BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
blacks caused 9/11

I. None of the hijackers involved were of African American ethnicity. Please take a moment to examine the image I have shared below: Source - http://911review.com...As the audience and my opponent can see, the hijackers involved were all of Middle Eastern ethnicity. None of them were African-American. To further prove this point, I am including a link to the official FBI page which also expands on the identities of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attack. [2][2] http://www.fbi.gov...I will gladly expand on this point if my opponent responds. II. There is no proof that shows that blacks were the cause of 9/11.As Pro, my opponent has the obligation to show the audience, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the 9/11 attacks were caused by blacks. So far, my opponent has failed to do this, and therefore has failed at upholding the BOP placed on him by going against the status quo which recognizes that the individuals involved were of Middle Eastern origin, not African or "black". Until he does this, there is nothing that upholds his position in this debate. In Conclusion, I have presented my arguments as well as provided a rebuttal against the initial claim made by my opponent. My opponent has also, up to this point, failed at maintaining the burden placed on him. I now return the floor to my opponent.
Who would win Superman(pro) or Molecule man (Con)

Starting off this debate I believe that if you don't already know molecule man I should explain him a little. Molecule man was originally a scientist until one of his experiments went awry and he opened a rift from this world to another releasing energy no other person or thing had obtained. He then absorbed a substantial amount of this energy granting him the ability to control all molecules in the universe. As explained by doctor doom he is on the same level as the Living Tribunals (omnipotent creatures that used a fraction of their full abilities to create the marvel universe). Now you know some of his backstory now it's time for his powers: 1) he literally has "power over the very building blocks of existence. " More on Marvel. com: . http://marvel.com... 2) he can create shields around him instantaneously. 3) all his power comes from his own thoughts. 4) he made a shield around his mind to protect him from mental control side note: he can take control over anybody that touches his "wand" 5) he can turn into a wand and re-animate himself 6) while in wand state he takes control over whomever is touching it 7) his powers work at the speed of his mind which is almost as fast as a planck second ("10-43 seconds. "-www. physlink. com/education/askexperts/ae281. cfm) 8) create projectiles 9) create anything out of anything 10) change any material into something else in essence MM could turn Supes into a toaster, use him to make his breakfast, then turn him into a plate so that he could eat breakfast, than could literally turn him into a mop and mop the floor with him just as easy as you or I could eat breakfast. he could also turn the very ground into kypronite but if we're excluding kryptonite Superman is also weak to magic and MM's power is cosmic magic granted to him by the Living Tribunal which made him a "multiverse composite entity" as stated by Doctor Doom, Reed Richards and himself almost destroying the multiverse. being a multi universal threat he is in a totally different league than superman and would easily crush him in seconds.
Who would win Superman(pro) or Molecule man (Con)

Hello readers, I will be taking the pro side for this debate. I will be in favor of Superman over Molecule man. I myself as many others don't prefer Superman as their favorite hero, especially when you think of other cooler ones such as Batman, Spiderman, and I am saying this because I want to make it a point, I am not biased, and I am hoping the readers will not be biased as well. My opponents rules are as follows 1) We would be on earth so both superman and molecule man can use their powers to their full extent. 2) we will be fighting in an arena roughly the size of New York City (304.6 square miles) in a flat land (no buildings, hills, mountains, etc.) 3) No external help (i.e. batman beating superman with help from green arrow, blue beetle and a full city's power grid) 4) Both brawlers are capable of using all their powers so please list them. Thank you for accepting and good luck. It's worth noting in rule 3, con mentioned "no external help". This means help from the outside. This is debatable, but this also means Kryponite CANNOT be used in this debate. With all that said, I will be accepting this debate, and will make my arguments, rebuttals, and everything else in round 2. Good luck to Con, and may this be an enjoyable read/debate.
Who would win Superman(pro) or Molecule man (Con)

I will be debating for molecule man. I would also like to lay down some rules. 1) We would be on earth so both superman and molecule man can use their powers to their full extent. 2) we will be fighting in an arena roughly the size of New York City (304.6 square miles) in a flat land (no buildings, hills, mountains, etc. ) 3) No external help (i. e. batman beating superman with help from green arrow, blue beetle and a full city's power grid) 4) Both brawlers are capable of using all their powers so please list them. Thank you for accepting and good luck.
Solve the Riddle

That was not the correct answer, though that was a good guess. The answer to the riddle: Life You always think about me, though I am never remembered. What am I? You are always thinking about your life, what is to be done, what you will have to do, and everything in between. Once you are dead you will have no recognition that you ever lived, hence not being "remembered". While you live your life is the main basis for all thoughts and decisions, but when you die you will be incapable of remembering any of it.
The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns.

My opponent has slandered my argument as incomplete and fundamentally flawed. This is a misguided attack, and voting pro still means you support coercive laws that threaten the lives of ordinary citizens. My alternate solution is simple: restore everyone's right to defend themselves to the fullest extent. As I showed, gun restrictions do not deter criminals -- but the threat of being shot in retaliation often does. Furthermore, guns do stop crime -- conservative estimates are in the tens of thousands, and generous estimates are in the millions (. http://rense.com...). By restricting gun ownership, you would condemn thousands, if not millions, of innocent people to death and violence. Ultimately, the right to self-defense is a basic requirement of human flourishing. The right to self-defense reqiuires the right to choose the best means of defending onself. By violating this fundamental right, gun control measures threaten the lives and prosperity of millions of innocents -- and this is profoundly immoral.
The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns.

I think my opponent is misinterpreting what an LD case is. My opponent only has attacks onto my case, but no actual properly warranted cards, with impacts. Meaning my opponent literally has no offense or defense into this case, and provides no counterplan to preventing the gun suicide, and gang violence. For these reasons I affirm, and urge an affirmative ballot. DO NOT LET MY OPPONENT TELL YOU HE HAS A NEGATIVE CASE BECAUSE HE DOES NOT. For these reasons, I also suggest for my opponent to concede the debate.
The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns.

The opponent has misrepresented my argument, claiming that I am "OK" with gang and domestic violence. I clearly stated that this is not the case -- and I provided evidence showing that infringing gun rights only helps the criminals my opponent condemns. Guns in and of themselves are not violent. They are inanimate objects. Their uses, and only their uses, can be judged in a moral context.The primary (but certainly not the sole) purpose of a gun is to inflict harm upon another human being. As I clearly stated, not all violence is immoral -- but that which violates the rights of others most certainly is. The protection of gun rights does not "allow for groups of people" to be harmed, or cause "families to separate." On the contrary, defending gun rights to the fullest extent enables innocent families and individuals to defend themselves against criminals who fail to obey gun restrictions. As I have shown, those truly bent upon violent crime will circumvent regulations and restrictions of any kind -- the more severe gun restrictions become, the more vulnerable innocents become to thugs and coercers.By voting positive, you are supporting a set of laws that would blatantly violate the rights of innocent human beings. In doing so, you would make civilians, who are otherwise capable of deterring and retaliating against criminals, completely vulnerable to violence and harm.In response to your second argument:Suicide rates can most certainly be compared amongst countries in the context of gun policy, since they account for differences in the things you listed. This is exactly what I have done. I have provided various examples of different countries with more gun restrictions having higher suicide and depression rates. You are right in saying that this problem extends beyond gun rights -- but coercive policies like the ones you advocate are undeniably the cause of this problem. The conditions of people in this countries clearly shows us what happens when the government infringes upon the rights of its citizens. Beyond statistical arguments, a single fact remains undoubtedly important: suicidal people will find other methods of ending their lives. This is easily explained; to them, the pain of living in the real world is immeasurably larger than any temporary pain suicide could cause them. As such, they are bent upon ending their lives to eradicate this pain.Finally, you claim that I have failed to "produce a negative case." Assuming we are functioning on the same definition of a negative case, I have provided various rebuttals, both statistical and moral, to your arguments. On the other hand, you have failed to counter my statistics and my moral arguments. As such, you have no valid arguments at the moment.
The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns.

Onto my opponents argument that we should be able to use guns as self defense, we wouldn't need guns as self defense if the attacker also didn't have gun. I agree people have the right to defend themselves, but that is why we have police. OK onto my opponent's first argument. My opponent says guns are used for self defense and are used to harm people, to get revenge. My opponent then concedes guns are violent, and is OK with harming people domestically or with gangs. He also fails to address the issue that guns separate families, and is OK with this. Meaning by voting Negative, you are allowing for groups of people getting harmed, and families to separate. This goes against the whole idea of morality. Second off, now onto my opponent's case. They try to bring up statistical data comparing Sweden to Germany. However, you can't compare Sweden as an analog to United States. They are in different continents, have different populations, economies, and different suicide rights in general. The resolution is fundamentally asking us to weigh the moral reasons and obligations in favor of guns against them, my opponent fails to do this, and provides an invalid argument, because you cannot compare Sweden to the USA or Germany. Finally, my opponent fails to produce a negative case, meaning my opponent has no offense or defense going into or out of this case, besides the arguments into my points. Except their definitions and self defense argument.
The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns.

This debate is an informal Lincoln Douglas debate. No framework or contentions. Just put out your main arguments and justification for this, no warrants, and if you deeply believe in one side or the other please do not accept this debate. I do not mean to offend anyone. You are allowed to put observations for the topic, then your arguments, with taglines first then justifications. Order Goes: First off, Round one, Pro puts down case, and Neg ) makes arguments against my case, and puts down their case. Round two: Pro attacks neg case, while defending their case. Neg defends their case, while attacking pro. Round three: Pro attacks neg, defends case, and gives reasons for why they should have won the round. Neg does the same as Pro does. REMEMBER NOT TO IGNORE ANY ARGUMENTS OR THAT WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. ALSO PLEASE NOTE: YOU CAN NOT BRING UP ANY NEW INFORMATION IN YOUR FINAL SPEECH (NEW EVIDENCE, OR NEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE) Pro- LincolnDouglasDebater I affirm. Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to ban guns. Observation: The resolution (topic) is fundamentally asking us to weigh the moral reasons in favor of guns against the moral reasons counseling it. This means that simply providing one example or multiple examples of guns where guns would have been justified is not sufficient to weigh the round. Rather, both sides have a burden to prove their side as a general rule. First off. GUNS PROMOTE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The only possible way to refute the Pro World, is to somehow prove domestic violence and gang violence are justifiable. This goes against the whole resolution (topic) however, because this goes against the idea of morals. Domestic Violence and Gang Violence are two very serious things that take away thousands, among thousands of lives, each year, traumatizing and separating families. This means by voting AGAINST you allow for people merely wishing to get out of domestic violence to get hurt. Second off, Guns Assist Suicide. One of the most common ways people commit suicide is through guns. Guns take away millions of lives each year, whether it is through someone else such a terrorist, shooting an innocent civilian or a person who should be seeking help, commit suicide. This means that you are justifying millions of deaths through suicide, instead of helping innocent people who are going through depression, and giving them some extra time to think about their decisions. Thus, because the Negative world harms more people than the Pro world does, meaning I outweigh my opponent on how much harm guns bring (so do not let them try to bring this up) I stand in Pro, and hope you do to.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!!

1) Resolved: Dance Dance Revolution ought not to be included in Middle-School and High-School Physical Education classes for schools that can afford it. - CON 2) In the play "The Tragedy of Macbeth, it was the witches "telling Macbeth that he would be king" that caused him to conspire with his wife and kill the current king so that he would become king; the witches manipulated Macbeth. PRO 3) The villain known as Schneizal vi Brittania in Code Geass was overall a poorly crafted villain ( from a writers perspective) - PRO NOTE: For the second argument, just in case you're thinking there is any real research to do (assuming you haven't read the book or seen the play), there isn't much. In fact, if needed, I can explain all you'd need to know within a paragraph.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!!

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot overlap in terms of topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics, 2 cannot be about Music, 2 cannot be about Science), the topics cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by submitting, as his or her response, the phrase "Thank you for this debate" repeatedly until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Cancer is genetic

So, in my days of debate.org and schooling, I have heard many arguments of cancer being caused by a bad diet or some other stuff. This is not the case, my first argument starts here. Cancer is caused by a gene being damaged and a cell not being able to fix it. This is mostly genetic and is held in the DNA. Other factors can cause a risk for cancer such as RADIATION. Although, dieting is not in this list. Also, a person who's family has a history of cancer has a high risk of cancer as it is held in the persons hereditary information. With this stated, I will wait for con's rebuttal. Rules- no trolls (Akhetan can join but do not be a troll and actually cooperate)
Death Penalty

Starting with your first counter-argument you said it is only used in the "utmost important and gravest offences. " but this article right here from ( http://www.rttnews.com... ) says, "London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty International has flayed the blatant misuse of death penalty as a political weapon in several countries with China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan topping the list. In its annual report on capital punishment, Amnesty noted that despite an overwhelming majority favoring abolition of the practice, its extensive and politicized use continued. "Even as world opinion and practice shift inexorably towards abolition, the extensive and politicized use of the death penalty continues," it said. Asia, the Middle East and North Africa accounted for majority of executions with 714 people executed in 18 countries in 2009. Of these 366 people were executed in Iran, 120 in Iraq and 52 in the U.S. and the executions were carried out by "hanging, shooting, beheading, stoning, electrocution and lethal injection." Saudi Arabia and Iran were criticized for putting to death juvenile offenders in violation of international law. China is believed to have executed more people in 2009 than all the countries put together, but the actual figures are not available since Beijing maintains that it is a state secret. Even though China claimed fewer executions since 2007 after the introduction of a mandatory review of death sentences by a higher court, Amnesty maintained that "evidence from previous years and a number of current sources indicates that the figure remains in the thousands." This shows widespread misuse throughout the world. This defeats your argument that it is only used as a last resort. For your argument on "monetary problems" I am just going to refer back to my last remarks because it shows that it costs a lot of money.
Death Penalty

Well, I do see the morality issue that you have placed, which is quite intently the biggest proponent for anti-death penalty cases. However, I see that the death penalty should only be used for the utmost important and gravest offences. Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping and murdering an 11"month-old baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their sentences as 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth Amendment. Citing some sources from the American constitution and dppc.com; They rely on this provision because it is the only provision they can rely on. They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were afforded counsel and tried before a jury of their peers"tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty and once to determine whether death was the appropriate sentence. They were duly convicted and sentenced... Not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be 'deprived of life...without due process of law... Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to bar only those punishments that added "terror, pain, or disgrace" to an otherwise permissible capital sentence... I would not presume to tell parents whose life has been forever altered by the brutal murder of a child that life imprisonment is punishment enough. Which is why, due to the rare use of this penalty, there would not be much monetary problems that will ensue.
Death Penalty

First, I would like to say good luck to my opponent. To begin, I want to stress the fact that the death penalty is morally wrong. Why does the government say killing is wrong but goes ahead and does it anyway? We are taught that killing is wrong, and it should extend here too. from www.odap.org: There is a better alternative: life without parole. In Oregon, we have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently over 121 people in Oregon who have received this sentence. The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. In Missouri, Texas and Virginia investigations have been opened to determine if those states executed innocent men. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk we cannot take. Race and place determine who lives and who dies. Those who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to die than those who kill African-Americans. In Oregon, prosecutors from some counties are more likely to pursue the death penalty than others are. We pay many millions for the death penalty system. According to the Oregonian, in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year. This shows at least four reasons why the death penalty is wrong. We pay more, we get nothing out of it, and there are essentially no consequences (other than death) for the perpetrator.
Death Penalty

We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of state-run lottery that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all those convicted of murder. Rather, the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst... Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty " presumably a long period in prison " would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point... Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and supports that moral order.