BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

I have decided to drop myself from both LD and Policy tournaments. This is because I truly NEED a debate "break" before school starts up again. I will finish this debate (just for fun) and will continue w/ tournament director "duties". I'm interested in judge decisions but irregardless, I will give both "wins" to my opponent. but lets get to the arguments! ============== My opponent essentially runs this uber kritik. To counter this, I'm going to run a counter-kritik: A. Flow through the argument that states that the debate world isn't perfect. B. My opponent warrants that the debate world isn't perfect but later in his speech he breaks one of the very FEW debate rules, changes the resolution. C. By changing the resolution, I am left unprepared with what I am debating pre-round (at least to a degree) and instead am left with a bunch of how debate is in the current world. As far as any policy making in this round, you must vote aff. Because all stock issues were dropped stone cold. D. By voting Neg., you increase the imperfection of the current debating world. If you were to tell ANY kids a resolution to be debated (rich or poor) and they went into the room prepared for it and it was instead switched to another resolution, it would be unfair for them. This only furthers the imperfection of the current debating world. =========== Onto how my case could solve for the current situation. My opponent claims that such activities such as debate are dominated by rich white people. But what you have to see is that when you link the substantially increased economy from my case with the more money for everyone, you will see more people being able to do what they want. (If you want evidence I can get it but it seems pretty straight forward.) =========== Finally, off of the specific point about racism. Fear of racism leads to unfair treatment for all. --> Since my town has been seeing a lot more of the Hispanic race, I have seen MULTIPLE people bending over backwards to help them because they would feel racist if they didn't. New classes have been made, dates have been switched, all so that they may "feel at home"… Instead of being prejudice against them, it's like we are being prejudice against ourselves. In the end- My case solves for all of his "problems" AND it was completely dropped. My counter-kritik shows how my opponent is the one making debate worse. And because of this, I can only see an Affirmative vote! Thank you!
Battlefield is better than Call Of Duty

If you really want to go with innovation... I could say that all the cod games since like 2004 could've been DLC. Changing a few setting doesn't worth another "45. Plus battlefield isn't always USA VS Russia or anything similar? Pretty sure they make quite a few spinoff titles such as hardline, battlefront etc... And they are very different to the standard battlefield franchise. Hardline for example brings a generally more fast paced game. They've also made lots of adjustments such as adding in many more huge maps to play, changing many new weapons...etc
Battlefield is better than Call Of Duty

Battlefield is better than call of duty. Starting off the teamwork in battlefield is much better than in call of duty. The system rewards you for playing as a team or in a squad. They're also many gadgets to help. such as medkits, defibrillators... The system rewards you and even if you don't get the most kills in a round, you still have a chance to be a the top of leaderboards e.g. you could be getting points from repairing vehicles to help your team get to the combat quicker. You might argue that just because they have better teamwork doesn't mean it's a good game, but having the teamwork element is always nice. Battlefield was always known to have great maps. From skyscrapers e.g. downtown to swamps e.g. everglades there has to be a map that you can enjoy playing. They're also a variety of size so if you like playing on a small map to get into the combat quicker, go for the block in hardline, or you can go with derailed for a bigger map. Levolution is hands down much better in battlefield. In call of duty you can't do much more than blowing up some cars. In battlefield however, for example at siege of Shanghai, if you manage to take down the huge skyscraper the whole map changes and gets covered in rubble. In the new battlefield hardline on dustbowl half way through the game the whole map gets covered in dust so you have to adapt. This changes the whole pace of the game and therefore the player has to learn the 'new' map. Vehicles play a major part in the game. If you ask me, I would rather pilot a plane than to call it on an earpiece and a tablet. A variety of vehicles bring an interesting dynamic to the game. With the frostbite 3 engine. The game itself is more visually immersive and this pairs up well with the huge maps it has. http://bf4central.com... Here btw is an unbiased comparison between call of duty ghosts with battlefield 4: http://www.gamesradar.com...
The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature

Yes, I believe that I, single-handedly proved to you that quantum mechanics wrong. Science says that all matter is divisible. Definition of matter is one that has mass. It has been proved that a photon has a mass of 1.8(10)-42g. That means that a photon is matter. They said before that an atom was the lowest unit matter can be divided until they came up with what was inside of the atom. Quantum mechanics says that a quantum (photon) is the lowest unit, and that it cannot divided further. This is contradictory because one that has mass can be divided further. Conclusion: As long as an object has mass, it can be divided.
The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature

By definition, matter is that which has mass. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com... Yes, it can be mathematically calculated. No, it can't be experimentally calculated. The electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10-28 and 5.1 x 1014 photons can produce the photo-electric effect, then the mass of a photon can be calculated to be 1.8 x 10-42 g. So a photon has MASS. http://www.kentuckyscience.com... "In physics, the question of whether matter is infinitely divisible is the question of whether it is true that no matter how small the pieces into which a physical object has been cut, they can be split further. The word atom originally meant a smallest possible particle of matter, which cannot be further divided. Later, those objects to which the name atom had been assigned were found to be further divisible, but the word atom nonetheless continues to refer to them." http://www.economicexpert.com... Physics says that matter is matter is not infinitely divisible, yet science proves that TIME will tell when the science of Quantum Mechanics is proved wrong. It sometimes TAKES TIME to prove theories right.
The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature

Theory of sivashanmugam (TOS) says that, if you search for divisibility, you will find it everywhere in everything. My question is: Is a photon divisible? Quantum mechanics says that photons are indivisible particles. Quantum mechanics also says that photon is not a particle. At the height of all, TOS is tossing my brain - divisibility is universal. Is divisibility universal? Science says that nothing is universal. Therefore, The nature of anything cannot be known from the universal laws of nature!!
The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature

If you search for divisibility, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for comparability, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for connectivity, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for sensitivity, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for transformability, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for substitutability, you will find it everywhere in everything! If you search for satisfiability, you will find it everywhere in everything! This is a universal law of nature ANYTHING can be known from this atoms and molecules make up all things and if one searches for the things I listed they will find it in atoms therefore anything All the laws of nature are discoverable in everyone and everything.-Sivashanmugan http://analaytical.wikia.com...
Removing Subjective Tastes, the Beatles Were the Greatest Band/ Artist/ Musicians of All Time

Sure, I'll debate this for fun :) I'd like my opponent to be aware that while R1 states, "...[The Beatles] should be considered the greatest musical act that ever existed, at least during modern history," the resolution is about the greatest artist/ musician of all time - not "modern history," whatever that refers to. Also, I've debated on behalf of The Beatles being the greatest before, so I know what arguments to expect (i.e. experimenting with technology and new instruments to create a new sound, etc.). But for the sake of brevity, I'll point out to Pro that his introduction round suggests that the Beatles are the greatest for reasons including their widespread popularity and appeal to various demographics. Considering he specifically called to leave subjective tastes out of this, then appealing to the majority or rather appealing to numbers at all is not a relevant contention on his behalf. He cannot use their fame or popularity as a contention if he said subjective tastes ought not to be considered in determining the best musicians. That said, I look forward to seeing what other arguments Pro has in mind. I'd also like to calrify that I am a Beatles fan :)
Removing Subjective Tastes, the Beatles Were the Greatest Band/ Artist/ Musicians of All Time

Resolved: All subjective tastes aside, it is unquestionable that the Beatles, based on their widespread fame and accomplishments, unprecedented musical breakthroughs, and ability to appeal to people of all demographics throughout the ages, should be considered the greatest musical act that ever existed, at least during modern history. The first round is for acceptance only, so there are really only three rounds to debate. I will also allow my opponent this round to ask for the definitions of any terms which he/ she is not clear on, and these shall be defined in my opening argument.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I agree as I previously stated that one person can still have feelings for the other without the feelings being mutual, however that does not mean that they are in love with that person. There is a big difference between the two and i still hold to my position regarding this premise. 4. I see where you're coming from, however they may very well still love the other person who died but they simply cannot be in love with them because they are no longer able to be with each other, only the memories of that person and what they once had does. 5. Similarly to my previous premise, even though one person may still have feelings and the other may have lost them doesn't mean that person is in love with them, even though they may believe that they are and constantly be thinking of what they had in the past when there relationship actually existed physically. 6. yes but again just because a person moved on doesn't mean they are now in love with that person, not to mention romantically in love. They are only;y trying to move on whether it be sexually or mentally and not have to live in the pain that the person that they actually are in love with left them. 7. False, marriages can be based upon many different things as I stated earlier, and not only on love. Unfortunately being married to someone simply doesn't make it factual that you are in love with them, even if it might appear so to others because of the fact that it is a norm to be in love with the person(s) you are married to. 8.Even if people almost always get married out of love and not because of false pretenses hat doesn't mean that they always love the person they are married to and that the individuals are in love. I stand by my overall opinion that you can only love one person at once and I feel that your previous premise 8 only further supports my view.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I still agree with our definition of romantic love, which is "Having romantic love with someone is defined as having a strong and passionate affection towards someone or something." This type of love is completely different from a platonic love, or one shared with a family member. 4. I am still a believer in the idea that a one sided love can exist. Although the feelings of are never present or no longer there for one individual, they certainly can be there for another. It's kind of like the riddle "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Just because no one is around to observe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all. 5. I understand your claim in that without physical interaction that true romantic love won't exist. I agree that physical interaction can help enhance a love, but it is not the sole reason as to why the love is there. Before a physical connection is made, there needs to be a mental and emotional connection already established. That is where, in my opinion, how true romantic love is started. If a lover has died, and one can no longer have a physical connection, does their love die with their partner? 6. I agree that there are many marriages in where there is no true love established, but the majority are not often that way. This still leads me to believe that many scenarios have existed in where a divorce takes place and the romantic love that one has had had for another still existed, even if that person has moved on to another. Love is not just something you can choose to be in one day and not the next. 7) Most marriages are based on being in love with the person(s) in which they are married to. The vast majority of relationships are based on love and it is ridiculous to say that most people get married who are not in love with each other. This is the sole reason why marriages exist in our society. 8) I feel as if people more times then not get married out of love. Based on that it is more likely for someone to get cheat and then divorced, and then remarry out of love for their new partner, and still have love for their ex and be in love with them.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I agree with this response. 4. I agree that one of the individuals may very well still have feelings for the other in these circumstances, however just because they may still love the other individual doesn't necessarily mean that they are romantically in love with them. I believe the specific category of romantic love is deeper than just having feelings for another person and I believe to romantically be in love with someone there must be some sort of connection or interaction between the two individuals. Without any interaction it would essentially just be reminiscing on the past. 5. My response to premise 6 is the same as premise 5. 6. As I stated in my first premise 7 response, I agree with you that sexual interactions are not required nor the basis for being in love with someone, however I do think as stated in my last two premises that some sort of interaction is required to truly be romantically in love with someone. yes, we agreed to the definition, however the definition says nothing regarding what it means to be truly romantically in love with someone. And yes, this is based on my personal interpretation because we have not agreed upon what is required to truly be in love with someone yet thus far. 7. I concede with this premise because this was solely my opinion and I feel I didn't provide enough evidence to support it. 8. There are many instances where people are married with false intention and where marriages are formed without true feelings of love for one another. Arranged marriages, "gold diggers", and marrying someone to gain a position of power are some examples.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3) The majority of people are not in monogamous relationships because of the fact that they believe you can only love one person at a time. Instead, the majority of people are in monogamous relationships because it is now a social norm and a social standard, and people are afraid to stand out and feel that they must adhere to this norm. 4) No, after breakups people very often feel the need to move on with a new individual, in doing so it is also very common for them to fall in love with the new partner as well. With that said, it is not uncommon for people to still love their ex and have strong feelings for them and now also be in love with another individual. 5) Similarly to my previous response, they very well may be in love with a new partner in which they met and moved on with, and they can certainly still be in love with their ex lover as well. it was not their decision to break up with their ex, it was forced upon them, and when this occurs it is common for people to move on and develop feelings for a new individual as well. 6) Most marriages are based on being in love with the person(s) in which they are married to. The vast majority of relationships are based on love and it is ridiculous to say that most people get married who are not in love with each other. This is the sole reason why marriages exist in our society. 7) We are not debating about the majority of people and their beliefs on marriage/ love in our society. instead, we are debating whether or not it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. i feel that your response serves as supporting evidence towards my position that it is indeed possible to love more than one individual at a single time.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3) Yes, it may be a social norm now to be in a monogamous relationship, but it is because people realize in our society that you truly can only be in love with one person at a time, sure you may have feelings for someone else or like someone else, but you are not automatically in love with someone else just because you may sexually be involved with them. 4) If they have met a new person in their life because they felt forced to attempt to move on that does not imply whatsoever that they now are in love with them. If they still are in love with their ex then by moving on or attempting to move on all they are doing is physically trying to not love their ex anymore, and if they are successful at doing that then they now may be in love with only the new individual that is in there life and not their ex anymore. Even though they may still care about them. 5) My response to this premise is essentially the same as my previous response, that if they have met a new person in their life because they felt forced to attempt to move on that does not imply whatsoever that they now are in love with them. 6) As you said in premise 7, we are not debating about majorities here. We're debating whether it's possible to love more than one person or not and it is not possible to love multiple people at the same time. People get married under false motives all the time, whether it be forced marriages or even marrying into money your argument that polygamy proves you can love more than one individual at once in invalid. This is because marriage doesn't always mean that you love the person(s) whom you are married to. 7) No, the reason you are incorrect is because I'm trying to prove that there is a reason why most people understand that you can only love one individual at a time, and those who may practice polygamy and may claim to be in love with multiple people at once may have a false or misinterpreted definition of romantic love than we agreed upon. 8) No it's not possible because if they truly loved the person in which they were married to they would not have cheated in the first place. Cheating is often based on impulse and that is because they often do not respect there special other enough because they aren't truly in love with them. If they were, they would be caring towards that person and not want to hurt them/ mistreat them. caring is an attribute of romantic love in which we agreed upon earlier.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3) The majority of people are not in monogamous relationships because of the fact that they believe you can only love one person at a time. Instead, the majority of people are in monogamous relationships because it is now a social norm and a social standard, and people are afraid to stand out and feel that they must adhere to this norm. 4) No, after breakups people very often feel the need to move on with a new individual, in doing so it is also very common for them to fall in love with the new partner as well. With that said, it is not uncommon for people to still love their ex and have strong feelings for them and now also be in love with another individual. 5) Similarly to my previous response, they very well may be in love with a new partner in which they met and moved on with, and they can certainly still be in love with their ex lover as well. it was not their decision to break up with their ex, it was forced upon them, and when this occurs it is common for people to move on and develop feelings for a new individual as well. 6) Most marriages are based on being in love with the person(s) in which they are married to. The vast majority of relationships are based on love and it is ridiculous to say that most people get married who are not in love with each other. This is the sole reason why marriages exist in our society. 7) We are not debating about the majority of people and their beliefs on marriage/ love in our society. instead, we are debating whether or not it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. i feel that your response serves as supporting evidence towards my position that it is indeed possible to love more than one individual at a single time. 8) No, even if the cheating is based on impulse, it's possible that they may actually be in love with the person whom they are having an affair with. I think I need to clarify that by cheating I am speaking about having relationships with more than one individual other than the person whom you are married to, in a relationship with. and not just an instance of a sort of one night stand sort of cheating.