BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SickInTheHeadz

"Just explained. Virginity is a good thing instead of a bad thing. " No, Virginity is a bad thing and you should get rid of it. Also explaining and proving are two different things. You didn't prove anything, So everything that you said is invalid. But of course, You can't understand something like this, Because your virgin brain is just a complete and utter failure. You also misunderstood what religion even means. Religion has multiple definitions, And you just picked the one that excluded Juche as a religion. This just proves that you are dishonest at arguing and are intentionally misunderstanding things. Actual definition of religion: "a particular system of faith and worship" - Second definition on google. See? You fail every time, Failing over and over again. Your explanations are so dumb and illogical. Also, Actual definition of Juche: "The belief that masses(majority) are masters of everything and that everything should serve their wishes". Or as Kim Jong Il said it: "If it is the wish of the masses, Flowers must be grown on rocks". I don't know why you even pretend to know something, When it is obvious that you are uneducated and dishonest debater who cannot even form an actual attack. You actually said that my summaries are bad because I put same message in every summary, But you didn't prove that it's bad, So that's another minus for you. Also, If that's the best argument you have against me, Then I don't know what to tell you. You are a complete failure. The rest of your comment is just pure nonsense, Doesn't even deserve attention.
SickInTheHeadz

I did debate with you before. This is an idea how you would be in real life. these are quotes of you in general. "Activities:I am thinking about death. Death is peace. Freedom from pain, Suffering or boredom. Happiness, While being as good as it is, It is not permanent. It is only temporary. But death is long lasting, If not eternal peace. Beliefs:I am thinking about death. Death is peace. Freedom from pain, Suffering or boredom. Happiness, While being as good as it is, It is not permanent. It is only temporary. But death is long lasting, If not eternal peace. " Ok i saw this right off the page of your profile. You are thinking about death. You want to die. You don't want to suffer within the contemporary world. I get that point. But it makes no sense whatsoever that you are trying to be so classy and eventually giving every category this as the placeholder instead of each have its own. EVEN SPORTS. EVEN SONGS. Again if you want to die why are you here? It is a very easy goal to achieve to "Die" but you are not doing it whatsoever. I understand why you want to die. It is just like bad people being bad considered bad makes them trying to be useless and bad. I can tell that for you being a troll like 12InchBeef and a perv is bad enough to give up on this life, But: "I like Yummy Cheese" This is what 12InchBeef posts on the profile. At least he has his own belief. He can like delicious cheese, But it is not okay to plagiarize a belief to mad that the entire contention is completely filled with such. I don't think this idea is coming from you. This is what old philosophers say when exclaiming about life and death. Of course you have the rights thinking about that, But it is less beneficial than harmful. "My logical position is on suffering and happiness. From these two, I deduce the following moral laws: 1) Good is something that is our goal and that we should seek to achieve, Bad is something that is not our goal and that we shouldn't seek to achieve. 2) Decreasing suffering is good, Increasing suffering is bad. 3) Increasing happiness without increasing suffering is good, Decreasing happiness without decreasing suffering is bad. 4) Increasing happiness that results in increasing suffering is bad, Decreasing happiness that results in decreasing suffering is good. 5) Increasing the amount of life and happiness on Earth without increasing suffering is good. I consider suffering to be the worst thing in the world, Even worse than killing and murder. I am pro abortion. I am pro euthanasia. I am completely anti-child birth. " stop being weird. I am not opposing that you are bad, But these are too long and boring. Most likely that you are trying to let most people leave this page or to investigate it, To not let them discover that you are a perv and troll guy. I saw your comment about that 5 rounds are too much for this topic, But this is the point: try to prove that you are the sane one and i am the crazy one opposing to the place of mine. this is just the first argument. I am sure you will let me down by plagiarizing and doing things useless, But try. Try is better than not trying (duh. ). See you next round.
Legalisation of Weed: Another Big Mistake

Thank you for your response. I would like to address quite a few things my opponent has missed. First of all, saying that THC cannot be compared to opioids is wrong. It is obvious there are differences in the chemical compounds and effects they have on the body, but the level of how addictive it is, is very comparable. On top of that, if my opponent had referred to my source of the claim, he would have seen that it is too early to call either way. But, rather that there is a possibility that it has many similarities to opiates. (1) (1): https://www.drugabuse.gov... Also, noting that just because the government will sell it clean does not mean that it will remain so. Marijuana is becoming more and more legalised as time goes on, yet the amount of synthetic or highly dosed THC marijuana also increases. (2) People just need to get their hands on it in order to do something bad with it. Who is to say that once recreational marijuana is legalised, that people won't start selling modified versions of marijuana? Very much a possibility which is already being foreseen according to my article. Not to mention how addictive it actually is, then I would use the term "Gateway Drug" as an accurate title for what marijuana is. (3) Now, while it is true that the majority may not move to harder drugs, but a good amount do, along with the rise in THC levels, the amount of hard drug use is bound to increase and has been. Not to mention the effects on brain development for underage people and the effects it passes on during reproduction. So if a person is addicted to smoking marijuana, the child is more likely to also become addicted. (2): https://www.drugabuse.gov... (3): https://www.drugabuse.gov... Lastly, I ask my opponent to reread my argument for a comparison to alcohol. I did not say marijuana is deadlier than alcohol, I said that previously in our history, we have allowed for alcohol to be completely legalised to the point of no return. And because of that choice, we are suffering immense consequences including death, cancer, etc of many people. Not to say that weed will entail the exact same consequences, but I would rather not wait and see what will happens until it's too late. I do believe that we don't know enough about drugs and the effects it has on a person, but we need to keep it illegal until we can have a much better understanding.
Legalisation of Weed: Another Big Mistake

My opponent began their argument by comparing the Cannabis Crusade to the opioid epidemic- although it may not seem too far off, a depressant like THC simply cannot be compared to opioids like Heroin, Vicodin, Percocet, and Oxycontin. Now, synthetic Marijuana (Spice, 2k) can be put in the same boat as these opioids for the danger it poses to the user- lucid hallucinations, excruciating pain, etc. But, if the U.S. government makes a move on legalizing marijuana, it is likely to be FDA regulated, eliminating the threat of legal synthetic marijuana. Take the state of Colorado for example; the stores and distributors of marijuana there are regulated by state and federal programs to make sure sellers aren't poisoning or hooking their customers. If it is legalized, weed will be clean. The next argument posed by my opponent was the correlation of incidents between alcohol and marijuana, as if marijuana were as harmful or more harmful than alcohol. I'd like to address the fact that no matter the substance, a DUI is still the same. Also, it is realistically impossible to overdose on THC- over two tons of cannabis in weight would need to be consumed in a period close to an hour long. The effects of alcohol on the liver lead to cirrhosis and liver failure if consumed profusely, and marijuana does no damage to the lungs and has been scientifically proven to NOT cause emphysema or black lung. In fact, the tendencies of consumers to "hold it in" to get them high has been proven to expand the average capacity of the alveoli in the lungs. Marijuana is mentally addictive, like any other substance, but alcohol is both mentally and physically addictive. If an alcoholic were to give alcohol the cold turkey, their bodies would give excruciating psychosomatic responses...marijuana, on the other hand, does no such thing. The last benefit Marijuana has over alcohol is that the use of THC connects synapses in neurons to think about one common idea, and to focus on it. Alcoholics have been known to focus on quitting the bottle by using marijuana to relieve them of their psychosomatic responses, and to focus on quitting, My opponent has stated "two wrongs don't make a right"...but how are both alcohol and marijuana "wrongs" when marijuana is clearly a right? (Double meaning)
Legalisation of Weed: Another Big Mistake

While typically, I am pro legalisation of marijuana, in this debate I want to challenge myself and take the stance of anti-legalisation. Considering when arguing for the notion that legalisation would be more beneficial to our society, usually alcohol is brought up in the context that it is more dangerous than and kills many times more people than weed does. Now before I get into that, one of the other main issues here is opioid addiction. The high rise in addiction, not just worldwide, but also in the US leads to many concerned about how we can fight this addiction while noting that being addicted can lead to many health issues (1). In stating this addiction problem, I attempt to compare the THC levels found in weed as similar to the effects of opiates. (2) Understand that a lot more research needs to be done when it comes to making the conclusion that they are bad or good, however, I would rather not take the risk. Therefore, until we know more, keep it illegal. Now, returning to my alcohol comparison, people note that alcohol has killed millions of people in America over time. So why are people so hung up over weed when alcohol does twice as much damage? I completely agree. I wish we could do this to alcohol but because we didn't, we see many people dying as a result of it being normalised. Understanding this, I don't want to have a future where this type of logic continues in order to legalise substances. Just because alcohol is normal and legal, doesn't mean it's good for us. Two wrongs don't make a right. I look forward to anyone's response. 1. https://www.drugabuse.gov... 2.https://www.drugabuse.gov...
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

I see the basic problem here, so let me now address that. "All Christians should support the separation of church and state." All, meaning every, Christians, meaning someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (which you can learn about in any Bible that contains both the Old and New Testament ), either generally or specifically, Should, meaning in this context, have a moral obligation to, Support, meaning assist, The, meaning something previously mentioned or about to be mentioned, or assumed to be common knowledge, Separation, meaning moving something apart or dividing it into distinct elements, Of, meaning in this context referring to which specific thing, Church, meaning a building used for public worship, And, which is a conjunction used to connect words in a sentence, State, meaning government. I can continue to do this with each of our posts, but there is a key piece of information that has been brought to my attention which, if stated in my next post, would secure this debate for me alone. So, in light of this knowledge, I suggest what is known in chess as a draw. If you choose not to accept a draw, I will win in my next post.
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

Indeed, i made mistakes in my spellings not because i can't spell it but because i was using predictions to type but thats not withstanding, you have not even given us one reason to support your arguement...now let me start by exposing your weaknesses..1.you have not given any solid arguement, you only base on corrections which is not even reboutal 2.when i quoted martin king, you should first of all understand the quote before you try to afress 3.you don't even match me not to talk of debating me in what manner you call it because you don't even have a stand which is the foundation upon which your arguement is been built...based on this, i am the leader in this arguement..moreover, if you want to give a full reboutal, you should learn how to...you said you don't want to even lose any round, so should i have mercy on you? It is a game of chess agreed but that is if you win..you have even committed fallacy based on your first outing because you are pleading that you wouldn't like to lose any..so dear, give us substansive reason to back up your points..you said you will report this arguement because of uncivil reasons but when i checked my dictionary to see the uncivily, it was nothin to write home about..please this is round 3 and you have not given us your substansive arguement
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

Let me go through your entire argument and address each point one by one, to show you that your entire premise in round 2 is faulty, and that if I decided to, I could report this argument and you'd be made to look very bad. 1: I was being compassionate when debating you, because I inferred that you can't spell, you seemed like a decent person, and I thought, okay, give this guy a break. Debate him at his level. 2: I said in my original statement that Intelligence has been likened to a game of chess and I do not intend to lose one round. That is still the case; however, when I read your argument to my original opening, as I said before, I was assuming that you were a decent person with a very somewhat limited education that I should show mercy to, and maybe the whole "Intelligence is chess" argument didn't apply to this particular situation. I see that I was wrong in assuming that. Allow me to continue to blast holes into your argument one by one in each of your previous posts and each future post. It will happen if you are not civil from this point on. 3: As mentioned in point 2, I was civil in my first post to you; you were anything but civil in your post to me. I will remain civil from this point on, will you? 4: You continue to call Christians "chritians." Let me go on the record and say now, I am a Christian, not a "chritian", whatever that is. You assume I am talking about segregation, therefore accusing me of being a racist, do I read you correctly? In no way am I a racist. You say it is impunity to even mention something, but you do not specify what. Why don't you go research the definition of impunity and you'll find out some interesting stuff. 5: At the very end of your argument, you say, "my stand still remains, chritians should not allow I repeat, should not allow such because it will weigh down the powers of our government". Oh, no! Let us please not weigh down the powers of our government, whatever we do!! Am I being ironic, or were you? I thought that you said at the beginning of your argument that our government is the greatest purveyor of violence. But please, continue to explain why you are the leader in this argument. Or, step up and debate me civilly, as I attempted to do when I read your reply to my first post. Either way, if you continue to behave uncivilly, I will report this argument, for reasons that I haven't even begun to explain.
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

The greatest purveyor of violence, is our own goverment 'martin king junior' take it or leave it, based on the motion which was to be debated, you have failed in all ramification because you did not explain in your rich text what you meant which makes me the leader in this arguement..thats not withstanding,I Will be addressing the non issue which was raised by the proposistion side, the question still remains, whats your stand on this matter? None. Whats your arguement? None. Which shows that the proposition side, does not even have any arguement, or stand upon which their arguement is to be built.....judging based on the explanation which was portrayed by by you, if chritians should be allowed to seperate, the goverment as the governing councel of every state, will have limited power which will weigh down the government in all ramification and that is never the type of country we would like to befit our future generation to...my stand still remains, chritians should not allow I repeat, should not allow such because it will weigh down the powers of our government
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

Okay, so, I believe that you misunderstand what the term "separation of church and state" means. Separation of church and state simply refers to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (http://www.pbs.org...) It simply means that Government will have a hands off approach to religion, and that government will not establish a national religion. (http://www.pbs.org...) Basically it means, "Hey, government, leave religion alone. Neither force anyone to worship in a specific way, nor should you prohibit anyone from worshiping how they want."
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

Martin lurther king junior was wise when he said'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' tracing this to the motion at hand, why should all chritians accept seperation which i will term segregation? So we should accept what will bring hatred? What will bring jealousy? What will bring competition in the church? Indeed it is impunity to even mention that..ponder on this, lets critically analyze this, when we accept segregation, it will in all ramification bring hatred people from this church will always encourage you not to go to the other one rather theirs which is jealousy and that is not what we want as chritians, and if there is seperation of churches, it will lead to hatred because one from this denomination, will never accept what is been done in the other denomination as a good thing..ponder on this, lets look at the issue of state, should we segregate? Don't we know that if we seperate, it means we re against one another? And that is indeed what we do not want so ladies and gentlemen, i think I am ahead of this arguement based on the fact that segregation is not good which is my stand
All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

I admit it, you are already begging for draw when you have not raised any argument..you only defined some basic terms which will aid to your argument but you have not presented any argument. My question is this, what is your stand? You don't even have any stand on this debate which makes me the leader in this argument..that's not withstanding, based on the argument, I still say that goverment should be allowed to make decision as regards to formation, and other activities because when we clearly look at the definition of government, it incompasses on taking care of the affair of the state which the church is even involved..my dear, when i quoted martin king junior, that the greatest purveyor of violence is our own goverment, the goverment there is you and I so don't misunderstand me.
Don't divide by zero

I have returned and am ready to post so, If one is to divide by zero then catastrophic events would soon precede..[1] You have even stated yourself (in a quote) that dividing by zero in normal math would be useless... -Of course it is.. if one was to divide by zero in normal math ( not that you ever see this ) apocalyptic events would occur ( thus is the reason you never see it in schools ) causing massive damage to the planet. If in math there is in fact problems that we can use divide by zero then why not get taught said problems? instead we are told " Dividing by zero is impossible". As stated by my opponent in a quote "there are a few areas of advanced mathematics where it is useful" This would be where those desert explosions come in... you see using small calculators scientists use divide by zero to test is destructive power. Doing these test help to show what size calculators would destroy large areas and which sizes would just destroy small patches. I await my opponents response [1] http://monsterrebellion.files.wordpress.com...
Don't divide by zero

I realize this was supposed to be a joke debate, but there's not much here to mine for humor beyond the bog-standard 4-Chan meme, so I'll play it straight. As evidenced, dividing by zero has utility in higher mathematics. Pro's joke videos are obviously edited. Since nuclear blasts relating to calculators would be common knowledge if factual, and the potential would require heavy regulation and prohibition of calculators, it obviously is not factual. The claim of conspiracy is evidenced and can be disregarded. I was up for a humor debate, but a humorous debate requires more than just repeating a tired meme. Dividing by zero is useful in specific instances and no harms have been successfully argued for, even in an absurdist fashion.
Don't divide by zero

-Well if the link truly does not show the image then I shall explain its contents... -It was the earth half enveloped in flame from what appears to be an explosion from a calculator dividing by zero. -My opponent claims that this video proves that dividing by zero causes no explosions but, The calculator used in the video is old and HAS NOT divided by zero but merely is looking for the answer... as said in the video it would take many many MANY years for it to reach its answer... at that point it would explode into an extreme and vibrant explosion destroying everything.. (Think of the "finding the answer" as a countdown to the explosion when it finally does find it). -As for the other calculators... they are made by companies that are in with the scientist mentioned in round 2. These calculators are say error and do not actually tell you the answer to what "X"/0 is. Thus they do not explode. Unlike the old one that looks for it and would eventually. When it will find the answer it will indeed explode, -Here is an example of an an protected calculator[1] http://www.youtube.com...; And there you have it.. a calculator that is unprotected will indeed explode into a cataclysmic blast >..>.... <..<
Don't divide by zero

Pro's link that purports to prove division by zero causes disastrous effects leads to a file-name of an image. Not an image, just a file-name. However, despite the lack of evidence, there is a simple way to disprove this. Pro has said that dividing by zero on the commonly seen calculator produces explosions. Here is a video collection of trying to divide by zero on a few different calculators: http://www.youtube.com... No explosions. No special effects. I realize this is a 4-chan meme, but it hasn't been that funny here.