BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no such things as needs

My opponent suggests that we need to do three things, namely, We need to occupy space, we need to manipulate matter, and we need to manipulate energy. It is logical to lump the latter two into one, as Einstein's famous equation states: E = mc^2, mass and energy are different forms of the same thing, therefore their manipulations should be treated as such. This leaves: 1. ) We need to occupy space. 2. ) We need to manipulate the physical world (this is my adaptation on the latter two points). Response to 1: My opponent suggests that we need to occupy space. This implies that we have no choice in the matter. The converse would also be true, namely, since we have no choice but to occupy space, we therefore NEED to occupy space. I am going to argue on the basis of what we define as "I". The "I" exists only so long as we are alive (to the best of our knowledge). I am not saying there is no after-life, but we can not rule out the idea of there not being an after-life. Let's be cautious and say "assume the "I" ceases at death. " If the "I" ceases at death, there is no longer a sense of a person as their physical manifestation in their body. By this I mean that as soon as the the "I" ceases to be, the body that was represented by that "I" ceases to be in association with that now deceased consciousness. This means that the "I" is a self proclaimed thing. As soon as a body loses the ability to proclaim his/her consciousness, that body is merely matter/energy. What I have done is to say that whatever the "I" may [need] or want in life ceases at the time of death. We also have the choice to end our lives. The fact that person X is alive is, among other things, because he/she has implicitly chosen to continue living. Therefore we have, in a sense, chosen to take up space. As I earlier stated, if we have the choice to do or not do something, there is no way that something can be a need. Therefore, to take up space is not a need but a very strong want. Response to 2: In a similar fashion as my first response, I will argue that to manipulate the physical world involves a choice, and therefore fails as a need. Just like the concept of taking up space is a function of what it is to be alive, one could argue that manipulating the physical world has a similar sense. It seems to be a consequence of life itself that we do/can manipulate our world. Such manipulations would logically cease upon death. Since living is a choice (which means it fails as a need), we can choose not to manipulate our world by simply killing ourselves. I look forward to any objections to my responses.
There are no such things as needs

NEED . http://www.hyperdictionary.com... Verb: [v] be logically necessary NECESSARY . http://www.hyperdictionary.com... [adj] absolutely essential ESSENTIAL . http://www.hyperdictionary.com... [adj] absolutely required and not to be used up or sacrificed ********************** My opponent states that there is nothing in the world that any one needs. I posit that "one", being a reference to a human, 1. needs to take up space 2. needs to manipulate matter 3. needs to manipulate energy I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
You are weaker than I am! (physically)

Okay, I will say sorry to the audience. Actually viper king found out that I was not a piano. I was gagamel in disguise. http://imagesearch.naver.com...= So since he did, I was so mad that divided him into two and draw funny pictures on them. Yes, I can do magic, and I have friends like these. http://imagesearch.naver.com...= I have him in face book, too. But viper king has these friends. http://imagesearch.naver.com...= They can beat me you know. I bet they can beat malphoi, too. Viper king, well actually, viper kings can attack me, anytime, anywhere. Well, to talk about individuals, there are two viper kings and one buelg. So, who would win?
You are weaker than I am! (physically)

Let's first see how each other looks like. This is what my opponent looks like. . http://www.debate.org... and now this is what I look like . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= By this, you can see that I'm too weak that I can't block a cat from hitting me. and since we have seen each other's pictures, let's look at the weapons. Viper king's weapons looks like this . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= Now to look at mine? . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= I can hit my opponent with the keyboards just the way I hit my organs with these. But still, you can know that before I throw(by the way, I don't have a hand) or hit him with this, he will shoot the stuffing out of me. To fight, speed is very important. As you see, he owns this really-super-fast-cool-looking cars in his garage. . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= . http://imagesearch.naver.com... But as you see in his profile, he is in disguise. Actually that car is an auto bot. He also owns these: . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= . http://imagesearch.naver.com...= Man, a lot of autobots huh? But the car I own? The transport car! . http://imagesearch.naver.com...=
Resolved: The XXII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

Resolved: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.” (1) 4Rounds/72hrs/6,000 1st round acceptance No new arguments in last round. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Should we abolish the electoral college

The electoral college should not be abolished. It was created to facilitate a federal system between different states while maintaing a balance of power between more populous states and less populous ones. The federal government was intended to be federal not national and abolishing the electoral college fundamentally changes the nature of the system to allow the more populated states to control all states and to centralize the United states government in a way that violates state sovereignty. While abolishing the electoral college would make it so that each voter has equal power to one another it heavily disadvatages individual states,and changes the system so that the interests of the 10 most populous states override the interests of the other 40. The argument is really about whether we want a federal system or a national system,I support keeping it a federal system and the electoral college is a key aspect of this.
Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr

I'm going to extend two main points to you in order to argue in favour of a higher minimum wage: I'll talk about the benefits to the American (or any) economy of a workforce with a greater disposable income, and I'll explain the social benefits of a minimum wage, extending beyond the purely economic ones. Before I get there however, I'd like to offer a few points of extraneous rebuttal against the argument extended by the other side, specifically against James' view of inflation. Any further rebuttal will be interwoven into my speech. James' argument against a higher minimum wage is that any rise in the minimum wage would be purely inflationary. I presume that the reasoning here is that Aggregate demand would rise, people, would want more things, and the price of these things would rise to keep up with demand. James' argument neglects to realize, however, that workers earning more will be more motivated, more efficient, and more willing to put work into their jobs, thus raising productivity. This means that the effect of inflation here is overstated. Even if it weren't, I feel that equality is more beneficial, when balancing benefits. A minimum wage increases the disposable income of poorer workers, allowing them to purchase more expensive goods and services. This means that people on welfare have a greater incentive to find work, and that there is more money to be spent on often more expensive American products, rather than cheap foreign imports. Money will flow around the economy, rather than being holed up in banks. Things like Health insurance, College tuition, and fresh food become more affordable when the people at the bottom aren't forced to live at the bottom: The savings in medicaid, the amount of extra tax raised, and the side benefits, such as better education, lower incentive to commit crime, and longer life expectancy are immeasurable. The benefits of a higher minimum wage clearly outweigh the cons, and thus, I propose.
Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr

My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.
An Armed Society is a Polite Society

Pro claims that comparing power to being well mannered has little to do with the initial subject of an Armed Society is a Polite Society. Is being armed not exercise some use of power? If we also take a look at other civilized societies (japan for example) they are polite without having being "armed". By allowing civilians to be armed, you are tempting them to perform faulty acts. Looking at the previous shootings for example, people will generate ideas that branch off of this occurrence.
An Armed Society is a Polite Society

My question to con would be, what does power have to do with politeness. Con has compared power to being well mannered, are civil. This is an argument that has little to do with the initial subject. one can have power and still be polite. If The power argument is to be taken into account, then one must understand that if all are armed the power is then shared. In retrospect, there have been many of people with power that were very polite. Just check history. Mafia bosses are a great example.
Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016.

My opponent fails to address any of my opening points on why Hillary will take the presidency in 2016. With all due respect, instead of dancing around the debate, my opponent should grow a pair and disprove the assertion that Hillary will win, which I support with numerous contentions. However, I will accept the burden of proof as my points already bring enough to the debate to prove Hillary will win presidency in 2016 and since they are unrefuted we must accept them as true. However, to further prove that Hillary will take the presidency in 2016, I will bring in evidence from the Hill (http://thehill.com...). The Hill writer, Fernando Espuelas, further elaborates and supports my contentions that Hillary possesses the most appeal among voters while Republicans lack any real challenge to her election. Thus, we must vote in the affirmative and accept that Hillary will win the election in 2016. Thank You.
Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016.

Hillary Clinton will likely win the presidency in 2016 because of her immense appeal to the majority of American voting blocs, such as women, young adults, and the Irish American voting bloc. In addition to her overwhelming appeal to many Americans, the majority of polls already reveal that not only is Clinton dominating among democrats by over 40 points for the Democratic nomination, the republicans lack unity and have relatively low appeal just for nomination within the party. Plus, America needs another democrat.
NC State PE courses should be mandatory in order to graduate

Though America is dealing with overweight issues, not all of these issues are directly apparent with the entire N.C. State student body. Furthermore, Students enter college between the general ages of 17-19 and are defined by society as adults. Therefore as adults, if obesity is a problem for any students they should be able to seek help that is necessary or take a PE course at their will. And other students are welcomed also to take PE courses, but should be at the same time trusted as adults to make rational decisions pertaining to their health needs and desires. If necessary, information can be easily obtained through other resources as well, such as online or books if necessary. With response to the PE course requirements benefiting students as a whole, how is this relevant if N.C. State has never not required PE courses. How does the administration know that students would not seek out Physical Education courses without requirement, knowing that it benefits students as a whole. Students who are taking advantage of the Carmichael Gym and other perks that are offered would enroll themselves in a PE course, knowing that it helps to provide them a place to work out. Therefore, students who really care for the workout area and programs would partake enrollment, and those students who do not care for the facility and its benefits can put their time into another course. Physical Activity may have these effects, but the problem here is a time constraint. People who want to work out daily are going to work out with or without the course requirement, therefore PE courses are taking away from time they could allot for a more brain stimulating course. For other students who may not care as much about working out, they may not be able to find a PE course that works with their schedule; therefore, they are forced to sacrifice more important courses to fit PE into their day. My roommate had to take a PE course, which did not interest her because of the inconvenient time and graduation plans. She would seem aggravated both before and after class because she believed it was not the most efficient way to spend her day. So, clearly although exercise helps relieve stress, if you are not willing to fully engage in activity to relieve your stress there will be nothing to gain, and therefore, the PE course will render itself unnecessary.
NC State PE courses should be mandatory in order to graduate

PE is a mandatory way for students to be healthy. We live in an obese country and having physical education in state school such as N.C. State is one step in progressing in the right direction. For example, the PE courses offered at N.C. State teach you exercise skills that you can use for outside the classroom. These courses also take the time to offer nutritional information that students do not learn in their normal academic schedule. From this students can gain a great understanding in what to do to lead healthy lives. Having PE courses benefits the student body as a whole, because then they are given benefits such as the Carmichael Gym for extra-curricular work out activities. Without students taking these gym courses and contributing money towards the physical education sector of the college, they would not be provided with exercise perks that are currently in place. Students can not only work out in a full exercise gym with free weights, machine weights, and cardio machines, tvs, and radio, but also they can enjoy the more specialized exercise courses offered daily for different target areas of the body. Furthermore, exercise has been proven to make people both happier, and more focused when it comes to academic studies. Exercise provides stress relief for students who would typically be strained with school, work and deadlines. Therefore, the incorporation of physical activity allows for students to re-focus in order to perform in a better state of mind elsewhere. From my experience, I have seen drastic improvement in the organization of a particular day when I have worked out. I have been more alert and attentive in classes and organized throughout the day with what tasks I plan to accomplish. Exercise does not always have to be associated with long-term commitments in order to achieve results. The effects of the mind are immediate and relevant to the day at hand with a required PE/health course.
This House regrets the decline of conventional morality.

This house strongly believes that the decline of conventional morality doesn't ruin the future of people. Firstly, In a class the most common scenario is when the teacher picks a student who is good in academics and may not neccesarily be good in morals. Even for job interviews morals are important but not so important that they can decide your future. Ultimately, it's your marks that leaves an overcasting impression of yourself. Secondly, It's only when you commit mistakes that you learn. So, if a girl ran away from her home without listening to her parents and it didn't turn out so well then it is her fault. She would learn from her mistake and not repeat it. But what if her parents were wrong and she is happy with her boyfriend. If moral values would have been imposed here then she might not have meet her true love. Thirdly, About the students in high school, however they act, it is the responsibility of the teachers to maintain discipline. Like I stated earlier, " We learn from our mistakes" so High-school students are mature enough to understand what is good for them and what is not. In addition to this, strict action can be taken against the students for rowdy behavior and the parents may consult the school staff about any such issue. Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying that 'Choices have Consequences' and thus we must take our decisions wisely.
This House regrets the decline of conventional morality.

This house regrets the decline of conventional morality because it ruins future of people. -In the family, children don"t obey their parent"s advice. Ex: On Sabay"s website, there was news about a girl who didn"t listen to her parents. She hasn"t finished her study yet. She ran away from home with her boyfriend to Siem Reap Province. In the end, she was cheated left alone by her boyfriend. Nowadays, she works in a karaoke shop and she has a baby. You can see here that her future was ruined and not only her future alone. I mean the feeling of her parents and the hardship that her baby will be facing. -In high school, students don"t obey the rule and don"t listen to the explanation of the teacher. Ex: In high school nowadays, students act like gangsters. They divided themselves into groups, didn"t obey the school rules and didn"t obey their teachers. How can they get knowledge from their teachers when they didn"t listen to their teacher? So what about their future?
Did the nazis deserve the death penalty

I mean no disrespect to the victims. By no any means am I saying that I support those responsible for this horrific crime. In my opinion the way we handled this situation was very hypocrite. People who were condemned for killing were murdered. I know this is a very simplistic aproach to the torture they actually executed but, all I am trying to say is that I think that killing is wrong, whoever it is, and most people seem to agree with that statement when presented this way. However, there seems to be a change of opinion when we are refering to people who did such montrosities. I guess my real question here is: Who should we extent our compassion and mercy too, and if not to everyone, baring in mind this example, how can we even make a fair choice and know that our actions are not a reflection of our anger and the fact that we want revenge. I think that if we are truly that shocked that over a million died, we should also condemn the fact that more were added up to that number (some inclusively were killed where they previously killed people in concentration camps). To me that is just lowering ouserlves (by ourselves I mean those who condemn the holocaust but think that the nazis got what they deserved) to almost their level, allowing our hatered to justify murder. I completly understand why people hate Nazi, just like, I imagine, the hatered for jews was very justified at the time, considering people were being bombarded with conspirancy theories and propaganda. But also, I know that despite all the research I do I I will never have any idea of how it felt to be dehumanized to that point and how frustrating it is to hear someone saying we should have showed the Nazis mercy after all they did.
Did the nazis deserve the death penalty

Your point: it was to show strength and decisiveness This is not necessarily good. One of the aspects that triggered WWII was precisely the displays of strength of the winners to an embarrassed and destroyed Germany, who was basically blamed for all war and had to pay for it almost alone. It's basically repeating the same mistakes of the past, ignoring history and doing what it seems to be the most immediate solution to the problem. Also, to you, was the punishment deserved because they tortured and killed other human being or because of their imperialistic ideology. If it was because they were responsible for killing other humans So were the people who agreed to execute them. They could just give them other sort of adequate punishment and don't allow them to do it again, it's not that hard, especially since the camps were liberated and knowing who they were they could keep a close eye on them for the rest of their life's If it was because of Europe Killing a bunch of people doesn't kill an ideology. It's only a solution on short term and that ideology might gain power again. What do you do then? Kill a person who doesn't oppose imperialism before they even did anything wrong because of what they might do in the future?