BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools ought to replace textbooks with a digital medium.

Thank you for providing me with such a vulnerable and painstakingly bias topic. My specialty. Commence the deconstruction. My opponent's argument is quite simple, he wants schools to replace textbook with a digital medium. This is wrong on multiple levels: FIRST: "Schools" are inanimate. One cannot assign a moral, nor any other type of obligation to an inanimate object. For example, saying "my teddy bear ought to protect me" assumes the agent is a rational being, insofar as it is not, the statement does not make sense, hence invalid. This means that I have sufficiently invalidated the topic, thus you are to vote con. http://pilliod.net... SECOND: "Digital medium" has no concrete meaning until assigned. Therefore, due to my opponent's inability to clarify this term it is left in its ambiguous, nebulous nature. Hence, a digital medium could just a DVD. So, unless the student can afford a DVD player, less fortunate will continue to be unable to assume a proper education. Let's assume the school passes out free DVD players, the cost inefficiency will not make up for any benefits gained. Thus, you can negate on this level insofar as my opponent does not specify which types of digital mediums he can use. http://www.businessdictionary.com... THIRD: "Replace" implies permanent banning of the aforementioned necessity. What this argument is that his advocacy implies that we ought to not use textbooks and only use digital mediums. The bad effect of this is that we need a back up in the case of a malfunction on behalf of the digital device. Say perhaps the CD scratches; this is a common problem. Thus, you negate the topic to the extent that my opponent's advocacy is not desirable. http://www.merriam-webster.com... <-- The third definition primarily. FOURTH: "Digital medium"s are not as portably reliable. "Reliability", we all hated that word when we got our first car, but when we saw that hot pontiac stuck out on the side of the rode, we were proud of our Toyota Corolla. What I mean by this is that, unlike the digital medium, the book is not going to run out of battery, or have glitches. Thus, you are going to negate because I have proved it less reliable. http://www.businessdictionary.com... http://discussions.apple.com... HENCE, you vote CON insofar as the PRO is advocating a less cost-efficient, reliable, and desirable device. Also, take into account the inherent problem within the topic that it is logically invalid. For these reasons I urge you to dismiss my opponent's advocacy. I also reserve my right to bring up new arguments in my next speech. Thank you for your time and consideration, Protagoras (is back)
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

Thank you got the quick debate. You may have proved, if the hand continued, than the aces would, according to the rules, win. However, I don't think the hand would be allowed be to played. As soon as the player is aware that there is an extra king, it is reasonable to assume that the player would inform the dealer and other players something was not right, and the hand would be cancelled. It may be unfair to the player with four aces, but it would be unfair to continue the game with an illegal hand. A do-over would be the only fair thing to do in my opinion. In TV tournaments, the players cards are known to the officials in charge at all times, and they would most likely call off the hand if they noticed an extra card in the deck, and remove it or simply get a new deck. I would also like to point out, in an unprofessional game, if I was dealt 5 kings, I would hold on to it, knowing the laughs it would cause, and I think that home-poker games would allow the player with 5 kings to win, adding insult to injury to the player with four aces.
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

LOL, the futurama video is why I started this debate, the logic 5 kings beating 4 aces is flawed because the rules in Texas Holdem has never counted a "5 of a kind", or given it any kind of additional power over a 4 of a kind. We know a 4 of a kind beats a 3 of a kind because the rules simply state that it does. a 5 of a kind has no meaning and has no official leverage over a 4 of a kind because by all means a "5 of a kind" does not exist. My argument which I stated in the last round which my opponent does not seem to get, is this. 5 kings should not be looked at as a 5 of a kind because a 5 of a kind is an imaginary power hand. One player cannot possess a"5 of a kind" because the highest Texas Holdem accepts is 4 of a kind. So because we have rules, we have to look at a 5kings as a 4 of a kind with a king kicker. That is the highest possible hand you can make with 5 kings. Since 4 aces being the highest 4 of a kind possible, it beats 4 of a kind kings with a king kicker, 5 kings would automatically lose to a 4 of a kind aces, just based on the rules. This is my proof that 4 of a kind aces beats 5 kings because 5 kings only means 4 of a kind kings with a king kicker. As for disqualification, it should be called off, but in situations that involve money it is hard to tell. If I was dealt 4 of a kind aces, one of the rarest phenomenons in the entire poker game, it would outrage me that my hand does not count. If the person with 5 kings still tried to bet with 5 kings then they should have known that their 5 kings would be counted as a 4 of a kind kings with a king kicker, seeing as the "5 of a kind" is a power hand in poker that does not have any power or additional leverage over a 4 of a kind. They should lose just based on the fact that they still attempted to bet on their 4 of a kind kings with a king kicker. My opponent has made some good points, but you cannot argue with the official rule set forth, and in the event that the counted match between a person with 5 kings met a person with 4 aces, a person with the 4 of a kind kings and king kicker would lose to the person with a 4 of a kind aces and random kicker.
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

And I thank you for your equally quick response. Indeed, having five kings is not included in the rules of poker, but if the dealer dealt the card, then its part of the game if anything, the hand would be cancelled, and thus no one would win the hand. If they choose to play with the faulty hand, its a simple matter of counting, and five is greater than four. The only instance of the legendary five-king-hand to ever occur is during Futurama, and they ruled the five kings win, and the fifth king wasn't even a playing card. Realistically, the hand would be called off as soon as the fifth king appeared, and no one would be the winner. Pro has yet to prove four aces would "win" against the five kings. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your response.
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

(seriously you are awesome for doing that) My opponent's argument is that since 3 of a kind beats a pair, and a 4 of a kind beats a 3 of a kind, 5 kings must automatically beat a 4 of a kind. But, in poker that is not the case of a rare instance of a 5 of a kind. I would like my opponent to see the official rules of Texas Holdem, ranking the hands by strength. [1] You see there is no such thing as a 5 of a kind. .. since the rules and strength of a 5 of a kind has never existed, a person having 5 of a kind kings should by the standard rules seen as a 4 of a kind Kings with a King kicker. The 4 aces beats the 4 of a kind kings so in the real rules of Texas Holdem the person who has 5kings should lose to a person with 4 aces. Since the highest "of a kind" established is 4 and anything else other than the 4 of a kind with be dubbed at a "kicker" in a 5 card hand. I look forward to your argument. . http://www.fulltiltpoker.com...
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

In the rules of Texas Hold 'Em Poker, a pair is better than a single, and three of a kind is greater than a pair, and four of a kind is higher than three of a kind. According to these rules, it does not matter if Aces are involved or not. Thus, if a player has the ledendary five-king-hand, than it would easily trounce the mere four aces of the other player, just like five twos would bet four threes if a two was accidently shuffled into the deck. The player cannot be punished for the hand dealt to him by the dealer, which is generally a professional, thus his hand should be considered "playable" for the current hand, then have the extra king removed before reshuffling. I look forward to Pro's response.
In the event of a poker match having 5 kings, it should lose to 4 aces

Texas Holdem poker- "is a variation of the standard card game of poker. The game consists of two cards being dealt face down to each player and then five community cards being placed by the dealer—a series of three ("the flop") then two additional single cards ("the turn" and "the river"), with players having the option to check, bet or fold after each deal, i.e. betting may occur prior to the flop, "on the flop," "on the turn," and "on the river." King- 4 cards in the standard playing card deck with suits of diamond, club, heart, and spade. Ace- 4 cards in the standard playing card deck with suits of diamond, club, heart and spade In the event that a extra king were to fall into the deck, and the person has 5 kings as their hand, with the opposing person having 4 aces, the man with the 5 kings should lose to 4 aces. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.comedycentral.com...
America needs to reboot back to our founding principles, or our liberty will eventually evanesce.

Times change, and the framers even said the Constitution will need change. Our constitution has been amended a total of 27 times. Sounds like a partial concession.Whether our constitution is being nostalgic to the "Good ol' Washington days", or being realistic to now, we still need to follow it and respect it until it is changed again. This is true, but I disagree that we need to backtrack. Some of the founding principals are in need of change, and rebooting could be dangerous. I totally respect the idea that Traditionalism can be dangerous, but what about our traditional ways can be dangerous? Freedom of speech, or do we constantly need Progressives trying to limit what is being said on talk-radio.Progressives advocate for freedom of speech. As moderates, they seek to progresion in freedoms as much as the left or right.During the Great Depression, the Progressives launched a counterrevolution that radically and fundamentally altered the nature of American society. President FDR and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress, through an array of federal projects, taxes, entitlements, and regulations known as The New Deal, which breached the constitution's firewalls. At first the SUpreme Court fought back, striking down New Deal programs as exceeding the limits of federal constitutional authority, violating state sovereignty, and trampling on private property rights. The new deal was controversial for the time, but most generally agree it was effective. The fact that a law that went against tradition ended up working, speaks volumes for the need to change.Democrats do understand or appreciate the true value of liberty. Instead they set out to throw it away. They want more government, temporary solutions that are consequential in the long run, higher taxes, more welfare, social programs, e.t.c. I can assure you that democrats want freedom as mucgh as any other group. We are simply trying to afford that freedom to all our citizens. 25% of citizens who go on welfare for 2-5 years, end up recovering. Welfare is a way to boost back citizens into the working world, and to get them back on their feet. Does it need reform? Sure! Few are in favor of status quos in the US. As for raising taxes, democrats actually seek to lower taxes for the 99%. Did I ever say that I could not chase my dreams? I just said that it was eligible in the way the framers set it up. You said it like it was no longer possible in the current system. Sharing with our "family" is not being forced to provide money at gunpoint, is it?Taxes are nothing new. People who have citizenship are considered family, and if you don't provide for the family, then you get booted out. It is a little harsh, but it is what makes the nation wealthy, so we can afford all the luxuries we have.
America needs to reboot back to our founding principles, or our liberty will eventually evanesce.

If America does not watch where it is headed it will stumble miserably. We need a reality check. Our founding fathers gave us a gift of freedom, and they set up an excellent way to run this country. In the way they set it up, people get to be free, no one gets too much power, and everyone can chase the American Dream. It's a win-win. In 2014, it is different. If you are financially successful, you are basically punished to serve those who are unsuccessful by taxation. Our healthcare is following the treacherous path that Canada took. They failed miserably, as life saving surgeries have long waits, and there are shortages of doctors. Our supreme courts have too much power, for example the judicial-review. Which far exceeds the framer's intent, by establishing a legislative veto. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going bankrupt. These programs have accumulated over $50,000,000,000,000.00 in IOU's payable by our next generations. Our spending is out of control. We need a budget, as we are on a reckless path. President Ronald Reagan siad, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction... It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States to be free."
America needs to reboot back to our founding principles, or our liberty will eventually evanesce.

British philosopher C.S. Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Conservatives indubitably understand that liberty prevails as a treasure that not every society has. It is a gift, not to be neglected. It is a privilege to be defended by the people and the armed services. In order to accomplish this, despotism must be counteracted or extirpated. There must be an equal balance of authority, as too much power is jeopardizing to a free civilization. The citizens of a free nation must have rights that can never be taken away or worked around. As radio commentator Mark Levin said, "Conservatives don't hate government, they hate tyranny." If conservatives do not come to grips with America's tyrannical transition, America, the "once free" country will be like many other countries: once was free.
Universal Healthcare in The United States

The number of citizens in the United States without health insurance continues to rise each and every year. Health care has become unaffordable and impossible for much of the United States. If the United States would implement a universal health care system our problems would greatly be lessened. Private healthcare companies are becoming giant monopolies strictly caring about money. There are too many people in this country without healthcare for a multitude of reasons and too many ill people with insurance companies who are unwilling to pay their bills. A Universal Healthcare company is necessary. Other countries have implented such a system, and it works very well, there is our proof that it is able to be done, it may be difficult but its necessary that we get a universal healthcare system in the United States going.
The American form of economics is just indentured servitude for the middle class

There you have it. If there were no more rich people or economic systems (i. e. you're the last person on Earth), Pro thinks no work would be required to survive. No gathering, no maintenance, no personal hygiene, no securing shelter from floods, no lighting fires to stay warm, no running from wild fires, no gathering of canned goods or fuel, no competition with rats and dogs and cockroaches, and no looking for clean water.
The American form of economics is just indentured servitude for the middle class

"If you were the last person on Earth, (no more rich people or class distinctions) would you have to do any work to survive?"Of course not.Shelter would be free.Food would be free.Transportation would be free.Clothes would be free.Everything I would need to survive would be free....and don't try to argue that I'd have to MAKE those things, since you asked, "If you were the last person on Earth"not the first person before everything was made. I proved the answer is "no"...I guess that gives me the win....somehow I don't think you'll agree.LOL
The American form of economics is just indentured servitude for the middle class

An indenture is a contract between two parties. I have an indenture to pay the bank for this house. Indentured servants in American history worked off a debt or in exchange for passage to the Colonies. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... The indenture that Pro speaks of is the cost of survival. More food must be bought because we continually expend energy to live, our clothes, bodies, and shelters break down, and our cars use fuel. Those who we pay for goods and services are under the same "indenture," and so must also work. The indenture Pro describes is not to a rich person, but to someone in the room with us right now. In fact, he's sitting right next to you! And he'll steal your last penny, the fillings from your teeth, the children from your arms, and the life from your bones! And that man is Mr. N. Tropy! You can't escape him, no matter how rich or poor. To prove that it IS the rich's fault we have to work to survive, Pro should answer the following question in the negative. If he cannot convince the voters the answer is really NO, I win: If you were the last person on Earth, (no more rich people or class distinctions) would you have to do any work to survive?
The American form of economics is just indentured servitude for the middle class

The moment we are born, we are brainwashed into thinking we are supposed to be "productive citizens' and we're supposed to "contribute to society".The very things we need to survive, we must work for.Food, clothing, shelter, health care, transportation, etc, all costs money that we earn from working.So, it becomes a vicious cycle of earn and spend to survive. It's designed so we only make enough to survive on and maybe save for retirement.When all of the money we earn is used up for survival purposes, then that is what's called indentured servitude. We are only working to survive. It's a form of slavery. We work to pay the debt of the cost of living. There is no alternative. Work or die.The top rich people, however don't contribute to society. They don't do anything that benefits mankind.They don't do manual labor, they don't manufacture, invent, or produce anything.The way they make money is through investments, tax loopholes, interest on money they already have, and the profits that other people's labor generates for them.It's a scam set up by the rich to keep the middle class in bondage.
the BCS is horrible

"i was talking about how when small schools do get opportunities they show that they deserve something better than the BCS (playoff). the small schools have had 3 chances to show there stuff. first (and best) in 2004 the utah utes went undefeated and beat the pitt panthers 35-7 in the fiesta bowl. in 2007 the boise state broncos beat the oklahoma sooners in the fiesta bowl in a overtime thriller. just recently the hawaii warriors didnt do so good. i didnt think they were that good anyway . that just gos to show that the NCAA needs to think of something different. " 1. My opponent is still contradicting the original statement. 2. Also, I would argue that these schools get tp high school recruits meaning that non-major schools are not capable of beating them.
the BCS is horrible

i was talking about how when small schools do get opportunities they show that they deserve something better than the BCS (playoff). the small schools have had 3 chances to show there stuff. first (and best) in 2004 the utah utes went undefeated and beat the pitt panthers 35-7 in the fiesta bowl.in 2007 the boise state broncos beat the oklahoma sooners in the fiesta bowl in a overtime thriller. just recently the hawaii warriors didnt do so good. i didnt think they were that good anyway . that just gos to show that the NCAA needs to think of something different. P.S. Utah is going to do some damage this year
the BCS is horrible

"actually, i did state why the BCS system is bad. i said it is bad because it "keeps the smaller schools such as utah and boise state and many other non-major schools from showing that they can be the best. " Never said you didn't. Your arguments however are not very good. "my opponet said that "bigger name schools would draw more viewers which increases the popularity of college football. " i would argue this because you would have even more viewing if it was a cinderella team playing in a BCS bowl. take Boise State in the 2007 fiesta bowl. that is one of the most exciting games ever played in the history of the BCS bowl system. im sure that game attracted more viewers than some of the other BCS bowl games. " My opponent contradicts himself. First he says that small schools don't get oppurtunities. He then shows how a small school DID get a oppurtunity to show they were great. On this point alone I win the round. "the BCS system is horrible because its basicly saying to the non-major schools and players that play for those schools that you aren't good enough because you play for a school that doesnt have enough history or popularity. " I already argued this.
the BCS is horrible

actually, i did state why the BCS system is bad. i said it is bad because it "keeps the smaller schools such as utah and boise state and many other non-major schools from showing that they can be the best. " my opponet said that "bigger name schools would draw more viewers which increases the popularity of college football. " i would argue this because you would have even more viewing if it was a cinderella team playing in a BCS bowl. take Boise State in the 2007 fiesta bowl. that is one of the most exciting games ever played in the history of the BCS bowl system. im sure that game attracted more viewers than some of the other BCS bowl games. the BCS system is horrible because its basicly saying to the non-major schools and players that play for those schools that you aren't good enough because you play for a school that doesnt have enough history or popularity.
the BCS is horrible

I will address the few arguments my opponent makes. "the BCS system is horrible. " Thank you for stating your advocacy. "its keeping the smaller schools such as utah,boise stateand many of non major schools from showing that they can be the best. " My opponent never says why this bad. I would argue that this is good. Bigger name schools lead to more viewers which increases the popularity of college football. Also, I would argue that these schools get tp high school recruits meaning that non-major schools are not capable of beating them. "the only reason th BCS is still running is because "major " conferences think they are better than everyone else. " A conference is not something with autonomy thus lacks the ability to think. Also, major conferences have been winning meaning that they have the right to think they are better than everyone else. My opponent gives no legitimate reason as to why the BCS is "horrible" as the resolution states.