BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)

Ultimate debate 1: http://www.debate.org... Ultimate debate 2: http://www.debate.org... This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this, comment. I will accept someone from the comments I would like to debate.If you wish to debate, say so in comments, message me or comment on my profile. Also, should there be any, ask any questions in those three places about this debate.I will be debating this, though: "Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)" I will be Pro.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (max 3)Round 3: Arguments (max 3)Round 4: Arguments (max 3)Round 5: Rebuttals. You may NOT write rebuttals in any other round than the fifth. CON may NOT write rebuttals on my rebuttals in the fifth round. You may NOT bring up any new points in round 5. NO SWEARING OR RACIAL SLURS!*****IMPORTANT*****This is not about the company, JUST the fast food chains. So any arguments must be related to the restraunt NOT to just the company in general. No semantics.Any breaking of rules means forfeit of debate.Good luck,DDD
Matters don't exist on Earth.

Yes, the kind of matter that creates us, the Earth, and every other things.For now, let's stick to the fact that matters do exist and look at its origin. In the world of reality, everything is created from our thought, through the Law of Attraction. Whatever you think, you get. It is something that operates at the heart of persnal self-empowerment. Because thought is consciousness vibrating, it is also physical matter. The only difference between reality and thought is their density. To make things easy, matter is consciousness vibrating at a low-speed meanwhile thought is fast-vibrating consciousness. Looking at a fan, it looks obvious that it is solid when the fan spins slowly. However, when the fan spins fast, everything goes blurry and it seeems invisible; transparent. It is the same thing. Quantum physics proved that matter is not solid, but is made of vibrating atoms. Because atoms are pure vibration,something must be vibrating. The intelligent energy, or the emptiness in the air that vibrates in an organized form, is the answer to all existing things. It is also known as consciousness. We are taught that things can't be made from scratch. Nevertheless, we never know that our thought is what controls reality. When we thing something exists, our consciousness creates it. With every knowledge, beife, and attitude we pick up, the powerful level of mind is being imprinted into the subconsciousness. When we desire something, the deep mind within us, as well as our subconsciousness, will manifests the inner thought into exterior reality. http://www.learnmindpower.com...http://brontebaxter.wordpress.com...;
Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted

PrefaceI thank Zarroette for this debate. I hope she agrees to accept, and I look forward to a cordial, engaging exchange of views. If she would like to alter any rules or formatting, she should PM me prior to acceptance. This is, of course, an issue that is important to me personally, and so I hope to defend my position well. Due to the tendency for some users to cast ideological ballots on sensitive current-issue topics like this one, there is a minimum of 2,500 ELO required before a user may vote on this debate. I hope this will weed out some more inexperienced voters.Full TopicIn a just society, same-sex marriages would not be permitted.TermsJust - based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fairSame-sex Marriage (SSM) - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; Pro must go first4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. With undefined words, there will be no semantics8. My opponent will not argue in favor of disallowing marriages in general, but only for disallowing same-sex marriages9. The BOP is shared: Pro must uphold the idea that same-sex marriages ought not to be permitted; Con must uphold the claim that same-sex marriages ought to be permitted.10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......in advance to Zarroette for what I am sure will be an intriguing debate.
The wage gap doesn't exist.

The resolution says "the wage gap doesn't exist." That's *all* the resolution says. Any reasonable interpretation of the resolution would be that the wage gap doesn't exist. If the resolution said "the wage gap doesn't exist," one ought to interpret it as that and nothing else. The affirmative changed the debate midway to "the wage gap is not caused by discrimination," which is *not* what the resolution said. I understood the resolution clearly, and I really did understand it like that. I wasn't looking to deliberately misinterpret the resolution. Clarification in the comments wasn't required because there arepeople who believe the wage gap doesn't exist. Punish the affirmative for this poor resolution drafting: it's entirely their fault I interpreted it like that. The affirmative says: "In the first round, in one of the sentences, I wrote "[...]being employed since the employers would have to pay them less?"; that should have been an indicator of what the argument would've been about. I do not understand how you interpreted it any other way. The wage gap myth is quite frequently talked about, especially by feminists as well, so I do not see how you have understood it wrongly." 1. The quote is irrelevant, because it talks about employment, i.e. the wage gap being a benefit to women - which is irrelevant to even the position the affirmative has held through this debate. It is certainly irrelevant to interpreting the resolution. 2. Yes, the wage gap is talked about - and people actually dothink it doesn't exist. I'm not misinterpreting the resolution: if the resolution says "the wage gap doesn't exist," that is what I am going to interpret it as. There was no clarification otherwise in R1. So I took the interpretation that people actually often believe in and argued based on that. Then the affirmative just changed the resolution midway to something else, which is absolutely unjust. Opponents of feminism say the wage gap doesn't exist. So I assumed the affirmative was such a person because of the way the resolution was structured. The affirmative is simply being abusive. Vote negative in this debate. Thank you.
The wage gap doesn't exist.

.. ]being employed since the employers would have to pay them less? "; that should have been an indicator of what the argument would've been about. I do not understand how you interpreted it any other way. The wage gap myth is quite frequently talked about, especially by feminists as well, so I do not see how you have understood it wrongly. I have not changed my argument at all, if you did not understand what I was talking about, perhaps you should have asked me prior to the commencement of this debate. The link in the first round, should have also been a clear indicator about the topic of the debate. You cannot make the voters reject my argument solely because you interpreted the title wrongly. I have not changed my case at all. A quick search on google of the "wage gap" could have explained that.
The wage gap doesn't exist.

a) Interpretation The affirmative drops interpretation; extend that the resolution requires the affirmative not to prove that discrimination isn’t the cause of the pay gap. Rather, per framing of the resolution, affirmative has to prove that the gender pay gap doesn’t exist at all. Extend the link, since the affirmative framed the resolution as “the gender pay gap doesn’t exist.” The affirmative has to affirm the resolution, not warp the resolution as they please. But the affirmative’s interpretation is essentially conveying a different meaning altogether. The affirmative’s whole rebuttal of my case is based on the premise that the pay gap isn’t caused by discrimination. But I never claimed the pay gap was caused by discrimination: this is a straw man. The affirmative is changing the debate by their will, which is grossly unfair. Debate theory: The debaters must maintain a consistent advocacy. It’s unfair to let the affirmative change the position because then the sides are allowed to simply change their case in accordance to whatever rebuttal the opponent gives, making debate pointless. Multiple positions are a “character skew” (i.e. time skew in standard debate theory) – I spent the whole last round assuming the normal interpretation of the resolution, but since the affirmative has arbitrarily changed their position, it would invalidate my arguments if accepted. Reject their rebuttal because 1) they are making an unfair character skew arbitrarily and changing their case, and 2) there is no non-arbitrary reason to support their reason; my interpretation has been warranted, and dropped. Extend interpretation and vote Aff down. b) Rebuttal Cross-apply my interpretation to their case. First, the affirmative’s whole rebuttal to my case hinges on the premise of women pursuing diverse career choices, et cetera – essentially the same position as the affirmative’s first source. But this is to be rejected as per the interpretation argument, which is extended. Second, the affirmative’s own case – which is required for them to fulfill the onus that rests upon them – concedes the existence of a pay gap. The Sommers card that Aff uses to justify their case itself says: “There is clearly a wage gap.” I agree that the wage gap is NOT caused by discrimination, but there’s no link between the affirmative’s position and the resolution. My interpretation negates pre-fiat because of the affirmative’s concession. Voter Issues: Vote Neg off of a few reasons and reject the Aff’s position: 1) The interpretation is dropped and extended. It is important since it is cross-applied to my case and the Aff’s, and the interpretation by which judges should cast their ballot is whether the affirmative fulfils the onus that the pay gap doesn’t exist. This isn’t fulfilled. 2) Cross-apply the interpretation to the AC – the AC is directly lost because of the concession that the pay gap does exist, only talking about the causes without establishing a clear link. The NC and the AC turn allow for my position to be upheld. I urge a Neg ballot.
The wage gap doesn't exist.

Women aren't earning less for equal work nor for the same careers. Your source also states that: "...the wage gap is due to a variety of causes, such as differences in education choices, differences in preferred job and industry, differences in the types of positions held by men and women, differences in the type of jobs men typically go into as opposed to women (especially highly paid high risk jobs), differences in amount of work experience, difference in length of the work week, and breaks in employment." The general debate about the wage gap isn't whether or not it exists amongst the sexes for different professional pursuits etc. but it states that women are paid .77c to the dollar, which is NOT true. Your quote about the Australian gender pay gap and the Canadian women earning less statement fails to really backup the fact that women tend to pursue diverse career choices than men. More proof to backup my argument: http://www.jstor.org... As you can see, in these specific careers, women also tend to have equal salaries to men or they even might outearn them: http://www.monster.com... Website with a bunch of sources opposing the wage gap: http://www.fighting4fair.com... Feminist Christina Hoff Sommers goes on to explain this: https://www.washingtonpost.com... "There is clearly a wage gap, but differences in the life choices of men and women " such as women tending to leave the workforce when they have children " make it difficult to make simple comparisons. Obama is using a figure (annual wages, from the Census Bureau) that makes the disparity appear the greatest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for instance, shows that the gap is 19 cents when looking at weekly wages. The gap is even smaller when you look at hourly wages " it is 14 cents " but then not every wage earner is paid on an hourly basis, so that statistic excludes salaried workers. In other words, since women in general work fewer hours than men in a year, the statistics used by the White House may be less reliable for examining the key focus of legislation pending in Congress " wage discrimination. The weekly wage is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does not include as many income categories. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis surveyed economic literature and concluded that "research suggests that the actual gender wage gap (when female workers are compared with male workers who have similar characteristics) is much lower than the raw wage gap." They cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar."
The wage gap doesn't exist.

The wage gap does not exist and has been debunked multiple times. Even though there's solid proof that the wage gap is solely a myth, third-wave feminists still continue to spread lies about this matter. In the case that the wage gap was truly real, wouldn't women have a higher chance than men of being employed since the employers would have to pay them less? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... Rules: 1) Post sources to backup your statements. 2) No insults, as they're pretty pointless and demonstrate that you're running out of arguments, not to mention they're a form of logical fallacy. (Ad hominem) 3) Overall, try to enjoy this debate and try to accept my perspective about this, just like I'll accept yours. Thank you.
America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany

America is not becoming more like Nazi Germany. The difference between the United States (and to that extent, any other modern 1st world country) and Nazi Germany is that the latter was defined by it's Nazism beliefs rather than by economic principals. Adolf Hitler preached hate and intolerance towards Jews and other "inferior" being. To say that: "Adolf Hitler was certainly more racist than the leaders of America are today, but other than that there are very few differences between the road that Adolf Hitler led Germany down and the path that the United States is being led down" is like saying: "Besides the fact that an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange, apples and oranges really aren't that different" When you take away the defining feature of something, it loses it's identity, much like how a Ferrari would cease to be desirable to many if you take out its engine. When a debate is titled "America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany" you cannot then later say that you are going to redact the key difference between Nazi Germany and the United States. The United States will become more like Nazi Germany when Obama starts throwing Tea Partyers in death camps, in other words, never. Big Brother is joining Aryan Nation anytime soon.
America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany

America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany I will be arguing that the US is becoming like Nazi Germany The United States of America is becoming more like Nazi Germany every single day. Most Americans simply have never learned what life was really like back in Nazi Germany. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany was a Big Brother totalitarian police state that ruthlessly repressed freedom and individual liberty. Under Adolf Hitler, Germany adopted socialism, dramatically increased government spending and raised taxes to astronomical levels. Nazi Germany shows us what happens when the state becomes god. Adolf Hitler was certainly more racist than the leaders of America are today, but other than that there are very few differences between the road that Adolf Hitler led Germany down and the path that the United States is being led down.To prove these points, I am going to use extensive quotes from two sources. Kitty Werthmann was a child living a peaceful life in Austria when Hitler took over her nation. Her eyewitness accounts about what life was like under Nazi Germany are invaluable and I will also be quoting from author Bruce Walker.
America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany

My opponent states that "By saying that America is now identical in essence to Nazi Germany, we're acknowledging that not all features of the two societies are identical." However, the features that he has explicitly described are not fact. Dictionary.com defines a police state as "a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy." Now I cannot speak as to the location in which my opponent resides but when walking around town, I do not see government agents going around and arresting certain Republicans and Tea Partyers who are so cleverly calling them out. The NDAA did not vest any new powers in the office of the President of the United States. The courts have long since ruled that actions such as these may be taken in the case of national security to protect the public. This is completely different from Hitler's powers in Nazi Germany, where he could have a whole demographic arrested and executed on a whim or have his political opponents secretly executed. This is not going on in the United States. The Nazis killed millions of people because they viewed them as inferior beings that were the roots of their problems. It was not for population control as my opponent stated. I really feel no need to address all of my opponents points as I would also agree to them if they were true but they simply are not. He suggests that America is implementing policies that are identical to Nazi Germany in spirit and this allows him some leeway to defend against the fact that they are in no way the same policies. Using my opponents logic, I could say that a 6% sales tax which partially contributes to social welfare programs is in essence, like communism. This is not true as you can barely manage to maintain a meager standard of living on $400/month as opposed to communism where everyone is expected to live off of it. My opponent has yet to make a solid argument based in fact. His examples are subjective and not widely accepted as truth. I think it is more plausible to say that my opponent is caught up in an emotional movement, that was perpetrated by individuals trying to undermine our current government, which is right now merely a current event, and which, 40-50 years from now, will be looked back upon as just another turbulent period that will come to pass in this great nations history.
That the hamburger is the single greatest food item ever concieved by man

http://www.youtube.com... OBJECTION! LOL My opponent poses a strange scenario about being stuck on a desert island and only having hamburgers to eat. I say if I was stuck on a desert island and only had hamburgers to eat, it would probably lead to my death anyways because then I will probably become obese, develop heart problems, and die anyways. A hamburger is also not an option if say the person on this island was a vegetarian, Hamburgers by google definition means 1. a sandwich consisting of a fried cake of minced beef served on a bun, often with other ingredients 2. ground beef: beef that has been ground So the hamburger cannot be the greatest food item ever conceived by man if not everyone is ethically okay with eating meat. In the documentary Super Size Me one man did try to eat only McDonalds for days and in the process showed how much negative effects there are when a person only consumes hamburgers and fries. People only consuming hamburgers and fast foods of this sort has led to a wide spread of obesity. The Hamburger may be tasty to some but that tasty feeling has a price which is a person's health. Chewing Gum Argument The chewing gum is the greatest food item ever conceived by man because well you can eat it at anytime. It is really portable and lasts a long time. Chewing gum also fights cavities and makes the mouth smell a lot fresher. No animal is used to make the chewing gum so it is okay for everyone to eat. When trying to impress a girl/guy Because the chewing gum has such a breath changing effect it could help you more effectively pursue your other. Dirty mouth and bad breathe is a turn off and you will not be lucky if you just jammed a hamburger in your mouth and your breath smells like the end of a monkey. Unexpected fun Chewing gum offers a unintended entertainment to the mix because they could be blown into a big bubble which kids find very enjoyable. Chewing gum can also be accepted as "candy" and on occasions like Halloween can be giving to kids as a acceptable treat opposed to jamming a hamburger in a kids candy bucket. Chewing gum does not hurt your health Since chewing gum is rarely consumed it rarely hurts your health and contains very small amounts of calories unlike the burger where you can find some burgers like the "big Mac" containing over 1000 calories. Variety Gum comes in either sugar or sugar free and they have an unbelievably different assortments in flavors. The hamburger is not the greatest food item ever conceived because it is not advised to eat a hamburger everyday. Gum is okay for any situation.
That the hamburger is the single greatest food item ever concieved by man

ARGUMENT 1: The age old "desert island" situation Let me pose to you, dear voters, an impossible situation. You are stuck on a desert island forever. For the rest of your life, you can eat one item and one item only. What better food could you choose than the hamburger with the lot? Not only combined is it a very tasty thing, but each part of the hamburger could be broken down and alone creates a new item. Salad, bread, meat, cheese, bacon, egg. Any number of combinations make different items that you would order on a menu. Some examples: Bacon and eggs A salad A salad sandwich A BLT A cheese and sandwich A rissole ARGUMENT 2: The food guide pyramid The hamburger includes all of the food groups represented. With healthy eating in mind, it could even be made to include the groups in proportion. ARGUMENT 3: Versatility The format of the hamburger is very simple. A "Pattie" sandwiched between the top and bottom of a bun. Any number of condiments, salads, other ingredients and alternate patties make a million different types of burger. You could have a burger made quickly, slapped together at a barbecue or served with the best ingredients and slapped with a very exclusive prices, such as some of the burgers on this website: http://most-expensive.net... ARGUMENT 4: The greatest item is perfectly complimented by the greatest side. Fries. That concluded my round 2 argument. Round 3 with consist of my retorts to my opponents round 2 arguments and my own closing arguments.
That the hamburger is the single greatest food item ever concieved by man

I love food and the argument about the best food is always a hot (no pun intended) and tasty (pun intended) one. Everyone has their favourite type of food - Mexican, Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Indian, Italian, the list goes on and on. I however, have thought long and hard about this and after a lot of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Hamburger is the greatest single food item of all. If you feel differently, please accept my challenge. Let the debate begin!