BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf

I will now begin my rebuttals. Superior Weapons and defense"With no way of killing a Dalek the Cybermen couldn't have won"While they didn't have any chance of destroying the Daleks, with their lasers, the Cybermen did have other forms of attacks. I'll reiterate the quote I used earlier:"During the battle, although the Cybermen's lasers had no effect on the Daleks, the Cybermen destroyed some with their electrical attack from their hands, ripping off the Dalekanium domes. " [6]This clearly shows that the Cybermen weren't powerless against the Daleks, so could easily have won the battle against a mere four. New Daleks"It could have been possible for the Daleks to also convert some humans into Daleks"It may have been possible for a Dalek spaceship and the Dalek Emperor himself, but the Cult of Skaro would have had too few resources with which to convert humans into Daleks. Also, the Daleks may well have been overrun before they could start converting humans. With so many Cybermen, the Daleks would have barely been able to leave the Tower before they were destroyed. Human reinforcement"Many humans would probably help the Daleks"I don't believe any of the human soldiers were really "loyal" to either the Cybermen or the Daleks, had they fought with them. They were forced to fight alongside the Cybermen because they had overrun the tower and forced the personnel to surrender [1]; they had no choice but to fight with them. "Also I would like to ask your age, and where you live, you don't have to answer of course but I just like knowing something about the people I debate with. "I'll PM you with the information; it seems you are not accepting messages at the moment, so I'll send you the information as soon as possible. Please present your rebuttals.
The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf

I am sorry if you feel like I am already refuting your arguments, I came up with all of mine before you posted yours.Superior weaponry and defenseThe Daleks have far stronger weapons than the Cybermen do. The Dalek lasers can kill a Cyberman in one shot, the Cybermen lasers had some affect on the Daleks but only for a moment, the Daleks immediately adapted to the Cyberlasers and after that it didn't harm them at all. [1] With no way of killing a Dalek the Cybermen couldn't have won, it would have taken the Daleks a very long time to kill them all, but eventually the Cybermen would also run out of humans to convert.New Daleks It could have been possible for the Daleks to also convert some humans into Daleks, we know it is possible; the dalek emperor turned humans into Daleks [2]. If the cult of Skaro could do that too, they would soon have an army.Human reinforcementMany humans would probably help the Daleks:Some would be fighting for the Daleks from the beginning because the Cybermen outnumber the Daleks and therefor would seem like a bigger threat to them.Others would follow later; The Daleks would be slaughtering Cybermen without losing even one of their own, many humans would start fighting for the winning( Dalek) side in the hope the Daleks would be so thankful they wouldn't exterminate them after the war.I would like to apologize for my bad grammar, I am from the Netherlands so English is not my mother tongue.Also I would like to ask your age, and where you live, you don't have to answer of course but I just like knowing something about the people I debate with. [1] Series 2.13 Doomsday[2] Series 1.13 The parting of the ways (part 2)
The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf

I'd like to begin by apologising for posting my argument so late; I honestly thought I had another 24 hours left to post it. Still, no harm done. I will now present my arguments.Strength in NumbersAt the time of the Battle of Canary Wharf (henceforth shortened to BOCW), the Cybermen had 5 million troops present on Earth. The Daleks had four. What's more, the Cybermen were present all across the globe, including in England, the Taj Mahal and Paris [1] as well as Spain [2]. They were also present in ordinary houses, taking over whole families [1]. In 2006, the World's population reached 6.5 billion [3]. Although the Daleks arrogantly claimed they could defeat 5 million Cybermen with one Dalek [1], could they have defeated an army 1,300 times bigger? [4] The honest answer is a resounding no.Chance of Recruiting from Pete's WorldThe Cybermen also had the possibility of returning to Pete's World, albeit it taking around 5 years [1], whereas the Daleks were "fired at this world like a cannonball", showing that they had no chance to escaping back through the Void [5]. In any case, there were no more Daleks in the universe after the Time War so the Daleks would have been incapable of recruiting any more Daleks to fight for them.Human SupportAt least at the start of the BOCW, human soldiers fought alongside the Cybermen against the Daleks [1]. The Cybermen, again, had the opportunity to either use these soldiers against the Daleks or upgrade them, as they did with Torchwood personnel. These soldiers, although unfeeling for the Cybermen, seemed completely bound to the Cybermen's wishes so disloyalty would be unlikely.More PowerAlthough the Daleks' firepower may have been superior to the Cybermen's, the Cyber-lasers were not the Cybermen's only form of attack. In fact:"During the battle, although the Cybermen's lasers had no effect on the Daleks, the Cybermen destroyed some with their electrical attack from their hands, ripping off the Dalekanium domes." [6]This shows that the Cybermen were capable of destroying the Daleks and, with only four to deal with, the ongoing battle would have been very short. In addition, the Daleks were at first vulnerable to the Cybermen's laser attacks [1], [6]. With the Cybermen's ever-upgrading weaponry, they could have developed another weapon easily capable of penetrating the Dalek shields, killing the Dalek inside.ConclusionTherefore, the Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf if the Genesis Ark had not been opened. I now hand over to CON for his arguments but request that he doesn't rebut my points until the next round.Sources[1] Series 2.13 Doomsday[2] Series 3.X The Runaway Bride[3] http://geography.about.com...[4] http://calculator.com...[5] Series 2.12 Army of Ghosts[6] http://tardis.wikia.com...
The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf

Full Resolution: The Cybermen would have won the Battle of Canary Wharf had the Genesis Ark not been opened. PRO will be arguing that the Cybermen would have won. CON will be arguing that the Daleks would have won. BoP is shared. For the purposes of this debate, the following alternative events will be considered as fact: - The Genesis Ark was not opened. - The Doctor never sucked the Cybermen and/or the Daleks into the Void. - The battle continued until either side was destroyed or until one side was forced to surrender. DefinitionsCYBERMEN - The massed army of at least 5 million Cybermen present on Earth at the time of the battle, including any Cybermen upgraded immediately before or during the battle and the humans of Torchwood who were, temporarily, on the side of the Cybermen against the Daleks. DALEKS - The four Daleks of the Cult of Skaro WITHOUT the assistance of the Genesis Ark and the million Daleks inside it. WON - Destroyed the other side, provoked a surrender or forced a full retreat. First round is for acceptance only. Forfeits result in all seven points going to the other debater. Other than these, rules will be kept at a minimum.
School voucher systems create an unbalance in the education system.

Thank you for the clarification. -----YOUR CASE------ You disagree with me that the school vouchers removes the "double payment" from many taxpayers, but then go on to say: "The only ones who would actually have to make this "double payment" would be the people who could initially afford to send their students off to private school. " Yes, that was my point. Those who pay taxes but still send their children to private schools, do double payment, and school vouchers corrects this. You postpone discussion of the next 2 points, saying you'll elaborate later what "balance" means. ------- MY CASE-------- 1) a) Are you saying that when parents send their children to school, they think: "Oooh, that school has higher cost; it's fancy! That's why I will send my children to that school! " Your misrepresentation completely undermines the research that parents put in to selecting schools, by examining teacher quality, academic environment, location, etc. To repeat, my argument was that parents will send their children to schools that the parents decide are better. Thus, funding is allocated according to school quality. b) You say having their funding cut will lead to a vicious cycle of continued worsening. However, you erroneously assume funding is cut instantly. There is an interim period where public schools can try to improve themselves. Moreover, there are grants that public schools can apply for. Sure, the bad-quality public schools might close down, but there will emerge many good-quality public schools too. My argument that competition will lead to better resource allocation and quality has been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN time and time again, whenever the USA government has privatized industries. I will give examples of these in my closing post. You also ignored my study that showed benefits like better public school performance and less racial segregation. ---- BALANCE ISSUE---- " That means that equal kids are presented with unequal opportunities, all based on luck. This is the unbalance. " You argue that school vouchers magically introduce the condition that equal kids have unequal opportunities. I have 2 rebuttals: 1) This is not an unbalnce, it's a good thing. Imagine if there were 10 million starving people in Africa. If we helped half of those, according to your logic this will be an unbalance, because equal starving people are being presented with unequal opportunities. 2) There was never a balance. There havev always been many kids who can go to private schools because there parents are wealthy, while many equally competent and deserving kids languish in bad public schools. So we see that there has always been an unbalance in the system, and schools vouchers contribute to correcting this unbalance. The mainstay of Pro's argument has been the "cost" contention, but this cost increase is not so great as to place before our children's education.
School voucher systems create an unbalance in the education system.

I have little idea what you mean by "balance". I'm assuming you simply mean that school voucher systems, on the whole, have a negative impact on the educational system. If you mean otherwise, please elaborate concretely what you mean by "balance". ====================REGARDING YOUR CASE:====================== First, I agree the government pays more to send a student to a private than public school. However, it equalizes the schooling costs for a normal taxpayer. Taxpayers that send their children to private schools usually have to pay taxes to fund public schools while paying the fees for their private school. This amounts to double payment. School vouchers ensure that taxpayers can spend their education money willingly and equitably. Second, I concede that the school voucher system is unable to help many of the "equal peers". It can't solve all of the problems in education, I concede! Finally, I agree that many un-paying families can now send their children to the exact same school, which I see as good, egalitarian thing. School vouchers are encouraging economic diversity at private schools, giving low-income students a change to attend higher-quality schools. ====================MY OWN CASE================ (1) Competition: School vouchers encourage competition in the education sector. Students can attend private schools if the students find them better than public schools. Competition leads to: (a) Efficient distribution of funding: If less students enroll in public schools, their funding will be cut. Thus, funding is allocated according to school quality. (b) Improved quality: To retain their students, public school must improve themselves. (2) Economic equality: As I said earlier, low-income students can attend high quality, formerly costly schools. In defense of both of these points, I cite a study from the Friedman Foundation of Educational Choice, that showed school vouchers lead to improved performance at public schools, reduce racial segregation, and deliver better services to special education students. [1] SOURCES: [1] http://www.friedmanfoundation.org...
School voucher systems create an unbalance in the education system.

Unbalance - to put out of balance http://www.merriam-webster.com... I stand in affirmation that school voucher systems create an unbalance in the education system. Information on school vouchers can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Governments have already set up public schools so that kids may receive an education for free. Now governments are sending school vouchers to kids so they can go to private schools, because some of their public schools are failing. Basically, they are replacing public schools with private schools for those who cannot even pay. For one thing, the government pays more to send a student to a private school than they do to accept a kid into public school. For another, while many students are getting a free ride into a fancy private school, many of their equal peers are stuck in the failing public schools, which the governments are paying less attention to now that they can be lazy and spend taxpayer money to private schools. Finally, many families can actually pay for their students to receive the "higher education" of a private school, but now un-paying families can send their students to the exact same school. If anyone is still in support of school voucher systems after reading this, accept this debate and speak up. Thank you for your time.
Young people between the ages of 13-17 are able to make an argument that can be used in a debate.

Ok to tell the truth I am 13 too, and I agree we can be good at debating. But in this case i'll play as the devil's advocate. I don't think that younger people can be good debaters, they have barely lived a few years and only base their arguments on book or obtained knowledge, not natural intelligence or experience. 13-17 year olds haven't lived life enough to actually know what is right or what is wrong. Even though if they hav eone a few debates that doesn't mean that they are the best at debating. I think that the question shouldn't be that they can make a debatable argument but if they are really good. Of course they can make a good argument but that doesn't mean that they have enough experience to be the best. An example that they are not always the best is your previous argument, you shouldn't base your argument in what your friends have done or accomplished. If you think you are a good debater and go to a college debating team, you'll get killed if you have a weak argument like that (no offense intended)
Young people between the ages of 13-17 are able to make an argument that can be used in a debate.

Before I start my debate, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate, not upon your own opinions. Thank you. I first intended this debate for solaman1969, because of some of his debates and his strong belief, but he declined my challenge. I would like to open up this debate to anyone who wants to take up this debate. My argument is simple: I am 13 years old. I am representative of the younger end of the age range that I mentioned in the topic. If I can create an argument, which I am, then I win this debate. Secondly, if you look at many of the debates that me and my friends have done, you will realize that I am correct. All of the people I will list below are between the ages of 13-15. Cindela (me) Sagarous AK-47debater Iluvd8 crazypenguin padfo0t This is only a few of the many people who are on this site who are between the ages of 13-17 who can debate with good arguments. If you look through the people who are on this site, and see who is between the ages of 13 and 17, then you can see that many of those people who have debated can create good arguments. Thank you
Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished

Thanks for excepting, I am excited for a good debate._________________________________________________________The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system. - No matter how great your justice system is, innocent people may die, and that is not just. - Since 1976 about 150 people have been posthumansly pardoned, and about 4% of excecuted prisionors have been found innocent._______________________________________________________________The Death Penalty costs more in terms of money, and emotions. - The death penalty costs much more bcause of the fact that it takes so long to decide due to the Constitution's requirements. - Cases with the death penalty cost about $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.________________________________________________________________The death penalty is immoral. - No matter what the case, human's do not have right to condem other humans to death, it is murder in itself, though executed legally. - Not only is it immoral, but the ways of inflictiong it are cruel and unusual sentences, against what the constitution says. EXAMPLE: During the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak, while being killed.
Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished

My opponent finally decides to give me *some* evidence after I had already pointed out that his claims lack evidence. I, as Con, has successfully showed you (with evidence) the Capital Punishment does not only help prevent crimes, but it also is humane. I have showed that Capital Punishment for 1. Doesn't violate the 8th Amendment, because it is humane. It rarely occurs when someone is actually put to death when they are actually innocent (no proof from Pro that, that was actually the case)My biggest problem here is that Pro decides to use sources in the very last round, after I had pointed out that none of his claims were backed up by proof, he then decides to give us proof in the very last round (when it is too late) Therefore vote Con!
Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished

Rebuttal #1 My opponent claims that "Since 1976 about 150 people have been posthumansly pardoned, and about 4% of excecuted prisionors have been found innocent." My opponent does not provide a source to prove this point, he could have made it up for all I know. But anyhow, when a person is convicted, its usually because there has been solid evidence that actually proves them guilty, which is pretty reliable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal #2 My opponent then claims "The Death Penalty costs more in terms of money, and emotions. The death penalty costs much more because of the fact that it takes so long to decide due to the Constitution's requirements." Again, my opponent throws out random statistics and random numbers "Cases with the death penalty cost about $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.." He doesn't provide a source or any type of evidence, making it invalid. My opponent mentions "emotions" yet, he doesn't touch on that aspect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal #3 Pro then goes on to say "The death penalty is immoral" So, is letting these prisoners free, immoral? The actions that they had acted out are okay? Murdering someone, raping a child is okay? No, that's immoral. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal #4 Pro states "During the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak, while being killed." Again, no source, no proof =invalid. He could have made this up for all I know. In my argument in R2, I had argued that many states are now adopting a more humane and safe way to proceed with Capital Punishment. This humane procedure does that conflict with the 8th Amendment which is Cruel and Unusual punishment. In R2, Cruel was defined as "Disposed to inflict pain or suffering" Again, this new procedure isn't cruel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm running out a character space but one more thing here. My opponent states "The government is not letting prisoners out, my opponent is mistaken. Currently the Californian government is letting out prisoners with minor charges, like drug abuse, or druken battery, out about 10% earlier. Not prisoners convicted with murder." This is invalid: if you read this article, you will read that California let out people that were convicted with murder. Read here: http://www.cbsnews.com...
The best course for libertarianism

Thank you to my opponent Sieben who has been helpful in showing me some alternative methods in which libertarianism might best emerge as a viable system for society. However in this discussion we have some fundamental disagreements in how best to achieve this goal. Loosely speaking, i would propose a more conventional course of working within the current system of our society, and create an influence in our overall political make up. I would not hang hopes on a third party, but acknowledge the entrenched two party system that exists in the US and select the one that is most receptive to libertarian principles and work to establish a change within the party. I would propose a steady course of persuasion and influence rather than confrontation and alienation. I would appeal to those in the Republican party who value freedom over equality, and the exceptional abilities of the individual. I would work to change the nature of the republican party. I acknowledge that the result will most likely not be a purely libertarian society, but i am also not in favor of a pure libertarian society. This method has proven effective at other times in history, and is a more realistic mode of effecting change. It is the most likely way to achieve success. In my proceeding arguments i will provide sources and examples to support my claim. I now invite Sieben to present his proposed course for libertarianism.
Pre-Marital Abstinence

1. Opening statement: I am resolved that premarital abstinence (as in SEXUAL abstinence, otherwise known as the 'virginity pledge' or being 'pure') is detrimental to the health of the age group that it is imposed on. I am also resolved it is a negative force working against not only teen pregnancy prevention, but also the promotion of safe sex in general. 2. Definitions: Abstinence (1)Main Entry: abï¿½stiï¿½nence Pronunciation: \ˈab-stə-nən(t)sFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin abstinentia, from abstinent-, abstinens, present participle of abstinēre Date: 14th century 1 : voluntary forbearance especially from indulgence of an appetite or craving or from eating some foods 2 a : habitual abstaining from intoxicating beverages b : abstention from sexual intercourse This debate pertains to abstention from sexual intercourse before marriage ONLY, not any of the other definitions mentioned above. Detrimental (2)Main Entry: 1detï¿½riï¿½menï¿½tal Pronunciation: \ˌde-trə-ˈmen-təlFunction: adjective Date: 1590 : obviously harmful : damaging I await my opponent's opening statement and wish them the best of luck in this debate! Sources: 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...