BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Literature is highly influential in society.

Uncle Tom's Cabin: The Republican platform shifting to stance regarding slavery as immoral was for two main reasons, first, as Pro says, Christianity was a major factor in this shift. Second, the tide of war was turning. The Republicans main priority was keeping the country together, at all costs. If this meant keeping slavery in the country, so be it. The Civil War was fought for the variety of reasons I explained above and in the first year or so of the Civil War the South was actually winning. Look at the Battles of Bull Run and the massive Confederate advance into the North within the first year. After that though, the battles of Shiloh, ending with the Confederate loss of Corinth (a key logistical point) and the Battle of Gettysburg turned the tides of war against the South, the North was now winning. It is because the North began to win the Civil War that the Republican platform changed, not because of a novel. Even the North had slavery in a way, wage slaves, who ran the Northern factories? Irish immigrants who got paid a small amount to do dangerous tasks, lived in villages owned by factory owners, and were constantly indebted to these factory owners. Is this much different from the southern concept of slavery? The Jungle According to the American Pageant (AP US History Edition), in the early 1900s, European countries were banning importation of meat from the United States because they, rightly believed, that the meat was tainted and packed under disgusting conditions. The economic loss that these huge corporations received was massive, an entire market basically was shut down overnight. This caused Roosevelt to want to do something which would be in the best interests of both corporation and the American, and foreign, consumer. Furthermore, according to the book Principles of Meat Science (4th ed) from pages 261 to 288, Roosevelt began his investigation in 1904, two years before the novel was published. This novel, while a factor in getting the legislation passed, was not as important as the economic factor and the investigations into meat packing factories, before the book was published, were more important factors then the novel. On the Road I must concede this point because there is no way to refute the facts presented by Pro.
Ichiro > A-rod

O.k. well, since I have nothing to debate I will just bestow a couple thoughts on you.: Based upon Alex Rodriguez's 44 Home Run for every 162 games average, he'd surpass 700 home runs in about 4 ï¿½ seasons, which would set him around 36 or 37 years old, which was approximately the age when Barry Bonds broke the 500 mark. Based upon talent and pure numbers, Alex Rodriguez is going to pass every player ahead of him and eventually break Barry Bonds home run record of 762 assuming that he(Bonds) doesn't play anymore and Arod doesn't get injured. but even if he is injured he has atleast another 5 years if he playes old. Well, Bravefan I'd like to quote a friend of mine Righty10294: "This isn't a blog. You need to debate someone when you start a debate." I hope you will come back and finish.
Ichiro > A-rod

Hello, Bravesfan, Anyway. There is no denying that BOTH these men are future hall of Famer But, A-Rod is the better of them and At the end of his career he may just be the best of all time. Yes, Ichiro di bat 300 in his first year contrary to Arods 204 but you later said "If he hadn't spent half his career in the Japanese leagues..." Arod came right from college. Ichiro had years in a real league to get good b4 he came to the USA. Now to say Ichiro is better than Arod hitting wise is not right. They both have there own style of hitting. Ichiro is the kind of hitter who sticks his bat out and just pokes it in the OF. Arod can hammer it on any pitch. Arod is a power hitter who will take a big swing on anypitch in the count. Ichiro is a more conservative hitter who will take pitches on end. Arod will swing at anything that is goodlooking. Ichiro may be a more patient hitter but that doesn't automatically make him better. Now for the Arm. Yes, Ichiro has a INCREDIBLE arm...but he trains to have it. it all has to do with position. Ichiro who plays outfield trains with his arm and shoulder to give him that arm. Arod has to first of all have train the arm to fire the ball across the diamond. He has to train to field the ball properly to learn what to do in all the situations. All ichiro has to do is hit the cutoff man or throw to the base. Now don't get me wrong Outfield isn't easy. I play Right left and Center in Babe Ruth, but I also play 3rd base which is definetly harder then Outfield. Now ichiro of course has the edge in diving things. Outfield has a boatload more chances to dive and rob homers than a 3rd baseman. Now that "excellent streak A-rod had of like 13 errors in a month" doesn't go w/out blame. It is bad. But if you remember that was in the year Arod had switched from shortstop to 3rd so he was still learning the basics of that position. Now about the records -Ichiro has the record for most hits in one season (262) Arod is a homer hitter and a big swinger. Ichiro isn't, Like I said b4 -Ichiro is only the second player ever to be a Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same year Arod was MVP 3 times -Ichiro has hit .372 in a season Arod is a homer hitter and a big swinger. Ichiro isn't, Like I said b4 twice -Ichiro has more stolen bases than A-rod, and he's played in the MLB literally HALF the time A-rod has Arod hits more homeruns than Ichiro and Ichiro is on base more. Hence Ichiro has more chances for steals. Now I would like to ask you one question. If your team was down down a run with a runner on first and two outs who would you rather have up? Arod who could end it on one swing...or Ichiro who would be looking for a bunt or base hit?
Ichiro > A-rod

It's hard. They're both excellent, excellent baseball players. But I'm simply gonna have to go with Ichiro. He's just more consistent. The ability to make it seem like you're gonna to get a base hit every time you step up to the plate is unbelievable. In just his first ever year in Major League Baseball, Ichiro hit .350 with 242 hits...whereas Alex Rodriguez hit .204. He's never hit under .300, and has never had under 200 hits. If he hadn't spent half his career in the Japanese leagues, he'd already have 3,000 hits and well on his way to dethroning Pete Rose. I'm also daring enough to say that he has a better arm. There isn't really a statistic that exists to prove this, but watch some videos of Ichiro and his throws to home plate or third base or wherever else. Then just bathe in his excellence. A-rod has a great arm, too...but I don't think he could throw out as many runners from the outfield as Ichiro has. Oh and the diving catches and robbed home runs as well...the man's amazing. Watch some videos. Oh and remember that excellent streak A-rod had of like 13 errors in a month? I don't think that's possible for Ichiro to do. It's just not in his DNA to make mistakes. -Ichiro has the record for most hits in one season (262) -Ichiro is only the second player ever to be a Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same year -Ichiro has hit .372 in a season -Ichiro has more stolen bases than A-rod, and he's played in the MLB literally HALF the time A-rod has He's a lean, mean, Japanese, base-hit machine. I get goosebumps every time he comes up, because everyone knows he's likely to get a hit and steal a base. That, to me, is the most amazing thing a hitter can do: be that consistent. I realize A-rod hits a lot more home runs, but he's also a much bigger man. And besides, Ichiro is much more likely to reach base and score, or drive in the winning run. And have you seen Ichiro's hitting fundamentals? He's already moving down the first base line before swinging! How can you hit a rapid moving object when you're that far off balance? How is it possible? He's a freak of nature, that's how. Feel the wrath of Japan.
Prostitution should be legal

I accept my opponent's invitation to debate.Resolution: Prostitution should be legalI'd like to clarify the rules and structure to avoid confusion.Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening StatementsRound 3 - RebuttalsRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritkiks3) No plagiarism4) No new arguments in final round5) Please use citations6) No forfeiture7) No troll arguments8) BoP is sharedTerms:Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.Be - (used to indicate the condition of a person or thing)Legal - allowed by the law or by the rules in a gameVoting Rules:1) Vote Convincing Arguments2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand4) Only vote reliable sources if they're proven to be false, biased, etc. by opponentsThank you. I look forward to your arguments.
CreateDebate.com is a better debating medium that Debate.org

C1: Debating structureThe CDC debate system makes all debates free-for-alls where anyone can join in at any time. This makes it hard for readers to keep track of and for opponents to respond to all the arguments that the other side has presented. The DDO system keeps to one-on-one debates where arguments are much easier to keep track of. However, for those that prefer the CDC system for whatever reason, one can still create a CDC-style debate on DDO. They would just have to put in in the opinions section instead of the debates section.C2: Self-confidenceGoogling ""Debate.org is a better debate medium than createdebate.com" site:debate.org" (with quotes) produces no results, and doing it without quotes turns up 101 results. Googling ""Debate.org is a better debate medium than createdebate.com" site:createdebate.com" also produces no results, but doing it without quotes produces 39, 000 results. This shows that DDOers have less of a need to establish their superiority over CDCers, meaning they are more secure in the ability of their own site to stand on its own.I await my opponent's arguments.
Have no fear.

Have no Fear Worry not capitalist scum Tho commies are your kids mum We all wish the same for all To be powerful, and hold the world enthralled What is the future here? In the America we hold dear? Could it be our own free choice? Or more laws the tyrants rejoice? Let me know if you take a side You are able to decide? Unlikely at best your heart is true If you point at anyone but you
Future of global capitalism

That is a very bleak picture! Fortunately, I don't think its a prophecy. As technology got faster, and the ability to move money was made possible by a few strokes at the keys, we realized there were dangers. Money and information whipping around the globe is a dizzying prospect, but the global community evolved along with technology to safeguard the masses AND the exceedingly wealthy, and has the capability of benefiting both to varying degrees. It is because of that technology that laws were written to protect consumers, and it was because of that ability to filter and hide money that public cries for a transparent government came about. At the end of the chain the consumer (and voter) can see roughly where the money goes, politically, and in some instance, can even see the taxes due from both their elected officials and even chosen suppliers of goods and services. The consumer is then given the chance to vote with their dollars, and change suppliers if they do not feel a certain corporate responsibility is met. As was previously stated, capitalism is indeed sustainable. As long as there is an accountable regulatory agency, and a need for varying products and a lower price, there will always be a need for a product to be sold, forcing the financial landscape to shift into a more consumer friendly model. A corporation has no reason to sacrifice their consumers and yield no return, its their source of capital, after all, and even if the goals are short sighted, in matters of the consumer it would serve them no purpose to cannibalize their only source of income. The core of capitalism hinges around the ability for anyone to build 'a better mouse trap', and history has demonstrated there has been no shortage of inspired folks to put a product to market, and in many cases, a better product as evidence by consumer choice. The fall of capitalism is thwarted by its own inner workings. Entrepreneurial individuals always have the chance to bring new products to market, and an eager customer base will ensure that the 'better mouse trap' keeps established corporations in check. It is for these reasons that capitalism will continue. As has been implemented, a healthy combination of governmental regulation, entrepreneurial spirit, and an informed customer (and voter!) with the use of technology enables capitalism to continue without allowing gross political and market over-reach. It is for these reasons that I encourage a vote of Pro. Capitalism is sustainable.
Future of global capitalism

Governmental influence in favor of a corporation (and again, this applies to civilized and developing portions of the world) though, hasn't been over powering. The US's Citizens United decision gave influence to the concept of a corporation, but it didn't actually give it more than what already had: the ability to spend money. In the US, there are hosts of regulatory agencies and organizations with the specific goal of fining those vary same corporations (and their billionaire owners) for breaking the law, harming the environment, or lending in a unfair manner. With those checks and balances in place, each bubble pop from the latest-and-greatest-make-money-scheme hasn't taken taken the market down with it like that of the Great Depression. I am sure in the EU, there are hosts of banking and environmental rules to force compliance on behalf of the consumer, and even in nations like China, a large business is really never a few signatures away from being nationalized. Money definitely buys power, but when that power is found to be abusive and judiciously found in violation, the most important aspect that money had was that the violators aren't greatly punished. Rich people don't go to jail, and if they do, obviously its not hard time, but the example you bring up is not taking away human rights. Unfair? Of course! Money does that. Its an obvious disconnect that occurs, but in the way of human rights being removed, its just not there. Yes, its an unequal application of the law, however making the case that those breaking the law are not equally punished is a far cry from a violation of human rights. That type of injustice happens every where for a variety of reasons ranging from familial to judicial activism, and doesn't need to find its roots in venture capitalism. A company outsourcing its product to evade taxes runs the risk of consumer backlash, requiring protection, and still requiring a labor pool in the country you wish to sell your product in. This could be particularly damaging if a government wanted to institute tariffs on the newly imported product, the advantage of outsourcing could soon be negated by paying more to the government in order to sell your product in the market you ducked for taxes. Capitalism can indeed continue, corruption included, without violating human rights. I would caution my opponent, though, in some points, it sounds as though you are are debating that we are a plutocracy already, which is a few steps away from capitalism. If we continue down the course we are on, as has been demonstrated, we are not at risk for a global financial catastrophe.
Future of global capitalism

I think I am going to have to reply to this in order of questions from last to first, and might have a question or two at the end for clarification. With regards to some dire straits economically, I feel that living in the society that we do, a brighter outlook for the trend of capitalism would be that government (and possibly even those same corporations) would step in to prevent a catastrophic failure. It doesn't serve their needs for them to let that happen, after all. The global trend specifically as it is cannot continue, but there has yet to be a hard 'turning point' in which things cannot get better. There is still the option for a redress of grievances with our government. Just to ensure purity of a candidate, there is the capability in a growing number of states in the US where candidates can be put on a ballot, and granted equal funding their opponent receives, provided certain donation and party affiliation rules are met. Thus far, history in civilized countries (that being where a bona fide system of finances exist) has demonstrated an appreciation for workers rights, as well as corporation's rights, and have agreed that certain rules and programs must be implemented to ensure collusion doesn't take place, nor a monopoly take control of a market. The devaluing of human rights (or basic rule of law) so far has been a product of workers either being lazy, or being desperate in terms of crime, that being the criminal would prefer the one big score (at law's expense) or driven to such ends to commit a crime because no other option would readily solve the immediate problem of ends. With regards to the government, I have seen the SCotUS give MANY rights to corporations as a whole, but I have seen very few human rights be taken from the populace. This leads me to still have a faith in governance that might counteract a long term failure before it occurs; I believe the marketing and tech bubbles (and subsequent crashes) are adequate demonstration of that. What have you seen, rights violation wise, that you see a continuing trend that gives a corporation, or the individual rich an advantage? Why do you feel that all the various regime and market changes in history are not similar to those we might see in the future? The purpose of capitalism is to attempt to enrich everyone in it on their own terms, with this goal in mind, the ultra rich and incorporated have the same goal as me: I want to sell my services and products to the highest bidder, therefore I need the masses to contribute. I do not feel the advantage of the success of the rich will result in a turn against humanity, much less one that has not been seen. Thank you for a thought provoking topic, and I look forward to your replies.
Future of global capitalism

My theory is the contemporary billionaires and rich corporate shareholders still need large masses of people to contribute to their wealth by purchasing goods and services. But since the economic trend of capitalism create a tiny group of extremely wealthy individuals, the ratio of 'least fortunate' expands. Is there a future for capitalism of this kind? The governments rule in favor of the richest. What will happen with people that can't anymore contribute to economy, feed the rich by their demand and purchasing power? Do you fear a major decline in western values and human rights will occur when the group of people that will be considered a burden or drain of economic system expands? Will the richest influence the state governments to not to provide them sufficient support to get rid of them? My point is the global economy with ongoing trends will not work indefinitely. Sooner or later it's going to turn agaist humanity in yet unseen extent. Do you agree? Or do you see a brighter outcome in the future?
The U.S should ban assault weapons.

My opponent as forfeit the last round. I will now post my argument. Umar has said he belives the USA should ban assault weapons and claims it is "anti life". Read this scenario. A house at 00:00 AM is broken into. Person A is armed. Person B is being shot at by Person A. Person B shoots and kills Person A. This scenario is showing "Stand Your Ground" rules. In other words, Person B would NOT be charged with murder, because Person A was going to kill them. Person B used an Assault rifle.
The U.S should ban assault weapons.

Hi I am Umar! I firmly believe that the United States of America should ban assault weapons... Life is a precious gift , which should be nurtured and preserved. Assault Weapons are anti-life and PRO-Death. Alone 80 people in America get shot due to these deadly assault weapons. Every Now and then we hear of school shootings and dying children. We live real life, its not a video game. The banning of assault weapons, would put an end to this madness and bring peace and harmony.
Shrek is a better Ogrelord than Stalin

The lord high Shrek will shrek all those who dare oppose, him, he is a caring and compassionate ogrelord, caring for all who live in his glorious kingdom. His followers are far and wide, worshipers flock to his swamp, bearing gifts for their greatest of leaders. Unlike the great Ogrelord, however, is Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, otherwise known as Joseph Stalin. Stalin was a dictator, hated by his people, and was an overall penis-potato. Shrek is much better because Shrek loves all and gives freely to all his followers his shrekly love, and his sweet, hairy onions.
Shrek is a better Ogrelord than Stalin

Hello, I would like to start out with the fact that Shrek and Stalin are best buds on Cod of Duty. They would Neva fight. Don't h8 m8. Second of all, Stalin has a better scope than Shrek, so he can quick scope better than Shrek. Stalin didn't lose his territory, he gave it away during a white elephant gift exchange, along with his old sniper rifle. He could do something about it. But he didn't, because he was to busy doing more important things. Like arm wrestling Jesus. Shrek should step off and go rape another 10 year old.
Income and Democratic ideals

Thanks for the reply TK. I'll now refute my opponents claims. My Rebuttal WILL be shrt, primarily because not much refutation is needed, and many of my opponents arguments are non-topical.First, he claims argues about the American dream. 1. You can see from my argument that this ideal is one that current income disparities are destroying, and thus you can turn this to the Pro side. 2. He cites a single example, Bill Clinton. You prefer my evidence to his, because mine gives stats and logic, one example is not enough to negate the resolution. 3. This doesnt touch on CURRENT income disparities. My Oponents profile says he's 15. President Clinton was already in office when my opponent was born! Thus even if this example was enough to vote con on, my oppoennt hasn't provided a link as to how it still applies.Secondly, my opponent argues that income disparities are natural. So what? He hasn't linked this to democracy at all, and since (with the exception of ancient Greece) democracy has been around only ~250 years in human history it clearly isn't natural either. So you can ignore this argument.My opponent then argues that "it will hinder job growth" (?????). What will hinder job growth? Note that the resolution is a matter of fact not matter of policy. His disadvantage not only isn't even argued (just asserted), but can also be ignored because I am not prposing any form of policy to solve these problems, nor am I obligated to.Therefore I see a pro ballot for this debate.