BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bubblegum is cool

Gum may be bad, but it has one amazing value. As demonstrated in Hubba Bubba Comics and Bazooka Joe Comics demonstrate, the bubble allows people to fly and, on more than one occasion, the bubble flight and banging sound have SAVED LIVES! Now how do you feel? Another point - the gum incidents mentioned in hes arguments are all the stupidity and rule-breaking of HUMANS, and the gum was not at fault! If people didn't spit their gum into the subway doors or stick it on desks, then his argument would be invalid. the GUM, however, was not at fault in any of those issues...
Socialism Is Better For the People than Capitalism

This is unfortunate, but I'll take this opportunity for a rebuttal of sorts along with an extremely short discussion providing points of my own.Let's face it. Capitalist countries: Poor or no poor. You can't afford it, you can afford it.I honestly don't know what to say about this. Socialism shows the citizens that there are opportunities, such as hospital fees.A hospital fee is an opportunity? I'm guessing Pro's point here is that it's bad that one has to pay for health care. One has to wonder about an individual who sees the act of having someone else pay their hospital fees as an opportunity. I'll mention just a few other problems with this line of thinking:1) there have been no policy changes to address the inevitable increase in demand that comes from socializing health care. The result is as expected: ever increasing prices2) socialism results in reverse incentives. Those who feel they are owed something tend to feel it is reasonable to live off of others while having a reduced feeling of self-worth and minimizing the value of virtue.3) individuals are less likely to take care of themselves because the cost of medical care is zero.4) socialism tends to destroy the price system which is a critical part of a health economy.Socialism doesn't just tell their citizens they don't have hopeIt concerns me when individuals base their hope on the wealth of others. But more so than that, it concerns me that individuals think there is no hope unless government provides it. This is the same government that, on average, keeps about 70% of welfare related taxes for "administrative" expenses while private charity only keeps 30%. [1] This could possible explain why recently Washington DC overtook Silicon Valley, CA as the richest are in the country. [2]If it is hope the poor want, it seems clear that a corrupt and coercive government does not hold the answers.[1] http://mises.org...[2] http://washington.cbslocal.com...
Larry Fitzgerald is better than Hines Ward

Okay, that was a typo. Sorry. I mentioned it in Comments. My link also went to Hines Ward's page. Those were Hines Ward's credentials, not Larry Fitzgerald's. At this point, you haven't actually said anything except that Larry can catch better catches, but you haven't backed it up with ANYTHING. Additionally, you have no stats for Larry, while I have states for Hines. In conclusion, Hines has a Super Bowl MVP. Larry, apparently, might be able to make better catches.
Larry Fitzgerald is better than Hines Ward

"Larry Fitzgerald won a Super Bowl MVP. As of this season, he has 800 receptions, 9,780 receiving yards, and 72 touchdowns. You only claim that Larry Fitzgerald makes better catches." you have just proved my point by saying Larry has done all of those things since this season. Thank you for accepting this debate. Sorry it couldnt be a full debate. Thanks. http://www.youtube.com...;
Larry Fitzgerald is better than Hines Ward

Thank you for starting this debate. I have two contentions: 1. "Better" is purely subjective. Better - improved in accuracy or performance (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Measuring accuracy and performance is difficult. There are many different ways to measure them. No one accuracy test is better than another. The word "better" requires an opinion. Opinions cannot be used as substantial proof. 2. Hines Ward is better than Larry Fitzgerald, in my opinion. Larry Fitzgerald won a Super Bowl MVP. As of this season, he has 800 receptions, 9,780 receiving yards, and 72 touchdowns. You only claim that Larry Fitzgerald makes better catches. You have nothing to back this up. I have a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you.
UN should repeal all economic sanctions on Iran

I feel that I cannot argue my case. I cannot argue that UN should repeal all economic sanctions on Iran. This was my mistake; I saw my opponents first argument, and thought it was an argument, not merely the title of the debate posted again. In my defense, this debate was not set up well. It has all of the default settings, and my opponent made one argument so far, which was not considered an argument. Con did not do anything in this argument. Therefore, I ask that voters do at least vote me up for conduct. I have managed to stay present through this poor quality debate, even after an embarrassing mistake. I apologize once again for my mistake.
UN should repeal all economic sanctions on Iran

Definitions:UN - United Nations, group of nations that try to govern the world by intervening in conflicts and imposing sanctions on nationsRepeal - To remove, in this case to remove a law or sanctionEconomic sanctions - Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another country (or group of countries). Economic sanctions may include various forms of trade barriers and restrictions on financial transactions. [1] Iran - Islamic republic in the Middle East that is generally hostile to the United States and is also generally considered a nuclear threatArguments:Iran is a threat to our country. That is well known. If the UN doesn't do anything, then Iran will not get the message that we mean business. They are unstable and they have the power to get nuclear weapons. Countries like these need economic sanctions, or else they will continue to threaten us with the illusion of their own power. We need to strike back with these economic sanctions. Why the UN? The US has intervened too many times in other country's conflicts. If we get the UN to back us, we have help. Iran doesn't just threaten us. They threaten the world. If the US was the only country to impose sanctions on Iran, we would be standing alone, and Iran wouldn't take us seriously. I won't make two many arguments, since you made none. I await your response. Sources:[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Fascism is better than communism

Communism has not got very far that is true, a fair point but has fascism? Dictatorships in general struggle to cling to power without oppression of their people, this Is why fascism has the ability to last longer in power. Communists believe in the equality of all people under one man, This one man usually abuses his power for example Stalin. He only did two good things during his reign: took Berlin at the end of WW2 and industrialised Russia in 10 years were as countries like England took approximately 70 years to go through this process. However, we also see examples like this within Fascism... Hitler. He fed, employed and housed Germany after the Great Depression. Neither of these Dictators would've come to power without revolutionary situation the only difference is Communism would work without the need for revolutionary standards. Communists care for its people that's why we don't last long, fascists are racist, oppressing and forceful that's why they get shut down.
Politics in kids cartoons is wrong

i believe Politics in cartoons should be more of an adult's show thing, not in kid cartoons. while adult cartoons are more fair to both sides, kids cartoons are rather biased to a certain side, this is what we call "propaganda" and its wrong no matter how you look at it politics in cartoons exposes children of heated political debates, and straight out insults to the other side, for example, look at the comment section of this YouTube video. this also raises the subject with OK.KO, which is further proof that kids shows often make propaganda more than adult shows, much like Teen titans go (girls vs boys) Steven universe (mayor dewey), and the episode i showed you, OK.KO (lets not be skeletons) with this, i must state that politics in a kids cartoon, should be shamed and look down upon, thank you and have a good day.
Politics in kids cartoons is wrong

politics should be a teens thing, think of all the adult stuff that politics has, such has: -The Topic of Terrorism -Hate to people of race, sexuality, and gender -the topic of shootings i highly doubt that we should bring up such stuff that is in the same Label as this, this could lure to kids learning something they are not ready for. plus, you know how people attack others for not understanding their political viewpoint, how do you think kids will handle that?
Politics in kids cartoons is wrong

I believe that politics in cartoons are necessary to a certain extent. We need to expose the youth to some aspects of current-day reality, and that is why we should include politics in their daily entertainment. If we do include politics, children will have more education on the subject and will be able to debate about different political subjects easily. If presented with this topic at an early age, children will be more active and will have more practice on the topic. The politics that I would look to see in children's cartoons would be: -discussing the current president/ leader of the country -talking about issues in current politics and then asking the children to choose between two options (this would stimulate their thinking) However, I am against propaganda, which would include: -Only showing arguments from one side of the debate -Trying to convince the children that one side of the argument is right -Any influencing in general of the children's way of the thinking Thanks!
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

Your assumption is somewhat correct. Understanding globalism as making economic and foreign policy decisions in order to work with other countries, I believe that globalism is necessary for any country involved internationally. However, I do not believe that things decided at a global level should take more precedence that something that was already decided at a more local level. Home rule should take precedence over globalism the majority of the time. Obviously, a fully protectionist society would not succeed. However, some aspect of protectionism would encourage people to create local businesses that expand the market. They could not do this if they were competing with international giants. If somebody created an invention and tried to sell it without a patent, a large company could recreate it and just run them out of business. People would receive no credit for their work. Also, I understand minimum wage is not ideal, but what else would prevent businesses from barely paying people? Surely we cannot allow something like the American Gilded Age to happen again. If all colleges went public, they demands of the professors would not change, just who foots the bill would. Instead of individuals choosing to pay the bill, taxes would increase to pay professors. I do agree that ideas should be spread more freely, and anything a professor says or writes for or in the classroom should be spread freely. However they should still be able to receive credit for it, but that does not mean they cannot restrict how it spreads. People deserve credit for things they work hard for, even if they don't make money off it.
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

My opponent seems to have no regard for globalism, which is fine, but if my opponent is arguing from the standpoint of a closed, protectionist society,(my apologies if my assumptions are incorrect) then that would also be a utopian point of view. Protectionism, coupled with minimum wage requirements are the perfect ingredients for a caste society, a stagnant economic class system, which discourages economic growth for individuals. Is that what we really want? My objective in this argument is to shed light on elitism, and protectionism is a fierce proponent of elitism. Allowing businesses to compete as they feel fit, keeps prices lower, which in turn gives the consumer more freedom of choice. When the consumer is given more spending power, they in turn could choose to save some extra money to possibly open their own business, adding another player in the game of effective capitalism. If one company alone ownes the rights to a product, then they can dictate the price themselves without any worry of competition, which is bad news for the consumer. International business discourages minimum wage requirements. If a business pays employees less, then production costs are lower, which gives their product a more competetive edge. More competition leads to even lower prices. Perhaps we should abandon the downward spiral of regulations (patent laws, minimum wage) fueled by elitism, and embrace economic freedom. Another angle of this argument I was hoping to talk about is in regards to education. The cost of higher education effects our cost of living, whether you have gone to college or not. If it costs more for doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, (and the myriad of other professions I've left out) to attend college, then it effects everybody's wallet. If we as a society want to make it easier to climb the economic ladder, then we must resist the idea that knowledge is collegiate possession. Think about it, the biggest reason college costs are so high, is because of the demands of the professors. One way the US is helping to curb the high cost of health care is by allowing doctors from other countries who don't have to pay as much for college, to practice in the US, but that is very limited. We must make public college more accessible, then private colleges will either follow suit, or go out of business because they cannot compete. We as a society can make knowledge more available in other ways. The Internet was created for just that reason, but if we do not spread our wealth of knowledge far and wide, then we deserve to live in a caste society wasteland. Intellectual property is a harmful concept if it's enforced, however it's a laughable concept if we choose to abandon it, and be an open society.
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

So it appears that you do not want to undermine peoples hard work, but you do not want them to become entitled from the things they produce. I understand your point, but I do not think people become immediately entitled elitists after they create something of value. I think people should be able to protect the results of their work and make a living or become wealthy of something they have made in their lifetime. The best way to do this would be to give them a life long patent for their work if they want it. Now, after they have received the patent, it is up to them if they want to sell it or make their product public domain. However, after they die or in x amount of years, the patent should become void. Maybe they could base this time span on the average life of a person, then subtract how old the person is when they receive the patent. The British system of "intellectual property" was very dumb because in the article you posted it talks about how they tried to use it "issuing patents for common commodities such as starch and salt. " Thus, I am not going to defend it because I believe your concern is valid. However, I will say that to prevent this from happening, no patents should be issued for things that are not man made, and if the person who has invented the item is already dead, then so is the patent. Also, in order to keep the government from profiting too much from these patents (I do think they should get some money since they are promising to protect the fruits of peoples labor), it should be a one time fee that someone on the federal minimum wage could afford. As for international law, that means nothing to me. I think if a person want to go international, they should negotiate patents/deals with each country they do business in to protect their work. As you pointed out international law is ridiculous and would only work in an Utopian society. That does not mean that people should be prevented from taking credit for their labor, just that the current system we do this in needs to be revised. So, in the situation you presented, people could reverse engineer the product in China, but that would be ok if he/she had not applied for a patent in China or if China did not have patent laws. However, if someone tried to sell the reverse engineered product in the U.S., I would be illegal since the person already has a patent in the U.S. Each country would have their own system, and they would not be bound together by "international law". To summarize, just because the patent system has problems doesn't mean it should be abolished, just amended. If it was abolished the consequences would be far more severe then they are now. The entire business world would be under jungle law. It would be might over intellect, and nobody could protect the little man. It would basically be the worst form of a laissez-faire economy.
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

I would never attempt to argue that the value of the hard work, time, and money put into creating is worthless. Coupled with the fact that there's never a garuantee that your creation will work, or be of any commercial value. However, there's something to be said about the dangers of pride, and how it could ultimately be a set up for heartbreak. Like the farmers that struggle to get their crop into the ground on time, they deserve the fruits of their labor, right? But the rains don't come, and all they have to show for it is a field of dust. It's disheartening, but unfortunately nothing is gruanteed. My objective in this argument, is an attempt to shed light on the elitist attitude of entitlement that goes with the concept of intellectual property. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The first inception of intellectual property for financial gain was created in the 1600s for the purpose of funding the British monarchy, not so much for protecting the rights of intellectual property, but for taxation purposes. Instead of imposing an unpopular tax that could create civil unrest, the British monarchy began granting special production rights to individuals, and companies, then a tax would be imposed on the company, but that company would have the right to produce goods that no other company could. Because of special production priveleges, these companies would have more revenue and would have little or no competition. The purpose of these special priveleges, was more of a tax revenue scheme, rather than protection of intellectual property. Today, the Chinese government is finding it impossible to stop companies from reverse assembling and figuring out the specific technique of manufacturing American made goods. These companies are stealing pattents, and the US has no way of stopping it because the Chinese government refuses to abide by international patent laws. If the Chinese refuse to play nice by international pattent standards, what can we really do about it? It's becoming a situation where western countries can't enforce international law. If these laws can't be enforced, then it could soon become a great disadvantage to western countries who are still forced to abide by international law. The only true answer to this conundrum is to abandon pattent laws, and let western businesses compete without being shackled by international law.
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

Honestly I have never thought about this before and do not have an opinion, but let's just have a go at it. A good idea that advances a society usually does not come along without much, possibly years of hard work. Since practically nobody enjoys hard work, especially many years of it, there needs to be a motivator. If after all this hard work the individual has put into advancing society he cannot take any credit for it, and any lazy person can just take it and use it for personal gain, why would he work hard for it. Advancing society as a whole is a good motivator, but very few are selfless enough to have it be their sole motivator. Take Thomas Edison for example, he mastered the light bulb and had other accomplishments that advanced society, but he was a jerk. He tried to make a version of the electric chair, but it turned out to be a worse death than the way it was already. He proceeded anyways, experimenting in public demonstrations over and over again as the animals he used were slowly burnt to a crisp. (1) However, I do support patents and ideas going into public domain after the person who created them has died. This could result in inventor being a dangerous job though because competition in the same field might try to kill each other for their work. Or maybe I'm just crazy. (1) http://www.businessinsider.com... P.S. I can make the citations more thorough if you need me to, just tell me when you respond
Intellectual property impedes societal progress!

Nobody can truly own an idea. It is a made up standard which can't be enforced if nobody adheres to this silly doctrine. What if there was a patent on the wheel, or fire making or agricultural? I encourage everyone to ignore pattents, and I especially encourage college students to secretly record their professors lectures and post them on youtube at the end of the semester! !! ! Definitions Intellectual property: a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc. Impede: delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder. Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community Advance: move forward, typically in a purposeful way.
$10.10 Minimum Wage is Good

Firstly, just because I didn't say who was the other 49.4% doesn't mean they are workers supporting families this is an unsourced incorrect assumption. Second, My opponent would like to know where I got my poverty line number from. As sourced in the previous round I got it from the Department of Health and Human Services [1]. Third, I would like to note that 28 states have their minimum wage at or below, unlike the 31 my opponent claimed [2]. This means 22 states have raised their minimum wage. This is a better place for the minimum wage to be decided as pointed out in my opening arguments, which were never addressed, state will have different cost of living in which case each state should adjust their minimum wage accordingly. Concluding, my opponent has not shown a defensible reason to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 and did not refute any of the counter arguments given. Sources[1] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[2] . http://www.dol.gov...
$10.10 Minimum Wage is Good

The other 49.4%, according to your previous argument, would be workers who do support families. This would mean that increasing the minimum wage would be necessary for 1/2 of all the people it affects. I would like to know the source of the specific fact about how, in most states the poverty line is $11,670, because on my sources it said about $16,000. My sources are: Wikipedia, White House, Washington Post, and CNN. These sources all tell me that, on average of all 50 states, the poverty line is about $16,000 (give or take $500) for a family of two. According to the Department of Labor website, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Hawaii, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico all either have minimum wages below or the same as the federal minimum wage or don't have minimum wage laws at all. (This stat is from January 1st, 2014, but still 31 states/territories is a lot) The source of my third point is from www.huffingtonpost.com.