BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Gatling gun is a more effective battle field weapon than the Vickers machine gun

I will go over each line of my opponent's argument, though out of order. "No recoil" This is false based on the laws of physics, as well as observed. I will address both. According to physic, every force has an equal and opposite force. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu... Observed, we can look at the GAU-8 on the A-10 Thunderbolt. Pilots have observed that the very force of this gun slows their plane in flight. http://www.globalsecurity.org... "Gatling gun is more accurate." Due to higher recoils, as shown above, the gun is naturally less accurate, and so more precautions need to be made to adjust for this. Going back to older gatling guns, because they were hand-cranked, that very motion caused inaccuracy. "no water is needed for operation" Water cooling is more efficient. This is observed in nearly all heated objects, from vehicles to high end computers. "endless firing with out reloading" This is, of course, false. Since the gatling gun uses physical ammo, that ammo will eventually deplete and need replacing. "no jam trouble" This is false. Due to having similar basic designs, but with more moving parts, namely the rotating barrels, gatling guns have a greater jamming problem. This is evident by the fact that the gatling gun was retired back in 1911, to be replaced by machine guns, which operated better. The gatling gun was not relooked at until 1950's. "Up to 900 rounds per minute" Because there is a recoil after every bullet, the more bullets per minute means a greater total recoil, and less accuracy. It is well observed that 'burst' firing is more effective than a constant stream. Gatling guns are not as efficient in performing that, due to their moving parts. "10 barrels" More barrels does not equate to a better weapon. "The cocking handle on the Vickers can take of a finger." The rotating barrels can also pinch off a finger, as well as cause the gun to misfire, resulting in more harm to operators. "the Gatling design is not obsolete" This is false. The gatling gun was discontinued in 1911. I believe my opponent is wishing to argue rotary cannons, rather than gatling guns. If this is the case, my opponent should have corrected me when I linked to gatling guns last round. I will now present a case for why the Vickers is more effective. 1) Size, the vickers is much smaller and so can be taken into more situations for a greater range of uses. Having a powerful weapon that cannot be used often is not effective. A less powerful weapon with a wider range of uses is more effective. 2) Reliability, back in WWI, a case where the British fired over 1 million rounds and wore through over 100 barrels over 12 hours of continuous use and not a single break down. Referenced in 'weapons and war machines.' 3) burst effect, the vickers is capable of utilizing bursts of shots. Firing 5 to 15 bullets at a time, then releasing the trigger. The gatling gun is not capable of doing this.
I'm Pro affirmative action: Change my mind.

Since you can"t be bothered to spend more than a minute typing out a crass response to my arguments I shall no longer waste time providing you with evidence and reason to consider. Simply, I think that the government completely has the right to force companies to hire people the don"t want to because we live in an unjust society in which certain groups are marginalised and in order to help these groups rich, Corporate elites should buck-up and do some things they don"t want to. They don"t want to pay tax but they have to. They fine by want to hire women but they should be made to. Affirmative action is justified because the racist, Sexist and intrinsically biased status quo we have is immoral and unacceptable. Dumb conservatives hate the idea of giving up some priveleges in pursuit of a society we all strive for. But we should live in a society where everyone is expected to make a contribution to the good of all people and that includes helping minorities to succeed in a world that is stacked against them.
I'm Pro affirmative action: Change my mind.

By affirmative action I mean mechanisms such as quotas or all female shortlists for certain positions. These should occur in the workplace, At colleges and in general education in order to fix the problem of discrimination against marginalised groups and underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in top positions. I look forward to my opponent's argument and hope this will be a productive debate. A forfeit is an automatic loss by the way. I am Pro so I am justifying affirmative action and Con is criticising it. Good luck
Everyone should explore music in foreign languages.

First, the resolution is inherently unjust. As I pointed out in my last post, the statement that everyone should explore music in foreign languages means that all those who do not learn language in a foreign language are immoral, indecorous, or else failing in their obligation (which makes them immoral or indecorous). Yet this burden is an unjust burden to insert on everyone considering that many do not have access to music in foreign languages. Secondly, Pro has not demonstrated that anyone, let alone everyone, has an obligation to learn music in foreign languages. Though it might be beneficial, it is not obligatory as the word "should" implies. In Pro's last point, Pro made the claim that the ideas of beneficial and obligatory are not mutually exclusive, but this does not demonstrate that one entails the other. Thus, Pro has failed to uphold Pro's burden of proof.
Everyone should explore music in foreign languages.

The argument is in indeed stating that everyone should explore music in foreign languages because they are beneficial. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas. I'd like to direct you to view these articles written that explain in great length how foreign music exploration improves vocabulary, retention, and recollection skills. It even aids in the challenge of learning foreign languages fluently. Those are significant benefits, are they not? http://www.upi.com... www.cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/TLC/article/download/.../123R06;
Everyone should explore music in foreign languages.

I'd like to begin by negating the resolution. We have to realize that the resolution is not arguing that it can be beneficial to explore music in foreign languages, nor even that some people should explore music in foreign languages, but rather, that everyone should explore music in foreign languages. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, should is "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency . " Therefore, when the resolution states that everyone should explore music in foreign languages, it is not stating that it would be good, or even beneficial to explore music in foreign languages, but rather, that it would be a failure in our obligation, indecorous, even immoral to not study music in foreign languages. Yet that immediately puts at a disadvantage those who are born in locations where they have no ability to explore music in foreign languages. Some have no access to anything foreign in the first place! Are these people immoral, indecorous, or in any way failing in their obligation, simply because the situation in which they were born? This seems rather unjust. However, the fundamental problem with Pro's arguments is that they do not support the resolution. Pro says first, "Why not? You can often learn a lot about a culture through its music. " But this doesn't show why everyone should explore music in foreign languages. All that it demonstrates is that those interested in learning about a foreign culture can experience that learning through studying the music of that culture. The sum of Pro's position is summed up in Pro's last post: "There is no reason why people can't be introduced to different cultures through their music. " But this doesn't even claim, let alone demonstrate conclusively, that everyone should explore music in foreign languages. Rather, it makes an unsupported claim that there is no reason why people shouldn't. Thus, we see that the resolution in and of itself should be negated. In addition, we see that Pro has offered us no reasoning whatsoever to affirm this resolution.
Yuriu's Favourite Colour is Kiwi Green

Hi! I would like to thank to B'obo for this debate. As of before posting I have put peanut butter and bread(food) into the mouth and chewed and swallowed it. I would first like to present the following as evidence Yuiru doesn't like the color "Kiwi Green".Yuiru is known to be deceptive and has a general lack of moral integrity according to navies (which should be evidence enough). Also, Yuiru is a troll debater! Yuiru always sez silly bollocky things like "cappy nap".Another fact to consider, is that Yuiru for all we know, doesn't even know what "Kiwi Green" or even the color green actually is or looks like.For one: Yuiru is color blind and therefore does not play favorites with the color of ones skin, even if that skin is fuzzy and full of chlorophyll.Two for: Yuiru is a racist that is against green skin, you never see Yuiru talking to any green skinned people ever. Racist.For thrice: Yuiru is inconsistent with their claims! One day Yuiru may like green tea, the next day, Yuiru suddenly switches up and now likes green tea ice cream. Unreliable.Lastly I would like to say, diarrhea has the same color and properties as the kiwi: Both are heart shaped, stinky, include green and brown, and have little seeds in them. Not even Yuiru could accept this, no, it's too horrible. Finally of all finales: Yuiru already has a favorite color, "Blood Red". It's obvious Yuiru likes colors that related to something grotesque in nature. Kiwi Green just doesn't fit the bill. However, Blood Red fits Yuiru's violent, amoral, blud thursty nature. Finally Supreme Argument Undeniable!!!: Yuiru has not actually said their favorite color is "Kiwi Green" on their profile, so it must not be true.
I will NOT contradict myself.

The terms of the debate sate "If I contradict myself just once, then I lose the ENTIRE debate. However, if I keep my word and do NOT contradict myself, then I WIN the ENTIRE debate." The debate terms do not stipulate that if I do not ask 10 questions, that I lose.My quest was not "will you answer this question by only saying "no"?" It was "Will you answer this question by saying "no"?"My opponent has stated that "[He] wil not answer this questin by saying, "NO."" but in doing so, he said "NO" in the end of his statement"He has contradicted himself in that he said he will not say "no" but has said "no."The debate is mine.
I will NOT contradict myself.

Will you answer this question by saying "No"? I will not answer this question by saying, "NO. " How is this not a contradiction? Well, my opponent is wanting me to contradict myself by saying no. His question is calling for a 1-word response. Therefore, if I said "I will not answer this question by saying 'No'" I have avoided the 1-word negative resposne that my opponent is wanting me to do. In order to avoid the contradiction, I must avoid a 1-word response. I never once stated that I have to answer JUST yes and no to yes and no questions. My opponent has given an example of a paradox. Very nice try! Paradoxes are not in deserving of a reply. Furthermore, in the terms, I call for an asking of 10 questions. He only asked me one.
I will NOT contradict myself.

ReformedArsenal stated in a coment in a debate that he can make me contradict myself with just 1 question. I want to see him try. Therefore, my opponent will ask me a series of question (10) each round and I will answer them."Kohai,If you want, I'll take up the challenge on this same debate. I think I can beat you with one question." http://www.debate.org...If I contradict myself just once, then I lose the ENTIRE debate. However, if I keep my word and do NOT contradict myself, then I WIN the ENTIRE debate.Rules:1) I cannot contradict myself.2) My opponent must ask 10 questiosn per round. (Try to keep reasonable questions that I don't have to have 1000 characters per question!)3) My opponent is NOT limited to yes and no questions.Good luck.
I will NOT contradict myself.

"As stated earlier, I have explained why it wasn't a contradiction.Technically, I did not answer this question by saying no. I answered this question in a complete sentence. That sentence was "I will NOT answer this question by saying NO."I said more than just no."My opponent has said more than no. That is not in question.However, my opponent did in fact say no, even though he said that he would not.The phrase "I will NOT answer this question by saying NO." is in itself a contradiction, because it includes the word that you claim you will not say. If my opponent had answered by saying "I will not say only the word NO" then he would be correct. However, he did not say that.
Facebook buying the Oculus Rift will help it's developement

This is true Facebook will try to incorporate their own ideas into the Oculus Rift but isn't that the entire point of the Oculus rift developers kit? Every time someone creates a software intended to be used with the Oculus rift re they not at the core trying to incorporate their own ideas? I will say this again Facebook is not halting the Oculus rift development they are just supervising it and creating software intended to be used with the Oculus rift and leaving the development to team Oculus.
Facebook buying the Oculus Rift will help it's developement

Facebook will take advantage of Oculus. They will use such a great product and try to incorporate social media and their own ideas into it. Although this seems like a positive thing, Facebook will be "putting the carriage before the horse". First of all, Oculus should've made multiple prototypes and put them up for sale. Then there's something to build off of, Facebook will try to incorporate their own ideas into this, which seems like something they should be doing in the future, not right now.
Facebook buying the Oculus Rift will help it's developement

C-A 1:" I believe that the inventors of Oculus should've stayed with their product as they will know the concept better than anybody else. Facebook will ruin the Oculus Rift because they really don't have much experience with hardware products" As said in the statement given by the inventors of Oculus they state that while yes Facebook bought the rights to the Oculus Rift VR headset they state it as "we"ve joined forces with Facebook to create the best virtual reality platform in the world. " as in they are still going to be working on the Oculus Rift VR headset just that they will work with Facebook to help with the development. Another statement from Mark Zuckerberg the creator of Facebook states that "Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate" meaning that the development of the Oculus rift headset will not be affected much until later in its development. . https://www.facebook.com... . http://www.oculusvr.com...
Facebook buying the Oculus Rift will help it's developement

Yes, Facebook is a good company with an excellent ability to build a company. The simple reality is that Facebook is a website. The Oculus Rift has so much potential and could be a major breakthrough in technology. I believe that the inventors of Oculus should've stayed with their product as they will know the concept better than anybody else. Facebook will ruin the Oculus Rift because they really don't have much experience with hardware products, of any big companies, I would expect Google to buy Oculus. The Google Glass and Oculus Rift are both excellent concepts for the future and may become excellent breakthroughs. Facebook will simply ruin the Oculus rift as they have no real experience with building hardcore, high-tech hardware products such as the Oculus Rift. Facebook is a social media, and they should stay in their lane.
I Spy Debate

I spy a crime being commited I see smoke coming through a funnel. I smell the aroma of mash brewing. Corn fields and water are abundant in this area. Sheriffs search for every clue Criminals hiding in the forest and burning their trash. Outlaws delivering this valueable liquid. Outlaws receiving $100.00 per mason jar. It takes $100,000 to go legal. What is this crime that they are commiting?
Elected officials should, to some degree, be middle class citizens.

The Bush family made approximately $720,000 in 2007, yet President Bush, who is supposed to be a role model for the future leaders of our country, only donated around $100,000 to charities and other organizations. And this is the LEADER of our country? The man we want our children and younger siblings to look up to? I think the problem with our congressmen and leaders of our country is that they're greedy. Not just the president, I think it boils down to the state level as well. "These congressmen are not in session for the whole year. They should get paid according to the amount of work they do, and the quality of the work they do, the quality of work thus far by the Bush Administration has been nothing but pitiful. " - Um. .. Ok. .. what's this got to do with the debate? ^ What this has to do with the debate is that I don't think McCain deserves as much money as he got in '07. To answer your points. 1) I haven't seen anything about President Bush helping third world countries fighting disease, except for Darfur. There are many more countries than Darfur who need help. My school is trying to help Uganda improve living conditions and obtain peace there. 2) Sure, Hilary and Obama both have plans, but so did President Bush. It's following through on those plans that he had trouble with. We need a President who will stick to their guns and actually listen to the people. As for them not paying for their own food and necessities, wasn't there a time when the President was NOT working out of the White House? Therefore, they did not have personal chefs, or drivers paying for everything. Plus, they were making A LOT less money. Their pay hasn't even risen in proportion to the rising prices of food and everything else in everyday life. What is wrong with that. .? Surely, President Bush is undeserving.
Elected officials should, to some degree, be middle class citizens.

And And + I agree. We do need a plan that can help us in the long run economically. but that's exactly what we need. The president or Congress being middle class wont help them think of a plan. They need a good plan that will help in the long term. If they were middle class, theyd have less money and no plan. There is no substantial reason why having less money would help you create a congressional bill to helppeople with less money. + I hardly proved your point. I dont think there has ever been a middle class president and many presidents have managed to do a good job while having money + "These congressmen are not in session for the whole year. They should get paid according to the amount of work they do, and the quality of the work they do, the quality of work thus far by the Bush Administration has been nothing but pitiful." - Um...Ok...what's this got to do with the debate? + please inform me as to why President Bush was completely oblivious of the fact that gas prices had hit $4.00 a gallon. - i cant. but look at hillary, barack and john. they all are very much aware of high gas prices. none of them drive themselves around. proving u obviously dont have to be middle class and pay gas prices to be an elected official that knows the hurt on americans. Being middle class would obviously not effect you creating a plan to help Americans. And there are a few points of mine you did not answer. I answered all of your points. Please answer all of my points. - Bush helps with African disease but he's not a third world African. Doesnt this prove that you dont need the particular experience to create a bill? - Hillary and Barack both have plans to help Americans with the economy but they both have millions. Doesnt this show you that you dont need to be middle class to make plans for the middle class? - No president will have to pay gas prices. They have a huge motorcade. They wont pay a mortgage because theyll live in the White House, which has been paid off for a little while. And theyll have a personal chef. Electing a middle class person will not effect anything. Theyll not have to pay for much of anything anyway. - If you want to be president you'll have to have experience or you'll simply not do a very good job. You would have to be a governor or a Congressperson. They make a lot of money. So you'd have to sacrifice experience for a middle class president. You don't have to be middle class to understand the current economy. I have proven this. This would be a great loss to give up great leaders because of their economic situation. Imagine if we didnt have FDR, Truman or Washington. And I'd have to say Clinton did a pretty good job for the middle class and he's loaded. Thank you for reading and judging this debate. I hope you side with me on this.
Elected officials should, to some degree, be middle class citizens.

The problem is, that I don't think Bush nor McCain understand the problem at hand. They've cut the rates almost 7 times in the past 5 months. That isn't doing much good for us in the long run. We need a president who can understand what needs to be done to help our country in the long run. By the way, your first paragraph proved my point. President Bush - The Bush family rather - is too rich to even understand what the middle class Americans are going through. I understand that being the President of the United States has its perks; however, there was a time when the country was being run outside of the White House and Capitol Building. These congressmen are not in session for the whole year. They should get paid according to the amount of work they do, and the quality of the work they do, the quality of work thus far by the Bush Administration has been nothing but pitiful. My family watches CNBC daily and even though the the Dow Jones Industrial and NASDAQ go up, the price of a barrel of oil goes up. This is not how it should work. Every time the DJI would go up, the price of crude oil would drop. As for watching ABC and CNN, please inform me as to why President Bush was completely oblivious of the fact that gas prices had hit $4.00 a gallon. That, to me, does not sound like a President who watches the news or gets briefed regularly. The only thing you really need to be President of the United States is a good education of world politics, and be in tune with the country's flaws. Also, one would need to have good leadership skills. With experience, you gain more knowledge of these two things, but it's like moving up in any other career field, with more experience comes more skills. Thank you and vote Pro. I urge you.