BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Goku vs Saitama 2

The burden of proof is on Pro to show that Goku would beat Saitama in a fight. I have a problem with Pro's argument, and that is the fact that Saitama has NEVER shown any sign of pain ever since he became the hero he was. He didn't feel anything when he was launched toward the moon, and there is no proof that anything Goku could do to hurt Saitama. One Punch Man is also still progressing as a story, and in short, this means we don't know how strong or fast Saitama is, and what can really hurt him. What if Saitama can break the laws of physics and time and he just isn't aware of it? What if he can destroy a dimension? This is unclear, and giving the advantage to Goku is only assuming that Saitama isn't that strong. This can't beven resolved due to the lack of legitimate comparison. We don't know if Saitama has infinite power or infinite speed. That is my argument, and I believe this should negate yours. Good debate
Resolved: The US federal government should colonize Mars.

Contention 1: Earth is overpopulatedMy opponent is misreading my argument. I stated that the world is not overpopulated and I showed the math. This is not a counter plan that I am purposing I'm just showing that the world is not overpopulated. Also Pro drops my argument that the world population is actually beginning to shrink so please extend that across the board.Contention 2: US Colonization of Mars is forbidden! My opponent here is again mistaken. He fails to see that colonization is a nation claiming territory and the people's of those territory do not have the same rights as the actual nation. (hence the 13 colonize, Philippians, etc...) So the US is claiming sovereignty of Mars which is forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. According to the resolution the US will colonize Mars, so it is obvious that this plan is against international law. Pro brings up the ISS, but the ISS is man made therefore not a celestial body making Pro's point invalid.Contention 3: Mars would cause nothing but problems. My opponent says that my point is invalid, but let me actually quote my source I provided. "Outer space is an extremely hostile place. If you were to step outside a spacecraft, such as theInternational Space Station, or on a world with little or no atmosphere such as the moon or Mars" It says in the article that it's the moon or Mars. So my point here still stands. Please extend my points here across the board. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Contention 4: Getting there.My opponent states that NASA was provided the exception. Except this was just testing. If Pro's plan passes then it begins conventional use which is illegal. This will increase nuclear use in outer space. Prohibited again by the OST of 1967. Pro's own article's prove to hurt him here because it states that the Orion qualifies, but that's for testing is that it is excluded.ConclusionWe can see at the end of the debate that Pro has dropped most of my arugements and I have proved that moving to Mars will kill, is illegal, and that we have no reason to actually do it.
Resolved: The US federal government should colonize Mars.

in Topeka -30 F on Monday. Contention 1: Earth is OverpopulatedHere's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (. http://www.omg-facts.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. ( . http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Thier childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated. Contention 2: US colonization of Mars is forbidden! My opponent brings up the US is the leader of the UN, but here's something funny. In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestrial body for sovernty. What is a celestrial body you may ask. (. http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoid, astriod, and planet (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars. Contention 3: Mars would cause nothing but problems. There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little ammounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue exspansion due to low preasure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shredds by micrometeriods moving at fast speads. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, inpload, or die from suffication. (. http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Contention 4: Getting there. In my opponent's arguement he fails to bring up how will we get there. It seems like the most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (. http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty. Which many nations have rattified and/or signed here is proof. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Resolved: The US federal government should colonize Mars.

Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Rebuttals/Closing (no new arguments) This debate involves the United States Colonizing Mars. Colonizing is sending people to live on and populate an area that has not previously been inhabited by the colonizing force. Mars is the 4th planet from the sun in the Sol System. Pro, me, takes the side that the U. S. Should Colonize Mars. Con, lannan13 takes the side it should not.
Masterful and his teen posse are retarded RAP Battle

You think you scare me? Give me a break! You aint gonna do shjt for Pete's sake! This rap was cake, exposing you as a fake Acting tough but now your dignity's in a LAKE. Plus you got the code wrong, check it again It's if bodily harm is done, written right in pen Call the police And they'll just blow you off And I'll be free from jail and simply just go and scoff! http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
Masterful and his teen posse are retarded RAP Battle

Talkin shjt, well I'll find out where you live Come to your house and kill you, not a single FVCK I give... This is a death threat, these are taken seriously, you will now be reported to Airmax and I will also be calling the Police, to have you arrested. Section 268 of the Criminal Code - Charges of uttering threats to cause death, bodily harm or damage to property Rap battle is over, you are going to jail, no laughing matter now
Masterful and his teen posse are retarded RAP Battle

You insult the Brotherhood? Well look at your group One loner member, just give yourself the boot 12% win ratio... how low can you stoop? Pretty low when your brains just some goop You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? Some one removed your brain and then sealed your head with caulk Talkin shjt, well I'll find out where you live Come to your house and kill you, not a single FVCK I give... The most hated on DDO, proud of that title? Being a troll, spitting so much libel I will smite you like God did the false idol Then shove a dildo in you to shut your pie hole Insult Masterful all you want, he don't care He's so mature cause he actually has a pair Now... insult me? Bjtch don't you dare I'll do more than shoot you a glare I'll shred you like a bear, I'll rip and I'll tear Call me cruel, but it's only just and fair Yeah
Masterful and his teen posse are retarded RAP Battle

Masterful and his brotherhood teen gang are just a bunch of degenerates who seriously lack in intelligence Materfull and his gang come from the ghetto kick them in the nuts and they will sing the falsetto this gang of teens without girlfriends couldn't even get nailed in wood shop as they are busy working in the sweatshop Discussions that are so retarded that most people disregard it Like turning people into pig feed expulsion from here is guaranteed Keep up with your unintelligent topics as you pop your narcotics and become convicts From the projects to jail in your mullet ponytail.
Slavery and racism (Jim Crow) are different types of ills

I would like to add a definition to the list; Jim Crow: A system of laws in the United States passed with intent to restrict association between whites and blacks. Slave owners held a great deal of interest in controlling association between their slaves and the slaves of others, as well as contact with other free-men. Further, they warranted no different of an association than that of a master-slave association. The Jim Crow laws may have been different, but it comes from the same rational; one may force other humans to obey. Association is the basis of trade, starting families, pretty much everything civilized; one can say that while slavery was certainly worse for slaves, Jim crow was bad for everybody; it may well have been used precisely to lock out up-and-coming businesses that blacks were creating by legally protecting white merchants" markets. Thus, while slavery and Jim crow are both racist, they are the same ill, to a different degree, in terms of prolonging the thought that human association can be legitimately controlled by third parties. I turn this debate over to Pro.
Slavery and racism (Jim Crow) are different types of ills

Racism -- is hatred of another race.Slavery -- when one has absolute power of another.Most of the people who made Jim Crow were anti-slavery. It was common sentiment across America that slavery was wrong by the time the Civil War came to an end. Slavery was another ill that came from the British. In many cases, slaveowners didn't even bother saying the N-word. They had no time for that. They whipped their slaves and were brutal, but they needed work out of them, so they were too busy overseeing to let their personal opinions get in the way.Racism has to do with persecuting a race, that's usually free. Slavery doesn't necessarily correlate with race. There were many slaves that were sold by the British (in their own countries to another).This is why I always say the idea of black people complaining about slavery doesn't make sense. If anything they're complaining about Jim Crow.It goes like this all slavery supporters were racist. Not all who were racist supported slavery. Many of the abolitionists would go on to lynch blacks.
Slavery and racism (Jim Crow) are different types of ills

This is a response to who for some weird reason believe that since the Northern states ended slavery first, they must be free of open and violent racism. For instance, Britain might have ended slavery but did that stop them from violating black people's rights and conquering other lands (during the age of imperialism)? No. Just because one doesn't believe in slavery doesn't mean they like another race. Britain has a reputation for being racist, even in the post-slavery era. It had a reputation of racism before slavery.
It is Better to Rule Through Fear than Through Love

My opponent is really confused on this motion....but anyhow, I will present my argument in this round. Then in subsequent rounds, I will rebutt. DEFINITIONS rule - /ro"0"0ol/ noun 1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere. 2. a strip of wood or other rigid material used for measuring length or marking straight lines; a ruler. 3. short for Australian Rules (football). verb 1. exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people). 2. make parallel lines across (paper).. dictionary.reference.com/browse/rule FEAR:1. an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.1. be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening.www.psychologytoday.com/basics/fear. LOVE:a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, .dictionary.reference.com/browse/love. Based on this definition, my opponent still argues that it is better to rule through fear. ARGUMENTS Fear yields resistance and selfishness. Love yields cooperation and altruism. What will a leader stand to gain if he torture the people his ruling? When you rule with love, the people won't even see reason to disobey you because they trust what you are doing.Fear would appear to be more the rude these days in many work places with pschopathic behaviour clearly on display by many in management... negative use.....love would be better and more productive. Fear in the sense of national strength quite likely prevented war between The former Soviet Union and USA,for example,in days past. Either nation had the ability to cause great damage to each other. The fear resulting from this kept both nations in check with neither able to bully other.....positive use...ruling with fear is like searching for power like the dictators. So ruling with love is better of. If they rule with fear, there won't be democracy because the citizens won't have free mind. So it i better to rule with love
It is Better to Rule Through Fear than Through Love

I will be arguing that it is better to rule through fear exclusively than it is to rule through love exclusively. My opponent should do the opposite. Please note that neither form is perfect, what we are trying to show is which of the two is nearer to perfect. Note that we're talking about using only love or fear. There can be no mixture, and you can't say 'tough love' counts as a form of love, since it relies on the fear of punishment to guide one's actions. When we talk about effective ruling we're talking about maintaining order and safety for your people.
It is Better to Rule Through Fear than Through Love

I apologise for the forfeit. It was due to some reasons best known to me. But that's not withstanding, I will still address the motion properly. ' it is better to rule through fear than through love' now in this debate am saying that it is better to rule through love because if the people you are ruling are fearful to you, it then means you are a bad leader. Either you are a dictator or somewhat strict leader who the masses would not like to rule them. If rulers are loved, and they rule by love, there will be peaceful co-existence between the leader and the masses. Readers, read meaning to this motion, and vote
It is Better to Rule Through Fear than Through Love

My opponent's argument doesn't have titles or sections or whatever so I'll just do a title-less, section-less response. "Fear yields resistance and selfishness. "For starters, hate causes resistance and selfishness far more than fear does. And I have already demonstrated that the two can be separated. I will say however that extremely prideful people may dislike the fact that they are afraid of their ruler, and this may lead to some resistance or selfishness. Even if it does though, resistance is countered by punishments which come from the rules which make said prideful person afraid in the first place. As long as the general populace doesn't feel unjustly treated, only a few of the prideful people will exist. These people are easily dealt with by a ruler who has laws in place. "Love yields cooperation and altruism. "The exclusive use of love will not yield these things enough. As I have already stated, many people are too self-centered to care if their ruler loves them, and will continue to act in their own interests. And since a ruler who uses love exclusively cannot rely on the fear of punishments to keep order, these people will bring about chaos in the state. "What will a leader stand to gain if he torture the people his ruling? "Depends. If the punishment for a particularly heinous crime is torture, he stands to gain a greater sense of order. As long as a punishment is in accordance with a sensible law, the people will fear a ruler without hating him. Being a feared ruler doesn't mean picking people off the streets and torturing them to make them scared. All it needs to mean is laying out sensible ground rules and following through with them without mercy. ". .. ruling with fear is like searching for power like the dictators. "For reasons I believe I've expounded on more than enough, this isn't necessarily true. However, let's consider dictators. Do you think a dictator will rule his country longer than a country with a ruler who has no rules? In the end, neither end of the spectrum is perfect, but fear promotes order amongst those who would otherwise act in their own interests, whereas love puts faith in people, some of whom would abuse that faith, which would lead to chaos within your state. I'm not even saying a ruler who rules through fear will last forever, but given that he has rules and order, he will last significantly longer than the ruler who rules exclusively through love. Thanks for reading.
13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ

The pro's only argument against my original claims was that people "There are MANY 12+famous singers who are a HUGE influence to others EG. Carly Rose, Willow Smith etc".Firstly, the pro is attempting to prove causation with correlation. Simply stating that there are young people that are famous and have influence doesn't have any impact as to why the X Factor has an obligation to allow these people on their show. The pro has the burden of proof when showing that allowing said teenagers to participate in the X Factor is actually economically viable for the show.Secondly, even if the pro succeeds in showing that teenagers on the X Factor is economically viable, the pro ignores the main point of my argument. The TV show is a business. As a business, the show has the unique ability to cater to whom it chooses. Saying that the X Factor should allow 13 year olds is like saying that they should also allow people of all ages as well. Further, saying that the X Factor should allow 13 years olds to participate is like saying that shows like One Man Army should allow children to participate, just because they can. (http://www.youtube.com...)
13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ

Con stated " Nobody wants to watch a child (which should really be a Teenager) try and follow to succeed in a course designed for adults." This statement proves con is unaware of the significace towards a 13 year olds voice. There are MANY 12+famous singers who are a HUGE influence to others EG. Carly Rose, Willow Smith etc Therefore I rest my case
13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ

Rebuttal: (BTW I'm calling you a she because your profile picture is of a woman, correct me if I'm wrong, if you would ^^;;)The pro states that 13-year olds are able to perform in front of a large audience. She then implies that, because they can perform, they should perform, although she does not explicitly say so herself. People everyday have the ability to kill, steal, conspire, and rape but, clearly, people should not. Her assumption that, because they can, they should ("why not in NZ), does not stand. At this point in time, the pro's case does not stand. Because the pro has the BoP (Burden of Proof), the con is, at this point, winning the debate. The value to be upheld is morality. Continuing on, shows such as the X-Factor do not have a moral obligation (coming from my previously stated definition of "should") to allow adolescents to compete in their respective shows. TV shows are a business with a business plan, goals, and a minimum rating they must reach to continue to remain on the air. TV IS A BUSINESS. (. http://abovethecrowd.com...) More like a mathematics-based business plan than an art medium, TV content must be marketable a business efficient. Take the TV show Fear Factor as an example. A thrilling, heart-pumping TV show that seemingly enchants its audience. Here's the catch: you have to be at least 18 years of age to even apply. (. http://www.fearfactorcasting.com...) But why? The answer's simple, nobody wants to watch a child try to succeed in a course designed for adults. Additionally, nobody wants to go through the extra paperwork. The same is true for the X-Factor. Auditions occupy countless more hours than the viewer can see and just 100 less auditions can save alot of money and strife, both for the contestants and judges. But regardless of reason, we can all see that Fear Factor doesn't have an obligation to let anyone on their show, it's simply advisable to do so. The X Factor also has no obligation to do anything for anyone, really.
13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ

I accept the con side of the argument!I define should as and auxiliary verb used to express obligation or duty. Prefer my definition because it is taken from a public source and eliminates author bias.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...The con interprets the resolution as indicating the show "X Factor" (or at least the executive board of it) has an expected obligation or duty to allow people 13 years of age to compete.A pro burden of proof is assumed because the pro is trying to prove his or her own position. If the pro does not, it is assumed that the pro can not. This scenario results in an automatic con victory.Good luck and have fun! :)
13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ

On behalf of all those talented 13year olds, I believe 13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ.Firstly, many ex-13year olds say that we are not "mature enough".This is a major understatement. And I'm sure all fans of Carly Rose Sonenclar AKA Carly's angels will agree:http://www.youtube.com...
Dualism is probably not correct about the relationship between mind and matter.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his previous round. For what reasons he did this, I don't know. However, I do want the audience to realize that even if JCMT forfeited one round, you shouldn't simply vote him down for this (though it becomes more likely to). At least read the arguments people, instead of scrolling through the page looking for forfeits :P. Since I have nothing refute, and since repeating my arguments will simply be redundant, I have nothing else left to say.