BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Debate Effective For Solving Issues

I believe that this debate can be settled by looking at the fundamental processes of governments, and possibly even mankind. There are many different ways you could begin this study, but let's first turn to analyzing what the world would be like without debate on the governmental level. Thousands of years of history can prove to us that the absence of such argumentative discussion leads to the rise of monarchies or divisive tribalism, as the only deciding factors in group leadership would be based on attributes that have no relation to intellectual discernment among potential followers of these leaders, such as physical strength or ancestral heritage. These systems of ruling could be connected to the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages, during which Feudalism and Monarchies were the two major ruling systems. These systems, as exemplified in the timeline given, are not optimal circumstances for intellectual growth of any kind. If we remain trapped in forms of instinctive government such as these, we would never be able to have minds, individual or not, spread their ideas to others. And this is an important distinction to make - if debate is not apart of the world we live in, how can any change take place? Thomas Paine could very well go and write his 'Common Sense' - it just couldn't be spread by the common people. And democracy, as the desired governmental set-up for most countries, would never be a possibility. All in all, we would be trapped in an endless cycle of 'caveman' behavior in which we are incapable of bettering our world due to the combining of minds for the benefit of mankind. With this in mind, if we address how this is evidence for debate being effective for solving issues, we can see, again with help from history, that it already has been and will continue to be. The fact that we do not have the previously discussed governmental systems today, and that democracy is abundant across the world, shows how debate has already been instrumental in shaping the world around us already, and in a positive way. It would also be absolutely reasonable to state that we would remain in stone age like technological phases without debate as a way to spread and encourage the growth of ideas on any scale. I believe others would find it difficult to find a system of advancement equal to mankind's natural tendency to discuss and debate the world he resides in and all of its constituents.
Is Debate Effective For Solving Issues

Frankly I hope to lose this debate, but I will argue it to the best of my ability. Debate has been used all throughout history to address issues ranging from comical topics to life changing ones. But has it actually solved the issues addressed in any given debate? And if it has, was that the most effective way to find the given solution? I will be arguing that debate often does not lead to solutions to problems addressed in said debate and any solutions found due to debate could have been found much more effectively. I implore my opponent to argue that debate does in fact find solutions and does so effectively. If you accept my challenge, I thank you. I am not very experienced but I hope to be competent enough to provide intriguing thoughts and opinions to discuss. I will be arguing pretty informally as i have yet to get the hang of debating in general. I will be respectful of your statements and opinions and address them in the context of debate and do not desire to agitate or belittle any contender, I am treated by with the same standard. Thank you.
Video Games are Art on Par with Motion Pictures.

***THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE HOUR OF PREP TIME BETWEEN CASES; SO ONLY ACCEPT IF YOU HAVE THE TIME***Resolution: Resolved: Video Games are Art on Par with Motion Pictures*Note: I expect my opponent to argue that video games are INFERIOR to motion pictures.Definitions:Video Game(s): any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the actions or questions on the screen AND any of various games played using microchip-controlled device, as an arcade machine or hand-held toy. [1]Art: The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or more than ordinary significance [2] AND a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas. [3]Par: an equality in value or standing; a level of equality [4]Motion Pictures: a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion by a specially designed camera and thrown on a screen by a projector in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement AND a play, event, or the like, presented in this form AND the art, technique, or business of producing [such]. [5] Often shortened to "movies."It is assumed that Motion Pictures and Television are arts.Rules:The Burden of Proof is shared; or, I have to defend my position, and you have to defend your position. I can't just rebut your arguments and you just can't rebut mine.No Semantics, please!Use in-line citations [7].Three Rounds, but the first round is just for acceptance.No new arguments in the final round.8,000 Character limit, although brevity is encouraged.Otherwise, standard rules apply.Sources:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...[5]http://dictionary.reference.com...[6]like thisI hope for a good debate, and may the best debater win.
The home mortgage interest deduction should eventually be eliminated in the United States

The home mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest federal tax expenditures. The president’s fiscal year 2010 budget reports that this tax deduction will cost the Treasury Department an estimated $131 billion in 2012. (1) Proponents of the home mortgage interest deduction believe that it creates an incentive for home ownership. However, virtually all researchers have found that the current mortgage interest deduction is not a cost-effective tool for increasing homeownership. As two Harvard economists concluded, “Since the 1960s, the homeownership rate has barely budged, staying within a fixed band between 63 and 68 percent. Moreover, the changes in the rate that have occurred seem more related to the suburbanization of the economy than to the subsidy created by the deduction”. (2) It’s not surprising that the home mortgage interest deduction has failed to raise homeownership rates. As it turns out, the deduction’s main beneficiaries are not individuals on the margin between renting and owning. This is primarily because the mortgage interest deduction is only available to itemizing taxpayers, who are most likely to be individuals in the middle and upper income tax brackets. As a 2008 study found, over 86 percent of individuals with annual incomes between $75,000 and $125,000 itemized. However, only 23 percent of those making less than $40,000 itemized. (3) Furthermore, the average value of the home mortgage interest deduction increases greatly with income. Individuals with annual incomes less than $40,000 who opt to itemize receive an average of only $91 from this deduction. However, individuals making $250,000 or more receive an average of $5,459. (3)Clearly, the home mortgage interest deduction has served only to increase economic inequality in the United States. However, researchers have found that relatively low levels of inequality are most desirable. As Cornia et al. stated, “Any country that intends to maximize poverty reduction should choose the lowest level of inequality within the efficient inequality range. Aiming for the lower end of the range is important because one obtains the same level of growth at lower levels of inequality, and it allows the reduction of poverty at a faster rate. ” (4) Economic inequality in the United States is currently on the high end of the acceptable range. (4) Therefore, according to Cornia et al. , the United States’s policies should aim to reduce inequality. However, as I have made clear, the home mortgage interest deduction does just the opposite of this. Conclusion: The home mortgage interest deduction has not raised homeownership rates, as several intended it would. In addition, this deduction has worsened the existing economic inequality in the United States. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction over a period of five–ten years would greatly increase federal income tax revenue. This money could be used to pay down the excessive national debt. References: . http://www.urban.org... . http://www.economics.harvard.edu... . http://real.wharton.upenn.edu... . http://training.itcilo.org...
The home mortgage interest deduction should eventually be eliminated in the United States

Resolved: The home mortgage interest deduction should eventually be eliminated in the United StatesDefinitions:Home mortgage interest deduction: "Allows taxpayers who own their homes to reduce their taxable income by the amount of interest paid on the loan which is secured by their principal residence (or, sometimes, a second home)"http://en.wikipedia.org...Eventually: Over a period of five to ten years.Eliminated: To remove or get rid of.Round one will be for acceptance only.
All Morality is Relative

In this debate, I will be arguing the point that there is no such thing as objective morality, for it is all relative. Here is a definition of objective morality:Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.Relativity is the absence of standards of absolute and universal application.I will be arguing that morality is simply founded upon opinion and not fact, nor the Bible.My opponent will be arguing that all morality is the same and is not relative.I look forward to this debate.1. http://rationalwiki.org...2. http://www.google.com...
All Morality is Relative

This is a rather interesting topic and is one that not often comes up on this site. As it is time for me to begin my arguments, I will do so now. Arguments There is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is relative and differs among all people. What I find moral may not be exactly what my opponent finds moral. What my opponent finds moral may not be what George Washington found moral. Because of this, morality is not a fact. It is not fixed. Morality is moving across an ever evolving curve. 1. Objective morality based on the rudiments of God's word 2. Objective morality based on the morals of the leaders 3. Objective morality based on the morals of the average citizens Objective morality based on the rudiments of God's word is taken seriously by most Theists, and they tend to believe that God's moral law is the only morals they will follow. However, I don't think the Bible teaches morality, so it is therefore not a fact. If every human being on Earth thought it was a fact, it would be. An opinion can only become fact if every person has the same opinion. Leaders of governing systems use their morals when creating laws. This does not make the laws moral to the people, it makes the laws moral to the leaders. All citizens have their own opinions of what morality is. They also have a say in what laws are created, assuming the government is not totalitarian. So where do laws come from? What makes rape immoral? It comes from the people. The people pick the morals. It has nothing to do with what is factual. There are people who do not like certain laws. There are people who think rape is moral, while there are people who think it is not. Think of it like this: I like pizza. It is my personal opinion that pizza is good, but that does not make it a fact that pizza is good. There are some people, however, that do not like pizza. Therefore, one cannot say that pizza is good if not everyone likes it. This is the relativity of tastes. It works the same way with morality. I think what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust was immoral, but the Nazis did not. If you look at it from their perspective, they were doing God's bidding, for they had "Gott Mit Uns" inscribed on their belts, which translates to "God With Us. " Though I, and I assume my opponent as well, thinks the Holocaust was wrong, it was technically not because not everyone thought it was wrong. The only reason we can criticize them is because they were breaking the laws that certain people put into place because they thought the laws were moral. Conclusion Morality is based on opinion, not fact. For not everyone thinks the same way, not everyone has the same morals. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is a relative concept that differs among all people and constantly evolving. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Objective morality makes atheism improbable

Contention: that objective morality makes atheism improbable. Essentially, this is the moral argument for the existence of God, albeit construed in a negative way. Rounds: (1) acceptance + defn's, (2) opening arguments; (3) rebuttals; (4) closing arguments. Objective morality: facts about norms and what should be done,—inc. moral judgments (right/wrong, good/bad) and human duties,—which are independent of what individuals believe/perceive them to be. Atheism: a worldview such that there is no transcendent cause existing outside the natural universe. Both sides have the burden of proof; I will attempt to give reasons for, I hope for my opponent to give reasons against.
Plethora Version 4

To my esteemed opponent. It is always a pleasure debating you, and I'm sure this time will be no different. I wish you the best of luck, and will begin to argue your points. Firstly, let me see if I have your premises correctly. 1. Everyone was hunter/gatherers that had no government 2. Worked because there was no competition for resources. 3. Worked because there were few people Now let's talk about why each premise is wrong and doesn't uphold the resolution. 1. We aren't hunter/gatherers, and wouldn't digress into becoming so. The law of evolution says that things don't devolve. They become more complex not less. This means that now that we have evolved into the complex society that we are today, we won't digress into the hunter/gatherer society. There would always be one person to capitalize somehow and end up in the power position and eliminating the anarchy. 2. There will always be a competition for resources. In modern days, people need a fuel source, and people need food. As long as people need things, then they are going to try and get them. This will lead to a competition in resources, even if it isn't for quantity. People are selfish creatures that want the best. This means that if you and I are each raising cattle, but yours are better than mine, then I want your cattle. This is human nature. 3. There are 6.6 billion people on this earth. Getting the population down to ten thousand is virtually impossible. We have to be realistic when looking at our options. There are some things that just can't happen. Even if it can happen in a hypothetical world, this isn't a hypothetical world. There are limitations that have been placed upon us. The only truly feasible way of eliminating most of the world's population is a nuclear war that destroys virtually everything, which would cause an enormous competition for resources. If anything were to eliminate that many people, there would be a competition for resources. Now onto some more general arguments. You say there was no leader generally. This is untrue. Often times, there would be a leader, even if it wasn't voted upon. When we look to the native americans, we find that they established leaders among themselves. When we look at the writings of Captain John Smith, the native american's had a social structure and rulers among themselves. They even had different classes. The ancient Aztecs and Mayans each had rulers. The tribes of Africa had rulers, the list is virtually endless. Even with prehistoric man, might made right. Whoever was the strongest, was the ruler. Even if you don't believe that, there was an order to society. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlesness, wordnet.com, often times these ancient civilizations had a moral law that they lived by. If an individual violated the society in a certain way, then they were outcast by the rest of the people. This isn't anarchy as there is a moral code they lived by. All of these are reasons that anarchy wouldn't work now. It's just not feasible. Thank you, and I await your response.
Plethora Version 4

Okay, so basically anarchy has worked for over 90% of history. Up until 10000 years ago, there was no government. Every body was simply a member of a small group of hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers had a fairly egalitarian society, with no leader, so basically, they had anarchy. The reason it worked is because there was almost no competition for resources, as we only had 10000 people. So if we somehow got the population down to 10000 people, anarchy would work fine. While I don't recommend it, it would work. That is undeniable.
Plethora Version 4

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places. 1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights. 2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism. 3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be. 4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged. 5. Agriculture was a mistake. 6. Anarchy could feasibly work. 7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind. 8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate. 9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. 10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world. 11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot). 12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed. 13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate). 14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
airbus is better than boeing

The attendants have nothing to do with this. They depend on an airline. The airbus is more comfortable in the first class I realised and airbus have most of their jets with inboard entertainment. I find the tray tables bigger as well and has more supplies like coat angers by the TV's on the back of the chair. Airbus have been delivering more planes every year since 2003 over Boeing. Airbus have also had more deliveries of aircraft instead of Boeing. They also have cup holders by the tv area so that you dont have your table down. Most airbus aircraft are generally bigger than what they are compeating against. wiki isnt best link but most websites i checked have all info on here...and they are alot of websites http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States should withdraw from NATO

i believe that the us should stay in NATO for one strong purpose: PROTECTION. in the case that the us does withdraw from NATO, it will contradict and damage the U.S.'s hegemony. doing this, in turn, will lead other nations to believe America is weak and force us into near danger if other countries decide to attack. in turn, if these countries do attack and we have fled the NATO, we will have no allies that will consider to help us because we so readily abandoned them. so therefore i believe that the U.S. should stay in allignment with NATO.
Uniforms should be worn

But if you're in a professional environment such as school or work you can not be dressing in slutty attire . Lets say you needed a lawyer would you go to one wearing a crop top and sweat pants or would you go to one that was wearing a blazer and a pencil skirt . No one will take you seriously in crop tops or super short skirts . And in places like a doctor's office the nurses and doctors have to wear scrubs and coats for their own safety . Safety is more important than fashion !
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

con has infact given no evidence to supports his claim con says "With a lot define as a considerable quantity or extent you can see by 21% of the world (nearly a Quarter) is completely turned off by women. Thus disproving Pro's resolution." but I did not claim that alot of the population like women panties but just alot OF men like womens panties con defined alot as not as a number but as " a considerable quantity or extent" so any one one would say the rest of the population ie about 79% who are turned on by women is a considerable quantity or extent now as my evidence shows of the men in the population who are turned on by women alot like to look at girls panties as the girls says "I did, I noticed that lots of guys would try to look up my skirt whenever they got the chance. voyeurism is prevalent in society ie the is alot of it done http://en.wikipedia.org...... "Due to the prevalence of voyeurism in society," more men do it than women http://en.wikipedia.org...... "Research shows that like almost all paraphilias voyeurism is more common in men than in women" it as if i said thus con has not given evidence to support his claim all he shows is that of the population ie about 79% who are turned on by women-which is alot
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

Now there was a reason that I defined a lot. The BOP is on Pro and all I have to do is prove that a lot of males do not do this or do not want to. 10% of the world's population is homosexual. Out of the world's population over 27% have expierenced same sex relationships . In Prisons the homosexuality rate is as high as 75%. Of these things that shows that there are a lot of males that do not want to look up a girls skirt. (http://www.psmag.com...) The Smithonian has reported that 20% of Americans are homosexual and that when tests are unanamous they reported a 65% increase for homosexuality revealing and a 71% increase in Homosexual expirences. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...) That's a lot of Americans who do not want to do that. CNN has shown that 1% of the world's population is asexual which means that they are completely disgusted in sex, so they wouldn't bother to do so either. (http://www.cnn.com...) and (http://www.asexuality.org...) Here, once again, is a population that isn't wanting to do what Pro has said. With a lot define as a considerable quantity or extent you can see by 21% of the world (nearly a Quarter) is completely turned off by women. Thus disproving Pro's resolution.
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

You define alot as "A lot- a considerable quantity or extent" the poem is about looking at girls panties ie the name panty spotting ie its about panty voyeurism so voyeurism is prevalent in society ie the is alot of it done http://en.wikipedia.org... "Due to the prevalence of voyeurism in society," more men do it than women http://en.wikipedia.org... "Research shows that like almost all paraphilias voyeurism is more common in men than in women" lots of males try and look at girls panties as noted by a girl http://www.literotica.com... "I did, I noticed that lots of guys would try to look up my skirt whenever they got the chance. " thus from these quotes we see I give evidence to my claim that this poem captures what alot of males want to do to females no con has to prove -not just give assertions- my claim is wrong
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

My opponent completely ignored my last round and still is going with the 79% statistic, but that is wrong, because that does not factor in the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and it does not factor in the female vs. male population numbers as I brought up last round. We can also see with these statistics of which that I have brought up last round that it swings the statistics in my favor that a lot of males do not want to do this to females.