BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

On another note, I searched a little more and am now fully informed on the purpose and outcome of LD cases. I would like my opponent to disregard my statements about legal cases and the broad term of cases, as I can fully present and opposing argument now. As my opponent already knows, LD cases are guided to debate whether or not people should value something. I now see how my opponent believes that LD cases should be based upon morals/philosophy. However, I still stand by my previous statement on how statistics and fact support one's moral and philosophical beliefs. LD cases are said to be less evidence-extensive than other debates, such as policy debate. That does not say that LD debate does not include evidence at all. To appropriately present and LD case, one would need sources (which include factual and statistical evidence) to thoroughly back up one's argument. Like I mentioned previously, many cases are undermined without the use of some vital source of where one's argument came from. I now turn the argument to my opponent.
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

I am sorry if i didnt specify case too well, but i was reffering to Lincoln Douglas cases. I am also sorry about your confusion. A core value is what a person seeks to achieve and a value criterion is how you wish to achieve your core value. I am also sorry for the confusion about LD debate, so i will try to be more understandable. I would also like to say that my opponents argument is valid so i won't argue about the format of her case. I guess I will give time for my opponent to change her argument as to apply to Lincoln Douglas cases. In the mean time, i will attempt to attack my opponents arguments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Case-The point of a legal case is to prove wether an action should be deemed correct or incorrect. So its priority should be to derive its case off of morals,logic,ethics, and philosophy. Broad Term-This applies to any case in general, like policy. Since some cases are based off of statistics, i will attempt to cut it down to just LD. As my opponent stated, Morals and Ethics are extremely controversial. That is what allows LD Debates to be so open. So extending on that fact, the point of LD is to judge which case makes more logical sense, not to see which statistics provide better evidence. So affirm and await my opponent's refutation.
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

I would like to start off by informing my opponent that I accepted this debate solely to gain practice in debating, and that the argument I am about to present does not shadow my exact thoughts regarding this topic. My opponent makes a valuable point that statistics do not have a place in LD debates. LD was originally defined and created off of morals, ethics, logic, and philosophy. Therefore, any LD debate should only include reasoning based off of those key points. Also, when my opponent mentions "case" (Value Criterion), I am going to take into consideration that the intended meaning of case could be a legal case, or the general and broad term of case. Until I am given further definition of case, I will create a somewhat broad argument. However, debates based purely from morals, ethics, logic, and philosophy often present some errors. In a legal case: -Arguments constructed upon these points sometimes fail to present logical closings. -Argument without proof or evidence is often undermined (might I mention that proof and evidence are based upon fact and statistics). In a broad term for case: -Statistics and facts are useful and often necessary to support one's moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beliefs. -Moral and ethical beliefs are extremely controversial. With that said, debating on only morals and ethics would more often than not result in a roundabout never-ending argument. Facts and statistics help back up one's argument by creating a form of boundaries in which help the debate come to a logical and non-cliffhanging end. I would like to state that I am a little uninformed on the core value and ending purpose of LD debates. In other words, I am slightly confused on what the affirmative and negative speakers are trying to accomplish at the end of their debate.
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

I'd prefer this to be either a casual argument or LD, but nothing else. I will present an argument and a few contentions. I might tie in some values, but may the best person win. I'll provide a few definitions just to clear up this case. First off: Core Value-What your case seeks to achieve Value Criterion-How you will achieve your Core Value Contentions-Arguments that validate why your case makes sense LD Debate-Lincoln-Douglas Debate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pure-in truest form Core Value: Pure LD Debate Value Criterion: Basing cases on Morals/Philosophy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contention 1)Statistics do not have a place in LD Lincoln-Douglas debate was introduced in the 1980's to The National Forensics League and recognized as a Values Debate. It placed a heavy emphasis on Ethics, Morals, Logic, and Philosophy. Yet in today's' LD debates, debaters place a higher importance on Statistics. So let us view why it should be based on Morals an Philosophy. The debate style was named after the arguments of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. They debated slavery and other topics through ethics, morals, values, logic, and philosophy. So, in its truest form, an LD debate should be based on all this and not statistics. In turn, cases should be logical syllogisms that attempt to prove the resolution true/false. It is then recognized that cases look to achieve Logical Rightness. In other words, cases should prove the morality/immorality of a topic, not the solution through statistics. Contention 2)Morals/Ethics/Logic/Philosophy do not mix with Statistics Morals/Ethics/Logic/Philosophy are all based on the examination of rights and wrongs through one's conscience. They are also based on dilemmas presented with an action and if it consciencely correct. So, an LD debate should be based on the dilemma presented with a case explaining why the dilemma is consciencely right or wrong, not why it is statistically backed or argued. Statistics, in no way, tie with the ideologies of one's conscience. It just provides information taken on something. For example, statistics would say, it is valid to possess nuclear arms because it ended war between the US and Japan. Morally, it would present the fact that the possession of nuclear arms is good because it is viewed as a threat, keeping people in check. The obvious difference is presented. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I thank my opponent again for accepting the case an wish luck to them. I eagerly await my opponent's reply.
the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel

I believe that, in a fight, the Powerpuff Girls would beat the Superman depicted in the Man of Steel movie. I believe that the Powerpuff Girls, despite being 6, would still win against this Superman. The Powerpuff Girls have a huge similarity to the Silver Age Superman: they occasionally get random powers that they never use again. Because of this, the girls will be using the powers they use most often. These include, but are not limited to, super strength, speed, durability, Lazar eyes, and energy rays. The fight:All three Powerpuff Girls VS. the one Superman. This Superman is the one depicted in recent the Man of Steel movie. The characters start about 30 yards (approximately 10 meters) away. This takes place in an unpopulated Metropolis. The fight ends when one party cannot fight back.
the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel

You wouldn't believe how much of a fanboy I am of her... I have an autographed picture hanging on my wall.Lucky, I want one! I will admit that I dislike her Harley Quinn voice. Sorry, but she just can't replace Arleen Sorkin!In the end, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. You know, with all the serious topics running around this site, it's nice to relax and argue about something much more light in a civilized and dignified manner. I have thoroughly enjoyed doing this and wish my opponent good luck in future debates.One thing my opponent will NEVER dispute: the girls are cuter than Superman...Damn straight, though I say that in a platonic way of course xD.
the Powerpuff Girls VS. the Man of Steel

He dodges a train thrown at him by Nam-Ek while Faora decides to purposefully take the rocket as I assume that she believes she's strong enough to take it.I saw it wrong... Well... There goes that argument.And the girls don't step in front to protect him if my opponent wants to try and argue that point.Admittedly, I should have rewatched the episode to make sure that I wasn't misremembering...There goes that point gone...Tara Strong is th Woman of 1000 Voices.You wouldn't believe how much of a fanboy I am of her... I have an autographed picture hanging on my wall.As you voters can clearly see, the PPG have not won any category and tie in only 2. While speed and reflexes are definitely important factors in a battle, they ultimately do not put the girls above the Man of Steel.Well... Good job... You have effectively AFIRED YOURA LAZAR! All my base are belong to you.Well... Crap...One thing my opponent will NEVER dispute: the girls are cuter than Superman...
Denmark is Better than America

This is bound to be a good one. Con makes the argument that America's fame is a factor in it being better than Denmark. This is simply unreasonable. Everyone knows what Nazi Germany is as well. And if I may point out, America is known for it's over-bearingly stupid general population and violent imperialism just as much as any good thing that has come out of it. Now for my own argument. Denmark is ranked as being the happiest country in the world. (see video) That alone should show that Denmark is better than the US but it would be no fun to stop there so let us examine why. Denmark ranked #1 as the least corrupt country in 2008 and later as #2 behind New Zealand in 2009 by the Corruption Perceptions Index. America ranks as #19. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Denmark ties for #2 with Norway as the most Peaceful country behind New Zealand in 2009 by the Global Peace Index. America ranks far down the list at #83. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Denmark ranked #13 as having the highest human development in 2008 by the Human Development Index. America ranked #15. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Denmark ranked #1 as having the highest income equality in 2008 by the CIA and UN. America ranked very low(not sure exact place). (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Denmark ranked #6 as having the highest GDP (nominal) per capita in 2009 by the CIA. America ranked #10. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita) Denmark ranked #9 as having the highest amount of exports per capita in 2006 by the World Trade Organization. America ranked all the way down at #41. (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Denmark is described as having the most flexible labor market in Europe. Denmark has the fourth highest ratio of tertiary degree holders in the world. According to rankings by OECD, Denmark has the most free financial markets in EU-15 and also one of the most free product markets. Denmark has the world's highest minimum wage. As of June 2009 the unemployment rate is at 6.3%, which is below the EU average of 8.9% and much lower than America at 9.7%. (Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., . http://en.wikipedia.org...) . http://www.youtube.com...
President Obama is good for the US

President Obama is a good president for the United States of America. He has shown a will for Bi-partisanship that no other president has examplified before. I am a strong conservative and i expected 4-8 years of pure liberal rule. I have been corrected and amazed at Obama's push for Bi-partisanship. Almost every president before him have claimed they were bi-partisan, but obama is the FIRST to put it into action. 1st example: obama appoints Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates is a long time conservative and served under the Bush administraton. This was done with strong opposition of obama's party members. Second: Obama has kept support for the war on terrorism despite much opposition from Democrats. He has kept this war going with the support of many conservatives, and a policy i agree with. he has gone against his long time party belief of no war and kept what many believe is a nescessary policy. Third: Obama could have forcefully passed the health care reform with the support of no conserveratives, yet he decieded not to and open up to the opposing party for their thoughts (therefore the public option emerges). I pains me to talk about a democrat in such a way, but i believe obama is taking this country down the correct path. He is a pioneer, although it might not be good for his political career, he does it anyways. The reason he does it is because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Our country was founded on the idea of bi-partisan, democratic government where the representatives actually do what they are told by the citizens. But now politicians are just doing what is good for their political career, not the country. I am a man that loves this great country, but i believe we are headed down the wrong path. ALL presidents that follow Obama should keep this traditions alive, because it will make for a far better country. While i might not believe in everything obama is doing, he is absololutely doing the right thing as far as setting an example for how the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the most POWERFUL human in the world, should handle himself and his country.
Horses are better than Fish.

Ok, wow. You have paid absolutely no attention to my arguments. Also, he says a stable costs 600 thousand dollars. Since I can't post any rebuttals, I can't post any of his arguments. My opponent has failed to prove that fishes are WAY better than horses, as he stated. He did not meet his share of the BOP. My opponent never attacked any of my arguments specifically, and scarcely referred to any quote specifically. He also dropped numerous arguments, while the ones he claimed I dropped were in fact things that I DID say. I used the wikipedia link to show the faults in that link. To sum up, here is what my opponent did:-He did not argue very well, as most of his "arguments" were not said specifically, but rather outlined and not detailed. The "details" he had were in the link. -Did not organize his statements well-Had false information on the dropped arguments section, while dropping numerous arguments HIMSELFNow I will respond to each of the dropped arguments he said I had. 1. He failed to deny that watching fish reduces stress and anxiety. But I reacted with a counter-argument that riding horses can free up time, thus making you more relaxed.2. He failed to deny that to a lot of cultures in olden times depended mainly on fish. I had a whole section on Egypt. You did not say the specific names of cultures besides Egypt (which I refuted) in your argument. What do you want me to do, put a search on what ancient civilization relied only on fish?3 My opponent failed to refute that under population and over population are likely to occur if fish became extinct. I did not attack that in particular, but I showed diets of specific animals and showed that they would be O. K without fish.4. My opponent failed to refute that some species of penguins would die off because of fish. I had a whole section, AND A QUOTE, on the penguin species on my rebuttal 3b. Check for yourself.5. My opponent failed to refute you need a specific environment to care for a horse properly. Yeah, because I did not feel it was worthy of being in my rebuttal section because I was running out of wording. Fish need a specific environment to survive, also.6. My opponent failed to refute that injury can occur when caring for a horse. I asked you at the end of my argument if I could do that in this round. You did not respond, and as I specifically said, neutralizes your argument:"Due to the fact I have no words left, my opponent can either let me do it in the fourth round or skip the argument. "7. My opponent also lied about the information I presented. I do not feel I did and you have no evidence for that.8. my opponent failed to refute that fishes had an impact on culture may it be positive or negative. I showed that it did have an impact on culture, you're right, but led to discrimination due to the low status of fishing. Now for your dropped arguments:MY WHOLE ROUND TWO ARGUMENT! YOU NEVER ARGUED AGAINST IT, JUST MY REBUTTALS! YOU DROPPED MY WHOLE ARGUMENT! Ladies and gentlemen, He dropped every one of my main arguments. Thank you for reading.
We will need nuclear energy to be used more in the future.

I hope you will be available to debate this round and good luck. You pointed out earlier that there are less meltdowns and nuclear waste accidents however I would like to point out that Fukushima shows that, even back when nuclear power was still newly discovered and our safety technology was not as good, the effects were relatively light. You also said that we are running out of several of the elements used for nuclear fission. Whilst this is true nuclear power is not based solely of fission which involves those elements, fusion uses hydrogen atoms, the most common in the universe and as such we will not run out of this fuel any time soon. I would also like to point out that nuclear energy is the only viable "green" option for energy once our supply of coal is depleted. sorry for the lack of arguments, I would normally use this to try and refute your previous points.
We will need nuclear energy to be used more in the future.

I believe that most catastrophic accidents can be avoided if the correct safety precautions are taken, in the USA they're starting to have more regulations passed on how stable a reactor has to be before they will allow it to start running. Also regarding the Chernobyl incident and Fukushima incident yes there is always going to be a way to make plants unstable, with Chernobyl there were none of the regulations that are now being put into place and so much less health and safety precautions were used. In Fukushima there was an earthquake followed by several tsunami's and in these extreme circumstances almost any generator would fail. You also mentioned how it would be much more damaging to the environment however this is just blatantly not true, if a coal power plant had failed in a similar way chemicals which it produces would be put into the water and contaminate it. You then said that wind power is more viable but I did some research and if you reference the UK's energy requirements (https://www.cia.gov...) and the average amount of power a wind turbine can produce (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as the fact that in the UK the average turbine runs at around ~30% capacity and given these calculations you would require over 60,000 turbines which would cover ~10% of the UK's land mass, that sounds bad to start off with but thinking about the backup plants and energy storage needed to smooth things out and it just wouldn't be practical given the landmass you would need to use. You said that thorium could damage the water supply but you forget, so does coal, it causes acid rain damaging the water supply and the surrounding ecosystem to a massive degree, and this could even strike far away if the rain is carried overseas or into a populated area. Chemicals such as arsenic are also used in coal power plants and if this was to come into contact with water supply it would render that water harmful yet coal plants are still used with incredible frequency. My point here being that no energy resource we use is going to be 100% safe, there is a dangerous element to all major ways of producing power, yes we have wind turbines or solar panels however the land mass these would require and how temperamental they are just makes them impractical to put all our faith in. You say that an average meltdown could last over centuries and this is in fact the case however most of the uranium used in nuclear plants is treated so that were a meltdown to occur the radiation would only last 30-100 years rather than centuries like you said. sorry for the short argument, I'm not all that experienced with debates
We will need nuclear energy to be used more in the future.

Thank-you for accepting my challenge and good luck. Well many people see it as being a risk to the people working their however this belief is unfounded since there have only been around 100 nuclear accidents despite the fact that nuclear power has been being used for almost 60 years now (http://en.wikipedia.org...) not to mention that the benefits of a pretty much inexhaustible method of obtaining electricity far out way the risks (in my opinion). This is even without mentioning the fact that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gasses as many of our current ways of obtaining electricity do. Some will say that it is far worse for the environment however this is also untrue since it has been shown on http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com... that your average coal plant emits roughly 300,000 tonnes of waste each year, these pollutants, which include arsenic and even in some cases mercury, are far more damaging to the environment that your average nuclear plant is. You will probably mention a catastrophic incident such as Fukushima however most of these incidents happened in extreme circumstances such as hurricanes, tsunami's or earthquakes which are all unavoidable natural hazards. Almost any type of power plant we create is vulnerable to the weather: solar panels need sunlight, wind turbines need wind, etc. There is unfortunately no renewable energy source which doesn't, in some shape or form, rely on something temperamental ergo nuclear, whilst somewhat dangerous, is still a far more rewarding and optimal way to produce electricity. Many governments have seen that this is required, probably the most famous being japan (which has a full 54 nuclear generators available to it) http://en.wikipedia.org.... But more and more countries are realizing this is one of the only ways to stay sustainable in a coal and oil free future https://www.gov.uk....
We will need nuclear energy to be used more in the future.

I'm a little nervous about debating someone whose username is "hitman", but you gotta risk some sometimes. So let's go. :P My point: though nuclear energy is capable of producing more energy than most other forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, it is not a tenable long-term lifeline for us to use. Given the numerous risks, waste, and rarity of resources, it is best used for places that have no access to better forms of power, such as geothermal plants or hydroelectric dams. It's a great concept that works, but I don't think it'll be an extremely useful resource in the future unless major improvements can be made to the systems that run them. You post your points first. :)