BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should go to Mars

Due to the fact that my opponent just stated that he and his brother knows nothing about NASA. Quote " We've got no NASA experience." This proves that by saying this they choose not to defend any of their arguments, for it was their rejoinder speech( or defending speech). It also means they admit we can get good resources off Mars, we can send our astronauts their saftely, we can colonize there on Mars, and we can create a ship that can get to Mars in 39 days. This will boost our economy allowing new jobs, and growth here on Earth. It will stimulate the ecoonomy due to the new resources. We will gain many new advance spin offs, and that the mission can succeed allowing us a new planet to live on!
We should go to Mars

----Plan illegal, doesn’t use DOT Beckley 98(NASA Administrator, http://www.faa.gov..., accessed on Oct. 11, 2011, AL) The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTC-4, August 5, 1994) designates NASA as “lead Agency for technology development and demonstration for next generation reusable space Transportation systems.” NSTC-4 also directs the Department of Transportation (FAA) to “License, facilitate, and promote commercial launch operations as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended, and Executive Order 12465.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, P.L. 105-303, granted regulatory authority to the DOT for commercial reentry activities. Because the FAA will license and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities that may SpaceThe Freedictionary.com 11 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., accessed 6/23/11) 7. (Astronomy) a. the region beyond Earth’s atmosphere occurring between celestial bodies of the universe.
We should go to Mars

Right now we have been constantly been increasing our technology in space exploration, and we are looking for the possibility to go to Mars. In this debate i shall take the position that going to Mars is worth it. The Con will take the argument that it is not worth it and that we should not explore Mars. The Debate will take part in this format 1. Constructive Speech ( making your arguments ) 2. Rebuttal ( Attacking the Opponet) 3. Rejoinder (defending your speech) 4.
A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

So I shall address some of them (but keep it short) and then summarize the debate, before passing on to the voters. The important thing to note is that, while in R3, my opponent concluded that "Perfect" was limited to what is possible in that it only applies to what is possible to improve. However, in R4, my opponent holds that "unlimited" is absolutely unlimited (which I shall shorten to "AU" from now on). Because of this, my opponent must concede his P4 from his R2 "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is unlimited. "This is because, as I have said from the beginning, "maximally" means "the greatest or most complete or best possible" and since AU is not possible, it is not part of the MGB. QED. My opponent makes two attempts to refute this and I will address them here.1) "due to lack of knowledge it was magically possible"This is an equivilcation fallacy and an appeal to ignorance. For one, if we apply this absurd view of "possible" to my opponent's original argument, then we can simply say that a lack of knowledge makes the MGB possible and therefore, my opponent is wrong, a MGB is possible because I am ignorant. Now, the voters can either accept this argument by my opponent, in which case, I am right and they need to vote for me because PRO's own argument can be used against him. Or they can reject his argument and accept mine. So, either way, it does not support my opponent.2) " however here is a common definition of maximally"First, I would like to state how poor it is that for this entire debate, my opponent did not question the definition even once, then in the last round he simply brings forth a completely different definition and asks us to accept it. Again, this is up to the voters. I encourage, out of proper conduct, not to accept this. However, if you wish only to dock conduct and allow the definition to stand as far as arguments go, then lets look a little closer, namely, at his source [1]. If you actually open the link and take a look, you'll see that the definition he provided is NOWHERE in his source. However, what is in his source is this, "being an upper limit. " Yes, his only link supports that "maximally" cannot be unlimited, again, striking down his P4 from his R2 and proving his own argument wrong. QED. So, since my opponent's own arguments are actually striking down his initial "proof" there is nothing left to do but vote. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...I thank my opponent for this debate, and all the viewers who have taken the time to read, comment, and vote. Again, thank you.
A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

I'll break this down into two segments, first, a summary of the important parts of my opponent's argument, and second, a continuation of my argument. First, I thank my opponent for clarifying the word "perfect. " There are many different views of the word, ranging from nothing greater is possible, to nothing greater is imaginable. Of course, there is a vast difference between "possible" and "imaginable. " Since my opponent has clarified that perfect is only regarding what "could" be greater (meaning "possible"). Of course, with the "maximally" qualifier, this is redundant, but either way. Now to move on to the continuation of the argument. If we go back to my R2, I said, "the same can go against P3 and P4," so lets go into that. A maximally great being is only as great as is possible (because of the definition of maximally). Therefore, a maximally great being is only as unlimited as possible, but not necessarily absolutely unlimited. Because the MGB is not absolutely unlimited, it can still have limits. It is easy enough to see that absolute unlimitedness is not logical. It would require one to have an unlimited net positives and, at the same time, have unlimited net negatives. So again, since absolute unlimitedness is not possible, it does not fit within "maximally great. " Thanks to the qualifier "maximal" that is in MGB, we can replace "perfect" with "most perfect possble" and replace "unlimited" with "most unlimited possible. " Since both options fall under the set of possible, then the MGB itself is possible. Since the definitions of the words dictate "possible" I will let this end and move into our final round.
A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

I shall also point out that my opponent has not disagreed with any of my definitions, and so we shall assume that they are all accepted for this debate. Due to the 5,000 character count, I will focus on one single, albeit, vital flaw with my opponent's reasoning. Since we are arguing Ontological arguments, everything is based on logic and reasoning, rather than observations of the world. As such, sources are not important (since any source would likely just be an appeal to authority and there is no legitimate authority on this topic) [1]. My contention will be with P1 and P2 (and the same can go against P3 and P4, but I only need to show that one has a flaw). My opponent suggests that if the MGB exists, it must be perfect because perfection is greater than imperfection. This sounds accurate at first glance, however we must remember that the definition of maximally is "the greatest or most complete or best POSSIBLE. " Therefore, if such level of greatness is not possible, it is not the maximum, and some lower degree of "greatness" will hold the title of "maximally great. " To explain in a more mathematical manner, lets take a basic math formula, f(x) = 7 - x^2. The maximum for this equation is f(0) = 7. Of course, we all know that 8 is greater than 7, but 7 is still the maximum for f(x) simply because it is the maximum possible for that formula. This shows conclusively that just because one can imagine something greater, it does not mean that some less great is not the maximally great. Now, to move on to my own argument. Since "maximally" is defined as the greatest possible,then a MGB must be possible. Lets call the set of everything that exists, set E, and everything that is possible, set P. Now, of course, not everything that is possible, does exist. But everything that is possible, is possible by definition [2]. So the greatest within set P will be the MGB, and this thing is possible. While there is the chance that this MGB may not also have a summer home in set E, that is not the point of this debate. I will pass back to my opponent for their next round. Thank you, [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... LOL, yes, I used a source to show that sources are not important. [2] . http://www.mathwords.com...
A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

I accept the challenge and will only briefly take the time to clarify some definitions and point out the BOP. Maximally [1] - "the greatest or most complete or best possible" Great [2] - "remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect" Being [3] - "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently" My opponent has stated in their opening round that the MGB (or God if we prefer to call it, I'm good either way) "is not possible...in no possible world." This means my opponent must show that it is actually impossible, not just highly unlikely. With definitions and BOP clarified, I'll allow my opponent to make their argument. Thank you [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Quote Debate

Nice ones... Theme for round three-Life "Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death" Albert Einstein However mean your life is, meet it and live it: do not shun it and call it hard names. Cultivate poverty like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Things do not change, we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do want society. Henry David Thoreau Life is just one damned thing after another Erbert Hubbard Thanks for the "Debate"
Quote Debate

Theme for the round will be- death According to the L. A. Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to take "a harder stance" on the death penalty. What's a harder stance on the death penalty? We're already killing the guy? How do you take a harder stance on the death penalty? What, are you going to tickle him first? Give him itching powder? Put a thumbtack on the electric chair. Jay Leno In the long run we are all dead. John Maynard Keynes The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. Joseph Stalin
Quote Debate

Well Here's how this will work. Each round you may post up to 3 quotes and the person with the better quotes win. I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. George Bernard Shaw "If you love your job, you haven't worked a day in your life." Tommy Lasorda I heard a joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life is harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains. Rorschach
Black Lives Matter (BLM) has been affected by "outliers", often being warped into a hate group

First, I'll address an issue that's been pointed out both by the con side and by a few spectators, and clarify. I'm of the opinion that BLM is, in fact, a hate group. I poorly phrased myself, and in doing so, I've created a debate where we're taking the same stance. I believe that BLM is solely a hate group that drives a destructive wedge through our society, pulling the "race card" for all events. Seeing as we're of the same stance, I'm going to forfeit the debate to you, as it's my fault for being unclear.
Funny Foto Captioning Debate

Just as the title sounds. 1st Round, Pro will post one (funny?) image with no caption. Con will accept the challenge and rules and then submit an image of his / her own (no captions yet). Again No Captions in R1. Just Images. 2nd Round, Pro will 'Cut and Paste' Con's image from R1 and caption it. Pro will then paste a new image for Con to later caption in R3. Con will 'Cut and Paste' Pros image from R1 and caption it. Con will then post another new image for Pro to caption in R3 and so on...Rules: 1. No Rebuttals. Comments are okay but not critiques, complaints etc. 2. Captions do not have to be photoshopped or embedded by Pro or Con into the images. 3. No resubmitting an image already posted. 4. Last round is for final captions only5. Voters PLEASE no voting on spelling or sources. 6. Conduct counts7. Convincing Vote decides whose captions are funniest. My first submission:
Justin Bieber is a better singer then The Beetles

Now, Justin Bieber has the upperhand due to technology. In 1964 song were harder to get out to the masses then today (go to ITunes and buy a song. Very easy). Judging by this it would be unfair to judge with online numbers, because the Beatles didn't have the technology. It would be impossible to assume that just he has the means, reaching out to more people, doesn't make him a better singer. people do not buy Justin Bieber music because of technologies but because he can sing. The Beetles had access to many of the technologies used today, they were able to record, auto tune and even create music videos. The beetles song can also be purchased in itunes. the fact of the matter is that Justin bieber is able to create meaningful, as well as strategically in placed beats that appeals to all age. You again mentioned about age groups. The ideal singer always wants to branch out, but age groups are not to be taken in. Most other singers also had similar demography. I will reach your last points in the endgames of the debate. My opponent mentions that singers want to branch out, however he failed to realize that this is exactly what Justin Bieber has done. The fact that he is able to connect to all age groups, appeal to almost all individual as well as transform a song named "BABY" into a hit, simply proves that he is a better singer.
Justin Bieber is a better singer then The Beetles

I do not want this round to go against you giving me a unholy boost. If interest is alive the debate may be revived. First area of analysis: Music quality. Justin Bieber is a better singer as he seems to appeal to the younger as well as the older age. The quality of a great singer is that he or she is able to appeal to most is not all age groups. His voice unlike that of the beetles, exerts a melodious tone. Now, Justin Bieber has the upperhand due to technology. In 1964 song were harder to get out to the masses then today (go to ITunes and buy a song. Very easy). Judging by this it would be unfair to judge with online numbers, because the Beatles didn't have the technology. It would be impossible to assume that just he has the means, reaching out to more people, doesn't make him a better singer. You again mentioned about age groups. The ideal singer always wants to branch out, but age groups are not to be taken in. Most other singers also had similar demography. I will reach your last points in the endgames of the debate.
Justin Bieber is a better singer then The Beetles

I must have mistakenly posted the wrong argument. To begin, We must look at each artist's top selling music as well as the meaning of the lyrics and how it affects people in general. First area of analysis: Music quality. Justin Bieber is a better singer as he seems to appeal to the younger as well as the older age. The quality of a great singer is that he or she is able to appeal to most is not all age groups. His voice unlike that of the beetles, exerts a melodious tone. http://www.youtube.com...#! Lyrics: meaning Justin Bieber's lyrics talks of the average persons struggle to acquire or rather gain the love of there lives. People: Many people seem to like justin bieber solely because of his music and voice. The fact that he sells so many albums each year proves that he is a great singer. Thank you, and i hope to recieve your side of the argument.
Justin Bieber is a better singer then The Beetles

My opponent has for no reason (to my knowledge) decided to forfeit the round. I will post my debate case and hope you pick the best. To begin, We must look at each artist's top selling music as well as the meaning of the lyrics and how it affects people in general. First area of analysis: Music quality. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... It doesn't take a music major, to determine which music was better in terms of voice, harmony, and beat. The beetles song showed signs of professionalism as well as composure in terms of harmony and beat. The background was filled with beats that not only adds to the quality of the music, but also supports the tone of the music itself. Justin Biebers music however; lacks the component that screams out professionalism. His song has no meaning what so ever. His beat is so intense that it takes away from the musi itself as people are now focused on the beat and not the music as a whole (lyrics). This creates a lack of harmony as a failed contrast in both lyric and beat is created. Lyrics: meaning http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... When it comes to lyrics, there shouldn't be a debate. It-is clear that the Lyrics created by the beetles is far superior than that of Justin Bieber, as it is able to convey its tone towards the music, The Beetles song talks about the every day conflict in life, problem that we are all faced with, making his music so much easier to relate to. Justin Biebers song on the contrary, talks of his personal conflict in acquiring the love of his life. The fact that NO ONE ELSE in the world share the same love life as Justin Bieber, makes it hard to understand the tone of the music or what the artist is really trying to tell us. People: It is clear that I do not need to present a survey of how many people likes Justin Biebers songs since YouTube comment and ranking system has done this for me. Please read the comment in all four links. Thank you, and i hope to recieve your side of the argument.
Theocracy Over All

I myself am a Nationalist-Socialist, I believe in contribution, effort, sacrifice, longevity, ambition and Prosperity. As such I am profoundly convinced that Theocracy is the ideal form of government. When a corrupt population can vote, we have a corrupt system. When an ignorant population can vote, you get corrupt representatives. When selfish people vote, you get a neglect of serious topics of concern. Democracy enables the wicked and caters to the people who have the powers to persuade. Communism, (National Socialism) has never been represented with a government before. All attempts to erect a Communism were attacked by monarchs, capitalists, and foreign intervention, as well as attacked from within by the population that refused to respect one another, contribute or stop being selfish/stubborn. Theocracy Puts defined borders on rights and freedoms based on a historical social science. The boundaries are factually effective, because they are determined though experiences to prevent ailments, promote prosperity and lead to the future with certainty (not willy-wally like a democracy, who CHOOSE to make all the same mistakes which caused nations to fall in the past, do tot heir selfishness and enmity.). Theocracy is not about religion, it is about ethics. Theocracy is not by definition the restrain of rights or reform, is not determined to have a Dictator instead of a council which changes it's representatives, and is not determined to be vote of personal, political and technological growth. There is simply Regulations on development and freedom which ensures Communal security. A political representative in a THEOCRACY must forfeit his authority if he is biased without scientific foundations for his opinions, and MUST give his role to a better suited candidate, and MUST step down from his title if he is no longer capable of fulfilling the role. That is by definition a Theocracy, and to conflict with that ideology is a Fascism. David was named king of Isreal, BUt it was David not God who named Solomon King, and Solomon's unfit son drove the empire into collapse. Theocracy is a blessing which is a foundation for morals and relies on perseverance. Our success in society is entirely dependant on our Theocratic heritage, and our short comings were democratic. Praise Allah, our Lord Jesus Christ, Krishna the all-mighty, Chaos that reigns ~ in the form of Ammummbla the ever nourishing, the Creator. Amen
Resolved: The TRIPS agreement is unfair.

I'm sure this was a great debate to learn many things from it. Unfortunately i was unable to post my arguments due to the strict time schedule and i would like to apologize for it. Although my opponent was very good on his arguments. I wish i was able to debate this wonderful topic. By the way, i wish my opponent best of luck. He was very well prepared for this debate. Please vote to my opponent (Pro) because he deserve it! I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate meanwhile i would regret for missing my argument. Thanking you all!
Resolved: The TRIPS agreement is unfair.

Unfortunately, my opponent was forced to forfeit another round and, as such, unable to present arguments to negate the resolution. I shall only take advantage of this opportunity to conclude my case. The TRIPS agreement creates a monopoly over drug markets and increases monopoly profit at the expense of consumer surplus. The agreement was drafted by developed countries and developing ones had no say. The economies of developed countries gain from it, but not those of the developing. Medication is inaccessible to the poor, and by extension, there is little incentive to produce or invent drugs to cure diseases of poverty. Moreover, biopiracy and the criminalisation of seed-saving have had numerous nefarious impacts on the agricultural industries of developing countries. All these are extremely unfair to the nations where medical and alimentary needs are difficult to satisfy in the first place. The TRIPS agreement is extremely unfair, and the motion must stand.