BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Presidential Debate 2012: jimtimmy versus tvellalott

Holy crap on a stick! I've got 18 minutes to write my entire argument...Lets go!OPENINGI would like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate him. I hope this is a fair and well-mannered debate. Good luck.ARGUMENTSEXPERIENCEI am clearly more experienced than jimtimmy when it comes to running DDO. I am appealing to experience here; I was involved in the formation of the Party Party, which eventually helped Cody_Franklin's Freedom Party snatch the election from innomen's surprise vote boom. I ran as askbob's VP against innomen and lost. I left the site for quite a while during innomen's first Presidency for a variety of reasons including the AnCap exodus, lack of moderation, askbob's banning and simply spending too much time on DDO. I eventually returned mostly because I missed mafia but when I was asked by innomen to be his VP in the last election, I had to take up his offer and have spent the last 6 months learning as much as I can in hope of becoming a good President. I have very big shoes to fill. I am now being investigated by innomen in to potentially becoming a second moderator.PERSONALITYThere is little doubt that I am nowhere near as controversial a character as jimtimmy on this site. I have not been accused of any wrong-doing on this website. I will elaborate on this more in the next round, I simply don't have time to find the sources.CONCLUSIONThis first round sucked, but I had to write something. I won't procrastinate on the next round.Thanks for reading.
Presidential Debate 2012: jimtimmy versus tvellalott

This will be the official Presidential debate between myself and one of my opponents, jimtimmy.EXTENDED RESOLUTIONI will be arguing: "Assuming tvellalott won the election, he would make a superior President to jimtimmy"My opponent will be arguing "Assuming jimtimmy won the election, he would make a superior President to tvellalott"BURDEN OF PROOFWe each have the burden of proof of proving our respective resolutions.ROUND STRUCTURE AND RULESFirst round is only for definitions and acceptance.The second round will consist entirely of arguments. No rebuttals from my opponent as this gives him the advantage.The third round will allow new arguments and also rebuttals from both sides in response to any arguments previously made.The fourth round will be only for rebuttals and conclusions; NO new arguments are to be introduced.We both argee to avoid using semantics or trickery in our arguments and/or rebuttals. Any forfeit will cause immediate loss of conduct points, except in the case of an equal number of forfeits. Biased RFD's can (AND WILL) be disputed so voters are encouraged to give detailed explanations for their point allocation. We both agree that it is unfair for our VPs to vote and thus Thaddeus and innomen should not vote at all, though leaving RFD with no point allocation is allowed.Good luck to my opponent. If you object to anything, please let me know in the comments before you accept the challenge so I can edit this debate accordingly.
I am a firebender.

As we see by this definition fire bending is the ability to manipulate fire. ( No were not talking about that avatar show with ang.) I can manipulate fire. No I will not use examples of lighting a match or anything stupid like that.Here's my arguments.1. I am a fire dancer therefore I am a fire bender.Fire dancing (also known as "fire twirling," "fire spinning," "fire performance," or "fire manipulation")http://en.wikipedia.org...Being a fire dancer I can manipulate fire. I can bend fire in my hands without it burning me. I can make fire different colors. In one of the videos that I will post the colors of the fire is green while the other end of the fire staff is blue. Not many people or fire dancers Know how to change fire different colors. Since this is manipulation of fire and being able to control fire this proves that I am indeed a fire bender. http://www.youtube.com...; /> http://www.youtube.com...; /> http://www.youtube.com...; /> http://www.youtube.com...; /> I will add more arguments last round.
Gerrymandering

"America is a democracy..." Sources? Many people would disagree. "Many people don"t know or they don"t understand how gerrymandering affect them and to political race. Gerrymandering is negatively seen because of legislators in a particular state will redraw the lines to favor either the democrat or republican parties stated by ex- Californian governor Schwarzenegger. By drawing the lines unfairly you lose the trust of the people in your state because they will feel like their votes and voice are being diluted to a point where minority communities can be split. According to the people who live in Anamosa, Iowa they feel that living near a prison does not represent them evenly because the prisoner cannot vote and they are only used for padding for congressmen during redistricting." Please explain your arguments here. I await proper arguments and sources from my opponent in the next round. Sources: http://www.britannica.com...
Gerrymandering

America is a democracy, though the system is flawed. We do vote for who we want although things like gerrymandering make citizens feel like their vote is altered in order to favor a certain party. Gerrymandering is unfair and it"s kind of like cheating Americans out of their votes. American feel like they are voting but there is being changed in order to favor a certain party. Gerrymandering has been going on for so long you would that they would have solved this problem by know. Many people don"t know or they don"t understand how gerrymandering affect them and to political race. Gerrymandering is negatively seen because of legislators in a particular state will redraw the lines to favor either the democrat or republican parties stated by ex- Californian governor Schwarzenegger. By drawing the lines unfairly you lose the trust of the people in your state because they will feel like their votes and voice are being diluted to a point where minority communities can be split. According to the people who live in Anamosa, Iowa they feel that living near a prison does not represent them evenly because the prisoner cannot vote and they are only used for padding for congressmen during redistricting.
I am Proud to Announce...

"I take offence at the fact that you reached the most undesirable verdict that I am a troll. How dare you!" You have offered no other conclusion with evidence, therefore my conclusion stands. "If you look at the facts, then you will most obviously see that I have displayed no blasphemy in my writings, in fact I find that it is you making the outrageous claims. You claimed something odd like: "Boris isn't the leader", when that is obviously a huge lie. How you dare to say something like that astonishes me." You have offered no evidence to the contrary, and as you have the burden of proof but have no evidence its an automatic loss. All of your points are assertions with NO evidence or logic, and therefore have no significance in the arena of debate. My analysis has shown you hold no power amongst the current positions that have it. "You even went as far as to say that I wasn't on a ballot list, well, democracy doesn't work - embrace the future! Embrace freedom! Embrace Boris! (Good cuddles!)" Current leaders dont campaign, therefore this proves you are not a leader [yet] and therefore your claim fails. Conclusion: Its obvious con wins.
I am Proud to Announce...

I take offence at the fact that you reached the most undesirable verdict that I am a troll. How dare you! If you look at the facts, then you will most obviously see that I have displayed no blasphemy in my writings, in fact I find that it is you making the outrageous claims. You claimed something odd like: "Boris isn't the leader", when that is obviously a huge lie. How you dare to say something like that astonishes me. You even went as far as to say that I wasn't on a ballot list, well, democracy doesn't work - embrace the future! Embrace freedom! Embrace Boris! (Good cuddles!)
I am Proud to Announce...

"You are ignoring the most blatant facts." Please provide us and enlighten us with your hidden knowledge... "He is attempting to trick you into believing that I am a troll, when it is actually he who is the troll. He may speak of Jumbo the Leader or something, but that is clearly just a complex lie." 1. How am I the troll? I follow the rules of the site, debate, and dont post useless debates claiming I am the leader... 2. How is this a lie? Its not even complex. We gain leaders through elections, elections where held a month ago. You weren't even on the ballot. "If any of you have useful comments, then please look at my forum." 1. Nice source for me, there is much more proof you are a troll on the forum [1]. How do trolls make the site superior? **My case** My opponent never responded to my case. Extend all points. CON wins. [1] http://www.debate.org...
I am Proud to Announce...

My opponent has the burden if proof to prove: He will make us better then before He is the leader Let's look into these points ===Is he the leader?=== Although juggle is ultimately the leader, one must look into whether or not he is at their level. On DDO the highest ranking members (other then juggle representatives) are elected officials. Every sixth months we hold elections. We recently held one, and my opponent was not elected. If you look at all the elected officials, my opponent us none of them (1). So, his options now is juggle representative or site owner. He is not the sure owner -- juggle is -- Look at the copyright at the bottom of the screen. He is not a representative, as if he was he would have notified us upon arrival. Therefore he is not representative. He is not DDO elite as innomen gave the names, "boris" wasn't listed. He is not our leader. ===Will he make us better?=== No he won't, he's a troll. (1) http://www.debate.org...
Marijuana should be made legal in the U.S.

Many Americans want marijuana legalized. It's their choice if they wish to use it. More jobs would be produced, tax revenue will increase, and money spent on law enforcement would be cut. It's not worth the money and effort to continue enforcing prohibition when the U.S. can benefit tremendously on it's legalization. The responsibility lies in the hands of the American people that wish to use it. It will have the same restrictions as alcohol. Why continue spending billions on law enforcement when the pros of legalization outweigh the cons?
Marijuana should be made legal in the U.S.

I accept. Marijuana may be helpful in some ways but it should not be legalized. Marijuana is a highly addictive drug. Even when it is legalized average marijuana smokers will spend about 650$ on weed a year. http://business.time.com... The same problem exists with cigarettes and alcohol. This 650$ a year could be saved and put towards your child's education or could be used for food. The fact that it is an addiction will make consumers spend even more money they don't have on the product.
Marijuana should be made legal in the U.S.

Marijuana law enforcement is costing the U.S. an estimated $7.7 billion per year (Edwards, 2012). The drug is less harmful than tobacco (which has no health benefit, and is addictive) and alcohol (on which abusers can become physically dependant). Furthermore, tax revenue around $6 billion a year can be produced if taxed like alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana has proved to be effective at treat several medical conditions, and legalization will make it available for use at a reduced cost. An added benefit is the product that is removed from smugglers and drug dealers.
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

"With lies? " If they lie, they don't make up for it. So no, not with lies. "It was a rhetorical question. " Okay. "Well, they would immediately barge into the man's house with a warrant and demand to search his house. " You provide no evidence for this claim, so I really don't believe you. Why would they believe a criminal when there is no other evidence? I'll answer it for you (because this is the last round): they wouldn't. "I would still never believe the testimony of a criminal who is only 'testimoning' in an attempt to cut his sentence. This entire paragraph is about how criminals won't testify falsely. You give no scenario in which a criminal can justly testify against someone else as being in part of his crime, only the negative. " Okay, lets say there is a man selling drugs. The police do not know where he gets the drugs. They offer him a shorter sentence if he tells them who gives the drugs to him. They give him a name, and tell when and where he meets the guy. The police go there at the given time, and catch him with drugs. Because the testimony was found to be truthful and beneficial, the first criminal gets a shorter sentence, and the second criminal is caught, ridding some danger from the streets, and allowing justice to further prevail. "Furthermore, if a man has no alibi against a criminal's testimony, he still wouldn't be thrown in prison on a criminal's word, so it would be a waste of time. " Correct, so the criminal wouldn't get a shortened time. "Also, it could be fairly convenient for a criminal to set up his crime so that it looks as if he had an accomplice, and then set it up so that it looks as if another man who had no connection to the crime and no possible alibi on the night of the crime was the accomplice, so that he could fall back on the false testimony to cut his sentence and throw an innocent person in jail. " If there is no other reason to believe that the second person was involved in the crime besides the ones listed, he wouldn't be convicted. He would just be added to the list of suspects. "Your 'good behavior' links are irrelevant. They talk nothing about testimonies and plea bargaining. " They are not irrelevant: they establish that criminals who cooperate can have shortened time. So why wouldn't criminals who cooperate by giving information to the police get shortened time? "In conclusion, testimony is not something to be bartered with, and it is unfair to reward a criminal for something that he should have none without reward, especially when it is abusive so that a criminal could set up his crime to already have someone ready to frame as his accomplice. " The sentence makes no sense, no matter how many times I read it. "None without reward" doesn't seem right. In conclusion, if a criminal can give testimony to help convict other criminals to receive a shorter sentence, it would benefit society by letting fewer criminals go free. I have given a scenario in which this makes sense. It doesn't hurt to offer it, because if they are lying they don't get any benefit and just get convicted for lying under oath. "Thank you. Vote PRO! " Thank you.
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

Well, they do. Then they can partially make up for it. " With lies? "Yes. (What kind of answer were you expecting? )" It was a rhetorical question. "This would not happen. They would not instantly believe him. They would doubt him. And that was then, this is now. That was a very stupid time of American History. The laws for testimony and prosecution for witchcraft have changed. " Well, they would immediately barge into the man's house with a warrant and demand to search his house. "This would then possibly lead to another court case. If it seems utterly rediculous, it would not. It would be for testimony for an already suspected case. If this information is found to be false (which it quite likely would if it was), then the foolish criminal would get more years in prison for purgery. Not a very good idea. This again rewards good behavior and punishes those who don't cooperate. If the testimony is false, then it is not truly testimony, and thus would not be used to help the convicted person. If it doesn't lead to anything, then it would still not help the person. " I would still never believe the testimony of a criminal who is only "testimoning" in an attempt to cut his sentence. This entire paragraph is about how criminals won't testify falsely. You give no scenario in which a criminal can justly testify against someone else as being in part of his crime, only the negative. Furthermore, if a man has no alibi against a criminal's testimony, he still wouldn't be thrown in prison on a criminal's word, so it would be a waste of time. Also, it could be fairly convenient for a criminal to set up his crime so that it looks as if he had an accomplice, and then set it up so that it looks as if another man who had no connection to the crime and no possible alibi on the night of the crime was the accomplice, so that he could fall back on the false testimony to cut his sentence and throw an innocent person in jail. Your "good behavior" links are irrelevant. They talk nothing about testimonies and plea bargaining. In conclusion, testimony is not something to be bartered with, and it is unfair to reward a criminal for something that he should have none without reward, especially when it is abusive so that a criminal could set up his crime to already have someone ready to frame as his accomplice. Thank you.
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

"And you know that it is the truth because...?" We don't. This will be addressed later in the round. "People aren't supposed to commit crimes, either." Well, they do. Then they can partially make up for it. "Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?" Yes. (What kind of answer were you expecting?) "[Conversation between two idiots]" This would not happen. They would not instantly believe him. They would doubt him. And that was then, this is now. That was a very stupid time of American History. The laws for testimony and prosecution for witchcraft have changed. "Yeah. When a criminal names another criminal, there is absolutely no guarantee that that man is a criminal. And the person giving the testimony isn't exactly reliable. I mean, who would you rather believe, a man who was originally thought to be unconnected to any crime, or a man who just killed someone and was told that he could cut a year off of his sentence by naming his accomplice, even when he didn't have one?" This would then possibly lead to another court case. If it seems utterly rediculous, it would not. It would be for testimony for an already suspected case. If this information is found to be false (which it quite likely would if it was), then the foolish criminal would get more years in prison for purgery. Not a very good idea. This again rewards good behavior and punishes those who don't cooperate. If the testimony is false, then it is not truly testimony, and thus would not be used to help the convicted person. If it doesn't lead to anything, then it would still not help the person. "Yeah..." No... This is in many ways relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... He got off with good behavior! Good for him! http://www.ilga.gov.... This shows the rules of good behavior.
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

"This is irrelevant to the debate, because the testimony would be the truth against a different crime." And you know that it is the truth because...? "Again, irrelevant. Nobody is supposed to lie." People aren't supposed to commit crimes, either. "If a criminal has extra information on another crime, it is overall beneficial to society to get the information through plea bargaining. People who cooperate should be rewarded over those who do not. People can get out of jail earlier than they were supposed to with good behavior. Why can't this good behavior include giving evidence about another criminal?" Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials? http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.law.umkc.edu... "Hey, you, sir, you have been accused of witchcraft!" "Who, me?" "Yes, you. Three girls fall to the floor every time you enter a room." "They're faking it." "All three of them?" "Yep." "Unlikely. Now, are you guilty?" "Um... sure." "Now, identify one of your witch friends, or else you'll be burned at the stake." "Um, you." "Huh?" "Yeah. You're my witch buddy. 'Member? We'd go out at night and enchant... deer." "That's rubbish!" "No, it isn't. Hey, everybody, this man is a witch!" The instigator is then carried off into a courtroom. Yeah. When a criminal names another criminal, there is absolutely no guarantee that that man is a criminal. And the person giving the testimony isn't exactly reliable. I mean, who would you rather believe, a man who was originally thought to be unconnected to any crime, or a man who just killed someone and was told that he could cut a year off of his sentence by naming his accomplice, even when he didn't have one? Yeah...
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

Definitions are accepted. "Lying in testimony, or only saying the truth in the case of a plea bargain, is unethical, as the person should make a true testimony regardless of the situation." This is irrelevant to the debate, because the testimony would be the truth against a different crime. "It is unfair that some people will vouch false evidence for a criminal just because he decided to plea bargain." Again, irrelevant. Nobody is supposed to lie. "Thank you for accepting, mongoose." Thank you for starting this debate, mongeese. Because my opponent has put forward no real arguments, I will put up my own. If a criminal has extra information on another crime, it is overall beneficial to society to get the information through plea bargaining. People who cooperate should be rewarded over those who do not. People can get out of jail earlier than they were supposed to with good behavior. Why can't this good behavior include giving evidence about another criminal?
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

This debate is part of a tournament (http://www.debate.org...), so we respectfully ask for no one outside of the tournament to vote in this debate. I affirm the resolution that plea bargaining for testimony is unjust. Plea bargaining - http://en.wikipedia.org... Exchange - http://en.wikipedia.org... Testimony - http://en.wikipedia.org... Unjust - unfair (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Testimony is "solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter." Lying in testimony, or only saying the truth in the case of a plea bargain, is unethical, as the person should make a true testimony regardless of the situation. It is unfair that some people will vouch false evidence for a criminal just because he decided to plea bargain. Thank you for accepting, mongoose.
DS's are fun on long debate trips

Our does refer to two people, yes(I'm thinkin Policy Debate sry!) But that isn't abuse. Don't vote on that. 1. If they don't like the song, IGNORE IT! They can play cards, listen to OTHER music, and etc! 2. Yes, I said how they will. They get rich from the DS's sold, and then they take over the world with their money. This is bad because they are a GAMING company, and can't manage the world. They could barely manage hotels when they owned them!(around the 80s, in Japan) 3. The MAJORITY will agree on a song. There is no proof that all will agree on the LIMITED choices of DS games! I am referring to HF. I don't know any other schools that do rotations! 4. We solve for entertainment, and its 100%. More people like Music than games. And, games can be seen as kiddy often. 5. The probability is once again entertainment, and people liking it. DS's aren't fun to everyone, some people like PSP's, and some don't like games PERIOD. More ppl hate games in debate than Ipods. You can have at least 2 people who don't like the game being played! And there aren't enough DS's for anyone to play for more than a substantial time. (Which is needed for Soft Power, and popularity) 6. YOU STATED that people have been bringing MP3's longer, so my timeframe is better! You can't get tired of it, more music comes out each day. DS's are new, but not enough people have them, and WHEN enought have them, we will all die.