BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wrestling being eliminated from the 2020 Olympic Games

1. The primary purpose of the Olympics is to entertain, and wrestling does not do this. Even looking back at the very first Olympics, we can see that the Olympics are made to entertain. According to Pausanias, the Greek geographer and mythologist, the origin of the Olympics is a myth in which the dactyls try to entertain the newborn Zeus. This being said, wrestling does not entertain people as much as the other sport I will propose for you right now. I will be suggesting baseball to replace the sport. A study comparing the popularity of Olympic sports ranked baseball at 18 and wrestling at 27. Baseball already has support from the leagues in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia, and could get the national backing of Major League Baseball to have big stars from around the world compete like the World Baseball Classic. Comparing wrestling and baseball by TV viewers, wrestling gets 23 million viewers on average, while baseball can peak at 40 million viewers. So, the train of logic, the Olympics serve to entertain, baseball entertains more than wrestling, therefore baseball should be in the Olympics, not wrestling. 2. The Olympics are very expensive to produce, and wrestling does not bring in revenue. In 2012, the Olympics cost twenty million dollars (Ria Novisti). In 2008, they cost 40 million dollars in 2008. With the increasing cost, we need to shed off an extra sport for the summer Olympics so we can maintain a profit or even break even. That being said, wrestling is one of the least popular sports, as I have cited in my last point. Also, since it requires many different events in different weight classes, it is one of the most expensive sports to produce. 3. The International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles, hereafter referred to as FILA, refuses to have a women"s Greco Roman style category. Now is the age of gender equality. Men and women were not always seen as equal, but now we must promote equality, not just in ideas but in our sports. Wrestling and boxing are the only two sports that do not have a women"s category. The International Olympic Committee has tried to get them to have a women"s category multiple times, but the providers of the sport refuse to allow gender equality in their sports. Given that boxing has a higher entertainment value and is much more popular, wrestling would make sense to drop from the Olympics. 4. FILA has biased and corrupt referees. FILA, which I have before mentioned is the provider of the sport for the Olympics, has referees that accept bribery and promote nepotism. In one case, Pelle Svennson, a member of the FILA board, witnessed the coach of a Russian wrestler giving signs to the referee. When he went up to the referee to inform him of how this broke the rules, the referee threatened his life. It was found out that the referee was bribed the US equivalent of 150,000 dollars to favor the Russians. The referee is a member of the FILA executive board. In another instance, a referee who gave a very controversial call was discovered to be first cousin of the president of FILA.
Wrestling being eliminated from the 2020 Olympic Games

Not a main sport!? Are you kidding me? It is the main sport of the Olympics. In fact, they even had the highest television viewers, most people in attendence, and the most people competing. You are sadly mistakin if you think wrestling is just two people punching eachother until someone wins. Wrestling is a human chess match were you use different techniques from any position. I guess you wouldn't understand that because I'm sure you are one of the geniouses who think competitive rock climbing deserves to be on the 2020 program over a real sport.
Nuclear Weapon Research

My opponent fails to recognize the nature of the world we live in. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are not going to simply halt their nuclear weapons research in the scenario of U.S. disarmament. The U.S. and other European powers who currently maintain nuclear arsenals do so to uphold the balance of power. It would be wishful and disastrous to legislate a unilateral disarmament within the U.S. If the U.S. decided upon a policy of keeping current weapons and stopping research and development it would be equally fatal. Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea will not all follow suit with the U.S. if we take dovish action. This would give our country less leverage in trade negotiations, and diminish our world influence. It is nice to envision a world with our weapons, but as a species we are not at this point yet. Obstacles like the Jihad, nationalism, and anti-western sentiment among certain countries are enough reason to see this as unrealistic.
Nuclear Weapon Research

My opponent states a fact that is correct, Nuclear weapons will act as a defense mechanism against irresponsible states. However, my opponent fails to recover that those states may feel threatened against the research, and launch an attack on the United States. Additionally, there are other ways to resolve a conflict, not by nuclear warheads or wartime. According to alternet.org, who is a news organization run by several Harvard graduates, (http://www.alternet.org...) people can educate themselves on the issues at hand, speak out, and merge with the rest of the war.
Nuclear Weapon Research

I am going to reboot this after my opponent forfeited. PLEASE ONLY ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SEE IT OUT UNTIL THE END! R1: Acceptance & Opening Statements R2: Rebuttals and additional statements/sources R3: Final Rebuttals & Conclusions TO CLARIFY: I classify nuclear research as any studies along the engineering, explosive materials, radioactive materials, launch tests, etc. I believe that the research of nuclear weapons should be restricted, if not halted entirely. This is part of my belief of nuclear disarmament. When nuclear weapon research begins, there is a slight chance that a nation would feel threatened by the research, and possibly launch a nuclear missile at the country that they feel imposes a threat.
Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

What I mean by 10 questions is that you post ten question that you believe I cannot answer about the topic. I will also give you 10 questions about socialism that I believe you cannot answer. Since this is the last chance for me to give you your questions I will do so now. Please answer them and refute my last post as well as answer these. 1. Who or what determines the value of products in a socialist country? 2. What is stopping a government from becoming corrupted or abusive? 3. Where do most jobs come from in a socialist nation? 4. What regulates what the government does in socialism? 5. What is stopping a socialist country from turning into a communist one? 6. What motivates people to do work and not live off the system in a socialist country? 7. Why do you think socialism and communism have built up such a bad reputation? 8. Why have some of the worst genocides and dictators come from communist and socialist countries? 9. Can liberties exist at all in socialism? 10. Why has communism always failed?
Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

I will start by classifying my opponents argument into one sentence. "Socialism is superior than libertarianism". So my argument will be against socialism. I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal. He stated that " there is no greater motivation to do well than competition and competitive peer pressure." This competition and peer pressure is impossible because there is no goal. It is a competition to reach nothing. In socialism making a profit is seen as thievery because you are creating inequality. Socialism is flawed because it creates a perfect condition for laziness. If I am not accountable for my actions then why do I need to be responsible. People need the gaping hole beneath them, that is the greatest motivator. The fear of poverty is what people work off of. Socialism would work perfectly if humans weren't inherently lazy by nature. If a equal life is presented to someone without any cost they will take it. My next argument will be about the positives of libertarianism. Every great idea that was ever thought of was thought of by one person, not the collective. Individual aspiration allows brilliant people to shine and contribute to the society as a whole. Without rich people there would be no jobs, most charities wouldn't receive money. In a equal society there is no motive to contribute because you won't see the result. Humans are also greedy by nature, libertarians use this human greed to improve society. Socialism forces people to give to the most inefficient charity ever, the government. If the person gave to the most efficient charity then this will ultimately go back into the public, then the rich will see society improve and give more. This is also called the trickle down theory. As long as there is competition quality, price and society will improve. My final argument will be about the state in socialism. In socialism, the government is in total control. If it becomes corrupted(China, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Germany, North Korea, Australia, ect.) then the government will take advantage of society for the "good of the people". The government is also terribly inefficient and ineffective because it regulates itself. It is not held responsible for any of its mistakes. If a society regulated itself then it would be extremely efficient and effective because it has to pay for the mistakes and it also reaps the benefits. The only purpose that the government would play would be to organize the will of the society and to take action based upon that. It would also play a role in upholding absolute objective morality that the society will agree on. People are also inherently moral beings. I now await a rebuttal, also please leave 10 question that I will attempt to answer, I will do the same at the 4th round.
Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

I will start my speech off today with two points of rebuttal: One of the main points that my opponent has raised in his substantive material can be surmised to this one sentence that he posted: ‘Quality of life doesn't improve because there is no need to be better.’ I will rebut this in two separate clauses. The first part of this sentence is, ‘quality of life doesn’t improve,’ however this is incorrect and far too narrow. Quality of life doesn’t improve significantly for one individual; however it does improve tremendously for the rest of society under the case of an equal system. The second clause of this sentence is ‘because there is no need to be better.’ This is untrue as there is no greater motivation to do well than competition and competitive peer pressure. Because what a person does under the influence of equality not only influences him/her but also the people around them in equal measure, in order to keep up the means of equality, they will feel not only intrinsic, but also extrinsic motivation, improving society a lot more than libertarianism would, as the motives for an equal society are a lot less selfish than those of libertarianism. My opponent also stated: ‘Why care if there is no one you envy.’ The base of his argument here is that in order to perform well, people need a role model who is better than them in order to care and do well in life. However if we take the principle of communism into consideration here, we can see that everyone else becomes a role model for whoever is looking for one. In an equal society, there are a near infinite amount of role models, and this motivates everyone to work harder and improve society as a tenable whole. I shall now move onto my substantive material. My first point for today is that an equal society is a far more peaceful and contented society than a libertarian one. In the case of a libertarian society, corrupt values have an abundance of areas among people who have not done well, or indeed have committed no mistakes of their own, but have ancestors who have. Moreover, it presents the world as an unfair place and this leads to discontentment among citizens which then leads to violent encounters. Many civil wars have started among citizens who have been disadvantaged because their ancestors have made political mistakes. Under an equal society, there would be no need for this unfairness that leads to righteous indignation as everyone would be equal and have an equal opportunity moving society forward as a whole. My second point is that an equal society makes a lot more progress as a whole than a libertarian one does. This is because since everyone is working for themselves as well as everyone else, they are in effect, their own master and yet also affected by those around them. This concept appeals to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which will make a lot more people work a lot harder and be a lot happier than they would be under a society dictated by the principles of liberty. This will improve the country or nation as a whole thus increasing quality of life and comforts. I now await the third round.
Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

I will start by showing how important personal liberties are. Liberty, by definition, is the state of being free of oppression. Liberties are laws or policies that prohibit oppression. If a society has liberties, then it is free from oppression. Everyone can say what they want without fear of violence or imprisonment. An individual can choose to live his/her life by his/her values and ethics. This form of society is also known as libertarianism. That is just social liberty. Economical liberty is a free market. A person could start a firm without intervention or oppression. That person would be allowed to become wealthy or poor. Oppression works both ways. In a market with liberty, there will be rich and poor. The next part of my argument is the value of personal freedoms. Personal freedoms include; choice of employees, right to have a opinion, right to raise you child how you like, and right to choice. These freedoms are essential to a free and open society that is not oppressed. The part of my argument that is actually a debate is the that these liberties and freedoms outweigh the equality. To have equality in a society, people need to be treated equally without conditions. Liberty and equality cannot co-exist. For example, if a business is very successful because it has smart employees because it only accepts applicant with a 3.75 GPA or higher, it is not equal to another business that is failing because it accepts anyone. Selective hiring creates inequality, but selective hiring is a liberty. The business inst oppressed to accept anyone, it has a choice. The freedom of choice will spark competition between businesses, this will create greater quality products for less money. This is basic capitalism. Capitalism requires economic liberties to function. If an outside force, such as a government, forces the firm to accept all employees then the system is ruined. That is just economic liberty, how about social liberty? Its almost the same a the market, if everyone is treated the same, then no progress is made. Quality of life doesn't improve because there is no need to be better. Social liberty entails the right to have and proclaim you opinion without being oppressed. If you aren't allowed to live your life the way you want to then you don't care about anything. If you aren't being held responsible for anything, like raising a child, then why care. Why care if there is no one rich that you envy? People need something the aspire to, something to achieve, this far outweighs and remote possibility of equality. Liberties and competition are what makes a society run. The progress of society and the market are the most important things that can happen. Equality amplifies irresponsibility and ignorance.
Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

I will be taking the con/negative side in this debate. I will be arguing that social and economic equality should take precedence over personal freedoms and liberties. I would kindly request the affirmative speaker to move onto round 2 and define the topic as well as provide substantive material. I shall then accept or provide an alternative definition as I choose, rebut their arguments and then provide substantive material for the negative side.Good luck and may the best debater win.
Dragons are real

It is fair to assume that dragons are not real. No fossil has ever been found of a dragon and no evidence exists to even suggest that one still exists today. Dragons were created by humans to play on our natural fears, as anthropologist David E. Jones suggests, dragons are a combination of our primitive fears of snakes, eagles and big cats, for a story and nothing more. To address your argument, you point to testimonial evidence to try and prove dragons. This does in no way prove that dragons exist. It is simple to assume that 5 teenagers 2 miles of the coast with no means of communication drowned - " a dragon did it," is quite a leap, considering the only evidence is the word of a teenager who lost 4 of his friends (if what you say is indeed true) before waking up on a beach. I would also like to point out that your second source talks about a "Legend," of the dragon. Legend is defined as "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated.' Legends are regarded as historical, but the only "evidence" for them is word of mouth, which is easy to become distorted and changed over time. Legends are "not authenticated," and the "where it was never seen again," makes it an improvable tale, and nothing more.
Dragons are real

For example Gorillas and Giant squid were 'mythical' until scientists discovered them in the 1900's. But when people talk about dragons (both the winged dragons and the giant Japanese water dragon type) they say they're mythical and fictional. Why? There's also a case where a boy was 2 miles out to sea with friends then was later found on a beach alone. When he got back and woke up, he told authorities a giant dragon with a 12 foot tall neck had killed them one by one. 1962 account from the survivor,Edward Brian McCleary http://cryptomundo.com... If dragons aren't real then what happened? (There's news archives and death records that prove those 4 teenagers really did die that day) Dragon with four legs and a pair of wings snatches traveler There is another similar account of dragon related fatalities, this time in the late 1800's about how a winged dragon with 4 legs snatched one of the travelers. The travelers said they tried to place the dragon's head over a fire to get it to release the traveller, but instead it flew up with the traveller still in its mouth and dove into Lake Chelan where it wasn't seen again. http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com... These people are all describing the same reptilian creature with a 12-15 foot tall neck. No scientifically known oceanic reptile looks like the way these people are describing. The plesiosaur, which went extinct 65 million years ago, had a neck that was far too stiff and did not look very draconic in nature, so we can rule relic plesiosaurs out.
Electoral college

Con starts off with a rough summary, but I will get to that later. I want voters to notice how he is not showing why people's wants trump people's needs.(1) it fulfills the government's commitment under the social contract, and (2) you are already making that assumption simply by choosing an election system over having Congress elect the president or something. Pro's refusal to contradict these ideas, which really are the heart of the debate, should be counted as agreement with me. And R4 will be too late for Pro to start addressing these issues. I would say that the Government's only obligation is to lead. I would even go as far to as that the Government has the upper hand in the social contract in that if someone doesn't like it, they can simply leave the country, but that is for a different debate. I don't understand why Con is getting on the details late into the debate. For "(2)", I don't know what Con is talking about. It would be the same in my eyes to have Congress elect the next president, with some changes in the details. But, to Con. The fallacy lies in the fact that the population's opinion is better then the informed one. That is simply wrong and they doesn't always go together, but EC does.That alone should persuade you to choose NPV. But even if you think the people do not inherently deserve the leader they want, EC does not actually give them a better leader. Nor does NPV, actually. You keep saying what people want is all powerful, but you haven't said why I should care, which is why you might see me "drop" your arguments. 2. There is no reason to believe... So you admit that electors have the ability to be competent. Thanks for agreeing with me. Nothing else matters here. Even you have to admit NPV is open to faults.Plus, as Pro admits, EC punishes electors for doing what they think is right instead of what they are told to do, branding them "unfaithful electors". Therefore, EC is counterproductive. So? R4 will be too late for Pro to start to support the argument that EC is a well-designed system that actually makes better decisions than the general population. What? I said R2 that EC puts the election in the hands of the Electors, and you yourself had said they can research themselves. I am afraid Con had not proving something vital for the debate: He had not shown why the peoples wants, trump peoples need. For this, his argument falls apart.Con doesn't show that EC doesn't fill the people's need, and he is appealing to emotion, riding on democracy as a proof.
Electoral college

Con's "a"Whether it is ethical or not is not in question. If a fool is elected, then it really isn't ethical, is it? I find this fallacious because it assumes because x is ethical, then y, which is from x is right/also ethical. We could go on about if Democracy is ethical but I don't want to. All in all, it doesn't touch on the reason for elections."b" I don't really get what Con is getting at,but I suppose he is saying I am taking in, so to speak, too many parts of the government at once?A reasonable government governs. Simply put, there is no reason a group of elects cannot do what NPV can"c" Sorry, what I meant is that the EC curbs the single issue voter. There is also the issue of Joe Schmoe appealing to Urban issues and bring a token effort for rural areas, which would happen if NPV is applied. Pro does not contradict #2. I agree with this, but to the rest of that paragraph, you basically are assuming the population cannot be wrong which is an ad pop. argument. Thus why it is baseless.I have not seen an answer to why the population is magically right, but electors are not, and why NPV is so right. Or even why there are elections in the first place. There has been plenty of lynch mobs and all that sweet stuff, so people are not magically ethic or right then. So I ask Con why the population is right and why their views matter. Do not strawman this as a support for authoritarianism.
Electoral college

I accept. I believe this debate would be about if the Elector College System is better then the national voting. Which is odd, because America has both. American voters basically elect the Electors, and they vote for Joe Schmoe at their political get-togethers. "The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The President and Vice President are not elected directly by the voters. Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis." Source: Wikipedia. I believe there is no misunderstandings, so I accept.