BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In a battle between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan would win.

My opponent's first set of rules do not coincide with his second. I conceded to most of the rules in his first post so therefore I assumed they still applied. Keith Olbermann cannot both be tied at the limbs and have no limbs. That would be impossible. In addition, the battle is between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan not between other miscellaneous groups of people. Hence the reason Buchanan had the heart attack on sight of Olbermann not by some sight of a random group of people. In addition, if Keith Olbermann had to run there, so did Buchanan since my opponent did not specify otherwise. A 70 year old man would not make it 26 7/32 miles at a gentle jog let alone a run. Therefore one could expect that Pat Buchanan would have died mid journey. Therefore Keith Olbermann getting his limbs ripped off would have been obsolete nonetheless. Pat Buchanan has a history of being owned - see videos. That starry eyed look that Buchanan has in most of them is the look that he most surely had when my next set of rules was enacted. 1. Pat Buchanan died before Keith Olbermann. After suffering a heart attack in the ten foot by ten foot room Pat Buchanan died a slow death due to the fact that he could not be saved as there was nothing in the room but the two men. 2. Keith Olbermann [even if he did sustain the injuries my opponent claims he did; which is rather impossible.] died after Pat Buchanan. Keith Olbermann died in 2024 after a pistol duel with Ann Coulter that left them both bloodied and grave. 3. Pat Buchanan's heart attack was a massive coronary therefore there was no way he could die after Keith Olbermann. 4. It is impossible for Keith Olbermann to die after Pat Buchanan therefore Keith Olbermann ultimately wins the battle. 5. Pat Buchanan automatically loses the battle, he dies first, just because. However one could include the following reasons: for being anti semitic and racist, as well as for just being Pat Buchanan. My opponent ignored my age argument which I am now sure he will bring up in his final argument. I thank my opponent for a very odd, arbitrary, ridiculous rules based debate, but a fun one. Through my rules and one point, it is obvious to see that Keith Olbermann would outlive Pat Buchanan ultimately winning the battle that is the "death match". Thank you, and I urge a vote for CON. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com...
In a battle between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan would win.

"Eagerly awaiting another set of ridiculous rules." ---I hope you enjoy them. "However, I must point out that there is no way that Buchanan could have a gun as my opponent stated that there was nothing in the room but the two men." ---You found a crucial flaw in my argument, well done, well done indeed. "On to the claim that Mr. Olbermann is hogtied, gagged and blindfolded. I will concede that he could be gagged and blindfolded. However, he could not be hogtied at the limbs." ---Well, your rebuttal isn't really necesarry here, seeing as how nothing is in the room. "My own rules: 1: Pat Buchanan has had a heart attack at the sight of a naked Keith Olbermann and is circling the drain." ---Touchï¿½. I would no doubt do the same if I even saw Keith Olbermann in person. ==================== "Eagerly awaiting another set of ridiculous rules." ---I hope you enjoy them. My new conditions of battle: 1) Keith Olbermann ran 26 7/32 miles to get to the room in which the battle takes place in 3 hours time. 2) Once Keith got within 10 feet of the room, he was brutally attacked by 69 thugs. All his limbs were ripped off, as were his eyeballs. He was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs. He was then thrown in the room. 3) Pat Buchanan walked in the room fully intact with no injuries (internal of external) whatsoever. He walked in the room strikingly similar to the condition in the YouTube video. (((Pat Buchanan is the man on the right.))) http://www.youtube.com... Although I do commend Keith for running a marathon distance in great time, he was met with a not so warm welcome. Although Pat did suffer a massive heart attack, Keith was in a much worse condition. A person who suffered a heart attack would undoubtedly die slower than a person who was exhauasted, shot, stabbed, and had their limbs, eyes, heart, brain, and other internal organ ripped out/off. Pat Buchanan is the clear winner in this not so glorious battle. Once again, I look forward to my opponent's response.
In a battle between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan would win.

battle - a combat between two persons . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Keith Olbermann - is host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann. " . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Pat Buchanan - has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. . http://buchanan.org... win - a: to gain in or as if in battle or contest b: to be the victor in . http://www.merriam-webster.com... My opponent did not set forth the conditions of the battle. So I will do so now: 1) The battle is a death match. 2) The battle takes place in a 10 feet by 10 feet room. The room is enclosed on all 4 sides. There is nothing in the room besides the two men. 3) Both men have no clothes on with nothing in either of their bodily cavities other than what is natural. 4) Keith Olbermann starts the battle off hogtied lying on the floor. Hogtied means that his limbs are tied together rendering him immobile and helpless. He is also gagged and blindfolded. He is not wearing protection or clothing of any kind. 4) Pat Buchanan starts the battle off standing upright with nothing on him at all. He is holding a fully loaded, fully operational standard 9 mm handgun ready to be fired. It is held in his right hand, his strong hand. *Note that my opponent never stated that the battle would be fair. She never even stated any conditions of the battle. Pat Buchanan would clearly win this battle against Keith Olbermann. A person with a gun can kill a hogtied, gagged, and blindfolded person easily. This is not even a close battle. Keith Olbermann could die either from getting shot multiple times or getting pistol whipped multiple times. Pat Buchanan lives, Keith Olbermann dies. So, Pat Buchanan wins the battle. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Death Penalty

My first counter-argument stems from your statement saying, "I urge the reader to consider heavily how would they react if somebody they loved was murdered so viciously." We will say the young woman who was raped, tortured, and murdered is my sister, and after 10 years of appealing in courts I have had about my wits end to the system and want some sort of justice done because so far I haven't seen any. Is it better to let these families sit through years of agony as they way for their loved one to rest peacefully? Or would life-imprisonment be a more swift and just punishment? And what is the purpose of bringing two families into pain? Isn't one family suffering enough? Because when the death penalty is enforced that brings in not only the victim of the crime's family, but also the family of the criminal. The case made most often against this point is that the criminal has received a just punishment, but his family was innocent in his crime, does two suffering families make it any less easier for society to accept those people who have committed these heinous crimes? Also by taking away the vast amounts of dollars spent on the death penalty, those funds can be used instead for prevention of crimes and victim healing instead of court hearings and appeals. And if this debate is not a factual one, why are you bringing up the cost of the death penalty from a source that is clearly biased? According to the Kansas Performance Audit Report (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) the cost of a capital punishment case is 70% higher than non-capital cases. The mistakes in past capital punishment cases have names (http://www.innocenceproject.org...) Kirk Bloodsworth, Rolando Cruz and Frank Lee Smith to name a few. My personal favorite being Curtis McCarty who i have had the privilege and honor to not only hear him talk about his experience in person, but also the chance to talk with him personally. The mistake of a forensics woman tampering with evidence not only kept McCarty in jail as an innocent man, but also later on after McCarty was exonerated, prevented further testing since evidence was tampered with and the young woman who was attacked, her family will never see any sort of justice since now all evidence is not allowed in court. Men like McCarty have lost much of their lives to prison, and still suffer today from many results of prison life. Prison life is not a picnic for these men and women who commit these terrible crimes, it is a solution to the problem that is a just punishment as well as a cheaper one. The idea that they must live on our tax dollars eating and sleeping is made to sound like a camping trip, but prison is not a family vacation. The time spent in prison could be a time of rehabilitation for these human beings who we do not have the right to condemn to death, and instead find ways to help them while keeping them away from society which they have proven themselves a danger too.
Weekends are always too short

>>Weekends are long for you because you are probably not working 40 hours a week, you probably have no family, no wife/husband, no kids.<< I may not have a 40 hour a week job, nor do I have a spouse or children. I might not think my own weekends were too long if I did. However... This does not change the amount of work that must be done. This amount requires that most people work close to 40 hours a week, which doesn't leave much room for a longer weekend than 2 days. Weekends are not too short because lengthening them would hurt the economy far too much for it to be helpful overall. >>Anyone who has a family, a full time job and a house needs to be cleaned would feel the shortage of weekends.<< Does your spouse work too? Unless you have a lot of children, you should be making plenty of money with two full-time jobs in the house. Maybe you can hire someone to clean your house for you, that way you don't have to. Either way, weekends don't need to be lengthened. Work needs to get done, that's _why_ you don't get a 3-day weekend too often. It might be hard, but almost everyone somehow manages to do it, whether they have kids or not. And on that note, it's off to the voters.
Weekends are always too short

Two-day weekends in general are not too short. Especially not ALWAYS, like you claim in the title. Here's a few reasons why: 1. Weekends are idle time - much less work gets done, the economy suffers. 2. Two days out of seven are plenty for a 'break.' It's true that people would grow weary of working all the time, lowering morale, lowering productivity, but two days is rather ample to allow people a chance to unwind. 3. If everyone took a 3-day weekend, nothing would be open for 3 days of 7. Even now, we rely on some people not taking the traditional two-day weekends off. If everyone took their weekend, no one would be able to do anything besides go to friends' houses on the weekend. 4. Other breaks, such as holidays, are ample to fit any activities you can't fit into a 2-day weekend. And personally, I do find that my weekends are too long. Of course, they generally are longer than 2 days.
Cooked food is toxic.

Thank you for your arguments. I will go onto my arguments, and rebuttals. FrameworkBOP is on both of us, Pro says nothing about framework. The debate is about the poison of cooked food, not bad things about cooked food. RebuttalsI will go onto the round two rebuttals.1. Fats can become rancid through heat. Rebuttal: My rebuttal is that even though cooked food becomes rancid, this does not mean that cooked food is poisonous, by being rancid. Also not all foods are rancid.2. Carbohydrates caramelize when heated enough. Rebuttal: My rebuttal is like the first, however, it is that this is not about posionous.3. Cooked food lessens vitamin CRebuttals: Again, does not meet the resolution4. Cooked food has less water contentRebuttal: Not meeting resolution. OverallPro does not have any of his arguments related to the resolution. The resolution is about if cooked food is poisonous not bad for your health. Defense1. Bacteria is very important. With bacteria in you, you can get cancer, however if the cooked foods have less vitamin C does not mean it is poisonous.2. My other argument is not about taste. It is about cooked food is better than raw food. Pro misses my argument about that raw food can be bad for you, like raw meat or fish. ConclusionI rebut all of Pro's arguments, and they mistake the resolution, and not about toxic. Pro can't rebut my arguments, making them dropped.
Cooked food is toxic.

Con's argument seems to be based upon two concepts. 1. Extermination of all bacteria How many bacteria do you think are on your keyboard right now? Ten, one hundred, five hundred? "Researchers have discovered that computer keyboards contained 7,500 bacteria per swab - much more than an average toilet seat, which has 5,400." [10]. With thousands of bacteria per swab on your keyboard it doesn't make much sense to worry too much about the bacteria in your food. The germ theory is a fraud. [11]. Instead, humans should worry about destroying the nutrition and dehydrating food until it is toxic via heating. 2. Taste Taste is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution is about health not taste. Anti-freeze tastes sweet, yet its a known toxin. "Ethylene glycol is the ingredient that makes antifreeze tasty. Though colorless and odorless, the syrupy alcohol derivative"which is excellent at lowering the freezing points of vital engine fluids"has a sweet taste that jibes well with soda, juice, and other sugary beverages. " [12]. As for eating raw meat, Pro contends that meat shouldn't be eaten at all. All necessary nutrients can be gained from a raw vegan diet. B-12 can be gained from bacteria on raw food, humans only need about 56g of protein a day which is about 10% calories of the macronutrient protein. All three Omega-3s can be gained from a combination of flaxseeds, seaweed, and microalgae. Calcium is found in leafy greens. Meat contains high amount of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein which are detrimental to human health. Most haven't heard of why consuming animal protein is a bad idea. Consuming animal protein raises IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one. An increase in IGF-1 levels increase chances for cancer. "For years we didn"t know why eating a plant-based diet appeared to so dramatically improve cancer defenses within just a matter of weeks. But researchers recently figured it out: eating healthy lowers the level of the cancer promoting growth hormone IGF-1."[13]. Thanks for the debate, Cooked food is toxic vote Pro. Links 10. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... 11. 12. http://www.slate.com... 13. http://nutritionfacts.org...
Cooked food is toxic.

Thank you for your argumentsFrameworkOkay, this debate is about if cooked food is toxic meaning if cooked food is poisonous. I will be taking Con that cooked food is not toxic or poison. If I fill the BOP which is shared, I win the debate. If my opponent has filled the BOP, he wins. This debate is about whether or not cooked food is poisonous or not, just not healthy, which is a disadvantage for Pro because he has to explain why cooked food is poisonous when I have to say cooked food is not poisonous.ContentionsContention 1: Boiling or Cooking makes bacteria go away.Okay, my first argument is that boiling or cooking food makes bacteria go away.It is simple. Bacteria usually lives in the right temperature. However if we boil the water or possible anything or cook food, the bacteria or bad substances that might have been in the food may disappear and die because of the high change of temperature. Because we boil this bacteria or cook it, and also the heat temperature, bacteria will die from this. http://www.chowhound.com... http://outdoors.stackexchange.com...Contention 2: Cooked food has less harms than raw food.Okay, this is simple. Cooked food has less harms than raw food.Okay, raw food is not cooked meaning you do not heat or warmth your food. This means no fire to cook meat, rice, or anything. Do you think this will be good or cooked food, with cooked meat, fish, and rice. What do you think will taste better and healthier?Thank you. My rebuttals will be in the next round. Sources http://www.safefood.eu... http://purelyraw.com... http://www.beyondveg.com... http://www.mindbodygreen.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.bbcgoodfood.com... http://healthimpactnews.com...Thank you.
Cooked food is toxic.

Claim: Proteins when heated above a certain temperature become denatured. Warrant: "(2) Of, or pertaining to, a molecule (such as a protein or a nucleic acid) wherein its chemical structure is altered through chemical or physical means so that some of its original properties are lost or diminished. " Impact: Food contains protein and thus denatured protein is different than unaltered protein. Claim: Fats can become rancid through heat Warrant: "How fats go rancid Fats can become rancid through oxidation, irradiation, enzymatic lipolysis, and heat" [4]. Impact: Fat can become rancid, thus is different. Claim: Carbohydrates caramelize when heated enough. Warrant: "When exposed to heat, sugar will at first melt into a thick syrup. As the temperature continues to rise, the sugar syrup changes color, from clear to light yellow to a progressively deepening brown. This browning process is called caramelization. " [5]. Impact: Cooked carbohydrates and carbohydrates that aren't cooked are different. Claim: Cooking food lessens the amount of vitamin C. Warrant: "Cooking vitamin C-rich foods or storing them for a long period of time can reduce the vitamin C content." [6] Impact: Cooked foods with vitamin C are less healthy than raw. Claim: Rancid oils are detrimental to human health. Warrant: " So what's wrong with eating rancid oils? "There are at least two," says lipid specialist and University of Massachusetts professor Eric Decker. "One is that they lose their vitamins, but they also can develop potentially toxic compounds" that have been linked to advanced aging, neurological disorders, heart disease and cancer." [7] Impact: Rancid oils are unhealthy thus its likely that all rancid fats are unhealthy. If all rancid fats are unhealthy, its likely that denatured proteins, and caramelized carbohydrates are unhealthy. Claim: Most Americans are chronically dehydrated. Warrant: "75% of Americans May Suffer From Chronic Dehydration, According to Doctors" [8]. Impact: Americans aren't getting enough water, cooked food may be the cause. Claim: Cooked foods have less water content Warrant: Obvious Impact: Cooked foods have insufficient water content thus leading to chronic dehydration. Claim: Meat cooked high enough contains heterocyclic amines, a carcinogen. Warrant: "Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are chemicals formed when muscle meat, including beef, pork, fish, or poultry, is cooked using high-temperature methods" [9]. Impact: Carcinogens qualify as toxic. Thus cooked meat is toxic. Links 3. http://www.biology-online.org... 4. http://nutritionnutsandbolts.com... 5. http://chefsblade.monster.com... 6. https://www.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://articles.chicagotribune.com... 8. http://www.medicaldaily.com... 9. http://www.cancer.gov...
Cooked food is toxic.

Resolution: Cooked food is toxic. Cooked, food heated to an internal temperature of 115 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Cooked " 1. to prepare (food) by the use of heat, as by boiling, baking, or roasting. " [1]. Toxic, "tox"ic (t!5;kR42;sĭk) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis. 2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: toxic industrial waste." [2]. This is a factual resolution. Pro will contend for the resolution. Con against the resolution. Links 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Animal rights

So "Animal Rights" isn't so much a right to life as it is laws made for man? If its just about making laws that means animals don't inherently have rights. I argue if animals don't acknowledge the idea "rights" of other animals including humans, then there might be an indication that "rights" are not something intrinsic but something made up. I still want the questions answered: where do these "rights" come from? If its man made then i don't see the inherent point of animals having rights. If its universal to all life, why do we not see animals punished by their specie for killing another animal from a different specie?
Animal rights

Let me begin by clarifying my stance a bit better. I apologize for not doing so before. I am taking the stance of rights for captured/domestic animals, animals that rely completely on humans throughout their lives. With that being said, how do animals have more rights than humans do? Please explain Moving to your point on thought before killing. I agree that a lioness would not use reason to explain her actions, "But reasoning is just one form of intelligence." (1). And intelligence is only one form of superiority. I constantly hear people talking about how humans are the superior species above all others. Since humans have these thoughts that animals do not, shouldn"t we use these thoughts? We only expect what that "being" is capable of, so why all of a sudden are humans not made to do all that they are capable of? Humans continue to play "god" with all other lives. We not only make decisions for us, but for "our" animals as well. I want to be clear that I am not saying that we shouldn"t make decisions for animals in general, I am just stating that we should make good choices for the animals" sake, not just for our own. What I mean by "rights" is the control of our species (humans) to treat animals fairly and to have show compassion even if they do not posses it themselves (which some do not). Of course you cannot prosecute an animal for killing another because they know no different and they are not capable of knowing any different. We on the other hand are. We know the difference between these things (as you explained above). Humans should be held accountable to for the things humans are capable of, including treating animals fair. To take care of them to a certain level, since we have given ourselves this responsibility. To take the "job" seriously.
Animal rights

Let me be clear that i am not for treating animals carelessly but treating animals decently, with special sensitivity to their pain and suffering. But animals do not have rights as we see it. Rights only have meaning within a moral community. When a lion kills a zebra its not murder, as it is the way of life. (1) I have to disagree with pro on the points that animals don't have control over there future. Animals have control over their future just as much as humans do which isn't much. If we all life on earth are "One" meaning were all animals i don't see how one has more "rights" than another. If Peter Singer steps into a lions den, the lioness is not going to think twice about either killing for food (which humans do) killing to protect (Which humans do) killing to train with her cubs (which humans do) or killing just for fun which animals are known to do. I have a question for Pro, where do these "rights" come from? If its man made then i don't see the inherent point of animals having rights. If its universal to all life, why do we not see animals punished by their specie for killing another animal from a different specie? (1)http://www.bbc.co.uk...