BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less."

Imagine the following... You have a patient who for the moment needed to be restrained. And in restraining the person you noticed that they are harming themselves less. But they continue to struggle and the wrists are becoming damaged, so you apply more strap to the upper arms, and this protects the wrists. You realize that this was only a temporary solution, and regret it being the only option you could think of and set about finding a real solution, wit your loyal but somewhat dim assistant. He develops a deep respect for your obvious intelligence and you've long ago given up explaining why you do things. As a result your aid feels that what you do is intrinsically right, and since you agree for rational reasons you don't argue to much. The patient continues to thrash, and you add my straps to hold him securely, again helping. Your assistant, looks at this behavior and comes to a superficially correct conclusions. To help this man I must tie him down as securely as I can, to prevent his harm to himself. You distance yourself from the problem and in so doing leave your assistant in charge. Eventually while you are away, you begin to realize that whatever it was has now gone away and that most of the harm is being done by the straps themselves. But on the way back to the office you get struck by a car and die. You assistant idolized you and hears of your death and vows to continue your work and save this poor man from himself. And anyone who argues against the straps gets his wrath for being disloyal to you whom all agree was totally well meaning and extremely rational. The poor patient dies, and those who interfered with the assistant's strapping are blamed. In time your memory is used to defend the new practice of strapping, where by all patients are by default strapped down for their own protection. In time these straps get more sophisticated, they cut off blood flow less they become stronger and more supple. to such a degree that one almost doesn't notice them when wearing them but for the fact that they cant move in such a way that harms them. Pretty soon everyone is walking around bound up like a mummy, able only to hobble to work and home, just enough to make sure there are more people, and more straps and more doctors to explain why we have to be bound up this way and anyone who suggests we remove them altogether is mad because we'd die. The idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap is obviously insane. The same is true of law. The spirit is lost in time and situations change, laws by their nature resist adaptation, because they are modeled after physical law, which does not adapt at all. Options lead to solutions, and law limits options.
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

Please, can you focus on what the debate topic actually is. If you would like to provide statistics that have no back up then I suggest you to not continue this debate and you may forfeit the next two rounds. You have done nothing but actually avoid this debate and provide opiniated statements. Show me the proof for how many people voted. Did you waste your time to go and count that many people? I don't think so and you have not backed up anything at all. This is also not for 12 year old kids as there are many people over 20 that watch bleach as I stated before. I never said anything about reading comics as this is not a comic book. Also, I am a guy and not a girl and I wish that my opponent would have some manners. Sources http://www.google.com...
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

Apparently my opponent hasn't understood that her topic is as silly as barney is funnier than pooh. I would like to explain why this topic is so silly. Firstly, It relates to a cartoon comedy battle. this is according to 119 people on debate.org. Secondly, this topic is about two anime characters who are for 12 year old comic readers. If we approve and promote these types of debates, kids will be influenced to read comics rather than study. this is according to 84% of debate.org. Thirdly, it promotes silly and stupid debates. This is according to 258 people at debate.org. i have provided opinions of the public that they think this is the silliest topic ever. Thank you
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

I am sorry that Con feels that way and I really must say that only people who like anime could actually learn to respect this unlike others. I would like to continue this debate as a normal debate through an orderly manner and no through "extra" opinionated information. Ichigo Kurosaki is funnier than Renji Abarai because he since he has more scenes, he is able to be funnier on man y more ways. In the beginning if Bleach, Ichigo kicks Rukia across the room and insults her because of her drawings then she hits him. Later on in Hueco Mundo, Zaraki Kenpachi kicks Ichigo when he is injured and starts laughing and Ichigos face is so funny when he gets kicked.
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

Round 1 is merely to express your opinion and a scene in particular. Ichigo Kurosaki is funnier than Renji Abarai because when he enters Hueco Mundo with Chad and Uryu, They are also tagged by Rukia and Renji. When Rukia and Renji catch up to them, they both hit Ichigo and tell him to wait for them and Ichigos face is priceless. There will be no semantics, abuse of words, the dictionary, or anything
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

Actually I was out of town so I couldn't respond. I have taken these polls by myself. There are many reasons why this is a stupid debate. If you encourage debating about cartoon shows then please go back to arguing against friends rather than formally addressing an opponent for a formal debate. Many people love cartoons but why should we debate such a silly topic like anime. Anime is not a formal topic to debate on. Would you want to go to a debate tournament hearing adults making fun of themselves by talking about cartoons? This debate topic is useless and many people agree with me.
Ichigo Kuroskai is funnier than Renji Abarai

I am glad that 1) my opponent has decided to see some sense and forfeit both rounds as he is not debating pertaining to the topic, insulting me, and making unnecessary comments or 2) has decided to actually research what this topic is about and has forfeited the last round in order to gain some knowledge on this subject. First Ichigo fights without his weapon when he is in the soul society against Ganju and it is really funny. They start running at each other and start doing all sorts of funny things until they break Ganju's sisters pipe and she breaks the house. If may not sound so funny as I'm explaining it, but watching the video makes it really funny. Second When Ichigo beats Zaraki Kenpachi in the soul society, Zaraki then considers Ichigo an equal match. At the end when they are all done being treated, Ichigo says he will fight Ikkaku again but Zaraki the comes in. He trys to fight ichigo but Ichigo runs away and Ikkaku is hit by accident. Sources http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... I thank my opponent for accepting his debate as no one else did. Even though he was lacking proper manners and talked with a slightly loose tongue, I am not offended and I am glad at least I got to do this debate.
This house believes a technocracy is a better system of government than democracy

Alright so ladies and gentlemen , the only rebuttals we've seen from side Opposition were some unfounded claims that Democracy in all cases does uphold the will and promises made to the people. We say that in the majority of countries this is not the case. We say that corruption and misrepresentation to exist in the present forms of society and for these reasons this point does not stand. Secondly , they caught us on a slip of tongue when we accidentally (several times) , mentioned theocracy when we really meant a democracy and quite frankly wasted a few minutes on a rebuttal for that. Moreover they failed to tackle our point about how people in a technocracy merit the position of power more than those in a democracy because of the fact that they've spent more time , resources and dedication to understanding the problems of society whilst politicians have dedicated said time simply to persuade people to vote for them. We said that because of that , a technocratic leader is more deserving of a position of power than a politician in a democratic system.They also brought up the idea that there are now counter measures against people who could easily switch agendas after taking the tests and easily use their position to benefit themselves. However , we showed to you through our definition that among the tests and evaluations present in our technocractic system would be a psychological evaluation. Ladies and gentlement psychological evaluations accurately predict a person's nature and what their actions might be , based on that , so there's absolutely no way we can not know how a person may behave once he's in that position of power.Moving on to my positive case ladies and gentlemen , my Line of Argument is : -How society progresses the most in a theocracy.So as I've shown to you before , in a democratic system , there's no way of ensuring how qualifies the elected leaders are to run the country and whether their moral perception and decision making skills are actually going to lead to progression. For e.g , in the case of Pakistan 5 years ago , the last government promised several things , but at the end of it's term , courts proved the government guilty of corruption , even though it had been fairly elected by the people. What this shows is that the people can easily be manipulated to vote for a government that does not necessarily benefit society in the best way possible. Now when we look at a technocratic government that has been evaluated psychologically as well qualitatively , we see that they have the ability to make decisions which are best suited to the society, even if the society doesn't desire that decision. Why is that? Because ladies and gentlemen , the people can easily be controlled to make misinformed decisions and when that happens , you have a halt in progress , you have disadvantages to the proceedings in society. However ,in a technocracy , you're removing people's abilitiy to make misinformed choices , and therefore , representatives will definitely work to improve society. For all these reasons , we are proud to propose.
Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)

Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.
Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)

I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.
Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)

Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with “spring water” on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don’t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...
Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

Pessimism is also the first step to becoming a jaded drunkard, but I like to think I'm a bit more likely to end up as an activist. Nice philosophy, though. In the scheme of things, the best you can do is make a dent before everything defaults back to its usual self-perpetuating failure. I won't deny it. But you're right, of course. The best you can do is to live out your life as best you can. And I quite agree with your ‘ignorance is bliss' logic. Seeing as I'm in high school, and therefore completely surrounded by totally vacant types I can definitely empathize. They'll believe what anyone tells them as long as they're an authority figure. I expect that every generation feels this way about the teens of the time, but they seem exceptionally impressionable and apathetic. The thought that they'll eventually be leading this country frightens me. But at least they're all happy. And there's one thing I don't get about your unfortunates. Why aren't there more of them? Like you said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what's going on. There has to be a point where people aren't ignorant, they just refuse to acknowledge the facts. And when you say recent, you really mean it. Your book was only published on January 8th! I'll certainly have to read it, though. It sounds interesting. One thing I don't get, though. The name David Paine makes sense. David, I assume, is a reference to David and Goliath, although in your case, David loses to the giant. And of course Paine is a reference to Thomas Paine, who helped spark the American Revolution. Together the name makes perfect sense for someone who starts a revolution, but in the end is destroyed by the giant he attempts to overcome. But why Todd Robbins? And I certainly won't deny that I'll eventually get drawn into political activism. As it is, I can manage to alienate every Republican within a fifty foot radius. It's only really a matter of time before I attempt to convert all of them.
Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

I can understand your pessimism. It does not take a rocket scientist to surmise the depth of our present day woes. I believe that pessimism can be the first step towards innovative action providing that one keeps an open mind. I can not disagree with your summary of man, history and his failure to learn from the past. We do continue to repeat yesterdays blunders just as though they never happened. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done by people, government, societies or businesses that can change our inevitable instinct to perpetuate failure. At best, one person, with a strong sense of conviction and perseverance can influence history for a relatively short period of time before he or she is compromised. In the time we have in this world, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to lead a full and satisfying life. If one is fortunate enough to be naive about the forces that dictate his living condition, then life would be somewhat simplistic as he tends to place difficult issues into the hands of government, god or simply fate. Frequently, a prayer or internal surrender is sufficient to solve any of life's difficulties, and he proceeds through life in relative comfort. For the majority who live this way, truly ignorance is bliss. On the other hand, there are a handful of people who recognize the causes of economic, political and social strife. They have a talent for recognizing the source of man's afflictions, but their knowledge becomes a heavy weight throughout their lives. Most of these people I refer to as the unfortunates because their knowledge of inequity and injustice becomes a burden which can only be lifted through positive action. Pessimism becomes the residue of knowledge without action. You appear to be one of the unfortunates whose talent to understand man's problems has become a burden. I share this knowledge and the subsequent burden, and I, too, have bouts of deep seated pessimism. I have temporarily relieved my personal weight with political and social activism that I felt made a difference. In some cases I have been truly successful while in others I have just deceived myself. None the less, I continue to try to make a difference because I can not stand the defeatism that accompanies pessimism. Recently, I wrote and published a book titled "The Road to the Third World:Conspiring to Destroy America". This novel was the product of a sustained period of apathy, and became a pressure relief valve for my inactivity. The book is simply another attempt to wake up Americans to the social, economic and political excesses that threaten to destroy our country. From your arguments, there is little question in my mind that you will ultimately be drawn to activism because you will come to know pessimism is a temporary drug, and is not a solution. Good luck to you and use your knowledge to improve America. Even if you fail, you will feel better having tried.
Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

If you agree with me then why in Frith's name did you accept the challenge?! But at any rate, nice to see someone who agrees, I guess. And I can always start another debate. And I have to say you're a good deal more optimistic than I am. America, in my experience, never seems to learn from its mistakes. Just look at the Great Depression. You'd think we'd have learned to get the government regulating business after that. Or after the Industrial Revolution, monopolies and child labor and all that. Heck, you can find a good example of the government looking the other way while businesses take advantage of people in just about any time period. It goes back to the inception of our country, really. We couldn't declare slavery illegal in the Constitution because it would upset the southern plantation owners. But I suppose that it's always good to be a bit optimistic. More power to you. I'm an incurable pessimist, myself. And in all honesty, I'm not at all surprised about our philosophy of "profits at any cost", as you put it. Americans, as a whole, can't see the big picture. Other than the idea of instant gratification, those business decisions just plain don't make sense. Pump up the profits, and when things go sour, take the money and run. I've always thought that was incredibly stupid. In the long run, you'd make more money and have a much smaller chance of being sent to prison if you just ran a decent company. I also like to think that if there was one somewhat legit company out there, that hired Americans and paid them decent wages and gave them benefits, that people would buy their product just because they want to help. More realistically, though, I don't see that happening. American consumers are just as materially obsessed as the guys in charge of those corporations. But, like I said, I'm an incurable pessimist. I do hope I'm wrong.
Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

I wish there was a plausible defense, but I know of none that makes any sense. Companies in the USA behave as they do because their key management were taught the basic precepts of capitalism in grduate school, along with the philosophy of "profits at any cost". In the USA, management has a decidedly short vision of success commonly referred to as the quarterly P&L report. All the issues you raised become second thoughts to those that have been taught that the only thing that is important is a new and higher level of profits during the current quarter. It is not consequential that jobs are lost, wages are reduced or that the American consumer is hurting, because the invisible hand of free market capitalism will ultimately prevail---what nonsense??? Capitalism needs to be regulated so that economic and financial decisions are tempered by the needs and welfare of Americans. Unfortunately, there seems to be no appetite for restricting our out of control economic system. Our country may have to go into a severe depression and/or a revolution before the powers that be recognize that our corporations and our government have sold out America--for a profit of course!! It was Thomas Jefferson who said it best when he cautioned on the nature of business--"the merchant has no country". I'm sorry to have ruined the debate, but I concede 100% to your position.