BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mario is un-Buddhist

I am going to kick this off with one simple statement: It has never been confirmed that Mario is a Buddhist! Ok I agree that Mario does a few things that go against the teachings of Lord Buddha, but for all we know he may not even believe in those teachings. Point number 2: It is said that gaming makes us curious, energized, focused and optimistic, all of which are similar to the virtues we (as Buddhists) associate with being enlightened, and enlightenment. And super Mario, in a way, guides us with these virtues, and could help us find enlightenment. So, in conclusion, even though it has never been confirmed that Mario is a Buddhist, there are some things he does that are pretty pro-Buddhist.
Mario is un-Buddhist

Now listen here, I am 29 years old. I was there when the Super Nintendo first came out, and I got me my own system real quick. I had that first cartridge of Super Mario Bros, and I beat it in about a year of trying. I know a lot of you younger folk don't remember all that because you didn't exist, but I sure do. I'm an old school Mario fan. I've been through the N64 Mario, too. I know my stuff. And being an authority on the Mario, I am convinced today of this one thing: Mario is Un-Buddhist. That's right I said it: Mario is Un-Buddhist. Super Bario Moes is not a Buddhist game, and it is against Buddhist principles. Whether you are Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, whatever, you can't deny that the Mario isn't a Buddhist game, never was a Buddhist game, and never will be a Buddhist game. If you say Mario is a Buddhist, I say Mario is a bad Buddhist, and you can't be telling me otherwise. Here's the facts: 1. Buddhism teaches compassion (karuna) for all sentient beings. Mario, however, is a little Italian with a Napolean complex. His girlfriend Peach is a tall Swedish lass, and he feels uncomfortable that he's shorter than her. To prove his Latin machismo, he's takes it out on harmless creatures like Balloon Goombas, Big Boos, Bouncelisks and even Sonic the Hedgedog. What dude needs to do is start wearing high-heels like Prince does. Ain't no shame in it. Tom Cruise does it too. 2. Buddhism forbids the practice of black magic. Mario, however, clearly disregards this teaching because he'll ingest psychadelic mushrooms to make himself bigger, eat glowing, entheogenic flowers so he can shoot fire out his navel (or so we hope), and wear dead racoon pelts in order to fly on some kind of devilish Vuelo de Brujas. He is also a member of the Elks Lodge, an infamous and "all white" secret society of male Wiccans (also called Bronies). Buddhism doesn't stand for that nonsense and neither do I. Shame on you, Mario, you little booger. 3. Buddhism teaches that dinosaurs went extinct before human beings but little fathead Mario clearly believes they lived alongside humans and could be ridden like horses (as in the case of Yoshi). Mario demonstrates he is more of a young-earth Creationist, like Ken Ham, and if it was up to Mario, he'd replace the science books of this great nation with Flintstone cartoons. This isn't acceptable and clearly shows Mario is an un-Buddhist piece of bull-pucky. 4. Buddhism teaches that the ideal state is one of assured tranquility called Nirvana, free from all false conceptions of "I", resting all desires in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. But in the Super Mario Bros film (1993), Mario was played by Bob Hoskins, "an English actor known for playing Cockneys and gangsters." 6. The best current actor to play Buddha would be Jason Statham, whereas the best current actor to play Mario would be the fat Val Kilmer. In summation, all of these points prove conclusively that Mario could not be a good Buddhist and is much unlike Tiger Woods, Richard Gere, Uma Thurman and Tina Turner. A pox on the Mario and a pox on all who play his games!
THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION IS RUINING THE VERY FOUNDATI

"Ahhh cricket. The sport whose foundation lays within the gentlemanly pursuit of a lazy Saturday afternoon with the purpose of a rollicking good time, as the ladies looked onwards and conversed amongst themselves, applauding where necessary, and serving tea and scones as required. I assume my opponent is referring to the Indian Premier League (IPL) of the shortened version of the already shorter version of test cricket. 1. The introduction of female teams prior to the IPL (by a fair few years now) removed the pure gentlemanly arena...IPL not the cause there. 2. International teams and inherent competition fairly ruined the lazy recreational pursuit thing...IPL not the cause there. 3. Wonderful things like television and airplanes means the wives can still enjoy a good game, team change rooms, may or may not intrude on scone and tea, but that is the team rules...not IPL. There you have it; the tradition of cricket was long gone before IPL." Your opening goes against everything your stance in the resolution goes for; I must add too that this was taken from a previous debate on the same topic, the above writing that is quoted was writen by Spiral. There is no need for me to argue against you; You have provided the very information needed In conclusion, vote for Negative (Con) because Affirmative is nothing but a plagiarist looking for an easy win. Affirmative does not know what they are saying, but only says what they believe will help them win. The other debate on this topic was a 8-1 win for Spiral, we can assume who voted for Sayantan. Spiral used this very argument against Sayantan in the position of Negative. Sayantan has now taken it word for word and tried to make it Affirmative.
THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION IS RUINING THE VERY FOUNDATI

THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION IS RUINING THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE GAMEIN FAVOUR "THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION IS RUINING THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE GAME" Ahhh cricket. The sport whose foundation lays within the gentlemanly pursuit of a lazy Saturday afternoon with the purpose of a rollicking good time, as the ladies looked onwards and conversed amongst themselves, applauding where necessary, and serving tea and scones as required. I assume my opponent is referring to the Indian Premier League (IPL) of the shortened version of the already shorter version of test cricket. 1. The introduction of female teams prior to the IPL (by a fair few years now) removed the pure gentlemanly arena...IPL not the cause there. 2. International teams and inherent competition fairly ruined the lazy recreational pursuit thing...IPL not the cause there. 3. Wonderful things like television and airplanes means the wives can still enjoy a good game, team change rooms, may or may not intrude on scone and tea, but that is the team rules...not IPL. There you have it; the tradition of cricket was long gone before IPL.
Team Fortress 2 hats are destoying the art style

Hats in Team Fortress do not take away from the art form Valve has created, but rather allow players to express ideas and (in more basic terms) themselves in a game where you can't see the person on the other end of the internet playing with you. Hats come in many forms, and usually derive from popular Internet memes and games which make up the Steam Library. Hats also provide special bonuses within the game, allowing new forms of customization within the world of TF2. With the creation of weapons, maps, and character models/skins being available for downloads, hats become another part of a very creative and diverse world. Hats also come from the users of the game, which allows the person to feel a "half-way connection" with the person they are controlling. The colors brightly pop to infuse the game with the player's personality and feelings. With hundreds of hats, its easy to find one that matches the player and their beliefs within the gaming world
Team Fortress 2 hats are destoying the art style

TF2 was a unique class based FPS developed by Valve and release in 2007. It was famous for its diversified classes and unique and appealing art style but in one update hats were introduced. Soon more hats were introduced with weirder designs and more unappealing looks. Now everyone has a weird hat and misc item that is mismatched and mixed with horrible colours that just make the TF2 art style to busy and unsightly and silly (The original style was cartoonish but it was consistant and didn't have hideous neon green jackets). I do not want to argue that the hats are a scam Valve made to get money from people and made TF2 based around trading. I dont want to argue whether F2P made TF2 bad. I just want to argue that the new hats have ruined the art style Valved had worked years on perfecting in development. (Note that this does not nessacarily represent my views on hats in TF2)
Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

1. It is obvious that if an institution treats people unequally that those people are not being protected equally. This is evident in Brown vs. Board of Education. An institution treated students unequally. And the court overturned the law that allowed this and integrated the schools. The court must integrate the unions to ensure equality. 2. It is evident that civil unions are seperate and unequal. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. And by definition they are seperate. Therefore, civil unions are seperate and unequal. 3. YOU ARE WRONG! The law does not say that you cannot discriminate against a person. The law says that "no state...shall deny equal protection under the laws." The laws obviously state that you must treat people equally. The 14th Amendment does not use the word discrimination. In the opinion of the court for the case Loving vs. Virginia "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." To deny a person the right to marry who they want is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Not all institutions must be treated equally, but some institutions are so fundamental and necessary that to deny equal protection would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Loving vs. Virginia proved that marriage is one of those rights.
Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

Rebuttals=== 1. Civil unions are unions with the same legal benefits of marriages or very similar, but are not called marriages. This is a seperate union from marriage. From what we've learned from New Jersey's civil unions and Brown vs. Board of Education, seperate is not equal. Here the Equal Protection Clause is violated. 2. Gay marriage and civil unions are called something different and create a second-class of matrimony. Points 5, 6, 7, and 8 all prove that civil unions are unequal to marriage. Point 5 shows that civil unions are lesser socially. Point 6 shows that civil unions are a second class of matrimony. Point 7 shows an inequality in international and interstate recognition. And Point 8 shows a mathematical study proving that New Jersey civil unions are not equal to Massachusetts marriages. 3. I have shown that civil unions are lesser than gay marriages in point 5, 6, 7, and 8. Points 1, 2, and 3 all show a constitutional argument. Point 1 shows that gay couples must be treated equally under the law. Point 2 shows that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution. And Point 3 shows that previous Supreme Court cases have shown that seperate but equal is incorrect and cannot hold up against the fourteenth amendment. ++++++++++++++++++ Ignoring my arguments is not a reasonable way to debate. ++++++++++++++++++ So, marriage is determined by Loving vs. Virginia to be a civil right. Civil rights are important and the government cannot deny them. All persons are guaranteed the right to marry who they choose as Loving vs. Virginia shows, a case which allowed interracial marriage. Brown vs. Board of Education shows us that if we can prove that an institution is seperate, but unequal, that institution must be integrated to improve equality. Civil unions are socially unequal, generally unequal, internationally unequal, and interstatially unequal as I and my sources have proven. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection, civil unions and marriages must be integrated to ensure equality. ++++++++++++++++ If you ignore this, I'm not sure what I can do.
Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that my argument is not caused by prejudice of any kind. It does not reflect any personal feelings or views. It is just a debate. My opponent's claim is that "civili unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage". In order to prove this resolution, my opponent must prove that: 1. Civil unions are unconstitutional; and 2. Civil unions are no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage; and 3. That (1) and (2) above are causally linked. In other words that the reason why civili unions are not a substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage is that they are unconstitutional. This link is of course brought to live by my opponent's use of the word "therefore" in his resolution. 1. Are civil unions unconstitutional? Taking on my opponent's line of argument, this question should be answered in light of the 14th Amendment. The Amendment prohibits a state from "denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " It is my contention that my opponent has not shown any grounds to suggest that a law that gives rise to a civil union is in breach of the 14th Amendment. Any person is entitled to enter into a civil union. There is no discrimination (to my knowledge) on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, pregnancy, adjusdum generis. The fact (if true) that people who are in civil unions are not treated properly by some members of the community and by some insitutions (as per article sited in my opponent's point 6) does not render a civil union unconstitutional. It merely reflects the coummunity's lack of understanding, partially (no doubt) driven by prejudice and partially by simple ignorance. A widespread community educationa program would probably assist in alleviating this problem. I conclude that there is no basis in my opponent's argument to substantiate his allegation that civil unions are unconstitutional. 2. My opponent further seeks to show that civil unions are no substitution for "gay marriage". With respect, other than his point 5, he has not shown any differentiation between the former and the latter. 3. Causal link I respectfully submit that my opponent has failed to show any causal link whatsoever between the alleged (and disputed) unconstitutionality of civil unions and their inadequacy as a "substitute for gay marriage". In light of the above, I submit that my opponent has shown no evidence or argument whatsoever to support his resolution that civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.
Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." This means that gay couples and straight couples are supposed to be teated equally, but the law is not the case. One is called marriage. One is called a civil union. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that "MARRIAGE" is a "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education showed that seperate is not equal. Civil unions are seperate and therefore unequal. 4. It is unfair and illogical that gay marriage not be legalized. Civil unions do not suffice. 5. Socially, they are unequal. To say "we ar married" is better than to say "we are civilly united." And there is no reason gay couple have to suffer this difference. 6. Civil unions only create a second class form of married people, which is obvious and a hindrance to social progression. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission agrees with this. http://www.indegayforum.org... 7. Other states and countries are less likely to recognize a civil union. 8. There are 2,385 civil union couples in New Jersey the New York Times says 568 couples told Garden State Equality that they have not been protected equally under civil union law. If my math is right, that is 24%. A quarter. This is unacceptable and certainly unequal. However, in Massachusetts, marriage for gay people has worked, because separate is never equal. http://www.indegayforum.org... Vote PRO because equal protection is an American value that is in our Declaration of Independence, our constitution, and the words "Equal Justuce Under Law" are scribed on the front of our Supreme Court building.
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

Thank you. For future use, I will clarify my case. I believe that supporting the Ukrainian army in mainland Ukraine will benefit not only them, but to the local nations nearby. Now, I have to prove that it is conceivable that Russia would back off or not to make such bold threats to Ukrainian safety. Here is a backdrop. Ukraine, by itself, may not be worth the war games. But Poland is. So is Germany. These nations will be affected when Russia steam rolls over Ukraine, as it would tip the balance of power and bring Russian expansion to something that wasn't seen since Cold War era times. Eastern Europe isn't something you just say "Eh, no biggie." to. Now, you might be saying that the Crimean"s voted to join Russia. But as of now, the UN is saying the vote is illegal.[1] With Russia taking over Crimea in something that"s almost an act of war, we have to stop Russia and protect the stability of Eastern Europe. Now, support sending troops and supplies to Ukraine to prevent the area Balkanizing, that"s all. Do what is happening is South Korea, but have it used as the Crimean"s confusion over who runs who. Russia will simply not invade because it would mean war with the USA. That is a deterrent. Spreading turmoil across Europe never ended well anyway [1]http://www.aljazeera.com...
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

As outlined in round 1, "The Military intervention we are talking about must be significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention." In order to determine the consequences of the military intervention, and therefore understand if we should affirm or negate the topic we must outline specifically how the United States would use its military in order to stop Russia. Do we simply station troops in Ukraine and hope Russia does not invade? Do we use our air force? If so, whose airbase is it that we suggest asking for access from? My opponent has the burden of providing a specific course of action that we can then discuss. As my opponent said, he has the burden of proof, in this case that includes providing a plan of action. My stance will not be that Ukraine is not deserving of support, but rather that the consequences of military intervention will be so great as to proclaim that the United States should not intervene in Ukraine.
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

Thank you. I will now outline my case. POINT ONE: Russian actions mirror Germany's actions before WW2. We all know about the events that taken played around Germany before WW2, right? The tactic of Appeasement, of course, didn't work out. So, I ask you this; would it be conceivable to say that intervention would stop Germany before WW2 started? Maybe there wouldn"t be a WW2. But, as Russia is doing the same illegal things, should we again stick our head in? If Russia wants to invade Belarus because it thinks that native Russian are not being treated well, would you support Military involvement? Now you may say something like; "But NightCats, just because it happened ~75 years ago doesn't mean it will happen now. After all, Germany was pushed by Social Issues." No, but what I am saying is that snippet worth of history is enough for it to be justified to confront Russia, that where there is smoke, there"s fire. POINT TWO: The Aftermath? In 1994 Ukraine, the US, Russia, and a few other nations had promised to Ukraine in a treaty that if Ukraine gave up they're Nuclear Weapons; their borders will be protected [1]. Russia broke this treaty by invading Crimea. If Crimea goes over to the Russians, then, perhaps fallacious, the thought that Nuclear weapons protect borders will be brought back. This is of course silly, but to Ukraine, it might not be. I will start the debate with these two points and hand the rod to Mestari. [1]http://www.cfr.org...;
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

Hello, I am debating Mestari on wether or not the US should intervene in Ukraine.TERMSThe Military intervention we are talking about must be significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention."Intervention" can mean anything from allout war to 'War Games'."Should" implies that the US has a duty to try to stop Russia from taking over Crimea.No Lawyering.No forfeiting.R1 can be for acceptance.The BOP is on me.
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

This debate is really simple. In round 1 my opponent stated that not only does he have the burden of proof, but that he must advocate military intervention significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention. Never did he advocate any specific form of military intervention. How many soldiers is a, "fair number of boots on the ground?" Is that 10 soldiers? 1,000? 10,000? My opponent has failed to prove anything because he has failed to provide an exact course of action. He hasn't given a number of soldiers, a base to operate from, a method of training soldiers for a Eastern European battlefield. He hasn't done anything to uphold his burden of proof.
Resolved: The United States should intervene in Ukraine.

My opponent still has not fulfilled his burden. He must advocate military intervention - as stated in round 1 - that is significant enough to conceivably halt Russian intervention in Ukraine. We're making progress, he wants to send troops and supplies now, however he hasn't quite made it there yet. How many troops, what supplies? Where are we deploying the troops? Is this just the Army, the Marines? Air force maybe? Do we move boats into the Black Sea? How are these troops going to halt Russian Intervention. The resolution is a question of cost-benefit analysis. For me to measure the costs I need to know exactly how we plan to approach the crisis. Unless I have a specific course of action, I can't argue for any costs without making them up.