BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world is flat.

Pro will contend for the resolution. Con against the resolution. This is a fact-based resolution. Claim 1: Ground is flat outside my window. Warrant: My own eyes. Impact: If one part of the world is flat, it is only logical that the rest is also flat. Claim 2: Parking lot adjacent to the supermarket is flat. Warrant: My own five senses. Impact: See claim 1. Claim 3: There is a humongous waterfall at the end of the ocean. Warrant: I saw it in a movie. Impact: If its in a movie it must be true. The humongous waterfall proves the world is flat. Claim 4: Searching on the internet reveals pictures of a ship sailing over the edge of the world. Warrant: Link [1]. Impact: If its on the internet it must be true. Thus the Earth is flat. Links 1. https://duckduckgo.com...
The world is flat.

Con has made better arguments than expected. Most people just use the satellite photographs. Its interesting that Con knows so much about this subject. Nevertheless Pro contends that the round Earth theory is a conspiracy. What malevolent purposes, Pro cannot determine at this juncture. Pro plans to make a better argument, this isn't over. Con wants proof, Pro can provide proof for at least some of the claims. Claim: Dragons exist in present day Warrant:"Komodo dragons, a type of monitor lizard " which can be aggressive, deadly, and reach 10 feet in length. " [1]. Impact: Komodo dragons could have sunk the ships mentioned in a previous round. Claim: The idea of dragons is part of many cultures Warrant: "In the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese culture, dragons played an integral part in the culture since the beginning of recorded history." [2]. Impact: These dragons could be real and may have sunk the ships. Claim: Aliens exist Warrant: "The chances of alien life existing on a newly-discovered Earth-like planet are 100 per cent, an astronomer has claimed. " [3]. Impact: These aliens may have been messing with humans for a long time. Vote Pro, the Earth is flat. 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.allaboutcreation.org... 3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The world is flat.

I'll run through this quickly.Pro mentions 17th century germ theory and makes the following conclusion: "Just because there isn't much proof for an idea doesn't mean it's wrong." I'd like to remind the voters and the opponent that Pro is trying to prove that "the world is flat" and I am trying to prove that your case for said thing is invalid. Pro just said he can't prove his own resolution, which is his goal in this debate.Beyond that, the "nothing can be absolutely proved" idea is technically true, but completely useless. This is not a philosophical debate, it is a scientific debate. As such, we use scientific standards for truth, not philosophical standards. The opponent has not presented any viable evidence that the world is flat, while I have provided evidence, as well as made compelling, logic based arguments. It is clear that scientifically, I have won the debate. Philosophically, it is still true that I have won the debate, since the opponent cannot prove his original proposition.Lastly, the opponent confuses science's inability to prove that some things don't exist with the issue at hand, which concerns the physical state of something that certainly does exist, the Earth. For proof that the Earth exists, go outside and look down. While I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, it is a scientific principle that we assume they don't exist, without evidence. "Unreal until proven existent."We know that the Earth is real, however, so that philosophical issue doesn't even apply. We additionally have evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is in fact round, whih further implies that it is not flat.ConclusionThe opponent has presented a multitude of arguments, ranging from decent to troll. I dispatched all of these arguments and presented evidence that the Earth is not flat. In Round 4, the opponent attempted to reframe the debate from scientific one to a philosophical one (as well as dropping all previous arguments). I have shown in that case that the opponent has lost as well.It is generally accepted that new arguments are not allowed in the final round, so it is clear I have won this debate. Thanks for reading.
motor vehicles

I would like to start out with a few rebuttals, I will proceed to deliver my arguments in the next round seeing that I have little time. REBUTTALSR1) ". .. has now reached ridiculous proportions. "The term 'ridiculous' is left undefined and thus cannot be seen as a reason for limiting car ownership in and of itself given that there are different standards and perceptions on what is ridiculous and what is not ridiculous. Even if both sides of the house and all parties involved come to an agreement on the boundaries and yardsticks for the term 'ridiculous', it is still unjustified to limit consumerist privileges seeing that there exists the very real possibility that the status quo may have been a result of poor economic infrastructure to begin with, bad regulation on part of the government, or poor design by the car manufacturers. R2) ". .. excise duty on the first vehicle"Excise duties are inland taxes, meaning that such a policy or scheme cannot account for vehicles that are produced outside of the country that implements such a tax. The automative industry is very much a global one, and a substantial percentage of cars seen on the streets of any country can be traced back to overseas manufacturers and assemblers. In other words, a significant proportion of cars bought and sold would be exempt from taxation, translating into minimal resolution of the issues of pollution, road congestion, and fossil fuel usage. This is not to mention the fact that for economies with more localised automotive industries (such as Japan and South Korea), such a taxation policy would greatly impact the productivity and employment rates of said country as well as the individual companies themselves as consumers begin to turn towards overseas options and deserting the now-costly local manufacturers. R3) ". .. sliding scale for each additional vehicle. "I am not the best with economics, and PRO might have to clarify this for me, but doesn't a sliding scale make cars more affordable for those who are underprivileged and modify prices to cater to all classes and aspects of society in general? Isn't this contradictory to PRO's motive of trying to make cars less affordable (as seen with the excise duty) to dissuade car ownership and in turn alleviate the problems he/she has listed above? Once again, thank you to PRO for their arguments. I will be delivering mine in the second round, may I remind PRO that no arguments be presented in the final round. Thank you.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

I apology that I had forfeited. I had been a little busy. I will continue the argument. What the the heck does sex has to do with autocracy? THe Con is starting to spew some nonsense. I'll give him. .. .. .. .. .. some times to apologize. "the Universe is having sex like us" Proof? And no, the new stars being form is simply a chemical and physical reaction. "The Universe is your governor" The Universe is the governor, the dimension the supreme governor (Or God is the the supreme ruler for some people) Not convinced? It's lays right in front of you. Why aren't we flat like pancake, moving and can't jump? Because of dimension. Not convinced you yet? Research a bit more.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

Is that your argument? You're choosing man-made decisions over the Universe's design? K. The Universe is your governor, sir. You better appreciate what it's done for you. There's far more to the Universe than what meets your ungrateful eye. For an example, the Universe is having sex like us. Look no further than how stars explode like our penises and how black holes absorb the star's seed. Then look at how males react and look at how females are unpredictable and hungry all of the damn time. Convinced you yet?
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

"Life is not about 'one system"If this is true, then we won't have any dictators; unfortunately, we still have some. "The Universe does not support autocracy" Universe is nothing but a lifeless empty space with few stuff, so this does not make any sense. "There's a reason why the Universe gave every animal an ability to live through its own experience" What does this has to do with this debate? Let me also add some Pro about the autocracy. Unlike democracy, autocratic government can makes decision faster, unlike democratic countries, like US. For example, the politician in the US argued for a WEEK about the debt limits before they raised the debt limit. Countries like Syria makes the decision faster. You decided on something? Nobody complains.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

You want one man to lead everyone - but it's okay for another to lead everyone, as long it's still one man? This makes no sense and contradicts the point of one man leading. Life is not about "one system" - it's about many. That's why life isn't one of anything - it's a multi-faceted tapestry of cosmic beauty. The Universe does not support autocracy, therefore I do not support autocracy. There's a reason why the Universe gave every animal an ablility to live through its own experience.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

The Con did not read my rule of the debate. I will let this pass and go on to debate. "The man dies and there is no more leader" What do you mean no more leader? When Stalin died, there was a power struggle and after a brief leadership under Georgy, Nikita became the next leader of USSR. Same goes for DPRK. When Kim Jung il died of heart attack, the leadership simply went to his son, Kim Jung Un. I'll begin my argument. "It is better to be feared than loved" By Niccolo Machiavelli. This proves to be true. Before Gaddafi's downfall, there was few events but no turmoil that threatened to tear the country apart. After Gaddafi's downfall however, there was protest against the new government. The fight between the loyalist and the new Libyan army, etc. Though some people think that the dictator is unreliable leaders who pursue their personal ambition, not all dictator is bad. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is my example. He was a Roman dictator who ruled Rome for 2 weeks to fight off the attack from the enemy. After he repelled those attack, he resigned and return to the ordinary life. Caesar: Though he is bad on the public experience, he was a brilliant leader. He passed several reforms, acts and laws that was good for Roman. I know that I am using only the Roman dictators, but this is simply to prove that not all dictators is bad. To have a successful country, the country needs a good leader, an undivided country, and orders. I apologies that my debate sounds childish, English is not my second language and I am a 8th grader.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

One man leading all is absurd at best. Imagine if the man in power had a disease on his back, but he told everyone to bow down upon his presence, so no one saw the disease on his back. The man dies, and there is no more leader. The world is not built on leaders. The only "leader" is the queen that gives birth, really. That's it. There's no "king" in the animal kingdom. If anything, the only thing that seems like it is when an animal is physically stronger than the others, which makes them "the leader of the pack", but that's really not being a leader in the sense you are inferring by context. We all have a potential to be leaders - one man cannot lead all. Hell, one man cannot even lead themselves 99% of the time. So what makes you think anyone has the adequate knowledge to communicate with others and lead them as one man? The wisest of man could not even achieve this. What makes you think a tyrant would? Leading people through fear is not leading - it's blinding.
Autocracy is the most stable form of government.

The Autocracy is the most stable form of government. The Con may use any necessary measures to argue against me as long it's related. This include examples, data, quotes, etc. If the Con unintentionally forfeits the round, he may post his argument on the comment, but it has to be before I post my argument. The Con also has to argue for other types of government that he thinks is the most stable. Such as democracy, etc. 1st round is for acceptance only. Post any questions on the comment please.
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

Donald Trumps political rise is something that will be caught in political science, history, American politics class, and what ever social science classes there are for generations to come. What we witnessed with Trump in 2016 was the rise of the outsider, the man who said enough of the B.S. Washington insiders this included 16 of the best candidates the GOP had to offer. He wiped the floor with them, but why? he offers hope, and a brass message of strong leadership, something no other candidate has been able to manipulate their image to show that. Gov. Kasich again, is a great statesmen for our country but his lack of anger, which was the media called the 'adult in the room' attitude did not sit well with most voters. This election cycle his polite, soft spoken demeanor did not help him, the voters were looking for someone who expressed they were 'mad as hell'. That 'mad as hell' attitude stems from anger from the GOP towards its own for failures to stop President Obama as they have promised to do in 2010, 2012 and 2014, nothing changed though. Gov. Romney did not help, the biggest reason for the 2010 GOP T.E.A party was to protest the Affordable Care Act, the one that Gov. Romney championed in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney was not the man for the job, he did not know how to face a politician like Pres. Obama. Gov. Romney's loss in 2012 started the snowball effect that became Donald Trump, the GOP establishment is to blame for Trump, they failed their voters and their votes looked else wear and what did they find? They found Trump. Had Gov. Kasich run in 2012 he would have won, he is very level headed, the country was not as hostile as it is now so his attitude and record would have been flaunted against a very weak Pres. Obama. Gov. Kasich is a great man, but with this election cycle he was not the right man for the job. Thank you for the debate!
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

I accept my opponent's apology and I must say that they have made a very interesting rebuttal. "The people elected Donald Trump to represent the GOP in the general election and therefore it does not matter whether he is fit to be the nominee, the fact is, Donald Trump is the nominee." -I agree that the people elected Trump to represent the GOP as their nominee. Although I support Donald Trump, I would've preferred John Kasich - hence the resolution 'John Kasich should have been the GOP nominee. I agree that, in our representative republic, it is only fair that the individual with the most votes and the most delegates be granted the nomination. "This time around, the GOP electorate wanted someone who had a fighting spirit not someone who was going to accept politics as usual." -I read the second source you provided. I'll compare Trump's record to Romney's, as described on the website. 1. Romney is a Mormon, which is not traditional. Trump is a Christian, but he is not very religious, which is not completely traditional. 2. Romney created a healthcare system like Obamacare. Trump, years ago, supported universal healthcare. 3. Romney was originally pro-choice. So was Trump. 4. Romney flip-flops. Trump went from Democrat to Republican to Reform to Democrat to Republican to Independent to Republican. 5. Romney has no charisma. I'll accept this as a difference. 6. Romney reminded people of his wealth. So does Trump. 7. Romney is very unclear on his stances. Trump can be too - I had to read his website to learn his complete stances. Those are the reasons why nobody likes Romney. The strange thing is that most of them apply to Trump. Yes, Trump can be a 'fighter', I'll admit, but he's basically a different, more unconventional version of Mitt Romney. On top of that, it would seem that every time Trump 'fights', he is attacked by the media.
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

My apologies on the early rebuttal, re-reading that part about Mitt Romney acts more as both a rebuttal and an argument. All the points you made about why Gov. Kasich did not win are true, on the flip side it also shows he was out of touch with what the base wanted. Elections would be easy if both parties did not hold primaries and simply put their best people forward, that is not the case here. The people elected Donald Trump to represent the GOP in the general election and therefore it does not matter whether he is fit to be the nominee, the fact is, Donald Trump is the nominee. Gov. Kasich is an AMAZING Statesman, he has done amazing things for this country and should have run in 2012 because he would have won the election. Mitt Romney in fact helped create Donald Trump, watching Gov. Romney in 2012 break down when attacked by Obama was disgraceful and simply was embarrassing that he had no fight in him. This time around, the GOP electorate wanted someone who had a fighting spirit not someone who was going to accept politics as usual. Again no one in this election cares about Gov. Romney ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) (http://thedailybanter.com...) The GOP needs to do that, but they wont pander to Ethnic minorities like Democrats do, another issue with Romneys candidacy that hurt Kasich was he did not attack back on attacks calling him Racist, Sexist, Elitist and Homophobic it was not so much about the GOP doing a better job to reach out, rather the GOP fighting back against false attacks by the left .
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

"Gov. Kasich did not win a record number of GOP primary votes, Donald Trump did. Gov. Kasich has less delegates (161) than Marco Rubio (165) who dropped out 2 months earlier. " -Gov. Kasich lost the election for many reasons. He was not represented by the media nearly as much as Donald Trump. He had to split the anti-Trump vote with multiple candidates. He ran in an election where voters favored political outsiders. The voters preferred anti-establishment ideology. The reason Donald Trump won was because his messages - building a wall, deporting illegal immigrants, banning Muslims from terrorist-influenced countries from immigrating - resonate more with GOP voters, especially those who are looking for a non-corrupt, non-Bush Era Republican, anti-establishment, political outsider. This, however, does not mean that Donald Trump is fit to be the Republican nominee, as I am arguing that John Kasich should have filled that position. "All that other stuff, mainly the stuff Mitt Romney says is pointless to the GOP base anyways, no one liked him. " -My opponent misinterprets my argument (even though they weren't supposed to start their rebuttal) and provides false information. I did not provide any quotes or opinions from Mitt Romney; I said that "after the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, lost the election, the GOP was advised: 'We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate that we care about them, too'. I then continued to say that Gov. Kasich understands this and provided a quote - a quote from Gov. Kasich - as evidence. My opponent follows up by claiming that "no one liked" Mitt Romney. Yet my opponent leaves out that Mitt Romney received over 47% of the popular vote and 38.3% of the electoral vote. In other words, quite a few people liked him, or at least liked him enough to cast their vote for him.
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

Gov Kasich did not win a record number of GOP primary votes, Donald Trump did. Gov Kasich had less delegates (161) than Marco Rubio (165) who dropped out 2 months earlier. Trump had 1543.(http://www.realclearpolitics.com...) He did not get enough votes to win the nomination it is as simple as that. All that other stuff, mainly the stuff Mitt Romney says is pointless to the GOP base anyways, no one liked him. Trump has broad support from many sides of the political spectrum. Gov Kasich very well could have been on Trumps ticket had he not been such a sore loser, he made a pledge to endorse the nominee and still has not ( http://www.theatlantic.com...) Trump is the Nominee, voted in by the people that is how it is. Had Gov. Kasich received a record number of votes and had over 1237 delegates then he would be the nominee.
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

1. Kasich is more favorable than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. a. In virtually every poll featured on Real Clear Politics predicting a Kasich vs Clinton general election, Kasich is projected to win; his average lead over her was +7.4% [1]. When the polls were taken, John Kasich was the only Republican candidate projected to defeat a Democratic candidate. As of right now, Clinton is polling over Trump with an average lead of +0.4% [2]. b. From March 17-27, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll to determine attitudes toward the 2016 presidential candidates. The poll showed that only 20% of those sampled believed Kasich would make a poor or terrible President, compared to 46% for Clinton and 60% for Trump [3]. c. A Bloomberg poll taken on March 16 showed that Kasich has a higher net favorability than any of his primary opponents. His was +14, compared to -23 for Cruz and -39 for Trump [4]. According to Real Clear Politics, Trump currently has an average net favorability of -21.1 and Clinton has an average net favorability of -18.0 [5] [6]. 2. Kasich appeals to many types of voters and the GOP establishment. After the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, lost the election, the GOP was advised: "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate that we care about them, too." Kasich clearly understands this; in one of his speeches, he touched on how "people with more money or less money, people with different-sounding last names or different religious beliefs or different-colored skin or lifestyles" are often blamed for our country's problems [7] He affirms that he does not support same-sex marriage, which appeals to social conservatives, though he will not attempt to abolish of change the laws protecting it, which appeals to social progressives. He promised immigration reform, which appeals to moderate voters and the GOP establishment. He supports deregulation, which appeals to fiscal conservatives [7]. Conclusion John Kasich is proven to be more favorable then Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. His stances and ideas appeal to many groups, including but not limited to moderates, social progressives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and the GOP establishment. Above all, he was projected to defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election. It is for these reasons that I propose that Ohio governor and former candidate John Kasich should have received the Republican party nomination for President of the United States. SOURCES [1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [3] http://www.people-press.org... [4] http://assets.bwbx.io... [5] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [6] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [7] http://www.npr.org...