BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Bashar al-Assad be taken down

Again Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist and must be taken down at all costs, true War may be hell, but We are Americans, and wither My opponent likes it or not, we interfere with almost every war. And with the fact that Assad is using chemical weapons on his own people, the people HE was supposed to defend during his presidency. He is a what I like to call a " Right wing nut job" I hope that you all will vote AFF on this topic thank you.
Should Bashar al-Assad be taken down

There is an old saying that war is hell. I'm sure that both sides are committing atrocities and I'll even concede that Assam maybe committing more. But we need to stop being the world policeman and start to mind our own business. We have been judge and jury too much with regard to policing the world. We should provide humanitarian aid only and declare complete neutrality. People die in war, but I'm not interested in spending anymore of our blood and treasure in a foreign war that's none of our business. We need to stop interfering in every civil war and revolution around the globe. Starting in Syria we can make a great stand for peace and for non intervention. If Congress represents the voice of the American people, it is significant that 50% of the people are against military intervention in Syria according to an NBC poll. Only 42% support military action. It is also important to bear in mind that the people in countries regarded as the US"s "comrades-in-arms" are also opposed to military force. In France it is 64% of the citizenry. In Britain, the House of Commons, reflecting popular sentiment, has voted against military intervention in Syria. Also, since the United Nations" investigation team has done its analysis of the alleged chemical attack near Damascus and found somewhat inconclusive, in other words rebel troops may have also used these weapons. An attack on Syria would also be a violation of international law since Syria has not attacked the US.
If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that part of my argument was founded on poor reasoning and is not necessary to negate the resolution. I have not forfeited; I still oppose the resolution, but will be withdrawing all of my arguments thus far except the following: [1] If gambling is illegal for minors, then (only) arcade games that utilize gambling should be illegal for minors too. [2] Not all arcade games can be considered gambling. Games such as coin-operated video games, and pinball machines cannot be considered gambling as they do not reward the player with material gain. Gambling is the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning. A stake is defined in gambling, as "the quantity of money or other goods that is risked on the outcome of some specific event." Any use of the word "gambling" that includes the possibility of gaining non-material value is out of context because the legal definition of gambling only regards money and material value. [3] Therefore, it is unnecessary to illegalize all arcade games. _____ My opponents sole argument is that arcade games should be illegal for minors because some arcade games can be considered gambling: "I will say my opponent has already admitted that there are some games that display the gambling concepts found in local arcades. But these are no longer the minority go to a place like Chucky Cheese all they have are redemption games. But even if it was a minority that should be enough to outlaw it because like I said before, kids will find the opportunity of winning prizes so alluring they will just go to the arcade and ignore the other games and play the ones that offer you the tickets." You still contend that all arcade games should be illegalized even though there are many that do not utilize gambling. This proposition is ridiculous. Illegalizing redemption games and other such games that utilize some form of gambling might be justifiable, but the current resolution is not. _____ I don't know how you are supposed to weigh these kinds of events in a debate, but I urge the voters to ignore my previous arguments except for the argument mentioned earlier this round (which has been present since round one). I may have used some invalid reasoning, but my opponent's invalid reasoning is unrealized and stands as his primary argument. His primary argument fails to uphold the resolution, while mine negates the resolution, regardless of my previous misunderstanding. That is all. Thank you, Monsieur, for debating with me. _______ Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades

I accept the definitions supplied by my opponent in round one. I shall note before continuing that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of my opponent, as he is the one challenging the status quo. My primary purpose in this debate is to refute the arguments put forth by pro. First of all, I would like to point out the absurdity of my opponents proposal that ALL arcade games should be made illegal for minors, as many arcade games are completely unlike gambling and provide a legitimate entertainment service. That being said, there are a few types of arcade that could—by definition—be considered gambling, but they are not officially classified so because the service they provide comprises their purpose more so than gambling does. The primary purpose of arcade gaming is to supply a means of exchanging a service—entertainment—for money. The consequences of gambling with arcade games are minuscule, and therefore not great enough to warrant regulation. It would be a waste of time and money to regulate such activity when the positive effects greatly outweigh the negative effects. My opponent claims that gambling and arcade games "basically share the same concepts of action. " Some arcade games have a similar way of operating to that of a gambling activity, and some could even be considered gambling by definition, but there are a couple important differences: 1) The success rate of arcade games is directly related to ability, as all variables are known and there is at least one method of control. To varying degrees, arcade games rely on the ability of the player to navigate the control system implemented. This is quite unlike gambling, where all variables are not known or incomprehensible. This promotes fair play. 2) The amount of money payed for arcade games is proportional to the service gained, and the possibility of leaving with more money than you came with is not presented. Arcade games require uniform deposits of money to operate, thus preventing abuse of money. Entertainment is a service that requires money, so for each uniform deposit, one is presented with a limited entertainment service. One is not presented with the possibility of leaving with more money than they came with (in most cases), because the primary purpose is entertainment. That is all for now. .. Continue, Monsieur.
If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades

Gambling-the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning illegal-prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules Minor- not of legal age (in this case under the age of 21 or 18 if you live in Nevada) Arcades-An arcade game is a coin-operated entertainment machine, typically installed in businesses such as restaurants, public houses, video arcades, and Family Entertainment Centers. Most arcade games are redemption games, merchandisers (such as Claw crane), video games or pinball machines. If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades because the basically share the same concepts of action. In a casino you trade in your money to get chips equal to the same value of money as you put in. These chips only have value in the casino where they are used to place bets. In Arcades people of any age can trade in their money for tokens which can be used to spend on any game they want to play like redemption games. Games like the "coin pusher" where you put in a token and as it falls you hope it tips over more coins the more coins tipped over the more tickets are won. The seems an awful lot like a slot machine where you put in a quarter and you pull the lever the higher the score the more money you win. Gambling is putting up stakes in hopes of winning Well basically most games showed in a arcade shows this same concept so wouldn't this be encouraging kids to gamble without them knowing it? http://www.google.com...
Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism

First of all, I would like to apologize for not recognizing that my opponent desired a Lincoln-Douglas style debate--I'm new to this, so you'll have to excuse me. Second, I apologize sincerely for my breach of etiquette in mentioning my opponent's politics. Third, I'm sorry that I defaulted on the last round--I didn't have enough time. Now, Let's examine the arguments--my opponent clearly sates that "we get trade resolution with places like China, where the US can get cheap labor. .. " That is inherently detrimental to the US, since the cheap labor will detract from employment in the US, leaving more American citizens out of work. We in America have already seen this happen with many plants moving to nations like China. My opponent also mentioned the excellent point that the US founded NATO, and one could extend that to imply the US's involvement in the UN, etc. But I would also say that we should not be involved with these organizations that seek to compromise AMERICAN sovereignty with their international law. As to the argument that free trade should be valued above protectionism, that would depend on whose point of view you are arguing from. Free trade is decidedly bad for the US because it influences job loss. Free trade, then, is naturally beneficial to other countries, but as a United States citizen we should never support free trade because our first responsibility is to our own country and our own economy and to our own jobs. Free trade is bad for our economy because it opens up the global market to countries that, because of their inexpensive labor, would drain economic growth away from the US.
Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism

I apologize for not notating that I wanted this round to be in the style of Lincoln-Douglas debate, so that I could have a semblance of practice for district. However, since the style of my case, clearly Lincoln-Douglas in form and function, was apparently ignored, I will unfortunately have to resort to simple straight refutation. Let's get to my opponent's arguments, shall we? Con said: "The Monroe Doctrine (authored by one of our founding fathers, who probably knew much more than any of us), advises America against participating in any entangling alliances. The WTO and any other multiculturalist, international organization that tie down American sovereignty and ingenuity are bad for our country and should be strictly eschewed. " 1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... - the Monroe Doctrine was primarily to keep Britain and other foreign nations from colonizing in the Americas. The US has consistently involved itself in organizations that make it international. For example, the US founded NATO, which is one of the biggest treaty organizations in the world. This keeps both the United States and these other nations from harm. 2) Remaining within the WTO is beneficial! Primarily, we get trade resolution with places like China, where the US can get cheap labor and some of the most excellent assembling nations in the world. Without the WTO's involvement, it would be much more difficult for the US to do this. 3) Extend all of the arguments within my first and second contentions that talk about the significant benefits of the WTO for the world, that my opponent didn't even address; why would you vote con when my opponent blatantly disregards the biggest reasons for voting Pro, which is the text of my arguments. Con then said: "My opponent also postulates that "protectionism" leads to a welfare state. Are you serious? (For one thing, my opponent, as a Barack Obama supporter, shouldn't have any problem with creating a welfare state) The whole concept of free trade is intended to equalize the global playing field, which is truly a welfare/socialist economy. " 1) First and foremost, bringing my political leanings into a nonpolitical debate was uncalled for and very uncouth. If my opponent could refrain from making such a grave mistake next round, I'd thoroughly appreciate it. Thanks. 2) Equating free trade with socialism and then welfare is a huge stretch within itself, but I'll break it down further. The goal of free trade is NOT to equalize the global playing field. It's simply to allow trade and commerce to run its course without countries folding in on themselves or starting trade wars. I don't see how this equalizes the playing field. Further, free trade is FAR from a socialist idea. The fact that free trade is one of the most heavily-promoted issues by conservatives and reactionaries alike is evidence enough to disprove that ignorant statement. 3) Extend my evidence within my third contention from D. Rodrik. Finally, because my opponent gave no arguments as to why the con side of the resolution - that is, that free trade should NOT be valued above protectionism - pro wins by default.
Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism

To respond to the first contention, that the WTO should be continued. The Monroe Doctrine (authored by one of our founding fathers, who probably knew much more than any of us), advises America against participating in any entangling alliances. The WTO and any other multiculturalist, international organization that tie down American sovereignty and ingenuity are bad for our country and should be strictly eschewed. My opponent also postulates that "protectionism" leads to a welfare state. Are you serious? (For one thing, my opponent, as a Barack Obama supporter, shouldn't have any problem with creating a welfare state) The whole concept of free trade is intended to equalize the global playing field, which is truly a welfare/socialist economy.
Ajani Goldmane Versus (Your Fantasy Character)

My character is Amaterasu from CapCom's Okami. You speak of a Round 5, which this debate is only 4 rounds. Let's use the 2nd round to tell how strong our chosen fighter is. I look forward to an interesting battle. (I don't know how strong Goldmane is, and I'm not going to read all of his wiki page. It doesn't seem to have a "powers and abilities" page)
Ajani Goldmane Versus (Your Fantasy Character)

Debate:Ajani Goldmane Versus (Your Fantasy Character)This Debate will focus on two characters Ajani Goldmane Versus (Insert opponents character) this will be very much a Death Battle except that a character may submit to defeat and does not have to be "killed" so invincible characters e.g. Deadpool although cannot die can still be defeated. Rules: - Your character cannot be on Superman level power or higher (Prismo). - Cannot be planet busters. - Your character must be possible to kill/defeat. - Your character cannot have Super Weapons (This includes swords they can destroy entire worlds and or spells that can level entire cities with a single blast) - Try to pick a character that is a fair match up. - Must be an established Fantasy character. (No made up created characters) - Try to have fun and enjoy the debate. (This is mandatory) Round Layout: - R1 = Acceptence - R2 = Character's stories/feats - R3 = Arguments - R4 = Counter-Arguments - R5 = Conclusion/Final Statements. I will be debating in favor of Ajani Goldmane from the Magic The Gathering Universe. - Ajani Goldmane (Mentor Of Heroes)
The United States Needs to Discontinue Welfare

That's your argument? Ok... Well I know that there are thousands of people on welfare today. I predict the if the government suddenly said "We're stopping welfare today" everyone would actually start looking for jobs and would be quite successful. I don't think people would just sit around and wait to die! I also know that not everyone on welfare is lazy. There are many people who do work, but don't make enough. Still, though, it's not the government's responsibility if people can't afford to eat. If people die from starvation, it will be a wake up call for the rest of the country. People will suddenly realize "Wow, I should really start working so that I don't die, too."
why blue is better than red

Is a walnut better than a peanut? NO! They are both just nuts. Is a soccer ball better than a basketball? NO! They are both just balls. Is the color blue better than the color red? NO! They are both just colors. So how can you say that blue is better? You have not proved it in your previous arguments. More people like blue than red: you have proved that. But what you haven't proved is that blue is BETTER than red which is what this debate is all about. I could argue for example that red 'stands out' more than blue. However this would not make it a better color. My job in this debate is simply to prove that blue is not a better color and I have done so by stating that blue and red are both just colors.
why blue is better than red

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com... http://www.thetoptens.com... http://www.apartmenttherapy.com... http://www.calgaryherald.com... These are the links for my previous statement. You said that Spider man was red he is arguably 40% blue a more accurate example would be Flash. Blue is known to be more serene and calm than the other colors. Blue is shown to make people work harder and get more progress done. With red it makes things seem more aggressive, demanding, and fearful. With DVDs they use red lasers to read the disc but, with Blu-ray discs they use blue lasers to read them making them more defined and better than the regular discs which I said before use Red lasers. Sources: http://www.thetoptens.com... http://www.empower-yourself-with-color-psychology.com... http://www.ign.com...
why blue is better than red

I will argue that red is just as good, if not better than blue. I will first give the definition of the two colors. Blue: "Of the color blue." [1] Red: "Of the color red." [2] These definitions, although obvious, show that there is no way, shape or form that blue can be better than red. Blue is just a color. Red is just a color. I will use examples from history however to support my case: -What was and is the color of Communism? RED! -What color do you see most on the corpse of a dead soldier on the battlefield? RED! "The most emotionally intense color, red stimulates a faster heartbeat and breathing. It is also the color of love. Red clothing gets noticed and makes the wearer appear heavier. Since it is an extreme color, red clothing might not help people in negotiations or confrontations. Red cars are popular targets for thieves. In decorating, red is usually used as an accent. Decorators say that red furniture should be perfect since it will attract attention." [3] Pro's argument: "blue is better than red because in polls it has been shown to be the most favorite color and is known to be a trustworthy color usually associated with the hero." First of all, "blue" should have a capital letter. Second, it would be nice if you actually gave a link to these "polls" that you found as proof of your claim. Finally, red is used just as often with hero's. For example, what color is Spiderman? RED! Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.factmonster.com...
You should follow stoic principles

The flow of nature would mean not living in society.. Correct? Like I said living by the flow of nature would mean no caring about one another like the stoics and focusing on your individual when in reality that is the basis of our survival as humans. To watch and take care of one another from the rest of the world. No pleasure or pain will only get you so far until the need for another human interaction reaches you. Could you be able to live in a room with no interaction no feeling at all .. would that be considered living a full life?
You should follow stoic principles

If someone in my family dies who's to say it wont bring me joy?. Pleasure should not be withheld because it is part of human nature. Ethically, pain indirectly gives us moral values and to coexist with eachother they were translated into laws for society. Living and thinking like a stoic would suggest the idea of man without law, man without morals or man without knowing the valuables from the non valuables therefore unable to make decisions for the better of the species.
On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Alright, so we have a clear concession.Opt-in voters take note.If one side concedes and a voter votes for the side that conceded, the vote will be moderated.Thank you for voting with opt-in standards.*Definitions*The definitions for earth, agreed by Con with his acceptance to be, mention that earth is the planet ON WHICH WE LIVE, yet neither I nor Con nor anyone else lives THROUGHOUT ALL of earth.That's because by living in ANY location, one satisfies their inclusion in the definition of "the planet on which we live."Unless Con can find someone who lives THROUGHOUT ALL of earth or lives in ALL LOCATIONS on earth.Come on.Con concedes:"Maybe in some places the sun does rise in the west."My response:You've conceded that the sun appears above the horizon in the western part of the specified area the earth, which is on earth.Con mentions:"They are on Earth..."My response:Nice!A concession to the point of "on earth."Con contradicts themselves:"but when the resolution says on Earth, it's specifically referring to everywhere on Earth."My response:Oh is it now?Let's look at what Con said in the 2nd round:"The resolution never specified where on Earth"Now, though the resolution never specified where, Con claims "it's specifically referring to everywhere."If it never *specified* anywhere how is it *specifically* referring to everywhere?The truth is, the resolution doesn't specify where on earth, so ANYWHERE on earth suffices, just like earth is the planet on which we live yet we don't live on all of it.*Conclusion*This should be an easy vote for opt-in voters.Con has conceded that the two locations are both on earth and that on those parts of the earth, the sun appears above the horizon in the western specified area and the sun moves toward and below the horizon in the eastern specified area.The resolution has been affirmed.