BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword

A very good argument you did there but I have a better one!!!! Firstly swords make you look noble and Secondly swords make you stronger! Swords make you look noble because they look smarter than a pen because you can decorate it. Secondly, swords mke uyou stronger because they are heavy and can weigh up to 30 KILOGRAMS!!!!! Thankyou.
Resolved: The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword

"My first pont is that swords can cut pens in half and my second point is that a sword can defend you and a pen can't. Firstly a sword can cut a pen in half and a pen can not cut a sword in half. Secondly a sword can defend you and a pen can't."First off, your arguments have no structure, no coheisive balance, and no evidence whatsoever to back up your comical 'claims' and logical fallacy.Secondly...your 'contentions' are completely irrelevant to what has acually been put forth onto the table...As defined in my first case...this debate is in regards to the saying 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword,'...not in regards to the actual physical object of a pen and sword itself...As defined by the PRO in case one of this debate..."The Pen (a writing utensil) is mightier (in this case, mightier meaning: in all aspects better---not only stength wise, but artistically, vocally, mentally, etc.) than the sword (a fighting weapon, known for its strength, beauty, and heroic persona---note though... are not arguing whether or not the object a pen is mightier than a sword, but in regard to the idiom---meaning that using words and communication are more powerful than wars and fighting)"It seems that you have completely disregarded what is actually being debated here, and have taken a turn for yourself...There isn't much to cross-exam here, except for my opponents mis-understanding of the resolution and absurd points in regards to the actual physical objects of a pen and sword...whoops.I would rebutt what you have said about a sword being able to cut a pen in half, but that is irrelevant to the debate, so it seems I will leave it as is...not to mention, no evidence backs up this silly argument.As for yor second argument, that a sword can defend you, and and a pen can't...I understand what you mean by this...but it should have been elaborated much more. As mentioned in my first case, nonviolence in many cases, has showed prominence over violence and immediate action, so if this is true, that point is thus abolished. If it is true what you are saying, once more, you haven't provided any evidence or cases of this happening, therefore at this point, there isn't much t say but that is false.Judges, it is pretty obvious who has won this debate. Even if my opponent does a decent job of refutting my points, no valid points of his were put forth, so the resolution still stands... that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.Thank you.
Abortion

To use the term baby is incorrect a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not. So you can't say that 'the baby has no chance at life'. However the mother still has a say in whether or not she gives birth. But, if you want to think about it from the child's point of view, the child will feel like it was a mistake everyone hates. Personally I would rather die than think that my own mother didn't even want me. This topic is so conditional that you can't say 'It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection.' You can be on the pill and use a condom, there is still a chance of getting pregnant. However slim, there is a chance. And I don't agree with 'the only option' you give. A mother has free agency. She should be allowed to choose. And the consequences should not be determined by the state. Whatever God one believes in or your own guilt is by far a worse punishment. Not to mention the mothers who give birth because they are given no other option might go beat the child they were forced to give life. And back to the rape topic. I want the option to be selfish sometimes! Everyone does. And if you take away the option of abortion some of these people who were forced into this situation people might start doing abortions unprofessionally to make a quick dollar. Lets face it, it will happen. And if its not professionally done bad things can happen, its guaranteed to happen, as it does with any medical procedure.
Abortion

Thanks amby, for offering up this debate. this would not be the first time i have debated abortion, and i find it a rather itchy topic. Nonetheless it should be interesting. ccount, FREEDOM- First if your going argue freedom, you must look at all sides of the equation. There obviously is a reason why this topic is so overtly hated. If your going to argue freedom, you should first takes all accounts of freedom into account, such as the baby. the baby who has not even had a chance at life, and is being refused to ever have a chance at life.. This is not freedom in any way. It was the mothers own fault to decide to go out and get pregnant with out protection. Not very responsible. Now she is left with the only option of filling out her responsibility, by carrying out the child. she destroys a whole life because she wants a few moments of pleasure. I find this very selfish on the mothers part. RAPE- O.K. So the mother got raped. She doesn't want to take responsibility of the child . Then dont! give the child up for adoption or close family member. Carry out through the pain and emoitional turmoil, to be humane. Yes, it was not fair and you didn't choose this decision, But don't act out of selfishness. Is it easier to murder a potential life, then to just Wait out the nine long hard months. You have to ask yourself if your ethics are correct if you negate that. Would you, Could you, risk a little bit of pain, to save a life?I know it wasn't the mother fault that she is pregnant. Its not fair to her that she has to go through this. It's not fair for anyone. But is it fair for the child either? To not let that child live because of his/her fathers wrong doing? Its just as unfair to the child as it is to the mother.She doesn't need to keep it. How could you look in to the eyes of you attacker everyday? But that shouldn't suggest that someone else can't care for the child. Thanks for this debate amber. ill be waiting for your rebuttal
Ableton Live is better than FL Studio (Fruityloops)

The workflow's different, the built-in instruments and effects are different, the focus is different. I find Ableton's a lot more flexible and intuitive; other people find that FL Studio's layout helps them to be more creative. Try them both out and see which one you like better. Many "convenience" features (Live packs, sampler drag-and-drop, warp markers, racks, semi-minimalist interface, etc) which engenders experimentation. Quick MIDI-control setup. General presets exist for popular hardware, and individual mappings are straightforward. Some hardware integrates very well (APC, Launchpad). Loop-oriented Session View which is fun for composition and awesome for live looping CPU-efficient synthesizers (and effects, as far as I can tell) Optional M4L environment if you really like Max or hate money. Lots of little utility devices like MIDI note length/range/velocity manipulators that are incredibly useful when cobbled together into larger structures Racks are saveable as a single preset Really good tutorials and manual Samples are stored by reference to save HD space, but can be copied into your project for portability/independence with a single menu command. Demo mode is fully-featured without saving, so if your laptop explodes the day before a performance, you can borrow someone's computer, install the free Suite demo (and any samples/plugins/hardware you also rely on) and your project will be loadable and performable without worrying about activation and DRM. Huge, very helpful community in places like this
Ableton Live is better than FL Studio (Fruityloops)

I'm sorry, but while this debate is personal preference, I'm an electronic music producer and I'm not going to let anyone bash on my favorite Digital Audio Workstation. So with that being said, I will happily debate you on this topic. To first shoot down your argument of being "Truly Original" with preset instruments (which are basically VSTs), FL Studio has had several of these instruments implemented such as Sytrus and the newly added "Bassdrum" which gives the user entire control of how their project will sound. The argument that you can't "Real Time DJ" with FL Studio is also false, considering the new "Performance Mode" that was implemented into FL Studio not too long ago which allows the user to play not just songs, but samples and clips with Novations own Launchpad....you know...the hardware that was released specifically for Ableton? (lol) Ableton is also VERY expensive compared FL Studios 99 dollars that gets you the simple version and only about 20 dollars more for the producer edition! Now...for my argument. First Off, FL Studio has way better processing control than Ableton...as I've seen thousands of projects not being able to render due to the amount of RAM in a persons computer. I've been able to render every single project I've done with FL Studio and while I've had some hiccups with some instruments, I can always record that one instruments sounds and lay it into the project and it will sound perfect. The EQing is also better in FL Studio, as I've been able to add thousands of PRESET effects that come with the program that have enabled me to make my projects sound like they were done in the studio and not some run of the mill DAW. One last thing I'd like to point out is that I am able to Automate every single thing I want too in FL Studio. Basslines, Volume, Effects, Hell...EVEN TEMPO which I don't think you're able to do inside of Ableton, which gives me more control over my projects. and while this one last bit of detail isn't really that important.....I'd like to point out that.....DAFT PUNK uses FL Studio...yea...
Ableton Live is better than FL Studio (Fruityloops)

You can use plug-ins for all DAWs so that point is completely irrelevant. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of music software could tell you that. The fact that FL Studio has more YouTube tutorials than Ableton has nothing to do with what the software is actually capable of doing. All it means is that you have to read the manual instead of copying what other people do. The preset instruments, effects and editing options are much better on Ableton. The chances of creating something truly original are far higher. You can DJ in a real-time manner with Ableton. If you include Max For Live and Max / MSP, Ableton gives you something that FL Studio could only ever dream of - the ability to create your own instruments, effects and patches. There's a huge range of Max objects that blow FL Studio out of the water.
Aikido is not an effective martial art

I would invite anyone who is interested in knowing why Aikido IS a great martial art, especially for self defence, to PM me for my personal opinion. I will only respond to users who have profiles with "real" content, forum postings, debates, friends etc.The philosophy within Aikido is as important as any physical training or methods of defence. Being "at one" with one's opponent is what Aikido aims to achieve. In doing such one can avoid provoking an opponent to a level that self defence is neccesary in many instances. When physical defence of self or a loved one is needed to be applied, that same "at one ment" with an opponont can serve to position the opponents force against him/her, and also utilizes the force of gravity.I really wanted to discuss this subject with an opponent, but maybe a future debate will give me that opportunity.These links will give more info:http://www.stenudd.com... http://www.stenudd.com...
Aikido is not an effective martial art

Pro has not composed his argument in round 1, and has forfeited round 2.The burden of proof is on Pro, since I cannot negate his resolution, "Aikido is not an effective martial art," without him presenting any argument for this claim. My position as Con, assumes that I am to negate an affirmation of the resolution, not affirm the opposite of a stated resolution. Pro also needs to define "effective," which could be construed many possible ways. Our argument must suffice in the closing round.
100 Debate challenge 12: THBT Assisted Suicide should be legal

1. Right to life- People have a fundamental right to life. Just like we have a right to free speech and many other things. We enjoy a certain amount of autonomy. Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean you can't be silent. The right to life doesn't mean you can't choose to die. Having a right to life implies that you own your life. It's your life to do as you please with and if you decide that you'd pefer to go on your own terms rather than being taken by a terminal illness, you should have every right to do so. 2. Suicide- Suicide is a despeate act taken out in secrecy and leaving the people close to the one committing suicide feeling guilty and confused as to why it happened among several other conflicting emotions. By allow assisted suicide we can bring this process out into the open. Patients can taalk to their relatives about all these things, while pursuing a legal form of suicide. The process of suicide can be a lot less painful and a lot more open to friends and family of the person. 3. Terminally ill- A lot of terminally Ill have a very rough road ahead of them. They might lose their health their mind and have an extremely painful death. Allowing those individuals to commit suicide will only be cutting out a very short part of their lives which will be extremely painful and even dehumanizing.
Generation 1 of Pokemon is the Best In the Franchise

This is interesting. I haven't watched much of the Sun/Moon anime, though the games are great. For the sake of this debate, generation 1 of Pokemon will be Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow, in America. I'll argue that the 7th generation, Sun/Moon, is better, in terms of Pokemon, competitive strategies, and a few extras.I'll go ahead and make a few quick statements, as the debate's only 3 rounds. Pokemon Sun/Moon has types that aren't present in gen 1; Dark, Steel, and Fairy. This adds more to the metagame, and Fairy can counter the immensely powerful Dragon types, which would've been a struggle in the past.Sun/Moon also has access to online play, which isn't possible in gen 1. With online play, you can trade with other people accross the globe, or battle them. This is much easier than trying to find someone in your area who has a copy of Sun or Moon. Expanding on the online trading, Sun/Moon has the Global Trading Station, where you deposit a pokemon, and enter which pokemon you'd like in return. There's also Wonder Trade; put any (preferably one you don't like) pokemon, and you'll trade with another person's pokemon. You might get low level pokemon in return, but you might get one you like.Breeding's also a thing in Sun/Moon. Put one male pokemon and one female pokemon in the nursery, and if their egg egg groups match (usually associated with their typing), you get an egg. Hatching these eggs can give you a pokemon, sometimes with moves from its parents! It's a pretty good way to get the perfect team to competitive play.Last thing for this round, Sun/Moon has shiny Pokemon! Each pokemon you encounter has a slight chance to be shiny; having a different color. If you like collecting, have at shiny hunting!All of the things I've listed thus far are features in Pokemon Sun/Moon. Next round, I'll probably tell about even more. Let's see what my opponent has to say.
Education for Children Should Be Mandated in the United States of America.

First, I am not sure if you are educated or if you were forced to be, But if you were, It obviously is not being implemented in your life, As evidenced by your atrocious spelling and grammar (this system even has spell check). Of course, If English is not your native language, This is forgivable. Second, What I inferred from your argument was that you feel that third world counties are not as well developed because they don't have compulsory education. This is patently false. Out of the top 5 third world counties according to HDI (nationsonline. Org): In Kenya " primary school is free and compulsory" (epdc. Org) In Sao Tome and Principe "primary school is mandatory. " (borgenproject. Org) Pakistan is dedicated to "provide free and compulsory education for a minimum period" (norric. Org) and "has passed a law on compulsory education (eight years of schooling). " (norric. Org) Bangladesh "recently announced that it will extend free and compulsory primary education to all students through grade 8" (worldbank. Org) This means that 4/5 of the top 3rd world countries provide some form of compulsory education. Their position as "back wards" as you said, Is based upon their cultures, As well as their history of political and military unrest. Third, You are correct in that people with more education are typically payed better, But also pay more taxes. (collegeboard. Org) Therefore it should be easy for people to CHOOSE to get educated, And not be forced into it. Fourth, I would argue that Welfare should be abolished as well, But that is a separate debate, So I will say that those who are forced to be educated now against their will are already prone to fail in seizing the initiative to succeed and will therefore end up on welfare anyway and take more taxpayer money by leaching off of the education system. Fifth, If educated people make more money, Why would blue collar employers not hire more uneducated people who are not in a position to demand more pay? If anything, This would increase their prospects of finding a job, Albeit a menial one. And finally, Me being or not being on drugs has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I am not, Incidentally, But this weak jab at my validity as a debater shows how little you care about building a sound logical (or, In this case, Psychoanalytical) foundation for your assertions.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

The time to argue will last for 72 hours, and we will have 8,000 characters for our argument. The first round will be for acceptance/introductions and the following 3 rounds will be the debate. Definitions: gay marriage noun ï¿½The legal marriage between homosexual couples. legalize verb ï¿½To make legal, to permit under law. Either by decriminalizing something that had been illegal or by specifically permitting. If you would like to change anything about the format of the debate (rounds,voting period, etc.) just tell me, and I will be glad to meet your demands.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

My opponent speaks of civil unions in there current state. The ones I and many other people suchas, President Obama himself are propossing would be equal to marrige. They would have the same rights and and benefits as married couples. No one could deny them these benefits without geting the same response as what my opponent said would happen. No one could stop them from getting any benefits suchas adoption. Civil unions would be equal to marriages. In conclusion, Civil unions can be made equal to marriage with the same benefits and therefore equal. My opponent was not able to refute my argument. Vote Con. . http://www.whitehouse.gov...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

A civil union is NOT equal to marriage. One of the biggest differences between a civil union and a marriage would be that civil unions do not include federal benefits that are given to married couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) issued in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits. Another equally important difference between civil unions and marriage would be that because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines. This isn't something that happens to people who have the right to marry. Another example of inequality would be that now, after New Jersey's Civil Union Law took effect, at least 1 out of every 7 civil-union couples in New Jersey are not getting their civil unions recognized by their employers. That is 14 percent of civil unions. If 14 percent of married couples in New Jersey were being denied full, legally guaranteed marriage benefits by their employers, then people would be completely outraged, and there could even be riots in the streets. And as far as adoption goes, under the current state of the law, many gay and lesbian parents are unable to assume full legal parenting rights, which results in children being denied health care coverage from their parents' employers. Children are also being denied survivor benefits when a parent in a same-sex relationship dies. So, in conclusion, I believe I have responded to all of y opponents arguments, and have proved that Civil Unions are NOT equal to a marriage, in any sense of the word. I thank my opponent and the people who are voting. Vote pro. Sources: civil unions: . http://www.factcheck.org... DOMA: . http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

I agree with my opponent on his first point. As for his second argument, it is a very good point except that there is a better alternative then giving gays marriage. It would be better to give them Civil Unions, since it would get rid of any religious outcry that could be caused. Civil Unions would give just as much revenue as marriages would. My opponent is right concerning this but, they do not have to be in a marriage to adopt the children. Rather then give them marriages they should be given Civil Unions and the couples would be together and the children would have a stable family to be raised in. My argumentThe Seperate but Equal ArgumentAccording to this argument Homosexuals would be allowed to have Civil Unions with the same benefits as marriages, and therefore equal to heterosexual marriages. Thus, they would be seperate but still equal. Everyone would be happy. ConclusionIn conclusion, everything my opponent has put forth is true, but giving homosexuals Civil Unions would be better then marriage. It would make everyone happy, it would allow homosexuals to be together with the same benefits as marriage, it would give religious people what they want, it would give the state its extra revenue, and give adopted children a familyVote Con
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

To begin, I will state my reasons for supporting marriage between homosexuals. my first point is that there is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms. My second argument would be from an economic stand point. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents ." sources: economic argument: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov... adoption argument: http://people.virginia.edu... My opponent now has the opportunity to refute what I have said and present his argument.