BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World government > present day UN

1) No lasting wars. If the world is united under one government, these terrorists will be given representation, all countries will have "state rights" much like the U.S. states rights. Thus these terrorists have nothing to fight for or against because they have their rights as long as they are in their own country. 2) Combined technology. If there is one world government, we don't need to invest in military technology at all. And can devote all those funds, time, and manpower to develop other more beneficial technology like the ones I've already mentioned. 3) Acceptance of other Cultures. Con has mislabeled my argument. There will be greater acceptance, no removing or integrating involved at all. Each country will be represented in the world government. To counter my opponents points: "1) Taxation Such a government would have to have revenue, and expecting individual nations to donate results in a free-rider problem, so this revenue would have to be forced. Because many nations are socialist, no universal taxation method can be used." Each country will function as a state, they will donate based on population in a rate that is voted and agreed upon by the representatives of the countries. "2) Civil Wars Civil wars would be common, as discussed earlier. In such a case, who is the world government to side with? To pick one is to enact favoritism and damage a country's civilians. To pick both is to fight one's self and aid the war. To pick neither is to do nothing, and the purpose of the world government is defeated." The government does not take sides, it neutralize both parties. "3) Sovereignty. Sovereignty would end, as demonstrated with the United States example, within a few centuries, as the world government expands. Governmental responsibilities would overlap, creating inefficiency. Sovereignty would be infringed upon at many levels, preventing the competition of political ideas and public policies. Because of this, politics would become only a theory, and no more of a science than sociology or economics." A country in the world government can feel free to secede, if it feels that it is being misrepresented or is discontent. They will, however, have a limited military, if they want one at all.
cause and effect is logic

Vi Spex, it is a honor to debate you. Every day I think of you romantically, and sexually. Please bear my children. Now,with that out of the way, here are my arguments. Definition of cause and effect: Noting a relationship between actions or events such that one or more are the result of the other or others. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition of logic: A proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... From these definitions, it is clear that cause and effect is NOT logic.
Golden Years Pirate vs Chivalrous Knight

My thanks to my worthy opponent for a remarkable debate. I understand about the time crunch; no worries. I ask the voters not to hold any accidentally dropped points against my opponent. As it is, I think he did an excellent job responding to my points. The basics have been threshed out in these few rounds; obviously I am not going to add new arguments in the last round, so I will restrict myself to a clarification or two, and a summary of how the battle stands. **** For the record, I accept my opponent's explanation of the weight and maneuverability issues. I also admit that explosions would be an unprecedented experience for a 13th century knight. The pirate would become a fiend, an agent of the Devil Himself; spewing brimstone and throwing hellfire. Monsieur Abelard, a good Catholic, would cross himself in amazement and fear and call upon his name saint and the Queen of Heaven to save him from this wizardry. And then, with new resolve and due wariness, he would address himself to the fight anew, knowing there could be no running away from a foe who could drag his soul to hell. At least, that is my humble opinion. It is up to the voters to decide the outcome of this battle. To summarize briefly, and as fairly as possible: The Pirate will almost certainly wound the Knight multiple times with his firearms, probably in the legs but possibly in the chest. It seems unlikely that he can kill or seriously incapacitate the Knight this way, however, and he is unlikely to get a chance to reload once the battle begins. At that point, the battle comes down to a hand-to-hand combat; with a wounded Knight with his armour mostly intact against an unarmoured but unwounded Pirate. The points on which the fight would turn at that point: How much blood has the Knight lost, and does it affect his ability to fight? Does the Knight still have his spear? Is the Knight's courage proof against a foe with seemingly supernatural powers? Is the Pirate's superior agility able to compensate for his lack of protection? Can the Pirate, with a one-handed cutlass, guard himself against the heavy strokes of the Knight's hand-and-a-half broadsword? These are up to the voters to decide. Many thanks, Venerable; it was great fun!
Golden Years Pirate vs Chivalrous Knight

For my part, I argue that in single combat a Knight of the European chivalric tradition could defeat a pirate from the Golden Age of Piracy; however unlikely their meeting might be, as over 300 years separates them. We will waive the normal round of definitions; neither my opponent nor I wish to waste this topic on semantics. ----------- My opponent and I step into our time machines and whisk back in time. I travel through time and space to the little Mediterranean island of Malta, in the year AD 1300. There I find Monseigneur Abelard du Crecy standing guard on the wharf, equipped similarly to the knights in this picture: . http://upload.wikimedia.org... His offensive equipment consists of a spear (medium weight, used against infantry; probably about 8' long;) a longsword (about 42" long, weighted for hand-and-a-half use for maximum agility without sacrificing armour-piercing strength); and a dagger around 18" long, balanced for swift one-handed use. He is protected by a chain mail hauberk, coif, and leggings; the entirety of his body except his face is covered by a double weave iron chain, capable of turning a sword's edge and breaking daggers. The protection against bullets is less than could be hoped; still it should minimize the damage; the padding worn underneath the hauberk and coif help reduce the impact shock. [2] His breastplate and helm are forged of mild steel, and are quite capable of resisting a small arms bullet even from relatively close range. [1, 2] His broad shield is also capable of repelling pistol fire, and is designed to protect most of Abelrad's body when he is in his fighting stance. He has no horse. 1. Resistance to firearms: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Description of armour: . http://stormshock.com... I kidnap M. du Crecy and drag him into the time machine, letting him out on the infinite featureless plain my opponent and I chose for the battle. The Pirate is waiting there for us. The Pirate, as he has the only ranged weapons, has the initiative. Shaking off his bewilderment at finding himself transported to an infinite featureless plain, he draws his flintlock pistols and fires at Abelard. With usual flintlock efficiency, one of them misfires and causes no damage. The other fires, and the bullet glances harmlessly off the Knight's breastplate. Abelard has had time to pull his shield off his back and assume his fighting stance by this time; spear at the ready, he closes with the Pirate. The Pirate, even if he is well-versed in the use of his cutlass, is horribly out-ranged by the spear, outmatched by Abelard's lifetime of training in the use of blades, and has almost no protection whatsoever from the Knight's weapons. Unless by some mischance the bullet enters one of the eye holes of his helm, the Knight is almost certain to survive this battle. The Pirate will not get a chance to reload without retreating; and although he will be alive, he will also be defeated by having run away. ------ Obviously, I cannot tell what tack my opponent will choose to take on this; it is with great anticipation I await his arguments.
Golden Years Pirate vs Chivalrous Knight

Greetings to my opponent. Good luck and have fun. Keep it clean. In this argument I am going to debate that the pirate (supposing that the pirate is not just your ordinary, knife toting scum of the seas but a chap of a little skill and class, perhaps even swordsmanship), can beat the Chivalrous knight, though he won't walk away unscathed. The pirate will, of course, be armed with tha custom weaponry of the time, and this does include various firearms. I expect your knight to be armed in his custom weaponry and armour, as well (thus, no longbows. ; ) ). Also, I request that my opponent makes clear as to whether or not the knight shall start out upon a horse. This is extremely important as it depicts maneuverability in a large way. It shall start the knight at an advantage, but probably could also finish the knight. Cheers, I'll let my opponent start. : )
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

Firstly, yes there are many different types of saxophones but it is very easy to switch between playing them. Yes, you may need some practice, but after just a couple sessions you will be on the same level with your new instrument as you were with your old. Secondly, it is not very difficult to switch between embouchuresof similar instruments such as the flute and piccolo because studies have proven that musicians are able to use mmore of their brain than the average human, even if it is like one fifth of a percentile so things like transitions are simpler. You are right in saying that a musician has to remember their fingering, embouchure, notes, and air but a singer has to remember these things as well. They have to be on top of breathing, notes, WORDS, humms, dramatic pauses, AND making sure not to let the music overpower them if they are not singing acapella. Do you see now why singers have it harder than musicians?
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

You brought up a great point, but you can play different types of music just as you can sing different types of music! You can play jazz, pop, rock, classical, opera, swing, latin just as you can sing them. There are also many more groups than you mentioned in your argument, and even if they were just grouped into those groups, there would be over thousands and thousands in each of those groups! Also, say you learn to play the saxophone, there are over fifteen different types of saxophones, each unique and very different. For instance, the flute and piccolo have the same fingerings for notes, so someone might say that it would be easy to switch in between the two. But, are they wrong!! In order to play the piccolo you have to have a COMPLETELY different embouchure than the flute. Also, in chorus all you have to do is change the flow of your air to change notes. In band, you have to move your fingers your mouth AND your air all are the same time. This makes it VERY challenging!
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

Singing and playing an instrument, both require lot's of time and dedication. There are so many different types of singing however their are only so many different types of instrumetns. Woodwind, brass, percussion, and string. it's been said that once you can play one instrument within an instrumental family, you can play them all. YOu essentially you just hav eto learn four instruments to be a music guru. With singing, there is rock, opera, classical, jazz, too many to name, too numerous to ever master. One can master many more instruments in that time, even if not them all.
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

I do agree with you in some senses but mastering all of the components of music is very challenging. But, I am not talking about completely mastering either of these topics. There is no way in two or three years of middle school that someone could COMPLETELY master the art of music. So, my point is that you can teach someone to sing fairly decently ALOT quicker and easier than you can teach a person to play a complex instrument such as any of those in band. Also, not everyone can play instruments just as not all people can sing. It takes natural ability to be able play or sing, but if you took two identical people with natural musical "talent" you could teach them to sing ALOT faster than you could teach someone to play an instrument!
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

I agree with in saying that it does take a very long time to fully master an instrument. However, you are overlooking the efforts needed to sing and that is where we collide. I play the trumpet in my school's band fairly well as well as sing in our school's chorus where I struggle badly. Instruments are designed so that anyone can play it, howver, if you don't have a natural ability to sing you more than likely will never be able to. Not everyone has an ear to hear and recognize different pitches nor match their voice with the one beside them and in there lies teh difficulty in chorus. Moreover, one can run out of breath, bite one's tongue, and goodness knows what else. If any person presses the Middle C key on a piano you will always get the same exact sound, every time, whereas every person who tries to produce a Middle C tone with their voice may not always do so.
In middle school, the band course is more challenging than the chorus course.

I think that band is harder than chorus because it takes years and years to master an instrument whereas to master the skill of singing it only takes six months to a year. Also, you have to work VERY VERY hard to achieve your full potential in band. You have to practice for at least half an hour EVERY day to achieve your goals. Also, there is usually many different melodies and rythyms going on at one time. In the choral program, there is usually two basically similar melodies and one base melody. That makes it easier to follow than being on your own. In band you also have to be able to multitask to keep track of what your fingers, mind, lips, and eyes are doing all at the same time. You have to be able to play your notes right, hold the right articulation, pay attention to the dynamics, listen to your other members so that you can stay balanced, look at your score, AND pay attention to the director. This makes it very challenging.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

You son of a donkey's dildo.Of course weed is unhealthy, you fool! Sleeping pills and Chantix, an anti-smoking medication (that is a total Plutocatic scam) are legal, but they have ridiculous side affects! Something being a medicine does not prove that it's not harmful!You're probably just another Christian stoner punk who has been brainwashed by the Weed Agenda! Immature worthless punk. Maybe someday you'll grow up!.What has weed ever done to me?! I used to smoke the crap! It made me paranoid and crazy! I couldn't drive anywhere without not braking in time to stop at a stop sign.Fortunately, I'm not crazy anymore. Unlike you, Libertarian punk.This "Weed Agenda" is a plan by the Plutocracy to legalize Marijuana in all states, for both medical and recreational purposes, and make us intelligent people look like fools for defending our stance on the issue!Some Democracy America is, huh? We'd surely be much better off as a Socialist nation, and Charlie Chaplin would agree.Immature punk. Maybe someday you'll grow up!
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

Weed, while it is by definition addictive. But it's not unhealthy. If it was, why would it be legal medically? If it's unhealthy, why does it serve as both a method for cancer patients AND as a form of painkiller? (Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.)And why does it piss YOU off? What has weed ever done to you? And what's a weed agenda? Do you actually think that exists? I'm going to let you reply, because I really want to know what a weed agenda is.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

Hello, it is an honor to participate in my first debate on debate.org, although I see many people on this site are not very-well politically educated.I am arguing that marijuana should remain illegal in this country.Marijuana benefits the plutocracy and is only used as a way for retarded Libertarian Christian hippies to get what they want. It's one step away from Anarchy! Marijuana, contrary to belief, is addictive, unhealthy, and benefits the plutocracy.If Charlie Chaplin wasn't a silent film actor, he would have put it best.But since we don't know what he sounded like, I will express what he would have believed. That it benefits the lousy punk Libertarian Plutocracy! It pisses me off to no end how ridiculous these Islamic Hippie-crits are getting with their stupid "Weed Agenda". It must be stopped!It simply pisses me off. I will not stand for it, and nor will America.The Weed Agenda Must Be Stopped!
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

So I'm going to assume that it's #3. Okay good. I'd just like to say that, although my opponent demonstrated such maturity and kept his dignity (sarcasm), I think that weed really doesn't do anything. And although, according to Pro, I'm a (altogether now) brainwashed Christian Libertarian Capitalist albino immature stoner tittylicker ignorant childish retarded robotic pathetic foolish plutocatic worthless crazy son of a donkeys dildo punk, I still think weed has close to no negative affects, and legalizing it would do no harm to society. BTW I'd love to have more debates with you, as I've now discovered you are such a polite & intelligent debater. (again, sarcasm. I feel the need to point it out because it's clear to me you're the dumbest thing alive.)
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

You are four seconds away from wraking havoc in your undies. Wtf.I know what we're debated, whether or not weed should be legal. But you're losing your mind on the internet because I disagree with you and think you're completely bonkers for thinking there's a "weed agenda", which there isn't. Okay, look at the title of the website. DEBATE.ORG. NOT, I repeat, NOT spout random words into text thinking it'll make sense. How am I insulting my elder? How am I a tittylicker? I don't think brainwashing exists literally or figuratively because that's just ridiculous. You never directly said everyone was going to smoke weed, but yous said legalizing weed would make smart people become stoner idiots, which implies that everyone would smoke weed. Bamboozled means a bit wierded out, it doesn't mean you win nutjob.And the reason I think you might be a troll is because you are way to passionate about this, you are way to angry, and you are making me genuinly laugh. Again, can't beleive I have to repeat this, I'm not a christian.Look, I'm going to try and debate with you, but I'm starting to figure out that this situation is one of 3 things.1. You're some kid with a computer trolling me just to get a rise out of me, which btw, isn't working.2. You're a person who thinks weed shouldn't be legal, but has anger issues so you spout words you can think of without remembering their definition3. You actually, genuinley beleive that weed is the spawn of evil or whatever, that there is a weed agenda, and that you're using every word you've used in a correct context.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

Are you kidding me?I am four seconds away from wreaking havoc in my undies!Are you mentally retarded? Because I think perhaps your mother may have dropped you on your pathetic robot head as a child.Of course, that would imply that you're not still a child!You completely steered away from what my original contention was! Are you even aware of what debating really is? You stated that if weed was dangerous, why would it be a medicine? I provided a counterexample saying that Marijuana being a medicine does not prove it is healthy. Don't be so ignorant!And that wasn't even my argument! I was simply claiming that to be so up-the-weiner ignorant that you would support weed, you'd either have to smoke weed or be a Christian and I think both!The fact that you believe that literal brainwashing is real is sickening. I was talking about brainsoap through the media! That's how they're using brainwashing to legalize Marijuana! Can you even argue?!Don't you dare insult your elder! That's very poor conduct, you tittylicker!Did I ever say that everyone was going to smoke weed? Why don't you read my argument, you immature punk. "I'm still bamboozled."I accept your resignation then.You see? The Weed Agenda is making you perceive me as a troll now! Yet you are ignorant enough to believe this ridiculous Christian Plutocracy is not taking place! You remind me of Powder from the movie, Powder. You think you're so smart. Smarter then everyone in the universe. But one day you realize that you are no more than some albino! You just wait, and like Powder, you'll disappear in a cloud of lightning and never be seen again. Worthless immatue punk. Obviously brainwashed by confirmation bias and the weed agenda. You'll be hearing more from me, young man.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.

Okay, FIRSTLY, Donkeys don't use sexual devices. But back on topic, sleeping pills are way more dangerous than weed, and they're legal. What exactly is your point?Also 1: I'm an athiest, not a christian. 2: I don't even smoke weed, so half your argument is dead. And how exactly am I brainwashed? You'd think if someone with enough power to brainwash people into think weed is ok would use that power to legalize it?And weed didn't make you a hysterical lunatic. I can tell weed didn't need any help with that.And making weed legal is not going to make everybody a stoner. Do you see everybody smoking cigarettes? A lot of them smoke tobacco, yes, but not everybody. And I guess you technically explained what a weed agenda is, but I'm still bamboozled.I'm going to hope you're not trolling me, becuase this is the funniest thing that has ever happened.
Abortion should not be illegal

First of all I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify what he means by abortion. Does he mean all form of abortions for any reason, or all forms except partial birth etc. Secondly, I will not respond to my opponent's arguments until the second round, as that would give me an unfair advantage (an extra chance to dispute his arguments). The predominate mentality of people who support abortion is that the woman should have the choice. I agree with this, however I believe the woman (and the man) have the choice when they choose to have sex. All abortion does is allow for people to easily escape from their responsibility. Think about it. In what other situation would you be allowed to walk away from your responsibility. Would you be allowed to walk away from a test because you weren't ready for it? Of course not. Would you be allowed to leave a car accident were you injured someone? Absolutely not? So why should you be allowed to escape your responsibility to see the child through birth? That's all that is required of you? If you don't want the child you can give it up for adoption afterwards. Furthermore, abortion is essentially murder. If a drunk driver gets in a car accident with a pregnant woman, and they kill the child, they are charged with manslaughter or murder (2 accounts if the woman dies too). Here are some definitions according to Merrian-Webster for you to think about: Murder- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought Since the resolution says it SHOULD not be illegal, that implies that it currently is illegal, and thus abortion is unlawful. life- a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction A embryo has all of these characteristics.