BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The gift of debating and speaking isn't necessarily good.

Top of the morning to you. Or afternoon or evening or whenever.The resolution is simple: The gift of debating isn't necessarily goodwe will be using the following definitions: gift:a natural ability or talent."he has a gift for comedy" synonyms: talent, flair, aptitude, facility, knack, technique, touch, bent, ability,expertise, capacity, capability, power, faculty debate: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner. speech: a formal address or discourse delivered to an audience. I will argue in favor of the resolution that being extremely talented in debating and speech isn't necessarily a good thing and might not be in favor for the general population. 5 rounds, 4 will be used for debating, 72 hours to post the argument, 10.000 characters, a month of voting time (why so long? Because I felt like it.)Few ground rules:1. There will be four rounds, with one round for acceptance, rules or dismissal (see below). 2. my opponent has the choice of going first and present his arguments in the first round. if he chooses to do so he must type in the fourth and final round for something akin to "No round as agreed upon". 3. If you chose to use sources they must be properly cited (a.k.a No plagiarism) 4. try to make structured and logical arguments. Trolls not allowed.5. no forfeits. I'd appreciate it if you can make the most of your rounds. 6. try and follow the round structure below Failure to follow these rules by either party will result in a 7 point penalty.The round structure is as followed for either party:Round 1: Rules set by Pro, Con accepts or starts his opening statement.Round 2: Opening statements by both parties. If Con was first he may post his rebuttals.Round 3: Rebuttals by both parties.Round 4: further Rebuttals by both parties: If Con went first He'll post his final rebuttals and closing statement.round 5: Closing statements. If Con went first he forfeits this round and Pro won't make any new arguments as Con cannot refute them. If Pro went first Con won't make any new arguments as pro cannot refute them. Any further discussion, questions or revisions on the rules and structure of the debate should be posted in the comments in order to avoid any unfortunate disagreements or misunderstandings once the debate starts.everything clear? good. Good luck and happy debating.
The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

Con has made a fallacy. He makes a Red Herring in his rebuttal for my two points. Also he needs to note the 'ought'. He never proven it is moral to avoid homosexual campers. Private Organisation [sic] or not it is still immoral. My opponent was burdened to show that the current membership policy is immoral, not the other way around. He did not meet that burden when I cast serious doubts on his arguments. Again Red Herring. Saying to a group of people "you cant [sic] join. " is bullying. With intent. All I have to prove its [sic] immoral to not allow gays in. Con fails to prove otherwise. Fallacy of Bare Assertion. I already showed that my opponent can't simply call it bullying. He must argue that it is so. I will not go into the female part for it is a Red Herring. My opponent's whole case assumes that the BSA's membership is immoral because it is discriminatory, but he did not elaborate on whether or not some discrimination is wrong and some is right. If discriminating against girls is right and against homosexual boys is wrong—keeping in mind that this is a privately owned club—then he must explain why that is. Calling it a red herring is tantamount to throwing in the towel.
The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

Con has made a fallacy. He makes a Red Herring in his rebuttal for my two points. Also he needs to note the 'ought'. He never proven it is moral to avoid homosexual campers. Private Organisation or not it is still immoral. Rebuttal 1- Again Red Herring. Saying to a group of people "you cant join." is bullying. With intent. All I have to prove its immoral to not allow gays in. Con fails to prove otherwise. I will not go into the female part for it is a Red Herring.
The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

My opponent seems to overlook something crucial in this debate. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a private club. Membership in the BSA is not a prerequisite for anything else. It is a values-based organization designed to instill predetermined values into its members. Those values are determined by the BSA leadership. My opponent certainly disagrees with the BSA's values, but that is irrelevant as there are plenty of other similar organizations to choose from such as Navigators USA, which is "coed, non-religious, and inclusive." [1]So, what is really at stake here? Do homosexuals really lose anything? Are their rights really crushed? I can understand that homosexuals desiring to enter into the BSA are disappointed, but I imagine there are girls out there who are disappointed also. I argue that disappointment is not enough to support the resolution.Let's look at my opponent's two contentions:It is immoralbul·ly - A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people. A hired ruffian; a thug. [2]I fail to see how the BSA is objectively engaging in bullying here. Sure, it might feel like bullying to those denied membership, but there is no objective evidence that discrimination is happening with the intention of being cruel. Is the BSA really strong and homosexuals weak? When you consider that society is increasingly accepting of homosexuality, it seems to me that the people are in a stronger position to vote with their membership. Join Navigators and watch the BSA membership decline into oblivion.If the BSA is bullying homosexuals, then it is also bullying females. My opponent must objectively show how some discrimination is bullying and some is not.Gays are not bad for the other kidsNeither are girls, so why is it okay to deny them membership?ConclusionIf you want to support a scouting organization that allows gay membership, then do it. They already exist. Support them. It's your right and, dare I say, your duty to do so if you want to send a clear message to more conservative minding organizations. Perhaps twenty years from now the BSA will fade away as progressive values become dominant in America. Perhaps then the BSA will reconsider their membership policies. In the meantime, the BSA is under no moral obligation to admit members that are not in line with their preferred values.The BSA ought to choose its own membership policies as it sees fit.Sources http://www.troop97.net... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

It is immoralIt is bullying to deny someone of an activity on the basis of sexuality. Such low bully cannot be moral or train boys for the real world. Gays are not bad for the other kidsGays in the grand scheme of things are not any more different then anyone one esle. There is no reason gays would badly effect the other members for that, again , gays usually act normal. There really is no need to be straight to be a Boys Scout because what the hell would that do? Scaremongering parents are unrightfully dividing the much needed straight/gay relationships. BSA ought to let homosexuals into the program.
The BSA ought to let homosexual males into the BSA

http://dictionary.reference.com... (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help. 2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed. 3. (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers. BSA- The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is one of the largest youth organizations in the United States, with 2.7 million youth members and over 1 million adult volunteers.[2] Since its founding in 1910 as part of the international Scout Movement, more than 110 million Americans have been members of the BSA.[3] The BSA goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance through participation in a wide range of outdoor activities, educational programs, and, at older age levels, career-oriented programs in partnership with community organizations http://en.wikipedia.org... "let into" means become a member as is most everyone else in the organization. 1- Con may post agreements R1 but as doing so s/he accepts my terms 2- No semantics/'lawyering'. Doing so is the lost of conduct. 3- Have fun.
Climate Change Exists

This will be a quick debate on whether or not (man-made) Climate Change exists.The debate structure will be as so: - Round1: Acceptance - Round 2: Main arguments - Round 3: RebuttalsThis means you can not reply to any claims during round 2 or provide any additional arguments in round 3 that are not in reply to the arguments presented in round 2. Try to keep the debate civil and have fun. :)(NOTE: Do not accept if you are unsure that you can commit to the debate.)
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

As I stated earier you have the burden of proof, meaning that you must prove the thesis that you created to be false. Since Franklin Roosevelt was not a king you cannot do that, meaning I win. Also, if you wanted to have a reasonable debate about the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (something I would have enjoyed) you should not have chosen to title him King Franklin the First and instead referred to him by his actual name, no matter what your opinion of the actual person was.
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

My opponent has dropped all of his arguments and conceded all of mine. This is rather unfortunate, as I was hoping to debate whether or not he was a good ruler. If there was no ruler of the United States named King Roosevelt the First, then he could not have been a great ruler. Therefore, the resolution is negated. One has to exist in order to to be "wonderful", "first-rate", or "very good". In order to be a great ruler of the United States, one must actually be a ruler of the United States. Good try, though. My opponent conceded that the resolution is negated, dropped all my arguments, dropped all of his arguments, and then argued on fallacy.
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

"Resolution negated." I win. Perhaps my opponent has forgotten that he is PRO. I will now allow my opponent to drop this argument, so that hopefully this can only be a debate about whether or not King Franklin I was a great ruler. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent contends that because FDR was not in congress to pass a law; therefore, he was not unconstitutional. However, he signed these bills into law, proposed them, campaigned on them, and rammed them through congress. It is absurd to say that he is not in the least responsible for them. My opponent concedes that FDR did not follow the constitution. My opponent also concedes that the New Deal did not work, that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, and that overall he was a bad ruler. The only thing that he contended was that FDR was a king. http://www.youtube.com... Because FDR had solemnly swore to uphold the constitution (see video) and then defied it, he has committed perjury. Good rulers do not commit perjury. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent claims that kings never have checks on their power. This is absurd, as constitutional monarchies exist, such as Canada http://www.cbc.ca..., and many Kings had limited power. For example, King George of Britain had an elected Parliament that had legislative power http://www.7cs.com.... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I will now stop and let my opponent speak.
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

"And, if he is not a king, then the resolution is obviously negated." Great. So my opponent has admitted that all I must prove his whether or not Franklin Roosevelt was a King. As I previously stated, and cited a reference for, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the office of President four times. Compare this to how many times any king has come up for election or re-election. That number is 0. Future Kings are known from their time of birth, as it is family lineage and not elections that crown a king. For instance, we all know that at one point Prince William (if he lives long enough) will become King of England. However, despite a distant family connection, no one knew with certainty that Franklin Roosevelt would become the "king" of America. Now to my final point, let me reference something from the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..." http://www.archives.gov... If you read the entire text of the Constitution you will see that it makes no reference to a "king" having any part in the government. Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an office in the United States, the United States does not have a king, therefore Franklin Roosevelt could not have been a king. Resolution negated. However, I will address some of your other points. The National Recovery Adminstration was allowed to be created by the passing of the National Recovery Act, an act passed by the congress of the United States in 1933. Franklin Roosevelt was not a member of congress, therefore (as per the previously cited Constitution) he could not have enacted this law, he simply signed it into law. The same is true of the other adminstrations you mentioned. You mentioned that some of these administrations were ruled unConstitutional, but how is that possible if Franklin Roosevelt had absolute power with no checks? Since the supreme court checked his power as President he could not have been a king with absolute power.
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

"King Franklin I, also known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not a good monarch." Franklin Roosevelt was neither a king nor a monarch. As such it cannot be positively stated whether or not he would have been a good monarch. For instance, I have never played the sport of frisbee golf, therefore it cannot be stated whether or not I'm a good frisbee golfer because I have never been one. Franklin Roosevelt was never a king nor a monarch so it cannot be stated whether he was good or bad at these things. Arguments that Franklin Roosevelt was a good President: 1. He saw the country through the greatest financial and pesonal crisis it has ever faced: The Great Depression. a. Unemployment rates fell every year (except 1938) that Roosevelt was President. http://www.huppi.com... As this link shows, when Roosevelt took office unemployment was at 24.9 percent. With the exception of 1938, this number fell every year of his tenure in office. b. In 1936 alone GPD rose under Roosevelt's leadership by 14.1 percent and unemployment fell to 16.9 percent. c.Roosevelt was faced with an unprecidented crisis and he followed unprecidented measures to deal with it. In doing so he was following the example left by Abraham Lincoln (a devoted lover of the Constitution) in taking extreme measures to deal with an extreme problem. 2. He lead the country during one of the most important and bloody struggles this country has ever faced: World War II. World War II was a dangerous undertaking and Roosevelt's leadership during the majority of the war proved to be invaluable to the cause of the allies. He initiated the lend-lease program, which kept American lives save and yet helped provide aid for a much beleagured Britian. When the United States did enter the war he selected Dwight Eisenhower over George Patton to be the supreme allied commander. This appointment was genius as Eisenhower was the perfect man to lead the allied forces. Roosevelt was able to effectively deal with Churchhill and Stalin in creating a coalition that was able to stop the Nazi threat. 3. He was reelected by wide margins: http://www.infoplease.com... One of the great things about living in this country is that we are able to voice our opinions both in the public media and at the ballot box. This is one of the things that make Presidents and Monarchs different. Franklin Roosevelt ran for President four times and four times he received both the most electoral votes and the most popular votes. As you can see from the link Roosevelt was never really in danger of losing any election: 32: 472 to 59 36:523 to 8 40: 449 to 82 44: 432 to 99 A vast majority of the people of this country obviously liked what Roosevelt was doing. Which makes sense, given the fact that he pulled the country out of an economic disaster and lead this country in defeat of the Nazis.
That, on balance, King Franklin the First was a great ruler of the United States.

http://www.princeton.edu... http://www.youtube.com... King Franklin I, also known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not a good monarch. Between the New Deal, treatment of Japanese Americans, and being generally unconstitutional, King Franklin I can not be called a great ruler. great- wonderful; first-rate; very good http://dictionary.reference.com... I am CON, and will allow PRO to present his/her case first.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

Same sex marriage is not and will not be the cause of the human species depletion. It is just physically impossible; in order for the reproduction of human beings to end would be in the case of every human on this planet was engaging in sexual intercourse with the same sex. there are approximately 7.046 billion people in this world out of that billion maybe only 20% of that percentile would be engaging in homosexuality.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

i disagreed. the only reason why same sex marriages gives those partners a chance to have children, either through a surrogate person or other medical way is because of technology. if the world was like it was 50 years back and these technology did not exist, than chances are people who are involved in same sex marriage culture, would not have no way of reproducing and the world would cease to exist. this is in part because it is unnatural to use technology in order obtain a child.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

It is up to the person to ask questions for their own well being when it comes to medical matters; by law a doctor cannot withhold information against you. Every risk is taken into account and is either agreed upon or disagreed,but the notion stands that new possibilities are in the making that is giving people more opportunities. homosexuals are equal to every other human being they can have children;morality is different than equality in this because reproduction will never end life continues.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

that may be true but we still have to take into an account that many medical professionals are greedy when it comes to money and may not disclose all the possible risk of being a surrogated mother. therefore, being a surrogated mother opens a door way to get money from these poor souls. since this can occur, it is best for males and females to have sex the natural way and make their kids naturally without surrogation. after that, it up to them to decide who should have custody of the kids.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

There is a risk in any medical aspect when it comes to bearing a child. That is why it is in the benefit of the person to always be medically informed; the choice is theirs whether or not they will continue with the pregnancy if it is considered high risk. There are organizations that specialize and monitor in surrogacy; there are extensive background checks and interviews taken place when deciding the well being of the mother and child at hand. thus giving same sex couples more opportunities.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

i disagreed. although you have a valid point that through Vitro fertilization the future same sex parents won't need to assumed the future risk medically, by having an outside source like a surrogate volunteer to develop their kid, there is nevertheless a risk in general for any females who goes through the Surrogate process. giving birth to a child the natural way is a risk of the mother or child to die in the process. having a surrogated mother might increase that chance.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

I disagree many homosexuals take part in the adoption process as well as using Surrogate volunteers. Reproduction is a natural fundamental process that is rooted within our human DNA that is why so many same sex couples in today's world feel that they have the right to be parents. This feeling will not just disappear weather or not it is cost efficient there is no price on the natural maternal instinct I'm both males and females.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

i disagree, mainly because Vitro fertilization is still in its development stage. although this medical procedure did come along way it still not 100 percent effective. there are still many complication and side effect involved in this procedure. plus think about the cost to do this procedure. many same sex personnel might not be able to afford this procedure or may not want to proceed in this procedure for fear of losing their spouses in the process. therefore, it best to go the natural way.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

20% is an estimate out of the billions of people that are actually out in this world. whether the chance is big or small homosexuality is not taking over the world. regardless if people engage in homosexual activities these men and women still have the opportunity to bring new life into this world. It is not impossible these days in Vitro fertilization has come a long way in aiding the process of gay men as well as gay women in achieving a child of their own; We still rely on the opposite sex.
Same sex marriage cannot be the cause for the end of the world's population

there is no such thing as being impossible. Anything is possible these days. for example, how you say it is possible for only 20 percent of the world population to be engage in sexual intercourse with the same sex, so is it also possible that there is a 100 percent chance for all people in the world to engage in same sex marriage. although the possibility may be small it is still a possibility, that if occurs might be the end of mind kind.
Kids Eat Too Much Sugar

I am representing the affirmative side of the argument, "Kids Eat too Much Sugar." Childhood obesity greatly increased in the past 30 years. The percentage of children aged 6"11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to almost 18% in 2012. And what is the main cause of this fact? Unhealthy eating. To specify, the incessant amounts of sugar laced into our foods. Many food companies nowadays produce so much sugar in there drinks, and food products. An example is soda. Mountain Dew, a very sugary drink, contains 77 grams of sugar in a 20 ounce bottle! That's a lot! Because there is so much sugar in food and beverages, it makes them taste even more appealing to the tongue, which makes it more addicting. That's why kids eat too much of it.