BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was Julius Caesar ambitious to a fault? (W.S. Play)

I'm not denying the fact that Caesar was ambitious and egoistic but since the motion explicitly states that "Julius Caesar was ambitious to a fault", it clearly implies that the justification given by the conspirators for having assassinated Caesar is legitimate. This is what the real debate is - "Is Caesar's ambition a legit reason for having assassinated him?" And I strongly oppose this. To answer your questions, 1. Caesar was never afraid of Casca but in fact it was Casca who was a hypocrite who criticizes Caesar at the Lupercal in private but then puts on a show of being his follower, 2. Before making that statement to Antony Caesar says "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; such men are dangerous", and by this he is only telling Antony why Cassius shouldn't be trusted, not that he himself is afraid of him. He implies that he isn't afraid of anything by saying "for always I am Caesar", 3. According to historians Caesar suffered from strokes and was often struck by dizziness, limb weakness, headaches, depression and sudden falls, 4. Calpurnia's demand seemed a little too fanatical for Caesar from the beginning but he only agreed to her not on account of the strength of her arguments but on her persistent pleas. So when Decius Brutus provided him with more concrete and stable reasons for going to the senate it was just more likely that Caesar fell for his reasons than those of Calpurnia which to be honest were pretty superstitious and fanatical, 5. Caesar refusing the crown publicly is just proof of the fact that he was a modest king and would rather accept the crown in private than make a huge show of it before all the citizens of Rome, 6. He calls himself as straight as a north star because of the amount of respect he has for the law and establishes the fact that he is a very law abiding person and prioritizes upholding it more than anything and, 7.Caesar attacks Pompeii to expand the boundaries of his nation where the ulterior motive happens to be the well being of his people. Why would any ruler want to expand his kingdom? Only so that they accumulate more land and wealth which is ultimately put into use for the welfare of the citizens, right! Thus none of these are instances which can justify Caesar's ambition. Since he undoubtedly accomplished great things he might have just had a wisp of superiority but the magnitude to which the conspirators quanta sized his ambition is ridiculous. They proclaim that they assassinated Caesar to uphold the ideals of democracy but they all hide behind a curtain of hypocrisy since the true reason why they carried out with the conspiracy was because they were jealous of Caesar's growing popularity and accolades. They murder him to satisfy their intense resent and envy for Caesar's growing fame. Thus Caesar's ambition though existed had nothing to do with his assassination but the true reason for his death was the covetous nature of the conspirators and the fact that they didn't possess the ability to digest his increasing popularity. Hence I firmly disagree to the premise that Caesar's ambition was to a fault.
Was Julius Caesar ambitious to a fault? (W.S. Play)

Julius Caesar being the ruler of Rome had a duty toward his nation. In order to work for the welfare of his people he had to conquer the neighboring countries and acquire wealth by raiding them. Hence his ambition and thirst to make Rome the supreme power is justified since his ultimate motive was in the best interests of his people. Even after his assassination, during his funeral speech Antony put forward that even after being acknowledged as the supreme ruler, Caesar denied the crown for his ambition was focused all on the welfare of his people. He in his will gave away all of his property to the citizens of Rome. He wanted only the best for his subjects, including Cassius and Brutus. Thus their act of conspiring against Caesar is malicious and the justification of him being ambitious is ridiculous, since all throughout his ambition had only been for their welfare. Hence Julius Caesar throughout the play was not ambitious to a fault.
Was Julius Caesar ambitious to a fault? (W.S. Play)

In William Shakespeare"s play "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar", Julius Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius get themselves into some action through the main characters" feelings of jealousy and envy. Cassius"s ambition for the murder is his own jealousy of the powerful man, while Brutus"s motivation for the death is him being afraid that Caesar would become too powerful, in the position that he already is right now. However, these men"s incentives are no match for Caesar"s own actions, and through the plot, he is ambitious to a fault.
The US should raise it's Debt Ceiling, with or without concessions

This debate will focus on the opinion that anyone who opposes raising the debt ceiling for any reason or without any concessions is wrong. Here is an example to clarify if needed: http://www.dailykos.com...-(but-his-vote-doesnt-matter)Case:Failure to raise the debt limit would result in the US defaulting on it's debt which would be bad for the US and world economies and severely damage the US credit rating that we have maintained for generations. We will have to pay our obligations either way, the question is weather we should allow all of this unnecessary damage to occur because we decide not to raise our debt limit. There is nothing wrong with using this as an opportunity to advance a political position (like making severe cuts in spending) but to vote against raising it in the end will be wrong no matter what the argument was. These arguments against it are separate arguments and should not be "holding the debt ceiling hostage".
The Existence of God

"I guess it would make sense to say my point of view is the existence of God is highly improbable, whereas yours (pro) would be the existence of God is highly likely/probable or even just say flat out God does exist."How have I demonstrated the existence of God is highly likely/probable?1) The Bible prophecies are evidence of the Christian God (not Jesus) because they are a demonstration of His power.Con says, "you've cited [...]apparent 'prophecies', that have been vague and are highly likely to happen to begin with." However, this contradicts what he said in round 3, "Maybe not so vague, but entirely possible. It would be like if I suggested USA will eventually crumble. There's a possibility. A prophecy is not something that is most likely to happen being predicted."The vague prophecies argument is not valid since Con himself had previously admitted there are prophecies in the Bible that are not vague. But a prophecy is not something that is most likely to happen being predicted. Concerning Con's "USA will crumble" prophecy, I said,(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) for your "USA will crumble" prophecy to be anything like Isaiah's prophecy, you would also have to give a specific name of the conqueror, and specific details about how this person would conquer USA. Isaiah did more than this. He [gave specific details like that the city would dry up and] predicted the destruction and eternal desolation of the city, (many have tried to rebuild it, but it is still ruins today), and he even predicted the most powerful city in the world would be destroyed without a fight. Vague? No. Unlikely? Very. But it fulfilled because it was a prophecy from God. (END OF QUOTE) 2) I gave evidence dismissing the eternal universe theory and supporting that the universe is highly likely/probable to have a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, it has a cause; and that cause is God. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of intelligent design, and the Bible prophecies are evidence that the intelligent creator is highly likely/probably the Christian God (not Jesus).3) God does exist!We have seen an intelligent creator most likely exists. But God does exist, atleast as a thought. And evidence of this is all the holy books there are, which are not nearly as extraordinary as the Bible is, (Hindu and other polytheistic scriptures are eliminated because of Occam's Razor and the Quran was not perfectly preserved, like the Muslims claim) and the fact that we are had this debate.Thank you, Mister_Man, for such a wonderful debate. Consider studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses (it's free and once a week. Or you can email me), and see for yourself there is no book like it. http://www.jw.org...https://www.jw.org...
The Existence of God

I know this is a popular topic, I know there are already a lot of debates regarding the existence of a God, but I haven't taken part in a good one yet, so deal with it.For this debate, we will be referring to the Judeo-Christian God. And no, I am not talking about Jesus Christ. I am not asserting God does not exist. I am denying the idea that one does exist - I disagree with people who claim God exists, as there is zero evidence or even rational reasoning to believe in one.I guess it would make sense to say my point of view is the existence of God is highly improbable, whereas yours (pro) would be the existence of God is highly likely/probable or even just say flat out God does exist.Not sure what else to say here, so first round can be whatever you want, feel free to present some arguments or just accept or clear up some rules or definitions.Good luck!
Yes Plus

Affirmative CasePremise: Who Yes Plus say they are and what they doAccording to their official website: "Yesplus supports individual and campus community happiness, social connection, and resilience so that students can achieve personal and professional success as compassionate and service-minded leaders of tomorrow. We partner with universities to design and implement scalable campus solutions, working with existing programming and structures to provide students and staff with practical tools and frameworks for greater personal resilience and growth, authentic social connections, and a deeper sense of meaning" [1]. A1: How their aim manifests Impact on Yes Plus attendees [1]: 7,193 students taught nationwide (2006-2013) 21 universities and colleges (2013) 93% of participants reported focus and concentration improved 90% of participants reported increased self-awareness of their emotional triggers 95% of participants reported being inspired to use the techniques learned These impacts arise from their programs like Yesplus Speaker Events (two hour, interactive session), Yesplus Retreat (training program desgined to help people deal with stress, among other things) and the Yesplus Ambassador Program (helps develop people into leaders). The organisation that manages Yes Plus also does disaster relief [2].As you can see, Yes Plus is a highly structured, multi-faceted programmed design to help people in all kinds of ways, and also has the results to show for it (see the above statistics). Counter-arguments "Yes plus course is another business trick."My opponent merely states this as a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [3]."The yes plus gurus are liars."Another bare assertion."They teach nonsense and make people believe its great." Someone needs to cover these indecent assertions! References[1] http://www.iahv.org...[2] http://www.iahv.org...[3] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Marajuana is good.

Again I go back to the definition of intoxication. As you can see, the definition used by my opponent is from Wikipedia, a website of information that can easily be changed by anyone that pleases. For all we know, he could have simply hit edit and changed the definition. Secondly my point brought up by the Lord giving us this herb is a valid point. Most of the world goes by the religion of either Christianity, Judaism, or Islamic. Yes, you can argue that muslims and jews do not go by this but they actually do. They just give it a different name. Those three religions are all connected. Finally, a new point, marajuana can boost the economy. The government could just tax it and lower the debt. Marajuana also can make the mind more creative which can then boost productivity of workers and the methods they use to their work. Also I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate. He is a valid opponent.
Marajuana is good.

My opponents definition of intoxication is false. Substance Intoxication: "Substance intoxication is a type of substance-induced disorder[1] which is potentially maladaptive and impairing, but reversible,[2] and associated with recent use.[3]"(1) Marijuana highs have all of these effects. My opponent also argues it is an herb. Although many herbs are beneficial, herbs are not inherently good. Herbs when abused generally have harmful side effects. Merely stating it is a plant is irrelevant to whether or not it is 'good'. My opponents final argument is one vested in religious faith, something which many of us do not subscribe to. My opponent, being pro, has the burden of proof but has done nothing to fulfill it. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Naruto Uzumaki can beat Monkey D. Luffy in a fight, if not equally match him

You couldn't poperly have this debate because your contender's account was deactivated. I wish to take his place and debate this topic with you, because I am very passionate with both shows, although I like One Piece more than Naruto. _______________________________________________________________I am assuming my contender is referring to the new and improved Luffy that just came back into the pirate world after 2 years of training. Therefore, I will also be referring to the new and improved Naruto that just came back into the ninja world after 2 years of training. ________________________________________________________________Rules*My contender is not allowed to equip Luffy with any kind of power boost that Luffy couldn't already do himself (ie. equipping Luffy with a weapon, giving him another devil fruit). My contender is only allowed to do with Luffy what Luffy would do to himself in normal circumstances, including but not limited to:-Second Gear-Third Gear-Haki-Luffy's fruit power-etc*These rules also apply to Naruto, however he is allowed to use kunai knives/shurikens because he is almost always equipped with them in a fight and he actually uses them in fights. I will be using every technique Naruto has learned and/or used in battle, including but not limited to:-Chakra and kunai-Sage Mode-Summoning Jutsu-Tailed Beast form (with or without skeleton)-etc*Both are not allowed to have help from corporeal beings, with the exception of Naruto's summoned toads.For example:-Medical treatment from Chopper-Medical treatment from Sakura________________________________________________________________First round is not for acceptance, feel free to state your points.Let's have fun!
God created the World

Your quotation is impressive, but it is not a logical argument. A logical argument would be some form of empirical, demonstrated evidence as to why there is a deity who created the world, and all life on it. All you have done is state the position you will be supporting. It is not reasonable to assume something its true until it has been proven. Therefore, until you can offer some form of proof to back up your quoted verses, they cannot be taken as fact. Can you prove, for example, that all plant life exists as it does now due to divine will? (Citing Genesis 1:11 indicates you support this idea.) There may not be evidence that proves God DOES NOT exist. But then again, there is no proof that Earth is not orbited by a giant teapot. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of said teapot, it is not assumed to exist. Such is the case here; until you have proof in favor of your God's existence, he is not assumed to exist.
God created the World

Occam's Razor states that the explanation requiring the least assumption is the best explanation. To say that life emerged through the natural development of more complex organisms requires no assumption: that process is observed even today. To say that a being with supernatural powers took it upon himself to create all life on Earth as it is today requires a great deal of assumption. Again, without proof, it is not reasonable to assume that something exists. Until you bring forth proof, your assumptions are just that: assumptions.
School should ban the punishment for late student

1) Schools punish tardieness too heavily.School nowadays always use an appropriate punishment for the student who missed several minutes of class. If you take away that punsishment, what incentive do students have to make it on time? What incentive do they have to not miss half of the lecture? After all, if your plan is enacted (baning the punisment of tardiness), there would be no concequence to miss almost all of the lecture.2) Teachers are not punished when they are tardy.Contradictory and irrelevant. You go on that they get payroll deductions if they are tardy. That completely contradicts this point. Also, it's irrelevant when talking about removing the punishment for students. That's like saying we should feed a hampster more becuase we feed the dog an entire bowl of food. They are completely different: one educates and one recieves education. I think that was your entire argument.
Communism

Your entire argument is based around the fact that Communism is oppressive. In Russia currently under "DEMOCRACY" which you seem to think of so highly there are massive protests and arrests. In China human trafficking rings and crime run wild, life is no better with democracy and a free market. Perhaps even worse, I cite sources to prove my point. http://www.nationmaster.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.nationmaster.com... http://www.humantrafficking.org... While the USSR which was a communist ruled country has quite good crime rates. http://en.wikipedia.org... CONCLUSION I have debunked Cons argument and have proved that Communism is indeed an excellent way to run a country, I will lastly cite crime rates in Democracy's during the era when the USSR existed. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Communism

Since my opponent did not offer any parameters when it comes to the time period, I will be debating this based on current times and not based on past histories. I will however offer some past examples of failed communism, but my main argument as should my opponent's main argument should be centered on the present. =======D While communism might have industrialized both rusia and china as well as many Eastern European and Asian countries, we also find that it destroyed these countries at one point forcing them to modify there government and the way the country (The people of a nation). in Russia, communism not only destroyed the Russian society, but it destroyed the entire empire. Crushing its every remains and allowing socialism to sip the last blood drop. (http://www.boogieonline.com...) We find that both nations true were brought to power by communism; however, we find that as modernization brought to light its glory, both these nations rapidly fell. With communism still in play, we find that these countries continued to plummet as the years went by. There only savior again was not communism, but several reforms allowing for more freedom and opportunity. So ask yourself this, if communism is such a great way to govern the people of a nation, then why did they feel oppressed? why did they seek reforms? why so much blood loss? When asked this question, we find that the only explanation is that communism was not such a great ideal, but a form of a soul sucking, oppressive, form of a devil in government. http://www.hyperhistory.net... Earlier, I defined a country as not a piece of land, but a body of people. So taking this in account, we can then look at how the people reacted to communism and how it affected there life before. Looking into most communist nations, we find that the same formula is always in occurrence, and the solutions always the same. Taking China and Russia for instance, communism did not guide its people, but oppressed them. This not only created a hole in the operation of the country (people of the nation), but it also resulted in massive blood loss thus further weakening the government. The fact that a nation cannot be effectively operated if the nation is oppressed. Going back to China and Russia, we find that these people were willing to die not because they do not value there lives, but because they thought and knew that unless the reacted, the oppression will continue. They knew that death was better than living a life were they were not able to run there own business, or where freedom was a talk of fiction. There is absolutely no way communism can be the correct way to operate a nation, if the nation is oppressed or unhappy.
Communism

.. First off I would like to say that communism industrialized both Russia and China and was a key factor in modernizing Eastern Europe and Asia, that is the big piece of factual evidence we can most likely agree on. I cite the following sources to support my statement . http://en.wikipedia.org... and . http://en.wikipedia.org... The industrialization of Russia, China, Laos, etc. etc. Made these countries much more powerful and helped make good health care programs and living conditions.
Communism

This should be Interesting. For clarification, I offer the following definitions: Communism: political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) correct: Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. (as defined by http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) run: operate (as defined by Google dictionary) country: The people of a nation. (as defined by Google dictionary) Thank you and I hope this debate willl be as fun as I envision it to be.
Communism

USSR CRIME RATES .I I have multiple sources citing the same evidence besides Wikipedia. Also you deem a magazine to be solid evidence, what is the difference between that and Wikipedia? Nothing, again facts are facts attacking my sources is simply ridiculous. .II Yes it does not totally end I do deem myself wrong there, I think that's what we want though. If there is a police force in one country of 80,000 men with decent guns then they can moderately control crime. A country with 600,000 with a similar sized population will manage crime much better. So yes a large police force which communist countries have is why they have low crime rates. .III There are multiple forms of Communism, your talking about Marxists concepts of a utopia. Real communism is about governments controlling the economy and well in that case almost everything. I think a government controlling things is good. It means that crime rates are very low, a person is not in fear of being murdered if they do their job assigned and work for the common good.