BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The moar, the (not ALWAYS) merrier

Understanding that under a small enough microscope everything has a limit, there is a certain practical approach to sayings that makes this one true. A good model for showing it is this. if X, Y, Z are all different amounts of something where X is not enough, Z is too much, and Y is ideal. It is easy to say that since Z is too much that means that more isn't always merrier but upon closer look we see that if Y is the best solution it is always more than X meaning that in every case the merriest number of something is always more than another value. You can apply that formula to any given object.
The moar, the (not ALWAYS) merrier

Full resolution: moar (more) of something does not always make you happier."Not ALWAYS" means that if my opponent leaves any of my arguments standing, they are disproven.Definitions and clarification(s): Moar (more) will be defined as:1. in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number:2. additional or further: [1]"Merrier" will be defined as "happier" [2]"Something" will refer to material things in general, which means Con can name anything and as many things as they wish.Structure:R1: Con's argument (if they wish)R2: Pro's rebuttal to Con's potential argument/new argumentsR3-4: RebuttalsR5: ConclusionsSources: [1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- the fact that it's generally defined that way
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

"-Saved Midway (an important spot from which the Pacific could be controlled)." I would agree with that, however if the United States had lost the Midway Islands, they would still have had a good chance to outproduce and defeat Japan. "-Saved everything East of Midway." Completely untrue. Japan never really had a good chance to invade North America. "-Provided a major morale boost in the US." I agree with that, however many battles won by the allies provided moral boosts. "-Gave the American Navy confidence." The Battle of Stalingrad gave the Soviet military confidence also. "-From this point on the Japanese would be back paddling towards defeat." However Midway did not necessarily mean Japan was defeated. "3,057 Japanese had died. (The battle was the cause for many more later on in the war)" At Stalingrad, the axis suffered 850,000 casualties and Stalingrad was also the cause for more axis casualties later on in the war. "-Proved naval superiority." The Battle of Stalingrad proved Soviet military superiority. "-The entire course of the war in the Pacific had changed, it was a turning point." I agree with this, however Midway did not mean defeat for Japan at the time. "-Bought the Americans time to built new weapons and ships." Correct. Although Con does do a good job talking about the different reasons that Midway was important, he fails to show how it is unique. Half of his list of the importance of Midway can be applied to Stalingrad. For example, "-The first American victory in the Pacific." Well the Battle of Stalingrad was the largest turning point.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

Thank you for taking the time to construct a speech responding to my essay. I argue the Battle of Midway. -Saved Midway (an important spot from which the Pacific could be controlled). -Saved everything East of Midway. -Provided a major morale boost in the US. -Gave the American Navy confidence. -From this point on the Japanese would be back paddling towards defeat. -3,057 Japanese had died. (The battle was the cause for many more later on in the war) -Proved naval superiority. -The first American victory in the Pacific. -The entire course of the war in the Pacific had changed, it was a turning point. -Bought the Americans time to built new weapons and ships. I would like to add to the definition of "important" since I am under the impression that we should also account for the effects the battle had after the end of the war. Please let me know if you accept the addition to your definition. Thank you.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

By important I mean which battle was the most important in terms of deciding the outcome of the WWII. I argue Stalingrad! Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: http://en.wikipedia.org...... -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis During the next round, only state which battle you think was more important than Stalingrad and why, don't refute my arguments that I have in this round.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

Before I can fully argue and support my case I must know how my opponent wishes to define important since the definition of this key term will play a deciding factor in that both sides are arguing about the exact same topic. The battle I propose to earn the title of most important is the battle of Britain. I will explain why exactly in the later rounds. Good luck and I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on this topic. Thank you.
the US should change its tax system

Ok as far as the screen shot I do kind of want to see it because I know what debaters will do to win lol. Also I am worried I will miss some of his points because they arent able to be seen under previous arguements so I cant respond as well. However he does first argue that the system is to complex and he says that accountants make mistakes. However he could never warrant that, stat so there really is no impact to it being "to complex".Also he doesnt respond to the fact that this system allows for jobs because we have accountants and if he made it tooo simple there may not be a need for them. Also he never shows you what kind of change could be made to even solve this problem. The affirmatives plan provides no solvency so you should vote negative right there. I also would like to mention that just because its alot of pages doesnt mean its that complex, he never provides this link. Also he has no response to the benefits of this system, as in its sucessful as proven over time and in this period of economic instability we shouldnt change it. I also would like to emphasize accountants and financial planners are different so he really provides no respons to the arguement of job loss. Again its important to remember that he doesnt show you what he would change in the system and how it would solve the problems, therefore you can stop reading and negate RIGHT THERE. How ever if you want more reason, look to the fact that he doesnt answer my observation, he never asks for systematic change. He wants us not to say change our tarrif system, but to review them and get rid of a few with in the current system. He doesnt ask for a new system but just that the government work in our current framework to expedite it. I draw an analogy from the progressive period in America, they wanted to achieve changes but they worked with in the system to do that. This is the same thing my opponent is doing, he is never making any systematic changes he is workign with in our current system. So therefore it turns his arguement because the fact that we can work with in our current system to potentially achieve what my opponent wanst shows the strength of the syst4em and therefore I urge you to negate this resolution.
the US should change its tax system

His whole arguement about it being too complex is false, people can do it if they chose, because every page isnt needed to file a personal tax return. Also even if it is to complex you can chose to hire an accountant, this stimulates the economy by providing jobs. He says that is should be as easy as managing a check book, but the fact is people use accountants and financial planners to make sure they keep them balanced, so that arguement is flawed.That 96% stat still doesnt make sense because these companies have claimed to pay all errors, and if they made errors 96% of the time they wouldnt be in business. Until he shows you that stat in its original context, we need to disregard it and then look at the point as nonimpactful. Also he doesnt explain how it could be remedied because the tax system needs to be complex so that all situations are covered. If he wanted to make it noncomplex it would have to be a flat tax which wouldnt work. So therefore he doesnt provide solvencyy because he has already claimed he doesnt want the flat tax. He then claims that by changing the system we could create jobs to provide a relief for all the jobs lost in the accounting firms. However he doesnt show you how this would be created, and he doesnt have any evidence for this. However if we were to change it to make it "simpler" then we would be sure to lose the jobs i discussed, and when it comes down to crucial issues like jobs we need to be sure not just say its possible. Therefore looking to the negative we see that we are better off with jobs. He then goes into how its better that stuff would be cheaper, how ever I agree with that. My arguement against that is that if we erase the tarrifs then yes prices may be cheaper but alot of people will be out of work. It would cheaper to buy stuff from over seas and that would drive american businesses out of business causing an influx in the unemployement rate leading to an economic collapse. This is why noi other country in the world has absolutely no tariffs on there imports. Its not practical and would leave us worse of by leading to the depreciation of our economy and dollar leading to us being worse off. Also he doesnt respond to my overview on the round which says that we have to make major changes in the tax code to justify an affirmative ballot,. What this means for the round is that if my opponent proves the current implementation of the system is wrong, not the system in general then we can negate. This is because under the negative side, minor alterations to the current tax system can occur so long as we dont change the whole system. This is a burdon he has not yet met because he never shows you how systematic changes are necessary just he thinks it should be rennovated. Therefore because he never shows you why systematic changes are needed or how they will solve the problem I urge a con ballot.
Is it okay to commit a crime with a good intentions.

Despite my Con status, I'm arguing in favor of good intentions. First and foremost, we must explain which laws and what intentions before we can decide this. Generalizing will only lead to ridiculous situations. Second, we have to decide how strictly one must follow the law in order to understand what actions are expected. If the law must always be upheld at all times and everyone should operate by them, we will walk down a dangerous path towards a dystopian universe. If the law can be broken when the absolute need arises, but punishment is still doled out without considering the absolute need, then we have an unfair system that lacks the main ingredient of human society: empathy. There are already many ways a criminal can appeal their case to get their sentence reduced or thrown out and the entire point of an appeal is showing either the crime done in good intentions, lack of intention, or of rehabilitation and a lesson learned. The court system (speaking of the U.S) would be entirely unnecessary is the law is the law, because then you would get caught by the police and be punished immediately. The goal of a trial is to determine the various factors involved in the crime with "Intention" being the largest factor, and to adjust a punishment according to the severity of the crime. This is one of the biggest issues with strict law abiding, you forget that laws are broken in ranges, not in absolute terms. Imagine how many people would be doing 25 to life for murder after getting into a car wreck and someone accidentally dying. Manslaughter, a harsh but much lesser charge was created to deal with accidental deaths from reckless behavior. This is similar to the moral argument, is doing the forbidden action the real issue or is the consequences? Rarely do criminals have a good enough reason to commit serious crimes, and the courts know this. If you're charged with rape, you have to prove you didn't do it, not that you had a good reason. Murder can be tricky, but typically the courts give punishments anyway to placate the public even though the punishment is unjustified. Take the example of an intruder in a family home. The intruder is brandishing a large knife and is making his way to the daughters room. The father hears the intruder and grabs his pistol, sees the intruder enter his daughters room with a knife, and rushes to the room. The father scares the intruder by yelling and pointing his gun at the intruder, causing the intruder to try and use the daughter as a human shield. What does the father do? If he follows the law is the law, he wouldn't shoot the intruder because it's illegal to shoot people. His daughter is worth far more to the father than the intruder, and there's a real and credible threat to the daughter. Is the father not justified in shooting the intruder? It's unfair to suggest the father knows enough about shooting to merely disable the intruder, so there's a good chance the shot will be fatal. You see? There's an undeniable gradient of law breakage.
Is it okay to commit a crime with a good intentions.

Even if people commit a crime with a good reasons, offense is offense. Socrates left a famous saying 'A law is law, however undesirable it may be.' According to this quotes, we can realize that it can be a crime doesn't matter of our purpose. Also if we forgive offense because of their intention, whole criminals will say they did crime for good will. What I want to say is process is much more important that result, or purpose.
Should you buy your own Cellphone instead of others buying it for you

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic. Children are irrelevant to this thesis. The question is "Should you buy your own phone instead of someone buying it for you? " Children do not have adequate financial resources to buy their own phone, Thus, This thesis does not apply to them in any way. Whether a phone makes a child obnoxious or not is subject to another topic. Children rely on adults to buy things they need and want because there is no way they can get it themselves. The thesis is a question of choice. Children automatically have their phones and electronics bought for them since they do not have the ability to get it themselves. You need money to buy a phone and you must work to get money. Since children cannot work they cannot buy a phone themselves. A parent must decide whether the child is responsible enough or not. If the latter is the answer, The child will have no phone at all (It is not bought by them and can only be bought for them). People buy phones for others for a magnitude of reasons. Whether it is a birthday, Anniversary or other special occasion or it is bought as a reward for achievement(s), Phones make exceptionally wonderful presents. Phones can be bought simply to show gratitude. If an adult son buys a phone for his elderly mother, Who hypothetically cannot afford a phone, Is he doing her a disservice? What if a child needs a phone to call his/her parents in the case of an emergency at school or anywhere else. How can they work their way through difficult or potentially dangerous situations such as these? Phones are tools, A bad worker always blames his tools. The problem is not the buying of the phone, It is the irresponsibly of the person using the phone. While buying your phone does allow you to customize the phone and pick one to suit you, There are situations where you may not be able to get one or where someone decides to buy one for you. In this case, You can accept the gift with a smile, Describe to the person what phone you may like (if they give you that option) and be happy with what you have. It is extremely nice of a person to buy you a phone and sometimes it is necessary and a sign of human compassion. People buying phones for loved ones is not uncommon and is almost always a sign of affection. I strongly assert that someone buying a phone for you is a sign of human social connection and is far more heartwarming than buying the phone yourself.
Evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it hasn't been proven

The school system is not teaching evolution as a fact. They are teaching as if you have the choice to accept it as a possibility. I remember learning it in high school and my teacher said that he is not teaching it as fact, but as a possibility that is supported by scientific evidence. They are providing that if it is true, how things would turn out. However, 99.9 percent of the scientific community accept evolution as an irrefutable fact. Before my opponent can argue that evolution should not be taught in school as a fact, my opponent must prove 99% of scientists are wrong. Said scientists include doctors, engineers, biologists, anthropologists, etc. Why would you trust them with your car, medications, animal's health (vast majority of veterinarians accept evolution as well), building a bridge over the river, etc. ? The vast majority of the people who disagree with evolution have done very little research outside of the classroom. The process of evolution HAS been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. For years people have talked about the missing link of it all, but what people don't know is that that link was found years ago, but few want to accept it as true, and I was one of them. I never wanted to accept it when I was still a Christian. But I eventually turned against my faith and I have accepted something that people have spent years studying. Evolution is considered a fact. Usually people like to play the card "but it's only a theory". Yes, evolution is a theory. A scientific theory by definition is something that is used to describe a fact. Look at the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of molecules etc. They are known, accepted facts, and the theory is used to describe why it is so. Evolution can be observed by the average human being nowadays. Micro evolution and macro evolution are not scientific terms. Scientists did not come up with those terms, only people who did not want to believe we human beings evolved from chimpanzees. We did not evolve from chimpanzees, only we and chimps have a common ancestor. But this is not a debate regarding evolution as fact and I have bloated my argument with a bunch of ranting I guess. This next small chunk is my actual argument. I am for teaching facts, and I am also for teaching what can be an alternative answer. I am for religions being taught in history classes, but not in science classes because religion, even if any were true, can not observed, tested, or documented in a way where people can look at your study and repeat the same tests themselves. If you can test God, which all religious texts tell you not to test God's word, and have people who study the same field, then you can call it a science have it be taught in science class. I think if you truly want evolution to not be taught as a fact, then you should get your community to go to the local school board meetings and vote on it, but do not force people who do want to at least have to opportunity to learn about it from a scientific point of view, and a high school science teacher is a scientist to some degree.
Izbo is retarded

"my opponent claims my debates are retarded with no proof lets look at me of his: http://www.debate.org...... fvcjkin stupis who cares about weirdman? oh right no one. http://www.debate.org...... he loses the easiest damn debate moron http://www.debate.org...... who cares oh right no one" lol That was when I first came here and I was stupid. Besides, the resolution is "Izbo is retarded", not "1dustpelt is retarded". "issaac newton thought of gravity when an aple hit his head,i figured out what gravity was at age 5, yes he was a fvcking moron like every chrisian then and now." He discovered gravity. Besides, you have no proof you figured out gravity. "no proof. i know you cant understand debate being christian and all, but at least ry to prove sometihng else beseides your retardness." You want proof? Fine. You sent innomen, "Why are you such a piece of sh!t? I want to defend myself in this joke of a trial . . . This is so unchristian of you bastard." Proof. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.debate.org...
Izbo is retarded

my opponent claims my debates are retarded with no proof lets look at me of his: http://www.debate.org... fvcjkin stupis who cares about weirdman? oh right no one. http://www.debate.org... he loses the easiest damn debate moron http://www.debate.org... who cares oh right no one he says "Izbo thinks all Christians are retarded when Issac Newton was a Christian" issaac newton thought of gravity when an aple hit his head,i figured out what gravity was at age 5, yes he was a fvcking moron like every chrisian then and now. "Izbo spams stupid messages to people." no proof. i know you cant understand debate being christian and all, but at least ry to prove sometihng else beseides your retardness. my opponent is also a christian so his stupdty is understandable
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist

First off, Can you PROVE that democratic socialism isn't the same as socialism? You even said that it has socialist tendencies, But you neglected to inform us of how it is any different. Next, You made quite a few statements about how democratic socialism is good for our country, But this is besides the point. I disagree strongly on this, But all that we are debating is whether or not Bernie is a socialist. Not about whether it's good or not. So all of that is not valid for this debate. You didn't answer what I said about Bernie holding socialist views. Once again, This debate is not about whether socialism is good or not. All that this is about is whether Bernie is in fact a socialist. Please refrain from commenting on how socialism is "good for the country. " In your next argument, I would like to see you at least attempt to prove that Bernie does not hold socialistic views, And that democratic socialism is not the same as socialism. Once again, Please don't waste any more of your or my time with arguing about whether socialism is good. That's another debate for another time. Back to you!
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist

Democratic Socialism is not the same thing as socialism. Completely different viewpoints. From this, I can tell that the OP is simply misinformed and therefore their judgement is invalid. Moving on, I will still justify my views. Socialism is basically the opposite of capitalism. The government controls ALL means of production (think, Communism) and authoritarianism. Democratic socialism works within a multi-party, CAPITALIST, Country. Most Democratic socialist advocate for more access to healthcare and education for the general population. For example, They believe that you should not have to spend your entire life's savings within 2 years of your cancer treatments, Or be in debt for a decade because you wanted to better your education. Basically wanting to improve the security of the working-class. They plan on obtaining this money through taxes on the rich. We're not talking rich as in, A surgeon who spent a decade getting to where he is now and now he's only making 30% of his income. We're talking, Amazon made $11. 8 billion in profit in 2018 and didn't pay a single dime in taxes. So, By definition and moral understanding, Bernie is in no way a socialist. Democratic socialism has socialist tendencies, But it is not affiliated in that sense.