BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Phoenix Wright is a better lawyer than Miles Edgeworth

http://www.youtube.com... OBJECTION! "Edgeworth became a prosecutor at the age of 20 and had managed to have a flawless winning streak up until his first case against Phoenix. In the third game of the series, we find out that he travels across the world becoming familiar with at least 5 different legal systems as well as 5 different languages (not to mention that he mastered both). " --> Firstly, Edgeworth went on his travels AFTER the first game concluded [. http://en.wikipedia.org...], when he lost his winning streak to Phoenix and realised Prosecutors and Defence Attorneys need to work together to discover the truth. Secondly, it is crucial to note Edgeworth lost his first case to Phoenix Wright. Phoenix has never lost to Edgeworth. If this is the case, using worked examples, Phoenix is a better Lawyer than Edgeworth. "He was considered a prodigy even before first entering the court room at a young age. And whenever in court, he manages to make his opponent look like a complete idiot in front of the Judge. In fact, during the final trial of Justice For All, he went up against Phoenix and had several opportunities to end the trial and get the defendant a guilty verdict, but insisted that the trial continue so that he could leave no doubts that his case was correct. " --> His unwillingness to end the trial once he can win shows a weakness in him - He has to be totally 100% right, even when he has essentially won. This led to his defeat at the hands of Phoenix Wright. While Edgeworth may be a moral lawyer than Phoenix this aspect, it is important to note Phoenix is still a better lawyer overall. "His mastery of the court room was so impressive, that he even managed take Phoenix's place in the 3rd game and act as the defense attorney during an extremely difficult trial for the defense. Not to mention that he went up against none other than Franzika Von Karma (who is also regarded as prodigy prosecutor) and easily managed to win without the help of a defense aid (which Phoenix has had to rely on in most of his cases just to keep from getting a guilty verdict). And there was not one point where his opponent reduced him to abnormally sweating. He kept his cool the entire time, despite that he had never acted as a defense attorney. " --> I will concede that Edgeworth won against Von Karma, however: 1) Phoenix Wright has also beaten Von Karma 2) I would like my opponent to point out any major differences in Prosecutors and Defence attorneys. They essentially have to attack and defend using logic. 3) As you have stated, Edgeworth is knowledgeable in varying legal systems, so it wouldn't be hard for him to adapt from the position of Defence attorney to prosecutor The points I have given shall constitute my case for the first round. Clearly, Phoenix Wright is superior to Edgworth :P!
Phoenix Wright is a better lawyer than Miles Edgeworth

Assuming you are willing to accept this challenge, I thank you for taking the time to debate. In today's debate, I intend to prove beyond the notion of a doubt that the main protagonist of the Phoenix Wright series was not actually the best lawyer in the games. For those not familiar with the series, you're free to check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll make my opening argument brief by listing the advantages Edgeworth has over Wright. Experience: Edgeworth became a prosecutor at the age of 20 and had managed to have a flawless winning streak up until his first case against Phoenix. In the third game of the series, we find out that he travels across the world becoming familiar with at least 5 different legal systems as well as 5 different languages (not to mention that he mastered both). Intelligence: He was considered a prodigy even before first entering the court room at a young age. And whenever in court, he manages to make his opponent look like a complete idiot in front of the Judge. In fact, during the final trial of Justice For All, he went up against Phoenix and had several opportunities to end the trial and get the defendant a guilty verdict, but insisted that the trial continue so that he could leave no doubts that his case was correct. Skill: His mastery of the court room was so impressive, that he even managed take Phoenix's place in the 3rd game and act as the defense attorney during an extremely difficult trial for the defense. Not to mention that he went up against none other than Franzika Von Karma (who is also regarded as prodigy prosecutor) and easily managed to win without the help of a defense aid (which Phoenix has had to rely on in most of his cases just to keep from getting a guilty verdict). And there was not one point where his opponent reduced him to abnormally sweating. He kept his cool the entire time, despite that he had never acted as a defense attorney. Clearly, Edgeworth is superior to Phoenix Wright. :D
Gun control works

I'll give a brief overview of my case. Just as my opponent has done. In round 2 I'll just do arguments and in round 3, I'll limit myself to rebuttals and offer no non rebuttals. I will try to prevent an all inclusive case in round 2, so it's strong enough to serve as it's own counter rebuttal. My case will discuss how the type of gun control my opponent is advocating is extremely unsafe. 1. It is unsafe, because it makes it easier for a tyrannical government to oppress it's people. 2. It's unsafe because there is less deterrent for crime. (All women are now unarmed and will have the word victim basically written on their forehead). 3. It's unsafe because criminals remained armed and victims are the only ones who lose tools for self defense. Criminals would still be able to create zip guns, among other things. 4. I'd also like to point out some weaknesses in attempting to enforce such a law, if space permits.
Gun control works

My contention will be that gun control is demonstrably effective in reducing the incidence of homicide and that there are precedents for effective gun control which illustrate its effectiveness. These are ignored by gun proponents because it doesn't suit their purpose, and instead of looking at facts, they produce anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios where a gun would help them defend themselves. I will argue that these are hypothetical in nature and have a significant motivation behind them, and do not point to actual empirical facts. Indeed, the majority of pro-gun rhetoric is informed by a strong American gun culture, as opposed to genuine benefit to the community.Additionally, I will argue that Americans only need guns because others have guns, which wouldn't be the case if other civilians didn't have guns (obviously here you can use the "but criminals will still have guns" etc argument). In so doing, I will contend that saying "hey, criminals have guns, we need guns" followed by "there's a gun issue here" is not solved by throwing more guns at the problem. It has not been historically successful, and it's not working now.I bear the BoP for gun restrictions being effective. You bear the BoP for constructed refutations and demonstrating that an armed population is in fact safer than an unarmed one. I would like to be clear:- Police and military are still armed. Feel free to talk about the 'police state' or whatever.- This is not a complete restriction on gun usage; licences in certain circumstances can be granted, such as for sport, hunting and security agencies. - For the sake of argument, I will extend this to mean other personal equipment, such as mace, tasers, and batons are also outlawed.- Three rounds- 6k character limit- 72 hour argumentation period- 10 day voting period- Let's keep it factual, civil and fun!Enjoy, and good luck!
Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)

Hello respected opponent! :) I believe that (being a teenager myself), people below the age of 15-16 should not be allowed smart phones. My opponent will be arguing that they should be allowed to own smart phones.There are 4 rounds with 5000 characters limit.R1 - Acceptance and Definitions.R2 - Arguments.R3 - Rebuttals.R4 - Defence and conclusions.Definitions [From Merriam-Webster Dictionary] --> Smart phone - a cell phone that includes additional software functions (as e-mail or an Internet browser) -> Cell phone - a portable usually cordless telephone for use in a cellular system.
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

The idea of morality not existing can only hold true if taken under consideration in a non-theistic system, a system where either there is a G-d who does not care about morality, or the absence of a G-d, or the absence of a cosmic force, as the existence of any of the above especially taken within the philosophy of an Abrahamic religion, is quite easy to create a working philosophy. As to the existence of a karmic idea outside of a theistic system, it is entirely possible to create a working philosophical system without karma: let us assume that all actions are either good for society, or are bad for society, if an action is good for society then it will be rewarded by society, either as the betterment of ones reputation, or some other reward, if it is bad for society, it may be punished by the law, or affect someone in another negative way. these punishments may not be physical or immediate, but eventually those actions which are detrimental to society will catch up with them. Also the main tenet of moral nihilism is that nothing is inherently moral or immoral, but all actions inherently have consequence, and as such if you go by a utilitarian viewpoint, all actions must be inherently good or evil
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

Karma can be simply stated as how actions now will inevitably affect you later. the moral quality of the actions being considered are the determinant as to how exactly those actions will affect you later. Point one: the case of karma with a judeo-Christian god is very easy to make: people who are morally just will go to heaven and enjoy eternal bliss, people who are not morally just will go to hell point two: the case of karma within the Buddhist philosophy and Hindu religion are feasible as the entirety of those two systems is based upon them point three: Karma can also be indirect and later, my actions need not affect me now and that the idea that all of my actions will have consequences is fundamental to society as displayed by the concept of law, although that only goes so far as to affect only those whose morally unjust actions go against the common good, as such we will divide actions into three sub-categories: 1) criminal actions: morally unjust actions which go against the good of society in general, karma is dealt to the criminals through having to deal with hiding their actions, or suffering actions to a just amount as determined by society 2) morally distasteful actions: actions which benefit oneself at the expense of another, while still within the realm of legality, these actions can sometimes escape the realm of karmic payback for a long time, but people who commit such actions either have a good reason for them as to allow their actions to be condoned or would repeat such actions often enough as to alienate people or even earn some kind of direct retribution 3) morally just actions: the idea that doing good things is rewarding in and of itself, is not new, both spiritually and as new evidence shows, physically, in an online article, Dr. Edward Hoffman says "a study in 1991... surveyed 3,000 volunteers and found a clear relationship between helping and health(1)", can be considered karmic benefit enough, what's more is that people who do good deeds without an obvious incentive, are the kind of people others would be more willing to help, and tend to be happier people in general (1) http://www.guideposts.org...
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

By Con's own definition karma does not need to involve a soul, it is only action seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation. It can be through any mechanism imaginable: aliens, a cosmic force, god(s), your neighbor, society. And calling karma a falseness is like calling Hinduism or Buddhism a falseness, and to do so would be the same as calling the idea of the Jewish or Christian god a falseness. Also, proving or disproving karma is along the same lines of proving or disproving god, something that much smarter and more knowledgeable people than con or I have tried and failed to do. In conclusion, Karma regardless on whether or not you believe in the truth of such a basic concept can be part of a framework lacking any fundamental flaws
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

My opponent doesn't knwo what karma is. It isn't an alien controlling boogldy woodlgey. It is almighty, undeniable deity named God... Maybe Allah... Maybe Jesus... Maybe Vishnu.... Not to know!NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THIS IS THE FALSENESS OF ALL FALSNESS THAT IS NOT TRUE! if you have doubt perhaps you should realise what is below:Definition of karma: action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation: in Hinduism one of the means of reaching Brahman.[1]THIS NO DOUBT MEANS MY OPPONENT (the pro) had BOP for how rebirth is working?! How can aliens influence souls? nonsense.KARMA ISNT TRUE!!!Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

The idea that Karma does not always provide justice is a powerful one, and I do not necesarily advocate for its application on a theological level, although Karma can be part of a logically valid philosophical/theological system, there is also no guarantee that if karma exists, it works on a morality that is similar to or even resembles what humans call morality. Karma can theoretically be an alien who decides what is right and wrong and punishes people accordingly. And for cons statement questioning how can karma be proved until there is a wrong, is easilly answered, its been mathematically proven that some things can't be proved or disproved, this is Godels incompleteness theorem, so the aim is not to prove that karma exists, but to prove that it could exist within some kind of logical framework
[ADVANCED DEBATERS ONLY] This house believes in karma

----------------WARNING! BRUTAL AND GRAPHIC IMAGERY IS SUGGESTED!-------------------------------------------------- If a man rapes his daughter to the point where her bum bleeds, she is gagged so she cannot scream and he does it night after night without anyone's knowledge will he get punished? If he is a psychopath, who literally is impossible to feel guilt for[1], he will just love it. What is the karma there? How can you justify such nonsense while still advocating karma?! Insanity is your only strength. It is is blatant in the very nature of horrible people! You suggest that there is a force of good menas good happens to you? Why was Gandhi shot?! Why did Steve Jobs get pancreatic cancer? Why did God-fearing Jews get sent to concentration camps (regarding your deity debate). IT is because there is no karma, not fairness, not song and no rhythm to the false sense of jsutice in this world or universe. It is brutal, the kind re walked all over and the evil are the dominators. Disgusting! I DO DARE SAY IT IS REVOLTING IN THE VERY SENSE OF THE WORD! Revolting: disgusting and repulsive.[2] That is the thing which startles me. The pro wants to advocate a karma of some sort when such blatant injustice occurs day to day life. Innocent are abused, evil are in power. Don't pretend that you aren't aware of what goes on with Taliban, Al-Qaeda, with the Ming Dynasty, the Viking Invasion of Europe, the Japanese tyranny over China in World War two. It all is apparent. Either there is no wrong, or there is no karma. However, how can there be a way to prove a karma until there is a wrong? This is the paradoxical dilemma that pro has led me to reveal. Paradoxical: Self-contradictory.[3] Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Moral absolutes exist

I argue that Morals are not objective. From a secular perspective, there are multiple vantage points from which to base morality with different implications. For example, on one hand, one could argue that killing is wrong. Perhaps one of the most universally accepted morals. What is the basis for this? It seems intuitive, but at best the most reasonable explanation is that you wouldn't want that to happen to you. This, while sensible, is not a perfect basis for morality since your tastes are subjective and what you would like is not necessarily the same as another person. From a different perspective, consider this: killing a man is NOT wrong because killing him proves you the better man or woman. In eliminating him you have raised the average competency of the human race. From a utilitarian perspective, improving humanity as a whole by the minimal sacrifice of one person could be considered ethical. We do so with animal populations all the time to improve the group as a whole. While this is a difficult morality to subscribe to, there isn't an obvious refutation if you believe on utilitarianism. If absolute morality is supposed to be based on religious principles, there is still subjectivity involved. The Bible or example contains many forbidden acts which we currently engage in. It is considered acceptable in the Bible to own slaves, however today that is immoral. Because religious texts are not literal, and require human interpretation, they do not give absolute rules. Furthermore, in religions such as Christianity, God redefines his covenant with man and eliminates certain laws from earlier in the Bible. Thus even God given absolute laws are subject to change.
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

Nice try, Con said the concession because of my last sentence in Round 3. However this means that he concedes that any evidence he showed before is invalid. Con therefore has not fulfilled BoP of showing that USSR had a capital city. Con also says "Think about it, voters, before you say I conceded." Since Con implicitly agrees that all he says is invalid, we must invalidate the statement I quoted. What this means is that you, the voter, must not think about 'it' and must agree that Con conceded.Both Con and I agree with this and therefore both he and I agree that points must go to Pro.
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

I still don't see any government flags on the buildings Con has shown so BooHoo.And YES! USSR had social cities! People socialize and talk to each other in it. Moscow is an example of a social city, Kiev is another. Now its all dull and bland after Kapitalism came in. Now Russians (and probably other Former Soviet nationalities) have a reputation for being rude and unsociable. god forbid it! Con just brought in God. That is forbidden in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is state atheist. This just proves that Con does not know what he is talking about, just like in the last round. Therefore anything Con says should and will be invalid.
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

"I can't believe you didn't realize this: they have one on Mars"Capitalist Propaganda has gone too far this time. Now the capitalist dogs claim that the SOCIALIST USSR had a CAPITAL city? Like a CAPITALIST country?NO! Also, Con said that "they[Soviets] have one on Mars" ; Con used the word 'have', which is a present tense word. This implies that the USSR currely has a capital city. My debate resolution is in the past tense, using the word 'had'. My opponents argument is invalid because he does not know the timeframe of this debate. Also I don't see the government parliament building with the Soviet flag in the link given by Con and hence is claim is invalid.
Agricultural Subsidies

My opponent obviously never bothered to actually read the debate or not before he posted his sham of an argument, or he would have seen the given i posted directly under my affirmation which was essentially the second sentence of this debate. "Given: In this debate the emittance of greenhouse gases are considered to negatively impact society as a whole. " I am not here to debate the given, I am here to affirm my resolution. Since my opponent has not attacked my resolution then I extend my arguments in hope that he will post something coherent in the next round. Furthermore for the people sighing because of who took the debate, do not worry, I will be reposting this topic again sometime today. Extend arguments. I hope my opponent will attack my resolution in the second round, good luck.
Agricultural Subsidies

hello, and thank you for this... Intereting topic. I too believe in lowering the subsidiees, but we are not causing global warming to comence faster. One volcano that erupts, produces more carbon dioxide than we have in one hundred years. Global warming is always hapening, we cannot stop it. On the topic of against farming emissions, farming has been around since humans first started city-states, such as mesopotamia. I do realize, however, you refer to the emissions of farming vehicles, but my answer from above about carbon dioxide emissions does not change with this. These emissions have no affect on our society since carbon dioxide is constantly being released into the atmosphere.
Barack Obama's Christian Faith

I shall counter with same thing:Despite all that Obama says, despite all that Obama does, despite all that Obama appears to be, he could still be a closet atheist.The methodology I wish to propose is this very well known strategy in politics that most people term 'Lying' or perhaps 'Deception' it just happens to spring to mind as I think of politicians to be honest with my opponent.Lying: Not telling the truth. [1]Deception: The action of deceiving someone. [2]Politician: A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement. [3]Sources:[1] https://www.google.co.uk......[2] https://www.google.co.uk......[3] https://www.google.co.uk......