BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine which claims we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not one which says if something only harms a few people it's insignificant. The utilitarian bit in my opponent's last round was the only argument presented that had a warrant, the rest were just claims. unless pro can show how mass shootings harm a few people while making everyone else really happy, then you must vote for Con. Next I'd like to speak on dropped arguments, as I said before people will be born and people will die -- but when one dies they are gone forever. Their thoughts, ideas, fears -- gone. It doesn't matter that people die every day, it is still intrinsically significant when even one person dies. I wouldn't care if there where 7 billion people on earth if my dad died, because none of those people are my dad. The impact is that humans are not a commodity, each is important and their death is significant; mass shootings are intrinsically significant.
Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

There are seven-billion humans living on planet Earth. More than one human is born every second and more than one dies every second. While mass-shootings may make for good news, they are not significant events. Looking at the world from a utilitarian viewpoint, mass shootings aren't even a piece of the pie of human suffering. Through out history, millions have been shoot, starved, burned, and depraved. Added together, columbine, Virginia tech, and the most recent shooting i.e. the one in Newton, Connecticut, make up a infinitesimally small amount of the deaths of the human race. These events are not as large of a problem as most people have come to believe. It's easier to conceptualize twenty six-year-olds being shot than 1000+ dying of cancer over the entire United States. I argue that the end result is all that matters i.e. death and human suffering, and mass shootings are just too local of a problem to be considered significant. I still think these events are horrible.
Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

Note: The character count is 1000. --- I negate the resolved:"Intrinsically Mass shootings are not significant" on the grounds that Human life is devalued when affirming. Human life is a very precious thing, accordingly whenever a person dies that is a significant thing. that person will never be alive again. Their ideas, thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions -- they're all gone. Now I hope it would be obvious to anyone reading this, but in case it's not I will be explicit -- when mass shootings occur, people die. To say that that isn't significant is to reduce the value of human life, it is to reject the influence and effect that the mass shooting has on human life. Namely that they end them. If you buy my argument that the loss of even one life is significant, you must also buy the argument that mass shootings are intrinsically significant; they are the means to an end which results in the loss of human life. If you agree with this logic, please show it by voting Con.
Is Rise of nations better than age of empires III

I'm with you with AoEIII not fitting at all with the other two games in the series. I never liked it. But Rise of Nations is great. It's hard to say which is better between RoN and AoK. They're different, and I think owning both is mandatory! RoN covers a longer time period with more unit upgrades, handles resource gathering by a gathering rate that increases with each worker (instead of having each worker actually pick up goods and deposit them at a collection point), caps gathering rates at a max determined by your research level, has the concept of territory control damaging enemy units, and has benefits for building within a certain radius of a town center. And there's nothing like dropping an ICBM on your enemy's capital. I'd get RoN Gold for Christmas, and if you like that maybe get Rise of Legends in the future. That game is similar to RoN (same company) but with radically different race options and simplified game play....
There shouldn't be animal abuse

Killing poor innocent animals is wrong because animals might not look like u's because they have four legs but they are animals just like we are so hurting them is like hurting a human because we all have two arms, two legs, a brain, a head, a pair of eyes, and a heart . All animals have feelings just like we do and deserve to be treated equal just like we are. Were treating them like how we treated people before MARTIN LUTHER KING came and Martin Luther king would think that's unfair and do something about it, so I think animal abuse is unfair .
Privacy is a privilege not a right

Do you consider privacy to be a privilege or right? To start off privacy is 100% a privilege and it is only given when earned. Everyone has a right to privacy but whether or not its given is up to the higher authority. When your younger you get mad at your parents for snooping around your room, reading your diaries, and invading your so called, "privacy." When older and a person is given a right, it is the governments decision or the law; for example, When getting arrested the higher authority usually says, "You have the RIGHT to remain silent anything you say and will be used against you." When a person is given the PRIVILEGE to do something it goes back to the fourth amendment which is basically, "Keeping the government from going through your belongings and giving them a reason to prosecute you." My mom always told me the less privacy you give to someone the more they have to hide from you because if you give them the privacy they deserve they won't rebel and they will give more respect to the higher authority.
Blogging is not real communication

what is real communication? well let , me refer back to the definition; communication is to transmit or pass on by speaking or writing. how is posting a message on a blog communication? yes, you can read the blog, however many people take every blog differently, so one person might take a blog post as a friendly one and someone else might take it as a threat. Real communication is conveying a message for them to understand. not posting some random stuff on a blog hoping someone will see it. blogging is not real communication because you cant see their emoticons or body language. Blog- an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a web page; also called a Weblog. So according to the dictionary, when your blogging you're basically just making an online diary.
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

*Refer to text of Rd. 2 for the arguments he dropped. Some of which he brought up in his last speech* http://www.youtube.com... [Voters] 1. Consequentialism - government has an obligation to treat everyone equally within a polity and thus the right answer is the one which will produce the most desirable result. 2. Ind. Scenarios - Cleanly extended Subpints C,D,E,F,G. And also Sub-A Genocide. - These violate the notion that everyone is equal, which comes out of consequentilaism. As such this notion determines rightness or wrongness. 3. Extended C3 - Fiscal Responsbility
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

INTR: Poor conduct of the con. NC: OB1: -Lack of convincing argumentation enough disprove the resolution. OB2: -Already agreed to locational context, again non argumentation. OB3: -Opponent has yet to prove x/y statement. C1: Consequentialism 1. Thought experiment analysis, fails as prove right/right, rather the right wrong, thus irrelevant. 2. Harries Evidence- Contradictory, as its impossible to treat everyone with difference of opinion in their own minds best interests. 3. Dworkes Evidence- maximizing utilitarianism takes a moral stand point, not an underlying point in right vs wrongness in context to the debate. C2: Individual scenarios Sub A-Z (sum up with video, basically grouping all saying they are irrelevant to the resolution, and uses manipulation.) C3: Fiscal responsibility Totally non-relevant and self defeating. AC: C1: Effectiveness: Opponent attempts to confuse the audience, while not actually making an argument. Extension. C2: Mutual benefits on both side dis-prove un-mutuality. C3: Universal claims and comparative claims are the same. Voters: Judging criteria begs a pro vote. http://www.youtube.com...
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

*In my last round i had 2 videos. The first one is my case, the NC, and the second one is my rebuttal against the AC* So watch both if you didnt http://www.youtube.com... ==NC== Extensional Drops --Observations-- 1. Ob. 1 - Minimum burden from term "any" 2. Ob. 2 - No locational contextualization 3. Ob. 3 - Rightness vs wrongness --Contentions-- C1: Consequentialism 1. Thought experiment analysis 2. Harries Evidence 3. Dworkin Evidence C3: Fiscal Responsibility 1. Summers Evidence 2. Foster Evidence *My opponent dropped/conceded all of these points in his last speech, dont let him bring them up in his last* ==AC== Extensional Drops C1: Effectiveness 1. Unknown results dont negate the future result C2: Long Disputes 1. Global Warming Analysis 2. Economic Debate Analysis
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

Sources: Geocide (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Child Labor (2) http://www.associatedcontent.com... Sex trade (3) http://www.pickledpolitics.com... (4) http://cup.columbia.edu... Racism (not political decision) (5) http://www.dailykos.com... Exploitation of women No source needed, as I asked my opponent not to bring up religous prospects as political arguments. War rape (also not political decision) (6) http://www.inthesetimes.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... ==NC== 1. "Any" Burden 2. No locational contextualization 3. "or" Burden C1: Consequentialism - Thought Experiment Analysis - Harries 99 - Dworkin 77 C2: Ind. Scenarios A) Genocide [1] http://www.darfurscores.org... B) Child Labor [2] http://ihscslnews.org... C) Sex Trade [3] http://www.uri.edu... D) Racism [4] http://www.globalissues.org... E) Exp. of Women [5] http://www1.umassd.edu... F) Forms of Death Penalty [6] http://www.gaypatriot.net... G) War Rape [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... C3: Fiscal Responsibility - Summers 2000 - Foster 2009
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

Contention 1: Effectiveness proves whether a political dis-agreement is working, beneficial, etc. contention 2: Long disputes prove that they will probably always be contoversial. Contention 3: There is overwhelming support on both sides of a debate. (1) http://www.ahbbo.com... (2) http://www.mlm-thetruth.com... (3) http://ezinearticles.com... Others: (4) http://mises.org... http://www.youtube.com...
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

I agree to all the rules. However I'll provide the definitions as a way to further clarify the resolution: 1 Right: most desirable or preferable - this links to his statement about desirability and not simply vague notions of morality 2. Or: conjunction seperating two ideas 3. Wrong: opposite of right 4. Any: part of a spectrum ranging from a specific to the entirety within a totality 5. Political: referring to aspects of a polity 6. Debate: referring to opposing sides within a polity over issues, policies, societal actions or governmental actions. [Judging Criteria] 1. Topicality: arguments are prferable if they are closest in-line with the grammer of the resoution. 2. Impact Analysis: weighing the desability of competing claims + the ones outlined by TUF
Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

Round 1 is for rule clarifications only. Please look over the rules and make sure you agree with them all before accepting this debate. If you find any problems, let me know so I can change them, before accepting. 1. No semantics. Both debaters will be respectful and argue the known meaning of this debate. For clarification, we will not focus on the world play of "Right or wrong" as a definition of morality, when it is obviously intended to identify whether or not certain actions have better results, thus making the political decision more 'correct then the other, etc. Both debaters should be respectful of this rule, and recognize if the opponent violates this rule. Violation of any of these rules should help the voters reflect on their decision during the voting period of this debate. 2. Both debaters will be courteous. While both debaters should put in a harsh effort, a debate is always more fun when proper conduct is upheld. No insults, or arguments intending to be rude or harmful, will be made. 3. This is a video debate! All rounds (excluding the acceptance round) will need to be in video format. Argument titles, and sources and can be written out to help the viewers follow along. But the actual arguments must be in video format. 4. Limits Each video will be no longer than ten minutes long, and no less then three minutes long in length. Failure to meet this requirement, should act as a forfeit for the member who fails to meet this rule. Judging criteria: I would like to ask the voters to judge on validity arguments, and fluidity of speech. One last clarification: I will be arguing that there is no right or wrong answer to political discussions, as I am pro. To go along with the semantics rule, let's make sure this isn't kept one sided, meaning obviously big political discussions, such as Dem's and Repub's. I wouldn't like to see some silly arguments from a really minor group saying something like "Well this political opinion believes that we should kill everyone who doesn't have blue eyes and blonde hair." Let's keep this debate fair and fun for everyone, and allow the viewers a great video debate, and an entangling challenge for both CiRrk and I. Looking forward to a great debate!
Bombs on Japan unjustifiable

Even though my opponent has taken this debate off subject, I will do my best to reply. First of all, e are causing no harm to another first world super power or it's allies. While the people are stubborn, the official rules in place are not stubborn. No one in the right kind would even contemplate dropping an atomic bomb on our country because just for thinking about it, another country will have to deal with repercussions until the threat is eliminated. People act all concerned that the government does spies on us. You realize that the UN has an agreement to allow one another to spy on each other's citizens? If the government wasn't spying on us, then the Spanish or French would be. But I do disagree with the acts of our government, but we ourselves aren't harming other industrialized countries, which to be honest, industrialized countries only care about other industrialized countries, and no one else has the audacity to bomb us. The Japanese bombings were justified though. Thanks
Bombs on Japan unjustifiable

US is exhibiting levels of impenetrable stubbornness: 1. No due process of law for Guantanamo Bay Prisoners 2. US Spying Program, NSA 3. US President signing a law against accepting a Visa to the UN 3. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution 4. The President unconstitutionally declaring war on Syria and had to recant 5. Unsanctioned Drone Attacks 6. An ever growing debt Crisis with no way of repaying it back 7. Continued Sanctioning of other countries and much more of which its being stubborn to its own constitution and the foundation on which its Independence was derived from, a tyrannical king.
Bombs on Japan unjustifiable

If the United States had a level of impenetrable stubbornness, that is, not willing to open up to other ideas, and was causing harm to others in the world (Japan on our then ally China), then I would have to unhappily agree with bombing. I don't want to change the goal posts, so don't believe that you have to respond to this, but was giving Germany justifiable? Just for thought. Do not confuse my belief in the justification of the bombing as me liking the decision. I do not agree with mass killings, but I have yet to see a better method to end the war at that time, and it need to be ended there. Many lives were killed, and that stinks, but even more lives were not deployed and killed, and China could not be harmed by the Japanese. I would like someone to tell me a better way to end the war in Japan unconditionally. Do not mistake that as change of goal posts either. It is not my opponent's responsibility to do that. I open to be proven wrong. I really hope someone does.
Bombs on Japan unjustifiable

I believe America was justified in the bombings. It put an end to an unforgiving war. Yes, the amount of civilians that were killed were plenty more than needed, but, Japan being the country it was at the time, would have not surrendered do to their pure natural stubbornness and respect for the emperor. They were taught from young ages to suffer and die for the emperor and their country. I believe that dropping the bomb was a bitter sweet move. But it was the right move
Rap battle

A scornful, laughable and useless rap I was once like you, thinking 'rap' rhymed with only crap But tread carefully little law or something in you might snap I've grown more powerful and merciless, you're just a lil' chap I'm merely toying with you. You could never win I can walk on whatever ice, however thin I am DEFINITELY a rap god compared to you Typing with a smile on my face, because no one knew you too Now my career ain't shjt? You get one first Before spitting and slobering on that lie burst When the going got tough, you were the one to die first But I still was out there helping the people even with the times worst You see, I ain't as cold-hearted as you think But they call me the night, one glance you'll shrink You claim I'm dumb rapping on DDO, but here you are... In a rap battle, contradiction is on par Law boy lost 5 debates and still, he tells me I'm losing You'll have one more loss on that ratio boy, I got my rhymes oozing So if you want to believe you can beat me, you're welcome to dream on But as the young law dies young, would only he mourn?
Rap battle

My rap: Here you are, asking people to rap wondering whether or not they'll think you're crap But, in your heart, you know its true aint nobody give a f*ck about you .....and your silly little account losing debates, tryna get votes recount Thinking your rap god but you just a sucka sucking a fat rod you aint a rapper livin' it up in the ritz you just a sh**ty eminem, living on benefits Comeback at me, b**ch boy better be prepared coz last night your mommy was certainly scared she feared for your life bro, thinking i was gonna break you but you're not your mom, so i just didnt want to And Im sorry to to tell you, you're career aint sh*t tryna be a rapper on debate.org, just not the right fit I wish well for you tho, youve come a long way since you started unfortunately, none of your sad crappy rap songs have charted P.S (read in an american accent)
Modern-Day Feminism could very well be a lost cause. (No order of argument/ freestyle debate)

I'm just sick of it. I've been researching feminism for a solid year now and have come upon both pros and cons of the subject. In pure honesty I think that there are portions of Feminist Theory that we could implement into modern society. Feminism is not all that bad. However, the problem with Feminism and especially Modern-Day Feminism, is that feminists cannot expect to change these highly socialized, and maybe even sexist values anytime soon. A large amount of Americans don't even know that Modern-Day Feminism is as big as it is. It's my total opinion but I just think it's a lost cause.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim from the U.S.

You know calling me an idiot isn't going to make you right just pointing that out. Second of all, Muslims are innocent. You are only saying this because you are most likely thinking of ISIS. Which is a Muslim dominating group. ISIS are doing things the wrong way. They are praising their god in the wrong way. They are just doing everything wrong. The judgments that people are making Muslims means they are not educated about them. Some people need to be educated before making judgment calls on other people when they can't even get their self together. I saw this one story about this kid that brought a home made clock to school. The teacher called the police because she thought it was a bomb. You know the only reason she did that was because the kid was Muslim. Being biased is what I am talking about. At the end of all of that, he had some great benefits. Also another kid brought a home made clock to school. He was awarded and praised real quick. The kid was white. Tell me how this is fair. A Muslim kid gets the police called on him while a white kid brings a home made clock to school and he gets praised very quickly. Just think about that before you write your response and here is the link if you don't know what I am talking about. Also some facts about Islam. http://www.cnn.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim from the U.S.

That is the problem. If you must know there are actually innocent Muslims already here in the United States. You are actually being biased. If you actually know what that means. Most people think of Muslims as terrorists. That is being biased. There are plenty of pros about having Muslims in the United States here. You might actually learn something educational about who they are and where they come from. People don't accept who they are. Muslims are always and I mean ALWAYS segregated. I just don't think it is right for Donald Trump to segregate them because he thinks that Muslims are going to bomb everything. "Pros and Cons for Muslims Living In The United States." Pros and Cons for Muslims Living In The United States. Sabah01, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. <http://muslim-academy.com...;.
Linux is a superior operating system to OSX and Windows

REBUTTALS 1) My opponent Pro said that Linux is more superior than windows and that people are not happy with windows 8 That is untrue. Millions of people all around the world are enjoying Windows 8 and it is a main computer everyone should have! Arguments Linux does not run lots programs that are very needy. People just judge Linux by its looks and say that it is better than Windows. Lets not be hasty over this. but LETS JUST SAY THAT Linux IS HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT FOR GAMERS! IT CANNOT DOWNLOAD LOTS OF GAMES. Linux is the most confusing UNIX system yet. Its true. Even skilled software programmers topple over it. Windows is the most easiest configuring computer software yet. This is why I conclude that Linux is NOT superior to Windows
Linux is a superior operating system to OSX and Windows

RebuttalsRebuttal to: Windows 8 is the best desktop operating systemIn the previous round, Con presented reasons why he personally prefers Windows 8, but didn't present any evidence to demonstrate that Windows 8 is the best desktop OS. The fact is, Windows 8 was meant to replace Windows 7, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. If it was really the best desktop operating system, it would have achieved this goal, but it has not. A February 2014 survey showed that only 10.7% of computer users are using Windows 8, whereas about 80% of computer users are still using Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP. [1] This demonstrates that the vast majority of Windows users are not satisfied with the changes in Windows 8.ArgumentsCon didn't directly respond to any of my previous rebuttals or arguments, so they all still stand.Citations[1] http://www.netmarketshare.com...