BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Kingdom should keep it's monarchy.

May the best Brit win indeed.There is only a small minority of the UK's population that want the monarchy out. It is because the monarchy is part of the national heritage of the United Kingdom. If we changed the monarch as a head of state, we would be making the UK less recognisable in the world. For example, I would be very impressed if you knew who Michael D. Higgins was. Although he sounds like an author, he is the president of the Republic of Ireland.Also, an advantage of having one of the last monarchies in the world means that many tourists will travel here to find out about our monarchy. American tourists visit British icons such as Buckingham Palace that are run by the monarchy. Due to a deal with parliament that George III did, the monarchy surrender the profits from their land to the parliament. This way, parliament will always have a steady flow of money from overseas.You may argue that the monarchy costs lots to maintain. It costs £40 million to maintain the royal family. However, as I have mentioned earlier, the Royal Family send their profits to parliament, which is normally about £200 million. Sure, the tourism money is massive compared to the money mentioned here, but the profits that the UK get from the Royal Family can give about £2.60 to every British man, woman and child.With a British presidency, we would have a head of state that would only stay in for around 5 years, and he could do whatever he wanted to in that time. George Bush of the United States of America was elected president, and he stayed in office for 8 years. During this time, he managed to kill thousands of his soldiers over a false piece of information about Iraq, while saying about education "Childrens do learn". (This is an actual quote). There is always a risk that a president could end up making as much gaffes as George Bush during his presidency. But with a monarch in place, who can hold an election for a new PM at any time she pleases, politicians are kept in check, keeping the best PM possible to run the country with the queen watching.Lastly, the monarchy has provided stability for the United Kingdom. For the past 300 years, Britain has been without any coups, revolutions or civil wars, and we have survived 2 wars in Europe, Islamic fundamentalism and the Troubles in Northern Ireland due to the national pride and spirit created by the monarchy.
Catholicism is Not Real Christianity

This is my first debate, but I ask that you do not go easy on me. I do not believe that Catholicism is a true form of Biblical Christianity. I will briefly give 5 reasons as to why I have this view without going into detail to allow my opponent to have the first real statement. 1. Catholicism prays to dead saints and worship idols. 2. Having priests, bishops, and a Pope is not Biblical or necessary. 3. The Catholic Church contradicts the Bible on many things. 4. Catholics worship Mary. 5. The Catholic Church has pagan roots and views.
More People Should be Helped by the Government into College

The only reason that people who have advanced degrees aren't getting work are because they're being beat out by outsourced people who are willing to work for more hours with less pay. So If you apply your "Tough Luck" persona, then they can go out there and decide to work for themselves. Of course the government wouldn't be paying for ALL of the college. Just the part of the tuition the family couldn't offord. Students for everything EXCEPT community college take only the top half and up. Hell, UCLA only takes the top eighth. So for GOOD colleges the competition would increase. And think of all the people who were penniless, but received education and became great americans? Like Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave, was taught to read, escaped, and read and preached and learned whenever possible. And the unemployment rate would not go up if there is still the same number of people. They would simply have a better education and thus have a better understanding of the world. And how on EARTH would this raise taxes more than they already are? Now, we're already in a massive deficit. We can pull ourselves out of it with QUALIFIED people to lead America to a brighter future. "However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers." I must say that this doesn't make you look that sympathetic to the unemployed. Now, there is a lot of evidence that people who are in a better environment work and behave better. Thus, in your terms, throwing money at poor people would turn them into doctors and lawyers. I now leave you to th closing argument.
More People Should be Helped by the Government into College

Now, on to business. You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy. Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement. Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough. People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted. Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!
More People Should be Helped by the Government into College

I'm going to begin by saying that my argument is going to be heavily based on economics. My opponent's initial argument is essentially that College graduates have more skills More skills lead to better jobs with more pay More pay leads to a boosted economy Boosted economy leads to technological and scientific development. Thus, the government should provide help to get most people into college. I find that this point of view is somewhat shallow and does not consider many of the details. I disagree with my opponent in that there ARE downsides. ************************************************************************* The government does not have an endless pool of money. Any funding it decides to give will come from the pockets of taxpayers. I will rule out the poor and the rich because the amount of tax money we get from both are negligible. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the tax money comes directly from the middle class. Economically speaking, it is difficult to say whether or not we will get an economic boost from sending more people to college. Remember that the United States has an unemployment rate, meaning, there are more people actively seeking employment than there are jobs. My opponent's suggestion will basically enlarge the work force, putting out more workers with more skills. This will have a double effect. First, companies would hire more young, competent workers and fire older ones. This would probably shatter the lives of countless families in exchange for a minimal increase in output and a bit more profit generated from paying a young, fresh-out-of-college worker a lower wage than a seasoned worker. Second, job availability will shrink even further. If the government is funding college education for most people, competition will not go down since people are generally on the same level of competitiveness. People will still be unemployed, but now, college education may not be enough. 4 years of undergraduate would become a norm and in order to be hired for better pay, students might have to take several years of graduate courses just to make what they would consider "better pay". Thus, things would stay relatively the same if my opponent's plan to put the majority of people into college goes through. It's just that we would bankrupt the middle class in taxes by doing so. One year's college tuition is easily $25,000. Four years would be $100,000. And in order to keep paying for this education, everyone coming OUT of college and getting a job would have to pay massive amounts of taxes to pay for the people 4 years younger than they are. So they probably end up LOSING money since they gain very little and lose a lot. To pay the taxes, people will spend less, the demand curve shifts to the left. When demand shifts to the left, supply also shifts to the left. The market would essentially drop because people won't have any money to spend on anything but college.
I am the greatest person ever.

My avatar is a pirate. It's a subtle throw back to pastafarianism. I never said I was better than you, and that would be a hard argument to make (I don't know you, though a Romney supporter... how good could you be?) and an unnecessary argument to make. I need not argue that I am better than you. I need only argue that you are not the greatest person ever. So long as Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther King, Norman Borlaug (credited with saving a billion lives), or the voters of this debate. I need to suggest that somebody is better than you.
unchia madara would be able to beat anyone in one piece

1. Madara will never be able to touch Kizaru. Kizaru is a logia type devil fruit user. [1] This means he has the ability to avoid any physical attacks by transforming into the element he control, in this case light. This can be countered by using materials that negate the element at hand, for instance rubber against lightning, however there is nothing in Madara's arsenal that could harm a light user. Photons have no mass, and thus cannot be set alight; physical attacks will just pass through, and since Madara's space-time jutsu requires touch (as demonstrated in his fight with Minato) that will not work either. Unlike Madara, Kizuru does not have to solidify to attack his opponent, and can remain in an invulnerable state for as long as he likes. 2. Madara has likely lost his Sharingan powers. Madara has stated that he is merely a shadow of his former self, and that he is not nearly as powerful as he was before his defeat by the First Hokage. He has never shown the ability to do anything other that utilise the space-time jutsu and control Kyuubi. If he had the ability to perform Tsukuyomi or Amaterasu, why would he not use them against Minato in their battle, since it's clear they make eye contact several times [2]? Since Minato was alone, Tsukuyomi would have defeated him as he had no way to counter it. Madara is hardly unskilled enough in battle to forget to use a technique that would have brought him victory. This proves that Madara does not have the capabililty utilise the Sharingan powers Itachi could. 3. It doesn't matter either way. Even if Madara somehow caught and grabbed someone who can move at the speed of light and is composed of light and transported him into another dimension, or even if he did turn out to have the Tsukuyomi and managed to trap him in an illusion, this would not grant him victory. There would still be no way for Madara to harm Kizaru. Madara could move Kizaru or disable him temporarily, but he could not defeat him, so these strategies are useless. 4. Madara dies. Though there is no way for Madara to defeat Kizaru, there are numerous ways for Kizaru to defeat madara. Kizaru can kick him at the speed of light, smashing him apart, chop him in half with a light sword, blow him to bits with a laser beam. This would happen the moment Madara attempts to attack Kizaru and solidifies, since he would have no way to respond to an attack at the speed of light. In the end, Kizaru wins. [1] . http://onepiece.wikia.com... [2] . http://manga.bleachexile.com...
unchia madara would be able to beat anyone in one piece

For the Purposes of defeating Madara, I elect Admiral Kizaru [1] who can move at the speed of light, form laser beams to cause huge explosions, create a light sword with which he is highly skilled, and utilise the ability Haki, which has a variety of uses including predicting the enemy's attacks before they hit. Go ahead. [1] http://onepiece.wikia.com...
Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

First of all, allow me to graciously accept and state that I relish the challenge by ufcryan and I look forward to the challenge.Opening Arguments:I would like to start out by asserting my position in favor of atheism and asserting that I will be arguing in favor of this position. first lets get the definitions out of the way first; Webster's dictionary defines Agnostic as such:"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or thenon-existence of God or a god"And Atheism:"a disbelief in the existence of deity"So as we can see already that agnosticism has the distinct flavor of neutrality in respect to the existence of God. As such, the agnostic is at a distinct disadvantage because they won't commit to one side or the other in what is clearly a yes or no question. Also, the position of atheism does not say they can disprove a god, but rather that it is a of lack of belief in a deity, and therefore the assertion that such a "Lack of belief" is false is a fallacy since the lack of belief in something by its very nature can not be proved wrong since there is nothing to prove. People who don't believe in Unicorns can't be proved wrong, since the burden of proof lies on the one claiming in the existence of such creatures, and the same can be said of those that believe in aliens or that Elvis is still alive. As such, the term atheist is a bit ambiguous since no one needs a clear term for the non belief in fairies or unicorns or leprechauns and as such the term atheist just refers to a skeptic essentially. As such if we are going to use a term for something, we should use the term that best describes the situation, and as such the term agnostic gets us nowhere within the discussion of the question of god, it is just a cheap cop out to the real answer.I look forward to my opponents response!
Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

I would argue that since we cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of God, we cannot say for certain that God exists or God does not exist. Thus both atheism and theism are false. I do however believe that one day we will be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. My opponent is welcome to take a theist position, an atheist position, or draw on arguments from both sides. Arguments from differing cultures which dictate the existence of multiple Gods are also welcome.Rules:My opponent:Round 1) acceptance & arguments2) arguments/rebuttals3) arguments/rebuttals4) arguments/rebuttals5) rhetorical statement of choosing.Me:Round 1) terms and conditions2) arguments/rebuttals3) arguments/rebuttals4) arguments/rebuttals5) conclusionNo PlagiarismDefinitions:Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Agnosticism: We do not know if a deity exists or if a deity does not exist, but one day we may know. Skepticism: We do not know if a deity exists or if a deity does not exist and we will never know.
this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

let me say that in my side , i want to tell you that we are rationale beings. meaning that we have the capability to adjust to our environment and knowing that these things might occur why made such promise?. Yes we cannot avoid inevitable circumstances like the examples you have given but do not you think of thiese things that i have mentioned? You have mentioned in your argument that there are some promises made under a threat and i tell you that it is a very dissappointing thing to accept that particular commitment because in the very first place, from the very start of the action it is immoral so why would you do that?
this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

A few things. Promise - 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one Immoral - 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Threat - 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. (Source: Dictionary.com) Example 1: If I promise you something, but I die before I could execute that promise, that promise will be broken... is that immoral? Or just unfortunate? Now, if your argument {semantics} is that the BREAKING of a promise is immoral, meaning that my specific actions will have caused that promise to not be fulfilled, I argue: What about accidental interference? For instance, say I promised to take you to the movies after I attended a basketball game; however, there was traffic on my way to you and thus we missed the movie. A promise was broken. My action of attending the basketball game and getting stuck in random/accidental traffic is what broke the promise. Are my actions immoral? Example 2: According to the definitions of promise and threat (shown above), I argue that a statement can be both a threat and a promise. Say I threatened/promised to do something destructive and immoral to an innocent victim or group. If I broke that promise to uphold a moral principle, would that choice be immoral? Example 3: Suppose I promised to show up to your birthday party on time, however, on the way over I noticed a car on the side of the road that was broken down, and a frazzled driver that needed my help. Without my interference, the car may have been destroyed. I decided to help, and therefore showed up late to your birthday party. My direct action (choice) led me to break a promise to you. Were my actions immoral? Or was breaking my promise actually the moral thing to do? I'll wait for your response before continuing :)
this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

i say in my side that breaking a promise is always immoral because in the first place when you make a promise you are committing something and if that happens absolutely there is a responsibility and if there is a responsibility specially those which are committed by a person he should fulfill it no matter what. second , I strongly believe that if you make a promise it requires action but action does not require a promise so why make such a promise if you can make an action without it. Yes it is true that we cannot avoid inevitable circimstances but do not we think yhat we are rationale beings implying that we can adjust to whatever might happen just to keep the promise. So in this case i say that breaking a promise is definitely immoral.
this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

and now I tell you no matter what things we want to consider still it is a promise. I want to remind you again that we cannot consider inevitable circumstances as an excuse because again, as rational beings we know that we have a big chance of facing these unavoidable things and considering this fact, you cannot say that all the broken promises which occur due to these unavoidable things are understandable. yes it is true that we are not responsible for the unforseen events that can destroy the promise but you should always remember my friend that the environment cannot manifest man but man can manifest the environment and considering this thing, we can say that we have the power to adjust ourselves to the environment that we are living in.
this house believes that breaking a promise is aleays immoral

I agree with you that we are rational beings. Because we are rational, we should be able to recognize that a broken promise due to circumstances outside of our control is different than breaking a promise that we never intended to keep or are too lazy to find a way to keep. It would be immoral if we had no intention of keeping a promise, not doing everything in our power to avoid breaking one, or if we made a promise that we wouldn't have a good cance of keeping in the first place. But an accident or unforseen interference does not make us responsible for the broken promise. It is simply an unfortunate circumstance. Now if you're arguing that promises themselves are immoral because there is no guarantee that you can keep them, then that's another story and not the topic of this debate nor what you have been arguing thus far.
American football is the most complex and strategic of all popular sports.

"That's like saying you can't have a complex watch without complex gears" A watch is not a sport. Your example below does not prove anything and only expresses a possibility of something being true which has already been done. "The plays are incredibly unique" . .. "they don't even start incorporating passing plays into football games until high school. " You have claimed simply that they are unique without explaining how or why they are unique. This statement is false while as when I started playing when I was 5 we were running pass plays (even if they were rare). This is not due to complexity but simply arm strength. The same argument can be incorporated into baseball in that 5 year olds only play tea ball instead of pitching. Meaning that your argument shows baseball is more complex. "In no other sport are the coaches more involved with every play than in football" Baseball coaches are more involved in every play than in football. They have a decision on what pitch must be thrown and how fast and in what direction. The have a decision on where the players in the field must stand. They coach and advise the batters on where they should look for pitches, where they should swing, where they should aim the ball, and if he should do certain things like hit and run or bunt. They advise the base runners on how far away from the base they should stand, if they should steal or hit and run, and they also make in game decisions on whether the base runner should continue to run home or stop at third. A football coach simply has a pre set play to tell the players what they should do while the complexity of baseball would make it too hard if there were pre set plays. To conclude I would like to mention that I have argued that basketball, baseball, ice hockey, and soccer are all more complicated than football. If I have done a better job at explaining any one of these is more complicated than football I win this debate. I would like to point out that when rebutting my arguments pro failed to explain why he was right properly instead only stating that he was. He also failed to rebut many of my arguments including an important piece of information that I have provided, . http://sports.espn.go.com.... I would also like to point out that Pro accepted BOP in the beginning of the debate and while this is more of an opinion debate it is up to the voters to decide whether Pro was able to show that his sport was more complex beyond a reasonable doubt.
American football is the most complex and strategic of all popular sports.

I accept and look forward to the debate. Pro has set no rules and no specific definitions but they are fairly easily understood words that are open to interpretation but I assume that will be part of the debate. Since it is really a matter of opinion the win goes to the one who gives the most convincing argument in favor of their side and adheres to the other voting criteria. I will try to convince the voters that football is not the most complex and strategic sport and or that there is another 'popular' sport that is more complex and strategic than football. I look forward to a good fair debate. I will let you begin with your opening arguments. Good luck.