BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

This is a direct challenge to Kylar. I thank Kylar for this debate. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind." [1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading." [2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect." [3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation." [4]Rules1. The debate structure is given below. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No semantics, trolling or kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link or may be within the debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by Con)Round 3: Refutation and defenseRound 4: Refutation, defense and conclusionSources1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. http://dictionary.reference.com...;3. http://dictionary.reference.com...;4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
the government should ban violent video games to kids and adolescent

Here are some examples do kids who lost their temper because of violent video games: "A 13-year old boy jumped from the building"s 24th floor and committed suicide after playing Warcraft III for 36 hours straight. "A teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after months of playing Grand Theft Auto. "A 17-year-old male killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from him. "A 15-year old ran away from home after his parents took his Xbox console away. His dead body was found almost a month after. If you don't believe me search it up I just proved to my con's point Take that
April topic for POFOers only take if you are in POFO.

First off if the money is not borrowed from somewhere then why do we have a deficit of 260 billion dollars. Go to Fox News, type in budget deficit, that deficit is caused by the act. So it does increase our deficit, you don't know anything about economics. Actually the dollars value stays the same, but oil prices lead to inflation if you read my case, you would have got that. You fail to see I already rebutted your previous point in my last speech. Second the tax rebates in 2003 had tax rate cuts as well. The EAS has not tax rate cuts there. So they have failed in the past. Your whole points or only one is banks will get liquidity, but did the framers of the act go yes go out there and put that chec in the bank, no because they want it spent on the economy not in the bank, because of what I said last time. Where a 165 billion act, only gets 20 billion spent in 2009. How is that successful mitigation. bush say "get that check and spend it.". So it is not doing what it is supposed to do, so the Aff cannot get up here and argue what he is arguing. He is now not topical because his economic benefits are not, repeat are not direct, they are indirect. It like this he is straining the money and claiming all the benefits of the same amount will be there. They won't, because no one is spending. Just read the aff has lost, Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, measures which affect the lives of millions born and unborn our now before us. My worthy opponents have spoken with great ingenuity and eloquence. However you are not mitigating economic slowdowns when Americans are losing their jobs and their homes. I am not without apprehensions, but saying this act will successfully mitigate the recession with it being ill prepared as it is, would be to brave a storm in a ship made of paper. My judgement disproves this measure and my whole heart is any. All that I have, all that I am, and all that I hope for in this life, I am now ready to stake upon it. While I live give me a vote for the negative.
April topic for POFOers only take if you are in POFO.

For the record, online, don't address the infamous "judge." Also, instead of bastardizing, use "strawman fallacy" it sounds smarter, and it helps judges like you more. On the rebates dispute, you're failing to realize that any debt resulting from a rebate isn't foreign debt. Furthermore, foreign debt only represents about 25% of all T-Note purchases. The actual problems you're talking about result from mounting debts that aren't paid. Any debt created by rebates is paid off rapidly. Failing to realize this has negated your entire claim. Secondly, you talk about how the government is simply "putting money in." This is false. The government isn't liquidated more currency, it's simply directing it. By taking money from an investor, and redistributing it, currency isn't created, it's redirected. Secondly, you make it sound as if there is an international wave to run away from the dollar, when in fact a lot of the dollars' devaluing is at the hands of the federal reserve. It has been targeted, and exports have increased to the right countries. For clarification, which contentions did i drop? I see that I refuted all of them, but I may have misread. Finally, in refutation of my point, you failed to see my citation of the 2003 Bush Tax cuts. Further, economics teaches (something you fail to see) that when the MPS increases, interest rates will quickly decrease, and investment will result. You also fail to address how it will help the housing market, which, if helped alone, would jumpstart the economy. Now for some bad PF rhetoric: Don't let my opponent do that judge!
April topic for POFOers only take if you are in POFO.

This is very simple, when you borrow money to put more money into the economy that money devalues the dollar. Devaluing the dollar tells other countries like oil producing one's to spend on euro or yen instead of the dollar, which devalue's the dollar even more. Two the huge deficit which is 265 billion right now because of the act will prevent domestic investment because countirs will see the U.S. as too risky to spend on. three it harms the countries giving the money because we have already borrowed a huge amount already. Yes they are major importers but are trade deficit is at a astronomical level right now. On his only contention this is the major flaw in his case and do not let him get away with it. Here is why he is saying the money will increase liquidity, but all that is going to happen will that money instead of being spent immediatly like he said it will take longer to have it all spent. This means simply I have one because this 165 billion act will not hit the economy until who knows when. It could hit the economy in 2018 for all we know, with his attack on resolutional the money he is talking about is not directly touching our economy it is indirectly touching it through banks so now that 160 billion dollars has now turned into 20 billion to be in the economy. DOn't let him get away with this judge, because saying all of it is going to the banks is only strengthening my case, because their 600 dollar rebate after it has gone through the banks may end up at the end to 200 or even less. The only way to vote is neg, he also dropped my 2 contention and has bastardised my con.1 and 3. Not understanding the concept at all
There is absolute truth

There are not absolute truths."Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.Because you exist, that does not mean that existance isn't a matter of perspective. The perception of my existances, does not prove that I know the absolute truth of my existance any more than a color blind person knows the absolute truth of the color red. This is the problem with all absolute truths, even if they existed it would be impossible to define them, and if we could never know them, they as far as we are concerned they don't exist.The concept of existance changes between individuals. It is therefore not varied, and alterable and not fixed. We can say something is red to give us a word to work with for the color red but we can't get the absolute truth for the color red because it varies greatly from one perception to the next.
Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.

Argument 1: Tax exemption constitutes an endorsement of religion. Tax exemptions give these institutions more money. This is a simple fact. Regan v. Taxation with Representation (US Supreme Court) decided that a tax exemption has the same effect as a cash grant. This is unconstitutional. Argument 2: Tax exemption favors larger churches, which are often predatory. This credit varies from church to church. Your average church may pull in a good amount, but definitely not as much as Kenneth Copeland's church worth hundreds of millions of dollars. A larger amount of money would be taken from his church if it was taxed than your average church. This means the bigger churches (which don't need help) are helped more. Sadly, these big churches are often the predatory ones, taking money from sick people in exchange for a promise of healing that never comes. Argument 3: We need the money Source 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source 2: http://bigthink.com... According to source 1, churches have $300-500,000,000,000 in untaxed property. According to source 2, this could make us $71 billion per year. This could have paid for the war in Vietnam. This can pay for free college tuition (estimated cost $60 billion per year). This could be channeled into social security to increase benefits or to be saved for the future. It could be used to help the drastically underfunded VA. This money could be used for so many things that are a good for all of society.
Feet

Pro misses the entire point of wearing socks with shoes. It isn't to keep our feet from smelling. With my lack of hygiene that isn't possible anyway, it's so the socks soak up the sweat and keep the sneakers from smelling. According to this one nasty bitchh on some website who went two years without wearing socks, her shoes started changing colors, disintegrating and the moisture from her sweaty feet made the shoes moldy. Let's not forget that the friction from the shoe and the foot causes blisters. These blisters can be painful and annoying, as well as get infected and cause your foot to have to be amputated. http://www.bustle.com... Not wearing socks can also contribute to athletes foot, makes it harder to stay warm in the winter, since most heat is lost through your feet and head and your lack of style makes you less appealing to the opposite sex. http://health.webs28.com... I urge my opponent to have better hygiene. Thank you, vote Wylted.
Feet

I think that wearing sneakers without socks is okay if the sneakers are comfortable. A lot of people say your feet will stink if you wear sneakers without socks. Your feet will still smell though even if you do wear socks. And without the socks, your feet will probably sweat less, thus less odor. Besides, nobody should care about foot odor because it will happen either way. It's all about the comfort of the shoe. Comfort is king.
Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics

I will apologize to pro, I am a person who is constantly busy and I often write my arguments with as many as 3 other windows open on the screen at once, such was the case with this debate. So where we stand now, I will let this round pass , no need to C&P the previous debate since every one has read it. I will offer no rebuttals this round so next round we will be back on track.
Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics

Links annotated. ==Abstract==Private property rights have always been at the forefront of many political struggles in the United States since its founding and until recently courts have come down on an individualistic world view in terms of property, responsibility and so on. Reaching back into history, the ability to deny service was considered a basic of property rights until the civil rights era. The reasons why this changed is all but obvious (1) The abuses of this era cannot be separated easily from the kind of legal institutions that enabled them, one such is the ability of an institution to discriminate against a person(s) based on immutable qualities. == Realism == We wont beat around the bush here, the reality of the right to legally discriminate against a person or persons includes but is not limited to the right to be institutionally racist (2) or any other criteria of bigotry (3). Bluntly put, these kinds of practices are one in the same with the effects those practices produce , legalising the ability to refuse service is a practical reinstatement of segregation. Let's look at a historical example. Practices such as Red lining(5) where in practice until the fair housing act of 1968. During this practices legality, private institutions (namely financial) where able to charge higher interest against minority races, refuse to sell property in certain areas either directly or by making the desired property unreasonable to attain through various manipulations. The result was an unnatural segregation of real estate, as well as a quality of living. The practice of redlining was a way of denying service as well as exploiting service performed purely by private institutions of finance bare in mind. The practice of denying service has been abolished specifically because of these blatant abuses, there is no realistically good way to separate actions from their institutional or legal basis. The Jim Crow days are gone they took blatantly abusive and unjust practices like this with them. You frankly don't have the ability nor the right to be a bigot and expect to be a functional member of society. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://madnews.files.wordpress.com... (3) http://www.israellycool.com...
Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics

I will be taking the pro side for this debate, meaning I am arguing that private businesses ought to be able to deny service to a patron even if it is based on an immutable characteristic they possess. BOP is shared where each side has to assert and defend their argument and if one side fails to do one while the other side does both or if one side fails to do both while one side does one or both, the latter wins. Definitions: There has long been a slight controversy within this debate over what private property should be protected to discriminate and what private property should not. Today I will be arguing that any private property that does not accept government funds should be able to discriminate, and if the property or business is a corporation owned by shareholders, the board should vote on it's policies regarding what patrons it will and will not serve. This means that most scenarios where emergency services would be denied are not valid, since most hospitals (private hospitals and free clinics) accept governments funds through medicaid/medicare and cannot deny emergency services to anyone. All my other definitions will be provided by merriam webster or google dictionary. Ought: used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence (Merriam Webster) Able: having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something. (Google Dictionary) Deny: refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone). (Google Dictionary) Service: the action of helping or doing work for someone. (Google Dictionary) Immutable Characteristic: An immutable characteristic is any sort of physical attribute which is perceived as being unchangeable, entrenched and innate Wikipedia Debate is open to all, but I'd prefer someone who is experienced in debate and on this particular subject. First round is for acceptance only. Footnote: All google dictionary definitions can be found by going to google and typing in define: word Footnote #2: It should be assumed that my opponent has at least basic interpretatory, literary and civil/governmental/political knowledge and therefore any attempt to exploit flaws in a definition or rule that any reasonable person would be able to decipher as an intentional exploitation should be seen as a violation of conduct and automatic loss of the debate.
The Avenger Sucked!!!

So who cares of the enemy is easy what did you expect that they would kill all the avengers and go yup that's how they die no!!! This movie is impossible to point out negatives and all marvel heroes in one movie is awesome. What about Expendables having all action stars or Transformers having all the autobots and deceptacon in three movies plus what about the upcoming justice league movies and superman vs batman movie so yeah lot of movies with a lot of main characters. Just having all the main superheroes in one movie is cool so you can't diss this movie just because one person had a bigger part than the other that is straight bs. Or if the enemy are too easy if that's the case than Star Wars hobbit and lord of the rings should be all gone because the enemies are too easy!!
The Avenger Sucked!!!

The Avengers is a fun popcorn movie, but that's all that it is- a fun popcorn movie. Overall, the film added very little to the world. While some superhero films have taken the conventions of the genre and examined the psychology of people who dress in costume to beat up others (Watchmen), the duality of mankind (The Dark Knight), or the effect that one person making a public statement can have on the culture (Kick-*profanity*), the Avengers is really just about how the Avengers, especially Iron Man, are cool. The ultimate problem is that we have already seen each of these characters face their biggest internal challenges. They have all had to grow as people. There is only room for one character to get any development, which is naturally Tony Stark. I love Robert Downey, but there were five Avengers still missing any character development. They start out as one way, and end the film very much the same. The character with the greatest potential for growth, Bruce Banner, has his entire reason for being able to control his rage (something that he was unable to do for two movies) cut down to a single sentence. While it is true that there was a longer, more moving scene of his coming to terms with the Hulk, that was cut in favor of a longer New York battle. And speaking of the New York battle, the Chitauri are about as effective as battle droids from Star Wars Episode I. The screenwriters, unable to come up with a satisfying way to end their film, simply have all the alien invaders drop dead the instant their base is destroyed. Ultimately, nothing any of the other Avengers do matters in the slightest, because Iron Man delivered the nuke. Even if the portal had remained open, their base being destroyed is clearly shown as the Chitauri's doom. Literally every other member of the most powerful team of superheroes in the Marvel universe is playing backup to Stark.
The Avenger Sucked!!!

First Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Nick Fury in one movie!!! All these character are freaking awesome you got a super soldier, god of thunder, couple of highly trained assassin, a man with huge anger problems and armor that shoots plasma beams that is complete awesome!! The story is the best with Loki returning as the main villain and the hulk vs Thor and Iron Man vs Thor now come on who doesn't wanna see that!!! The fight scenes were right on point and it never bored me at all and guess what the Avenger 2 comes out next May with one of the best villain for the Avengers and it's freaking Ultron and Hydra. Plus you got the son and daughter of Magneto which are Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. The Avengers was the third best movie in grossing with over 1 billion dollars!! Next you got Joss Whedon the genius behind this movie who has the director of Cabin in the Woods, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Agents of Shield and Angel all very popular shows from his work!!! I mean there is nothing to be said Avengers is one of my favorite movies of all time!!!!
The Avenger Sucked!!!

My point is that, compared to the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, nobody experienced any sort of character arc outside of Iron Man, who got to go through almost the exact character growth that he experienced in all three of his solo movies. In those films, secondary characters actually got to experience things and grow as characters. Han Solo, for example, has a side arc in which he learns to trust his new friends, backing them up when they're in trouble while also developing a romantic relationship with Princess Leia. In the Lord of the Rings (movies), Merry and Pippin grow into men willing to accept responsibility for their actions after starting out as the comic relief. Gimli and Legolas learn to put aside racial hatreds and work together as best friends. In both of those series, the side characters are able to seem more real by their interactions with one another. Now, as an exercise, list the relationships which developed during the Avengers with characters who are not Tony Stark. As you have pointed out in your opening argument, we have the Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Nick Fury, all played by good actors. Well we have the Hulk who... forms a friendship with Tony Stark. There's Captain America who... learns to work with Iron Man. The relationships that we DO see outside the Tony Stark circle are either preexistent or perfunctory. Hawkeye and Black Widow have a relationship, but that's in place at the start of the film and never really develops, even after he's been mind controlled. Agent Coulson is a major Cap fanboy, but once again, that is in place before the film begins and doesn't actually grow. Instead, it is used to motivate the team (especially Iron Man) to work together. The only example I could find of a relationship actually developing between non-Stark characters was the brief scene that Hulk and Thor share after felling the Leviathan. Beyond that five seconds of humor, there's nothing. In the end, the Avengers was a fun movie, but it works mostly out of spectacle. Its primary accomplishment was getting superheroes from multiple backgrounds together in one film, from war movie Cap to sci-fi Iron Man, monster movie Hulk and fantasy Thor. What it did not do, however, was tell a deep story. Compared to some of Joss Whedon's best work, there just wasn't enough time to actually bring out the best elements of each character. Combined with the undeniable bankability of Robert Downey Jr., and the other actors were destined to play second-fiddle in a film which should have been more about celebrating the awesome parts of team-ups, seeing different combinations of characters interact together to produce interesting new dynamics. Hopefully now the groundwork has been laid and Hollywood knows just how much money these films can make, this type of movie can become something more meaningful than simple popcorn fare.