BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

Alright, fair enough. I think it could still be pracitical to incorporate a cooperative individualist soiety though. It really only takes educating people about worker co-ops, giving incentives to banks to loan to worker co-ops, among other things. As for the too big to fail issue, I'm not sure that the consequences would be as large as you say. Could you provide some evidence suggesting that allowing this businesses to fail would result in government's crumbling or being crippled, as well as everything else you claimed? I don't feel like those businesses are that huge. If they are that huge, perhaps a combination of what you're saying and what I am saying could be implemented. We could put regulations on those businesses making them a little smaller, but not so small that if they failed it wouldn't be felt by the people. I believe there still needs to be significant consequences for those businesses to fail in order for people to wake up and realize we need an alternative to those businesses. So, if my opponent could provide some sort of study on too big to fail businesses and the exact consequences they would have on governments and that it would be as severe as they said, that would be great.
Mandatory School Uniforms are a violation of free expression

My Opponent's Case:My opponent's case makes a whole lot of historical and statistical claims. .. before actually getting to the relevant part of if it violates Free Expression. The points about the colors of clothing having effects and how much we spend on clothing and different ways to wear one's trousers, while certainly being interesting, have no pertinance on the actual resolution today. The points about color specifically are just an arbitrary assigning of value based on appearance, but I don't feel like wasting time on something that doens't link to the resolution. ANYWAY, let us continue. My opponent then goes on to make the claim, actually on topic this time, that because uniforms offer a limited range of clothes it represses our ability to freely express ourselves. This is a problem for three reasons:First: We still have the ability to design how we present ourselves physically that go outside of the clothes we wear. The make-up women use, the way one styles and/or colors their hair, accessories and types and brands of shoes, all of which are not generally addressed by uniforms, are ways for one to express themselves while maintaining consistency with the school dress code. So it doesn't actually preclude our ability to express ourselves, and thus doesn't violate it. Second: Even if we don't have control over anything that we wear or how we appear in any aspect (doubtful in itself), we still control how we act. Baring a mental coersion treatment where we are forced to act how the school wants us to in this uniform, we control how we wish to act. Our actions function as our ability to express ourselves far better than any clothing can, due to the fact that clothing are unable to truly express us without our actions and personality affecting what we wear. This alone allows us to fully express ourselves, regardless of what we wear. Third: Even the courts, the people who have decided on the freedom of speech and expression and the like, ruled that school uniforms don't violate our freedom of expression. [1]As such, school uniforms actually don't violate our freedom of expression, as there are many ways we can still express ourselves. Sources:[1] . http://www.freerepublic.com...
Mandatory School Uniforms are a violation of free expression

Upon seeing a debate with this argument as a point closed, my aspirations were crushed to such a degree that I decided I would recreate this debate myself and open it up once again to the populace. Resolved: Mandatory School Uniforms are a violation of free expression Some definitions are in order: Mandatory: Necessary, compulsory School Uniforms: Uniforms worn by students that are unique to the school Violation: to harm, go against Free expression: the right to behave and present ourselves as we see fit The first round will be a presentation of arguments from my opponent. He may choose at that point if he wants to use the last round for arguments or a "thanks for playing" message to myself and you, the audience. Regardless of whether he argues in the final round or not, there shall be no new arguments made there. I hope for an enlightening discussion.
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

Ok, first off, kids should be able to express their personality through their clothes. Even if its a private school, if kids don't get to dress how they want, then they might judge on something else, for example they will make fun of them for their personality. I know this first hand. I went to a private school that made us wear a uniform. For us kids it wasn't a big deal, but then as we got older it started to become a big deal. Kids would tease you for your choice of words and anything else they weren't used to. Then I went to a public school, and yes I got some dirty looks for what I wore but it wasn't as bad as getting made fun of for your personality. It wasn't just me though, my friends went through the exact same thing. We all thought the same things, it was depressing to even walk in the school. I hated it so much, but children should be able to dress how they please, because if your able to pay for a private school then you'd think you would be able to pay for some clothes that you like.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

Your whole rebuttal were basic attacks on Kylo Ren, though you never said anything about Luke. You failed to bring up anything that will prove that Luke would beat Kylo Ren. Response: You first argue that Kylo Ren is not strong with the force, because he was not able to sense Chewbacca's blaster? Your first attack makes no sense. Ren just killed his own father, and he had seconds to comprehend what he just did. Also, I could make the same attacks on Luke. How come Luke was not able to forsee Vader cutting his hand off. How come Luke did not foresee Palpatine electrocuting him when throwing his lightsaber. Your logic is pathetic and can fire on Luke too. Your next attack is on Ren's force rage. You claim that it failed. It kept him from worrying about the devastating blast he got. Just imagine if Ren was conscious about his blaster. Finn would best him. By the way, you never responded to my argument explaining how if Luke was put in the same circumstances, he would fail. You dropped that argument. Everytime something injures Luke, he cries like a little baby. I fail to see how your argument has anything to do with this debate. Kylo Ren got beat by Rey, because Rey surprised jim. Think about it from someone else's perspective which you seem to be very poor at. Kylo Ren was thinking that he had the upper-hand in this fight. It was a girl that never held a lightsaber before. Kylo Ren is trying to defeat her, and get her to Snoke. When Ren is at a ligbtsaber cross with Rey, he seems to think he is in control of the situation. Boom, Rey starts to strike him down. It was a very immediate response. A response that was similar to that of a padawon Kenobie defeating Maul. Conclusion: Con has done nothing in the previous round to attack my case. He has not compared skill in lightsaber, force ability, and pain tolerance. He has dropped all of these arguments. Ren would clearly win this fight.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

You claim that Kylo Ren was weakened by chewy shooting him, however if he was strong in the force, he was holding his Lightsaber so he should've been able to sense and block it. Then you claim Kylo draws anger and strength from it, which he tries to , but clearly fails. You say Kylo wasn't trying to kill her, but it doesn't matter, he got beat, that doesn't matter until he wins the fight, which he didn't. Rey "surprised" him?, no she didn't Ren sensed her power so he shouldn't have been surprised. And him being hit a few times fighting Finn, Finn isn't a force sensitive, a good duelist would beat him quickly. ( that was a condensed version of what I spent 20 minutes on, I'm on my iPad so it's hard to type a long argument, so I keep my arguments shorter) The only way Luke loses to this guy is if he a-significantly lost skill or B, Sacrifies himself
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

Note to my opponent: You can use return of the jedi Luke. That is the most recent version of Luke that we know of. We do not know however the force awakens Luke's skills. He does have a higher midichlorian count, but that does not translate into force abilities. Luke might have had more more force potential than Kylo Ren, but Ren was more experienced in the force, and that is what counts. Kylo Ren is able to immobilize people, and torture his subjects mentally using the force. These are higher level abilities that Luke did not know. All we have really seen of Luke's force abilities were his training with Yoda. All he was able to do was lift rocks, and get visions of the future. Something Kylo Ren would easily be able to do. Con uses the main defense for Luke which is the fact that he beat Vader. Now, Vader was a broken man by the end of Return of the Jedi. There was conflict within him. He also has been shown to toy with Luke throughout the movies. Vader could have easily killed Luke in Empire and in Jedi. Vader does not want to kill his son. Luke even says that he feels the conflict within Vader. The emperor even says "I hope your feelings on this matter are clear". That is why I would argue that the argument for if Luke can defeat Vader, than he can defeat Ren should not be taken seriously, Darth Vader had toyed with Luke, because Luke was his son. If Luke was not his son, Vader would have killed him in Empire, and in Jedi. My opponent does not go into Luke's pain tolerance at all. He only says Luke would take it better in Jedi. Well, first we do not have any evidence as to how he would react. He probably would react better than his younger self, but that is not saying much. Kylo Ren would keep fighting even if he gets shot by a bow-caster. If Luke got shot by a bow-caster, Luke would die. Kylo Ren's force rage would overwhelm Luke. Example: I can see this playing out a lot like Vader vs Luke in empire. The scene that has the most importance in the analogy to this duel would be when Vader comes out of nowhere, and starts to destroy Luke, This was at the end of the duel. Kylo Ren is Vader, and Luke is Luke. Luke would not be able to handle the temper of Kylo Ren's force rage. He would be overwhelmed, and defeated.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

Luke Skywalker is the Son of Darth Vader, everyone knows the story. Force Abilities-Luke Skywalker is a second generation Skywalker, which gives him a higher mediclorian count than Kylo, a third generation Skywalker, making him more powerful. He was not trained young, so he may lack some of the specific abilities Ren has, but I believe he is stronger in the force with what he knows. Also he had a long time in exile to further tone in his force skills. Lightsaber combat- In Return of the Jedi Skywalker shows his skill by beating Vader, Kylos idol, in Lightsaber combat. Meanwhile i spent 20 minutes on my rebuttal against Kylo Ren's Lightsaber skills, which I will save for round 3 Pain tolerance-Young Luke struggled with this, a lot, but I believe that if return of the Jedi-Sequel Luke got injured he'd do better than Empire strikes back Luke.
Evolution is true and Creationists are dumb

there are no fruits to saying Atheism is accurate. Saying atheism is accurate, liberates: -Political injustice via lack of obligation. -neglectful relationship due to lack of obligation. -war. do to lack of security. -lack of self concern and control leading to miss-spending, interpreting, considering etc.. atheism promotes a false governing system, promotes perverts, like rapists, abductors, abusers, abandoners, etc... Atheist neglect all forms of trying o help themselves and others in a factual way, neglecting o acknowledge their negative influence on peoples perspectives, morals, ambitions, desires and success. thank you.
Evolution is true and Creationists are dumb

Dont listen to anything my opponent says for he is a Creationist therefore everything he says is pseudoscience lies nothing h he says in faver of Creationism is true it is all elaborate deception gibberish disguised as sounding like science and evolution is proven true because 70% of Americans agree that evolution is true so checkmate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution is true and Creationists are dumb

Guys the proof for evolution is undeniable. Creationists like to claim "Evolution cannot be seen in action therefore it is false." But I say BULLPOOP! HERE is all the proof of evolution that you need: footage of evolution in progress! Watch this bird evolve! http://www.bing.com... SEE?! You cannot deny science after seeing this, you deceived misinformed Creationist! Now, what I've shown you already proves Creationism, but here's some more indisputable proof. TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS: Despite the Creationist lie that there are no transitional fossils, here's a few indisputable transitional life forms:http://www.bing.com... The one on the right is a transitional life form. Then, there's this: http://www.bing.com... The one in the middle is a transitional life form. As you can see, I've already proven evolution...twice! But, I'm not done quite yet. Here's my third and final proof for evolution: A fruit that evolved beyond normal fruit. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this wondrous creature is the result of millions of years old natural selection. http://www.bing.com... Checkmate! I've proven evolution to be true THREE TIMES!
The Red Hulk would easily beat Juggernaut in a fight

I am choosing "Red" version of the Hulk an the opponent will be using the classic version of Juggernaut and may not change into any other state or person that rule applies to my Red Hulk as well, as stated. One vs one. Opponent may pick any battle scenario and I will tell you how he would win. Opponent may start this debate: Sidenote: This used to be a debate between Clayface and Sandman but I figured out it wasn't good enough so I made it more intense to Red Hulk and Juggernaut
The Red Hulk would easily beat Juggernaut in a fight

My opponent, throughout his round five conclusive debate and the majority of his entire debate altogether, has been using circular reasoning (sometimes termed circular logic) in order to justify why the Red Hulk would beat Juggernaut. Now, before I even begin to explain why the logic he uses is not of a valid format for drawing conclusions, I would like to point out that he explicitly agrees to my proposed definition of the word 'easily' and would even rename the resolution being debated as 'The Red Hulk could beat the Juggernaut without difficulty or effort.' yet throughout his entire debate only explains why, potentially, the Red Hulk could be the overall winner but not once does he elaborate on why he would beat Juggernaut without difficulty of effort. The way in which my opponent's logic is circular is as follows. He states that the Green Hulk, who he himself established grows with anger in strength, has beaten Juggernaut in a fight. He then constantly draws any attribute of Green Hulk and says that the Red hulk has the same, if not greater quantity of it (without any concrete justification) and says that if the Green Hulk beat Juggernaut and the Red hulk is equal in strength to, if not stronger than, Green Hulk then Red Hulk must definitely beat Juggernaut. Then he uses the made up opinionated fact that Red Hulk would supposedly beat Juggernaut if they ever were to fight as the justification, in itself that the Red Hulk would merely think of Juggernaut 'as a game' in a fight. The error in this logic is firstly that Green Hulk beating Juggernaut might be due to the fact that as he gets angrier his pure brute strength and physical power magnifies infinitely and that as Juggernaut kept bashing him, he eventually got so wound up that he finally magnified his brute force to the magnitude necessary to defeat Juggernaut. If the Red Hulk got super angry with Juggernaut all that would happen is his radiation would grow in magnitude. However, the Juggernaut is unstoppable by his very nature and can take all levels of radiation, especially when in a fight and charging at his opponent from outside the field of radiation inward to the Hulk itself and to demolish as a Juggernaut would do it is inevitable. Vote Juggernaut for sheer power and unstoppability. Vote Red Hulk for sheer anger and idiotic rage. Take your pick.
Trying to make troll debates serious

Pro has admitted that he is a salesman. 1. Obviously, I meant the UNited States of America. "The US tried to mandate Cactus Suffrage in 1870, as part of the Fifteenth Amendment, but this did not pass." What? I believe Pro is mistaken. I wasn't talking about the Fifteenth Amendment, but rather the ultra secret 15.5th amendment. But Pro doesn't know about that amendment, because he is always high on cocaine. Section 1 Cacti are equal! Section 2 Anyone who opposes this amendment is racist! 2. I said it was gay. The word "one" is in "one contention". It has three letters. So does gay. Therefore, they are the same. Thos is anonymos. Wore currontly hocking onto your compooter. Vote Con or retrobotion woll occur. Oh yeah, and Pro is guilty of 1st degree penis theft.
Trying to make troll debates serious

"What is Pro, some sort of salesman? " There's only one thing I sell, and that's yo mama. 1. Con is mistaken. The UN wasn't established until 1945, in response to World War 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... The US tried to mandate Cactus Suffrage in 1870, as part of the Fifteenth Amendment, but this did not pass. Fifteenth Amendment: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. . https://en.wikipedia.org... Notice it says nothing about being a cactus. Since 'cactus' is a Family and not a race (. https://en.wikipedia.org...), the rights of cactus-people are NOT protected under the Fifteenth Amendment. Cacti are not found outside the Americas (except for Rhipsalis baccifera - . https://en.wikipedia.org...), and Cactus Equality within the Americas is generally opposed due to the War on Drugs (. https://en.wikipedia.org...), so no other country has attempted to pass Cactus Equality legislation. 2. Con is a homophobe.
Trying to make troll debates serious

"He must be Jewish or something. " Ad Homenim? What is Pro, some sort of salesman?1. As a Cactus Person myself, I find Pro's lack of knowledge on the subject of Cactus culture extremely disturbing. The UN and all other countries declared Cacti equal to all others in 1870. Sources: www. datxdudesleptwithoneormoreofyourdistantrelatives/CactusCulture. Gov www. Proisatool. orgThis negates your argument. So there, you abolitionist.2. Civil disobediance, my friend. It is morally justifiable. Why should one have to have more than one contention. Sounds kind of gay tbh.
Trying to make troll debates serious

I did not present an argument of any sort, hence I have not committed any conduct violation. Con is just trying to rule-shark for an automatic win. He must be Jewish or something. Now, on to Con's points: 1. The societal implications of being a cactus can be far-reaching. It could affect your ability to get a job. Or to live in certain countries. Cactus-people can't even vote - how outrageous! Fun debates are good once in a while, but we should never lose sight of the serious, cactus-related matters they address. 2. Con doesn't have a second contention, yet he makes a second point. What a waste of our time!
Trying to make troll debates serious

No. Instead, he says that "Troll debates are serious business. " This is an OUTRAGEOUS conduct violation, and it proves that Pro is not willing to take this debate seriously. Second of all, here are my arguments: 1. It's annoying. People create troll debates to let off steam, only to be bored, because of semantics. Here is an example: Someone creates a debate entitled "Am I a cactus", and someone accepts and goes into depth about how cacti are good or bad for society. I mean, seriously, wtf? 2. I don't have a second contention. I don't feel like it.
Joke Debate

Chuck Norris__ 1 Chuck Norris doesn't cheat death. He wins fair and square. 2 Once, while having sex in a tractor-trailer, part of Chuck Norris' sperm escaped and got into the engine. We now know this truck as Optimus Prime. 3 Chuck Norris once won a game of Connect Four in 3 moves. 4 In his will, Chuck Norris has specified that if he dies, he will bury himself. 5 They're making a sequel to 300 starring Chuck Norris. Its called 1 6 Once a cobra bit Chuck Norris' leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died. 7 Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the courage to tell him. 8 Chuck Norris can slam revolving doors. 9 Chuck Norris was originally cast as the main character in 24, but was replaced by the producers when he managed to kill every terrorist and save the day in 12 minutes and 37 seconds. 10 Chuck Norris' dog is trained to pick up his own poop because Chuck Norris will not take sh!t from anyone.