BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gaming is underrated.

But this brings me to my case. First of all, games are not underrated because they have received appropriate legal and social recognition. Video games have shown up on societies radar in large scale otherwise there would not be any age limits placed upon them. The government, and therefore the people (since we are a democracy) have realized the seriousness of violent or otherwise adult rated games and have put legal implications on such games. This obviously shows that games aren't underrated. Now I shall address my opponents argument that gaming hasn't been given an appropriate light in the entertainment market. To refute this argument I simply will provide examples from the world around us. Being a professional gamer myself I believe that I am quite qualified to provide this information. When I attend gaming conventions in cities all over the nation form NYC to OKC, from Dallas to Seattle, from Jacksonville to Helena I always notice that not just the local news stations are there to report it, but also national news networks such as ESPN to NBC to CNN and many more so obviously the media doesn't underrate the gaming world but instead gives it quite a bit of attention. Also, if you look at home entertainment providers such as Blockbuster and Hollywood Videos you can see an evolution that supports my argument. In the early nineties these stores primarily provided movies as a form of home entertainment, but over the past decade these stores have expanded to include huge sections devoted solely to gaming. I have even recently located a Blockbuster that was solely devoted to gaming and has no movies to sell or rent whatsoever. I believe that the argument that I have brought to the table has well represented my viewpoint and that of the majority of America. I urge that voters choose this case as the winner.
Democracy is bad

Hello! I will be debating that democracy is bad. People in a world of corruption, screwed up viewpoints, and fake news, are unable to decide who can possibly run our country. In my school, a place where students should be taught the truth and only the truth, any belief that goes against what the beliefs of the school is considered a mortal sin. Like grade 6 social studies is indoctrination in a textbook! I find that this makes the students more ignorant, so why are we expecting them to decide who should run our country? In fact, why should we be expecting anyone who doesn't know to run a country, run a country? This is a fundamental issue within countries like America, and my own, Canada that no seems to even be questioning. The people who run for positions can easily promote themselves and sweep anything bad about them under the rug. Many of these people who vote will look at the candidates for an hour, which is insufficient for deciding essentially what your country will value, your laws, and how your country is looked upon. By ignorantly voting in the wrong people, you don't just screw over yourself, but you put a stain on your country's flag. Why are we letting the dumb and ignorant public vote in whoever without knowing how the heck to run a country? Democracy is like when you fly a plane as a passenger, and you have to fly the plane and keep it from crashing. How can you do that when you don't even know how to fly a plane? This is why i find democracy deplorable. Thank you!
Arnold Schwarzenegger or Muhammad Ali

'Who would win ... Muhammad Ali or Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime' ?Muhammed Ali of course, he had 60 proffesional fights, 3 world championships, and defeated big names like Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, Floyd Patterson, Archie Moore, George Foreman, Ken Norton, etc. Arnold has no mma or boxing backround. He is only famous for body building and acting.Conclusion: Muhammed Ali would win via second round tko.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

In the end the Trash Can and Recycle Bin perform the same function. What we have been arguing the whole time is the name. We each have valid points as to why each name should be used. However I would say that the Recycle Bin is still better because it promotes an environmentally friendly way of disposing of waste.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

That's not how the paradigm works. I could say the trash can 'recycles space' in the same way as the recycle bin; in that respect they're equal. But I'm pretty sure no one ever bought a recycle bin in order to recycle the space already in the house. The 'recycle' in 'recycle bin' comes from what happens after the documents are out of the workspace and has no bearing on its function in the workspace itself. The appropriateness of an undelete extension to the desktop paradigm is a different argument, but I will say that for all intents and purposes once a file is deleted it's gone. It requires special tools to search and undelete files, just as it would require a special trip to the garbage pile to fish for something missing.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

The reason why it is being called a recycle bin is not important. It is recycling space nonetheless. The reason a desktop exists at all is to save space in the first place. The marking for deletion does not fit nicely with the Trash Can paradigm. When you empty a trash can it is gone forever. However as far as the paradigm is concerned you can still retrieve the file from oblivion until its space has been recycled. When you empty the recycle bin you are telling the computer that if it needs to, the emptied files can be converted into other files.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

That's not why a recycling bin is called a recycling bin. That would make a really esoteric and confusing paradigm - the intent is the recycling of the material and not the space itself, making it unsuitable for a desktop paradigm except as far as a recycling bin acts in the same way a trash can. Actually, your last point fits nicely within the trash can paradigm: the document still exists when you empty the trash, but it is only when the garbage collectors take it away that it is truly permanently gone. It's not part of the paradigm currently (undelete = fishing through the garbage pile?), but it's easy enough to see how even that could be integrated in.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

It is true that the document is not recycled into air. However, you did bring up an interesting point. If I have an aluminum can on my desk, and I put it in the Recycle Bin, did I not just recycle space? Though we may not think of it that way when we move an object that is what we are doing. The same holds true for the removal of files from your hard disk. Furthermore when you move a file to the recycle bin, it has not actually been destroyed. It has been marked for rewrite. Which means that if the Hard Drive requires more space it will recycle the marked file to make room for another one.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

But according to the desktop paradigm, empty space is immaterial. When you empty the trash in real life, the contents are of no further concern - as far as the emptier is concerned, what was in there may as well not exist anymore. Same thing in the desktop paradigm. When you empty the trash, it goes away from you and becomes of no further concern. It does not come back except in the sense that air rushes in to fill the place where the document was, but a document is not recycled into air. Your old documents do not become new documents - the desktop paradigm necessitates a mental disconnect between old files and new files, because as far as the end user is concerned, there's no reason they should be related.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

Let us consider for a moment the Recycle Bin itself. It is a receptacle where items are taken to be processed into new items for us to then re-consume. However the Trash Can is designed to discard material never to be used again. When you empty your trash can the material will be thrown out. Holding to the Paradigm of the Desktop GUI, where does the thrown out information go? Since it goes nowhere we can perceive, the Trash Can Paradigm is not complete. Now it is true that the stuff in a recycle bin needs to go somewhere as well, however it does come back to us in one form or another. Perhaps not the exact same material but recycled material. For the sake of the paradigm, the Recycle Bin is both sending away data and receiving blank space all at the same time.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

I'm glad you mentioned the word "paradigm" in the topic, for it is on this that our debate will hinge. Your argument is not a paradigm at all; rather a literal representation of what is actually happening in the computer. But there are not actually documents inside my computer, nor is there a trash can or recycle bin. The goal of a GUI paradigm is not to tell the user the technical aspects what's going on inside the computer, but to provide a helpful analogy to conceptualize it. The zeroes and ones on my hard drive exist virtually as files by virtue of the paradigm, and the space on my hard drive exists virtually as a desktop full of folders. The files according to the paradigm are separate from one another, and not a continuous string on a scroll. While that is closer to how the computer actually operates, human beings can work with the former much better, and the computer has no difficulty presenting its information in this way. Thus the recycle bin does not recycle the document into free space; that would violate the desktop paradigm in favor of the scroll paradigm. It throws the document away as if in a trash can, giving you more room in your workspace to put other things. In fact, by your argument, an eraser would be a more apt label than a recycle bin. But Windows, as well as the Mac OS, has adopted a desktop paradigm, so the Recycle Bin is inconsistent unless, as is the case in most American households, the end of the trash can and the recycle bin is the same: removing documents from your workspace, regardless of how they are treated afterwards.
The Recycle Bin(Windows) v. The Trash Can(Mac OS) Which is the better data receptacle?(paradigm)

I argue that the Recycle Bin is the best paradigm. The file does not truly exist. It is merely a collection of magnetic 1s and 0s on a Hard Disk. These 1s and 0s can be erased but the hard disk will remain. For example, if you write a letter on a piece of paper, and throw it away because it has too many errors, both the platform and its content have been eliminated. However if you delete that same letter as a word document, only the contents have been destroyed. The platform remains and can be reused. In essence you are not throwing away the data, but recycling the space.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

I think I see where you're getting at, and I like it. In order for these separate states to live at peace and effectiveness, there must be some type of union that overseas them (like the EU) via elected officials. We can call it the MEU (middle-eastern union) which would include nearly all middle eastern countries including Israel and Palestine. They would have the same currency and geopolitical status. That can work, can you agree to it? But mind you, without organization and structure the middle east can erupt faster than a wildfire.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

alright then lets go through things which we can do. With the success of this multi-state confederation, the focus could shift altogether to a shared infrastructure of peace that enthusiastically harnesses the resources, talents, and imaginations of the peoples in the entire region and effectively involves the international community in a new economic Marshall Plan-like recovery program. The Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederative infrastructure could also expand its partnership to neighboring countries and together create a larger regional open market space that is connected to the Mediterranean and Europe with multiple economic cooperative agreements and a concrete program of international financial support. But for this vision of peace to work, one critical condition must be met: visionary leaders must be in power. These leaders must be willing to sacrifice old modes of thinking for new ideas that make the possibility of peace a reality. This will in no way be easy. Completely different kind of leaders are needed to establish a new order in the Israeli-Palestinian relations"leaders who understand the risk and do it anyway, even at the price of losing their political seat. Such leaders are currently absent from the political arena. The current paradigm cannot generate the visionary leaders we need, as proven by the recent Israeli election results. But they are expected to rise up to power during, or as a result of, the pre-negotiation, peace building phase, when Israelis and Palestinians both share a powerful vision of peace, experience a new paradigm that enliven the interrelatedness between them, and ultimately believe in the possibility of achieving a final settlement of their age-old conflict. Dominated by a culture of fear and violence, what Israelis and Palestinians really need now is an alternative vision of a possible future for the Middle East, a new culture, a new paradigm that bridges the wide gap separating their historical narratives, shifts the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral track into a multilateral regional engagement, and generates new conversations about peace and new ways to create a peace system to replace the dominant war system that has been operating in this region since the beginning of recorded history. By creating such a powerful vision, Israelis and Palestinians will all look into the future of their relations with anticipation rather than nervous apprehension and agree to step into a new era of reconciliation. Maybe the vision of "sharing land for peace" can inspire them to do it.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

You're right, USA was one of the biggest assets for Israeli domination in the region. But keep in mind that even before all of this was happening, Palestine was kept under British rule which was the main reason they never caused uprisings in the first place. It wouldn't make a difference if Israel or Palestine ruled over the entire country. It doesn't look like there's a whole lot that can keep peace between the two, but a civil unrest would be a lot less catastrophic than a state-run or funded war between the two. If they were separate countries, they would go to war and break international laws. If one of them had sovereignty over the other there might only be a few protests that can be solved with police. Negotiations aside, which would you rather have? A separate Palestine and Israel would never live in peace, and you mention the things that should be done but you don't tell us why and how with proper sources and examples.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

what a surprise we've got, the land rightnow which is named as Israel is actually palestine's land which Israel has taken forcefully with americas help and its totally illeget to bring in different laws from UN who is not even willing to make palestine a full-member state. However, the collapse of the ill-designed Oslo process (1993-2000) and the violence on the northern and southern borders of Israel, despite the withdrawal by Israel of its military forces from Lebanon in 2000 and its unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, show that the old mutually agreed upon principle of "land for peace" is not a sufficient basis for a political settlement. This compromising concept has not been convincing enough because the two sides are driven by conflicting national interests shaped by different historical narratives. The concept of "sharing land for peace" requires reframing the conflict in terms of sharing the land rather than dividing it. The key for the Israelis and the Palestinians is to recognize each other on the basis of their mutual interests and the assets they share, despite their religious, national, and cultural differences. They must acknowledge their interdependence, even when they have already gained or still seek independence. But this recognition can only be brought about by a pre-negotiation phase, during which a massive peace building initiative will be launched in Israel, the Palestinian territories (starting with West Bank), and Jordan, and facilitated by an international team of professional conflict-resolution and peace building experts, in coordination with the three governments. This initiative will use unconventional methods that "vaccinate" the environment and engage in a peace building process on multiple fronts"all designed to mobilize Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian societies to empower their own governments to go to the negotiating table and finalize a genuine peace agreement. Such efforts and interactions across the great divide are indispensable and necessary conditions for creating a climate of interconnectedness and interdependence.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

Let's go back into history, before 1967 there was a recognized Palestinian state next to Israel with East Jerusalem as it's capital. This is something that leaders of both nations are debating and compromising on, but there are a lot more others that would do so violently and they will take matters into their own hands (the people). Aside from all the personal beliefs I have, let's get into the facts on why I think it's not such a good idea. 1. The constant uprisings and riots from the Israeli people. Most people wouldn't want to live in Palestine if it were created, and they can see to it as something similar to the times when Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and USA were split into two. Israeli's, and even some Palestinians, would not support a sovereign Palestine. 2. The threat of war from either nation. Israel is predominately Jewish while Palestine would be Muslim, you cant put them at the same dinner table and not expect a war. It's happened in the past, and it would be likely to happen again. . http://www.palestinefacts.org... 3. Constant violations of UN and international law. Without pointing fingers or telling which side would do which, there would be a lot of unlawful bickering and attacks between the two that would lead to a serious situation. Same thing is happening in Korea, two enemies with different ideologies are likely to follow through with violence. It's a known fact.
Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states. This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions. At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.
The USA should be divided into several different independent nations

Round 3: Rebuttals I am going to keep this short, as it appears that my opponent is to busy to continue this debate. Due to the fact that I have a relatively short attention span, I skimmed through the essay of an argument that my opponent posted back in round one. Essentially I concluded that my opponents point was that having the US as a world super power is overall a bad thing because it causes countries to be unable to act in ways that they want to. The only question I have to this claim is: why is this a bad thing? With the US as the sole world superpower, every country is in check and essentially unable to do bad things to other country's (i.e.... declare war). If the US were to split up one of the two things will happen, these are: P1) Russia/China emerges as the world superpower.or P2) Multiple world superpowers emerge. If P1 occurs, then no country would be held in check as they are with the US as the world superpower. This is because Russia has a more jingoistic government and therefore is less likely to take offense to one country declaring war on another while China is unlikely to have a strong opinion on the matter either. I find this possibility highly improbable because both Russia and China are about equal power wise (with China having the larger edge in the economic sector and Russia with the edge militarily) and therefore are more likely to share an equal power. That brings us to the second possibility, which is that more than one superpower would emerge. The last time this occurred was between the US and the Soviet Union, as my opponent stated in his original argument. A world with multiple world powers simply does not work as eventually one power has to overpower the other, whether it means through war/threat of war (Cold War) or through technological advances (Nuclear Weapons/Space Race). While technological advancements sound good, war is the more likely scenario given Vladimir Putin's war-like tendencies. In conclusion, if the US were to split up it would result in imitate disaster due to no truly qualified country being able to succeed it in the the honorable, and extremely burdensome task of being world superpower. My opponent mentioned to me that it would be more ideal to split up all powerful countries (i.e.... US, Russia, and China) so therefore there is never a country strong enough to emerge as world dominate. This is an intriguing point that I may agree with, but as it is highly unlikely that Russia, China, or even the US is going to split in the near future, it is an idea that we will never see occur. I hope that we could re-do this debate at sometime, or try a new topic.