.
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie

"Let it Go is a reference to Let it Be....my opponent claims.Unfortunately Let it Be only strengthens my arguments. You can see the Beatles obviously don't care about the movie, only their money, so they just sing "Let it Be...." because the movie is so terrible even they can't fix it"But everyone cares about their money and they sang "Let it be" so there would be some happiness in the movie. It's a really dark but really cool movie."See? She looks like a goddess even compared to those spartans. We can see here she is obviously using her name as a ploy to distract Chinese people who know her name means "the weak"."The Chinese know she has dark plans, so they will kill her."My opponent claims that singing in the ice-age can make you become a bad awesome dude. You may become bad awesome dude for like 3 seconds, but then you're ruined by...."Adorable, therefore not true B)"Everyone loves cliches in animes, my opponent claims. But think about it. The parents in Frozen died to WATER. Seriously, WATER. Who dies to water?"Biased photos. Look at these... http://cestlavieman.files.wordpress.com...; /> They're dead and that's cliche, thus it's cool."My opponent contradicts himself by saying Hans was a strong burly, man. He admitted he was weak a few arguments ago. Decide which argument to dump, my good sir, decide decide."Hans is weak but strong in comparison. Sorry I didn't clarify that."As for Anna being a pyromaner and lighting all those wolves, you are right. But just because she belongs in Mortal Combat does not mean the movie is good. It just mean the movie is very unoriginal and violated copyright by bringing in a character from Mortal Combat and putting her in Frozen."False, they didn't steal her, they made her fit into an action genere and a fantasy genre. "My opponent also says that with the addition of a "T", Elsa becomes Telsa--which, rearranged is Tesla, who was awesome. But a "T" brings about the crucial difference. Elsa is only ALMOST Tesla the lightning master. Tesla is the lightning master. As Mark Twain can differentiate them, let him speak for me:"While that is true, Mark Twain was bad with money and only STUPID people are bad with money. He may not have even said that."No brah, Olaf's cold. Cold and boring and cruel. There's a big difference."Proof below about how cold is cool and kind. Thus, Frozen is cooler than you think. Figuratively, and literallly s://corngoblin.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="500" height="282" />
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie

Let it Go is a reference to Let it Be....my opponent claims.Unfortunately Let it Be only strengthens my arguments. You can see the Beatles obviously don't care about the movie, only their money, so they just sing "Let it Be...." because the movie is so terrible even they can't fix it. Hans' name means "the weak"....exactly. The point I'm making here is that Hans is a terrible, weak villain who auto-loses to even "a scrub like Elsa".Mulan's name is very deceptive. In reality she has a secret underground society and she trains Spartans in her spare time. s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="279" height="398" /> See? She looks like a goddess even compared to those spartans. We can see here she is obviously using her name as a ploy to distract Chinese people who know her name means "the weak".My opponent claims that singing in the ice-age can make you become a bad awesome dude. You may become bad awesome dude for like 3 seconds, but then you're ruined by....' s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="637" height="398" />"Uh oh, we're dead."Everyone loves cliches in animes, my opponent claims. But think about it. The parents in Frozen died to WATER. Seriously, WATER. Who dies to water? Anyone BUT anime dies in water. As Frozen's parents don't die an anime death, it ain't a cliche and ain't good. My opponent contradicts himself by saying Hans was a strong burly, man. He admitted he was weak a few arguments ago. Decide which argument to dump, my good sir, decide decide. As for Anna being a pyromaner and lighting all those wolves, you are right. But just because she belongs in Mortal Combat does not mean the movie is good. It just mean the movie is very unoriginal and violated copyright by bringing in a character from Mortal Combat and putting her in Frozen. My opponent also says that with the addition of a "T", Elsa becomes Telsa--which, rearranged is Tesla, who was awesome. But a "T" brings about the crucial difference. Elsa is only ALMOST Tesla the lightning master. Tesla is the lightning master. As Mark Twain can differentiate them, let him speak for me: See? Tesla is the lightning, Elsa is the Lightning Bug. Lightning bugs are dumb and totally not awesome next to lightning. As Elsa is the small, irrelevant lightning bug, the movie is bad. Olaf is cool. No brah, Olaf's cold. Cold and boring and cruel. There's a big difference. s://thedcontinuum.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="832" height="318" /> See? He's totally not the cool character you mentioned. Frozen must be a bad movie with such a horrendous character. And finally, Anna surviving the snow monster.... The snow monster was meh. It really wasn't tough at all. See second youtube video for reference. :D I believed I have shown sufficient proof of Frozen's poor quality. Back to you, funny.
TROLL DEBATE: Frozen is a Bad Movie

Nice! An almost-unbeated.Here we go now...1. The song, the seemingly amazing awesome catchy song, is actually with the negative message of telling you to let the movie gohttp://www.youtube.com...Listen very carefully to the video. Seriously. Elsa wants to hit the movie with the icy blasts and you as well, if you don't forget about the movie and "Let it Go". Yup, definitely a bad movie if even the main character is disliking the movie.2. Even a girl can defeat Hans, he's so terribleThe poster below seems pretty manly... Until you realize the most successful person in the military team the guy above trained is probably Mulan, who technically is the one who defeat the Huns/Hans. Look at how amazing she is. "You just can't defeat Mulan!" Now look at poor Hans. See? I told you he looks absolutely ridiculous. Anna was only the one to deliver the finishing blow, which was pretty darn soft anyways. And finally.... 3. They live in the ice age The ice age is pretty darn boring and terrible. Look at the poor guy below. The ice didn't do any good to him. He's still stupid, obese, and a dumb cave man. The evidence is simple and can be found in the title of the movie.... ||||||||||||||||||||||| FROZEN. Seriously, what kind of good movie is put in the ice age? Certainly not any movie I know. In conclusion Frozen is definitely a horrible, boring movie. Don't know why some people like it. Onto you, con.
EVERYONE takes life for granted, even religious people at some point in their life.

It's seen in everyday life. Us humans complain. Now,unless someone has no roof over their head, no family, no food, then they are most likely not going to see the importance of what they already have. Maybe for example, a teenager wants to go out with friends and their parents wont let them. Then that teen will start calling their parents stupid, mean, saying they hate them. If they ever tell their parents that they want them to die or something, they will never know what they will lose until it's gone. Some more examples that may not be so important: access to internet, texting friends with the latest smart phone, stuff like that. There are so many people and kids my age that don't have those things, no friends, no parents, (or parents that actually care). And to even be alive we should all be grateful for everyday. There is so much more to be grateful for that we dont care to look over our shoulders once and think about what life would be like without it and those who have no choice but to live without those little details that we take advantage of. It's almost quite sad.