BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is Flat

The world is obviously round. We have a bunch of evidence to support this and deny that the world is flat. If the world is flat then how do you explain seasons and different time zones? Can you fall off the edge of the world? The answer is no. We have covered this topic hundreds of years ago. We also have evidence from outer space. We (as human beings) have been in outer space and have taken photos and videos of our beautiful "round" earth. If you do not believe that people have been to outer space, we still have satellites that take pictures of the earth. So try me.
Bernie Sanders would be a better president than libertarian, Gary Johnson

Many thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge. Pro has agreed to these parameters for this debate: While better is an ambiguous term in defining a president's success, for the sake of this discussion we will be arguing the merit of each candidate's platforms. We are debating overall better values for this country based on where the candidates stand on key issues. I will be arguing that Gary Johnson is on the right/better side of important issues than Sanders in ideology. As such, he and his platforms would be better suited to lead the United States if they were to come to fruition. We are to compare the candidate's platforms -- not the actual limitations of the presidency as it pertains to political gridlock. Fortunately, I believe Bernie Sanders is the 2nd best (mainstream) candidate for POTUS. Therefore I don't have to waste character space highlighting his poor temperament a la Donald Trump, or corrupt history in politics like say Hillary Clinton. Thus in this debate I will highlight where Gary Johnson's platforms is superior to Bernie's, specifically. I look forward to a great discussion! Thanks.
Bernie Sanders would be a better president than libertarian, Gary Johnson

Given that this is the conclusion round I will only address the direct request for comment. I do not personally have a concern with the use of subsidies, but as a governor he said one thing and then did another, if a candidate says they will not use government funding because that adds to the deficit then they should not be asking or accept subsidies in his state. And by valuing Bernie's viewpoints, it is shown that the liberal way of running the government with the use of subsidies for those who need help helped the state's economy. NOW, as for your question on moving off shore, which I have answered before. Do you feel comfortable living in a country where the richest run it? The richest people in this country do not get to hold their billions over our heads and use it as leverage. One of Bernie's plans would be taxing money even if it resides in a foreign countries banks, like the caymans. So honestly, yes it may drive the richest to move their money elsewhere, but both candidates agree we should get private interests out of politics, and by allowing them to hold their wealth over our heads we are kissing the constitution goodbye. There is also no proof that having jobs in third world countries help them because in their capitalist states the entire system is corrupt and they do not get paid enough to live on. As for pollution, your own quote helps my case, "One of the largest" not the largest. And 4.5 times doesn't make it greater than the use of private land. Ultimately what people have to consider is do they value the last 100 years of change in this country brought about by a corrupt upper class. Every single social program has been created to help people, and most have been created because individuals were being taken advantage of because they had no say in their society. If a person's only goal is to balance the budget, and reduce our debt, than Gary Johnson is probably your man. But if your goal is to provide the best way of life for people in this country, I don't see how cutting and eliminating programs that help people that could not survive without government assistance is going to make this country a better place. That is the part Gary Johnson overlooks, he is so focused on the economics of his policies he does not consider the ramifications of giving big business all the power in the world. This is not to say the debt is not important, or that Sanders doesn't care about it because he does, but this country is more than just financial policy. There are millions of people in this country who count on the government every day for support, both old and young, who have provided for this country or currently are. And it didn't work out for them, they couldn't save enough money for retirement, it isn't their fault, but part of what makes this country so great is that they are not left to fend for themselves, their are policies in place to help them put food on the table and keep the lights on. I've enjoyed the debate Danielle, and have learned a lot of interesting views of the libertarian party and Gary Johnson!
Andrew Jackson was a Good President

C.1. Indian removal act This is certainly one of the biggest flaws of Andrew Jackson. In this act Andrew Jackson can be equal to Hitler . My opponent described “good” as beneficial to its own people. However, the Native Americans were not considered citizens up 1924. But, citizens nevertheless. Andrew Jackson’s acts make it one of the most regrettable acts in history. His Indian removal act is now called the tear of trails which the migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died. (1) Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary widely, though uncontroversial studies place the figure for North, Central and South America at a combined 50 million to 100 million,with scholarly estimates of 2 million to 18 million for North America alone. An estimated 80% to 90% of this population died after the arrival of Europeans, overwhelmingly from factors beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics. (2)C.2 Panic of 1837This can be used as a rebuttal to my opponent’s argument. Andrew Jackson was a terrible economist. He paid off the national debt by blocking every spending bill. He vetoed programs to build national highways, building light-houses, light-boats, and monuments, placing buoys, and improving harbors and directing surveys. Jackson also vetoed bills to improve navigation out at harbor. You see, Jackson vetoed almost everything that would make the country a better place (3 and 4). Now, that he also vetoed the national bank (which was very useful in many cases throughout history), he also started selling off lands owned by the federal government. What’s more, the national debt did not even last more than a year.He then placed all the money from the national bank into local banks. Jackson assumed that hurt the citizens by taking too much control of the economy. He was wrong. When the money was placed in the local banks, the local bank’s reckless credit policies eventually made many banks shut down, and many people lost their jobs. This led to the biggest financial crisis the United States had seen in their time. (4)C.3. Andrew Jackson's contribution to the civil war My opponent defines the act of Andrew Jackson as a beneficial act to our country. In some extent, this is true. However, Andrew Jackson’s method of dealing with the crisis is certainly regrettable. When Andrew Jackson handled the crisis he threatened South Carolina that he would bring his own personal army and kill his own citizens in South Carolina. (5) This eventually led to the question: Who had more power? The states or the government? The tension between the South and North grew stronger as Andrew Jackson denied the veto of the tariff. This incident would eventually lead to the civil war. (6) 1.http://www.pbs.org...2.http://rationalwiki.org...3.http://www.npr.org...4.http://en.wikipedia.org...5.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...6.https://sites.google.com...
Andrew Jackson was a Good President

Round 1: Opening Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Closing Rules: Cite sources Drops are concessions Andrew Jackson was a great president and leader. For this debate, I define "good president" as one that benefits their citizens. Contention 1: Economy Andrew Jackson helped the economy.First, he vetoed the National Bank. The National Bank was a corrupt organization run by aristocrats. The Bank answered only to private investors and wealthy, and would not answer to or loan to the common people. Jackson was right to veto it, and took all the money out of it, destroying the bank. Secondly, Andrew Jackson is the ONLY president to make national debt zero. This is a phenomenal feat and allowed USA to be less dependent on other countries. Thirdly, Andrew Jackson signed trade treaties with Russia, Spain, Turkey, Great Britain, and Siam. These reopened trade in some areas and allowed for economic expansion. American exports increased more than 75 percent and imports grew 250 percent during Jackson's presidency. Therefore it can be concluded that Jackson increased the economy of the US. Contention 2: Nullification Crisis Andrew Jackson handled the Nullification Crisis extremely well. South Carolina threatened to secede over high tariffs during Jackson's presidency. To stop this, he introduced the Force Bill, allowing him to send in solders to stop the secession. Jackson, alone among politicians, stood with federal power over state's rights strongly. This has the impact of keeping the United States together. Without Jackson, the Union could've seperated much earlier, and there could be a split USA today. Contention 3: Jacksonian Democracy Andrew Jackson introduced the system of Jacksoninan Democracy. In this, the common people have the supreme power, not the rich and powerful. Allowing the common to rule themselves is the essence of a true democracy. A democracy of the rich is no democracy at all. We must preserve Jackson's vision of a free America. For these reason I urge a Pro ballot. Thank you for accepting and good luck! References http://www.shmoop.com... http://www.historynet.com... http://dailysignal.com... http://www.sheppardsoftware.com... http://www.presidentprofiles.com...
should teachers be able to bring guns to school

This isn't a video game this is real life so what gta5 does that it doesn't make it any less disturbing. In the real world when a little kid gets shot by his teacher in school is not a good thing and if in a video game you can shoot little kids then okay that is a very disturbing game but I don't know if some get joy out of killing little kids on a game but I'm truly scared that a teacher might have the same joy
should teachers be able to bring guns to school

That doesn't scare students into behaving that mortally scars them they would never forget the terror in his/her eyes and then he blood they would never be the same they would be nervous wrecks if the teacher doesn't kill them for screaming so if a teacher does that that would make it even less of a chance that teachers ever bring guns to school and that would be even better for my side because it makes it look even worse so thank you for helping
Chess is a sport

I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word "sport" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.
Chess is a sport

I apologize for not supplying a source in my previous argument. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... Now let's look at the game itself. chess1 [ches] Show IPA noun a game played by two persons, each with 16 pieces, on a chessboard. Game 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. As you can see, chess is a game, not a sport. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Chess is a sport

Great points. Firstly however, you did not show your links, which does not prove that your definitions are valid. Definition of sport: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment" [1] Defintion of exertion: "physical or mental effort" [2] In chess, you are physically moving pieces, while also exercising mental exertion. Just like in many other sports, where you move your body and think of strategies on where to move on the field, or court, or anything else. Since chess involves physical exertion, it is therefore a sport. People also watch chess for entertainment. Chess is just as much as a sport has basketball and baseball. sources: 1.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3.http://chennai2013.fide.com...
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

My opponent's first claim is that "state laws do not matter." This is rather false; because the Constitution does not say that the states may not regulate the trade of nuclear warheads, one cannot have a constitutional right to purchase a warhead without restriction. The same reasoning applies to federal restrictions on interstate and foreign trade. It may still be possible to purchase a nuclear warhead without restriction, but the lack of restrictions would in such a case be only a privilege, not a constitutional right, because such a right is not stated in the Constitution. Regarding how to interpret the word "arms," because the Founding Fathers didn't specify what they meant by "arms," the most logical thing to do would be to look at the definition of "arms" at the time of the writing of the Constitution; otherwise, we lose the meaning of the original text. It is merely a case of a semantic change; in this case, it is of the widening variety [1]. For example, if, in the future, the word "petition" came to mean "massacre," it would be illogical and absurd to claim that one had the constitutional right to massacre by the First Amendment. My opponent attempts to make a similar breach here. He claims to have sources with different definitions of "arms," but as he does not actually source them, they are useless to this debate. My opponent has completely ignored my argument regarding nuclear arsenals as public health hazards, which costs him the debate outright even if one believes that my other two solid contentions fail. Finally, regarding my opponent's "ultimate moral," it is irrelevant because it assumes that nuclear weapons qualify as "arms" protected in the Second Amendment; it also fails to take into account public safety and trade restrictions, as I have already pointed out. As there are three solid reasons why the Constitution does not guarantee my opponent the right to buy a nuclear warhead without restrictions, vote Con! 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

I must note that state laws do not matter. In the united states of America the constitution and all federal laws play the trump card in respects to lower level legislation. On an ordinance my opponent failed to note that the same passage highlighted above makes no note of ordinances.The definiton of arms may have excluded ordinances but that is only in a specific terminology which I can hardly see as fitting with legal specific jargon. The wikipedia definition of arms for instance incudes anything that cangain an edge upon an opponent. I have also found the word arms in several documents predating the constitution not in specific terminology (such as canterbury tales) and even in document where greek fire was known as an "armament." If every current copy of the constitution can have an artificially inserted comma after "the right to bear arms," Than a word that has changed meaning should have been changed in the first place. One must assume this obscure analogy of armaments versus ordinances to have either not been intended in the first place or the change was forgotten with the modern interpretation being excepted come years later.The ultimate moral. Unless local gun restriction holds some weight and the second ammendment is more of a guideline than anything, or I have the legal right (and responsibility as a safe guard to my country) to stockpile on yellow cake.
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

My opponent attempts to limit the definition of "arms" to the "muskets, cannons," etc., but this is not what the definition was when the Constitution was drafted: "In Colonial times 'arms' usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for 'ordinance' (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not" [1]. Cannons did not qualify as arms; nor would a nuclear arsenal today. In addition, there is an imminent danger in nuclear weapons beyond the intentions of the owner. Mishandling nuclear material could potentially trigger the explosion meant for the target of the arsenal, which would severely damage the surrounding area. That's why nuclear power plants are so heavily regulated to have proper safety protocols. Therefore, a nuclear arsenal would not just be a weapon, but also a public hazard. One does not have the right to operate a nuclear power plant without regulation by claiming that it can also be used as a weapon; that's just silly. Therefore, there could be many restrictions for ownership of a nuclear arsenal compatible with the United States Constitution. I would finally like to add that regardless of one's right to own a nuclear warhead, there can still be restrictions in purchasing them. The federal government is allowed to regulate interstate trade, and an item's status as a weapon does not expemt it from tariffs and quotas. The state governments are allowed to do the same thing with intrastate commerce. Therefore, it does not matter who my opponent buys his nuclear warhead from; he is still subject to many potential restrictions that do not violate the Second Amendment in any way. Thank you, Sonofkong, and good luck with your final round. 1. http://www.guncite.com...
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

You a correct. I run by the simple premise which can not be disproved. The second amendment was written in a time where arms didn't mean handguns which are now the subject of several rap songs and a battle involving the majority of our politicians. Back then arms meant muskets, cannons and several things which a private citizen could own with impunity. Although I agree with a personal right to own guns I believe that if one uses the second amendment as an attack ongun control they could just as easily use said amendment to defend the ownership of a nuclear weapon. So in a government where the second amendment which allows me to bear arms, including missiles, can not be trumped by any national or international document then I ergo may stockpile as many weapons of mass destruction as I please. And maybe I will pay a visit to my old friend Achmedenejad.
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

Thank you, Sonofkong, for starting this debate. I predict that you are going to use the Second Amendment in your argument: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://en.wikipedia.org... As you have the burden of proof, and have not made any arguments yet, I have nothing to say so far, so I await your argument.
Resolved: I have a constitutional right to own a nuclear arsenal

I am here to say that the United States Constitution, if followed will give me a right to purchase a nuclear warhead with no restriction.Note: This is for the most part a satire. I am morally against pointless warfare and have no reason to desire the wanton possession of a detonation device of any sort but for the moment am to play the role of determined gun nut gone off the edge. This is by no means a moral choice but a legal one. This ultimately ends as a note on the vagueness of a certain document this right is protected in and a parable on blindly following precedent.For now be sated by this link to a hilarious forum conversation. (I wouldn't know as I never took the time to read through it.) http://factcheck.gullible.info...;I list this under health as in public health.
Color guard is not a sport.

Colour guard is a sport The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. Ever heard the annoyingly worn-out argument, "Cheerleading is not a sport"? The truth is that legally, North Augusta cheerleading is NOT a sport. In cheerleading however, you compete through the districts. Soccer and football does the same too. Therefore I believe that whatever sports argument they are cooking up falls. "It is not recognized by the olympics" Here is the issue with this. Golf is a sport. However it is not in the olympics. Does that mean Golf is no longer a sport? Just because it is not in the olympics does not define what really is a sport. Sure there are many non sports that aren't in the olympics. However we can still justify that golf is a sport and we can't exclude that from a sports. Therefore this argument is false. Not all competitions need a definitive scoring system. Numbers don't define what is right or wrong, likewise what is a sport or not. "there is no clear interaction" Their definition is very biased in my opinion. Their definition only indicates that there is a NEED to score points and show a clash among participants. However, this is only referring to his arguments and not the whole case in general. For that I believe this is more biased towrds his side. Here is my definition that refers to both sides: competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally They have stated that they need to practice the same moves overtime. However this is still physical. It shows skills and physical exertion on how to achieve this. For that, their "two side" argument falls. Thanks