BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Would Condem American Actions During The Cold War

To some extent, you are right. The Soviet Union did control opposing ethnic groups, but at what cost? Stalin alone killed around 20 million people. Billions lived under undemocratic, repressive regimes with inadequate resources to live happily. Despite internal strife, countries deserve the right to self-determination. To quote Patrick Henry; "Give me liberty or give me death! " And what of the near-death experience of the world? Perhaps the Soviet Union kept smaller powers down, but it also helped to increase nuclear proliferation. The fact that North Korea has a nuclear weapon is due partly to America's sloppy invasion and partly due to the fact the U. S. S. R did not do anything about their nuclear ambitions when they had the chance. Beyond that, world-wide nuclear proliferation largely started because of the sharing of technology by the U. S and U. S. S. R with other states during the Cold War. At the same time, although a nuclear strike would be devastation, it would not be nearly as devastating as thousands of subsequent nuclear strikes that would destroy the modern world. Your two points, while logical, do not stand up against the wealth of evidence to the contrary.
This House Would Condem American Actions During The Cold War

One positive outcome of the cold war is that although, the Soviet Union was a horrible dictatorship, it did keep certain ethnic groups in check. By controlling a certain country, the Soviet Union did not allow civil unrest. The end of the Cold War brought about the current unrest in the Balkens. The Balkens have always been considered the powder keg of Europe, because of so many different ethnic groups living in one area, and each wanting to claim themselves to be a sovereign nation. Well with a limited amount of space, not every group can have a piece for themselves, hence the Bosnian wars and genocide of the 1990's. The Cold War, and mostly the Soviet Union kept these groups completely controlled. Another positive of the cold war, is that with the Soviet Union still a major power, one of two actually, it kept other smaller, more ambitious countries from gaining too much power. That is why there is a huge problem now with North korea, there is no major power to control them. This house will not condem the cold war
Curling - the obsessive cleaner's sport!

My opponent just missed the deadline to post her argument. That is a shame, actually, but never mind, there's another round to go. In the meantime, with the China 2008 games approaching, I was wondering what the origins of the Olympic sports were and so I did some research. Apparently, warriors in ancient Greece used to compete with each other, for example, to see who could throw a spear the furthest. This became the javelin event in the modern games. However the history of some of the other events is less obvious. For instance, in the days of the ancient Greeks, gunpowder was unknown outside China and so their canons wouldn't fire. The warriors, therefore, had to take the cannonballs out and throw them at their enemies themselves, and this discipline eventually became the shot put event. As most people know, lesbians are named after the Greek island of Lesbos, where female homosexuality first evolved. In those days, the lesbians sunbathed on the beach naked because bikinis hadn't yet been invented. Naturally, their nude antics soon attracted the attention of the local garrison of soldiers and they all used to go down to the beach to gawp at the women, probably hoping to witness some girl-on-girl action, although the history books do not specifically record this. Anyway, the lesbians quickly became irritated by the close attention of the ogling warriors so they built a big wall round the beach to keep them away. However, the ingenious soldiers discovered that they could use a large branch to help them leap over the wall and this developed into the pole vault event. Greek food has not changed much over the millennia and in the days of the ancient Greeks, soldiers were forced to eat vine leaves stuffed with rice and fermented vegetables and other gruesome dishes that you can still find in Greek restaurants today. One mealtime, a warrior had a fit of understandable frustration, stood up and said "I've had enough of eating this muck, I can't wait until someone invents the hamburger" and he threw his plate away in disgust. His fellow soldiers duly followed suit and this developed into the discus event. I bet not many of you knew these facts. Now you will be able to impress your friends and relatives with your superior knowledge of the Olympics this summer.
Curling - the obsessive cleaner's sport!

I was distressed to learn that obsessive cleaners exhibit the extreme reactions my opponent described when they don't get their fix of their household chores. I must admit, I've never heard of this condition and my opponent offered no source or reference to support her assertions, but she seems to know what she is talking about so we should take her word for it. It seems to me that these people really need help. I mean, if throwing a Wendy and trashing the place isn't bad enough, people that deliberately smear excrement on the walls must be seriously disturbed. Actually, they remind me a bit of those kleptomaniacs who steal things even though they can afford to pay for them, like that Winona Ryder... (http://www.courttv.com... These sufferers need counseling, help and advice, but there doesn't seem to be any organization out there for them to approach. Since my opponent seems to care a great deal about these people and is, apparently, very knowledgeable about their debilitating condition, perhaps she could start up a charity to help them? I would suggest calling it the Friends of Obsessive Cleaners and Kleptomaniacs (FOCK). I've even thought of an advertising campaign for her: "Can't stop cleaning? Or can't stop shoplifting? Then why don't you go to FOCK? If you are seeking compassionate, sensitive, understanding advice, then FOCK offers you that, free of charge, no matter how demented you are." So, if my opponent accepts her duty to society, she would be able to offer mentally-ill scrubbing fanatics sympathy and guidance, which will of be huge benefit to them and, thus, the world would be a better place. But wait, there's more! She could be of practical help too. Imagine some frothing nutjob with Obsessive Cleaning Syndrome calls my opponent and tells her that her local curling rink is closed and, as a consequence, she has taken leave of her senses and smashed her flat up. She would, no doubt sat something like: "Never mind, deary, these things happen. In fact I've just put the phone down to Mr. Uttascombe. He couldn't find his sponges so he went Radio Rental and trashed his sitting room. The poor man, apparently all his neighbours heard the noise and gathered round his front window to watch. What a shame! He told me that they were cocking themselves laughing as he smeared faeces up his Laura Ashley wallpaper. But hold on, I've got an idea…" And then my opponent could arrange for her to go to his place to clean up the mess and for him to go her place to reciprocate. You see, everyone's a winner, man! Even me, because it negates the need for evil, socially destructive winter sports like curling.
Curling - the obsessive cleaner's sport!

I feel sorry for my poor opponent who has unfortunately come to associate the beautiful sport of curling with pain and being forced to clean. But unfortunately for you there is a certain aspect of the obsessive cleaner's that you seem to be unaware of. They are slightly insane (well no surprises there! ), and unfortunately if they do not immerse themselves in a physically demanding sport such as curling they will behave like an unwalked dog, with the general symptoms being running around the place, knocking over furniture and creating a general mess, yes even messier then your "pigsty" of a flat. Imagine that! They may even revert back to the old habits of childhood, sometimes using the walls/ furniture etc. as one would generally see fit to use a toilet in protest! A person with such obsessive cleaning power simply must have their "needs" provided for. No home could be too messy for one of these people. No Brian, not even yours. These obsessively clean people simply need their sport in order to retain their sanity. They have exceptionally high energy levels. Unfortunately a messy home is simply not physically demanding enough. And as they would eventually end up knocking everything over and destroying the home, the thought of living in such a disgusting area would perhaps make them lose their mind completely, if left in that situation for too long. The symptoms are generally staying for most of the day in a toilet, insane laughter, often calling out the words "who is clean enough NOW? " and eating ones excrement.
Curling - the obsessive cleaner's sport!

I am particularly pleased to discuss the sport of curling because I feel very strongly that it should most certainly not be "proclaimed as the international sport for obsessive cleaner's". No, it should be banned altogether because it makes non-curling men who hate cleaning lives a misery. Let me illustrate why with a short tale of misery and woe… In 2002 I watched the Great Britain women's curling team win gold in the Winter Olympics on the telly in my flat in London, which looked like a pigsty, as usual. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... I learned that the entire team came from Scotland, where the sport was invented and is quite popular, and I thought "those Scottish girls look pretty handy with a broom, maybe I'll move up there and find a bonnie wee lassie to move in and clean up after me", and so I did. I went down to the curling rink and found a girlfriend who I carefully selected for her good looks, charming personality and, most importantly, her formidable skills with a brush. I thought my days of living in filth and degradation would soon be over, but I didn't think it through. She spent so much time at the rink that when she came home she was too tired to clean up. Worse still, because she was obsessive about cleanliness, she nagged me to death about how dirty and untidy the place was and demanded that I should get up and brush the floor myself! I did get up, actually, and moved back to England, where there are no curling rinks and girlfriends do not have the opportunity to waste their cleaning skills outside the home. That is why I must certainly challenge my opponent's assertion that obsessive cleaners need an international sport – they don't. Instead, they can all come round to my place where I will time them to see who cleans up the quickest and award a box of chocolates to the winner.
Curling - the obsessive cleaner's sport!

Curling: a sport played by two teams of four players each on a rectangular sheet of carefully prepared ice. Teams take turns sliding heavy, polished granite stones down the ice towards the target (which is called the house). Two sweepers with brooms accompany each rock and use timing equipment and their best judgment along with direction from their other team mates to help direct the stones to their resting place Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... An obsessive cleaner is someone who is obsessed with cleanliness- i.e. everything MUST be clean. This part of their character is incorporated into almost every aspect of their life I am in favour of the topic. Curling is THE sport for obsessive cleaning people. I am not in any way saying that curling is for no one else- only that curling should be proclaimed as the international sport for obsessive cleaner's You may ask why? 1) Curling involves the sweeping of the broom, effectively "cleaning" the surface of the ice. ClEANER'S NEED THEIR SPORT! 2) Obsessive cleaner's do not have an international sport. They need one, it is simply a part of their identity!
0.999... is equal to 1

Even though I'm taking a tough stance, I won't forfeit. I have an idea that will help me in this argument.Rebuttal:Intuition:In short, 1/3 (0.333...) x 3 = 1 (Or 0.999...). Let's check a bit closer.1/3 x 3 = 3/3. This is 3 thirds, or in other words, 1.0.333... x 3 = 0.999... Let's cross these equations and see if they make sense:If 1/3 = 0.333..., then: 0.333... x 3 = 1. 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999... Not exactly 1. Let's try the other combination and see if it makes sense.If 0.333... = 1/3, then: 1/3 x 3 = 0.999... We got 3 whole thirds, so they should equal 1, not 0.999...We have conflicting equations. There are 2 ways to explain this: Either 1/3 is not 0.333... or 1 = 0.999.My opponent then states the same thing with 1/9. Well, I've tried to convert 1/18 and 1/36 into decimals to attempt to refute this point, they're infinitely repeating.Philosophy:Since there's no number between 0.999... and 1, they must be the same. I can't really refute that with a counter example...Math:"10x-x = 9.999... - 0.999... (substitution and subtraction postulates)" I see. Subtracting one tenth. I actually agree with this method...Argument:*sigh* I'm forced to concede on a lot of Pro's points. However, I've come up with my own argument showing that 1 isn't exactly 0.999... My method is math, of course.1 x 2 = 20.999... x 2 = 1.999999999....8The "8" is not a typo. Multiplying 0.9999... x 2 would (eventually...) have an 8 at the end. No matter how many 9's we write down, it would come out as 1.9999999....8. When multiplying, you start at the end of the number (Example: 17 x 3, we'd first do 3 x 7, than add that to 3 x 10), or at least it's easiest like that.When multiplying 9 x 2, we get 18. Taking that 1 from the tens place, we move on to the next 9, and get 18, adding the forementioned 1, creating 19. Taking the 1 from the tens place, we move on to the next 9, get 19, and repeat the process.Since the number is 1.99999....8, there's a number between it, and 2; 1.99999... Under the philosophical law, no number must exist between two numbers in order for them to be the same.Since 1 x 2 = 2, and 0.999... x 2 = 1.99999....8, and 1.9999... exists between 2 and 1.99999....8, 2 and 1.999...8 aren't the same number. To assume the factors (1 and 0.999...) are the same, despite having different multiples, wouldn't make much sense.I admit I'm unable to refute my opponent's arguments. However, my own argument has a point. So what say you, Pro? Are you going to refute my arument?
0.999... is equal to 1

I will boil my explanation for the two numbers 0.999. .. and 1 being equivalent down into three components; Intuition, Philosophy, and Mathematical Proof. If at any point I use faulty mathematics, I strongly encourage my opponent to call me out on it. Point 1: Intuition Arguably the least intensive approach in understanding why these two numbers have to have the same value is through pure mathematical intuition. I`m unsure how easy it is to express numerical equations on here, but I will do my best. We will start by taking the decimal representation of the number 1/3 (one-third). 1/3 has the repeating decimal representation of 0.333. .. If you add 1/3 to itself three times, you get: (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) = 0.333. .. + 0.333. .. + 0.333. .. = 0.999. .. However, a number added to itself three times is simply three times that number. i. e. 3(1/3) = 3/3 = 1 Therefore, it must hold true that 0.999. .. = 1 In other words, if you take three thirds of something, you have one whole. You could construct the exact same argument by taking nine copies of 1/9 with (obviously) the same result that 0.999. .. = 1. Point 2: Philosophy By definition, in order for two numbers to have different value, there must exist an infinite amount of numbers between them. For example, 1 and 2 are not equivalent since 1.5 exists between them. For the same reason, 1 and 1.5 are not equivalent, 1.5 and 2 are not equivalent, etc. However, since there exists no number between 0.999. .. and 1, it must logically follow that they are the same number. Numbers which have the same value can be represented in a literally-infinite different number of ways. 2 is the same as 8/4, which is the same as 1+5-3, which is the same as the infinite sum ,etc. 0.999. .. and 1 are simply two different ways to express the same value. Part 3: Mathematical Proof I will use the two most popular proofs in explaining why 0.999. .. and 1 must be equivalent. Proof #1: Let x = 0.999. .. 10x = 9.999. .. (multiply both sides by 10) 10x-x = 9.999. .. - 0.999. .. (substitution and subtraction postulates) 9x = 9 x = 1 Therefore, 0.999. .. = 1 Proof #2: 0.999. .. can be expressed as the infinite sum This is a geometric sum which can be simplified using the equation . In other words, we get . This simplifies to 1, again proving the two values` equivalency. Sources: . http://math.fau.edu... . http://www.purplemath.com...
0.999... is equal to 1

New to the website, thought I`d give a topic I`m pretty familiar with a try for my first debate. Accepting this debate means you will argue that the two values 0.999... and 1 are not numerically equivalent (i.e. they have different values). I am arguing they have the exact same value, no rounding required. You may use any logic or reasoning you wish, the rules are very lax for this debate. Definitions: = (Equal) : Having the same value 0.999... : a repeating sequence of nines, read as“zero point nine repeating,” “zero point nine reoccuring,” etc. Round 1: Accepting debate Round 2: Pro and Con make their opening statements and arguments, providing proofs to support their claims if able. Round 3: Pro and Con rebut each other`s claims, providing any new information/evidence to the contrary if necessary. Round 4: Conclusions (any final and closing statements) Happy debating!
Social Security

I have enjoyed having this debate, and it has proved to be very stimulating. Defense: " is true that it requires taxes and that workers are going to pay taxes. This is a fact. When I said that it discriminates, it is not because taxes themselves exist, but because they pay 1.45% of their income if their income is below the tax base of $118,500. Hence, poor and middle class individuals are hurt but those with more money are not You never explain how they are hurt. There does need to be reform in the system. Bernie Sanders has offered to tax the wealthy in order to save social security. . http://thehill.com... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This is precicely how Social Security works. Old investors are paid by having new investors; similarly, one generation is paid for by the next generation. Like a Ponzi Scheme, it will eventually run out of new payers because of population change. As I said in round 2, in 2011, 54 million people received benefits and 157 million people were paying. " Again, my attack will still stay on this argument. The young investors start gaining money in social security when they become older. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After this, my opponent states some statistics about Social Security and then makes the point that if Social Security is cut, "47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income. " This is a fair point, but he does not take into account that this will happen naturally and will affect everyone on Social Security by 2036, My opponent concedes to this claim. There needs to be some simple reform in the social security system, but it does mean that the whole system should be deleted. A lot of old people depend on social security still.
Social Security

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for providing his rebuttals. This round is for counter-rebuttals.RebuttalsMy opponent starts by talking about my point about discrimination against the poor and middle class. He says, "Social Security requires taxes. Workers are going to pay taxes. I don't see a problem with the taxes, because it does have benefits for the elderly. It allows the elderly to live a stable life, and enjoy the rest of their years." It is true that it requires taxes and that workers are going to pay taxes. This is a fact. When I said that it discriminates, it is not because taxes themselves exist, but because they pay 1.45% of their income if their income is below the tax base of $118,500. Hence, poor and middle class individuals are hurt but those with more money are not.Next, my opponent asks how it is a Ponzi Scheme. Let me again define a Ponzi Scheme: According to Investopedia, "The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop." This is precicely how Social Security works. Old investors are paid by having new investors; similarly, one generation is paid for by the next generation. Like a Ponzi Scheme, it will eventually run out of new payers because of population change. As I said in round 2, in 2011, 54 million people received benefits and 157 million people were paying. The next year, 56 million people were receiving and 158 million people were paying. As you can see, the gap is closing. By 2023, there will not be enough people paying to cover the cost needed. This is how it is a Ponzi Scheme.After this, my opponent states some statistics about Social Security and then makes the point that if Social Security is cut, "47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income." This is a fair point, but he does not take into account that this will happen naturally and will affect everyone on Social Security by 2036, according to the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal and Old Age Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. Now, I would not advocate for the cutting of Social Security for those who based their retirement planning on it, but I would certainly advocate for the cutting of it for those not yet on it. Why? Because it will cease to exist within the next few decades and pays people using the money from the brow of hardworking Americans.My opponent gives no more rebuttals, so I must stop here.ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have sufficiently refuted my opponent's rebuttals. Sources[1] https://www.ssa.gov...;[2] http://www.investopedia.com...;[3] http://journalistsresource.org...;
Social Security

This is the rebuttal round, and I will give them now. Rebuttals: "First, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. " Social Security requires taxes. Workers are going to pay taxes. I don't see a problem with the taxes, because it does have benefits for the elderly. It allows the elderly to live a stable life, and enjoy the rest of their years. Ponzi Scheme-How is it a Ponzi Scheme? Young investors will also acquire these benefits once they become old. The system will never collapse. The only way it will collapse is if American wealth starts to deter. "54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. " -Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. -Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. If my opponent cuts social security, than 47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I will defend my attacks on the pension plan in the next round.