BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That much of the world is offended by U.S. attitudes and ideas

Wider than just politics, excluding current wars/conflicts, I sense there is a "why do they hate us?" feeling in American society; not restricted to any particular group or nation nor to the recent past... more than a simple resentment for the Big Kid in the playground. Is the USA guilty of ongoing hegemony? Is cultural imperialism fact or fiction? Are Americans as insular as ever and do they care what the ROW thinks? Here then, a couple of silly (yet significant) examples to support my thesis - 'Paris, France' - who needs to be told that Paris is in fact a French city; not to be confused with Paris,Texas. One predates the other by a mere 2000 years and is a cultural world treasure; the other is, well....... Do Americans get how arrogant this makes them look to folks outside USA? Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code (I know, trivial mass entertainment) states "Tuilleries at Versailles as Paris' version of Central Park". Funny, that- Central Park came 200 years after the Tuilleries??? Lazy writing or mere ignorance? Whenever I see The President talking about 'the war on terror' he always refers to protecting America's way of life... fair enough. Yet its as if the ROW does not exist; many other countries are also threatened, including America's allies but they rarely get acknowledgment. American society needs to take a long hard look at its greedy self interest; seriously reduce its per capita consumption of resources and adopt a 'fair shares' policy toward the less consumer driven countries. I contend that the USA must lose its arrogance & show more respect for other cultures in this rapidly changing world of economic and military power. "When China wakes, the whole world will tremble..." is rapidly coming to pass; Europe and India are following; can America and its waning influence (and industries) afford to continue in its traditional ways?
Video Game Prices Should Be Lowered, $60 Is Too Much

Thank you, Dbh32, for starting this unique debate. I would like to welcome you to DDO, and hope that you stick around for a while. Let's begin. We live in a free market economy in which prices are set by supply and demand. Video game retailers set the prices to the point where they believe they will receive the most total profit from the sale of the video games. They most certainly put in a lot of research into determining this magic price because of the tremendous impact it can have on their profit margin, so it's a safe bet to say that they know the right prices better than me or my opponent. It is true that one would not want to try out a game for $60, but one doesn't have to purchase a game to try it out. Video game rentals are available [1], and demos for some games can be downloaded via online services [2]. One could also play a game at a friend's house to decide whether or not the game is worth its listed price. My opponent accurately points out that people would, on the whole, buy more games if they were cheaper, but it is unlikely that they would buy sufficiently more games to cover the drop in price. To use my opponent's example list, if the prices of those games were dropped to $20, some people may buy one, others may buy two, and a few may buy all three, but this would still result in less total profit to the video game developers. Most people simply don't have the time to play three new video games at once, so they only have the need to buy a single game, no matter the price. Determining the exact price to maximize profit would depend on a thorough analysis of the games' exact demand line, further complicated by the substitution effect, but as I said before, the developers understand the demand for their video games more than we ever could. In conclusion, the video game developers set the price, and they know what they're doing, so we should defer to their current decisions for the prices of their goods. Good luck, Dbh32. 1. http://www.gamefly.com... 2. http://www.escapistmagazine.com...
Video Game Prices Should Be Lowered, $60 Is Too Much

"Games are too expensive and the industry would benefit from lower price points" -Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim director Todd Howard. But I do think industry-wide we would benefit from more games out at $19 or $29. I would try more games. Because I'm not going to try a game for $60. It's a tough decision. Especially with big games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassins Creed happening within short succession of each other (all within a month or two), there is no way the average American has the salary to afford all of these titles; or maybe even two depending on their income.
Resolved: The United States should abolish the death penalty.

My opponent forfeits the last round. I find this to be unfair for a number of reasons. 1) My opponent gets the last speech without me being able to give a closing speech. 2) She gets more rounds to rebuttal my points. 3) I can't make an intelligent rebuttal simply because my opponent forfeited a round. I ask that the voters not listen to any new arguments made in the last round, and that you give me slight lenience in this debate based on forfeiture. I win this debate because I have reasonably shown why the death penalty should not exist. It does no better job deterring crime than life in prison, which my opponent admits, it costs much more than life in prison, which my opponent admits again, it is cruel and unusual, my opponent admits, and it is unfair to the innocent. Based on the facts about crime deterrence, cost, and moral justification, I conclude that capital punishment should not exist in society.
A god exists

My opponent said, "I am attempting to prove any God, and am making no statement as to the nature of such God, just the existence." In the very first round, my opponent said, "I will be arguing more specifically for the existence of the Christian God..." This made me think that this debate was focusing only on the Christian God, not any god. Mythological Gods and Biblical Gods Mythological gods are deities in ancient stories that have supernatural gifts and powers. Every mythological god is associated with the things that highlight their importance and their special gifts. For example, Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love and beauty. Because of this, she can entice a wide range of people, depending on which version of her story is told. Thor is the Norse god of thunder and so, because of this, he can conjure up thunder and adjust its severity. Biblical gods are deities in holy books and documents that are very divine and extraordinary compared to regular organisms, including human beings. Every holy book is a mythological collection of inaccurate texts. The reason for this is because it is naturally impossible for someone to go all the way up to the afterlife and then talk to deities and record what they were saying and put all of it inside a book. Once you go up to the afterlife, you're dead. Dead people don't crawl back from their graves to distribute holy documents across the land. Also, it is impossible for someone to actually listen to what any deity is saying because deities are all the way up in the sky while people are all the way down on the ground. Talking to a deity is like talking to a tree. There's just no actual conversation being exchanged or produced. Sources http://www.differencebetween.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
A god exists

Rebuttals First two paragraphs In my opponent’s first argument, he purports that, the world being rife of evil and tribulation, this is proof of the absence of a just and loving God. However, despite me saying that I intend to focus on proving the Christian God, this does not mean that I will prove only the Christian God and none other. I am attempting to prove any God, and am making no statement as to the nature of such God, just the existence. So just proving that there is not just God does nothing to prove there is no God at all. At any rate, the existence of evil is not a disproof of a well-meaning, Christian God. Said God has awarded the human race with free will, which, while allowing for evil to exist, is a preferable existence to that of meaningless obedience to the will of another. Next two paragraphs Again, the nonexistence of a God who answers prayer is not indicative of the nonexistence of a God who does not. No Further ArgumentsNo Source(s)
A god exists

For the most part, God, in this case the Christian God, claims to love everyone and continuously make the world a loving and merciful place. However, even with all these religious claims such as "God makes miracles" and "God is good," the world is full of terrible evil and many harmless, innocent people suffer because of all this terrible evil. If you count all of the horrifying, violent, and evil events throughout history, you would probably be richer than Bill Gates. That's how much evil this world is full of. Life is a constant death course and many people are suicidal because of all the evil that happens in the world. If a good and loving god truly did exist, then the world would be more peaceful instead of being so full of chaos and violence. Another huge reason why a god doesn't exist is because of prayer. The chances of prayer actually working and being fully effective are like 0.0000001%-0.0000003%. Of course, not all prayers have good intentions but most prayers usually do. If God really did exist, then prayer healing would actually work on patients with deadly illnesses and prayer would be more effective instead of just seeming like a bunch of nonsensical poems.
A god exists

Whether or not God can be seen is irrelevant because no god has ever claimed to be seen as most gods are known to existence outside this universe or realm if you will. However, he can be seen in certain circumstances…Near-Death ExperiencesPerhaps some of the most convincing arguments for the existence of God are the many accounts of dying and being held witness to the life that comes after death. In fact, these accounts can often turn those that do not believe in God into believers, which is part of the origin of the adage, there are no atheists in foxholes. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1992, 13 million American have experienced this phenomenon when the population was 260 million, meaning about 5% of American have had similar experiences.(1)According to IANDS (International Association for Near-Death Studies), one or two of more than fifteen familiar elements always occur in a NDE (Near-Death Experience), including: an outer body experience, a sense of movement through darkness or a tunnel, intense emotion, heightened senses, experiencing a bright light or great darkness, perceiving a spiritual realm, encounters with deceased loved ones, spiritual beings and/or religious figures, knowledge of secrets of the universe, a revelation about life, a sense of connection or interconnectivity, a border of no return, a sense of powers of divination and messages regarding life’s purpose.(2) Many of the symptoms of these experiences indicate the existence of a soul or divine intervention.There are seventeen astonishing cases described by IANDS to be found in the sources section.The Origin of Everything and the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentWe live in a universe with some set, and immutable certainties called laws of logic. Perhaps the most important of all laws of logic is the concept of cause and effect, which states that everything that happens must have a cause. There must be a chain of cause and effect that leads us straight across all space and time. So to answer the question regarding the cause of the universe’s existence, we must follow this chain to the very beginning. That is where Kalam’s Cosmological Argument comes in.It goes like this:1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.3. The universe has a cause of its existence.4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause must be an uncaused cause i.e God.Therefore:5. God exists.(3)Fine TuningSpeaking of the many precise laws and immutable rules of the universe, if any of them are changed, even if ever so slightly, the entire human life would be wiped from existence. That is, the laws of the universe are so finely tuned and precise as to allow for the existence of life, and they have never been known to change, that they are simply too improbable to have happened randomly. That is, the precision of these laws imply an intelligence behind them instead of the random happenstance of a nonintelligent event.Sources:(1): http://www.nderf.org...(2): http://iands.org...More NDE experiences: http://iands.org...(3): http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
A god exists

Four Rounds: 1st- Acceptence/Opening statements 2nd- Opening arguments 3rd- Rebuttals/More arguments 4th- More rebuttals/Closing statements I will be arguing more specifically for the existence of the Christian God, but if I convince the existence of any god, then my role will be fulfilled. Definition(s): God (n) - a supernatural and intelligent force that designed the existing universe and/or the life within it and now exercises a level of power over it's creation.
A god exists

Rebuttals My opponent says, "In the Old Testament of Christianity, there is said to be communication from God, who is omnipotent and therefore perfectly capable of such things, which was then recorded. In the New Testament, God walked among man after he was born from an immaculate conception to a mortal woman and his teachings were recorded by his followers. " However, my opponent does not provide any proof or solid arguments that God once walked among men, which technically makes his closing argument kind of flimsy and inadequate. Closing Statement My opponent claims that this debate was meant to argue for the existence of any god. However, my opponent only focuses on the Christian god and not any god, which makes this debate very misleading. Because of this, my opponent's arguments are all technically inadequate as they only argue for one type of god which is the Christian god and do not provide arguments that argue for the existence of any god. Therefore, my opponent's arguments are also flimsy as they technically do not fit with the title of this debate. On the other hand, I argued for the existence of any god by talking about multiple types of gods and not just one god.
A god exists

Rebuttals for rebuttalsThe full quote that my opponent used is "I will be arguing more specifically for the existence of the Christian God, but if I convince the existence of any god, then my role will be fulfilled." That is, I intend for my arguments to focus on a Christians God, but not exclusively. RebuttalsMythological Gods and Biblical GodsI'm not sure what argument my opponent is going for in the two following paragraphs.However, in the third and fourth paragraphs, my opponent states: "Every holy book is a mythological collection of inaccurate texts. The reason for this is because it is naturally impossible for someone to go all the way up to the afterlife and then talk to deities and record what they were saying and put all of it inside a book." then "it is impossible for someone to actually listen to what any deity is saying because deities are all the way up in the sky while people are all the way down on the ground." These are very childish ways to look at the relationship between god and man. In most religions, religious texts originate from either a time when gods walked among men or when men indeed did indeed walk among the land of the gods. In the Old Testament of Christianity, there is said to be communication from God, who is omnipotent and therefore perfectly capable of such things, which was then recorded. In the New Testament, God walked among man after he was born from an immaculate conception to a mortal woman and his teachings were recorded by his followers.Closing StatementThe burden of proof being on me, I provided three very solid proofs for the existence of a god. As of now, my opponent has failed to refute my main arguments and has, in turn, provided a handful of flimsy arguments himself that I feel that I have thoroughly refuted. Vote PRO.No Source(s)
Homeschool is better than public school.

Surely, children may experience lots of things at public schools starting from good emotions to horrible feelings as drugs. If talking about great experience and the ability to deal with the real world, there are millions of people who go to public schools, few of them become directors or business owners, most of them become general workers, and some end up doing drugs or doing suicides. The statistics show, that homeschoolers get better jobs and almost never end up doing drugs. Most of great people get their special experience outside the school. There are lots of activities that children can do in order to excellence their personalities. Public schools just give general experience. However, at home kids still cannot deal with drugs or something like that, parents watch them almost all the time. Children whether smart or not, if they are emotionally weak, can be broken, when are bullied by some other students, or pressured by them, when at home nobody does that. Almost everyone knows these people: Thomas Alva Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, Tim Tebow. Each of them were homeschooled. Now, where did they get such a good experience to become this great people? Confidently, they did activities out of their homes, however, general skills were achieved by homeschooling.
Homeschool is better than public school.

Schools, public or private, are where children to young adults learn the very necessary social skills to deal with each other, compose themselves and learn what is expected from society to survive and exceed. While home schooled children do proportionately better at testing I argue that tests are not a true determination of overall life skills. While children who are home schooled are not bullied or peer pressured into negative acts I argue that dealing with bullies and peer pressure is essential in the ability to overcome these issues. These things can not be taught, they must be experienced. You need to know how to learn in a noisy and sometimes hostile environment. You need to learn how to say no, how to get along. A parent can only control so much. Over protection from these very real and often occurring facts of life can leave a child unready for the real world. We learn together as a society in order to work together as a society. While homeschooling has its benefits I believe it lacks the very nature of schooling out. The ability to deal with the real world.
Homeschool is better than public school.

It is much more comfortable to do assignments at home, feeling no stress and no unnecessary noises. You can repeat your topics as much as you want, until you will perfectly understand them. You do not have to ask somebody to repeat what was said, because you easily can repeat everything by yourself. There is nobody who can distract you. It will be easier to understand courses and you will memorize them better. There are no students who sells drugs, if you are homeschooling. You do not feel pressured or abused by other students. Children cannot negatively influence you, if you are studying at home. Sometimes students fight each other in public schools, however at home you are safe. Of course you can interact, socialize with other kids at a public school more easily than at home, but you also can invite some of your good friends and study with them together sometimes, or if it even improves your studying, then you could invite your good(do not do drugs, study good, positive) friends all the time.
Homeschool is better than public school.

Firstly, as it shown at http://www.home-school.com..., homeschool dominates the public school, combo of all subtests shows that homeschooled kid's average is 89%, when public's one is 50% Secondly, the topic is not about jobs - which one is better, which one is worse. Do not go off the topic. Everyone knows that directors ranked higher than their assistants or workers, no one is talking that some job is better than the other. Thirdly, not just you, but millions of people get their memorable experiences at public school, which means, that it is not special experience. Special experience is about getting greatly self-improved, by doing something outside of either public school or homeschool. It does not depend on type of school. I am writing this, because you started writing about experience. It is always different for everyone, however special means unordinary, that you do not get from schools. Fourthly, if you are homeschooled, you are not separated from the world, you can do sports at sport clubs, you can go to a library, it is quite there, also you can meet lots of new people at that place. Children have lots of friends who come over to each others' houses. Usually, these friends are kids of parent's friends, this is how parents know about their children's friends. Fifthly, people are not born as geniuses or athletes, they become geniuses and athletes. The way how world affects people, makes them change, start thinking unusually. When, a child goes to public school, he usually thinks as everyone does, but when he is homeschooled, he does not think of how to become a popular student, he thinks of something different. Finally, homeschooled kids are not emotionally weak, because their parents know that children can be less sociable and not experience things that students at public school do. This is why they watch educating movies with their kids, try to make their children to do outside activities, maybe do debates, playing musical instruments, there are lots of interesting things to do, which will improve kids in all ways. These activities and not going to a public school, makes homeschooled guys different, they think in a different way comparing to students from public schools. Because, they do not experience public school stuff, they experience something totally different. It makes that think differently compare to teenagers from public schools.
Best Utopia Contest

Massivedump I am sorry I was unable to post my arguments because I got very sick and was out for 2 days. I'm almost better, but I still do have a sh!ty azz cough.I suppose this means you should win this debate, however once I fully recover(a few days) I would love to have another debate somewhat like this one. I don't want you to think that I'm one of those "debaters" who just abandons a debate!Anyway, I would love to have another sarcastic debate with you sometime in the future. >>>>>>>> C):D <<<COWBOY<<<
Best Utopia Contest

A CONCESSION?!?!?!?!WHAT.THE.FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!I THINK YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE INAWESOMELANDWITH ALL THEAWESOMEPEOPLE AND THEAWESOMEANIMALS AND THEAWESOMESPACESHIPS AND OTHER THINGS THAT AREAWESOMEUNLIKEYOU.You know what you can do, buddy?YOU CAN EAT-MY-CHICKEN CORDON- BLEUSANDWICH FROMARRRRRRRRBYYYYYY'S. SO.FACKING.DELICIOUS.
Best Utopia Contest

BACK THEFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK UP,EVERYBODY!!!IT'SMATHAFACKIN AWESOMELAND!!!"What the fack is Awesomeland?"WHAT THE FACK ARE YOU?!THIS PIECE OF CRAP HAS GOTEVERAYTHANG!!!!EXPLOSIONS!!! SPACESHIPS!!! AND SO!!MANY!!PONIES!! YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO HEART ATTACKS!ONE FROM ALL THE EPIC... AND ONE FROM ALL THE CUTE. **************************************************"But... there's no parkour in your world." ... THE FACK DID YOU JUST SAY?********************************YOU CAN LEAVE!!!WE GOT TONS OF PARKOUR IN THIS BETCH!!! BETCH!!!PARKOUR ON WALLS: PARKOUR ON BUILDINGS: EVEN THE CATS DO PARKOUR: SO DON'T GO AROUND THINKING YOU'RE COOL UNLESS YOU RESIDE INAWESOMELAND!!!FACK.YOU."But is there a shopping mall?"LEAVE.BECAUSEAWESOMELANDIS THEGREATEST PLACEKNOWN TO MANEVERIN THE HISTORY OFALL THE THINGSEVAR.EV-VAR.VOTE.CON.