BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Earth is flat

The earth is not flat. If you look at the earth, it looks round. Christopher Columbus knew the earth was round and he sailed to India from Spain. According to the website "The Round Earth and Christopher Columbus", it says, "If you stand on the seashore and watch a ship sailing away, it will gradually disappear from view. But the reason cannot be the distance: if a hill or tower are nearby, and you climb to the top after the ship has completely disappeared, it becomes visible again. Furthermore, if on the shore you watch carefully the way the ship disappears from view, you will notice that the hull vanishes first, while the masts and sails (or the bridge and smokestack) disappear last. It is as if the ship was dropping behind a hill, which in a way is exactly the case, the "hill" being the curve of the Earth's surface.
Does Communism have merits

I forgot to say no rebuttals in round four. Thank you for accepting this match con I look forward to the rest of it. Good Luck! I will answer your comment as well, no I am arguing that communism does have certain positive effects. communism refers to modern communism not soviet communism. I will present my opening arguments: P1) It provides a set state of living for all, no one will be homeless or starving. (1) P2) No one needs to worry about losing property as it is a non-for profit commonwealth economy. Some of the basic production methods (mining, forestry, ect.) are controlled by the people. (2) P3) The strong communist makes an attempt to stop racism sexism murder and anarchy in general. (2) P4) All people are equal. (3) P5) A communist government works based on complete equal distribution. (3) P5) Communism has a strong mostly univocal government that is always in agreement, this disallows a house divided and therefor a government shut down like the USA had. (4) C (conclusion) Communism has a strong univocal and economically equal set of ideals. (1) http://people.howstuffworks.com... (2) http://www.britannica.com... (3) http://benefitof.net... (4) http://books.google.com... I look forward to your arguments, thank you for accepting. Good luck.
Does Communism have merits

Thank you, and I look forward to the coming rounds. By the way, You had 2 "P5"s :) Here would be a list some negative effects: P1. When the government owns everything, people's rights to act with their possessions are taken away, and to do anything, permission is needed; if people own their homes and other items, they have some personal power over their own lives that they deserve. (http://people.howstuffworks.com...) P2. If a rigid communist state's government is dissatisfactory, the people cannot willfully change it the way that any other government can. P3. Education that is run buy the government will be biased and propaganda-based, opposing free-thinking and building an indoctrinated, single-viewed, homogeneous society.(http://www.britannica.com...) P4. The government is not backed by anything; it is an autonomous institution that owns everything. The people that work for the government have the same restrictions applied to them, and the government owns everything of theirs too, so they have no superiority in the system either. In a democracy (or republic/representative democracy), the people actually have an agreement and choose to run their own government a certain way, and the government is not infallible, but based directly on the will of people.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful (Is it???)It is late in the day for me to be asking the same question.safe = 'not likely to cause or lead to harm or injury; not involving danger or risk.'Is selling military hardware to Pakistan 'safe'.This happened today in North KoreaKim Jong Un says Pyongyang is ‘ready for any kind of war against the U.S.’ North Korea and China played up their ties as a senior Beijing official passed a letter from Chinese President Xi Jinping to Kim Jong Un calling for closer relations and stood alongside the North Korean leader at a military parade in Pyongyang on Saturday.Is this safe? Is this peaceful? If these things are 'not safe' then I'm afraid 'you loose' Thanks
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

Hello again, Firstly, I just want to mention that I am starting to lose track on what your main point of the argument is at, I do not want us and the audience to be caught up in semantics of the issue but I appreciate you showing me the two articles and other people's ideologies. Regardless, back to the questions............ 'Arguing that you are only doing what the others are doing is insufficient collateral on this issue. Is China's rise making the world more safe and more peaceful. Yes or No.' Bearing in mind my current position in this debate the answer to your first question is an most definite yes. Although, if I were to answer this question again but without the influence of my debate position I have taken, I would say the answer is yes and no. I think it is fear China up to a certain extent, but I will stand by what I said in the debate and say China's rise is more safe and peaceful than it is unsafe and un-peaceful. 'Is China still promoting a 'Marx/Lenin communist ideal or is it a moral-less opportunist just like all the rest, US included?' The answer is yes and no, China will promote the Marx/Lenin communist ideology only when they need to use this ideology for a certain objective. China labels itself as communist country but it's economic growth as taken on an capitalist approach, pure communism is actually rarely seen in China's day to day life. As mentioned above, China will only promote their communist ideology whenever they feel the need to, this gives China great flexibility whilst still maintaining the Chinese Communist party label, this is also to maintain the respect for their communist founding leader Mao Zedong. The latest Chinese military parade celebrating the defeat of the Japanese was an fine example of them still promoting and maintaining Communist ideals. But when discussing about economic growth, China adapts the way of capitalism ever since Deng Xiao Ping opened up their iron curtains.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

There is no 'fast track' towards definitive conclusions regarding this topic.We need to immerse ourselves with both historical and more recent material. Here are just two simple examples.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.ft.com...I could only agree with the motion if you could state to me categorically that China's presence as a super power within the worlds political arena is effectively making the volatility of this place 'more safe' . Have a go at this. A quote from the second link would suggest the opposite.'Yue Gang, a retired army colonel, said: “Pakistan has been an arms trade partner with China for decades. One of the reasons is that many western countries refuse to export to Pakistan for fear that it will offend India. So [Pakistan’s] options are limited and it turns to China out of necessity.”China also has fewer political “complexes” than rivals — which means it will sell to anyone, he added. “China does not discriminate politically between buyers,” Mr Yue said.'Arguing that you are only doing what the others are doing is insufficient collateral on this issue. Is China's rise making the world more safe and more peaceful. Yes or No. Is China still promoting a 'Marx/Lenin communist ideal or is it a moral-less opportunist just like all the rest, US included?
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

Hi HoKiaJunn,I want to cut both you and China 'some slack' here.Your approach , HoKiaJunn, has been one of persistent calm. It is an unusual trait within debate and in my mind it is also a very effective one. Well Done. With regard to my reservations about China to date, they have mostly been generic and 'Fox Newsy' in their nature. This was again slightly unfair of me, in that many of the reservations that I have expressed about the global 'super-power' that is China pale into the background when considered along side the 'bumbling foreign policy gaffs' of both the US and Russia.Let me make amendsChina has a huge population, They proceed along socialist, non religious lines. Nobody is starving and nobody is organizing a coup. It maintains stability in a way that the US and Russia have both failed to accomplish. Not a mean feat in itself. They also subscribe to a mantra that suggests progression going forward that is inspired when placed beside the US model of 'putting a patch on the leaks as they appear'. That is me being nice and it is because you have made me really consider China. Tomorrow I will play for keeps on this China thing. Thank You for your submissions as I found them 'thought provoking'. They remind me of the the Chinese Great Wall in their solidity.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

Thank You for your kind words.Consider this:'The United States currently has a public outstanding debt total of over $14.1 trillion. Of this total, China owns roughly 8%.China Interesting note - it initially appeared as though China was slowing down their purchases of US debt in 2010. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, was rapidly ramping up their purchases - so much so, in fact, that the United Kingdom's holdings of US debt increased over 200% in 2010 But wait - the US Treasury Department later revealed that it was China that was behind most of the United Kingdom's frantic buying of US debt. China was buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US Treasuries through UK-based money managers, which meant that the purchases were initially credited to the United Kingdom. The US Treasury Department recalculated their results, and China ended up being credited for the vast majority of the purchases that were initially credited to the UK. 'Consider the latest 'Cyber Attacks Controversy'Are these the actions of a peaceful entity. Do they not reek of 'ambition' and 'megalomania'?Let me give you a little bit from Shakespeare about 'owing money' to someone.Polonius:Neither a borrower nor a lender be,For loan oft loses both itself and friend,And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 75–77America is 'in hock' to these people and if they renege on their payments they will buy their country without blinking. We had opium wars and tea wars with China in the past that defied any geographical logic. In 2015 the US buys Wall Mart junk from this part of the world and they pay for it with Monoply print. Wait for the knock on the door when a well educated and astute Chinese population demand goods for these IOU's. The US may have to resort to 'self-defence' because of a lack of any other options.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

Hello, I would like to first thank you for joining me onto this debate and it is an pleasure to have you here today. I acknowledge that China puts the importance of sovereignty at first priority over everything else (health & safety, environment, etc.) for most of it's history, the present day China controlled by the CCP also puts sovereignty first. But, regardless to whether they are a superpower or not, I do not think that other foreign nations should fear China's rise in this century. What I mean by 'fear China's rise' would be that foreign nations should not need to be too concerned with China's military power and evermore so they should not fear of going to war with China at all. The reasons for this is not because of how Chinese people may appear to be, like you mentioned in your previous argument: honest, hardworking & peaceful, it is because simply from an economical and political point of view, fearing rather than accepting China's rise does nobody any benefit, even the slightest consideration of war between China and any country brings the world to a major drawback. Ever since China joined the WTO, the US and many other nations has enabled the globalisation in China to establish relationships around the world, this act as an string with China on one end and US (or random country) on the other end. Both countries are heavily reliant on each other in multiple ways and therefore, if either one of them experiences some trouble, both would suffer consequences in which would also imply China's rise would more than likely be beneficial to all countries around the world regardless of what China is thinking. Thus, China should not be feared and can be considering as peaceful.
The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful

'I believe that the rise of China is peaceful and should not be feared off.'Hi! HoKiaJunn,You believe what you like. I recognize China for what it is. China is a 'superpower' on the world stage. China has little regard for it's citizens or its environment. China is owed money by 'absolutely everyone'. It is the Shylock of global finance and it will attempt to extract it's pound of flesh. Ethnic minorities are suffocated beneath this monolith. China has an extensive nuclear arsenal that it updates in order to keep pigeons off it's rice crops. Most Chinese people that I have encountered are honest, hard working and peaceful . They are friendly and compliant but that is not what we are talking about here. We are discussing 'China', the political entity that is. Make a case for them if you can. Good Luck
Psychiatry(pro) versus clinical psychology

no need to change the rules for me, I am not here to win the debate I am here to hone my skills and learn to develop clearer and more precise points. That is why I was bringing things to light throughout the debate to make sure the scope of the argument was understood from both sides. I will accept the fact that I utilized my rounds poorly and will now allow for the voting to commence. thank you for your sportsmanship and your patience with me throughout this learning experience.
Psychiatry(pro) versus clinical psychology

It looks like as though what my opponent has offered this round is more of a summary of what we've debated thus far, or they clarified something such as the CBT study. I would like to just state that I knew you weren't using it to show it's better than medication, I just wanted to make sure it was clear to anyone who read this. Now, I do slighly disagree with my opponent's assessment of the debate. They claim we are having two different arguments now. I would argue that the first argument they mentioned: which is looking at whether one is more effective at treating illness, would have to do with which one is superior. It is one of the many things one can use to argue that one is superior to the other. If, say, psychiatr was more effective at treating mental illness, then it could logically be argued that it would make more sense to go into psychiatry because you are more likely to do more good for people. So, really, argument 1 can be used to argue for argument 2 in my opinion. Do you see how that could work? Really, we're just arguing the pros of each career essentially. Every pro would be a good thing about that career and a reason why that career is superior. Since my opponent opted not to use this last round for promoting clinical psychology, I am going to modify the round structure a little bit to help them out. I'll be perfectly alright with them presenting new arguments in this last round if they have more arguments as for why clinical psychology is superior to psychiatry. I would recommend you do this. Because, as it stands right now, it seems like you've not met your burden of proof yet, and I want to give you a chance to do this. So, to voters: you don't need to penalize my opponent in terms of conduct if they bring up new arguments in the last round. It's ultimately still up to you if you feel you should, but I am getting rid of that original rule from the original debate. I suspect my opponent would agree to it since it helps them out. My oppoent is relatively new to the site, and I would guess new to debating in general, no? That is another reason why I will allow that.
Psychiatry(pro) versus clinical psychology

there are now two different arguments happening, 1. looking at whether one is more effective at treating illness. 2. which career is superior to the other both of these are adequate for debates on their own. if we were to look at which is superior in terms of providing a better quality of life that is left up to the individual. there is an inability to objectify a subjective reason. psychiatry being more likely to take a biological route to treat mental illness will have created more work for the individual receiving said treatment. it is a fallacy to assume that a psychologist "will" take a psychoanalytic approach to treating a mental disturbance. with the amount of psychological models to follow, there is an integration among all of them. each model will present a necessary component to help solve an attribute to the disturbance within the client. also to confirm, the CBT study I provided, was not supposed to infer that CBT is better at treating a mental disorder over medication, I was simply providing examples of the most testable and objective psychological approach. so no I did not use that study to prove that CBT is better than medication. the thing about arguing whether the career is superior, looking at income, and other instances that come with the career, is subject to poor numbers, hence the hundreds of private practices that are throughout the country. keeping an eye on the actual debate, looking at psychiatry as a superior career in terms of numbers, with the information you provided and what I found. psychiatrists make more. in terms of the second debate that is also going on here, the treatment outcomes for either a psychiatrist or psychologist, as you stated, are relatively equal. so what is really being debated here is the ability to provide as much information possible to prove that our opinion is valid.
Ireland should rejoin the United Kingdom in 2015

Britain and Ireland are past that. That was 30 years. You're going to let the past ensnare the future. The President of Ireland said he doesn't have a problem if Ireland rejoined the United Kingdom. http://www.galwaydailynews.com... Ireland and Britain have a destiny to be together in the future. Irish republicans are trying to destroy the unity that the two islands have together. I consider the Irish West Britons. In the Great Famine, many Irish immigrated to Britain. That's why one in four Britons have Irish roots. Why the Irish are serving the British army, immigrating to London? Because the finance there was a disaster. Now the financial crisis of Ireland is over. But in case of another economic or financial downturn, Ireland should rejoin the United Kingdom. Now Scotland is trying to leave, but if they vote for independence, 700,000 Scots could be gone by tomorrow. Let's welcome the Irish fellas back to the family.
Ireland should rejoin the United Kingdom in 2015

Hi, to respond to your first argument they don't have a special bond. They are divided religiously and ideologically. Also, THE BRITISH ISLES IS MORE THAN 1 ISLAND! Its called the British IsleS for a reason. They hate eachother immensely, so much that the Irish Republican Army bombed British politicians to try to help "liberate" northern Ireland. Yes, they may have shared roots, but that doesn't solve many problems. They hate each other tons and too many people are against it for it to ever be a realistic option. It might be nice, but it is nearly impossible
Ireland should rejoin the United Kingdom in 2015

Despite previous conflict with these two nations, Britain and Ireland have a special bond. The British Isles is one island, then it should be one nation. Ireland was bailed out by the British in Ireland's financial crisis. President Higgins says he supports Ireland rejoining the UK. One in four British has Irish roots. London is Britain's biggest population of Irish people. True Irishness is with unity not separation. The Irish and the British are one people, one nation. United, yes. Divided, no.
It is said of this poetry "rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishment"s

pro says "I argue someone has said this of the poetry. My opponent has posted the link in his argument, so I have nothing more to say. Vote PRO." I argue someone has said the opposite My opponent has notedthe link in his argument, so I have nothing more to say. Vote CON." http://www.wattpad.com... ""That was shockingly amazing! I love the Irony between the name ....and the imagery of the seduction. The poem was transportive, I felt that I was there in the room with the lovers, experiencing the awe of the man as he worshipped the wonder of the woman's sex. Good work and very unique writing.
It is said of this poetry "rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishment"s

This poetry http://www.scribd.com... has been maligned "rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishment"s I disagree with these comments http://www.debate.org... quote ".....it us hard to imagine anybody else being a fan of her rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishments." I find the poetry quite beautiful
It is said of this poetry "rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishment"s

pro says "This isn't about debating for you, however, it is about advertising, as have been all your past debates. The fact of the matter is, people don't just dislike this person, but their work is so bad that they are astounded fans of it exist. And you've shown us the source yourself. You're allowed to disagree, because you're allowed to be wrong. However, it is of course true that someone dislikes this poet and their poetry. In fact, it seems everyone except you likes them. And as that was the resolution, you are, without doubt, wrong. "
It is said of this poetry "rabid, trite, urine-soaked, pseudo-erotic, pseudo-goth blandishment"s

This isn't about debating for you, however, it is about advertising, as have been all your past debates. The fact of the matter is, people don't just dislike this person, but their work is so bad that they are astounded fans of it exist. And you've shown us the source yourself. You're allowed to disagree, because you're allowed to be wrong. However, it is of course true that someone dislikes this poet and their poetry. In fact, it seems everyone except you likes them. And as that was the resolution, you are, without doubt, wrong.
That only financially capable men be allowed to marry

I very much want to debate this, but I don't have the time to post an argument now before I'd have to forfeit the round (as I've been busy but have just a few minutes left before the round is due). So, with many apologies, I'm going to have to refrain from posting an argument until the next round. Pro can either continue posting and add to his argument, or just not post anything in the next round. In R2 I will make my case and respond to all of Pro's R1 and/or R2 contentions. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him good luck. Cheers!