BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Computers in charge of the world

We shouldn't make a circuit board and a mother board smarter than humans. If it's not smarter than humans than we don't need a super smart computer to lead our nation or any nation. Creating a smarter computer could let the computer hurt us. Now, maybe it won't try, but from person to person and culture to culture, morality is perceived differently. So someone may be seen by computer that morally conflicts the computers current perception of morality. A computer that adapts, isn't power hungry and is benevolent would be nice. But so would a human monarch. Anything that can be taught right from wrong would do good. I think an uncorruptabale (not a word roll with me) human would be better.
Computers in charge of the world

I believe that the best form of government, which I believe anyone would agree with is a benevolent dictatorship. This is ideal because the person in power is giving and kind. But people become corrupt with power. They lie, steal, and cheat, because they never have enough. A computer cannot be corrupt, it cannot be mean, lie or cheat unless programmed to. A computer programmed with the correct code, made by the best programmers in the world, would be able to solve a problem with many variables, not just an equation with a definite answer. Create this program multiple times, each time changing it so that they each see a different side to the problem/argument, then create a collective, the programs of each computer working with each other to decide on a solution that benefits everyone. But people can still be me corrupt without power. They would try to overthrow the computer collective dictatorship/oligarchy. So there would need to be protectors of the collective oligarchy. The protectors could not be people, because people can become corrupt or persuaded, so you would need an automated protective force. After proposing this, most people would fear that they could malfunction and we couldn't stop them. The solution is someone who can repair it, but not control it. This would happen by not with one person, but with many. Each person would know one block or small section of program, so that no one person knows enough code to change its programming enough to make it do what the person wants it to do. This would prevent the computers from malfunctioning and from their coding being changed. The last problem that I can think of is what if a malfunction can't be fixed. The solution, an off button. All of the programmers would have to vote on this, then requiring at least 2/3 of their authorization codes to top turn it off, but the off button would be permanent, and would destroy all codes, to prevent an analyzation and from being turned back on with the malfunction still there. If I haven't convinced you that this is best for us, please, be my guest and challenge me.
The Battle of Saratoga won the Revolutionary War

I think that the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 ended with British general John Burgoyne"s troops surrendering to the American rebel army commanded by General Horatio Gates. Historians have long seen Burgoyne"s defeat as a turning point in the American Revolution because it convinced France to join the war on the side of the colonies, thus ensuring American victory. But that traditional view of Saratoga overlooks the complexity of the situation on the ground. Setting the battle in its social and political context, Theodore Corbett examines Saratoga and its aftermath as part of ongoing conflicts among the settlers of the Hudson and Champlain valleys of New York, Canada, and Vermont. This long, more local view reveals that the American victory actually resolved very little. In transcending traditional military history, Corbett examines the roles not only of enlisted Patriot and Redcoat soldiers but also of landowners, tenant farmers, townspeople, American Indians, Loyalists, and African Americans. He begins the story in the 1760s, when the first large influx of white settlers arrived in the New York and New England backcountry. Ethnic and religious strife marked relations among the colonists from the outset. Conflicting claims issued by New York and New Hampshire to the area that eventually became Vermont turned the skirmishes into a veritable civil war. In conclusion These pre-Revolution conflicts"which determined allegiances during the Revolution"were not affected by the military outcome of the Battle of Saratoga. After Burgoyne"s defeat, the British retained control of the upper Hudson-Champlain valley and mobilized Loyalists and Native allies to continue successful raids there even after the Revolution. The civil strife among the colonists continued into the 1780s, as the American victory gave way to violent strife amounting to class warfare. Corbett ends his story with conflicts over debt in Vermont, New Hampshire, and finally Massachusetts, where the sack of Stockbridge"part of Shays"s Rebellion in 1787"was the last of the civil disruptions that had roiled the landscape for the previous twenty years.
The Battle of Saratoga won the Revolutionary War

Declaring who won the Battle of Saratoga is something that many people debate. There were actually two separate battles that occurred in an 18 day interval. The first battle provided the British Army with an edge in the Revolutionary War but the Americans dominated the second battle. The BATTLE OF SARATOGA was the turning point of the Revolutionary War. The scope of the victory is made clear by a few key facts: On October 17, 1777, 5,895 British and Hessian troops surrendered their arms. General John Burgoyne had lost 86 percent of his expeditionary force that had triumphantly marched into New York from Canada in the early summer of 1777.he DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER strategy that Burgoyne presented to British ministers in London was to invade America from Canada by advancing down the Hudson Valley to Albany. There, he would be joined by other British troops under the command of Sir William Howe. Howe would be bringing his troops north from New Jersey and New York City. Burgoyne believed that this bold stroke would not only isolate New England from the other American colonies, but achieve command of the Hudson River and demoralize Americans and their would-be allies, such as the French. Scalping of Jane McCrea Some historians today are unsure if her death came at Native American hands or by other means, but the murder of Jane McCrea united Americans against the British and their Native American allies. In June 1777, Burgoyne's army of over 7,000 men (half of whom were British troops and the other half Hessian troops from Brunswick and Hesse-Hanau) departed from St. Johns on Lake Champlain, bound for Fort Ticonderoga, at the southern end of the lake. As the army proceeded southward, Burgoyne drafted and had his men distribute a proclamation that, among other things, included the statement "I have but to give stretch to the Indian forces under my direction, and they amount to thousands," which implied that Britain's enemies would suffer attacks from Native Americans allied to the British. More than any other act during the campaign, this threat and subsequent widely reported atrocities such as the scalping of JANE MCCREA stiffened the resolve of the Americans to do whatever it took to assure that the threat did not become realityThe American forces at Fort Ticonderoga recognized that once the British mounted artillery on high ground near the fort, Ticonderoga would be indefensible. A retreat from the Fort was ordered, and the Americans floated troops, cannon, and supplies across Lake Champlain to Mount Independence. From there the army set out for HUBBARDTON where the British and German troops caught up with them and gave battle. Round one to the British. Burgoyne continued his march towards Albany, but miles to the south a disturbing event occurred. Sir William Howe decided to attack the Rebel capital at Philadelphia rather than deploying his army to meet up with Burgoyne and cut off New England from the other Colonies. Meanwhile, as Burgoyne marched south, his supply lines from Canada were becoming longer and less reliable.
Should Tuition Fees Be Non-Existent!!!

Bean 2 needs to post his second argument. He forfeited last round and if he does it again vote for pro because con fails to debate me. He needs to post his argument. To help him I am going to ask him a few questions for him to answer.Is it right that some people are not able to go to university because of the costs?Does he have anything to say against the abolishment of tuition fees and if so what?For the first question please dont answer that people can take a student loan because we both know that no - one wants to be in debt for a long period of time. For instance if you study architecture at university the full course takes seven years. Wo wants to be in debt of £80,500. It would take many years to pay off that debt.
Should Tuition Fees Be Non-Existent!!!

Surely you would agree that all people, rich or poor, should have the opportunity to go to university and get a good job. Now it is interesting you say that if there was no tuition fees universitys would be paid for out of tax payers money. These are the actual figures of how a university maes its money.8% Auxilary Activities and service inome.19% Sponsered Research46% Endorsement Payout/ Other Investment Income8% Gifts/ Other Income19% Tuition Fees This is not for all universitys but the average one. This disproves your original argument and shows that only a small amount of a universitys earning are from tuition fees.
we should ( the raptors 741A ) name our VEX robotics robot the raptor insted of somethig else.

I think that name is boring and you should have a different name that people will talk about I think Bobbette is a good one but if some one comment a better one the one I chose for round two will be my final response I just know that calling your robot the raptor is like making your password swordfish, plus it should be more relatable, everything is about relatability now a days
we should ( the raptors 741A ) name our VEX robotics robot the raptor insted of somethig else.

Our team is called the raptors so it makes sense that we name the robot the same, if anyone else can come up with something better for a high school team we would appreciate it. The simple name the raptor however make the robot a team member as well as increases team recognition because the same name of the robot comes up on the score screen.
Islam is the fast growing religion

Before I'd go to my rebuttal I want to say that Con has proved from links and references in his argument that Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion in the world, which I will demonstrate later on.R1:"According to the respected World Christian Database" How is this a valid source? and the source he got all the African estimates are from CBN(Christian broadcasting network), which do not provide any kind of reference to these estimates, not even tables, http://www.cbn.com...They provide no references no nothing, how can you trust a source that does not even provide a table.Introduction [2] was copied from islamexposed.webs.com/fastestgrowingreligion.htm "Why will Muslims not quote real authoritative statistics from certified research groups who show Islam is not the fastest growing religion in 3/4’s of the worlds countries."well I just did in my previous argument, I have showed seven references with a table, done by Todd M. Johnson and Brian J. Grim.Con proving my resolution: Con quoted:"There are over a billion Muslims in the world today, including 3 to 5 million in the U.S., making it the second most populous religion on earth after Christianity. According to some estimates, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397)" And then puts this link in one of his references:http://www.foreignpolicy.com...Which clearly shows that Islam is the fastest growing religion, by putting it number 1 after the Baha'i' faith.(Christianity is the sixth)"It seems that Allah's little trick by making Judas appear like Jesus, so Jesus could escape crucifixion and Judas was crucified in his place, kind of backfired, since 31% of the world's population never learned Allah played a trick and really believes that Jesus not only died, but was raised from the dead! This should be most troubling for Muslims to think that "Allah's deception" (Qur'an 4:156) actually became the world's largest religion!"How is this relevant?Then you bring a table. that you provide no source for, not only you confirm my resolution, but you provide no references for your vital arguments.I extend my arguments.Why vote Pro:1)I have brought valid sources from scholars to researchers, and referenced my vital arguments.2)Con confirms what I have said as I have shown from before.3)Con fails to rebutt my arguments and just keep spewing more.4)Con shown bad conduct, as he insulted my God(which is his God also), and ridiculed Islam by making that Joke above.-Sources should go to me.-Arguments should go to me.-Conduct should go to me.-And he also plagriazed from a source that he did not show.As I have shown above.
Islam is the fast growing religion

I thank you for making this debate, in this debate I will establish that Islam is indeed a fast(or fastest??) growing religion.I accept.Note: In the title you have meant that 'Islam is the fastest growing religion' right? or "Islam is a fast growing religion"?Definitions:Growing: ": to become larger : to increase in size, amount, etc."[1]Islam: Is one of the worlds major religions and the adherents are called Muslims.[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Bias CAN be a good counter argument.

What a strange thing you're doing. You make the topic "Bias can be a good counter argument" then go on to say that it can't be used as a counter argument in and of itself. Bias can be pointed at to show someone why they hold an untenable position, Or why they hold so strongly onto a weak claim. It cannot be used in and of itself to prove someone wrong. Bias then takes the role of an augment onto a real argument against claims. That means it is not a counter argument to anything. You're effectively Con for this topic. You've gone as far to say it yourself - that bias is not a counterargument. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Bias CAN be a good counter argument.

Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. However, Motive can be highly relevant in practical discourse: when almost all the proponents of position A seem to support rather more odious position B, Then it's a useful heuristic to check out whether B is actually the goal. e. G. Holocaust denial is, In practice, Overwhelmingly just neo-Nazism dressed up as a mere question of history. Similarly, Much of the denial of the health effects of tobacco was funded by tobacco companies. If one can prove the opponent's argument is false, and that they have an ulterior motive for making the false claim, Their entire position is much weaker. But to argue robustly, You need to show the actual argument is wrong. Simply being indicated as having a conflict of interest does not make one wrong. It is also helpful as a crutch when assessing sources when pressed for time. Take, For example, Julius Caesar. Caesar is obviously a biased source when describing his own exploits in Gaul, So when he says something that makes Julius Caesar look bad — say, Describing a battle where he got shellacked — it is rather more likely to be true. Similarly, A noted detractor of Caesar writing something that makes Caesar look good is also more likely to be true. After all - what reason would they have to lie if it goes against their obvious biases? However, As mentioned earlier, It is only a crutch and people can be lying or mistaken even in public written statements that make them, Their cause or their side look bad.
Nonsensical argument debate

Ok here's how it works.... Ill start out by making a general statement, and then provide nonsensical arguments supporting the resolution. The Con will then counter argue against my nonsensical arguments using nonsensical arguments of his own. Whoever has the funnier/least sensical arguments wins. Example of a nonsensical argument: "Obama is black because the Volcano God Morgan Freeman said so when he wrote the Bible using ink made of his own semen mixed with crushed ipod mini's containing only Ke$ha songs..... He made this decree when Earths fourth moon Daniel Tosh was stolen by the French-Mexican sky navy in the year 3744, just before electricity was discovered in the ear canal of Physicist Henry Kissinger." There is a difference between a nonsensical argument and a false argument though. Here is an example of a false argument: "Reagan wrecked the economy while Bush made it better." This is a debate about nonsensical arguments, not false arguments, so remember the difference between the two. First round is acceptance only, the statement we will argue will be given next round. Also no semantics..... Just kidding, go crazy ;D
GTR vs toyota camry

The Toyota Camry has a lot of advantages over a well i am guessing its a Nissan Skyline GTR R35. -Seats 5 comfortably -Much more reliable (Since it is a Toyota). A model that have over 300,000KMs are still running without any problems -Much more economical than a GTR -Isn't worship by a bunch of yobbo screaming LIGHT IT UP BRO and listening to bad raps This is just the beginning my friend i have a lot of stuff, I want to hear your arguments first
Gladiator Battles should be Legal

FULL RESOLUTIONResolved: Gladiator Battles should be Legal if both sides willingly want to fight***DEFINITIONSGladiator: an armed combatant who [entertains] audiences [with] violet confrontation with other gladiators...[and] wild animals. [1](*Note: I know that I butchered the definition. But 'willing' and the traditional definition of 'gladiator' is rather contradictory; gladiators were often slaves in Rome. Since we have laws abolishing slavery, and Rome is long dead, I feel like I have justly butchered the definition.)(**Note: The gladiators are going to be mentally and physically able people who are trained in the art of hand-to-hand combat, swordfighting, etc.Legal: permitted by law, lawful [2]Willing: disposed or consenting [3]***RULES:The burden of proof is shared; I have to defend my position, not just attack my opponent's, and my opponent has to defend their position, not just attack mine.No semantics.Use in-line citation [4]First round is for acceptanceNo new arguments in final round8,000 character limit, although brevity is encouraged72 hours between casesOtherwise, standard rules apply.*** SOURCES[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] Like this***May the best debater win.***(***Note: The battles are not necissarily to the death; however, this is not to say that fighting to the death is precluded. The rules and customs would largely follow Roman rules: http://en.wikipedia.org... addition, prisoners could be elegeable for gladiatorship, and could be freed from prison with a certain number of vicotries, depending on the crime. They would have real swords, real armor, etc. Any other questions I can answer in the comments.)
If one cheats on their partner (knowing that it"s a 1 time mistake) they should keep it secret

If we were to base our thinking off of what is beneficial and better for the collective (I. E. Utilitarianism), Being forward coming about the infidelity would be more selfish than anything else. Firstly, If we are to assume that if one is to disclose their infidelity, Their relationship would end, Therefore ending a good relationship is not beneficial for anyone. Secondly, It is more selfish to tell your partner that you cheated because you are telling them due to guilt. If they are spared the pain and devastation of betrayal, It makes the collective involved much happier.
If one cheats on their partner (knowing that it"s a 1 time mistake) they should keep it secret

If one cheat to another, They should told the partner whether it is one time mistake or whether they don't have intention on it. When you decide to keep it a secret, It is a betrayal to your partner even if your partner didn't know it. It is a selfish thing to say that you just keep it a secret because of your fear of losing your partner. It is better to tell rather than not telling because if your partner really love you. They'll just forgive you, Even if you make a mistake. Suppose if you didn't told your partner. There will be a time that maybe you'll do it again because you're not getting caught. So my opinion is tell the partner even if it's hurting you or your family because it is better that way rather than keep it a secret.
Rape Battle part 2

This debate makes no assumptions about rape being good and is strictly about which songs that are arguanly about rape are better. http://www.youtube.com... If you listen to the lyrics this is a song about raping slaves. "Old coast slave ship bound for cotton fields Sold in a market down in New Orleans Scarred old slaver knows he's doing alright Hear him with the women just around midnight Brown sugar how come you taste so good? Brown sugar just like a young girl should"
Rape Battle part 2

I am going to run a Kritik[1]. Wylted as the affirmative is making the assumption and defending the fact that one rape is better than the next. This assumption is false. It is impossible to debate under the criteria within this debate because it assumes one song about rape, or one rape is better than another. All rapes are objectively bad because they afflict harm to people that do not desire it and can inflict permanent damage to the person in question[2]. Thus this resolution is flawed and cannot be affirmed.Thus, I must present a song that is "arguably about rape”- uplifting a rape victim, Hang On by Plumb. [1]- http://tinyurl.com... [2]- http://tinyurl.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Rape Battle part 2

Rape is harmful, and posting videos encouraging it, like Wylted did, cannot be “best. ” The videos I posted above all dealt with an association if rape- and not the action itself, making them somewhat more positive- not ruining my kritic and making my songs “more enjoyable. ” Since it is difficult to discern which is “best” between good things, or bad things, and no standards were set for voting- the rules are void. ‘Silliness’ does not nullify that fact. This song is reminiscent of psychological projection- self-blaming- for something that happened to someone that they cannot control. . http://www.youtube.com... As proven by the K and the negative views towards rape alluded to by the songs, I win.
Rape Battle part 2

It's hypocritical to say the rules of the debate are unfair or that the debate is harmful and still participate by following the unfair rules and doing the very activity of posting videos you see as harmful. As I see it, the posting of videos ruins your kritic. the argument from subjectivity is silly as well because all debates have very subjective voting criteria. I urge voters just to vote for the songs they found more enjoyable. Song about raping a kid " Never gonna stop, give it up Such a dirty mind, always get it up For the touch of the younger kind" (Note, all lyrics copy and pasted from following article http://www.cracked.com... ) http://www.youtube.com...
Rape Battle part 2

I posted songs about rape and its effects to go through with the conduct, and follow the rules of the debate. http://www.youtube.com...That said- the rules are still flawed as there is no way to distinguish between the quality of songs about rape- there may be two good songs that can uplift the feelings of scarred victims, and two songs that could make them feel worse- since there is no criteria for judging- it is impossible to grade the songs on which is better, especially since it would be subjective."Music is subjective to everyone's unique experience."-Jared Leto[1] The rules are, as said before- invalid. VOTE CON!!!Source:[1]- http://tinyurl.com...