BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vaginal steaming has significant and scientifically verified health benefits relevant to the USA

INTRODUCTIONVaginal steaming is a practice, recently popularized by one Gwyneth Paltrow, that involves a female sitting over steaming water (possibly infused with herbs) and letting the water enter their vagina.MY POSITIONI argue that vaginal steaming has no significant, scientifically verified health benefits relevant to most females in the USA.RULES1: Failing to fulfill any of these rules is grounds for a 7-point forfeiture.2: No debater may post more than 10,000 characters per round3: Each debater has no more than 72 hours per round to post their argument(s) and rebuttal(s)4: Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate5: No plagiarism6: No trolling, semantics, or other meaningless debates7: No kritiks of the topic; substantive debate pleaseBURDEN OF PROOFPro has the Burden of Proof (BOP) to prove the resolution true, while Con merely has the BOP to prove that the resolution is not true.ROUND SCHEDULERound 1: Con may posts rule(s). Pro may post new argument(s).Round 2: Con may post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro may post new argument(s) and may rebut Con.Round 3: Con may post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro may post new argument(s) and may rebut Con.Round 4: Con may NOT post new argument(s) and may rebut Pro. Pro MUST concede the round.
History Class: The actions of the United States during the Age of Imperialism were not justifiable.

To begin, there were things we did unacceptable for sure, like segregation, but can we honestly say that the USA had an imperialist era? Sure we did have things that were imperialistic (like robbing Native lands; Roosevelt and the Panama takeover), but we never had an empire. Unlike the British, Danish, Swedish, Israeli empires (1948 and later), the USA never has had the intention of robbing lands for settlement (at least since the Westward Expansion, which is a shameful chapter in this country's history).
gun control

You may say I am on the wrong side trying to take your freedom but I am not, it works it works in Australia it works in England it works. All gun control is doing is getting us ready for the day when the future generation wakes up and says "why do we allow everybody to have these weapons that harm our children and give criminals the power to take advantage of our stuff. " I don't agree with what will happen but I still want to be prepared. As I said I love my gun, but I would rather give up that right than have another human dead.
gun control

What I was trying to say was of course criminals are not going to background checks but they are not the ones shooting up schools. The other part I said was relating to how easy and fast it is for psychopaths to get a gun in this country. We should have regulation on where and how people get a gun. For god's sake we sell guns at banks! That is one way to stop some crime. Maybe we should look who we are selling our guns to before we give it to anyone. Thank you I await your response.
gun control

now that you have elaborated about the gun safes it is actually reasonable but as a libertarian i believe in maximum freedom and maximum responsibility so you should have the freedom to not have a gun safe but you should have the responsibility of keeping that gun out of the hands of children. i dont quite understand your statement "but I was talking about psychopaths that decide to get a gun within five hours then shoot up schools." if you could elaborate further on that so i can better respond to it.
gun control

What I meant about the safe is that parents that can afford a gun safe shall have to buy one, and gun safes are not that expensive I have seen some for $500 which would keep children from shooting up schools. Parents that can not afford gun safes don't have to get them. The part you wrote about background checks not preventing criminals from getting guns is completely true, but I was talking about psychopaths that decide to get a gun within five hours then shoot up schools. I await your response.
gun control

Well first of all you just mentioned one of the most missunderstood things about gun control. I believe that we are a great nation and partially because of our guns I love my gun but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in gun control. Gun Control is the controlling of guns not the destruction of them. To my standard gun control should be a background check every 3 months and making gun safes come with the gun to keep them from children. I am NOT ant-gun but I am NOT anti-gun control. Things will get better if we do that, and in order to protect the people from criminals well background checks would both take their guns and serve justice to them. Thank you I await your response.
the united states should abolish the capital gains tax

capital gains taxes should be reduced but not totally abolished. the economy is one of the strengths of a state. in this respect, the tax on capital gains is a system that allows the state to raise enough funds. it will increase the total tax revenues which will allow the state to subsidize certain things such as tuition fees and being able to pay civil servants right on time and create jobs. but after all, depend on the everything depends on the sources of revenue of the state, even if there is not enough the state is always obliged to collect these funds. "in a way I would say it's the contribution of everyone in the development of his country and its proper functioning".
the united states should abolish the capital gains tax

Short-term capital gains tax rate. All short-term capital gains are taxed at the regular income tax rate. From a tax perspective, it's usually better to hold onto investments for more than a year. Long-term capital gains tax rate. The tax rate paid on most capital gains depends on the income tax bracket: Those in the 10 percent and 15 percent income tax brackets pay no capital gains tax. Those in the top income bracket pay 20 percent. In 2017, it's 39.6 percent. Trump's tax act changes the top rate to 37 percent in 2018-2025. Everyone else pays a 15 percent tax on capital gains.
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

"to the Viking hammer the knight brings the morning star (mace version) witch has spikes. the Viking only has mail as an armor and although he can really dish it out he cant take it ( the knight can do a fairly good job in doing both." The Vikings life style alone is enough to suggest that they could have sustained immense amount injuries while fighting. They were also very agile people which would give them an advantage over the knights limited movement. http://www.instructables.com... The image shows us that there were indeed openings in the European chain mail which could have been easily probed by the Japanese katana. My opponent forgets the fact that the katana could indeed cut through metals with ease. Thank you for the debate and i learned quite a lot from you.
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

A Viking's axe is designed to sustain mid range fighting meaning that if the Viking's Axe gets stuck, the Viking can quickly let go of the weapon fast enough to shield himself from a strike. The Viking is also equipped with other weapons such as a fighting hammer which would easily crush the Knights underneath his armor. Not to mention the amount of force the Viking's shield alone could exert if the Viking was forced to use it as an attack mechanism. The Viking is also equipped with huge swords that would overpower the Knights sword" to the Viking hammer the knight brings the morning star (mace version) witch has spikes. the Viking only has mail as an armor and although he can really dish it out he cant take it ( the knight can do a fairly good job in doing both. "several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it, just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor" Under the gaps and joints in MGPA is chain mail( and not open link Asian mail but riveted European mail ) leaving no spot unattended. Europeans stabbed at the rib in the middle of the armor, to go for vital organs not limbs where the only openings are. I'm Sorry but I'm not a very big reference person. thank you for this delightful debate.
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

"like if you are an archer up ageist a knight the archer would shoot at him and(since it has sloped armor http://en.wikipedia.org...... read) the arrow would glance of the night. then the night would behead him if the archer didn't run away first, plus the knight probably would have blocked the arrow with his shield" It seems that my opponent misunderstood me, i wasn't saying that the archer could defeat a knight in a hand to hand combat, i was simply saying that the archer is far superior to the knight when it comes to long distance fighting. The archer could kill tens of men form atop a tree while the knight would have to resolve to one on one combat due to low skills in long distance combat. "if the Viking attacked a knight with an axe at the most get through the knights plate armor but not his chain male. Now the Viking has his weapon stuck in The Vikings armor(if it got past the shield) and then the knight kills the Viking with his morning star" A vikings axe is designed to sustain mid range fighting meaning that if the Viking's Axe gets stuck, the viking can quickly let go of the weapon fast enough to shield himself from a strike. The Viking is also equipped with other weapons such as a fighting hammer which would easily crush the Knights underneath his armor. Not to mention the amount of force the viking's shield alone could exert if the viking was forced to use it as an attack mechanism. The Viking is also equiped with huge swords that would overpower the Knights sword. http://www.hurstwic.org... http://www.hurstwic.org... "for the samurai. the katana is not made to fight against Maximilian Gothic plate armour( abbreviated MGPA ). MGPA has a design that makes it difficult to puncher with any thing other than a stab from the tip of a straight edged weapon" The samurai's way of fighting was not to inflict direct damage on his opponent but to find weak points that would lead to his opponents downfall. "Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor." http://www.thearma.org... gladiators where slaves and only fought animals and one another their chest was unprotected. their are many types of gladiators so please be specific We are talking hypothetically. There is no way for a samurai and a knight to fight. As far as specification, i do not have to specify as all gladiators no matter what rank or type fight in the same manner and use practically the same weapons. Thank you.
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

To "Sorry but my debating style does not allow me to focus on one warrior alone and since the resolution does not limit me to one warrior, I am not inclined to only select one warrior" I am very sorry but you half to choose whole warriors not juts parts of them the topic is about the night being the best worrier in history. he may not have all better weapons than some warriors but all around it evens out like if you are an archer up ageist a knight the archer would shoot at him and(since it has sloped armor http://en.wikipedia.org... read) the arrow would glance of the night. then the night would behead him if the archer didn't run away first, plus the knight probably would have blocked the arrow with his shield if the Viking attacked a knight with an axe at the most get through the knights plate armor but not his chain male. Now the Viking has his weapon stuck in The Vikings armor(if it got past the shield) and then the knight kills the Viking with his morning star by the way the fight takes place in a field in the holy roman empire(so basically Germany) for the samurai. the katana is not made to fight against Maximilian Gothic plate armour( abbreviated MGPA ). MGPA has a design that makes it difficult to puncher with any thing other than a stab from the tip of a straight edged weapon gladiators where slaves and only fought animals and one another their chest was unprotected. their are many types of gladiators so please be specific thank you
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

Thank you and good luck on this debate. Sorry but my debating style does not allow me to focus on one warrior alone and since the resolution does not limit me to one warrior, i am not inclined to only select one warrior. 9i am not trying to be a jerk, I just can't select one war I would like to start by comparing the characteristics that makes a knight a great warriors to the characteristics that makes other warriors great. Weapon: To be the best warrior, one must have the greatest mastery of weapons in whatever way possible. Whether the weapon is your fist, hammer, sword or spear you must be able to overcome your opponents weapon to be the best. In terms of share power, it is clear that the Japanese katana is unmatched in both sharpness and cutting power. The Knight is trained to fight as a unit and not as an individual. True they are trained to fight individual battles to some extent (jousting), they are still no match for the samurai who is solely trained to fight in individual battles. http://www.thearma.org... Short range: When it comes to short range attacks, it is clear that the viking surpasses the knight is every way possible. There fighting skill is superb, there weapons (ax) is stronger than the sword and in some cases sharper than the sword. The Axe is designed to excell in both short and mid range battles. The vikings were also ruthless killers who killed everyone that stood in there way despite there heritage. The Vikings liked in rigorous places making them physically stronger than a knight and since they had to have an immense amount of skill to survive, they were more skillful than a knight. This is why in a combat between a viking and a knight, the viking would win due to skills and an effective weapon. http://www.hurstwic.org... Cross bow long range: This is no competition, the archer would obviously win due to skills. The archer is trained for long range attacks unlike the knight who is trained only for close range attacks. http://www.medieval-spell.com...
knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

We meet again... Before the main round begin, i would like to state one characteristic that makes a knight inferior to the vikings, gladiator and the samurai. This characteristic been that they are ruthless. Unlike the Viking, the gladiator and vikings were barbaric warriors who cared not for loyalty. The samurai where more loyal to the ones the served and unlike the knight, would never run away from a challenge.
Soccer (football) is the best sport out there

Pro has merely restated his previous premise from round 2 in round 3, wherein he claimed soccer is immensely popular, thus deeming it the best. Pro then states, "you see kids play it everyday in places like Africa and Europe," which is speculation and is irrelevant because it can be observed that kids play other sports as well in various countries. Pro states, "it's that if it wasn't the best, people around the earth wouldn't be playing it." Pro seems to neglect that soccer requires one ball and can be played on a field or even an open area with up to 20 people, which is quite simplistic. Other sports such as hockey, tennis, or even baseball, require much more equipment and specific apparatus. This is why many kids play the sport worldwide. Pro disputes my claim that basketball is fast paced. Fast - moving at high speed Pace - consistent and continuous speed in walking, running, or moving http://www.youtube.com... As you can see in the video, the player with possession of the ball and the opposing teams defender(s), are constantly moving at a medium to fast rate of speed. Also, when a turnover or attacking team advances to enemy territory, the rate at which both teams are moving are equally rapid. Albeit my succinct analysis of basketball is indirectly pertinant to the notion, I am baffled as to why Pro contends that basketball is not a fast paced sport. Moreover, pro concedes that saying soccer is the best sport is an opinion, which I unanimously agree, however the proposition under consideration requires Pro's attempt to demonstrate it via argumentation, which Pro has yet to sufficiently accomplish.
Soccer (football) is the best sport out there

The popularity of soccer is immense. You see kids play it everyday in places like Africa and Europe. Soccer wouldn't be so immensely popular without it being the best. But I think saying it's the best sport is somewhat of an opinion. But almost everywhere in the world except for the US and Canada, that's a fact. We're starting to see soccer flourish in America, and over 30% of households in the US have a person playing the sport. But why am I bringing this up? It's that if it wasn't the best, people around the Earth wouldn't be playing it. I would also like to object to Basketball being a fast-paced sport because I find basketball a bit boring.
Soccer (football) is the best sport out there

"Soccer is the most popular sport in the world," which is the first claim advanced from my opponent. As it pertains to popularity and viewership, I will concede that soccer is the leading sport. However, this debate does not involve the proposition that soccer is the most popular sport, but rather the best. This claim alone does not merit soccer as the best sport. The next claim from my opponent is, "in my opinion, it has to be the best," which is purely conjecture and does not enhance Pro's position. This is a claim merely induced from Pro's conviction that soccer is the best, but Pro failed to provide any arguments as to why soccer is the best, aside from popularity. "Soccer is an incredibly fast paced, intense sport," my opponent posits. Below I will provide a few sports that match the criteria of a fast paced game: Basketball Lacrosse Hockey "Making some games mind-numbingly intense," my opponent advances. Below are some sports that involve crucial intensity: American Football Wrestling (Greco-Roman and certain MMA styles) Boxing Track (Particularly the events such as the 100 meter, 200 meter, and the 400 meter sprints) Pro's entire first round consisted of pure conviction, which does not serve as reasonable premises to support the notion. Pro must offer substantial substance to support the proposition under consideration, rather than assert his opinion. Pro, you have the metaphorical floor. http://sporteology.com...
Nintendo Wii U Is Better Than Xbox One

All other rounds will be for debating and rebuttals. Do not take this too seriously or this debate will be forfeited as fanboyism is not accepted by me. I believe that the Nintendo Wii U console is better than Microsoft's Xbox One as it has better games, better controller, better features, better design, better accessories, and better exclusives. Though the Xbox One and the PS4 is certainly far superior to the Nintendo Wii U in terms of graphics, hardware, online, and sales; the Xbox One is the weaker of the two and can be argued that it is inferior to the Nintendo Wii U in all other aspects. I will be taking the pro side and opponent will be taking con.
We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them

I believe that individuality can be maintained through modern architecture. Since we have advanced planning and building technology, we can easily make unique buildings. Your argument could also work against you. For example, what about the buildings torn down or the ground that was blocked to build these buildings you are defending? I could say that these buildings destroyed the culture of the area when they were built. The point is that culture can change, and that we should not be afraid of said change.
We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them

But if all old buildings were damaged and replaced by new, modern skyscrapers, the cities would lose their individuality. Moreover, the historic buildings are the symbol of the city. Without them, a city will become meaningless as if it has no history. The culture of the city would be gone. In other word, the city does not have its proud cultural background anymore. There is no more history to tell, it would not be as educational as before. Nowadays people more impressed by old architecture than modern one. For example, if the Great Wall and Tiananmen Square are not in China, would there be as many as thousand of foreign visitors coming there just to taste the dim-sum and listen to Chinese? If Paris doesn"t have the Eiffel Tower, would there be even more traveling couples coming to this romantic city? I doubted.
We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them

Every culture has its special features. Buildings, as symbol of architectural heritage, are an important part of the history of any country or city. Moreover, they could help us find the answers of many questions about the historical development of our society. Therefore, I truly believe that every city-administration should try to preserve the old, historic buildings. All over the world many buildings are preserved in their authentic appearances. Furthermore, many of them have unique constructions and are really beautiful and impressive. In my opinion, the destruction of such remarkable pieces of architecture and their replacement with modern buildings can be called 'barbarity'. Therefore, a lot of old buildings belonging to the historical heritage of the world are protected by UNESCO. It is a fact that cities, which have their old, historic buildings, are favorite places for holiday and tourism. The reason is that these cities keep their special atmosphere and could offer us a magnificent journey through their cultural and architectural history.
We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them

Gl;Hf 1. Old buildings do not fit in with new ones. Having old buildings next to skyscrapers can ruin the aesthetic. When you see the contrast between the two, the old building has the potential to look ugly. 2. Old buildings don't have an architectural advantage over new buildings. Many times, new buildings are built bigger and safer than old ones. 3. Sometimes the space is needed. Say the city centre is filled with old buildings. Would it be unreasonable to tear a few down to build a park or a fire department?
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

Format:1. First Round: Acceptance2. Second Round: Initial Arguments3. Third Round: Rebuttals4. Fourth Round: More rebuttals5. Fifth Round: ConclusionRules:1. No semantics, ad hominem, etc.2. No new arguments in conclusion, evidence is fine.3. The focus for this debate is on evidence and analyzation of said evidence. The use of logic/reasoning is recommended in analyzing facts.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

I'm sorry that Brotherhood was not able to participate in these last two rounds. When you look at the facts presented, this becomes a debate over a certainty of benefits versus only a negligible possibilty for harms, most of which are completely preventable. Nuclear power works from an economic, health, and foreign policy perspective. On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The resolution is affirmed.