BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chief Wahoo is an American Icon

If you weren't such a pathetic dumb kunt maybe I wouldn't have to explain my argument to you. Being that you voluntarily accept debates based off if you are passionate on the topic or believe you can win, I can't understand why your idiotic self would accept this debate. But now that you did, let me spoon feed you this easily accessible information for you like an adult would feed a fat, slobbering infant. Chief Wahoo has been the Cleveland Indians logo since 1932 and has been a reminder of the past and current Native greats of the game. Native Americans have expressed their indifference on the topic yet the liberals pissis of our country decided to get rid of this logo. Just another example of Rob Manfred and his globalist self ruining America's past time. I would post more but considering you are too dumb to post a counter I'll leave it to you to shame yourself and your family again.
Chief Wahoo is an American Icon

Boy is it good to be back. Yes, your favorite debater has decided to return, and better than ever. I have spared with true legends and celebrities of the Debate.org arena and, after a 3 year hiatus, I have decided to return home. As a pacific islander my ridiculous insight into American lifestyle and culture is unprecedented and undeniably impressive. I predicted the presidency of Donald Trump 5 long years ago. I correctly predicted the downfall of the Oklahoma City Thunder and the cancer that is Russell Westbrook. I have admirably maintained the need for more woman in kitchens. I have valiantly pursued my passion of deportation or elimination, and the list simply runs on forever. Now that I have finished spreading out the red carpet for my long awaited return, I am prepared to go head first into my next endeavor: The defense of one of my childhood hero, Chief Wahoo. I understand the rules of the debate however I am willing to concede my first round in order to assess my opponents debating strategies, and pick him (or her but i doubt it) apart like a vulture would against a White Rhino. My contention is that Chief Wahoo should remain as a part of the Cleveland Indians and in the hearts of us all.
Gay Marriage should never be accepted legally in the U.S.

My opponent has literally forfeited this round by not engaging in their last speech. All of my arguments are a) barely touched or b) unanswered. Seeing as this is the case and that my opponent has not refuted my arguments, I see no possibility other than an affirmative vote. You can extend all my arguments down and see that not only do I provide all the benefits my opponent provides, but I provide them with less negative expense. Ultimately, I win because I provide the better option. So yeah, vote AFF.
Gay Marriage should never be accepted legally in the U.S.

Thank You for accepting. Marriage- the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I have a better solution to the issue at hand than refering to this as "civil unions". Just call it marriage. You see, the traditional concept of marraige in America has been altered way too many times to keep track of. For example, during the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his cattle and land. We jump to the slave states. When slaves wanted to be married the attitude of traditonal marriage became an exclusive ceromony between whites. There were 3,000,000 slaves or former slaves denied the right of marriage, being told that the sancitity of marriage was specific for the Whites. We now come to 1967 where judges from all over the country denied interraccial marriage. The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. People before then were told, marriage is a sacred ceromony between folks of the same skin tone. So my question to Pro is this: Why is it that marriage has been altered throughout history (American History) and we have no problem with it now, but today we are denying two people who are in love to have the same title as everyone else: Marriage. Why are we discriminating amoung the homosexuals?
Gay Marriage should never be accepted legally in the U.S.

Gay marriage should not be accepted as legal in the US. Rather, we should create civil unions. A) Gay marriage would cause outrage among many of the religious that feel homosexuality is immoral & wrong. B) These people often connect marriage with religious institution, which in the past, has certainly been the case. ALTERNATIVE - to create civil unions, in which any two persons, gay or straight, bisexual or transsexual, or of any other sexuality to be "civily unified". Yep, I just made up two new words. CONDITIONS - The US will recognize only civil unions, and all prior recognized marriages shall be categorized as "civil unions". Those that seek a certain type of "marriage" will be free to do so. All benefits and other stipulations of marriage will be applied to civil unions. Benefits A) Sure, some people will be mad, but they'll be less mad than simply legalizing gay marriage. B) This keeps the government out of religion, which I think most shall agree is a good thing. C) Peoples of all sexualities, not just homosexuals, gain access to the benefits of marriage. D) More people support neutral civil unions over "gay marriage", the fact that it's more acceptable makes it all the easier to get done in real life. I reserve the right to clarify intent and add arguments in my second speech. Conclusion------ I have all the benefits and more of the Affirmative. Not only is my option more expansive in providing rights, but it incurs less hostility from those that oppose "gay marriage". It is entirely fair for all, and the best policy option presented to you thus far. To paraphrase: "If I have a milkshake, and you have a milkshake, and you have a straw, and I have a straw that reaches all the way across the room and into your milkshake, I drink your milkshake! SLURP!! I drink it up!"
Rock Vs Hip Hop which is the superior/better music genre

Alright. 1. Usually the only time hip-hop artists shout their name in the beginning of their songs is when it is a single, but if it's in an album, it usually doesn't. Also, many Hip-Hop artists write their own music, they just don't usually produce them themselves, and not many Rock bands produce their own music either. 2. Like I said earlier, the artists for the most part write the music themselves, they just don't produce it themselves, which is the same for many rock bands. Plus, there are plenty of Hip-Hop artists who perform by themselves on stage without wearing any gold chains. 3. Many Hip-Hop collaborations have each artists collaborating to the song or album equally, or about equal, and the artists who collaborate usually write their parts of the song, if their collaboration is through rapping. 4. Cher Lloyd and JLS are not really superstars, or at least they haven't been for a couple years, but even then, they commonly sell more than 50,000 copies of their singles. 5. I've said this twice before, most Hip-Hop artists write their own songs, they just usually don't produce them themselves, which is true for most Rock bands as well. Plus, why would a pop songwriter write a Hip-Hop song? Hip-Hop and Pop are 2 different genres.
All Americans should be entitled to health care

To begin: -In this debate health care shall be defined as a universal government run health care system -I would like to refrain from arguing specifics of health care provisions but I will fully accept arguments on the effectiveness of government health care Resolution: All Americans should be entitled to health care So with this in mind I would like to open my argument: In the status quo, millions of Americans have had and will continue to have serious medical illnesses and will be required to pay vast amounts of medical bills. In the interests of this debate, I will list the reasons to prefer the resolution to the status quo: 1. Many Americans are unable to pay for their health expenses even though not at fault, this creates a situation in which a person's right to live is judged by their income. Governing a person's right to live by income is bad because it advocates that a a person who is very morally just and has contributed greatly to society is worth less than another person who has cheated his way to wealth. My argument is simple, government run health care is better because your state of health is not determined by your financial worth. 2. The privatization of health care is bad because the most successful health care company is the one that makes the most money which means that a person's health isn't held as importantly. 3. Children born to families in lower economic conditions will also suffer from decreased health even though the child has done nothing to deserve that status. 4. Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance(1)(2). (1)http://www.pnhp.org... 5. In order to protect the interests of all Americans, universal health care is the best option to counter epidemics like bird flu. 6. The Preamble of the US Constitution clearly states "to promote the general welfare" of the people.This justification alone is enough to show all Americans should have the right to health care because it "promotes the general welfare." These are all reasons why governmental health care solves best for moral and economic factors. In conclusion, universal health care is a moral imperative to insure that freedom and equality is preserved in the US.
The United States should lift the ban on crude oil exports.

I'll now go in to a few contentions and some brief arguments. Recently, in fact as recently as five or so years ago, exportation of crude oil was not necessary in this country, but that has drastically changed. According to a report done by the Council of Foreign Relations, it says, "Oil production has grown more in the United States over the past five years than anywhere else in the world, even as domestic oil consumption has declined. With these changes has come a widening gap among the types of oil that U. S. fields produce, the types that U. S. refiners need, the products that U. S. consumers want, and the infrastructure in place to transport the oil. Allowing companies to export U. S. crude oil as the market dictates would help solve this mismatch. " Currently, it is illegal for U. S oil companies to export crude oil. There are a few exceptions which permit small amounts, but the reality is, these exceptions are insufficient. Unless there is an exceptionally strange situation, lifting the ban on exporting U. S crude oil will strengthen our economy. In addition to this, the ban is an outdated policy. I will cite the same report as I did earlier. It stated, "When Congress in the 1970s made it illegal to export domestically produced crude oil without a license, the goal of the legislation was to conserve domestic oil reserves and discourage foreign imports. In reality, the export ban did not help accomplish either of these objectives. It has now become more of a burden than a help. The denseness of the export approval process discourages would-be exporters from applying for licenses. Companies see a lack of legal clarity and fear inconsistent regulation. They are hesitant to incur negative publicity on Capitol Hill when they doubt they will be granted approval. " We can clearly see from this that the ban did not work and is an outdated policy. . http://www.cfr.org... I look forward to your arguments and will focus more on countering your arguments in the next round.
The United States should lift the ban on crude oil exports.

Crude oil is defined as a dark oil consisting mainly of hydrocarbons. Our government currently has a ban on exporting crude oil and I believe that ban should be lifted. Here are the rules: 1. Forfeiture will result in loss of conduct points 2. Sources are required for rounds 2,3 and 4. 3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. Occasional errors are fine. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
The LDS Concept of Faith is Irrational.

I accept to argue against the claim, 'The LDS concept of Faith is unreasonable.' While I agree that faith is irrational -- wonderfully, beautifully, and deliberately irrational. The LDS concept of faith is also remarkably reasonable. Faith can be defined and exercised in different capacities and to different ends. The LDS (Latter Day Saint) concept of faith has many similarities to general definitions, but with important nuances that make the LDS concept not only reasonable, but the most reasonable concept of faith in modern times. To make my argument, I will contrast three different concepts of faith: 1. The LDS concept. 2. The Born Again Christian concept. 3. The atheist concept. Good luck.
The LDS Concept of Faith is Irrational.

Resolved: The LDS Concept of Faith is "Unreasonable" Defning Terms: LDS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka Mormons Unreasonable: "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason."(1) Clarification: Faith is not defined in round one as surely the definition will be a point of contention. It is likely that any judging this debate will be unaware of what the LDS conception of faith is. Thus I want to leave this open for debate through-out. I accept the full burden of proof to demonstrate that the LDS concept of faith is irrational. Thus Con's role in this debate is to negate my arguements. For reference throughout the debate, here is the official LDS website. (2) Format: 4 rounds/72 Hours/6,000 Characters ELO Restrictions 2,000 to vote Select Winner Voting Round 1: Defining terms and acceptance Round 2: Opening arguement/first rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Overview of debate and closing statements (No new arguements) Sources: (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...... (2) www.lds.org
Trump has improved the US

My opponent has stated economic examples of President Trump's influence on the United States. While I will address the flaws in Pro's argument on the economic influence later in this argument, I will first point out that economic prosperity of a country is not the sole factor of quality. Another factor is foreign affairs, in which America has taken a decline in through several administrations. Under President Trump, however, the United State's foreign policy has made its way closer and closer to violent instigation. Even before the presidency, during his campaign, President Trump angered other world leaders with his rhetoric. Mexican President Enrique Pe"a Nieto showed dissent over President Trump's statement on Mexico paying for the proposed border wall (1). This is just one example, others being the reaction of foreign powers to the tariffs placed by President Trump. Secondly, President Trump has repealed certain Obama-era policies that were very beneficial to the United State's well-being. Things such as clean energy policies are on this list. Clean energy policies help to further the longevity of American infrastructure through allowing our power grid to be sustainable for much longer than on coal power. Trump has also forbidden transgender citizens from serving in the United States military. This was defended by attempting to lower military spending, however, a study found the closest to a flat-rate number, which is difficult due to differences in transition procedures, to be $8.4 million. This may seem like a large number, but after you do the math with the $50 billion budget the Department of Defense has, you find that the ban only saves the military 0.017% (2). President Trump has forbidden an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 trans citizens in the active component. Finally, we get to the economic prosperity. The 3% number was released prematurely. In fact, the actual number of 2.3% economic growth for 2017 is only a bit more than Obama's last term of 1.5% (3). However, the American economy has been on an increasing rate of growth since the Recession. It's hardly a valid point to say the .8% increase can be accredited to President Trump. The Trump administration has also not enacted any policies that have directly increased business spending. That is simply a false statement. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com... 2: https://www.forbes.com... 3: http://www.latimes.com...
Trump has improved the US

The U.S. economy had picked up in 2017, growing at an average annualised pace of almost 3 percent for the final three quarters, thanks in part to a burst of business spending. The Republican tax legislation may provide an additional jolt that results in some nice numbers into 2018. But reaching Trump"s goal of a sustained pace of 3 percent will remain elusive unless consumer spending definitively shifts into a higher gear or companies manage to vastly improve productivity gains that have been disappointingly weak.
Achilles vs Hercules

I would like to apologize for my absence, i have been really busy lately. Sorry for my gods cant interfere with the affairs of mortals. ( i was watching Immortals while typing that section of the debate. )es. You stated that it was very clear that it was claimed that Achilles was the son of Zues, but it was very clearly stated by me and Greek mythology that Thetis and Peleus are the parents of Achilles not Zues. So why con constantly brings this up i don't know. You then claim that you never said the Poes shooting Paris ends the battle, but you did because this is the exact statement you posted. " Hercules, as his bow and arrow -upon turning into a God- is given to Poeas who shoots Paris, causing his death and the eventual victory for the Achaeans. "YOu state that i need to read you statements more clearly but what if you need to write your statement clearer. Whiles tricking Atlas into holding the world is cunning, this has nothing to do with Hercules's sword abillites and would not benefit him in a benefit him in a battle against Achilles. I would also like to clear up Con's ASSUMPTION of Zues telling Hercules how to defeat Achilles. There no evidence that Zues would tell Hercules how to defeat Achilles in a battle so this is merely a assuption Cons made. With that, this leads me to my next argument in which what Hercules would do if Zues didn't tell Hercules how to defeat Achilles. Con then mention Hercules training in arts, and archerey but that would not help Hercules in a sword battle, Achilles clearly has an advantage against Hercules in weapons skill. Con's main argument is that Zues will hopefully tell Hercules how to defeat Achilles. Con's argument has been one big assumption with facts, but not facts on how Hercules would be able to defeat Achilles in a sword fight. Con then statement the Greeks who wrote his story literally referred to him as "The Greatest Greek Warrior". This statement is a complete opinion. How Achilles would win? Well, while Hercules is swinging his sword foolishly around Achilles would simply wear him down and kill him. End of battle. I would the like to state Con saying that Hercules could just get Achilles in a bear hug and as con says" nail him in the heal". What i don't understand is how Hercules would be able to wrap his arms around a Extremely well trained swordsman and squeeze him until his bones are broken and puncture his heel. I would then like to state all of the advantages both warriors have. Achilles: Strategy Invulnerably Technique Sword Abiliity Hercules: Strength Cunning To conclude this debate Achilles is the far better warrior. i have proven all of my information with facts as Con's arguments are merely assumptions of what Zues MIGHT do. I would like to thank Con for taking time out of his day to do this debate, i appreciate it. Achilles has Strategy, Technique, sword ability and Inevitability. Achilles is clearly the better warrior.
Achilles vs Hercules

Hello, I'm here to argue that Achilles would defeat Hercules in a SWORD fight. Con will argue that Hercules would win in a sword fight. Rules: 1. NO PROFANITY 2. No Rick Riordan references. 3.No Nemean Lion skin(Hercules) 4.Have a reasonable argument. 5. Hercules as a demi god. I wish my opponent good luck. I'm going to begin this debate by list what each demi-god is famous for, there parent and there abilities. Achilles: 1. Most famous for leading the Greeks to victory during the Trojan War. 2. His parent is Thetis and Peleus.( Thetis is the daughter of Nereus: the original sea god). 3. He is a demi- god so he has considerably more strength than a human. Achilles is also well known for his being Invernable for every area of his body except his heal. Achilles also has super-human reflexes as most demi-gods have. 4. Achilles is also very skilled in battle and was trained by Chiron.( A centaur who trains MOST of Greeks most famous hero's). Hercules: 1.Most famous for leading the Gods against the giants and complete the 12 labors. 2. He is the son of Zues and Alcmene. 3.Hercules was well known for his God-Like strength. 4. It never says much of Hercules battle skill but i am sure that he was never formally trained. I would like to begin with my argument now that we have the basics out of the way.My argument is that Achilles would defeat Hercules in a swords match 1v1. I would like to begin with all of the training Achilles received. Achilles was trained by Chiron. Chrion trained ALMOST every famous Greek hero in mythology.Compare this to Hercules lack of training, Achilles has already won in this category. I would then like to compare there special abillites. While Hercules was known for his super-human strength, Achilles is known for immortality(except heal). Hercules superhuman strength won't matter because he can not harm Achilles and won't know about Achilles heal since Hercules is a warrior before the Trojan War. Hercules was also a very reckless warrior as he could be because of his tremendous strength. Achilles however is trained to find weak spots and flaws in his enemy's fighting style. People fail to realize is that Hercules is only a DEMI-GOD he can die. Hercules was also never formally trained with a sword or any weapon, although Hercules may have strength, Achilles is a far more smart, and dangerous opponent.