BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vote NDP

Contention 1: Impossible Spending PromisesThe NDP have, throughout the entire campaign, tried to appeal to moderates. They've placed themselves on the left of the CPC, but on the right of the LPC, trying to bring in voters from both sides. However they've instead ended up as an akward midpoint between the two sides. This is evident in their plan for the budget. The CPC is firmly on the side of no deficit, while the LPC say they will run 2 deficits to fund their infrastructure spending. The NDP on the other hand has one of the costliest spending plans, and say they won't run a deficit, this leaves them without a reasonable way to pay for it. Some of the things they say they will do are. .. Increase healthcare spending Increase CSA funding Introduce a national daycare program Introduce a federal $15 minimum wage. Bring in the most refugees out of the 3 big parties To fund for this they state they will. .. Raise corporate tax rates by 2 points Maclean's magazine has already shown that it is very unlikely the NDP can fulfill their promises without running a deficit. The estimated amount of revenue generated by the corporate tax hike is estimated to by, according to the NDP, $3.7 billion [1]. The estimated cost for their plan however, has a cost of $5.8 billion. This is an unreasonable and unlikely spending plan that most likely will not work. Contention 2: Strategic VotingAll left wing voters want one thing this election, the end of Stephen Harper as PM. The right will all rally to the CPC, because it's the only right wing party. The left wing on the other hand has 4 parties to choose from, the LPC, NDP, GPC, and the Bloc. Right now, to achieve the overall goal of getting Stephen Harper out of the office, the left must vote for the Liberal Party. Opinion polls [2], as you can see in the link below, have shown that they will most likely form a minority government, being 4-6 points ahead of the CPC. The NDP on the other hand have no chance of beating the Conservatives, because they stand, now, at 10% below them in polling. As you can see in the 2nd link provided. Also, a little side note, the 2015 federal Canadian Election is being broadcast as I type this. And right now, the Liberals was EVERY SEAT IN ATLANTIC CANADA. That's 32 ridings out of the 170 they need for a majority that they already have, including 1 seat in Quebec. They have 33 ridings, while the rest of the parties sit at 0, at the moment. So it's obvious, the Liberals had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives before the election, and they delivered, they're defeating the Conservatives right now. 1. . http://www.macleans.ca...2.https://en.wikipedia.org...
Vote NDP

I'll start off with rebuttals of my opponents arguments. This will be pretty short, because they essentially provided none. First off, my opponent says that only corrupt politicians approve of legalizing prostitution. The thing is, prostitution is perfectly in line with our charter of rights and constitution, it's a woman's body and she can do with it whatever she wants. My opponent also provided no evidence that only the NDP will keep prostitution illegal. The Coservative Party is also strongly against legalizing prostitution. Next my opponent states that the Coservatives sell off government equity. This statement is void without any evidence of the Conservatives actually doing or stating that they will do this. After this my opponent states the NDP are nationalists, and not "private investors." First my opponent must prove that nationalism is a good trait for a party to have. It isn't always good, as it leads to expanionist governments and populations who have no respect for international boundaries, or anyone other than their own country. My opponent also showed no evidence that the LPC and CPC are "private investors." Next my opponent states that only the NDP are for social equality, and that the LPC are trying to help the "filthy rich" get whatever they want. This is fundamentally wrong, the LPC are the only party that campaigned on a platform of raising taxes on the rich and lowering them for the middle class. This plan was the best one out of the major platforms when it came to welath inequality. So to conclude, my opponent has made unsupported and blatantly false statements to support their premise. My opponent has also dropped all my arguments, responding with only one word, "No." He also must prove that the CPC and LPC are "privatized gov't equities." He must, once again, prove that nationalists are good people to have in power, and I gave some reasons above as to why they're not. The resolution is negated.
This house would institute quotas for women in national parliaments.

I believe Quotas for Women will not be noneffective as A women only knows what a woman require to become vigilant and bring about changes and amendments to Women's Life at a much more bigger and respectable level like National Parliament. I would like to rebut your previous argument regarding Quotas being noneffective. If quota was really noneffective then India's Progress to bring about Reserved Quotas for the Discriminated people would have never been beneficial. Thus I end my 2nd Argument
This house would institute quotas for women in national parliaments.

Given Prop hasn't set forth a framework for this debate, I have no choice but to set forth my own.I will thus spread out three points over these two rounds, with more substantative in the final round, given Prop will not have the right of reply.- Quotas are ineffective in terms of actually getting women into parliament- Even if they did work, they'd be ineffective in dealing the actual issue at hand- And furthermore they are mostly a band-aid for a problem and as such they allow the issue to be skirtedFirst, rebuttal.>Women through the ages have been denied, criticised and hurt on the sentimentality of being a woman( A weak Person).truism> But the 21st Century has been a different outbreak for them completely as they have started getting their recognition as being an equal gender.truism>A woman when given power of the whole country tries to reform the country"s orders with her non-aggressive and non-repulsive ability.Right, now here's the issue, around which the rest of the arguments are platudinous - no one will deny that women have been and are oppressed. The central point made by Pro here is that quotas promote reform. I have two key issues with this proposition1.) In parliamentary systems (the only logical application of this ideal) even 50% is not enough to achieve reform given that women are just as diverse as men with regard to their political leaning, and as such consensus on which legislation to enact is impossible - unless you were also to mandate that women followed the same, or close to the same ideology then this move would be largely ineffective.Note: the reason non-parliamentary systems don't work is because it's difficult to impossible to determine what parity in power between men and women would even mean - is a Senator equal to two Representatives? What about a Governor?2.)We haven't seen any evidence of Pro's claim that women will immidiately begin reforming - furthermore, given that Pro hasn't advanced a model beyond "50% of representatives should be women" it's logical to assume two things.First, within Pro's understanding of the world it is clear that there are those who would wish to preserve the status quo.Furthermore, those who wish to preserve the status quo are usually those who are representatives of the status quo.This leads us inexorably to a damaging conclusion, which is that women will either be selected to run in races which they have no chance or will be women who will preserve the status quo, which runs counter to Pro's goals.(I'll be kind here and assume that Pro meant candidates, not representatives, given that unseating elected men for unelected women would be both profoundly undemocratic and carry the same issues that I discussed in my earlier point)Quotas are mostly ineffectiveI've discussed above how the method cannot be representatives, given that this simply perpetuates the status quo and as such this means that Pro's model fails to demonstrate real societal change occuring as a direct result and as such the motion must fail.Thank you, and over to Pro. No rebuttal next round as agreed, but I'm not sure I'll need it.
This house would institute quotas for women in national parliaments.

I propose the motion by saying that women should be given a quota in the national parliament as a Moral Supportive right. Women through the ages have been denied, criticised and hurt on the sentimentality of being a woman( A weak Person). But the 21st Century has been a different outbreak for them completely as they have started getting their recognition as being an equal gender. But the main effect lies in helping them become reformers of countries. A woman when given power of the whole country tries to reform the country"s orders with her non-aggressive and non-repulsive ability. Woman have been housewives, Mothers, Managers ,etc. at various fields but never backed out from any challenge. This Quota reservation will help even the smaller segment of women to finally make a institutional change and reform. Thus, I propose and conclude the argument.
Violent Video Games

Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called "Do Video Games Make Teens Violent" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.
Stockholm Syndrome with God

The original question: "Is religious fanaticism actually Stockholm Syndrome with God as our captor?" My answer: No. No, he is just as mad, upset and heartbroken about hard and tragic events as we are. He "cries with us when we suffer and rejoices when we do what is right." (Elder Gary E. Stevenson). He is the literal father of our spirits, and loves us beyond our comprehension. He allows things to happen out of necessity, we were given our free agency when we came to this earth. Free agency is the ability to choose right and wrong. This sacred right was given to us so that this life could be a test. If we didn't have the ability to choose, it wouldn't be a test, we would've been forced into submission in some way or another. We all can choose to follow Satan or Heavenly Father and our Savior Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father never inspires hate or crusades, God is love. Satan inspires hate and prejudice. We are free to hurt others or to live peaceably with each other. Even when things are done in the name of God, they still are not inspired by God, hate comes from men and Satan. In the end, all those who choose hatred will CHOOSE to follow Satan and his angels to hell. No one goes to hell by accident. We are all educated either in this life or the next about Jesus Christ, and we are allowed to accept His grace to live with him and our loved ones eternally. We are more often punished BY our sins, not FOR them. When Heavenly Father causes bad things to happen to us, He does so with our eternal salvation in mind. Sometimes he chastens people to remember him so when real trouble comes they will turn to him in prayer for protection. Trials cause us to gain strength and draw closer to Him. He never ever ever does anything out of hate, that is why people who know Christ never ever experience Stockholm Syndrome.
does cultural traditions can give rise to conflict between communities

Conflict definition " verb (used without object) 1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert. 2. to fight or contend; do battle. noun 3. a fight, battle, or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife. 4. controversy; quarrel: conflicts between parties. 5. discord of action, feeling, or effect; antagonism or opposition, as of interests or principles: a conflict of ideas. 6. a striking together; collision. 7. incompatibility or interference, as of one idea, desire, event, or activity with another: a conflict in the schedule. 8. Psychiatry. a mental struggle arising from opposing demands or impulses. " [3]. If Pro uses definition 1. of conflict then Pro is correct in that there is disagreement. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the way Pro is using the word conflict. "now in India beef eating is banned, this is similarity but still they have fight. " Pro Pro seems to use the word conflict as in battle or a fight. Just because two parties disagree doesn't mean the disagreement cause fighting. Con thinks vegan is the way to go. Yet, this doesn't mean Con comes to blows with every non-vegan Con meets. As for the eggs, this is somewhat off topic but needs to be corrected in Con's opinion. Only 10% of calories are needed from protein. "Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods."[4]. Oats are cheaper and have 15% protein. [5]. Eggs are a poor nutritional choice and should be banned worldwide. Con contends that disagreements rarely end in blows exchanged or shots being fired. Instead, most violent exchanges are attacks of opportunity. Usually two individuals of the same culture. "Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women"more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined."[6]. Con has proven that most violence is not between two different cultures but instead between two individuals of the same culture. Vote Con. Links 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.webmd.com... 5. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 6. http://domesticviolencestatistics.org...
does cultural traditions can give rise to conflict between communities

I know cultural difference is a silly excuse to fight over for natural resources but who's asking all societies to have same culture ?? If people would learn the real meaning of peace and if they understand the pain faced by people who becomes the victim of the conflict, people will not fight. I know natural resources are basic needs of people and some or the other way they have to fight for it. but today in this world what matters anything else is what are others doing? if someone do good for others "he will become the hero of this world for a year" and if someone did something bad or evil " he will become a villain for centuries". there is one case out of ten, in which people of same culture are more likely to fight than of different cultures. just see people around you. do they like what others do in their culture... A Hindu would hate if a Muslim or christian live in his building and eat beef or meat. Even a Muslim will hate if someone near his home will drink alcohol or eat pork. In India, Hindu's are in majority so they hate when Muslims or Christian eat beef or meat, now in India beef eating is banned, this is similarity but still they have fight. Even jains (one of the community in india), they don't eat non-veg. In Indian government school children have mid-day meal in which they used to give them egg. Jains did not like this and they banned eggs in mid-day meals in government school. egg contains protein which will make children healthy but they did not get it now. but Sachin jain a man from community of jains onyl is fighting over this egg banning issue. he want eggs back in mid-day meal. so here's a similarity in culture but still there's a fight. even children from different cultures come to government school but they still eat eggs ( non-veg) which is not liked by many people in the country. this is dissimilarity but still there's a fight.
does cultural traditions can give rise to conflict between communities

Think of humans. What are we almost always at war with? Other humans. Humans never seem to have war with bacteria, plants, fungi, and Protists. [1]. Similarities are what causes humans to fight with each other. Cultural differences are just an excuse to fight over natural resources. If all societies had the same culture, we would still fight over natural resources just as fiercely if not more fiercely. If every society had vastly different cultures the fighting would be just at intense. Natural resources are the real reason people fight. Culture is just a red herring when trying to figure out why people fight each other. Think two middle school children fighting over a piece of food or who gets to drink from the water fountain first. Claim:There are plenty of same demographics domestic crimes. Warrant: "There"s no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime"86 percent were killed by white offenders. "[2]. Impact: People of the same culture are more likely to fight than of different culture. Plenty of fight within the same nation, within the same school, and within the same family. Think sibling rivalry. Both siblings have identical culture yet they fight. http://www.factmonster.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...
does cultural traditions can give rise to conflict between communities

thank you for accepting my challenge. "By having different artwork and traditions two groups can admire each others' culture": I actually deny this point because people don't care about other and you are talking about admiring cultures..?? "Adversely, if two people have the same artwork they will fight. Each claiming that the other person plagiarized": i disagree with this point as well because people wants to make change but they dont want to change. I mean they will some how find mistakes in others and argue on that or culture can be modernized by one community which will lead to conflict. "Similarities is what causes two groups to clash. Both fighting over the same natural resources. If one desired the resource and the other didn't there would be peace due to dissimilarity": Whole world is fighting over natural resources. this not the matter of similarities and dissimilarities. this is matter of needs and wants. conflict due to natural resources cant be resolve by cultural aspects.
does cultural traditions can give rise to conflict between communities

Con contends that cultural differences promote peace. Think of a fair or artwork. By having different artwork and traditions two groups can admire each others' culture. Adversely, if two people have the same artwork they will fight. Each claiming that the other person plagiarized. We appreciate and are awed by cultural differences. Think of a child exclaiming "wow what a cool hat!" Similarities is what causes two groups to clash. Both fighting over the same natural resources. If one desired the resource and the other didn't there would be peace due to dissimilarity. Yet, if both are similar both will desire the same resource and conflict will ensure.
Jews are sneaky with money

Did you know that one in five Jewish persons in New York lives in poverty? If you didn't, you are not alone: the common stereotype all around the world is that "Jews got money." [1] As a matter of fact, Jews without money have always existed, and they still do. It's not only about members of the Jewish Orthodox community: in New York City, which has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, the Jewish poor also include elderly Holocaust survivors who lost their relatives and Soviet Jews who emigrated to the U.S. after the fall of the USSR, as well as families who, like many of their fellow Americans, deeply suffered from the financial crisis. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Abortion should be banned

Hello! I am going to debate on why abortion should be banned. Let"s get into the arguments. The development of a baby or a person of any age for that matter should not dictate their rights. Murder is one of the fundamental deplorable crimes in all ethical and properly functioning societies. We are not allowed to murder an adult, so why should we be allowed to murder some of the most innocent of us, babies? This logic seems flawed. When we look at slavery we think "oh my god! I can"t believe we used to do that!" With both slavery and abortion, you are choosing someone else"s rights for your own convenience. In a free world, that is despicable. If I asked you if you were a 1-month old baby in your mother"s womb, how would you feel if your mother aborted you, killing you, I"m sure you wouldn"t want that, so why should that logic apply to someone else"s child. We are all essentially the same. We"re not like animals, we are all people. Why continue this discriminatory behavior? These are the reasons why I believe that abortion should be banned. Thank you! My sources: https://my.clevelandclinic.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Credit to Ben Shapiro for many of the arguments
Star Wars is better than Harry Potter

Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my rebuttal 1: The only way a Jedi would do that is if he is extremely talented. Rebuttal to your rebuttal to my rebuttal 2: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Harry does a spell to use against Snape in his Defense Against the Dark Arts class. Rebuttal to your rebuttal to contention 1: When would there ever be a desk in a duel.
Star Wars is better than Harry Potter

What you said in Rebuttal 1, "What the wizard was fast enough to say AVADA KEDAVRA?" That is false because wizards need wands to produce that spell and Jedis can grab the wand insanely fast with the force that they control with their mind. And for your rebuttal for my second contintion, my question is what part in the book or movie did some spell be performed in the wizard's head without a wand? For your first contention, "wands can produce spells farther away," my rebuttal is that jedis can throw their lightsabers extremely fast and dodge the spells and use the force for long range. The jedi can also use the force to push something like a desk or door in the spell's way and this makes your contention worth poop. Finally for your 2nd contention, "there is more than one spell", my rebuttal is that there is more than one type of lightsaber (e.g. red, blue, double-sided or two small seperate ones), and there is more than one type of force (e.g. lightning, instant death, levitating, and a wind that blows people against the wall) so this makes that contention useless.
Star Wars is better than Harry Potter

Rebuttals: Contention 1: All Jedi's could avoid almost any of the wizard's or witch's spells. The Jedi could jump extremely fast and high and he can jump onto walls and stay there for a fair amount of time. Also he can jump onto walls and then jump off to get even higher. Rebuttal 1: What the wizard was fast enough to say AVADA KEDAVRA? (1) Contention 2: If the Jedi attack first and destroy the wizard's or witch's wand, it renders the spell caster useless. The witch or wizard has to have a wand to perform spells and they do not have enough time to make potions in a fight, so the Jedi would win instantly. Rebuttal 1: Some spells can be performed in the wizard's head. (2) Here is how a wizard is better than a Jedi: Contention 1: Wands can produce spells farther away. There is no end to a spell unless the spell hits someone. A Jedi has to get close to the wizard in order to get the other person. Contention 2: There is more then one spell. There are many ways to win a duel. 1. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince