BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

My opponent has not answered this last round, so I will use this opportunity to show how Team Iron Man failed to achieve his objectives, and essentially lost his team in the process. Once again, we are discussing a movie, so there will be major plot points discussed. So, what is Team iron man trying to do in the movie? "First, capture (or kill) Bucky "Get the Avengers to sign on with the Sokovia Accords "Keep the Avengers together* "Stop Captain America from escaping the airport "Capture the rogue Avengers *This was also the goal of team Cap, although to a lesser extent. Both teams failed in this regard So, which of these goals were accomplished? Let's see, "Bucky is in friendly hands, who will help him get free of Hydra. "Iron Man, Vision, a paralyzed War Machine, and possibly Spider-Man are the only "Avengers" to sign the Accords, so out of 12 possible people, they get 2 yeses, one paralyzed yes, and one 15 year old maybe. "I can reasonable say that the Avengers are broken right now. They could have reunion later, but not yet. "Captain America and Bucky both escaped the airport. "All of the rogue Avengers are now walking free. So, team Iron Man failed in their objectives. Not only that, but they are barely a team anymore. Let's check on the members. "Iron Man: Leader of the husk of the Avengers. He also has Captain's shield. "Vision: Helping Iron Man rebuild the Avengers. I'm not sure why he is staying, but he is. "War Machine: Paralyzed, but Tony Stark is his friend, so he doesn't need to worry too much. "Black Widow: Not actually team Iron Man anymore. Tony call the cops on her. She is now team Black Widow "Black Panther: Currently housing Captain America and Bucky. He is now team Cap "Spider-Man: Somewhat clueless, but still team Iron Man "The governments of the world: The government is the secret member of team Iron Man. They keep on governing. So, team Iron Man is down a lot of people, with others emotionally or physically scarred. Let's run through team Cap now. "Captain America: Down a shield, but he is pals with Black Panther now, so that shouldn't be a problem. He is free "Falcon: Free "Scarlett Witch: Free "Hawkeye: Somewhat weak still, but free "Ant-Man: Free "Bucky: Bucky has locked himself up, because he is danger to others. A loss for team Cap "Black Panther: He is now on team Cap. So, as far as team members go, team Iron Man is down two, with one paralzyed. Team Cap on the other hand is down a shield and Bucky, but gained Black Panther. So in no metric does team Iron Man win, with the team in tatters, while team Cap at the very least breaks even or exceeds its previous strength. Team Captain America is in a far better position and came out of the civil war on top.
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

Thank you for this chance to debate. Warning to anyone reading this, there are spoilers ahead. There are two questions in this debate. First, who completed their objectives. Second, who won the actually battle. The objectives of Team Captain America are as follow: Keep Bucky safe(not dead) Don't be under control of the UN Stop the other Winter Soldiers Stop Zemo Not be captured Now, which of these did they not achieve? Let's see, Bucky is in safe hands. He isn't well yet, but he isn't dead or in jail. They did not sign the Sokovia Accords, so they still control themselves. The other Winter Soldiers are dead. They didn't do it, but oh well, done is done. Zemo is in jail. They are all free and not in jail. Team Captain America completed their objectives. They also won in the battle, in the sense that they escaped and were able to go to Siberia. Every objective that they had was completed. Now, I see no reason, other than that Team Cap did poorly, showing that team iron man won. I look forward to the next round.
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

I have watched captain america 3 : civil war and I think it is safe to say that team iron man is the winner, for captain america failed to impact the Sokovia Accords in any way, his entire team has been declared as fugitives and bucky was "shut down". While it is closer to a draw, if I have to pick a side, I pick team iron man.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

I will be defending the idea that nations should not defend themselves if they are not guarenteed to suceed.Point 1: ChickenFor my first point, I will draw upon the popular Chicken game {1} from Game Theory. The scenario is simple: Two cars are speeding towards each other on a highway. Right before they hit, they have to do decide if they want to swerve out of the way. The worst outcome is one in which neither of them swerve. They both die/suffer heavy casualties. However, if one of them swerves, the other is able to keep riding along the highway. Therefor, the person who doesn't swerve is better off than the one who does. One must realize that even though one is better off, they don't both die. If one nation does not defend itself, it does not risk heavy casualties. It does not matter that they might still win. It would not be worth the risk of mutually-assured destruction.Point 2: Casualties from defenseBefore deciding to defend, you have to think of the outcomes. Is it worth it? For example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, up to 2,000,000 casulties were reported{2}. If Russia had given up the city, they would have avoided thousands upon thousands of deaths. Another example would be the Second Battle of the Marne, in which there were over 200,000 casualties and captures. {3}{1} http://en.wikipedia.org...(game){2}http://en.wikipedia.org...{3}http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

I believe that a nation should defend itself regardless of it's chances of winning the fight. To support my position, I will draw on one war and two nations. The war is World War Two and the nations are France and the USSR. In World War 2, Germany rolled into France and secured its hold on the nation. France had no chance at breaking free without assisstance. They had no assisstance at the beginning since Great Britain was fighting to maintain its own sovereignty and the US wasn't officially involved. Did France roll over and die? No. The French resistance formed. They fought back against the Germans as best they could despite the fact that their chances of winning were almost 0. They fought back, and became a key piece in Germany's defeat. If not for the French Resistance, D-Day wouldn't have happened. Without D-Day, it would have been much longer before the allies hit the mainland of Europe, if they ever hit it. If France, and all its citizens, had quit because "it wasn't a sure win", then World War Two would have turned out much differently. The USSR is another great example. Germany pounded them for a large portion of the war, and almost broke them. The army of the USSR never quit. They kept fighting to defend their nation despite the fact that "it wasn't a sure win." They eventually were able to score a few great wins over the Germans and turn the war around. They ended the war as a super power. That wouldn't have happened if they'd quit. I await my opponent's arguments.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

I want to offer up some definitions for this debate. Con can challenge them if he feels the need. Defend: To ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually followed by from or against ) {1} Sure: free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc. , of something. {2} Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. {3} {1}. http://dictionary.reference.com... {2}. http://dictionary.reference.com... {3} . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win.

I will be debating bossyburrito on the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win". I will be taking the position that you should defend yourself no matter what. Bossy will be taking the position that you should only defend yourself when it's a sure win.R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Closing arguments*******NOTE: This debate is refering to groups of armed people fighting each other, not one person attacking another.**********
stupid

Ok, ok. I've tried to avoid these debates but he/she keeps sending me requests. So lets just get this one over with. But no more. Hopefully, it's actually a trap. The resolution is "stupid". As the instigator is Pro, they will be arguing in favor of stupid. As Con, I shall be opposed to stupid. I'm looking forward to my opponent's argument in favor of stupid, to which I shall form a rebuttal.
stupid

"My dad gave me one dollar bill'Cause I'm his smartest son,And I swapped it for two shiny quarters'Cause two is more than one! And then I took the quartersAnd traded them to LouFor three dimes -- I guess he didn't knowThat three is more than two! Just then, along came old blind BatesAnd just 'cause he can't seeHe gave me four nickels for my three dimes,And four is more than three! And then I took the nickels to Hiram CoombsDown at the seed-feed store,And the fool gave me five pennies for them,And five is more than four! And then I went and showed my dad,And he got red in the cheeksAnd closed his eyes and shook his head --Too proud of me to speak! ""Smart" - Shel SilversteinARGUMENTSP1: BOP Unsubstantiated. a. Con has forfeited and thus has not fulfilled her his heshe's it's burden of proof. P2: Stupid is Proven to Cause Wrongness. a. Priori: This debate is just wrong and should not have occurred. All viewers find this self-evident. b. It would not have happened if I hadn't have accepted it. c. Accepting this debate can be qualified as a "stupid" action. d. Thus, the stupidity of my action caused complete and utter wrongness. STUPID IS STUPID.
stupid

There is no argument to rebut. Nonetheless, I shall go on. I shall make a case by comparison. Stupid: video 1 http://www.youtube.com... Smart: video 2 http://www.youtube.com... Stupid: video 3 http://www.youtube.com... Smart: video 4 http://www.youtube.com... Now, I was GOING to write out a huge article for this debate. Perhaps because this debate is stupid. And I wanted to show off. But then I realized that was stupid. I'm going to spend the time researching information on college instead. Peace.
Alcohol Should Be Illegal

Okay thank you, let's begin:1. Addictiveness and InfluenceAlcohol has become a substance that has been easy to possess because of it's legality. It has caused plenty of controversy and problems because of it's negative affects on consuming it. It's addictiveness causes loss of concentration on many tasks like school, studies and jobs. One major factor of alcohol is drunkenness. Drinking and driving is prohibited due to dangerous risks formed by consuming alcohol. People who are under the influence of alcohol tend to lose their consciousness, and have potential for road accidents. Banning alcohol minimises danger on the roads to the driver and those around them, making it a safer environment. 2. Damaging from AlcoholAs mentioned earlier, alcohol can have an impact on driving. This includes difficulty walking, blurred vision, slow reaction time and impaired memory. Clearly alcohol affects the brain. Apart from driving, alcohol can also produce long term influences such as breast cancer, oral cancer, heart diseases, strokes, and dysfunction of the liver. These facts emphasise on the point why alcohol should be banned.3. General Well beingConsuming alcohol leads to long term negative affects which can affect daily activities and health. Broken relationships, loss of jobs, imprisonment can all be consequences from undertaking alcohol.Sources:1. http://www.knowswhy.com...2. http://thestar.com.my...;3. http://www.smh.com.au...4. http://www.bbc.co.uk...5. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...;
humanity would have been better off without religion

I disagree with the definition of humanity.(Or rather I meant a different kind of humanity.) Humanity: the human race. Source: definition 4 of humanity from http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Other then that, I agree with your terms. Let's do this. Now to make myself clear, I am not here to argue the morality or the intentions of religion, rather the profound negative effect it has had throughout history. I think the best way to start the argument off is to show historical examples of religion causing pain and suffering to the world. 1.Taiping Rebellion: radical political and religious upheaval that was probably the most important event in China in the 19th century. It ravaged 17 provinces, took an estimated 20,000,000 lives. The rebellion began under the leadership of Hong Xiuquan, a disappointed civil service examination candidate who, influenced by Christian teachings, had a series of visions and believed himself to be the son of God, the younger brother of Jesus Christ, sent to reform China. A friend of Hong"s, Feng Yunshan, utilized Hong"s ideas to organize a new religious group, the God Worshippers" Society. Source: http://www.britannica.com... 2.The Inquisitions: judicial institutions or tribunals that were established by the Roman Catholic Church in order to seek out, try, and sentence people that the Roman Catholic Church believed to be guilty of heresy. 31,912 people are believed to have been executed by the Spanish Inquisition alone! Source: http://www.gotquestions.org... 3.The Crusades: expeditions of Christian Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land. They are a part of the thousand years' conflict between Christianity and Islam. The combined death toll was about 3 million. Sources: http://www.religionfacts.com... http://necrometrics.com... 4.The Jewish Holocaust of 1940s: 6 million Jews dead. If religion didn't exist, Hitler wouldn't have any Jews to kill. I think I made my point clear. I wonder how my opponent is going to respond.
humanity would have been better off without religion

My opponent has taken all the burden of proof for this debate but I think I will offer my own proof as well. No rules were given by my opponent so I'll only submit the rule that round 1 is only for acceptance. I will give my opponent the opportunity to state his case first. In the following round I will go over my opponents argument while also implementing one of my own. Other than that one rule I will not seek to establish any others. As long as we can agree to the common meanings for humanity, religion and better off which are: Humanity - the quality or state of being human. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religion- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Better off- being in comfortable economic circumstances: being in a more advantageous position. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I look forward to my opponents opening round and wish him good luck. That said, with no further ado I send it back to my opponent.
Abortion

Per our discussion in the comment section the other day, I believe it would be a good idea to have a thoughtful and constructive debate on what is a very important issue in today's society.First Round - AccceptanceSecond Round - Opening ArgumentThird and Fourth Round - RebuttalsArguments may change or be added except in the final round.Argument length: 10,000 Characters MaxTime to Argue: 72 HrsHope you are able to accept the challenge, as I respected much of what you had to say in our previous discussion.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
Should Professional athletes be considered as Role models

My opponent has fallen under the logical fallacy of "begging the question", or in other words, answering a question with the prerequisites for the question to occur. In this case, my opponent makes the point "role models can be athletes, and athletes want to be models". Sadly, this is not true. This reasoning is tautological and is circular. Even then, not all athletes become athletes to solely become a role model. They become one because they love the sport and the paycheck has at least 6 zeroes. This shouldn't be the definition of a role model. As I have shown in my previous argument, athletes aren't always the knights in shining armor as they appear to be on the field (in fact, one might consider their true "mettle AND metal" not tested). Athletes are not accountable, responsible, nor any other trait that makes them a model to follow. They only win. All they have are skills and having a certain set of skills does not make that person a good role model for malleable young children.
Should Professional athletes be considered as Role models

Very nice constructive case. Expecting athletes to be role models is simply unrealistic. I am not sure why we expect an exceptional athlete to be an exceptional person. Maybe it is because the professional athlete's skills are so extraordinary, it seems natural to expect this ability to apply to all aspects of the person. Maybe it is because the professional athlete is a hero and we expect our heroes to be beyond reproach. Athletes may not want to be role models or be ready for this responsibility. It is unfortunate that the great physical ability that allows an athlete to reach the professional level is seldom matched with an equal measure of poise and maturity. Because pro athletes are spoiled, they feel they aren't accountable for their behaviors off the field. They're so used to people looking the other way. Kids pick athletes as role models because they win. We must teach children that a hero on the field isn't always a hero off the field. Thanks.
Should Professional athletes be considered as Role models

First of all, thank you for your kind words. You are not a bad debater yourself, especially one that is 6 years younger than me. But let's get to business. Every kid DOES deserve a future of what they want to become. I'm not arguing against that, and yes, I've seen the Olympics. Role models don't mean muscles, they don't mean perfect dribbling skills. They're about something more, something deeper. Responsibility. Leadership. Kindness. And those aren't things we often see in athletes, hell, they'll break all three of them to get a gold medal and the winner's bonus. Instead we see those values in people we overlook. Our parents. Our friends. Our teachers. I would like to end with a quote from the Dark Knight: "He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight." - Lt. James Gordon Thank you.
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

C1: Sexual slaveryWho is there to stop it? police? If there are police, who stops them going corrupt? Of course not. Sexual slavery of children as young as two can occur, just that dirty old rascal you are to support it! C2: MurderYour beloved girlfriend, sexy and caring and amazing as she is, is walking down the street to get a nice pack of condoms for you tonight ;). .. Oh wait. .. Nope. .. Random madman knocks here DEAD who to stop? No one, this is anarchism. C3: Only the strongest will surviveThe human system of politics was invented for the purposes of people of a range of talents and abilities, not simply physical prowess, to succeed and contribute to society but here where there is rape, theft, murder, and simply public mockery of random people for the hell of it who will survive the best? The strong ones only, no matter if they are dumb and kill all smart humans right out of existence, and thus society remains genetically too stupid to ever reform again. C4: Who is to enforce any lawYou go to a bank and rob it, WHO WILL STOP YOU? no one. they will all join in for Christ's sake! The economy will be doomed! C5: Torture for funYour lovely daughter goes out to play, and your son with her, but then a man with a gun comes out for no reason, with a gang to guard his back, and says oh hush little baby don't you cry, then kills your son. Then you daughter begins to scream, this is as he cuts open her tiny mouth and leaves her to die as the joker does. Who to stop it? Batman? Really? No governmental organisation = chaos. Even if there is an anarchic one how to enforce laws if you got no laws? Anarchism is f*cking disgusting you fool. Organised politics is essential, a government MUST BE IN PLACE THAT DOESN'T SWAY TO ITS PEOPLES EVERY DESIRE! It is what separates us form the common animal.
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

As one who is apathetic to politics altogether I have often wondered if I myself am an anarchist. That was until I read up on anarchy, which short of corruption communism and fascism, is the fourth most disgusting political system human societies have to offer.In round two explain why anarchism is disgusting, and very self-destructive as a political regime (even though it is technically the complete abolishment of any feasible regime).I accept.
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Resolution===The resolution for this debate will deal with anarchism and whether it would have a legitimate possibility of effectively and qualitatively providing various social services which are generally recognized as necessary for the existence of civil society. In this debate, Pro is tasked with establishing a general framework for the effective production of these services (as well as their plausibility, just saying it's possible that everyone would get along is insufficient) while also refuting Con's arguments. Con's burden is to both attempt to refute Pro's framework, as well as to forward and defend one or more compelling objections to anarchism.===Definitions===Anarchism in the scope of this debate does not concur with the vulgar use of the term (referring to chaos or lawlessness), but instead with the political philosophy advocating a form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services. More specifically, I will be defending free market anarchism[1] when more non-institutional specifics are brought up.The term State refers to an institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery). Aside from monocentric control of the provision of these services, a State also has the power to tax the inhabitants under its control.A compelling objection in this instance will refer to an objection levelled against anarchism which shows it to be incapable of providing necessary social services (such as law and order) effectively or qualitatively. I don't think Con will be guilty of this but just in case, an argument along the lines of saying that some service X would be 5% more efficient then anarchist service X wouldn't be considered compelling. The term compelling implies a strong difference between the respective provision of the given services which sways strongly in the State's favor.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions. 2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted. 3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted. 4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2. 5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con. ===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...