BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
help me with debate

I stand in negation to the resolution, "help me with debate. " As The Instigator and Pro for this debate, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution. If I can show otherwise, the resolution shall be negated. I shall not help my opponent with debate. Now that I am currently engaged in a debate with my opponent, if I were to help him with debate, he may be able to create better and stronger arguments that would defeat mine. I would not want to help an opponent in a debate, for my opponent would have a better chance of winning the debate. If I help my opponent with debate, he could eventually become good enough to destroy me in future debates. I would not set myself up for a loss or disadvantage, so logically I would not help my opponent with debate. I thank my opponent and the readers for the experience. I urge a Con vote, being that the resolution is negated. ============================================== If my opponent really did not want to debate the resolution but instead seek advice, I shall present that now. My opponent quoted: "O. K Hello all im going into 9th grade debate and i want to be the best there is so i would love some help from some people. if you could help me any body that would be cool. " Here are some tips on becoming a better and stronger debater: 1. Research the topic of the debate well. Research helps you understand the concepts of a debate topic and can provide significant amounts of information that can be utilized for stronger argumentation. a) Make sure the websites/sources you use are credible and are relevant to what the debate is covering. 2. Create logical and consistent arguments. If you are having trouble piecing the arguments together, simply think about the most important arguments you need to include and focus on them. 3. Providing examples and scenarios may be beneficial depending on the topic of the debate. It is greatly appreciated when the readers/an audience can relate to an example or really capture the essence of what is being targeted. 4. Do not come across as spiteful or arrogant. You need to appear intelligent, respectful, and appreciative. It can be a huge turn-off for a debater if he/she is looked down upon because of faults in personality. 5. Relax and enjoy yourself. Debate is about learning and creating different viewpoints and different issues. Stressing out only makes it harder to debate effectively. *I would like to note that if my opponent really did want to debate the resolution, then forget the advice and only look at my argument. If my opponent only wanted to use this debate for pointers, then my advice should be taken into consideration. * ==========================================
help me with debate

My opponent quoted: "o. .k so what is the best stuff to talk about right now in this mess of the world i'm thing it's the econmoy? what do you think it is" Discussing the "best" things to talk about is subjective. I personally enjoy engaging in conversations regarding philosophy and morality. However, this is irrelevant to the debate itself. I heavily urge a Con vote. My opponent has not provided a single argument, but I have. Also, my opponent was satisfied with my response, proving that I have done my job. Thank you for the debate, I heavily urge a Con vote.
help me with debate

My opponent quoted: "Thank you very much for your help and now hopefully i will be a really good debater just like my brother and his debate team you may no him he is really good his room is full of metals and trophys" It appears that my opponent has been satisfied with my advice. Since my opponent has not refuted my argument regarding the resolution, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. I am pleased I have been able to satisfy my opponent. I await a rebuttal.
alex mercer vs hancock

Ok now first of all you wrote alex wrong if you want help with your spelling go to school.what the con said about hancock throwing alex mercer to the sun now that is some stupid non sense is that first alex is not gonna allow hancock to throw him to the sun now those scenario that you made up you wrote everything that hancock is gonna do to alex i am sure he will find away how to defend himself.now we know that alex mercer can hold his breath for a really long time,when hancock is gonnna be flying up to the sky alex is gonna punch him,grab him and do his bullet drop which will allow him to go back in earth and hancock will be damaged.alex was gonna consume ray embray who means alot to hancocks wife he might then persuade her to go where alex wants to go thats all i have to say for now.
alex mercer vs hancock

Fare enough but if alex mercer disguise himself and persuaded hancocks wife I believe he can win then as we saw in the movie when Hancock was in the hospital and with his wife their they did put the needle in his skin which proves that if you trap both Hancock and his wife alex mercer will be able to consume him . Now what the con said about alex being vulnerable to biochemical weapons at that time when crosse stuck the needle in alex mercer skin alex did not have the armor power yet so that proves that alex can defend hi me self easily by putting his armor on . Now we all know that alex mercer can regenerate in incredible speed so even if Hancock takes his head of or blows him up he may regenerate,plus alex mercer if he can consume many people we know that he will use the devestator which causes incredible mayhem.alex mercer can control the infected which he can call during battle so every infected can attack while alex is gone sneak behind him and and consume him.As the con said that Hancock has invincible skin will alex digs in your blood cells with his tendrils which will cause in consuming.
Autumn Tournament: Police Privatization

Wylted has forfeited. Vote Con. Privatising the police force will give too much power to corporations, will pose accountability and legitimacy problems, it might have negative effects on the poor who can't afford police privately, it could change police culture in ways that harm those who most need police protection, it could affect public perception of police legitimacy, and also it could decrease quality and training as a way for corporations to get a cost advantage. Also, remember that police protection is a ln inherently public service, so there will be free rider problems of its fully privatized. It's basically a terrible idea, under both a utilitarian/ecnonomic analysis and a nonutilitarian analysis of basic goods
Autumn Tournament: Police Privatization

Whatever topic FT wants. Choose winner system is in place to compensate for the fact no RFD is necessary. 1. Choose whatever fair topic you want. 2. Set whatever rules you want, that don't conflict with the ones I set in round 1, so long as they are fair. 3. If FT is pro whatever topic he chooses, he should argue it in round 2 and skip the final round, otherwise we start in round 2. Edit: RFDs are required now. Also FT told me to choose the topic, so here it goes: "Rabbi's sucking on baby's penises should be legal in the United States" http://abcnews.go.com... Edit 2: FT is also pro on the previous topic, so Topic change. "The United States police force should be privatized". I'm pro on this topic. Edit 3: let me just throw up some alternative topics and see if FT wants any of them. I'm pro on all the following. 2. Stretching out midgets should be illegal. 3. Judicial Corporal punishment. 4. Women have a civilizing effect on men. 5. Abraham Lincoln was even gayer than Julia's Caeser. 6. Amelia Earheart did not die in that trip around the world. 7. The FDA should be abolished. 8. The Federal reserve should be abolished 9. The Transhumanist agenda is a net benefit for mankind 10. This universe is probably some sort of simulation, by some sufficiently advanced species. Edit 4: 11. Filial responsibility laws should be enforced in the United States. 12. Libertatians should trust the government more.
Informational Technocracy

Presently I advice you to imagine George Orwells 1984 for a comparison to my point of view. His vision of what information as an entity or means of power in society strangely enough portrayed as a nightmare in the film version is the scares of informational technocracy. An indicament there is no rule in such a society is contrary to 1984 a vision of what a free non governmental liberal press has done for us previously. So how is it not a contradiction in this known element of professional press today as a servant of political idealism. By a non-rule in informational technocracy stands the trust and confidence in information provided independently by whomever want's an extraordinary concept of relevancy today. In our presence on internet. Will internet eventually develop into a form of society as it already has serving individualist idealism without any form of goverment or will it develop into informational technocracy with a form of goverment. Look into my previous debates for opinions on this really. Alright so an informational technocracy is established whom bares the authority or prestige to master an informational technocracy? Thus no rule in information by technocracy.
Informational Technocracy

For now, I will help the audience understand the resolution and my standing. =DEFINITIONS= (Princeton.wordweb.com) 1. Technocracy - a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control (The Technocracy Movement was a social movement which arose in the early 20th century. Technocracy was highly popular in the USA for a brief period in the early 1930s, when it overshadowed many other proposals for dealing with the crisis of the Great Depression.) 2. Informational - Informative Observations- 1. The resolution is not a complete sentence, and my opponent's case is cryptic. Therefore, any arguement posted can not be accused as a semanticized interpretation. 2. This debate is far too confusing to answer all questions. =ARGUEMENTS= CONTENTION 1- Technocracy goes against American ideals of Democracy. Subpoint a) This was only briefly considered in an act of desperation. For example, I, once or twice, briefly considered suicide when I was depressed. It wasn't a good idea, but I was willing to entertain anything that might promise relief. So did the people in the Great Depression with this idea. =REBUTTALS= 1. My opponent asks: "Do we love information more than we supposedly doubt our fellow men's sincerity?" I can't speak for the people, but since you asked me personally, I can speak for myself. Yes, I do. Periodically, (wo)men can lie. Information, with good sources on the Internet (which I think you're arguing), can be cross referanced for truth. Far more easier, too, than to do that with "our fellow man". 2. "What is known to all of us is that information has nothing to do opposing or supporting a power structure of society." That's not true. We almost impeached a president of ours because we were informed that he was corrupt. He resigned before we could do so. 3. "Technocacy on the other hand has intentions of fragility to portray it's fundament in communication today obviously not to be sensorship. By informationy I reason a total submissive worshipment of what you get to know." Knowledge is power, but it isn't everything. Having scientists and technical experts in control of our government would not be wise. Such a sudden, drastic change in our government can not have more immediate benfiets than nonbenefits. 4. "In fact informational technocracy is an illusion. How then do I defend an illusion more functional than any other way of rule? Simply because there is no rule." Contrary to what you may believe, our country is ruled "by the people, for the people". If you claim that "Informational Technocracy" is an illusion, this is detrimental to your case, since our government, now, is not an illusion. =NOTE(S)= This was a very difficult "word wall" to dechipher. I did not understand all of my opponent's points, but I did the best I could.
Informational Technocracy

The essence of free press. Liberal idealism. What makes political dominion after parliamentarism a subject of information? Is it's dominion in a structural thesis of honesty? Is information portrayed in realist assumption a manner of identity? What defines reality? Are there threats to a power structure in liberty of press? What is the modern impact on internet towards society? Information some tyrants before have known to use for purposed illusive brutal medieval power synchrony. This known for a fact is a sherade. My question to you adversary is; Do we love information more than we supposedly doubt our fellow men's sincerity? What is known to all of us is that information has nothing to do opposing or supporting a power structure of society. This is a clue. It is widely standard school education. We are all taught to learn for ourselves. By informationy I reason it isn't a solid power fundament. Technocracy on the other hand has intentions of fragility to portray it's fundament in communication today obviously not to be sensorship. By informationy I reason a total submissive worshipment of what you get to know. This is an ancient thesis in which technocracy combined with informationy referentially an illusion of fundamentally sane ideals as order and law. What an informational technocracy disorderly imposes upon societies actual structure fortunately it's folk. The imposition bestowed on us with this rather disfunctional illusion of what is honest is in information. "This is what has become of us. This is how we are. This is what I want to be. Yes I also learned this." Then...To identify with informations from a technocracy is a rather fragile function although it isn't the body of rule nor a power structure. In fact informational technocracy is an illusion. How then do I defend an illusion more functional than any other way of rule? Simply because there is no rule.
In a movie, hero vs villain, hero always win

1. Just to name a few. There's Primal Fear, all Saw movies, Brazil, Rosemary"s Baby No Country for Old Men, The Silence of the Lambs, The Vanishing,The Usual Suspects etc. 2.BoP means Burden of Proof. Which you did not show for you only stated most movies, with no specific title. 3. You claim you can name some yet you did not and now can not. Vote for me.
In a movie, hero vs villain, hero always win

1. The tile of the debate as I quote says "In a movie, hero vs villain, hero always wins." and the full resolution says "Heroes are always shown above their actual characters. Any movie you watch, the hero shall always win, no matter how powerful the villain is." But later in you state "Only few movies let the bad side win." so you admit that not always do the heroes win thus you concede the debate. 2. You didn't mention any movie title and the BoP is on you.
In a movie, hero vs villain, hero always win

Meaning of concession? I shall begin with my argument. In most movies the heroes or the good side always win, and are shown far above the limits of a normal character, while in few movies has the villain been the one struggling and then claiming the victory. I would like con to tell me if I am wrong, but in almost every movie the good side win, so the heroes are shown much more powerful then meant to be.
should we colonize mars

Then there are the unknown dangers that the astronauts would be facing. There"s no knowing what problems they could run into until it has already happened - It"s like using a ship without a hull, hoping that it can float. If the astronauts do run into a problem, how desperate measures do we need to take to get them back safely? The Apollo 13 mission is a perfect example of the unexpected - from the heat shield cracking to the dangerously low power.It will not be worth it to take the huge risk and the astronauts could be very weak, if not worse. Also about the point that you made about the money: who's going to pay for it? and plus if the spaceship failed and malfunctioned then you will die in that flying coffin we built. another point is the fact that we could easily run out of resources beforehand or during the mission. good luck to whoever goes on that doomed/jinxed spaceship
should we colonize mars

we have the technology to go to mars by 2020 - way before the mass extinction is due to happen. We've got the suits, We've got the technology to get oxygen, we've got everything we need to get to mars. Oh there's that little problem about money- but we are talking about a world wide evacuation here so money should not be taken account . Everybody is helping each other by doing this so that we all have an even chance of getting to mars. Plus- in your arguments you said it would be unethical to any aliens that lived on Mars, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such creatures ever existed on mars. Plus- we have to presume that even if they existed, they would have to way more advanced in technology than us to avoid getting detected, so instead of us being sad to the aliens, it would be much more likely to be the other way round. Therefore I must conclude that I think the only way humanity will live to write this legend another day is if we colonize mars.
should we colonize mars

You asked for it so here my essay: The exploration of Space has always been one of the hardest, and now we are planning to colonize Mars. Developments in space are rapidly advancing but a new problem has sprung up - is it ethical to do so? This essay will show that despite current efforts, a trip to Mars will not be ethical and will not benefit us as much. Overall, the space explorations will come at a huge expense of the developers and the negatives will outweigh the good. Mars is an extremely dangerous place. The astronauts would constantly be facing new challenges and get harmed in the process. The carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is toxic and dust devils - mini tornadoes - could sweep through the base. Scariest of all, the global dustorms can engulf the planet in a layer of dust and block out the sun for days, even weeks at a time.A real life example was the global dust storm that occurred on July 10th, 2001. Within less than a month the whole entire planet of mars was covered by thick layers of dust. Our astronauts would have no way of communicating back due to the interference caused by the dust and they could easily die, along with billions of dollars of equipment they brought with them. Even if the dangers are taken care of, do you think it"s right to just invade mars without warning? We don"t like it when our territories get taken away from us, so why should we, with no right to do so, take it away from them?It"s just like if someone dropped a $100 note on the ground, is it right to take it and run away or to hand it in instead? As humans, it is not humanity to simply take over mars. If there are, the martians could be angered and start a war or something along those lines. Our astronauts could be killed in the process and we would be blamed for the conflict that was sparked between the two worlds. Plus, if it didn't work overpopulation would still exist - it's a big gamble that isn't worth it.
should we colonize mars

Why not colonize Mars? People are dying- we cannot afford to cross our fingers and hope that we will escape the mass extinction that has been predicted. The out comes predicted are 1. global flooding- by 2100, the statue of liberty will be up to it's armpits in water. And that's only the start- all the ice wouldn't have fully melted yet. 2. increased carbon dioxide levels will mean that global warming will be as deadly as ever, and that temperatures are going to be too high for us to live in. 3. oh yes- Why not evolve? well in 100 years, this is not going to happen. So maybe some new technology will save us- No machine can be efficient enough to repel all that heat and water, even if you managed to make one. so, as unfair and as it seems,( to martians) we will have to take our chances in the martian atmosphere and start from a clean slate or stay- and suffer the consequences that we bought on ourselves.
The garden of Eden exist

To get an idea of what we are trying to prove/disprove, we will need an understanding of what we are referring to. In the book of Genesis, a garden, the Garden of Eden, is described as a luscious closed off area, with an abundance of fruit and trees. We ARE NOT debating whether or not what the bible says about the tree that holds the power to eternal life, and whether or not God actual created Adam and Eve there, and all of the other religious traditions and stories/myths. We are only debating the existence of a garden, and we will leave it at that. The bible says that Adam and Eve where kicked out of the garden and wonder around the Earth, and eventually started civilization. That will bring us up to date with historical records and civilizations existing in what many historians believe to be the correct time period. Civilization first began in the areas of and around the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia. Some of the earliest civilizations we know of are Babylon and Sumer, which are mentioned throughout the bible. It seems that it would only make sense that early civilizations where started by early man. If you look at the dates, however, it is not possible that descendants of Adam and Eve and early civilization where in the same time frame. This leaves a huge gap in what we know of the time prior to, and at the start of early civilizations. By determining what happened during that huge gap, it is possible that it could reveal what happened to this mystical garden. Because of the lack of written records, the only way to put together the missing pieces is through oral tradition stories and folklore. If there are tales of what happened during this missing time frame, and they are backed by scientific evidence, such as geographical futures of places, climate, and enough information to grasp a sense of what time this is all going on, it will become easier to be able to prove the existence of the garden, and possibly even point to a general region where it might be located. I will make arguments for the missing timeframe and possible location in the next round, along with rebuttals to Cons argument.
The garden of Eden exist

Pro will have to prove that the garden of Eden, described in Genesis, actual exist (on Earth), and holds some truths as described in the bible. Con will have to disprove the existence of the garden of Eden, and show that the bible holds no truths about it, it is entirely false and made up. Religious, Biblical, Archaeological, Historical, and Scientific evidence allowed. The "actual proved" evidence will have to point back to the reference made in the biblical or religious accounts. Biblical and Religious "evidence" will be assumed incorrect, until proven otherwise by either side.