BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

Framework The happiness framework wasn't ideal as something that doesn't cause happiness doesn't mean it should stop. Some examples are war and cancer treatment. But since we are already into the debate, I will continue with it. "Con says that some people might like it. Con says they have the liberty to do so. That is only some. Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? " I don't think the Olympic Sewage swim is mandatory, is it? Therefore those who are doing it must have some reason to do it. Indirectly winning the race would still give happiness to the athlete, or completing it provide a sense of accomplishment. Furthermore, no one else is suffering as it is not mandatory. While the athletes may find that they hate the race after doing it, it would satisfy their curiosity and also become a memorable achievement that will bring happiness. Infection Pro hasn't mentioned what type of infection is it, is it curable, is it lethal or nonlethal etc. We are blindly presuming that the infection is something more than a cough or cold, or some other slight problem. Furthermore, I quote "Kristina Mena, a expert in risk management says that athletes who ingest 3 teaspoons of water will get a 99% chance of getting infected " It clearly says that drinking the water will be the cause of infection, not touching it. Happiness The athletes who did must do it for a reason that indirectly leads to happiness, therefore pro's argument is refuted. Some plausible reasons include simple victory, a challenge to oneself, extreme curiosity into the experience etc. Boxing Pro said that "Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers. " Its simple then. Why are there sewage swimmers? Because they want to be sewage swimmers. They have achieved their goal of swimming through the sewage. Sources The International New York Times, April 31st, The Olympic sewage swim I have not found a free link to this source yet, therefore I am at a disadvantage here. Pro's other two sources include a dictionary and wikipedia's concept of Utilitarianism, and I am not able to verify pro's facts on the sport. I would request pro to give me a link to it if there is one, for the New York times is not delivered at my location. I can debate without it too, but it will be more problematic. Arguments I think the free will argument wasn't a rebuttal, was it? Therefore I had some arguments for the offense. Cleaning waters Well at least a small portion can be treated, and furthermore, the length may not be 480 swimming pools. It can easily be reduced to the less dangerous area (the treatment can start slightly before the Olympics, such as an year before the event) and the number of laps increased.
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

AveObservationsO1: My opponent provides no offense in the debate, he only makes his rebuttals. Therefore, it is impossible for me to actually make my rebuttals in this round, because there is nothing to rebut. Therefore, I will only defend my case this round.FrameworkMy opponent says to change the burdens into that, but does not even say why we should do it into that. My opponent has to buy my happiness framework, because he did no attempt to refute it, and refuting it in the third round, or in the middle of the debate is bad conduct, so it is not allowed. Therefore, you have to buy my happiness framework, because it is the only framework. Happiness argumentCon says that not a sports give happiness. Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers. There is happiness, as they achieved their goal in being a boxer, so for them, there is happiness. However, in my sources I proved that the athletes hate this sport, and they main point they play is that it brings happiness, and they like it. But this does not bring happiness, so this rebuttal is wrong. DangerCon says that who will ingest water in swimming, and they can wear masks. I said that, and if you touch or swim in the waters, you have 99 percent infected, as I said in the source. So this is a bad rebuttal, and it is impossible to do so. Cleaning WatersCon says that we can decrease it a bit, but the 8 treatment plants are decreasing. How can 480 swimming pools be clean by just 8? It is decreasing, and it won't work anyways, so this is dropped too, and the rebuttal is wrong. Free willCon says that some people might like it. Con says they have the liberty to do so. That is only some. Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? No. Therefore this argument is rebutted. Also, in my happiness and Util framework, it was the majority, and the majority do not like it. And, this is a bare assertion, therefore this argument is rebutted 3 times. ConclusionI have successfully refuted, and defended my case, and refuted my opponent's argument which doesn't even count as an argument, because it is a bare assertion. My arguments are dropped by my opponent, and my opponent's arguments are refuted, therefore, vote Pro.Vale
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

Framework- "My framework says that if I prove that the Olympic sewage swim does not bring pleasures, I win. If my opponent shows that it brings happiness, he wins" This doesn't tie in with the resolution that the sewage swim to be stopped. I would suggest it be altered to "If Pro proves that the Olympic sewage swim should be stopped, Pro wins. If con proves it should not be stopped, con wins" Happiness argument- Olympic sports weren't made for the happiness of their participants. It is not just an entertainment outlet. Since when does boxing or wrestling give happiness? The losing team has always ended up with bruises and lack of morale, and that doesn't justify the sport being stopped. Sports is a ground for competition of the physical prowess, and doesn't necessarily bring happiness. Danger I had heard something called extreme sports. I think we can put the sewage swim under that. Besides, why would you ingest water while swimming? They could use some masks or something similar to make sure they don't ingest water while swimming. Cleaning waters No it can't be fully cleaned, but some disinfectants and chemical treatment could reduce the risk of death from 99 percent to perhaps 80 or 70 percent. Plus, pro hasn't mention what infection shall be caught, so I would assume it is curable. Free will While neither I nor pro would swim in these waters, still there are people out there who want to try out these kind of extreme sports. This can be justified by the fact that the sewage swim still has an adequate number of volunteers. Those who want to do this should be allowed to this. Who knows, maybe these swimmers actually feel happy after completing the swim. While there are people who think the sewage swim is wrong and extreme, these swimmers want to take some risks at their own free will, and the common people have no right to stop them. Everything has risks attached, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. While forging you could burn yourself, while parachuting your parachute may fail, while cutting wood you may cut yourself, but still people should be allowed to do it. Skydiving, underwater swimming etc.
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

AveRules1. No forfeiting2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. No semantics5. Sources will be posted in the debate, like you post your video, and below, like you normally do, you post your sources. 6. Comment if wanting to accept.7. This will be a null-voting debate. If you vote, cast a null vote, and you need to post a RFD, but a null-vote. In the RFD of course, you can say who do you think won the debate, but just make a null-vote. Votes that are not null/ or a tie will be reported, and removed8. Not following the rules is an automatic loss DefinitionsIt is a marathon swim in Brazil in the olympics, it is in a sewage which can fill over 480 olympic-sized swimming pools. As it is a sewage, there are rotting rats and dead dogs, and it is easy for you to get an infection. I say we should stop this, when my opponent says we should not.Comment if wanting to accept!!!Vale
The Soviet Union did more than the USA during World War 2

Though you have to apply that the entire fact that the Germans lost at Stalingrad was because the Allies and the US had invaded Italy and with Opperation Fortitude the NAZIs had to stretch their defenses. This cause German collapse due to US intervention in Europe. If it hadn't been for the Allied and American landings in Italy the Germans would've won Stalingrad. All points extended.
The Soviet Union did more than the USA during World War 2

I like your argument, but i dissagree. While Operation Overlord and Operation Fortitude were large parts of the war, they weren't the turning points of the war. The Battle of Stalingrad is where the war in the Eastern Theater turned, Hitler's loss at Stalingrad was a huge blow Hitler and Stalin both knew the importance of Stalingrad, Whoever would win the battle would gain a large advantage in the war, this case being the Soviet Union. If the Germans had won that battle they would have been able to take Soviet Controlled Oil fields, severely cutting down on the Soviet Union's Oil production. The German loss at the Battle of the Bulge also had a lot to do with the Germans low supply of oil.
The Soviet Union did more than the USA during World War 2

US saves USSR by feeding Ukraine. During the hunger crisis the US sent tons of wheet to the Soviet Union to help feed the Ukrainians who they thought where having a drought, but were being starved by the Soviets. The Soviets then turned the boats around and sold the grain elsewhere for money so they could buy machinery in order to industrialize under Stalin. If the US hadn't fed the USSR, they wouldn't have survived and the Communists would have been overthrown and they would NOT have been in World War 2. So we can see that the US fed them and basically gave them the machinery for the war. (http://www.enrs.eu...) Already showing without the US the USSR wouldn't have been able to do anything in the war. The same occured during the Lend and Lease act. (http://www.historynet.com...) Opperation Overlord and Opperation Fortitude were key in the war. The USSR needed a Second Front in Europe and the Allies delivered. The Allies invaded Italy and the Italian surrender ment that Hitler had to strech out his military even further. This allowed for the Soviets to push the Germans out of Russia as the Germans were unable to protect the "soft under belly of Europe" and Mussolini's surrender saw the escental collapse of NAZI forces in Russia. (http://www.globalresearch.ca...) After General Patton was taken out of active duty by attacking a shell-shocked soldier, he was put in charge of Opperation Foritude which was getting the "Army" ready for a full out European invasion. Everything was made out of balloons and when this fooled the Germans, Hilter took out even more troops to fortify France to get ready for the invasion, once again helping relieve stress from the USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The US would invade with the D-Day invaison, liberating France. To make things better in the War, the Germans withdrew ALL of their forces to attack the allies in the West at the Battle of the Bludge. General George Patton defeated the Germans and once again the US caused the USSR to be more victorious due to the US doing more to defeat the Germans. (http://www.history.com...) Now let's look to the cassulties from the USSR. Much of the ground loss and the deaths were due to Stalin locking himself away for 3 whole days when the war began. The Soviet troops did NOTHING and were captured. Why, you may ask? They feared doing any type of Initiative under Stalin for fear of exicution, so the officers did nothing. Much of this can be seen depicted by George Orwell in his novel 1984 to explain the type of society that the USSR had. (http://ww2history.com...)
The Soviet Union did more than the USA during World War 2

I do conceede that point, but the American invasion of North Africa began on November 8th, of 1942, and this forced Rommel's troops to split and it forced Hitler to divert some of his military from the USSR and place them in Africa. This is why the NAZI air drop in Stalingrad did not work the way it was purposed to have worked. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I also extend across my arguments that my opponent has dropped of US arming the USSR and actually feeding them and if it wasn't for that we can see that the Soviets wouldn't have even been in the war. Plus Opperation Fortitude help fooled the NAZIs into holding off in a counter-offensive against the Normandy invasion.
most self identified political labels are meaningless

Con agrees with Pro's following statement, "con is correct, they [political labels] are a way to give a base line." Therefore, "political labels are" not "meaningless."Any label is a baseline. Most labels have a length of one word, and from semantics, the scope of one word carries little depth or detail. Con pointed out these political labels are very important on the buildup to Election Day, for those powerbrokers who invest a lot of energy and money on those labels. Pro, a number of times, made reference to some "hypothetical study." Con, a number of times, wanted to try this study on Pro and Con, however, Pro did not follow through. Pro made the point in Round 1 that political labels "are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything..." Con, on the other hand, finds all "self-identified political labels" having an imbedded association to a group or Party. Such political association, from low- to high-political-IQs, have meaning and essential importance in voting persuasion that could change the course of a nation. With all due respect and in closing, I could only hope Pro's Progressive label will not prevent Pro from voting for Conservative candidates this November.
most self identified political labels are meaningless

con is correct, they are a way to give a base line. but that is all. and here at debate.org people are often more educated and have better thought out views, so it is even more meaningful for most people though, given most people have very low political IQs, this baseline is mostly rhetoric. the way to identify this is to do that hypothetical study i argued about. for most people the labels more nothing more than "help the little guy" "be fiscally responsible" etc etc. vague statements.
most self identified political labels are meaningless

Since Pro is a Progressive and Con is a Conservative, in Round 1, Con suggested to do that “hypothetical study” between Pro and Con to see how well it goes with those of us who do not have “low political IQs.” Perhaps, in Round 3 we could do that “hypothetical” and let the voters decide. As for “most self identified political labels are meaningless,” I find that not to be the case. Whether having a high or “low political IQ,” those political labels have a profound outcome on Election Day for those powerbrokers who invest a lot of energy and money on those labels. For the most part, one may view those “political labels” are just the strings of puppets.
most self identified political labels are meaningless

The first thing I (Con) did was to look up Pro's “self identified political labels” listed on his profile having the Ideology: Progressive, and his Party: Reform Party. Con's can be best described as aligned with the Ideology: Conservative, and is leaning towards the Party: Tea Party. These labels are not “meaningless,” but have meaning in some form of generalized categories to identify a baseline. If they were “meaningless,” why would Debate. org go through the trouble to have such categories part of the profile? Of course this generalization lacks detail, and I hope Pro could share his philosophy of the difference between Progressivism and Conservatism while Con returns his philosophy. By doing so, we will add depth, fidelity, and a learning experience in the passion of our positions and similarities we may share. Let's test Pro's, “. .. most people, . .. actually agree with each other . .. hypothesis. ”
Homosexuality is not a sin nor taboo.

Homosexuality has existed for, Well, Forever. It exists in the animal kingdom, It existed for thousands of years, And the world is changing; we cannot continue to be closed-minded like we were twenty years ago! Some may argue that we need to procreate to continue the population of the human race. However, Gay couples can adopt children; there are, In fact, 153 million orphans at the moment. We do not need more children when they need our help so much. I'd like to see what you have to say about this, Con.
Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Barack OBAMA

http://www.youtube.com... Whether or not Keynesian economic theory is true or whatever... The debate was whether or not Romney would make a better, more effective president than Obama. Obama has had his chance to shine and only di a bit for the country, Romney hasn't and the little has had had to shine, like when his wife suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, he was so sympathetic and he knows the truth of life is to care and be good, he doesn't just do it for show and say "Look at me" "Yes we can" he just says to himself "No we can't yet, but I will make it happen" the very slogan of Obama is the epitome of lies. My opponent didn't manage to counter even one of my points regarding Romney, only the economic nonsense of Obama being good, ok yes it's good but so is the republican economic system, he never managed to attack that! HE didn't counter ANY points only the sources of the amazing points and that, is that. Vote Romney for USA. Vote Obama for Obama.
Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Barack OBAMA

Ok. .. Let's try this again. .. First round: acceptance only. RulesYou are only required to give citations for evidence if the opponent specifically requests it. You may NOT use Fox News or MSNBCAll arguments must be clearly signpostedAll opening arguments must have contentions to refer back toThis will NOT be a formal, LD, Policy or PoFo style debate.
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

7/10 News of the suicide of the leader of DRC confuses the administration of Ethiopia. 7/12 10,000 soldiers from the triangle line are pulled back. 500 are to guard Addis Ababa directly. The rest are spread out to northern cities to make sure no northern surprise attack. 7/15 The administration of Ethiopia decide that the suicide of the leaders in DRC was intended to cause confusion. The regain their recomposure to make sure nothing bad happens. 7/20 Soldiers continuously gain supplies, waiting for action.
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

Russia the almighty, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate.7/8 Joseph Kaliba and Augustin Matata Ponyo jointly send the following poem, translated into English, originally by Borges, to Ethiopia: I have committed the worst of sins One can commit. I have not been Happy. Let the glaciers of oblivion Take and engulf me, mercilessly. My parents bore me for the risky And the beautiful game of life, For earth, water, air and fire. I failed them, I was not happy. Their youthful hope for me unfulfilled. I applied my mind to the symmetric Arguments of art, its web of trivia. They willed me bravery. I was not brave. It never leaves me. Always at my side, That shadow of a melancholy man. Then, the President and Prime Minister of the DRC take on suicide vests and walk into a room of their top military commanders. On three they will both press the button.1...2...3...Nothing remains.
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

5/25 With the Democratic Republic of the Congo's declaration of war, Hailemariam Desalegn, the prime minister of Ethiopia releases this statement. "Fellow EThiopians, today the Democratic Republic of the Congo have declared war on us. They've released no statement as to why. We believe that either they have become warmongers, or there is more to this war behind the scenes. Regardless, we will never surrender. Until all of Ethiopia is conquered, until every loyal Ethiopian is killed, we will never give into their demands. Remember this, We will never surrender. " 5/26 Ethiopia mobilizes. EThiopia liquidates $400 million of its foreign exchanges and gold to gain the right to produce Alouette III helicopter. Since this helicopter is old, France agrees. (1) Factories are to begin producing military supplies, ammunition, and aircraft. 6/3 Without enough soldiers to fully defend the likely invasion line without spreading the soldiers too thin, the Ethiopian army develops a Guerilla strategy. 10,000 soldiers are ordered to do guerilla warfare in front of what is called the triangle line where soldiers are more organized from Nekemte, Awassa and Seru. The goal is to prevent any assault on Addis Abbaba. 6/29 Most of the 10,000 soldiers are in positions. They are hiding out in secluded positions ready to do guerilla warfare on attacking armies. 7/1 Ethiopia launches a cyber attack on the Democratic Republic of The Congo. Several blackouts occur as a result. 7/7 As Ethiopian soldiers wait in position, they hire local workers to build trenches and other fortifications as they wait for the invaders. SInce I am a defender I will await your move. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

Sup breh. This will be fun, but not in the way you are thinking.I choose the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I choose to invade. I choose to make this war start because of coercion from Russia (my ally that won't take part in this debate) says to invade. More land, in the name of the USSR, etc.I don't really want to post all of the info, feel free to look through this source: http://www.globalfirepower.com... won't be doing shady stuff, just really lazy.
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

7/25 The Ethiopian government is once again confused about the actions of the DRC. 7/26 15,000 soldiers from the triangle line are sent back home. 7/30 The Ethiopian government regains its composure knowing they must stay on guard. 8/3 Production of military armaments is slowed, but not stopped seeing as the DRC is doing absolutely nothing in this war except having its administration commit suicide.
AOW Ethiopia (pro) vs any other African nation (con)

7/21 The Constitutional Court convenes and declares the death of the President. Léon Kengo Wa Dondo of the Senate becomes the new Acting President, and appoints David Byaza Sanda Lutala as Prime Minister, under Article 78 of the Constitution of the DRC:The President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister from the ranks of the parliamentary majority after consultation of the latter. He terminates the functions of the Prime Minister upon presentation by the latter of the resignation of the Government. 7/22 Dondo and Lutala jointly send a poem to Ethiopia, translated in English, originally by Borges: The labyrinth is lost. Lost too all those lines of eucalyptus, the summer awnings and the vigil of the incessant mirror, repeating the expression of every human face, everything fleeting. The stopped clock, the tangled honeysuckle, the arbour, the frivolous statues, the other side of evening, the trills, the mirador and the idle fountain are things of the past. Of the past? If there’s no beginning, no ending, and if what awaits us is an endless sum of white days and black nights, we are already the past we become. We are time, the indivisible river, are Uxmal, Carthage and the ruined walls of the Romans and the lost park that these lines commemorate. Then, Dondo wears a suicide vest, said to give a speech, and walks into the Senate, killing all Senators of the DRC.At the same time, Lutala invites the Constitutional Court to appear to the Lower House to give a speech about the future. He dons a suicide vest, and kills all representatives and Judges.Nothing remains.