BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quebec should be apart of France again

I do not know why my opponent forfeited his second round. Many French Colonies, French Guiana for example has many other native languages. In fact all other French Colonies, including Madagascar have native tongues which are more abundant in population than French is. The Languages of French Guiana are so numerous, that conforming hat country to French is seemingly futile. Regardless the Long necked dinosaurs reported to still living in the Congo, and the Stegosaurus reportedly still alive in Brazil are both good enough reasons to stick our noses into the business of these poor nations. It would help unify the worlds news, education and security in emergency situations. The French Colonies of Africa make up for almost half of the African Continent, yet there is still only an estimated 80 000 000 French speaking people in the world: less than 80 of 7,000 million people. This region, although uneducated, poor, disunified and isolated, may be opposed to learning French. Seeing as they haven't done so already. So, Should these people come together, we would have a much more prominent diverse culture, a powerful and well-respected people (with a noble history and conquest method), and over all the world would have ease of mind having resolved conflicts in Africa, would know more about the living dinosaur breads, and could travel further abroad on one language, which is littered with Philosophy, history, literature, music, and culture. United Provinces of France!
Quebec should be apart of France again

France is world renowned for being: fair to the people; internationally involved in equality; their army is formidable; their allies are plentiful; their culture is divers. Quebec's economy would grow with foreign interest, as Quebec would not have to suffer the influence of English provinces investing in them, and the Federal government selling the resources. If Quebec, Guinea, Madagascar, Africa and France all shared: Music, Movies, Books, Education, Tv & Cartoons, and cultural influences they would have a very sustainable economy on Media trades alone. Then, with tourism, all these nations requiring one Visa would make it easy on travellers from other countries. Quebecois citizens would then have international citizenships. Their country, which as a province thrives on Art would be able to boom. It's intellectual contributions would expand and become more aware. Also, their economy would do better, because they would not fear Englishmen and American's tearing apart their province. In fact Canada would do better, because our countries dollar varies based on trade quantity. French Earth is calling to the Quebecois to Reunify with France to form one of the World's New-world Nations.
Quebec should be apart of France again

I am an 11th generation French Canadian. My mother has more than 130 first cousins, My grandparents are Quebecois. My nationality is most notably French, Not Canadian. I would like to say something which I have been culling for many years, I support Quebec, Madagascar, The Congo, New Guinea, Haiti, Niger, Ivory Coast and the other French African Colonies Uniting as, The United Provinces of France. All colonies in which France was the agent of civilization, education and technological advancement as well as peace keeping, should default back to France as a singular Nation. Provincial Governments would have complete independency, and French would not be enforced much more than it is now, but only that education and business would expand through it. Natural resources would be protected and reserved. And the French Nation would have no right to oppress languages, Impose it's European government, Start conflicts, destroy natural resources, increase infrastructure in protected environment zones, Nor legalize perversions such as homosexuality. The sole requirement to this Coalition would be for Quebec to vote for a separatist motion, to reunite with France. The American French colonies having failed to sustain their independence are not primary candidates. Quebec would be required to re-illegalize homosexuality (the advocating of anal, oral and masturbation, subliminally, passively and actively to children, womanizers, elderly, sex victims, depressed people, bigots, handicapped, celibate couples and all other impressionable citizens, as they DO in public, schools, media and in the work place) as it is a disgrace to International populations through cultural oppressive harassment. Otherwise. This French Empire, would be the first step to resolving poverty and conflict, as well as third world education and rights issues in Africa. VOTE, YES, For a separatist Quebec. It should dually be noted that French would be very gracious to the other European Countries, but not necessarily as Generous as some might hope. As France was a very peaceful Colonizing Nation, apposed to the English, German, Spanish and Portuguese examples. ~ Russia should also take Poland, Ukraine and Belarus.. but that's not the debate.
Video games are a serious art form.

Hello, whomever opponent chooses to reply. In this debate I will be discussing two reasons why I believe video games are not worthy of being called an art form. Firstly, art is one's reaction to life. A masterpiece of rock music is 'Pet Sounds,' and most the songs on the album are about relationships and break-ups. A masterpiece of literature is 'The Great Gatsby,' which was F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the behavior of the rich class. A masterpiece of cinema is '2001: A Space Odyssey,' in which Stanley Kubrick warned us about the risks of AI becoming more and more advanced. Nothing produced within the video game industry is comparable to any of these. Some have really innovative visuals, but even the best video games very rarely have themes or commentary on society. 2. Video games do not influence art forms. We have seen music influence music (The Beatles' influence on pop). We have also seen movies influence albums (effect of the movie 'American Gangster' on Jay-Z's album of the same name). We have even seen novels influence music, and vice versa. But rarely, if ever, will you see an author, film director, or musician cite a video game as an influence for any of their works.
Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified

You have not full addressed my argument. 1a) Live streaming is a form of entertainment, the person is streaming, not a hired actor. The person has the right to stream whatever he/she pleases to, and should not be confined to what his employer at work tells him to do, as he is not working, he is having fun. 2a) LCS is payed by Riot, but the person has his own right to stream..... The counter-example is not "legit" because 1: If the model for Nike, decides to wear Adidas in his off-time can Nike tell him otherwise? No, he is not working at the time, and therefore can do what he pleases, he is being payed to stream, not by Riot, but by Twitch, so therefore Riot should have no interference with the livestreaming.
Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified

More counter arguments. 1) Almond butter is far more superior to Peanut butter, both in the health department and taste department.2) Counter arguments to why you think it is unjustified:1a) Most people will see streaming as a form of advertising. It gets the streamer money, and it benefits both the company and the streamer, as the streamer will gain money and the company will gain fans. So for example, if a payed professional worked for Nike and started to advertise Adidas, what would Nike do? The same is done here.2a) Except LCS is payed by Riot to play League of Legends. The Nike-Adidas example can be used here once again.I await your argument(s).
Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified

Con has wasted round two with wasteful bickering about the irrelevance of peanut butter. To counter argue 1: Peanut butter is always relevant 2: It is not justified because of very simple reasons a. Reasons why it is not justified 1: When people stream, they are not streaming for the League Community. 2: The League staff should have no jurisdiction about the community/staff of other games As for the "1 season ban" rule.... A ban, is a ban.. it should be treated as such, It is their right to stream whatever game to please, anything otherwise would be infringement on the very rights of liberty. I await your argument!
Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified

1) Peanut butter is irrelevant to this topic.2) Riot's steps to try and make League of Legends an official sport make these regulations more justified: For example, if Kobe Bryant (basketball) stopped attending practices and started to play baseball for a living, would NBA approve of that? I think not. The situation was the same here. Though it's true that Riot shouldn't be able to control what their fans play, 1) Riot PAYS them to play and 2) They can play the other games in off time, and not stream. The streaming bans only last for the season and were not permanent, as this is the Season 4 policies, and professionals can play other games on streaming services once the season is over.If other arguments are to be given, I'd like to see them.
Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified

Recently Riot Games has banned professional players in the LCS from publicly streaming games other than League of Legends. (http://www.forbes.com...) Although this was reversed (http://www.polygon.com...) and is no longer in action, was this a justified move? With this debate I plan to see whoever agrees with Riot's actions and wouldn't care if it was done again by another company or if it infuriated the community. This debate is pretty common in the League of Legends community at the moment.
The Allies are mostly to blame for World War 2

Thanks, Pro. Essentially my opponent did not refute any of my case; in fact, she didn't even address my main argument. To re-cap her position, the allies are to blame for WWII because they imposed the harsh Treaty of Versailles which helped Hitler rise to power. I've contended that the Treaty of Versailles *would not have been created in the first place* had there not been WWI. In that case, we must look to who began WWI - with an emphasis on Serbia, Germany and Austria-Hungary (non-allies). Had the Serbian nationalist not shot Archduke Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary would not have declared war on Serbia, and not have led to the conflict within the Triple Alliance Powers ultimately leading to the declaration of war on each other, hence WWI. Without WWI there would have been no treaty. Without the treaty, my opponent's argument wouldn't hold. Additionally, I pointed out that the allies nor the treaty could be considered responsible for what Hitler as an individual chose to do with his life and career. For instance, while the German sentiments at this time were understandable, consider the allies' efforts to maintain peace. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles innumerable times, i.e., by withdrawing from the League of Nations and beefing up Germany's military for example. Still the allies were hesitant to go to war, and Hitler knew this ultimately deciding to push the envelope and see just how much he could get away with [1]. It wasn't until Hitler took it upon himself to invade Poland that the allies responded by declaring war. In other words, they avoided the ultimate conflict for as long as possible, so it's unfair to lay most of the blame for the events on them. Moreover both my opponent and I acknowledge other causes for WWII, including but not limited to competition for resources, problems with territorial disputes, a response to communism, the economic turmoil as a result of the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, European civil war, problems with the League of Nations, the Japanese invasion of other countries (China, Soviet Union, Mongolia) etc. [2]. Therefore it's irresponsible to suggest that the allies are mostly to blame, when in fact there were innumerable underlying causes separate from these powers. In short, Pro has to prove that the allies are responsible for the treaty despite them not instigating WWI (the reason the treaty existed), and that the allies should accept responsibility for Hitler's barbaric choices in violating the treaty and subsequent actions (like imprisoning the Jews) even though they were trying to turn a blind eye and avoid war all-together. She must also prove that the allies position in all this was more influential than the other combined factors leading up to this horrific war. Thanks again, and good luck! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Allies are mostly to blame for World War 2

From what i realize is that after the allies DEFEATED germany, and germany was required to take ALL BLAME for the war. because the treaty of versailles signed after ww1 treated Germany very harshly, not to mention it was greatly resented by the German people. germany's state after ww1 left the germans to feel hopeless. now nazism was pretty popular in germany at that time. Nazism still appealed to many germans as all hopes were lost. the promises made by hitler himself directly attacks the actions of the allies. Hitlers aims in the war involves the following: -To unite German speaking people (using NSD which had been denied at the Treaty of Versailles. -He wanted lebensraum (living space) in order to gain self-sufficiency (autarky) -He wanted to dominate Europe and the World To achieve any of these aims would involve breaking the Treaty of Versailles (28/6/1919), and this could lead to war. therefore, if he were to even have these aims it would be because of the treaty CREATED by the allies. not to mention that the treaty was the key to hitlers victory in the german election. Now hitlers intentions may have been also a factor for ww2, the total cause of ww2 may be several factors combined. such as, -The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles (28th June, 1919) on Germany (i.e. Land losses, Reparations, War Guilt) -The failure of the League of the Nations to Keep peace, Bring about disarmament -Hitler's aggression(His aims, His actions) -The aggression of the other powers: Italy – Abyssinia (1935), Rome-Berlin Axis, Anti-Commintern Pact, Albania Japan – Manchuria (1931), Anti-Commintern Pact (November, 1937) Russia – Nazi-Soviet Pact, Invasion of Poland -The democracies were too passive USA – isolation France – would not do anything without Britain's support Britain – sympathetic towards Germany, e.g. Anglo-German Naval Treaty (1935) and later appeased her (May/June 1937 – March 1939) Hence the failure of the allies to prevent ww2, the allies are mostly responsible for ww2. It is because of the allies demands, passiveness, and failure to keep peace that led to another war. Now you may say that germany immediately caused ww2 as they invaded poland in September 1, 1939, but think about what caused germany to start off ww2. Then think about that caused hitler and the germans to have fascist beliefs. think about how hitler was able to hold political power. then think about what the allies have done after ww1. It is because of the state of germany left by the allies that let someone like hitler gain political power. I mean, how else would he appeal to the audience during his speeches? what else but the use of propaganda, german pride, and the resentment of the treaty of versailles? why wouldn't the german people listen to him when the allies set up a democratic government who signed the treaty of versailles greatly resented by them? i have many questions. enlighten me.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

This part of your argument would make a lot more sense if I could see some sources for the public schools promoting Catholicism in your area. Either way, it doesn't matter. The fact that a few schools might be going against the way an ideal public school should be run doesn't mean we should change the entire principle of separating churches from public schools. By that logic, the fact that a few people commit murders every year means we should make murder legal. The point of the argument is that publicly funded school organizations have no place for religion, and that is that. I look forward to your closing statement.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

I will address each part of your argument separately. You first talk about evolution being debatable. While there are many (namely religious groups) who continue to deny the almost invariable fact that is evolution, this scientific theory is still widely accepted by nearly all accredited scientists. It is simply the best thing to teach in schools because it is the only theory that doesn't pertain to a specific religion, as I previously mentioned. You also talk about Under God being in the pledge of Allegiance. In truth, the original Pledge, and the dollar bills printed before the 1950s, didn't mention God. This was the way the founding fathers intended it. During the Cold War, the United States wanted to unite to fight the Soviet Power, as well as distance our country from them as a whole. Thus, President Eisenhower added Under God to the pledge, and "In God we trust" to printed money. This united our nation, and distanced us from the secular Soviet Union. Finally, you talk about 10 schools that are Catholic near where you live. Though this is irrelevant, I will address it. If there are Catholic schools, they are either private, which is perfectly acceptable, or public, in which case they are not being run correctly.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

Its not that I'm against evolution but it seems to be very debatable among the community. What ever happened to "Under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, this had to do with god and school still say it. You say that government funds schools and that the schools shouldn't teach just 1 certain doctrine then how come where I'm from we have about 10 schools that are catholic and hey we even have Islamic center here sadly.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

I believe you are misunderstanding the point of my argument. I fully believe in the right of a parent to enroll their child in a Catholic school, or a private school following any religious belief. However, public schools are an entirely different matter. Because they are run and funded by the state, they cannot have any religious affiliation. Regardless of a child's religious background based on what he or she has experienced in the home, the public school needs to be equipped to teaching kids of all religious backgrounds. Whether a child is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Satanist or a religion the parent made up, the school cannot show favoritism. In your argument, you hinted toward whether or not evolution should be taught. Evolution IS the correct alternative because it is the explanation for our creation most supported by scientific evidence, that is not based on a specific religious belief. If schools catered their religious tendency to what would offend the least amount of students in the classroom, the entire purpose of a public school would be lost. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

First off I would like to know exactly why you feel this way? I will begin with my 1st opinion. Schools should be able to have a dominant doctrine of religion at a school. Mostly this is in Catholic schools. Parents raise they're kids upon a religion or not if they choose not to serve a type of religion. They can then put their children in these schools knowing they will be taught with reassuring things, on the other hand if they get put into a public schools who teach evolution and all these other ideas this can cause much turmoil and confusion.
Religious organizations of any kind should have no place in public schools.

Sacred Heart Parish School, Hollister Sacred Heart Preparatory, Atherton Sacred Heart School, Covina Sacred Heart School, Saratoga Saint Agnes School, Concord Saint Anatasia School, Los Angeles Saint Anne School, San Francisco Saint Anthony Claret School, Anaheim Saint Anthony High School, Long Beach Saint Augustine High School, San Diego Saint Barbara Catholic School, Santa Ana Saint Basil Parish School, Vallejo Saint Bede Catholic School, Hayward Saint Bernadette Catholic School, Los Angeles Saint Bernard High School, Playa del Rey Saint Bonaventure High School, Ventura Saint Brendan School, San Francisco (http://www.catholiclinks.org...) Here are just a few, cathloic dominant schools in california and murder is completly off topic compared to this one. Someone is mentally sick to murder someone else.
The South Korean government should establish an AIDS colony on the island of Yeonpyeong

Tragically, 9,300 men in South Korea are infected with the HIV/AIDS virus [1] and there is a very real danger that they will spread this incurable disease further unless they are isolated from the rest of the population without delay. The question is, of course, where? After extensive research, I believe I have identified the ideal location: the island of Yeonpyeong. http://maps.google.co.uk... This island has a civilian population of just 1,600 that could easily be relocated to the South Korean mainland and the existing town could easily be expanded to accommodate the new arrivals. In addition, there is already a military presence on the island that can be called upon to maintain law and order among the inmates and, because the nearest mainland is 12km across the Yellow Sea in North Korea, escape would be undesirable even if it were possible. Therefore, I duly affirm that, in order to save innocent lives by inhibiting the spread of AIDS, the South Korean government should establish an AIDS colony on the island of Yeonpyeong as soon as possible. Thank you. [1] http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu...
Lying about your age on dating sites is wrong

I have made a strong case against teens lying about their age. Argument #1 I shall continue with a case for people in their 20s. Argument #2 A 22 year old woman has just graduated college. She has an entry-level job, as do most people her age. She wants to land a man in a stronger financial position. So she changes her age to 30. The 30 year old man feels taken advantage of when he finds that his date is substantially younger than him.
Lying about your age on dating sites is wrong

I recently posted a profile to a dating site. I met up with a gal and we really had a nice coffee date. We decided to go on another date and things were really going quite well. However, although she was an older women, I had to confess I had lied about my age on my profile. She was hurt. I had the notion that all is fair in love and war but I have learnt that if you start off with a lie, it is a long hard road back to connecting again. She said that I lied to her and also to everyone else online. I took my profile down. Getting the silent treatment. Buddies of mine tell me that everyone is lying on these websites.
Guns In America should be ban to people without a license

Guns should be ban in America, I am genuinely surprised people disagree with this simple fact. I have heard almost no decent argument why they shouldn't be ban. Guns are a violent weapon that are good for almost nothing other than killing people. Sure, some people will use their guns for hunting, and I'm ok with that. I believe hunting is a sport and I also believe that you should need a licence to get a gun even for hunting. Weapons like AK-47s are not use for hunting, not used for defence, so I ask what are they used for? People who are at all mentally unstable, blind or related to crime should definitely NOT GET GUNS. Thank you for participating and I look forward to seeing your argument.