BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

Contention 1: Earth is OverpopulatedHere's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://factslist.net...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.Contention 2: US colonization of Mars is forbidden!In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestial body for sovernty. What is a celestial body you may ask. (http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoids, asteroid, and planet (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars.Contention 3: Mars would cause nothing but problems.There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little amounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue expansion due to low pressure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shreds by micrometeorites moving at fast speeds. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, implode, or die from suffocation. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Contention 4: Getting there.In my opponent's argument he brings up how will we get there. It seems like the current and most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty, which I had brought up in an earlier point. Which many nations have ratified and/or signed here is proof.
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

I say they should because eventually, man kind will murder the Earth with it's economic activities so we'll need somewhere to live. It would be simple. We start doing experiments on how to convert what little air is in the martian atmosphere into breathable air, put that system into a building and then build enough of those buildings to fit at least 1000-2000 people each (or as many as every country in this world). Getting there would be easy too. Build a lot of rocket ships and ride those there. Make sure they're like a cruise ship so the living conditions are acceptable and not too crowded.
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

Contention 1: Nuclear War/UNMy opponent states that nuclear war would destroy the entire human race, but let me bring up a term that we developed in the 1950's. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. According to Princeton MAD is when nations go to war and empty their nuclear weapons arsenal on each other. The reason I bring this up is that the media in the 50's showed that you would have to be MAD in order to actually do it showing that Nuclear war is unlikely and as I proved last round that nuclear war will not destroy the world. (. https://www.princeton.edu...) Also I showed in round 1 that the US cannot colonize Mars, because of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Contention 2: Global WarmingFirst off, I'd like to bring up that the Antarctic Ice Caps will not melt for another Melina. (. http://www.npr.org...) Secondly, I showed in my last round that the Ice Caps have not been melting since 1979! So this point here is also invalid. ConclusionAfter the debate we can easily see that the US cannot and should not colonize Mars. My opponent has dropped numerous points especially the one where I showed the health problems from living on Mars. We can also see that Global Warming is not a real impact player for hundreds of more years and that nuclear war is unlikely.
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

Section 1: Nuclear War would destroy or atleast the entire human race, and it would be the UN's job. Us being one the most advanced countires in the world would have a hand in colonizing Mars. People would look to the U.S. for help. Section 2: Just because there hasn't been an arctic warning in that area doesn't mean it's not melting. It would take years for it to completely melt, and when it does, it will cause a lot of damage. It would cause a flood that would wipe out a good chunk of the world. Section 3: Now bringing up a comment that was posted on this debate. Why blame the northern people of America? Why say we'd be screwed if the "yankees" colonzed Mars? We'd all do it together, so the dixies would have just as much of a hand in it as the yankees and everybody in between. So either you're jumping to conclusions or you're just racist towards your fellow man.
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

Contention 1: Global Warming. We all remember the Ice Breaker that got stuck in the Arctic earlier this year. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...) On board the Ice Breaker had Global Warming Scientists who stated that the Arctic Ice Caps had melted completely and were going to cause massive world destruction. They were obviously wrong. (http://www.climatedepot.com...) As a matter of fact they have found that there had been no arctic warming there since 1979.Contention 2: Nuclear WarLet's be honest here, nuclear war is not a very likely thing. Why is this, you may ask? The fact is simply that Global Trade is just to big to fail. (http://theweek.com...) Also Nuclear will not destroy the world. (http://www.uow.edu.au...)Contention 3: The ResolutionI would like to remind Pro that the Resolution is that the US, not the UN, should colonize Mars. I will ignore that portion of that argument until he returns to the resolution.Contention 4: My pointsMy points were not touched in the last round so I'll extend them across the board.
Summoner's Legion vs Rise of Mythos (reinstated)

... Then why' you accept instead of decline if you had no arguments? Anyway, here's Everything wrong with Summoner's Legion! Summoner's Legion is a game made by R2Games (Reality Squared Games), who is infamous for "Pay to win" games, Summoner's Legion being no different. The card races are: Human, Elf, Beastmen (a cross between the Half-blood and Beast races from Rise of Mythos), Dwarf, and Undead. That's only 5 races to the 11 of Rise of Mythos. Plus, the Dwarves in the story mode use more than 5 cards with the Comerade ability, which increases their attack by 1 per time any dwarf card (except itself), and eventually (rather quickly) they will have 7+ attack, which will pretty much destroy your troops and your Hero him/herself. There's no World Boss, no Ascension Tower, no auction (I forgot to mention there's also an auction place where you sell high power cards, in which other players use gold to Bid on those cards, and the seller gets rubies at the end, based off of how much gold was bidded at most). Also, the dwarves are from World of Warcraft (I saw an ad for WoW, and they had dwarves that were the same as in Summoner's Legion), and the Harae cards are basically the Sylvi Archers from Rise of Mythos. Oh, I shouldn't forget to mention that on Armor games, Rise of Mythos is rated 90, whereas SUmmoner's Legion is at 64 or something, forgot exactly what rating, but close to 64. To recap, it's a Pay to win game made by a developer known for making these types of games, less content overall (still has the 4 player classes from Rise of Mythos), and is unoriginal. I doubt you can come up with positive comments on Summoner's Legion. Also, what's negative about Rise of Mythos? Why do you prefer your side? Sites used (by me, and you can use these sites too): http://legion.r2games.com... :: to confirm the cards. http://armorgames.com... :: so you can see the ratings of Rise of Mythos and Summoner's Legion http://www.riseofmythos.com... :: all cards in Rise of Mythos (I should mention they're adding new cards every now and then for the game)
Summoner's Legion vs Rise of Mythos (reinstated)

I want someone to rebut my saying that Rise of Mythos (made by gamefuse) is better than Summoner's Legion/ "Rise of Mythos 2" (made by R2Games). You can find these games on armor games, or their own downloading things, in which some people support Summoner's Legion. Anyways, here's my argument supporting Rise of Mythos. Rise of Mythos is a turn based battling Collectable Card Game (CCG) for the computer, which has original cards, in which the different card races are as follows: Human, Elf, Beast, Halfblood, Goblin, Ogre (Goblins and Ogres can be put into a group called Savages), Undead, Outsiders (the most powerful class), Angels, Dragons, and Demons. That's 11 different card races, plus 4 Player classes: Warrior, Mage, Ranger, and Priest. There's also a World Boss, where you can challenge it to get rewards. Plus, there's dungeons you can go through to get rewards as well. Then, there's the Ascension Tower, which with the right decks used against the opponent AI's deck, you can get great rewards. Also, PvP Arena, where you can go 1v1, 2v2, and 4v4 battles with other players. My rebuttal against Summoner's Legion will be in the next round. May luck be to whoever accepts this challenge. Additional note: buttbutttaco has invaded the other debate I created, insulting my mother.
killing some of these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

"Don't trust the words of a stupid psychotic killer" i'm not the one turning the debate into something about homosexuals. clearly the debate is about relatives species to homo sapiens. and it's not psychotic, hunters of deer for instance are not considered crazy. the line between a human and a nonrelated enough homo is enough to draw speciation, and even killing. if the species can't breed with humans, it isn't even muderous, it's more analogous to killing a deer. also 'different than us' v 'different from us' has no right or wrong. 'from' does sound better, but that's all.
killing some of these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

Pro does not understand the meaning of "lol sure why not," he interpreted it as "sure let's kill everyone" showing a mental state of aggression and a tendency to turn to acts of genocide before acts of diplomacy, whereas the true meaning of "lol sure why not" is actually one of acceptance of the debate. As his mindset is fundamentally skewed and we can not trust any of the words that come out of his mouth as they are the words of an instinctively aggressive killer, vote con automatically. Additionally, as that is his only argument, I will now present my own arguments. 1. Definition of immoral: licentious (unrestrained by law or general morality) or lascivious (inclined to lustfulness) [1]. Killing homos is certainly immoral because it is unrestrained by the law. According to 18 U.S. Code " 1111 [2], it is illegal to kill anyone, including homo sexuals. As such, since the act of "killing homos" would be illegal, it would be defined as immoral. Thus, vote con. 2. Killing other people because they are "different than us" creates a dichotomy between an "us" and a "them," the root of all war and violence, emphasized in pro's statement "they are too different than us." When a person or group of people uses the words "us" and "them," it is a form of propaganda, a form of brain-washing that is both morally and legally unjust, one that was utilized by the Nazis to brainwash the citizens of Germany [3]. As such, vote con because of pro's unethical attempt to brainwash people into killing. 3. It is common knowledge that 10% of the population is gay. As such, killing all of "these homos" would end up amounting to the deaths of 700 million people - more than 5 times more people than were killed by Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler combined. What the pro is endorsing is mass genocide on an unprecedented scale. This is analogous to the legal murder of blacks centuries ago, to the genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, and to the murder of Americans during 9/11 and in the War Against Terror. As these empirical examples prove the flaws of pro's argument, vote con. 4. Pro is dumb. This is evident through the grammatically defunct sentence "they are too different than us." The correct version of the sentence would be "they are too different from us." Don't trust the words of a stupid psychotic killer, vote con. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu...
You are stupid.

I know this may be the silliest Debate there has ever been on DDO, but I've been very frustrated lately and I can't seem to grasp what you are- A Troll, Autistic, just plain stupid, or a Child. Either of those results would obviously conclude you are a stupid person. And don't come at me with "okay.me=stupid-not.you=stupid-yes" Because that's impossible to understand and has no supporting evidence or logical arguments that prove it. Accept and tell me why you're not an idiot.
You are stupid.

Grammar and overall unprofessional behavior says otherwise. I have concluded that you cannot be a Child, since not even them would be this stupid- And if they were, they'd be too young and careless to go on DDO. You can't be an Autistic Man/Child, since they would never care about DDO, and no one can be just plain idiotic to the point of not being able to write out a single Grammatically correct sentence, So I have concluded that you can be none other than a Master Troll. In this case, for someone to be bored and incapable of finding a game online, some video on YouTube, or any other kind of entertainment except being a Troll is stupid, due to the incapability of finding another form of entertainment.In other words, You are stupid. Genuinely stupid.
A New Prison Uniform

This isn't how I wanted this debate to go...Considering my opponent's suggestion is outlandish and he has not offered any arguments in its favor, his burden has not been met. I'll save some breath and offer a few straightforward and intuitive arguments against the resolution. 1. It's DangerousThere is a reason that prison outfits are simple and lack moving parts. Any excess, removable, or hardened articles of clothing can easily be crafted into weapons. Pro's suggestion would give criminals access to the following: Tie - Strangulation hazard Belt - Strangulation hazard Shoe Laces - Strangulation hazard Buttons - Stabbing/cutting hazard Zipper - Stabbing/cutting hazard For criminals interested in harming others or themselves, this new change would be a godsend. 2. It Hinders RecaptureIf a prisoner escapes, their distinctive bright jumpsuit makes them easy to spot by civilians and law enforcement alike. If we replace this jumpsuit with a commonly worn outfit, especially an outfit often worn by respectable businessmen, escaped convicts are much more likely to avoid detection. 3. It is ExpensiveWho is paying for all this? Public taxes and government funding pay for prison uniforms, but such garments are cheap and easy to produce. Pro's suggested outfit, on the other hand, would cause these costs to sky-rocket. This added expense is unjustified. 4. It is RidiculousWhat about women? What about juveniles? What about inmates only in jail for one day? What about death row inmates? What is the point of this? In short, this suggestion is dangerous, costly, and pretty much pointless. I await an Pro's case.
There Are Only Two Genders

OK, Let's begin. Humans have two sexes: male and female. Males have the chromosomes XY, And females have the chromosomes XX. When a human is born with a different set of chromosomes, They are either retarded (Turner's syndrome and others) or hermaphrodites. So technically, There are more than two sexes, But all the non-XX or non-XY ones are just deviations from the original. Just like when some people are born with twelve toes, You don't teach kids that people have twelve toes, You teach kids that people have ten toes. Which means that biologically there are only two sexes. Now, Some people say that sex doesn't equal gender. Which is biologically incorrect. For example, The case of David Reimer (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/David_Reimer) proves that. When he was a baby, Reimer lost his penis in an accident. A doctor called John Money, Who believed that there were more than two genders and that gender was determined by culture and social conditions, Raised him. Money raised David (re-named Brenda) as a female, And even had the boy take sex reassignment surgery. If gender was really a result of culture and not connected to sex, Then David would be perfectly fine as a female, Right? But Reimer later had an operation to return to his biological, Male sex and even commited suicide because of Money's abuse. If gender was not equal to sex, Then Reimer would be perfectly fine with being a girl. Some people also claim that gender is a spectrum. You could say that every person is a special mix of male and female. For example, A gay man might be more feminine than a straight man, But does that mean they are of different gender? Of course not. But then, SJWs create new genders such as Netrouis, Third Gender, Demigirl, Epicene, Femme, Butch. . . Which are complete nonsense and are really just different mixes of masculinity and femininity. Science says that there are two genders: male and female, And there are some deviations like agender and genderfluid. But these aren't real genders, They are switching between a gender and having no gender. Just like atheism isn't a religion, Agender isn't a gender either. Which leaves us with 2 genders: male and female, And various mixes of those.
nurses wearing uniform vs. nurses not wearing uniform

My opponent once again fails to offer any arguments. This is one of the major flaws on this site, people who start debates without the intention of actually debating. It upsets me that she may still get a few votes from other people whom don't care about substance. I am not a semantics debater or a devil's advocate debater, I only debate in the pursuit of teaching and learning. Unfortunately, I have learned nothing of true substance within this debate. So here goes the reasons for as to why you should vote in my favor. My opponent offers ONE legitimate argument... I refuted it twice. I offered THREE arguments....My opponent never refuted. She states that I could've asked for clarification in the comments section... in an upset tone* I should not have to ask for clarification, everything should be made clear within your "case" Furthermore, I offered you the opportunity to give me ANOTHER challenge...18 hours ago! You NEVER responded. I gave you the opportunity, you forfeited it. That is not my fault. http://www.debate.org... My opponents is far away from upholding her burden of proof. Please vote off substance, please vote CON. "I can only see a CON vote" -Alexander
nurses wearing uniform vs. nurses not wearing uniform

Your welcome Charmaine. Clarification at this point in your case, especially whenever it changes you initial premise is unfair on my behalf. You initiated this debate through a position that advocated the following point: "Nurses should wear hats as part of their uniform to give them a more professional look" YOU gave that as the ONLY point within your case. I agreed to debate under said circumstances. This is the only point I'll argue. You bringing up hygiene and health is outside of what you initially stated. For this reason, your first point in your rebuttal will be the ONLY point I will address. _______________________________ My opponent's first point reads, "Nurses should wear nurses caps, to give their uniform a professional look, and not having others seeing their hair while they are at work" Professional looks have been achieved already through the nurse's outfit. I have explained all of this already within the second point in my case. As a matter of fact, my opponent doesn't attack my case, all she does is add more points, which is unfair at this point in the debate. It's similar to me starting a debate about evolution, then moving on to talk about how global warming does not existed without offering a link. This is unfair, for that reason I urge you to vote CON. ________________________________ My opponent tries to fix her mistake about the hats issue, but, as I pointed put earlier, since she did not specify that implies that she is supporting the usage of any and ALL kinds of hats. She doesn't refute this, she just once again changes her position. The only attack she makes thereafter is that she doesn't agree with me, which is not an appropriate way to refute a case. If it were than I could just say "I disagree with my opponent so vote CON". The disagreement between two people is implied with a debate, it is not a method of refutation. "As of now I can only see a CON vote" -Alexander
nurses wearing uniform vs. nurses not wearing uniform

Thank you DrAlexander for your great response. let me get one thing clear, I was referring to nurses caps that comes with their uniforms, not the hats and caps you mentioned. I do not agree with what you have stated and I will give you three reasons. Nurses should wear nurses caps, to give their uniform a professional look, and not having others seeing their hair while they are at work my second argument is Nurses should wear nurses caps for hygiene proposes, it is very unsanitary when a nurse is taking care of their clients and their hair is all over flying everywhere. Nurse sometimes have to serve their clients food and drinks and I strongly believe for that reasons caps should remain a part of all nurses uniforms. www.askjeeves.com