BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Environment

So you believe that all of the garbage we are pumping into the environment has very little to do with global warming? I was looking for a different sort of debate response, but I will take whatever route you choose. Certain molecules exhibit certain behaviors that lead to certain outcomes. I do not feel like writing some big scientific explanation to you because you don't seem like the science type. Yes, there are greedy people out there who use global warming to make money. Some humans will try to make a dollar without even the slightest thought of the morality of their actions. So where do you want to take this debate?
Environment

Why should we spend so much of our effort focusing on global warming when it is something that is debatable? I know that we are causing global warming to rise at a faster than normal rate, but our planet's climate has always changed, therefore, they will always have that on their side when it comes to that argument. They have no leg to stand on when it comes to the morality of what we are doing to the environment. Just take a look at what the Canadian Tar Sands looks like. Global warming is a very, very important issue and we need to take the necessary steps to slowing it down as much as we can and also start preparing for it. I hear about global warming much more than I hear about the real issues causing it.
C&C Generals is the most cheating video game ever made

Non-prophet offers 0 ways to cheat. He doesn't give a single way to cheat in CCG and instead explained how the non-cheaters have an unfair bias to certain nations' armies. This does not fit the definitions of cheating. This debate is minimum elo 7000 and maximum 7500; it is not impossible to vote on, it's just unlikely someone will fall into that elo category in time. All my points stand uncontested.
C&C Generals is the most cheating video game ever made

My opponent said, "Now that I realize the voting restrictions, it's extremely unlikely I'll win this I will happily humiliate him even if it loses me the conduct mark of the voter that is yet to come."I have news for my opponent. There is no "voter yet to come". This debate is impossible to vote on. So, it is is 100% unlikely that he'll "win".That being said, my opponent pretty much gave up on this debate. His behavior is exactly why I no longer allow votes on my debates. He resorts to fighting over what the word "cheat" means. That reminds me of when Bill Clinton wanted to fight over what the word "is" is. Total red herring to what the debate is about.Now, if it's just my opponent's goal to "humiliate me", I see no win here, anyway. That's not what debates are for. So, yes I do have a "problem with this", because I came here to debate ideas about a video game, not semantics. Yes, it is "too bad", because my opponent somehow thinks he can still "win" this and get rewarded for his bad behavior.Sorry, it doesn't work that way on my debates. Either you debate fair, or make yourself look like a crying cheater, trying to "humiliate" and sacrifice a conduct point in order to gain 6 other points. That's what makes the voting system on DDO unfair and encourages bad conduct. The conduct point is like punishing a millionaire with a dollar fine. If you can sacrifice 1 point to gain 6, what good of a deterrent is the conduct point? This kind of thinking has backfired on my opponent. He really thinks somehow that he will get a vote on this debate, so he resorted to such conduct. His loss.He could have really debated my points and made himself look intelligent and fair. Instead he made himself look like the desperate cheater that he is. So, now that my opponent knows where he really stands, I will invite him to use this last round to attack my points and redeem himself. I don't mind losing a debate when it's done fair by proving my facts wrong.If my opponent doesn't want to do that, he just humiliated himself.Too bad.
C&C Generals is the most cheating video game ever made

I will attack this semantically. If my opponent has a problem with this then this is too bad, he shouldn't have set the voting to 7000-7500 elo and I might have been nicer to him. Now that I realize the voting restrictions, it's extremely unlikely I'll win this I will happily humiliate him even if it loses me the conduct mark of the voter that is yet to come. Semantic Attack 1: Cheating and rules. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Cheat: Gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful. Nothing Pro stated was an example of deceitfulness. It is also only unfair if not everyone is capable of getting into the strong army. It is possible and so it is not cheating. Semantic Attack 2: Cheating is not an adjective. The resolution indicates that a noun (video game) has a quantifiable adjective (cheating) that CCG can show the 'most' severity of pertaining. This is not the case. Cheating is not an adjective and the noun it stems from is cheat. Semantic Attack 3: The fact that the game is so openly uneven indicates that there would be far more difficulty for one to cheat on it than a fairer, easy-going game where the slightest act of deceit would be severe cheating.
C&C Generals is the most cheating video game ever made

Up until Generals C&C games were pretty fair. The armies were evenly matched and the maps were also fair. C&C Generals has 3 armies: GLA, China and USAGLA is the weakest. It doesn't even have an air force which is a big disadvantage on big maps. The tanks and other vehicles are all very weak and can be destroyed very easily. The soldiers and tanks move very slow and you can't even start to build tanks without first building a resource collecting building, which makes you prone to rushing. (I'll get back to that later. )If you use GLA it's an automatic loss. There's no way GLA can defend itself from both ground and air strikes at once, without having its own air force. China is the neutral army. It has an air force, and decent tanks, so it can kick GLA's AZZ very easy. However, compared to USA it's a joke. USA is an outright cheat. Anything you shoot at a USA tank gets disintegrated before it even touches them. USA can build unlimited helicopters for a crazy unchallenged air assault. USA rocket launchers are almost impossible to kill and they can get any hiding troops garrisoned in a building, out with a flash pot bomb, which they have an unlimited supply of. It takes 20 GLA tanks to kill one USA tank full of rocket launchers. Oh that reminds me. .. at the beginning of the game, you can choose "random" so your opponent won't know what army you have. .. what a cheat that is! You can't even know what defense to use, because you don't even know who your enemy is! You might as well guess that random = USA since 90% of the time it is. Not that "random" after all! Back to rushing:If you play USA, the me will last less than 30 seconds. By the time you're done building anything, you'll have tanks and troops at your front door without any way to defend yourself. What a joke. C&C Generals is a cheater's dream. It's the most un-even game I've ever seen. Why even bother with it?
Traditional businesses are better than cooperatives

I agree that cooperatives are not good for investment returns. I mean, the basic structure of them means the only stock holders are the workers themselves, as they own the business. So, it's true that not a single individual will make a lot of money, however, cooperatives make it so that each of the workers will typically earn more than workers of a traditional business(since the profit the business owner(s) in a traditional business makes would be split among the workers). No single worker will make more than a person at the top would, but I consider it unnecessary for a person to be at the top of a business when cooperatives have proved they are not necessary. Really, all they're there for is to take a percentage of the companies profits and make the workers be paid less. The workers themselves can do all the decision making of a business, and they have proved to be better in some instances than traditional businesses, as outlined above in my previous round of argument. If my opponent is still willing to debate, I would ask them to elaborate on these "immense benefits" they talked about when the operator of a business in a traditional business makes more money. You sort of talked in a generality there and didn't offer any specifics. I suppose I'll leave this round at this, since there is not much to rebut in pro's argument, as most of it was generality and not a specific case.
Traditional businesses are better than cooperatives

Disclaimer; I'm not too old or educated so forgive me, I've currently pass 7th grade so sorry if this isn't the best! I really only learned of this topic very recently so I may not fully grasp the concept. Also sorry if my sources aren't to great, just doing this to practice. Although cooperatives have consumer benefits, the disadvantages weight out in various ways. Cooperatives are most commonly established to offer a service to members instead of a return on investment thus it could be troublesome and challenging to bring in potential members looking for financial benefit. Because the challenge is greater to find members than in a traditional business, that could cause difficulty to uphold the business and possibly threaten its stability in multiple perspectives. [1] With traditional businesses, the operators can make more money and profit off the business. The business can make more money than it spends which in many ways has immense benefits. That can allow for more opportunities than a cooperative.[2] I honestly give up at this point ^ I cant exactly withdraw but its 1 am and Im not sure why Im here even Im failing a core class so I should probably be working on that... anyhow whoever is reading this and voting vote for the other person, but aye at least I know about the businesses I honestly had no idea what they were before this so [1]https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au... [2]https://www.reference.com...#
Traditional businesses are better than cooperatives

I am redoing this debate and others since several of them never were voted on, and I believe one reason for this was because of the Vote Comment requirement. I am disabling that for this debate and all further debates since I hate the moderators on here. Now, let's begin the debate with definitions of terms: Cooperative: " an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business." [1] Traditional business: a business that is privately owned by a single individual or a few individuals. They typically have a board of directors and stock-holders. The first indicator that cooperatives are better than traditional business models, is that 80% of cooperatives survive the hard first five years of being in business, compared to just 41% of traditional businesses[2] In addition, cooperatives allow for workers to be paid more, since cooperatives do not have one person at the top piggybacking off of the work of the workers and taking a share of the profits. Those profits, instead, are divided up between the workers. While cooperatives are in the minority and are not out-competing traditional businesses, this is primarily because most of the world lives in a market or capitalist economy. To begin with, the traditional businesses have an advantage because banks are more willing to lend to traditional businesses since we live in a capitalist economy, and it's tougher to get like-minded people together to contribute money to start a cooperative. [3] If there was a level-playing field for cooperatives and traditional businesses, I'm sure cooperatives would take over since most people would prefer to work under a cooperative, where they have more autonomy and more profits going to them, than under a traditional business model. In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burd"n and Andr"s Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment. [4, pg. 520] In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses. [4, pg. 523] Next, I will point out that it is possible for worker cooperatives to be extremely successful and that they can turn over profit at a rate as good, or even often better than traditional businesses. Mon dragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country." [5] Therefore cooperatives can do just as well as traditional business models or even better. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.uk.coop... [3] [4] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... dragon_Corporation
Traditional businesses are better than cooperatives

I think it would take longer for traditional businesses to adapt to market change actually. In traditional businesses, the guy at the top making decisions is not involved or minimally involved in the operation of the company, so they wouldn't necessarily see the need to change at first, whereas workers would see the effects of a change in the market more directly. Maybe this balances out the fact that cooperatives have to vote on everything whereas a traditional business doesn't necessarily, so perhaps both are about as good as the other in terms of reactionary time for market changes.
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

1. Canada My opponent asks why "no one knows" what Canada's capital city is... since he probably thought it was something like Toronto or Montreal, both amazing cities with wonderful gay pride events annually, it's Ottawa... which also has a wonderful annual gay pride event. 2. Criminality Canada is a real country, with a real capitol, that at least one person -this guy- knows off the top of their head! Bieber's presence hasn't caused any real disturbance... just some minor petition that the white house has failed to meaningfully respond to. I mean, if Obama can't be bothered to care, it's clearly nbd. 3. Debt Bench's solution renders impossible my scheme to ransom JB to pay down the US debt. This has so far not been refuted... like, yeah. 4. War with Mounties and Maple Trees? There is no war. The concept of the "US-canadio" war is a big lie! My opponent needs to get this. And Canada want's Bieber back, to avoid being embarrassed. We've already established how sickeningly polite Canadians are, and they don't want him to continue to embarrass them in front of the world. Ergo, the US will ransom him to pay down US debt. This simple, yet creative, solution to a series of complex problems remains not refuted. Oh and there's one more: 5. My hellafukinawesome idea to blackmail/extort money from Canada to pay down US debt with by ransom Bieber *white girl voice* Totally not even talked about! Like, omg. w/evs!
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

1) Canadian"Of course Canada is a real country. Their mounties might be lawlzy, and their citizens might be weirdly polite... but it's still a country"If Canada is a country then how come nobody knows what the Capital City of it is off the top of their head?CASE CLOSED2) Criminality"especially when deporting him means that he can't be ransomed to pay off US debt."He ALREADY cant be ransomed to pay off the US debt, Canada isnt a real country and another country would only pay to see Justin Bieber be killed and NOT deported to within their borders..... Bieber is still a criminal who's presence clearly cannot be tolerated within the United States anymore. For the stability of the US he HAS to be deported. 3) Debt"That option negates the possibility of the US government using him as leverage to extort money from Canada to pay down US national debt"So you agree that the US cant use Bieber as leverage to extort money from Canada to pay down the debt. Ok then4) US-Canadio war"the best way to prevent a war is to blackmail Canada, and ransom Biebz in the process"That implies that 1) The war hasnt started, which is a false assumption to makeand 2) That Bieber is actually WORTH SOMETHING TO CANADA. If he was worth anything at all then Canada wouldnt have let him leave, they wouldnt make that same mistake twice after Keanu Reeves snuck out. The plain truth is that Bieber is a criminal, that Canada's status as a 'real' country is questionable, and that Bieber isnt worth a damn thing to Canada, meaning its stupid to NOT deport him and instead try to extort/blackmail Canada for money.
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

This is going to be short, sweet ant to the point. So, here goes! 1. Canadianness Of course Canada is a real country. Their mounties might be lawlzy, and their citizens might be weirdly polite... but it's still a country. Maps confirm this. Bam! Done. 2. Criminality Maybe the Biebz was popping pills and on all kinds of things he shouldn't have been. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's not enough to justify deporting him -especially when deporting him means that he can't be ransomed to pay off US debt. 3. Death Penalty US debt > Justin Biber. That option negates the possibility of the US government using him as leverage to extort money from Canada to pay down US national debt. The value of that cash is far greater than any temporal satisfaction that we might get from sending him back. 4. Canadian War Even if there were a war, which there isn't, the best way to prevent a war is to blackmail Canada, and ransom Biebz in the process. So, I've won this point whether my opponent's premise holds or not. 5. My hellafukinawesome idea to blackmail/extort money from Canada to pay down US debt with by ransom Bieber Duh! Not a thing said to prove that it couldn't happen, so, beast mode. That's it. Game over. #biebersthetickettogettingoutofdebt #ohcanada #shame #lol Done.
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

1) He's CanadianThere is no real evidence that Canada is indeed a real country and we all here know it. If Canada was a real country, then how come they didnt play a role in WWII or the NHL? 2) Hes a criminal"(Bieber) did a whole bunch of other teenager-type shenanigans that regular US teenage males do all the time."A lot of teenagers ARE criminals though, have you ever even SEEN a high school in Los Angeles? While other kids have done shenanigans similar to what Bieber has done, not many of those people have a rap sheet as long as Bieber has. Hell just today Bieber turned himself in to police for a charge of assaulting a limo driver, and he also happened to be high on Weed and Xanaxhttp://www.cnn.com...Assault, vandalism, drag racing, illegal narcotics, from a foreign country.... Bieber has all the qualities of any villain in a Fast and Furious movie!3) Deportation > Death Penalty"Like we'd really execute him for throwing eggs... "This is FLORIDA we are talking about here, we never know WHAT could happen. "but he's definitely white and in Florida, where even semi-white looking people can shoot unarmed black teenagers for no reason and call it self defense"Its also a state that could lock up a woman for 20 years for firing a gun in the air as a warning shot to fend off her abusive husband. http://www.foxnews.com...As I said before, its Florida.... We never know what it will do next. 4) Deporting the Biebz will end an ongoing US-Canadian war..."Clearly, they want him back to teach him how to act like a proper Canadian"Ok good, so then deport him. " So, instead of deporting him, we should just hold him for a ransom. "That wont work! That makes it unnecessarily complicated, and holding people for ransom only works when people really like the person who is being held for ransom, and as of right now Bieber is NOT someone that people sympathize with.... Holding Bieber for ransom would be the equivalent of holding a dead skunk covered with dried semen for ransom, its just worthless....." He has to be held in the United States, so that we can blackmail Canada into paying off the US national debt. "The damn US can even pay off the US national debt, how the hell is CANADA supposed to do any better when they arguably arent even a real country???
Resolved: Justin Bieber should be deported, have his citizenship revoked, and not be allowed back in

I'll begin by rebutting, and then head butting! Bench's main arguments are as follows: 1, 2) Biebz is Canadian Biebz isn't an illegal. Twinkish little bastard has all his paperwork in order, and even though it's money smells like maple syrup, Canada is a real country! http://abcnews.go.com... 3) He's a criminal Maybe he is a criminal. Maybe there were drugs in his house. Maybe his last album was just about the most awful thing since Kim Jong Un's birth... but he only threw some eggs... MAYBE! And drag raced... and did a whole bunch of other teenager-type shenanigans that regular US teenage males do all the time. They just don't have Lamborghinis to do it in lol... 4) Deportation is better than the death penalty Like we'd really execute him for throwing eggs... sheesh! He'd have to be mentally retarded, black and in Texas for that to happen! Well, he might be a bit slow... but he's definitely white and in Florida, where even semi-white looking people can shoot unarmed black teenagers for no reason and call it self defense. Maybe Biebz was just standing his ground with the eggs, though. Maybe his neighbor was being all "ominous." We'll never know. 5) Deporting the Biebz will end an ongoing US-Canadian war... Everyone knows that Canadians are too polite to go to war. But because they are so polite, they're obviously embarrassed by their wayward son. Clearly, they want him back to teach him how to act like a proper Canadian (and not shout obscenities directed at former US presidents while urinating in a bucket). So, instead of deporting him, we should just hold him for a ransom. And maybe fine Canada too... might help pay down some of the debt. But if we deport him, we loose that glorious opportunity! So, some of my thoughts: JB is obviously a troubled kid, but he should be allowed to stay in the US. Why? Because he's a sexy little over-tatooed miscreant? No. Well... maybe. But mainly because we need to use him as leverage. He has to be held in the United States, so that we can blackmail Canada into paying off the US national debt. His price for return? The value of all the maple trees north of Niagara, obviously.