BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ultimate Team War: Super Smash Bros Edition.

Thanks to Logical-Master for accepting. Alright, then. My last two members: Fox McCloud and Samus. Now, on to the strategy aspect of the debate... My team features two members who possess psychic powers: Ness and Mewtwo. I also have Fox McCloud, who's capable of deflecting non-physical attacks, such as Falco's laser, Mario's fireballs, and Ness' fire attack. I also have Samus, who is capable of charging up and releasing a powerful blast from her cannon. Mewtwo and Ness can both use their abilities to render one member of my opponent's team useless each -- Ness by using his ability to set anyone he wants on fire (it's an attack that can be used repeatedly), and Mewtwo by using one of his attacks which flips the opponent around in the air. I'd chose to use Mewtwo's ability on Falco, which renders his ability to send energy blasts back useless, and I'd use Ness' fire ability on Snake, which thus eliminates my opponent's long range attacks (for the most part, that is.) While all this is happening, Samus' cannon would be charged, and Sonic would be using his speed to his advantage, while going up against the much slower Wario. Fox would be using his rapid fire blaster on Meta Knight, who is arguably my opponent's strongest member. Samus would use the cannon on Marth, who isn't that agile, and is more susceptible to long range attacks. Considering all this, my opponent's team would be severely weak, but not defeated as of yet. After Ness and Mewtwo have done a high amount of damage to Snake and Falco, they would then just regularly attack, which, considering the damage done, would eliminate them from the battle. So now it's five on three. Meta Knight would be damaged due to Fox, and Marth would be very hurt at the hands of Samus, which makes them easier to get rid of. Meta Knight would then face a flurry of fire attacks from Ness, which would weaken him further, and would finally be hit with a smash attack from Fox, which would undoubtedly do him in. Five on two. Marth would be taken care of by Mewtwo's long rang attack. And while that was happening, Samus would again charge her cannon, and then hit Marth with it when he has high damage, and is defenseless. Five on one. Wario was occupied with Sonic, who was using his speed to make it so that Wario couldn't hit him; however, now it's five against one. Fox would use his laser, and Ness would use his fire. Mewtwo and Samus would charge their individual blast attacks, and then use them on Wario, who wouldn't be in a position to defend himself. And yeah, that would do team pro in for good.
Legalization of Marijuana

Decriminalization of marijuana would be detrimental to society. The negative effects come in four main forms: 1.) Marijuana can cause permanent braincell loss. 2.) Driving while high is already a problem in Colorado. 3.) Marijuana is already known as a gateway drug. Legalizing it will only cause more people to want to explore hard drugs. 4.) Marijuana makes people someone they're not by altering brain chemicals, thus dehumanizing them. Sources will be used in the next round when these arguments are explained.
Obama should not be the next president of the United States.

This is a 5 round debate, but you lose some points for this forfeit olle15. I just want to add some things that I discovered watching the Texas debate. Apparently Obama copied whole paragraphs of his friend's speech, who is a Senator of Illinois. He claimed that there was nothing wrong since this Senator is on his campaign personnel and he suggested that Obama used part of his speeches. However, I think differently. Even this Senator was one of Obama's campaign officials and he himself proposed that Obama xeroxed full paragraphs of his speech, Obama shouldn't have gone up there and just declaimed someone else's speech as if it were his. I don't think this is receiving enough attention from the media, and if Hillary was to do what Obama did, she would be attacked front and left by both democrats and republicans. I mean, come on, they even attacked Hillary for having her eyes wet with happiness when she won in New Hampshire. Anyways, I hope voters take into consideration that olle15 forfeited his round and did not support his position in this debate, regardless of your own opinion.
Obama should not be the next president of the United States.

Note: This is my second debate on Senator Barack Obama, but the last one was short and my opponent posted only 1 argument. This is a 5 round debate. Not only Obama aggravates me with his speeches, but the possibility that he can become the next President of the United States scares me. His whole health care plan is backwards. He stole it from Hillary and made such changes that he should stop saying he is for "Universal Health Care" because his plan does not cover everybody, like every single country out in the world has. Obama is a great public speaker, and he has some clever slogans. Today I watched 2 minutes of his speech after his victory in Wisconsin and the first things I heard him say were "Our problem is not lack of good ideas. The thing is Washington has become a place where those ideas come to die". Two minutes later he says "We need a health care plan that pays for preventive care so that we can have health care and not disease care". This is probably not what he said verbatim but it is along the lines of. What people fail to see is that his campaign is based on slogans. He does not argue or point out the issues. He is not specific nor consistent. He is simply very intelligent and he knows how to conquer the hearts and minds of America. The thing is, when those curtains close, people should think with THEIR BRAIN! We're all very much in love with Obama but by looking at his real health care plan, his driver's license to illegal immigrants policy, his statements on social security, and so on... One can tell that he is BACKWARDS! Before I end my opening statement let me say 5 words... Hope. Change. Yes we can.
Obama should not be the next president of the United States.

Yak Yak Blaa Blaa Dribble Dribble Dribble Yak Yak Blaa Blaa Dribble Dribble Dribble Yak Yak Blaa Blaa Dribble Dribble Dribble Yak Yak Blaa Blaa Dribble Dribble Dribble
Homosexuality Is Not Natural

Judges note: I believe the sources used by opponent SHOULD BE CHECKED as they are not credible. His concept of law of gender is an opinion and not backed by science or facts, the page was so substandard it has been removed from wikipedia and the site where he has picked this quote from talks about something completely different and is some self help site. Using the argument of procreation is awkward. My opponent says Homosexuality cannot reproduce therefore it is unnatural, I said it exists in nature, in humans and animals, my opponent not only called it unnatural, he used words like abnormal, anomaly and did not back it with a single fact or proof as to how it was so. He made an evasive case by using an irrelevant definition. He makes claims like it was not intended to happen but does not prove how. My case is simple, just because it cannot reproduce, it cannot be deemed unnatural, Sashil has made an elusive argument which cannot justify as to how homosexuality is natural.
Homosexuality Is Not Natural

I specifically used the 2nd definition and not the 1st one because this debate isn't about about whether homosexuality has been created by man or by nature, it is about whether if, it was meant to be created and exists for natural reasons or is an anomaly occuring in nature.Rebuttals: CON's line of reasoning goes like, If 'X' character is present in many species and has existed for a long time it is natural.He uses the example of left handedness to support his argument.But this argument is fallacious, disabilities both mental and physical satisfy CON's conditions but still are defects.And its absurd to compare homosexuality with left handedness,This can be shown with a simple reasoning.Being left handed doesnt limit you from achieving the fundamental purpose of handsBut on the contrary being homosexual limits you from the fundamental purpose of gender i.e,Reproduction.CON finally finishes with an argument that is just purely an argumentum ad passiones fallacy.Resolution-firmly upheld.
Homosexuality Is Not Natural

More than 1,500 animal species engage in homosexual acts. "We"re talking about everything from mammals to crabs. The actual number is of course much higher. Among few animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, in the dwarf chimpanzee homosexuality is practiced throughout its life." - Petter Boeckman. Let"s compare this to the 10% that are left handed, is that unnatural as well? Homosexuality is no recent phenomenon it has been there since time immemorial, (ancient Greece) and will continue to exist, it is present not only in homosapiens but in animals and in nature all around us. It is no aberration it is just a variant not an anomaly. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute reported that an 3.5% of adults in the US identify as being gay / lesbian , he also states that nearly 25.6 million Americans (11% of the population) acknowledge at least some same-sex attraction. Are they defective? Sources in comments.
Homosexuality Is Not Natural

The law of gender governs all creation. This law states that in order for something to exist it must have unity with male and female[1]. This is the law of gender and it governs all creation. The primary purpose of gender is reproduction. In order for something to exist and survive the long flow of time it has to be in order with the law of gender. The concept of homosexuality does not heed this law and heavily defies it. Homosexuality has no need to exist in nature. Life's most basic instinct is to survive and reproduce. Homosexuality is, in a way a defect that defies the original purpose of an organism's existance. Thus, just as physical and mental disabilities that prevail in nature, homosexuality is also, in accordance with nature, an abnormality that was not intended to happen. S1:. http://is.gd...
Homosexuality Is Not Natural

I accept. However, as there is a character limit of 1000 only, I would like to offer an alternate definition of natural in this round. Natural:Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind Eg- carrots contain a natural antiseptic Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Plus I'm assuming that "usual rules" are round 1 acceptance, followed by arguments, concluded by rebuttal. Right? That is all. Looking forward to a good debate!
Resolved: Affirmative action is in the best interests of the United States.

I strongly negate resolved that affirmative action is in the best interests in the United States.Here are my terms and conditions.Round 1: declaration of sides, introduction, agreement to debateRound 2: definitions, values, burdens, and contention-level argumentsRound 3: refutations to the claims and arguments made in Round 2Round 4: responses to arguments from Round 2 and refutations from Round 3Round 5: summary round to crystallize arguments and weigh voting issuesWith that in mind, there are a few specific observations:1. NEITHER side may begin to refute arguments in Round 2. 2. There are to be NO new arguments constructed after Round 3.3. Round 1 (this one) shall NOT be used for arguments, definitions, or substance.4. Neither side will troll, loiter, or be distracting to the opponent.My goal is to argue that affirmative action is an immoral choice that creates an imbalanced system of reverse discrimination. However, I will elaborate on definitions, values, and arguments in Round 2, as demands the structure of this debate.I look forward to an opponent in favor of this resolution!
Resolved: Affirmative action is in the best interests of the United States.

As requested (see comment section) I will not refute any of the negative side's arguments in this round but only give my own arguments. This is to compensate for the fact that I have started with refutations in the last round and thereby violated the rules of the debate. Therefor to restore the balance the negative side will be at a privileged position in this round. It might be possible to consider this as a form of affirmative action :)So here my contentions:1) Affirmative Action helps to compensate for past wrongs and to achieve equal opportunity. Centuries of discrimination have put the black group of society at a disadvantaged position. This reminds me of the scene in the movie Gladiator where Commodus stabbed Maximus before the last fight. I'm sure nobody would argue that this was a fair fight with equal opportunities. Affirmative action means just this: To give Maximus the opportunity to recoup from this harmful act and get a fair chance for the fight.2) Affirmative Action helps to reduce inequalities in the society and thereby helps to restore a peaceful society. Studies [1] show a significant correlation between income inequality and crime rates in a society. Since it is in the best interest of the US to live in a peaceful society it is also in their best interest to reduce these inequalities. To see the level of inequality let's look at a few statistics: In 2008 the number of doctorates awarded to black citizens was 824 [2], while 13,894 doctorates have been awarded to white citizens. This means that 17 times more doctorates have been awarded to white citizens than to black citizens while white citizens only make up 5.5 times the number of black citizens in the US [3]. Also in 2009 the median wealth of white households was 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households [4]. This shows that there is still a huge level of inequality in the American society. Since the university is an important factor determining job and salary, affirmative action helps to reduce inequality.3) Affirmative action compensates for current forms of discrimination. Apart from the discrimination that has happened in the past there are still numerous privileges enjoyed today by wealthy, predominantly white kids. According to Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education [5] "as many as 15 percent of freshmen at America's top schools are white students who failed to meet their university's minimum standards for admission. These kids are people with a long-standing relationship with the university, or in other words, the children of faculty, wealthy alumni and politicians." According to Schmidt, these unqualified but privileged kids are nearly twice as common on top campuses as Black and Latino students who had benefited from affirmative action. [1] http://www.nbcchicago.com...[2] http://www.nsf.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...[5] http://socialistworker.org...
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

At it's heart, Communism fails on it's central premise. That being, communism punishes those who work, to reward those who won't. The few who work, tire of having the fruits of their labor stolen, to reward the masses. Eventually, they quit working as well. Logically, they think, "Let some other sucker work to feed me for a change." Ultimately, all people strive for the least the state requires of them. There is no carrot, only the stick of starvation to motivate. As that plays out, people grow unhappy and their leaders get restless. Those who complain must be punished. The scapegoat class, whatever race, color or religion they may be, must be eliminated once and for all. But the silencing of the lambs does little to improve the everyday life of ordinary citizens. And so begin the purges. If the scapegoat class wasn't at fault, then some other group surely is... The Iron Fist of Power falls on the very people it purported to protect. Again and again we've watched it play out. Those who refuse to study history are condemned to repeat it. Today's youth are clueless to the reality of the past and not the least bit motivated to study it. It's scary to think that Pro - or anyone for that matter, could believe the same failed promises and rhetoric that have led to so much pain and suffering in the past. I joined this debate in the hope that someone had thought of a new way, a better idea, an improvement... But no, it's the same old arguments, wrapped in a layer of revisionist history. Communism is dead, and the world is a better place. Capitalism is the only functional solution the world has devised yet and therefore is superior.
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

Con points out that North Korea is Communist which is a complete and utter lie first of all. http://nationalinterest.org... Countries have used the idea of Communism to rally people but are quick to abandon the idea once seizing power. "It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in China it was a human." "It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in Russia it was a human" It wasn't Communism that killed all those people you are correct those countries have never truly been Communist. [ Russia was until the death of Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov aka Lenin] Also you seem to mistake Human Nature with Human Behavior when we first descended and formed tribes everyone banded together and everyone ate equally meaning Communism is the closet thing to human nature however it wasn't until someone killed someone that our greed truly began this is Human Behavior. Back to the main point Communism has never killed that many people but as I stated in an earlier argument Capitalism has killed twice/triple as many people and yet there could be even more people on that list. Communism has worked in places like Cuba and Vietnam and while yes they are not luxuries they are better off where they would have been under Capitalism. Before the Con points at the people fleeing Cuba thing it wasn't a result of Castro or Che the people just were not ready for such a drastic change which is one reason peaceful Communist progression is a better option. Con keeps asking me to explain how Communism would work and I keep pointing to Scandinavia and it's socialist government. Here are some of the huge benefits of Norway. http://mylittlenorway.com... "Step 2- End hunger" Communism has solved this plenty of times before look at Lenin and his idea with bread. "Sputnik? Sorry, but that was just captured Nazi technology, which had been slightly modified. Communism could never produce such a thing." That is a point blank slander and lies after Stalin's reign of terror [The Cold war] The Russians were the first to send a ship into space with a living animal. They also manged to keep a dog alive with nothing else but a machine and the dogs head which on it's own is outstanding although very inhumane with the way they went about doing it. I'm sorry but I'm here to debate facts not obvious lies and slander. https://breviosity.wordpress.com... There is a source listing a huge amount of "Communist" achievements. In order for Communism to work we need to revert to Marxism-Leninism the incident with Stalin will never happen again if we learn from the past which we clearly did. However the best way to achieve Communism is Marx's idea of a peaceful revolution similar to Scandinavia you can point out any flaws of Communism and I can point out Capitalism's flaws however the pros of Communism easily crush the Pros of Capitalism and the Cons of Communism. Sources: https://cs.stanford.edu... http://www.anu.edu.au... Book Sources: Das Kapital The Communist Manifesto Lenin Che Guevara: Life of a Revolutionary
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

Quote -The title of this debate is which is superior not how things can work Sorry, but that is exactly why Capitalism is superior - That undeniable Pro of Capitalism is that it has worked. The undeniable Con of Communism is that it has not. As we debate, the Communists of North Korea are turning to cannibalism as a food source. http://www.express.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... You simply cannot sell any positive point about Communism, until you can explain how to get around the problem that has caused Communism to fail in the real world. Communism looks great on paper. That's why so many nations have fallen for its Utopian promises, but those promises are quickly broken and the nations who have fallen victim suffer horribly. I understand that Pro wants this debate to focus on how Communism COULD work, but until Pro has a realistic solution to fix how Communism HAS worked, that just amounts to, "What would I do if I won the Lottery" daydreaming. Step 1- Win the lottery Step 2- End hunger Step 3- Cure cancer... I'm sure that makes you feel good, but it isn't real. This is where Pro errors. Hoping for the grandiose promises of Communism and failing to account for the reality of human nature. It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in China it was a human. It wasn't Communism that killed all those people in Russia it was a human. Capitalism not only accounts for the "Me First" aspect of human nature, It exploits it. Planes, Trains, Automobiles, Electricity, Light Bulbs, Telephones, Television, Computers, Antibiotics etc. were all were the product of Capitalism. In fact, almost everything that matters comes from a Capitalist nation. Is it possible to name an accomplishment of Communism? Sputnik? Sorry, but that was just captured Nazi technology, which had been slightly modified. Communism could never produce such a thing. http://www.russianspaceweb.com... The scoreboard of accomplishment reads Capitalism - Everything ............. Communism - Nothing Communism just doesn't work in the real world.