BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marcus Kane should be made Chancellor again on the 100, Season 3

Thank you for the compliment about my arguments. Sorry I took this long to respond also. I believe that Marcus Kane is not Infact, a boring character. Kane has had incredible character development across the first two seasons and continues to develop as a charter. He also tends to hear out the Juveniles more often then Abby did for example. Kane far more often listens to Clarke and Bellamy and works around their ideas then Abby (who has shown a "my way or the highway" mentality). In all honesty I believe that Kane has developed so much as a character ( and continues to do so ), that I think even those who think Kane is boring now will find him interesting. As my round 2 arguments suggest ( and there are more where those came from ) Kane is also the best, and most obvious choice for Chancellor. Bellamy is a great character and has displayed leadership traits but, at this time, I do not believe that he is capable of serving as Chancellor. The position of Chancellor requires leadership, diplomacy, relatability to your people and of course politics. Bellamy is a leader but to call him a diplomat would be a huge stretch. Not to mention that the Ark is majority adults who would not see Bellamy as old or experienced enough to be a serious leader. Bellamy also isn't the type of character who should be spending screen time in a council room. Bellamy's place is in the feild. Sorry again about how long it took me to respond.
Marcus Kane should be made Chancellor again on the 100, Season 3

Hello, I am looking to debate about whether or not Marcus Kane should be made Chancellor of the Ark during the 100 season 3. I will be arguing that Kane should become Chancellor again, while my opponent will argue against this. The debate will be about the TV series only. Please make sure you have a thorough knowledge of The 100 seasons 1 and 2 ( and of course are aware of the characters. ). For anybody reading this who is not yet through seasons 1 and 2, THIS WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS! With that said, I hope to hear some good feedback in the comments.
Marcus Kane should be made Chancellor again on the 100, Season 3

I dont think Bellamy is ready for the political position of Chancellor. as well as the reasons stated in round 3, I feel as though someone with more experience should hold that position. If any youth were to be chosen by the population it would likely be Clarke but seeing as she is no longer at camp Jaha that isn't possible. Kane's experience as Vice Chancellor and his experience with the Gaurd make him the perfect fit. Bellamy's screen time would be better spent out in the feild. Bellamy is great in combat and that is where he is needed. In Season 2 Bellamy showed us that when he infiltrated Mount Weather. In a military or war time setting Bellamy would be equatible to a feild officer such as a Lieutenant or Captain. Kane would be equatible to a General. Kane has the clear and obvious respect of many members of the Guard and much of the population (as we see in the season 1 finale). Bellamy is great at leading feild combat and survival but that is only a mere fraction of the duties held by the Chancellor. Channcellors must be adept at politics and law as well. Bellamy's first "legal" system on earth was (please excuse the censoring) "Whatever the H___ we want". That does not sound like establishing a society on earth to me. Kane meanwhile sentenced Abby to 10 shock lashes for aiding and abiding known fugitives. Kane also confiscated unnecessary weapons citing "the exodus charter". Clearly political office is more Kane's forte. Not to mention that Bellamy isn't the kind of person to spend hours at a Council meeting. Kane proves time and time again to be the best option for Chancellor (especially if you want someone who could deal with the grounders in both war and peace). Chancellor Kane also managed to make great contributions to the Ark and has saves the lives of many people from it (including directly: Abby,Thelonious,Bellamy,several secondary characters, and Litterly hundreds of Ark residence via the retaking of Ark command and control center.) Kane also saw to the constriction of Camp Jaha and much of the negotiations with the Commander.) I encourage everybody to vote Marcus Kane Channcellor of the Ark.
should people follow tradtions?!

The debate is "should people follow tradtions?!". I chose "con", (They should not follow traditions) In round 1, I accepted the debate and made it clear I was accepting the side of "People should not follow traditions." In Round 2, my opponent thanked me for accepting and had no objection or doubt as to what side I took.I then gave 4 good reasons why people should not follow traditions.Here in the final round, my opponent decided to define "traditions" and then decided to take my position and agreed with me that "traditions of any kind are an obstacle."Now, I bet you voters will give her all the votes, because she asked a question in round 1 "Does tradtion prevent people from doing things in new or more sensible ways?!"May I point out that it's just a question and she didn't takes sides or answer it. I made it clear in round one which side I was taking and there were no objections. This is one of those trick debates where one first asks a question "should people follow tradtions?!"Then asks a question in the first round "Does tradtion prevent people from doing things in new or more sensible ways?!"So if you were pro to the first question, you were con to the second and vice-versa.This causes confusion what the debate is about and that's why I made it clear which side I took in round 1.Again, I took the position of "People should not follow traditions" in round 1 and it was never objected to.
should people follow tradtions?!

OK, I guess I'll get started.My opponent asks, "Does tradition prevent people from doing things in new or more sensible ways?!"I say absolutely!Let's start with chivalry. It's been a tradition that men ask the woman out for a date. They are expected to pay for the date.That's all fine and good, but what if a woman is sitting alone and wants to ask a man out? What's wrong with that? Are women supposed to stay home by the phone waiting for it to ring? Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right. It would be more sensible if a woman was equal enough to ask a man out and even pay for him! Next is Religion:Who really goes to church every Sunday and reads the Bible? Who really cares if you're not supposed to have sex before your married? Does anybody think twice about working on the "Sabbath"? Sure, people want to claim they are religious, but they don't want all the inconveniences of it. They want to be religious out of tradition. They want to fit in and go along with tradition, but we all know it's more sensible to be able to eat shellfish, work when we want, have sex when we want, etc. We don't really want a 2000 year old book telling us what to do. Yet, somehow, it's important to fit in with others who claim they do.Next topic: HolidaysHow many times are we forced to do things because it's traditional to do on a holiday? Buy flowers, send chocolate, write cards, travel on the busiest days to travel. Things are worth more when you really WANT to do them, not compelled to do them by tradition. If a guy brought a woman flowers in June, wouldn't it mean more than getting them on Valentine's day, when it's EXPECTED? Christmas is the worse, because of all the commercialism and expectations of presents. It's so empty, that most people end up returning the gifts. The meaning isn't there anymore. It's just something traditional you feel you have to do. Next topic: MarriageOver 50% of marriages end in divorce, but people do it anyway because it's traditional. There's nothing a couple can do married that a single couple can't do. Marriage is over-rated and is a big waste of money. You could put a down payment on a house for what is spent on some weddings. That would be more sensible! In Summary: Traditions just compel people to do things they really don't want to do. it takes away their freedom to do things in more sensible ways. It's silly to do something just because it's "always been done that way".
Confederacy was better than the union.

"The US did not win the war, neither side surrendered, also, lincoln was a communist, and the Confederacy was founded off of states rights"Really? I provided a source stating that the United States of America won the American Civil War. Pro also insists neither side surrendered; however, Pro is mistaken. On April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to the United States at the Appomattox Court House located in Virginia, thus losing the war.[1] Furthermore, we are not debating what the Confederacy was founded off of, nor about President Lincoln's political stances and is therefore irrelevant to this debate. "On to why the Confederacy was better overall: The confederates were not wrong to leave the union, they were right, they were taxed because of their cotton farms"Once again, has nothing to do with "whose better" in any shape or form. It does not even prove that the Confederacy had a better military than the United States.Pro has not challenged my interpretation of the thesis, nor my argument. Pro also fails to provide any evidence whatsoever on why the Confederacy was better than the Union at anything. Pro insists of justifying the south's secession from the Union. However, the thesis states: "Confederacy was better than the union." Not: "The South was justified in seceding from the United States of America."Pro has failed to make his case and has not negated any of my arguments. I have shown that the United States of America was "better" than the Confederacy at warfare. Vote Con.Sources:[1]: http://www.history.com...
Confederacy was better than the union.

The US did not win the war, neither side surrendered, also, lincoln was a communist, and the Confederacy was founded off of states rights, and there is absolutely no way you could prove that the Confederates wanted slaves, the Confederacy was better in many ways, such as fairness and morality. By the latter part of 1864 the CSA was moving toward ending slavery. In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would have ended slavery even if it had "won" the war, as prominent historians like J. G. Randall and David Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969, p. 522). The Confederate president himself, Jefferson Davis, came to strongly support ending slavery. So did CSA Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, Governor William Smith of Virginia, and leading CSA Congressmen Ethelbert Barksdale and Duncan Kenner (who was one of the largest slaveholders in the South). On to why the Confederacy was better overall: The confederates were not wrong to leave the union, they were right, they were taxed because of their cotton farms, if thats how the union wanted to play, the Confederacy might as well have taxed Lincoln for his top hat and beard! Just as Lincoln had characteristics to himself, so did the Confederacy, they wanted to keep their cotton farms without getting taxed, which the union said was not an option, so they suceeded from the evil union to form their own country with their own laws and culture. http://www.southernheritage411.com...
Confederacy was better than the union.

We are not debating whether or not the Confederacy wanted slaves or not. I could easily prove that they did, but that is not the purpose of this debate. My argument is as follows:The United States of America was better than the Confederate States of America at warfare.The United States won the civil war. [1] Because the United States beat the Confederate States at war, the United States were better at warfare. I could go on and on about how the Union's military was better trained, and had better weapons, but the fact that the United States beat the Confederates is sufficient.Sources:[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Confederacy was better than the union.

Ok, the first thing i want to say is, the Confederates didnt want slaves, they wanted states rights, also, the war technically never ended, neither side surrendered, the only reason it "ended" was because of the states joining the union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it- Abraham Lincoln http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
Confederacy was better than the union.

I accept!It appears Pro has not provided any definitions on what the debate was actually about. Is this a debate about who was better at fighting, about which was better to live in or about which had the cooler name? Because Pro has not defined the debate, the definition is material to debate. Thus, I will give my own interpretation.The thesis states: "Confederacy was better than the union." Pro has not specified which Confederacy or which Union he/she is referring to. I assume that the Confederacy Pro is referring to is the "Confederate States of America," and the Union is the "United States of America."Better is defined as: "higher in quality, more skillful"[1]Therefore, my interpretation is that the United States of America was better than the Confederate States of America at warfare.Warfare is defined as: "The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict."[2]Now that the debate has its definitions, let the debate proceed! Sources:[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Who can come up with the craziest sentence.

The atomic mass of carbon is 6, 6, 6, which is also the number of the beast; carbon is incidentally the base of all life on Earth, thus concluding that Satan must irrefutably take the form of a sperm whale due to their suspicious-looking and completely unnecessary blowholes, which are highly likely to contain spirits from the demonic depths of Osama Bin Laden's intestinal tract, or perhaps the secret formula to the Krabby Patty, but whatever happens to be hiding within its dark hole surely implements the Illuminati and the unexplained disappearances at the Bermuda Triangle because North Korea is the birthplace of all aquatic hedgehogs and is also the most advanced alien species to have ever paid a cucumber for the execution of Hitler's pet lamp post.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be murdered

Nothing much to add. It's pretty much my opponent's job to prove something. The only argument my opponent makes is something along the lines of "one inch inside, one inch outside". I don't quite understand it. Murder is wrong and illegal one inch inside, one inch outside, right in the middle, above, below, between, through, beyond, to the left, to the right, in a house, with a mouse, in a box, with a fox, etc. By definition, murder is unjustified and wrong. My opponent cannot win. Vote me, night night.
infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be murdered

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion but say they are against this to debate me. what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb. or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose. or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it. it's all the same difference.
Nicolas Cage is probably a normal guy in real life

Evidence that Nicolas Cage is not a normal guy in real life. 1) He is currently worth $18 million, which is much much much higher then what most people are worth http://www.celebritynetworth.com... 2) He bought an undeveloped Island in the Caribbean for $3 million, which isnt very normal http://www.people.com... (The following link is for points 3 to 15) http://www.theshiznit.co.uk... 3) He named his own son Kal-El Coppola Cage in honor of his idol, Superman.... 4) He collects rare stuffed birds, lizards, snakes and also owns a stuffed octopus. 5) He owns TWO, not one, but TWO, private Yachts 6) He built his own grand Pyramid tomb which he plans to be buried in when he dies 7) At one point he owned 18 motorcycles and close to 50 different cars. 8) He has a tattoo of woody woodpecker on one of his arms along with a monitor lizard wearing a top hat. 9) He allegedly hired a witch doctor to uncurse the set of The Sorcerer's Apprentice for whatever reason. 10) He paid $276,000 for dinosaur skull because he wanted to outbid Leonardo DiCaprio who was at the same auction. 11) He used to stalk his neighbourhood as a child.... In an interview he claimed that "I would call myself 'The Spirit' and I had a white T-shirt with a black 'S' on it. I strapped a boomerang to my chest and I would prowl the alley at the back of my house between one and two in the morning." 12) Nicolas Cage proposed to Patricia Arquette on the first day he met her. 13) Nicolas Cage liked Elvis so much, he married Presley's daughter, Lisa-Marie, who later married Michael Jackson. This means that the woman who married Michael Jackson thought Nicolas Cage was too weird..... 14) When he got drunk on the set of "Peggy Sue Got Married", he tried to steal a chihuahua because he liked it, and stole it by trying to hide it in his jacket.... 15) He went to the same high school as Angelina Jolie, Lenny Kravitz, David Schwimmer, Gina Gershon, Rob Reiner, Pauly Shore, Betty White, Corbin Bernsen, Elizabeth Daily, Albert Brooks and Crispin Glover So in conclusion. Nicolas Cage (The actor) is completely nuts and isnt very normal in real life.
Samsung galaxy s8 is better than i phone 8

I get your point. But value is subjective, For some people, iOS alone makes the iPhone worth it's price tag. So, it is up to every individual to decide which feature or which handset is worth their money. I agree with the overpriced part, but its not that overpriced. IOS makes it a great experience if you want a great working phone and other than the crappy screen its a solid device. I'm an IPhone 6 user myself and quite frankly ill never go back. The only reason I haven't upgraded yet is that it feels like a perfected iPhone 6. If they had improved the screen and maybe a bit smaller bezels it would have been a blind purchase for me. but they have yet to become so bad they are worse than Samsung. each month they come out with a new one and each time it is 1,000,000 times better than the last so say what you want but IPhones are better than their Samsung equivalents.
Students should be allowed to grade their teachers.

I definitely think that us students should be able to grade their teachers. I find that this should be an annual or bi-yearly practice. I believe that over years, teachers could alter their teaching styles, maybe for better, or worse. I think it is fair that, teachers who mark their students daily, through ability, understanding, and control, students should be able to do the same. Students are marked, and judged everyday based on ability, and effort. With a lot on the line, their marks. So teachers should give the option of being marked either anonymous or otherwise. So they could improve their teaching ethics. True, teachers have already been through school, but non other than students to judge how well of a job their educator has done.
Students should be allowed to grade their teachers.

I will try to keep my points short and to the point, as I'm sure you are probably bogged down with homework right now. Schools are inspected by Ofsted, at least in the U.K., and it is true the reports describe the quality of teaching as a whole rather than focus on individual teachers, but this is because there is not a particular teaching style which is favoured [1] The fairest way is to ensure you receive a good education, and this is made possible by being taught in different ways which can challenge and inspire you, it's why you will usually have a new teacher every year. When an adult inspects the quality of teaching it allows students to continue learning. If students could grade their teacher after one year - the time when you will probably have a new teacher, their suggestions may not represent what the next students want. You say you are judged, however teachers don't give you homework in order to access your understanding (why you won't find a leader board in their closet). They mark your work, give corrections, and if you still don't understand it is your responsibility to seek help. If students could grade their teacher some students might choose to criticize their teacher instead of seeking help. Teachers do from my experience give their class anonymous feedback forms to fill in, which removes any need for students to grade teachers. sources: [1] http://www.clerktogovernors.co.uk...
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

My point still holds true. She is a creation who lives in a world that isn't real. She can only be what her creators make her and seeing that they haven't made her an illegal immigrant she must not be one. A. his point is irrelevant to the claim. B. "She can illegally transport illegal drugs because she's illegal." She can also transport illegal drugs if she is legal. This point is stating that because she may be trafficking drugs she must be an illegal. The is not true the two can be linked or separate and to use one to justify the other simply makes no sense. C. Nothing to argue here. D. Well wouldn't it be more damaging to have someone who is apparently involved with drugs teaching children to do the same? Wouldn't the responsible thing be to arrest her, and hurt the kids for a short time instead of allowing her to continue damaging them and risk the potential of them growing up to be Spanish speaking drug traffickers? Not very smart… Pro has clearly confused drug trafficking and speaking Spanish with immigration. He has also failed to prove that Dora is from Mexico (a birth certificate would have been suffice) as he had claimed. In short the evidence provided is insufficient to show that Dora is an illegal immigrant.
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

Obviously they can't openly assign this trait to Dora, otherwise the kids would be watching a role model who pretty much endorses illegal immigrants. A) Well, if she's older than she claims, then she doesn't look like it. And if she's a genius she would avoid Swiper. B) She can illegally transport illegal drugs because she's illegal. C) See B. D) He can't arrest her in front of the kids, they'll find out!
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

Dora can only be an illegal immigrant if she is real. A cartoon can be an illegal immigrant in the cartoon world but that attribute has yet to be assigned to Dora therefore she isn't an illegal immigrant. Now for the points: A. It may be suspicious but it does not make her an illegal immigrant. She may be a genus, or older than she claims. This fact has nothing to do with her being an illegal immigrant. B. Yes the backpack can still contain drugs but that does not mean she is an illegal immigrant. It could mean she's a drug trafficker but the smuggling of drugs bares no real relation to the topic of debate. C. Again drugs have nothing to do with the topic at hand. D. No he's clearly stealing them and if he really was a border patrol agent he would have already arrested her with no need to stock pile "evidence".
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

Dora can still be an illegal, even if she is a cartoon character. Mexico and the U.S. can still exist in that show. a) Speaking fluent Spanish AND English at such a young age is very suspicious. b) But it's a backpack, and still can have drugs. c) If she did have drugs in her backpack, that could be whatever she delivered to whoever she needed to deliver it to. d) He's confiscating the items for proof that she's an illegal immigrant.