BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Elderly People should not pay for public transport

Thank you for setting this debate up! This is my first one, so I'm very excited to participate. Thanks again. Now, I am arguing that elderly people should have to pay for public transport, just like everybody else. There is no reason that they should get any special financial treatment just because they are older than others. In fact, there are many very cheap modes of public transportation elders can get around in. Not only are there city buses and such, but also taxis, volunteer driver programs, door-to-door escort services (for elders with disabilities, whether they be mental or physical), or they could even rely on family transportation to get them where they need to go. That's what my grandma does; whenever she needs to go somewhere important, my mom swings by, helps her to the car, and off they go. Why give elders a free transportation pass, when as long as they have enough ,only to put food on the table, they can find all sorts of cheap transportation to help them get around? Also, having elders be free would absolutely kill a whole section of the economy. Plenty of good, honest businesses help elderly people get around and get aid in their daily lives; cutting of their method of obtaining money would mean that they can't use any money to improve on their services or expand their business, both of which seriously benefit the elderly as well as the business owners. You mention in your argument that you "know that this will be a gigantic drop in the economy, but for some elderly people this might be their only way of getting around." If you knew that maybe helping a few elderly people here and there would involve sacrificing the economy, then why would you take that chance? Having elders pay money for transportation allows both the elderly as well as kind businesses to flourish. I just can't see any logic in that argument. Also, as a side note, elderly people who can't even lay for public transportation is not a problem of elderly people as a whole; it's a poverty problem, and that's for other service-providing bodies like private charities to take care of; not transportation businesses.
Elderly People should not pay for public transport

As we all know that public transport is a way to get around with people that you may not know at all but there is a fee, which all people must pay even elderly people. Now that is where I come in, the next few paragraphs (its only couple of minutes don't worry) I will tell you why elderly people should not pay for public transport. Now I know that this will be a gigantic drop in economy but for some elderly people this might be their only way of getting around because they don't have a drivers license because they are done with car or they don't even know what a car is (no offence to elderly people). So public transport is collecting more money from elderly people then younger people. I also know that most public transport does not allow you to use your credit card only coins and my grandparents don't use coins at all only credit cards and notes. Also most public transport does not give you any change so this means if you use a $20 note for a $3.20 fee you will get $0 in change so this will mean you are technically wasting money. Also if elderly people don"t pay for public transport it means that they will make the most of it and start using the bus instead of their cars, which means less car accidents. I know that most elderly people aren"t as fit as us and don't walk many times so if you can close your eyes and imagine an elderly person at a bus stop trying to get somewhere very important they walk into the bus try to use their credit card and the bus driver tells them that they can not use their credit card so they pull out a note and ask if they could get change the bus driver says read the sign which says no change will be given the elderly person says that this is absurd and the bus driver kicks her off the bus the elderly person realises that she has 20 minutes to get where she wants to be and it is a 40 minute walk but only a 15 minute run (pretty good maths by this elderly person) but the elderly person can"t run because she is tired from walking to the bus stop. In conclusion I think that elderly people should not have to pay for public transport because they don't have a drivers license, there will be car accidents and they will not have to walk. Elderly people should not pay for public transport.
Elderly People should not pay for public transport

Well, to wrap all of this up, I'm going to make a quick rebuttal; transportation is technically personal. It's not decided by anybody else what methods of transportation you're going to take or if you're going to want transportation at all. Just like all other personal things, the individual makes their own choices about it, just like how the elderly taking care of their homes is personal. Like I said, that was just in response to your second argument.
Theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer.

Ah, but let us suppose I had taken the stance you wished me to take, the stance that requires me to have some smallest distance. Even from my viewpoint, the resolution would have been true, just not in the way you had originally meant. The resolution does not state "two objects that never touch." Step 0: "There is some smallest distance, X" Step 1: Two objects not touching are X away from each other. (Two objects that are not touching) Step 2: These two objects can touch one another. Step 3: By touching each other, they would be getting closer to one another. This does not violate the resolution. Therefore, the resolution would have still been in your favor if I had successfully proven that there is a smallest distance, X. Also, you claim that my scenario is real-world, not theoretical. I beg to differ. You see, I simply made it up. Of course, I'm operating within the constraints of the real world, but so are you. Then, you attempt to show that my scenario is not valid, because there might be some unknown force that moves them closer to each other. Let us reexamine the resolution. Since the words always and theoretically are used, I simply have to show one scenario where two objects would not be able to get closer. While my scenario I gave last round, plus some unknown force that makes them get closer is certainly a scenario, it is not the one I specified. If there is no unknown or known force to do this, then these objects cannot get closer. Thus, the resolution is proven wrong. Very massive black holes, mudkips at their centers, at opposite sides of the universe, moving away from each other at extremely high speed. No known or unknown forces that will substantially divert the course of either black hole. These mudkips cannot and will not get closer. Also, this is certainly a theoretical situation, not a real-world example. Not that a real world example wouldn't disprove a theoretical question.
Theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer.

The point within this debate is not to show two different objects that can not move closer to each other, rather that they can get closer. If there was an appropriate force (as we can't comprehend some of the significant forces in the universe today), then these two objects WOULD be able to get closer. If this debate was about two objects that won't touch it would be about the sun and the earth, HOWEVER that is not this debate. The debate is about the theory of if two objects can get so close that if they were to move ANY amount closer to the other object that they would touch. In my theory, this has been proven false. Two objects that are not touching can always get closer. As soon as they do touch they may be able to move closer to each other on other parts of the object, but since they are touching they are outside of this debate. Flow through my example of the object and the wall. Your example you bring up is NOT theoretical but is rather a real world example. But if for some reason they began to move closer... um... they could always get closer until the final force to touch each other stops the theory in question. You must view this (theoretical) attempt as trying to move them closer and not trying to get them to touch. In the end, theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer. Sorry for my lack of organization... It seemed more appropriate just to rant. Thank You!
Theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer.

First, I would like to apologize to my opponent, since I am taking this debate in a direction I do not think my opponent was expecting. However, if I had taken the position my opponent wanted me to, it would be simple to beat me. "Any two objects that are not touching can get closer because they can end up touching." This would have easily defeated the stance my opponent wished for me to take. I believe my opponent wanted me to argue that there is a smallest distance, and therefore zooming in is no longer possible at a certain point. This, as I just showed, would have been easily defeated, since the two objects touching would be making them come closer together. Therefore, let us examine what this resolution really means. Since the word always is used, and we are talking theoretically, all I must do is come up with one theoretical scenario where two objects would not be able to get closer. Scenario: We start with the two most massive black holes, on opposite sides of the universe. (which means they are moving away from each other at a very high speed, and are actually accelerating away from each other) The objects are each at the center of their respective black holes. There are no comparably large black holes in path of either of these black holes. There are no wormholes in the path of either of the black holes. I have just gave you a scenario where it is theoretically impossible for two objects to get closer. Therefore, the resolution "Theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer." has been proven wrong. Feel free to remake this if you're not satisfied with the direction I took it.
Theoretically, two objects that are not touching can always get closer.

This is meant to just be a simple theoretical debate. I am in support of the following theory... Two objects that are not touching can always get closer. To prove my theory, I want you to imagine a line and a wall. This line stretches to the wall but never touches it. BUT, it can always get closer. Let's just begin it with the line stretching so it gets as close as human eye's will allow it to get. Now I want you to add a "theoretical" microscope that can zoom in on anything. Zoom in so it looks as if the line and the wall are far apart again (even though the have not moved). Move the line in again until, through this microscope, it looks as if there is only a small crack in between the line and the wall. Zoom back in and continue doing this (infinitely). Thus, my theory is proven... I wish good luck to my opponent. I reserve the right to clarify and extend my theory. (I heard someone else has come up with this theory but this is what I came up with on my own...) Thanks!
Rap Battle(general)

You're rhymes are so boring Your sh!t has got me snoring Your phrases are so repetitive It's almost like you're anticompetitive You want to sign a peace treaty, sweetie? My rhymes are perhaps too meaty For your minuscule prefrontal cortex Got your head spinning like a vortex Don't deny that you're perplexed What you rapping about killing me for? These lyrics I deplore Your insults I ignore You're beneath me, like an underscore I understand that your jealous I can teach you to be zealous Come hang with me and the fellas Mr. "I'm MC Sleazy" Are you seriously trying to make this easy? Your sh!t is so cheesy It's not even funny, it's so bad I'm getting queasy Everyone knows i'm the best lyrically I can prove it to you empirically You got to read it to feel it You didn't so you wouldn't get it Socialpinko's blood, I'm bout to spill it His homosexual anarchist philosophy, I'm bout to kill it
Rap Battle(general)

You're lucky you were able to come back from my last postBut now I'm lettin loose, time to turn you to toastYou barely limped away but now I'm done going easyI'm a sh1t talking psychopath, my name is MC SleazyWith me I'd really like to see you try to start some beefYou can even have the first move, take the shot chiefYou're such a fvckin pvssy bet you'll back down and walk awayBut I ain't letting up man I've located my next preyRemember this as your cowardly running for your lifeI didn't start sh1t with you, you brought on this strifeAnd now it looks as though your plan has terribly backfiredI'm not stopping til you're dead, for murder I'm wiredFor fighting and gashing I seem to have a sweet toothTo figure out who's going to win it doesn't take a secret sleuthNot running or fleeing away from here was your biggest mistakeBut you'll have time to think of the consequences while your corpse is floating in a lake!
Rap Battle(general)

You're pitiful and narcissistic Your claims are unrealistic I'm 'bout to make this battle fatalistic For my dear fellow socialpinko If it's not apparent he's a stinko Claiming I'm bout to die Sh!t I don't need to try To make this little ignorant pansy boy cry Yes, I called you little I'm about to break your rhymes like brittle Your insults I belittle Your sh!t is old, get with the program This dude's a 100 years old, he probably uses a monogram It's the new age my friend, we're working on a hologram Insulting me on my intelligence, anarchist? I'm starting to get pissed Don't make me show you the fist Nah, all I need is some movement of the wrist To put you in your place Rub the ground with your face I guess I better slow down the pace I don't even need to try to win this race So I'll finish this with grace Now I can write my file against socialpinko's death filing case
Rap Battle(general)

I'm ready for this battle, just looking for a fightYou better not mess with me cause you know that I'll biteIt doesn't matter your defenses, I'll beat you despiteThe time has come now for my raps to igniteI'm tough as sh1t, any obsever has to admitNo one can stand up to or try to evade my witAnd I'm not gonna give up until defeat you submitLike John Wayne and Jeff Bridges I'm a man with true gritYou're as soft and as weak as a little butterflyOf insulting obsevations for you I have a steady supplyI'm not psychic but I can predict that you'll dieWhen I unload my rap skills, no one can denyBut that's enough for now, the worst is yet to comeYour raps are destined to be weak, your just bottom scumYou got less rap skill in your whole body, then I have in my thumbTo accept this rap battle, you've got to be dumb.
Rap Battle(general)

My opponent can't comprehendMy insults were meant to offendFor the last time, I'm not your friendHow dare you bring my mother onto thisFor I protect her like Superman protects MetropolisYou need to be more cautiousYes, I'm starting to get nauseous Not because your flawlessYour rhymes are just so thoughtlessIt's apparent your self-concious Seriously, these death jokes are getting oldI'm the best at this game, beholdYou don't even have enough class to step past my thresholdThroughout DDO you have trolledMaking death threats to people, you ain't BundyThis sh! t isn't even funnyYour so friendly I get more intimated by a bunnyHoney, I'm sorry I can't give you no moneyYou're just some robot like SunnyUsing all these similes, who do you think you are? Buddy, if you think your good, trust me, you are farThese claims are so bizzareI know my words have hurt, sorry about that scarYou ain't no ganster, quit puttin on a frontDrug-dealer, alright kick back and smoke a bluntHe thinks he's a gangster, this dude is twistedHe's never been in a fight, but he has been fisted"I'll kill you", he persistedYou say you're gonna bang my ho? I thought you were a homosexual, broHe's desperate to flowTruth is he's just another John DoeActing all tough, thinking he's the bestOnly reason he started rapping is cause he heard it'd be a sausage fest!
Rap Battle(general)

You dare to accuse me of being a bore I'm an interesting guy, you're the son of a whore My life is filled with drug deals and hard killing The story of my life is disturbing and chilling The world will remember Mr. MC Sleazy I can tell my slick rhymes are making you uneasy You realize you haven't got a chance of surviving A severed horse head to your house will be arriving Cause I'm a ruthless gangster like Vito Corleone Better warn your wife that she'll be sleeping alone But only on the days that I'm not banging that ho I'm a skilled assassin like Miss Beatrix Kiddo Like V2 of Kill Bill I'm coming to murder you I'm a master of Wing Chun, San Shou, and Kung Fu I'll give you an option though I'll let you choose the cause But in the end you're still dead, in the clutch of death's jaws.
Gangnam style is the worst song.

His most recent argument: "See that is none sense if you read the translation" I read the translation and it seems to make plenty of sense to me. It starts with a clear declaration: "Oppa is Gangnam style" Then the artist continues on to describe characteristics of someone who he is attracted to: "A girl who is warm" "A classy girl who know how to enjoy the freedom of a cup of coffee" "A girl who puts her hair down" "A girl who covers herself but is more sexy than a girl who bares it all" He also describes himself: "A guy who is as warm as you during the day" "A guy who one-shots his coffee before it even cools down" "A guy whose heart bursts when night comes" "A guy who seems calm but plays when he plays" "A guy who goes completely crazy when the right time comes" "A guy who has bulging ideas rather than muscles" But ultimately his message is quite clear: "You know what I'm saying Oppa is Gangnam style" I think the lyrics make a lot of sense and are actually quite straight forward, as mainstream pop music goes at least. If this is my opponent's main argument for why Gangnam Style is the worst song ever, it would be easy enough for me to negate the resolution by simply posting some songs that are of even greater "nonsense" attribution than the song under contention. So let's do that. Song that are more nonsensical than Gangnam Style: 1) De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da - The Police 2) Tutti Frutti - Little Richard 3) Ob La Di, Ob La Da - The Beatles 4) Do Wah Diddy - Manfred Mann 5) Zip A Dee Do Da - Louis Armstrong [1] If anything, these songs prove that the amount of "sense" a song makes is not ever indicative of its quality. Some of these songs make far less sense than Gangnam Style and are decent songs in their own right. . .. So the "nonsense argument" made by my opponent is negated and Gangnam Style is also not the worst song ever. I'd like to thank my opponent and I look forward to his next round. [1] . http://kearth101.cbslocal.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Gangnam style is the worst song.

(A vid of this song is posted just in case there are those not familiar with it) . http://www.youtube.com... In this debate I will be arguing that "Gangnam Style" is not the worst song. I am now going to briefly address my opponent's opening arguments. In the next round I will explain why it's actually a decent song, and give examples of worse songs. My opponent's opening arguments: 1) It is in Korean and it doesn't make sense. A song doesn't necessarily have to "make sense" to be good, and the fact that it is in Korean doesn't detract from its quality. There are many great songs that aren't in English. 2) It is random words and some people say bad words about it. It's not random. Its lyrics tell a story and describe a cultural phenomenon. Some people may say bad things about it, that doesn't make it the worst song ever. It's only natural that not everyone is going to like it. 3) They can't even speak English properly. Once again, this doesn't detract from its quality, it was created by a group that makes songs that aren't in the English language. 4) It is a robot looking at the video to make have lots of views. There is no truth in the views. Even if true, the number of Youtube views a song gets is not necessarily indicative of its quality. 5) Some people say it's annoying Some people are going to think every song is annoying. We live in a world of 6 billion people. Someone is going to dislike everything. This certainly doesn't make it the worst song ever. I'll leave it there for now and go into further analysis of this song, and songs that are worse than it in the next round.
Gangnam style is the worst song.

first of all, Gnagnam style is the worst song becuase, it is in Korean and it doesn't make sense. Second of all, it is random words and some people sa bad words about it. They can't even speak English properly. pretty sure that it is a robot looking at the vidoe to make have lots of views. there is no truth int he views. Some people say its annoying. http://ireport.cnn.com... ot prove that it is bad. oep you enjoy :D
The Problem of Existential Import Presents a Counter-Factual Problem for Logical Solutions

.. a topic that you should have taken a course in logic to understand properly. We are NOT debating practical problem-solving, but rather the technical logical aspect of it, which is why this is only two rounds. I'm curious if there are any opposing viewpoints out there. In layman's terms, existential import is the notion that when someone claims "Some P is a Q" they assume that at least one P exists. For example, one claims "Some pens are pens that write green," this presumes that there in fact exist one or more pens. A counter-factual is a "what if" argument. A good example would be the argument that "If Nazi Germany had won WWII, Jews would still be egregiously persecuted. " While the argument is valid, it is not sound because it has a false premise. It would even most likely be a correct argument, given that the premise were true. Thus, we have a problem: to introduce abstract principles like perfect geometrical figures, unicorns, fairies, god, etc. .. into any logical argument, one would need to first show that they exist, because to do otherwise would introduce a counter-factual. So, even though the reasoning may be perfectly correct as far as we understand it in daily life, the problem of existential import for the abstraction that we're referring to causes a counter-factual premise problem in a logical argument. AFFIRMED.
Who is the worst Pokemon

It's now Garbodor. I actually like Pokemon Black and White's Pokedex a lot. It features a lot of refreshing designs that... oh god what is that thing? It's like... a pile of garbage, but with eyes. Is it... is it supposed to look like that? Why does it look so happy? Is this is the final form of the guy from Robocop who gets dunked in the toxic waste? If he hadn't exploded, I mean? No seriously, why is this thing in Pokemon? I really want to know. Actually, never mind. I don't think I do.
Who is the worst Pokemon

There are hundreds of pokemon out currently and plenty are not qualified to be considered in the top tier of pokemon. Which pokemon do you think ranks lowest of all in terms of stats, abilities, weaknesses, design, or overall lack of strategic usability. Rules:1) Pokemon must be at it's evolved form (no babies/pre-evolutions)2) Pokemon must not be legendary/uber3)This opinion has to have a well rounded basis(not just because you don't like the pokemon)4)Have fun and be creative