BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump is boosting American economy

First: You completely conceded all my arguments except the one about tariffs, so I'll repeat those here. Trump's dismantling environmental protections and general consumer regulations, so even if GDP goes up he'll hurt most Americans. Additionally, he's giving huge tax breaks to the ultra-rich like himself, so that means more and more money will sit unused in bank accounts, further harming the economy. Also, his crackdown on immigrants means that many vital jobs usually filled by immigrants are being left empty. All this will severely hurt the economy, including the agricultural sector. Even if you're right about tariffs (which you're not) these would outweigh any benefit from the tariffs. You more or less conceded this entire paragraph, so I have to assume you just don't have an answer. Your argument on tariffs was basically "yeah but agriculture", but agriculture isn't enough. Agriculture only makes up 5% of the American economy, (link below), so it won't be enough to counterbalance the massive harm that he's doing to the other 95% of the economy. And it's doubtful that he'll even help agriculture. The agriculture sector is highly dependent on immigrant labor, so it's currently suffering from a severe labor shortage. Link below. http://thehill.com... http://thehill.com...
Trump is boosting American economy

Thanks for debating with me It is true that Trump has put tariffs on foreign trade which will make the prices of certain things go up but this isn't bad on the agricultural stand point. America isn't a very dense country (in terms of people) and they have huge masses of arable land right below them. Usually this land is used for building space instead of farming. Now, if we have a huge mass of arable land with not many buildings on it, it will be naturally used as farming space. This food from American soil will be cheaper than imported food because the American food doesn't have to pay the expenses of long distance transportation. Another way this beneficial to America is that America can start exporting its own food so that it can trade with other nations for the materials it needs thus bolstering agriculture while not completely ruining its trade. This hasnt been done before because of one reason. One, the americas focused on trade instead of farming more and that tradition stuck. Really sorry for replying late. I want to site somthing on the trade war with china but there are too many websites to choose from so i'll just leave it at this https://www.cnn.com... https://www.quora.com...
Trump is boosting American economy

Trump has not boosted the American economy, he's just riding Obama's coattails, and what he's done will be harmful in the long term. He's dismantling environmental protections and general consumer regulations, so even if GDP goes up he'll hurt most Americans. Additionally, he's giving huge tax breaks to the ultra-rich like himself, so that means more and more money will sit unused in bank accounts, further harming the economy. Also, his crackdown on immigrants means that many vital jobs usually filled by immigrants are being left empty. Here are some links: https://www.americanprogressaction.org... http://www.foxnews.com... https://www.forbes.com... http://thehill.com...
HIGGS BOSON GREAT LINE type: EXISTS!

Superline Nexus A superline is created when a particle travels faster than light; when faster than light speed occurs objects move at whatever speed is greater than the mass of any light sources; a particle sent faster than the Sun's light would become a laser able to counter-rotate around Earth. Universes can interfere with other universes; when a particle moves faster than light it can move from one universe to another. If light speed is greater than all light speed in a system, a superline can cross shapes in that system affluently. There is a universe specific to superlines, and superline-type universes which are shapes that can be maintained by varied shapes of line compression. There can also be said to be a superline field, or 'interference from a greater universe', that creates tensions with superlines. Universes can only interfere with each other by travelling faster than the speed of light. The superline can be thought of as a mind that learns and becomes more knowledgable; lesser universes, are knowledge to a superline that interfere with them at the speed of light. The Atomic universe is a single line or a double line compression; consisting of vacuum and universe! A superline computer can be built in mind from the imagination of superline formations, and adapting in the pure rhythm of superline, the super-symmetrical nexus, a part of the brain can be pinpointed by super-symmetry in a nexus " sleep can be compressed to a part of the brain. Attuning body to a frequency where your blood flow is in a superline rhyhtm is advantageous. We can adopt head and body movement that is in superline rhythm, even creating superlines out of imagination or having advanced superline rhyhtm.
HIGGS BOSON GREAT LINE type: EXISTS!

First imagine a line moving around an eight shape, and now many lines moving in a field maintained by crossing, curved lines creating a nexus similar to an eight shape. A HIGGS BOSON can be created by moving the eyes and body together, assuming both react and counter-react processes; a powerful curved line can be created out of head to eye coordination; it can be thought to create whirls. We generate HIGGS BOSON flow and then shoot powerful lines using the triangular constructing device; for example, we can imagine putting pressure at one point of someone's eyes and in a heartbeat pressure somewhere else and drawing a connection between the two pressures; creating art if we want to because of the great speed of a Higgs Boson Field. A triangular constructing device can rotate at speed and generate a shooting great line; the prospect of a shooting great line means that there can be a supersmall dividing line as our eyes are opposite - a powerful line compressed in our view. This means that we can create great imaginary scenes, creating HIGGS BOSON flow and imagining using more iris vision, off the power of a shooting great line. Random imagination is understood as the imagination that's not directly affected by us but more due to HIGGS BOSON flow; we can make flurries of random imagination, and multiple things can be imagined together at high pace. There is the possibility of creating a Field that supports rooms created out of whirls of a great line created from HIGGS BOSONs. using the supersmall dividing line as a generator for a Higgs Collector; we then have high random imagination which comforts and makes it possible for fluent image communication - a adapted, secondary sleep state. Random shapes of following a HIGGS BOSON that are seen by two eyes can be read line a pattern and traversed by imagining tract and superspeed with normal imagination.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Mikirta I couldn't be more pleased with the debate you just started. At first, like most people, I would say vigilantism sounds fine. Especially when we are talking about my favorite caped crusader! However lets talk about what happens when we get people who are less genteel. Argument 1 The Punisher Lets stay with someone (still fictional) but a lot scarier. Lets talk about Frank Castle AKA the Punisher. http://en.wikipedia.org... Frank Castle is the perfect case for why vigilantism is negative, even if the government isn't doing its job perfectly... The Punisher kills his perceived enemies...he doesn't take them into jail, he doesn't allow for any concept of "law" or "rules" or really any outside view points. He is a man who allows himself to be judge, jury and executioner...sure in the comic world he has unerring aim and never makes mistakes about who he kills, but lets talk about vigilantism in reality for a while. Subpoint A- It allows for a massive increase in overall violence. If we aren't following the law (if we are practicing vigilantism) then what keeps people from harming one another? The answer is nothing. What we are looking at is the breakdown of societies basic rules and pillars. What is the big deal though, right? What happens when society begins to break down? We can look to Thomas Hobbes about what happens to us when civilization and the respect for its laws become disrespected and ignored: "Life becomes brutish nasty and short." I like life enough to want to avoid that...so I (along with the vast majority of people) have a healthy respect for laws. Subpoint B- Vigilantism allows for big old mistakes (innocents get hurt). Laws and police and lawyers are rarely well liked by most people I mean I laugh just like everyone else at Lawyer jokes (My older brother is a lawyer and his favorite is: What is the difference between a lawyer and a shark? Sharks are cheaper.) However lawyers, police and laws help us to avoid getting the "wrong guy" we have an entire process based on "innocent until proven guilty"...what happens when we by pass that? The answer is that MORE innocents are harmed, we begin to punish more innocents. Subpoint C- Decent men and women who want to help will get hurt. Many people who would put on a costume and try to fight crime simply won't have the chops. (God bless Batman, Spiderman and the rest for doing what they do but I haven't been bitten by a radioactive spider lately) I don't know about you Mikirta, or you dear reading audience, but I am not able to fight 10 men with guns by myself...heck even if I had a gun of my own I would probably be toast pretty quickly... Allowing vigilantism to flourish will allow for many good meaning ladies and gents to get way in over their heads and be hurt. There are other reasons why vigilantism can be bad, but I will leave it at. We can always check back to this debate: Same Bat Website, Any Bat Time. (I really like Batman)
Better looking female athletes

The way this debate is going to work is that we are going to post pictures of female athletes and at the end the public will vote for the that posted better looking athletes.ROUND 1: AcceptanceROUND 2: First AthleteROUND 3: Second AthleteROUND 4: Third AthleteROUND 5: Fourth Athlete 1 athlete per round.You can post up to 5 pictures of an athlete per round.
Homeopathy is scientific.

And an interesting claim about vaccines working as a cure for existing infections. My argument was actually made to refute the claim that the vaccine made to prevent infection from smallpox was based on the definition of homeopathy - which is not the case. As the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services puts it, "A vaccine is made from very small amounts of weak or dead germs that can cause diseases " for example, viruses, bacteria, or toxins. It prepares your body to fight the disease faster and more effectively so you won"t get sick. " Not homeopathy, and you take it so that you won't get sick, in other words, prevention. The principle on which vaccines work is immunisation (this happens due to the presence of our body's immune system. ) The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services defines this as : the process of becoming immune to (protected against) a disease. Now I did open the link that you sent and it certainly was interesting. The source concluded in one of its 'key takeaways' - "Vaccines can boost an individual"s immune response and control viruses, such as Ebola and rabies, before they become deadly. " Note the words here - immune response. This isn't a cure, this is a boost to our immune system. Homeopathy on the other hand claims to cure diseases, not 'initiate immune response'. The working of the immune system was not known during the time homeopathy was developed and there are some woo-woo concepts such as 'imbalance of the life forces' - unscientific, or rather pseudoscientific rubbish. Homeopathy and vaccination/immunisation are unrelated. As for homeopathy being used as prevention, also known as homeoprophylaxis, that is actually quite dangerous as it may lead to people avoiding vaccines - something with fatal consequences. Many Homeopaths do not subscribe to this and its proponents usually attack vaccines in some form and it is quite clear that it is not vaccination, even its proponents say so in this report which of course I disagree with . https://freeandhealthychildren.org... Conclusion: Homeopathy is an unproven, illogical form of medicine that is inaccurately presented as scientific, whilst it is anything but. reports on the efficacy of Homeopathy, by meta-analyses, show it to be no more effective than placebos. It is time to promote real medicine and discourage if not completely remove Homeopathy. "If Homeopathy really worked, dumping Osama bin Laden's body into the ocean would have cured the world of terrorism" Do not consider the above as part of the formal debate. Vote con, and thank you for participating pro. It has been a pleasure.
Homeopathy is scientific.

Well, to be honest, you've made a strong point. I see I haven't researched enough into the topic. I concede the victory to Con, even though I would like to continue the debate. Props to Con. There is one discrepancy though, Vaccines work as both a prevention method and a cure for an existing infection as we can learn here: https://courses.lumenlearning.com... And nobody talked that homeopathy can't be used as a prevention method, it's more common application has objectives in curing. Either way, you've refuted well my other points.
Homeopathy is scientific.

Homeopathy is indeed scientific and it has been proven by the scientific method that it is effective in the land of medicine. As definition, Homeopathy is based on the affirmation that the similar is cured by the similar. I mean, that if you get poisoned, the infection will be cured with a weakened version of the same poison. There is also the placebo factor that we should consider, which has been proven that is able to cure diseases as easily as it can provoke them. On example of a famous treatment and prevention medicine that is usually based off the definition of homeopathy, are the first vaccines, in where to prevent illness by smallpox, the person recieving the treatment would be infected with cowpox, which doesn't affect the human body yet teaches the immune system how to fight against smallpox. The reason modern vaccines aren't considered homeopathic is because nowdays the virus is weakened with dangerous elemnts like Mercury which can cause secondary effects. But in its early form, it was an homeopathic treatment.
Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill

Of course I don't want to, but the bill per customer only rose a few cents, and is still under 3 dollars a month, so it isn't that much at all. However this debate isn't over whether or not customers want to pay more for services. This is about whether or not Viacom should pull channels from DirectTV services, and as you dropped every argument I posted about that, it's been proven that they are perfectly justified in doing so, and so saying that they should not is false.VOTERS:Conduct: Because I put so much effort into the round 2 debate, and my opponent responded with a one-liner, I ask for the conduct vote as that's just rude and/or lazy.S/G: If you look at the spelling of the resolution, the random capitilization of my opponent in round 2, and the horrible grammar and spelling made by my opponent in round 3, it's evident that he lost the spelling and grammar vote.Arguments: My opponent dropped every argument I made in round 2, and as such I have proven that Viacom is justified in pulling channels and so the resolution is false and as such negated.Sources: My opponent only used one source in his argument, and that one was too biased (which he dropped so it's considered true for the round) to be considered an informative source. Therefor, since I'm the only one wo has posted viable sources, I respectfully ask for the sources voteVote Con :)
Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill

ok direct tv is completely innocent on this you see according to the when direct tv drop's website they said 26 channels were dropped this is true if your counting the hd and sd channels together second of all for Viacom removed the daily show and the Colbert report off hulu temporally and third Viacom putting the blame on direct tv for costermores to switch so they cold lose money this is not right Viacom is taking viewers hostage in order to pay more according to dierecttvpromise.com I'm mathew.palmeri and I approve this message
Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill

I'm probably biting off more than I can chew here thanks to a pesky mouse virus and my work schedule, but I'll do my best to update my arguments on time, if not particularly early.As my opponent hasn't listed rules or framework, I'd like to propose the following rules/guidlines and I hope he's ok with them.1.) round forfeits are not counted as concessions, but all arguments made by the other side extend as they won't be negated2.) No semantics or trolling, this will result in the loss of the conduct point.3.) Definitions will be provided as we bring up words we think might have different views, or when requested by the other side. And as always when this is the case, I'd like to add the disclaimer that the arguments I'll be bringing up in the future are more than likely not my own beliefs, and I am simply playing the devil's advocate here.
Divorce

Arguments for Divorce a. Divorce is a remedy for failing marriage. By supporting divorce, it does not mean to say that all married couples should go to the court and file for divorce. It means that the society understands the reality about the problems that married couples experience. Undeniably, everyone has problems, including couples. When a wife experiences problems like slight physical violence or dishonesty committed by her husband, the first thing that should be done is reconciliation. Every steps to reconcile married couples should be exhausted before proceeding to the last resort which is ‘divorce’. It is important to make every effort to reconcile them. Sadly, this is hardly the reality. What happens most of time is that couples do not make progress and remain in an endless conflict. For that reason, it is necessary to give them option when everything else fails. It is only divorce that will address this problem, not annulment nor legal separation. Divorce has grounds e.g., repeated physical violence, sexual infidelity, and others depending on a particular country. The common denominator of all the grounds for divorce in all countries is that the grounds are those that occur after the celebration of marriage. Similarly, the grounds for legal separation are the almost the same with those in divorce; but in legal separation, a person cannot marry someone again in hope of reconciliation. In contrast, annulment has grounds that cover only those that happen before marriage e.g., lack of consent, lack of age, and the like. Clearly, the gaps in legal separation and annulment can be solved by divorce. b. Divorce is cheaper and better compared to other alternatives Compared to annulment, divorce is much cheaper. In annulment, a person will spend a lot of money to hire a psychiatrist to prove that grounds like psychological incapacity exists. The procedures in annulment entail more time than that in divorce, which will squeeze the money of an applicant. Divorce is the last resort for a failing marriage. It corrects the gaps in annulment and legal separation. It covers grounds that happen during the marriage which ‘annulment’ cannot cover. Also, divorce allows a person to marry someone again unlike in legal separation. c. Divorce will protect the children from danger No child wants to see his/her parents to separate, but no child also wants to see his/her parents kill each other every day. Being separated but alive is better than being together but the other is dead. A child would rather see his parents separate than see his mother being beaten everyday by his father. Even worse, when the repeated physical violence is committed not only to the wife but also to their children.
Divorce

DefinitionDivorce (or the dissolution of marriage) is the termination of a marital union, the canceling and/or reorganizing of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the bonds of matrimony between a married couple under the rule of law of the particular country and/or state.LimitationThis debate about ‘divorce’ is not limited to any country. We are going to debate the idea of divorce in general.RulesRound 1 –(a) Acceptance round. (b) No Arguments should be presented. (c) definition and parameters by pro, no arguments.Round 2-3- Arguments will be presented along with rebuttalsRound 4- Summary/Reply (reason why you should win the debate) No additional arguments can be presented.
Best Pokemon

Objection! In the new generations, Magikarp can learn Flail. This is shown in the pokedex. If Magikarp is with high stats, it can defeat a pokemon using Flail or Tackle. In the official pokedex it also states "Magikarp is virtually useless in battle..." however, that is their opinion, and how they don't use Magikarp correctly! Again, this is not about strength, it is about how Magikarp is the best. With that, I believe that Magikarp is the best pokemon! From all the pride I put, I declare that I have won this debate, for I have shown reasoning and evidence, while my opponent only shows evidence and strength!
Best Pokemon

1. When you said "In the official pokedex..." you also said "however, that is their opinion..." This isn't true because the Pokedex is official and known by Pokemon Trainers to be their OFFICIAL source of pokemon information. So, this means that the Pokedex is correct, by fact, and it is not an "opinion." 2. Being the "best" pokemon also has to do with strength or else why would it be called the BEST pokemon? If Magikarp was weak and utterly useless, it wouldn't be called the best. 3. You can't declare that you have won this debate, also you can't take your opinion and shove it down people's throats, forcing them to believe that your opinion is correct while everyone else's is wrong. However, an opinion can be considered correct if it is commonly believed by the majority and the OFFICIAL sources state it, which makes it a fact. 4. I have also shown reasoning, I've explained, I've shown evidence (more than you I might add), and showing evidence while explaining your evidence proving your statement is "reasoning." What you do is not reasoning because you believe that your opinion is correct and refuse to believe anyone else's. 4 con't. I'll add that I've shown more evidence and explanation than you, which results in me having more reasoning than you. Also, if showing evidence from official sources is "bad", you should also be blamed too because you have shown evidence as well.