BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anti-bullying laws are a bit too much!

First of all, let me correct you on the idea that I blamed the victims of bullying! I said that it was the parent's responsibility to have a more active role in their children's lives to help protect them! And the idea of having parents whose children committed suicide from being bullied is just like putting tainted jurors in the jury box to deliberate on a case. These people have suffered a great lost and no matter what their children are gone forever! So do you really think that revenge is not in our human nature? Do you really believe that these people not have some bias while making these laws? People do get bullied for many reasons and my point was to help build their self esteem so that simple things such as name calling (not saying that's the only reason, just an example) would not be so detrimental to them! I said that parents need to teach their children that yes the world does have ignorant and racist people out there! People that use mean, ugly words to make another feel inferior! My point of saying of all this is to show the important role that the parents MUST play before it get to the next level!!!
I'm a sloth

You are obviously not a sloth. Definition: Sloth: the quality or state of being lazy [1] If you are a sloth you wouldn't have been able to type that argument. Also you've done 3 debates, including this one, which shows you aren't too lazy to do debates. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Two is the same as one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
USA Vs Any Country you choose (War)

The whole point was a surprise attack. The strategy was simply to harness the power of USSR which has battle hardened and battle ready soldiers. Ontop of thus the USSR had the most nuclear weapons that any country, as a matter of fact, Russia still to this day has a bigger arsenal of nukes than any country. The US on the other hand has taken drastic measures to reduce its arsenal since the 'end' of the cold war, giving USSR the advantage. Also we shouldnt be able to use the allies of the countries we pit against each other because then it isnt even a war between those countries it is a war between many countries. Even if you count the US's allies the USSR still wins the war between the US and USSR because they still destroy America before it can respond. Thank you.
USA Vs Any Country you choose (War)

I Must admit i was surprised when you picked USSR but the USA also has tons of nukes but depending on the static we will be likly to call brother britian to help us followed by the canadians score one for the british. USSR is a good country i must say but compared to US its going to take them a while to reach american soil and if they do reach us they will be greated by the Coast Guards USA is the number one superpower for a reson after all we spend more money on military than the next top 8 superpower combined it may be a bloody battle with lots of losesses but US will come on top. and if USSR thinks about using nukes the UN would step in declairing that niether USA or USSR is to use nukes.
USA Vs Any Country you choose (War)

I accept, I will be the USSR.DefinitionsCountry: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.Nation: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that issufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its ownFirst move USSR launches all nuclear missles at US before US knows what is going on and destroys it. There is no way for them to predict the surprise attack and the sheer number of balistic missiles is unstopable in any case. We launch the majority of our Tsar bombs (the biggest nuclear weapons) Thus I win this match automatically.Citations https://www.google.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...https://www.google.com...
McDonald's can be harmful.

>>then the topic is left broad with no one being able to define any words. I have been debating assuming that McDonald's is the company, not the food. You have been debating assuming that McDonald's is the food, not the company. If we can't debate with the same starting ideas, then how are we supposed to debate??? But this is beside the point. >>And please don't give me all this stuff about >mimic voice< "Oh! How do YOU know that I'm on the Debate Team? Huh? Are you a stalker?" Just saying, it is possible. And I resent the fact that you think my acting is horrible. :( So far, the previous 2 rebuttals have had nothing to do with the actual debate of the topic, so let's get to it. >>He has also stated that the quality of food at McDonald's is greatly lower than that of the fancier restaurant. The quality of the food at each McDonald's differs for well, each McDonald's! No 2 McDonald's are going to have exactly the same quality of food. McDonald's can try to have a high quality, but there will always be some that will not be up to standard. If you want to pull in personal accounts, then I have personal accounts from my uncle who currently owns 3 McDonald's and in each one, the quality has surpassed the standards of quality that McDonald's gives them. If you want even more personal accounts, I have personally seen the standards for food in McDonald's. If you leave french fries out for more than 10 minutes, you have to throw them away. If you leave hash browns out for more than a few minutes, you have to throw them away. If you want even more personal accounts, my uncle (same one) once worked and owned a restaurant and he says that the quality in a McDonald's and the restaurant that he owned was about the same. >>seeing as McDonald's is able to be harmful in the case of unhealthful weight gain. You will only get unhealthful weight gain if you eat a lot of McDonald's and if you do, you only have yourself to blame. Is it McDonald's fault if you gain 50 pounds because you eat 3 Big Macs at every meal?? No. It is your own fault that you decide to do so. In this case, it would not be McDonald's being harmful, but you being harmful to yourself. >>As you can see from this description, which comes from a book in the nonfiction section, mind you, cows are treated horribly, which in other words, are caused harm. I have proven to you in these two sources, that McDonald's [as the broad subject, which includes its food] who is a benefactor of these factories, can cause harm to cows. You showed us excerpts from books showing treatment of cows. Nowhere in those excerpts did I see even one mention of McDonald's. For all we know, those cows could be supplying patties to Wendy's or Burger King. It did not say anything about McDonald's. During this debate, I was the Contender of the debate. My opponent was the Instigator. My opponent was given the burden of proving that McDonald's can be harmful, and my job was to prove his arguments wrong. I have done so. I have refuted all of my opponent's points and because I was the contender, I do not have to prove anything. Thank you.
McDonald's can be harmful.

Thank you for your prompt reply. You asked about good things that we gain from eating McDonald's? This topic is not whether the food is harmful, it is whether the company is harmful. I mentioned that in my first argument: McDonald's is a fast food chain of restaurants across the world that serve food like hamburgers and french fries. >>Against my second point, you said that even though McDonald's can be fattening, you can exercise it away. Again, you have agreed that it can be harmful, as stated by the topic. Again, this debate is not about whether the food is harmful. It is about whether the company is harmful. No, I did not agree that eating a hamburger can be harmful. I agreed that a hamburger is fattening. One hamburger is not going to injure you for life. One hamburger is not going to cripple you, and therefore one hamburger is not harmful. If you decide to eat 5 hamburger's a day, then whose fault is it when you gain a few pounds? Yours. It would not be McDonald's fault that you want to eat 5 hamburgers a day and not do any excersice. It would not be McDonald's that is harmful, it is yourself being harmful to yourself. Also, this arguement is irrelevant to the debate. Read on to find out why. >> We are debating whether or not McDonald's can, or is able to be, harmful, which you have agreed with. Throught this debate, you have been debating around the thought that in this debate, McDonald's means the food it serves. However, I am not debating about the McDonald's food. I am debating about the McDonald's Corporation. You did not limit this debate to the food in the topic. Therefore, your second argument is null. >>I meant that what a cook at McDonald's prepares over and over again (a burger to hungry customers) might be poorer quality than what a chef prepares in a fancy restaurant. Just because the cook at McDonald's making things over and over again does not mean that the food is bad. Do you have any proof that this is so? If you do, I would very much like to see it in your next argument. How do you know that the chef in a fancy restaurant is not cooking food at a lower quality than the McDonald's chef?? This is just speculation. >>You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful. So you are agreeing with me when I say that McDonald's is not harmful. Seeing as I have rebutted all of my opponents arguments that pertain to this debate, and since my opponent is agreeing with me on my point, I rest my case. Thank you
McDonald's can be harmful.

Thank you for your reply. First of all, I would like to define the word "can" as "to be able to". Against my first point, you said that the idea of the slaughter of animals being harmful was ridiculous. You speculated that anything can be harmful if you look at it at a certain way. You agreed with me that McDonald's can be harmful, which is what we are debating about. Also, you said that even some harmful things end up "harmless and helpful". Please let me know what helpful things we gain from eating McDonald's. Is it the Happy Meal toys. Lovable, but not helpful. Against my second point, you said that even though McDonald's can be fattening, you can exercise it away. Again, you have agreed that it can be harmful, as stated by the topic. We are not debating whether or not McDonald's will increase your waist line after exercising. We are debating whether or not McDonald's can, or is able to be, harmful, which you have agreed with. Against my third point, you said that not everything that is prepared quickly is prepared poorly. Allow me to clarify. I meant that what a cook at McDonald's prepares over and over again (a burger to hungry customers) might be poorer quality than what a chef prepares in a fancy restaurant. Also you use the example of the Iron Chef. Yes, the Iron Chef prepares great food in a certain amount of time, but they only have to prepare it once, as opposed to the fry cooks at McDonald's. Rebutting against your argument: You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful. I rest my case. Thank you again.
McDonald's can be harmful.

My first point: McDonald's kills animals for food. This in itself proves that McDonald's can be harmful because McDonald's is harmful to animals. No further argument is needed for this point. My second point: McDonald's is fattening. According to the McDonald's website, a cheeseburger alone has 6 grams of saturated fat. A ten-piece Chicken McNuggets has 1120 mg of sodium. And did you think those new McSkillet Burritos are any healthier, think again. 14 grams of saturated fat and 1470 milligrams of sodium. The nutrition facts speak for themselves. My third point: McDonald's is a fast food restaurant. Yes, they taste good, but they are not prepared well. Anything prepared quickly is not prepared well. The ingredients are not always fresh because they need to prepare the food in advance to serve the multitude of customers. I await your acceptance of this challenge. Thank you.
Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism

I see that you have brought up the topic of nullification, and since I have not further seen any case of debating who Jefferson or Hamilton was, I suppose we debate on nullification. I believe that the states should be granted the right of nullification, based on its duty to protect the interest of its people. If the federal government has the power to pass laws that are not authorized by the constitution, and all states are required to abide by them, then the freedom in which the founders fought for is thereby taken away. Therefore, it is better for the interests of the individual states to enact laws, enforce the constitution and pass most legislation instead of the federal government doing so. I favor the idea of Minarchism, which is the ideology that a decentralized government is preferable, and states should be granted power over federal law thereof. The only job that the central government has is to ensure national security and that the property and unalienable rights of the people are not infringed by outside forces, (which could include a bad state government system.) That being said, state governments are not perfect, and there cannot be any guarantee that any system of governing authorities will abide by the constitution and the restrictions it has on their power. However, tyranny can more easily be unstopped or even overlooked if the federal government posses the power to reign over. For example, if the federal government is given the authority to run healthcare, business, education, and other institutions that it has no constitutional authority over, then corruption is far more inevitable. That is why such institutions like healthcare and education ought to be decided by each individual local government, which thereby are dictated by the interests of the people most closely. One can say that local governments cannot be trusted to enact constitutionally, but one must realize that such a phenomenon can apply to the federal government as well. So what is more preferable, that an individual state makes a mistake, and others observe and learn from it, or the federal government makes a mistake, and all states thereby are impacted by such?
Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism

Thomas Jefferson's ideology on the federal government was the most supportable. The idea that the federal government should be stronger than the individual states' governments is a fault. The key to liberty is to decentralize the governing authorities, and leave governing decisions up to the local governments. The 10th amendment strongly supports this idea, that the federal government must be strongly limited. A central banking system also is a fault, for it centralizes the power of the federal government and risks the liberties of the people.
Any Transcendental Objective Meaning to Human life is both Illusory and destructive.

My contention for this proposition is that I feel any attempt to establish an Objective Meaning, a meaning which transcends or holds true to all of those who are members of the species H. sapiens, is not only an illusory prospect but one which has more destructive implications than positive. I require Con to obviously propose a framework for an objective meaning, including specifically a or many meanings, to use the term loosely. 1st Round. Accept and give your argument. 2nd Round. Rebuttals. 3rd Round. Rebuttal, and Conclusion for Con. 4th Round. My conclusion, and you must leave this space blank.
Having Complet control over time is the most overpowered superpower

Welcome to my Debate. Today we shall be debating about if time dominates over all. I say yes but I would like to know if something is more powerful than control over time (And you can't use time control and something else). For the first round I would just like for my opponent to give something more powerful than time. Brief Summary 1. Present Point 2. Show powerfulness of trait. 3. Show how it dominates 4. Refutation and counteraction
This house would ban beauty contests.

As I have said in the 2nd round, "Individual freedom is very important, I admit, however, because beauty contests can be shown on television, newspapers and many more other ways of media. Its effects on people are huge. Not that if you have the rights not to watch the beauty contests, but the truth is that there must be some news about beauty contests will be told by somebody else to you. Bear in mind that nowadays, somehow things that you do not want to keep contact with, will still in contact with you someday later. ", I would once more specific that if you do not watch or participate in beauty contests, you will still be able to listen many feedback and details through the media, your friends and relatives. It is definitely useless to say that if you do not watch or participate in beauty contests, you will not know anything about the details of the competition. Moreover, I mentioned that beauty contests are degrading women - I admit that maybe participating in beauty contests may help gain the participants' confidence, as you have said - however, after the contests, people will always discuss if the winner or runner-ups really fit in their place. With the sections of swimming costumes and night gowns, they would compare their body shapes and more, often about the appearance and therefore this is setting a set of rules of what is called a beautiful women / lady. This in terms means degrading women.
This house would ban beauty contests.

PurposeThe main purpose of beauty contests is entertainment. The intelligence/talent part don't really serve the main purpose:"Broadcasters show data proving that the talent show and the interviews, the pageant's answers to feminist criticism, were the least popular portions of the pageant, while the swimsuit part still had the power to bring viewers back from the kitchen", said New York Times reporter Iver Peterson. "So pageant officials—who still require chaperons for contestants when they are in Atlantic City—are thinking about showing a little more".http://en.wikipedia.org...Peterson, Iver (April 9, 2005). "'Fear Factor' Era Poses a Challenge For Miss America". The New York Times(NYTimes.com). But whether beauty contests achieve their purpose or not is besides the point. It is not the governments responsibility to ban shows/events that do not achieve the goals they set for themselves.degrading to women?Whether beauty contests are degrading is subjective. Some women find it degrading and I advise them not to take part in it,and not to watch it. The following quote shows, that not all women think that it is degrading, but that it is actually a positive thing for many women:" Phyllis George, the former First Lady of Kentucky, was Miss America 1971. She has heard a lot of criticism of pageants, but she praises them for building self confidence. She says there is “positive self-esteem in being able to walk on a stage in front of millions of TV viewers in a swimsuit and evening gown. You can’t be shy and you have to think on your feet at numerous public events. Miss America is great training for so many careers.” "http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com...Personally, I do not think beauty contests are degrading. Selecting a person because they are beautiful, does not mean that we do not appreciate the other qualities of that person. Some of the beauty queens are very talented and have had, in part because of participation in beauty pageants, great Careers. Examples are Sharon Stone, Halle Berry (actresses), Diane Sawyer (TV journalist) and Vanessa Williams (singer).Everyone is entitled to have their opinion. If some feminists are against it, they have the right to demonstrate against it. If some women like it, they should be allowed to participate. But it would be really wrong if one group (the feminists) would force their opinions on another group (beauty pageant participants) by taking away some of the freedom of the other group (participating).My opponent seems to think that Beauty Pageants are some kind of disease, that even been exposed to it for a brief newscast would permanently damage the viewer. This would be a nice premise for a horror movie (e.g. Videodrome), but is not reality. It seems to me that war, school shootings etc. in newscasts have a much worse effect than beauty pageants. Beauty pageants are not harmful at all.
This house would ban beauty contests.

Thank you very much for my opponents' arguments and points. As I have said in the first round, I believe that beauty contests have lost its main purpose. Yes, I admit that 'beauty contests are only about beauty'. However, as my opponents have told all of you that over time, because of the women's right movement, public opinion changed and beauty contests just judging beauty were no longer politically correct. And therefore beauty contests introduced "intelligence tests" where beauty queens had to answer questions, or talent portions where contestants could show off their talents. However, this also means that the main purpose for holding beauty contests are not only for qualifying women of their beauty, but also intelligence - due to 'over time'. What I am now going to talk about is that holding beauty contests not only cannot achieve its original purpose but also degrading women. Holding beauty contests qualify women into a set of criteria. For example, beauty body shape means a beautiful woman, long legs means beautiful women, there are more and more examples. Feminism has always opposed to the idea of holding beauty contests. If you have time, you can also search the web for further information. Moreover, the last point I want to specific is that individual freedom is very important, I admit, however, because beauty contests can be shown on television, newspapers and many more other ways of media. Its effects on people are huge. Not that if you have the rights not to watch the beauty contests, but the truth is that there must be some news about beauty contests will be told by somebody else to you. Bear in mind that nowadays, somehow things that you do not want to keep contact with, will still in contact with you someday later. Not watching it, not listening to the programs, but the news may still be told by somebody else, which the news are harmful to your thinking, why should we not ban beauty contests?