BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today

thank you i will start by saying that the reason i believe the Pittsburgh Steelers are possibly the best NFL team ever if not the best, mainly because look at everything Pittsburgh has covered6 super bowl wins and this year they might move on to there next win. The steelers havent had any NFL records not sayin they are not good enough im saying they can play with rushing offense and passing and not have to set records and still win super bowls and games. The steelers have had some of the nfl best defense ever. Pittsburgh yea had some rough years but they still showed they are on top and are one of the best teams.
The United States Federal Government Should End the Trade Embargo with Cuba

First i am going to interpret case. THE USFG SHOULD ENACT LEGISLATION OR ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO CEASE THE TRADE EMBARGO WITH THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA My opponent does not submit a plan, does not interpret the resolution, does not show how this would happen, nor does he warrant why eliminating a communist government is a good thing. Which is a bad thing because I have no idea what I am supposed to be debating, and this IS a policy round. Meaning that we should be talking like we are on the floor and passing laws, otherwise it is just going to be contradiction and clarification. They also add something that is not topical, the releasing of the prisoner Alan Goss is not a part of the resolution. Because it is affs duty to uphold the resolution this is unfair. He could just, "also we cure cancer" Also my opponent calls this a "communist government" which is not specific. Socialist Republic is the official term for the Cuban government. This is abusive to the round because the Con needs to know specifics and can't ask any, If the con doesn't know what they're debating the pro could just come back and be like, oh no what i meant was. .. making the pro a moving target. this is bad because it decreases the amount of clash in the debate, making it just a series of speeches clarifying each other. This plays off of fear by issuing the communist as a bad word expecting all voters to be from the mcarthy era. This is a logical fallacy and should be ignored as a contention. VOTE ON PROCEDURE FIRST-your vote is the acceptance of rules, in debate there are none but the the rules you argue, because my opponent writes so little in his case with so many generalities I cannot answer with anything but procedure. There is nothing to answer but procedure. You vote here first because debaters who read this forum will actually learn about fairness and therefore be educated.
The United States Federal Government Should End the Trade Embargo with Cuba

trade is essential for a capitalist nation to expand especially with a nation as big as the united states. as we know cuba is a communist country, i believe that more trade with cuba will open up more freedoms for the people and possibly the elimination of the communist government. this does not come with out compromise from the cuban government of course. the cuban government must release us prisoner alan gross and give more freedoms to the people such as free speech.
Prostitution should be legalized

Well that sounds like an underground unregulated establishment to say the least. Australia is a prime example of how well it can work if properly regulated. They have made it legal but anyone seeking to buy the time of one of their employees must be checked for stds, wear protection, and the action must be committed on their property with security close by. The girls you find working there do not appear to be prostitutes but very high class women confident in their sexuality as you would find on any Hollywood carpet.
Prostitution should be legalized

Prostitution is disgusting and should never be legal! When I was an European Nato soldier stationed in Afghanistan, I was told by my comrades, that whores were avaible in the next town over, and they were young, pretty and cheap. One day I decided to give it a try. One the men from the local Klan, took my 20$ and led me down a staircase to a basement. Here a young girl, was working as a whore. I felt disgusted. But I still fucked her! No, it should never be legal.
Could America care less about the royal couple's new addition? I think so

But of course, could care less, could care more, as with anything. Reason I think more is since we love celebrities . We (as a whole) can't get enough celebrity gossip and happenings. How often are future Kings born. very rarely Believe it or not, the British like their royals, and perhaps if a royal is passionate about something, Brits follow suit or at least care a tiny bit more
Could America care less about the royal couple's new addition? I think so

I sincerely believe that we could only care more The English monarchy is so quaint, so cute, so adorable. You have the little old queen, so prim , so proper Then you have the princess, the Duchess of York (or whereever), so pretty, so unashamed after nudy photos of her were released, marked my grace and dignity nonetheless America loves celebrities and who could be a bigger celebrity than the newly born King of England. He is like Simba from the Lion King. All the shows glorifying the Crown, James Bond, and now we can actually say "Long Live the King" (I'm American), but still its kinda cool. Look at all the trouble King Henry the VIII had bearing a legitimate son and heir and Kate gets it right on her first try....Bravo!! The news media is so full of grim horror and tragedy. It's so refreshing for something positive for a change. Even something as antiquated and irrelevant as the birth of a figurehead King of England. ....Hey the Brits also just won Wimbledon for the first time in 70 or so years....they are on a roll
Innovation over tradition

We will save the specifics for other debates. For now, we contemplating the concept. But since you seems adamant on the religious front, think of the millions of people who oppose science for the sake of religion? If the money that was spent on the church was donated to scientific research or directly to charity. Yet instead it it spent on the church its self, which is the best example of stalemate tradition I can think of. Moreover, the mindset of being 'convertible' in something that has happened for years without purpose should be regarded to as a bleak choice.
Innovation over tradition

Well, I obviously do not think that EVERY single tradition is more important than innovation. Practices such as human sacrifice and etc. Generally speaking from a religious point of view, many innovations in science and politics appear to attack traditions simply for opposing innovation. Progressive political views are aimed specifically at getting rid of traditions usually. Things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Innovation and progressives claim to be tolerant. They seem to be tolerant of everyone EXCEPT those who disagree with them. I ask you to specify an innovation so that I actually have something to argue against.
Vaccine Disbursement

"The Gavi plan, as it stands now, does not infringe upon free market in any way and never will, but I'll explain exactly why it doesn't. This disbursement plan will only stand for countries who's government is in agreeance to Gavi and the things it plans on providing humanity. Therefore, only the countries that decide to become part of this program will reap the benefits of said program. The free market of countries not included under the plan will not be messed with or infringed upon." Your arguments stated above are a gross perversion of the debate topic. The topic at hand is whether or not we as a global society should implement the GAVI disbursement plan internationally to handle the outbreak of diseases and administration of vaccinations and immunizations. How exactly, is the free market not being infringed upon if GAVI is in control of where vaccines go? This removes the power from the common man and does, indeed infringe the free market. I am not entirely sure how your metaphor comparing a rich man and a poor man is relevant, and I will not respond because I do not understand the intended argument being made. According to Gavialliance.org, "The GAVI Campaign focuses solely on raising funds from the private sector to support GAVI programmes. Individuals and companies in the United States do not receive tax deductions for contributions made to foreign charitable organisations." This means that GAVI essentially provides the vaccines out of the pocket of the rich. It seems completely fair and just that those who provide for vaccines get first rights to them. Disbursing them as GAVI sees fit is following a communist philosophy and definitely should not be implemented on a global scale. " A common danger tends to concord. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In Communism, inequality comes from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Vaccine Disbursement

The arguments presented also state that the GAVI plan is needed to assist in the reduction of diseases and illness in the world. The GAVI plan makes vaccines cheaper, thus more available to smaller countries, however, it also places vaccines where they are necessarily, which means that the idea of a free market is being infringed upon by this plan. Vaccines should go to the highest bidder that is how capitalism works. The GAVI plan is introducing communist ideas on a global scale which can and will create global friction.
Vaccine Disbursement

The main purpose of our debate is to identify wheather or not disbursment (distribution) of vaccines should be regulated or not. Vaccines are commonly called "shots". Shots are needle tipped syringes filled with medicine that can be administered to the body by puncturing the skin and pressing a plunger to transfer the drug from syringe to human. Doctors administer them to keep the people in our society safe and healthy. Before I explain why a disbursment plan should be enforced it is important to inform people of the importance vaccines have as a whole. With information on the need for immunizations people will better understand why a plan needs to be enforced. According to CDC, if vaccines were to somehow disapear deadly viruses, illnesses, and diseases would take over the world. The equivelent to a plague would break out killing millions of people. Sceintists who produce immunizations have saved themselves and the rest of us from that issue by bringing this form of drug administration into play. As we all should know, vaccines build our body's immunity to diseases which decreases our likelyhood of catching a sickness. That is why a disbursment plan is needed. The plan will increase production and availiability to the very thing that allows us to stay relitively plague free and keep us, the inhabitants of the world, safer.
Vaccine Disbursement

First off, your claim that vaccines stop terrible diseases has no evidence or proof. Therefore its existence in this debate is rendered moot. Secondly, you state that a disbursement plan will reduce the cost and increase the availability of such vaccinations. This is true, but how? You have said this statement over and over but never shown reasons as to how it manages to miraculously make vaccines cost less. A disbursement plan is a bad idea. It creates a larger amount of protocol and a pre-determined schedule to deal with in the event of a dangerous outbreak. This will only slow the outbreak containment process, and will slow down our ability as a global, international, and national society to help treat diseases. Responding quickly with a specialized plan would be much better. This could help accurately deal with specific diseases whereas a disbursement plan simply assesses necessities without examining outside factors which will lead to error and confusion in the event of a pandemic. Also, it has been fun debating with you and I wish you the best of luck. You brought up some good points. Nice job.
Vaccine Disbursement

You are correct, we cannot predict what diseases are going to break out where or how bad it will hit a certain place, but the Gavi plan will reduce the chance of an epidemic getting bigger. Lets just say 12+ people in a certain area get an illness. Doctors will have record of this and they will start requesting/ordering more and more vaccines that can help prevent that illness and send out a PSA warning people in the surrounding area. Then the people will be able to decide if they want to get the vaccine or not. Once those doctors start requesting a certain vaccine Gavi will know that they are in need of a certain immunization and send it in buk. Pretty much, rather than sending excess amounts of various vaccines we will send them as countries request them. This does not mean that vaccinations will stop until an illness breaks out though. Regular regulatory vaccines will still be mandatory for people at certain ages like it is in the United states now. The plan will also benefit those countries becuase the price would be much lower under our program and more vaccines will be able to be purchased. My last and final argument for supporting the Gavi disbursement plan is going to be about awareness of some illnesses that vaccines can build our immunity to. I have decided to use my last argument to inform people of this because why would anyone care about the rest of the points if the vaccines would only provide resistance against a common cold? The answer is simple, no one would care at all how beneficial it would be if that"s the only thing they were to get out of the program. Diseases/sicknesses that can cause large epidemics include polio, the measles, type b meningitis, hepatitis B, whooping cough, pneumococcal, chicken pox, diphtheria, lock jaw, and the mumps. None of those sound fun, right? Nope. What Gavi will do to help reduce the spread of these horrible sicknesses is increase the amount of production and decrease the amount of money it costs to buy them. I have said it a million times, but I will continue to say it until the debate is over because high production and low price is what makes this plan such a good idea. According to cdc.org, supplies will always be in demand, and the use of Gavi will enforce distribution rules/guidelines. Part of this plan will help get vaccines to the people who need it, the people who are at a higher risk for catching a disease (poorer people), and countries that are suffering from preventable sicknesses. Without the disbursement plan administration and distribution is not well planned out and not as effective. With it, specific things will be required of Gavi participating countries that will help get illnesses under control, regulate our supplies, create more business, give people more time, cost less, make the world healthier over all and most importantly keep the human race sustainable. Also, since I cannot post anything else beyond this last round, I would like to wish you the best of luck. You offered a lot to argue against and it was honestly interesting to debate this topic with you. Let the best man win :)
Vaccine Disbursement

"we are debating wheater a disbursment plan, like Gavi, should exist at all." I apologize for the confusion over the topic of debate. A disbursement plan should not exist because it creates an inconvenience and unnecessary protocol. In the event of a major outbreak of disease or illness a disbursement plan will dictate where, and to whom vaccines and immunizations go. However, this is not good because diseases are unpredictable and thus we cannot pre-determine the need for vaccines. For example, if in the event of a disease a disbursement plan would tell 100 vaccines to go to one region, because that is proportional to the population present. However, if the disease favors a specific ethnicity that may or may not be present there, then the area will either receive to many or to few vaccines. This will create more deaths than necessary. Rather than have this plan, we should instead use a reaction task force to assess the disease and deal with vaccines accordingly. But having a pre-determined disbursement plan is not a good idea.
It is ok to recycle arguments.

Just to clairify. I NEVER said ANYTHING about plagiarism. I CLEARY said. .. .. .. .. "You should have the right to do what you want with your work, as long as you use it wisely. " Nothing in my post of round one said anything about plagiarism. I will message you the reason that the incident ocured. Hopefuly, you will then understand. First of all, it was my first debate. Claim One: I said that it is ok to recycle YOUR arguments, did I not? Right. So, if you alter it, really it is not the same thing. And just because I said it, does not automaticly mean that it is true. Bellow i have posted a site to give an example. . http://www.supercollege.com...
It is ok to recycle arguments.

To further clarify the debate, I offer my own definition of "recycle": "to use again in the original form or with minimal alteration" This definition ought to be accepted because Pro herself discusses using "the same work" on multiple occasions, so it's clear that there is, indeed, minimal alteration, if any at all. Now, though I only have to provide a single scenario in which recycling arguments is unacceptable, I will provide multiple instances for the sake of fairness. Instance 1: Plagiarism Though Pro discusses reusing one's own material, nothing in the resolution, nor in the definitions, suggests that the arguments being used are necessarily one's own. Plagiarism, as we all know, is intellectual theft, making it not only illegal, but patently immoral. An example of plagiarism is in one of my opponent's previous debates [. http://www.debate.org...]; as soon as one's eyes hit the phrase "The purpose of this essay is. .. ", it's clear that the following arguments are plagiarized. The idea of plagiarism, or making use of another's intellectual property without proper citation, negates the resolution because "recycling" an argument in this case encourages intellectual theft. In the case of my opponent's previous debate, she attempts to pass stolen arguments off as her own intellectual property. You can call it what you want: plagiarism, "recycling", or a divine revelation, but none of that changes the fact that intellectual theft is immoral, unacceptable, and definitely not "ok". Instance 2: Redundancy Recycling arguments within a single debate round is also not "ok". When one's position is attacked in a debate, repeating one's arguments, even with minimal alteration of wording, is merely a tautology which provides no further analysis. On a debate website, of all places, it's unacceptable to repeat oneself ad infinitum without actually providing a logical warrant for one's statements. Just because an argument is "recycled" does not make it any more valid the second time. In short, recycling to the point of redundancy isn't ok. Being excessive is bad. Repetitiousness is objectionable. Superfluousness is ignominious. Verbosity is dreadful. I hope I've made my point. In closing, recycling arguments isn't "ok" on a universal basis. Universalizing its acceptability can lead to repeated intellectual theft, and fallacious, tautological reasoning. I haven't debated in a while, so I might be a bit rusty, but I hope that I gave Pro enough to chew on in Round 2. Good luck!
It is ok to recycle arguments.

I think that it is ok, since you are the one who wrote the information. You should have the right to do what you want with your work, as long as you use it wisely. I mean, you don't want to use the same things over and over again do you? I thought not. you should NOT be looked down on just because you use the same work twice! I wish to thank whoever takes this debate, that this should be interesting. Definition: Recycle-cause to repeat a cycle use again after processing; "We must recycle the cardboard boxes" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
does our education system need a makeover

TheOrginalBob I do appreciate your counter argument but I assume that you didn't understand my point. I don't want our old system to return in any way, in fact i agree that our previous education system was about repetition, i want change in our current one. I want kids to learn in a way that they can use them in their real lives. Don't tell me that during high school you haven't mugged up facts so that you can get a A in your test. We all have done it and how many times have we used those facts. Solving linear equation using matrices. Do you even remember that equation. You were taught this in Algebra 2! I propose that we have learning that we can use in future and the tests be conducted on deeper implication of what is learned in class rather than that of what is "taught" in class
does our education system need a makeover

The modern education system is making our upcoming generation dumb. As children mug up knowledge from their books and puke it out on tests they forget to understand the real essence of education. In an history class you remember all the id terms. In an Algebra 2 class you are made to gulp down large chunks of formula. What in the world our then our children learning? Is it all about who has better memorising skills? The debate is open to all...
does our education system need a makeover

According to research conducted by Kyung Hee Kim, Professor of Education at the College of William and Mary, all aspects of student creativity at the K-12 level have been in significant decline for the last few decades. Her study reveals "that children have become less emotionally expressive, less energetic, less talkative and verbally expressive, less humorous, less imaginative, less unconventional, less lively and passionate, less perceptive, less apt to connect seemingly irrelevant things, less synthesising, and less likely to see things from a different angle." That is depressing.. This clearly shows how are education system is declining. The education system have killed our creativity and innovation skill. Hence it immediately needs a make over. When was the last time a invention came out that changed the world? I'll tell you without any doubt the smart phone which came out in the 1999. After that the world seem to have stopped. Why? Because our education system tell us When you grow up you tend to get told the world is the way it is and your job is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have fun, save a little money.
does our education system need a makeover

I may have misinterpreted your point to some extent, but the fact of the matter is that you have not provided any sturdy arguments as to why we need a makeover in the first place. Even if I misinterpreted your point, you still have not given any good reasons as to why the topic stands. Yes, I have mugged up facts in high school, but everyone does that. What that does is it allows you to choose your subjects for high school wisely. Usually, the learner only learns and applies things in subjects they find mediocre and uninteresting to them, but when studying for a subject they find interesting and enjoyable to them, they go out of their way to actively learn everything about the subject and what they're learning and they actively put in an effort to apply that knowledge in a test. Our current educational system is teaching kids just fine at the moment, and I really see no reason as to why this has to be made-over.