BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Story Writing Debate (see rules for genre)

Chapter II: Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite I quickly slammed the closet shut "What in all that is good and holy?" "Honey is everything ok" "Yes everything is fine just closed the closet a little to rough" "Well I have to grab a few things from the store, do you want anything." "Uhh...No...Thanks" "Are you sure you are alright" "Never been better." "I will be back in a couple hours." "Love you" "I love you to" ............the door shut "I got to do something about this" I went to my police bag and grabbed an evidence bag. I put the machete inside, but took a sample of the dry blood on it. After I took the sample I put the bag with the machete inside in my bed stand drawer and locked it. I drove down back to the station to go the forensic lab to get some DNA testing done. That is where I met Dr. Lindsey Booth. "Hello Dr. Booth" "Hello Detective Zimmer, why are you here" "I need you to run this sample of dry blood" "Is this from that kidnap case" "Yes" "I heard about it, sorry" "I just need you to compare the DNA in that blood to the victims to see if there is a match" "Ok, but didn"t they search her apartment and found zero evidence" "Well, we found some" "Come back in two days I should have the results by then" "Thank you" I drove back home and laid down on my coach and started crying. "How could this be at all possible"""THE DREAMS!!!" Now it started to make some sense those violent dreams I was having could they be at all connected. I ran to make kitchen and grabbed the phone book and flipped the page to find a doctor that specialized in sleep, I found a Dr. Henry Gob. I grabbed my phone and started to dial 552-1235"beep".beep". "Hello Dr. Gob"s office the sleep doctor how can I help you" "Yes I"m Jake Zimmer I would like to make an appointment" "What date do you want to make this appointment sir" "Can you fit me in today" "Today? Well I can fit you into 5 does that work for you?" "Sounds perfect" "Have a nice day" "Good bye" I sat there waiting for an hour the longest hour I have ever waited for when it was quarter to 5 then took off and sat down with Dr. Gob. "Well what seems to be the matter Mr. Zimmer." "I have had problems sleeping" "What kind of problems" "I keep having violent dreams of murder and kidnapping." "Well this sounds every interesting, do you mind if you spend the night here and I will do some tests to see what the problems are." "That will be wonderful" "You should call your wife and tell her you won"t be home tonight." I called my wife and told her that I would be here at the hospital doing a sleep test. I then went to my room and changed into my hospital clothes and laid in the hospital bed. "Get comfortable Mr. Zimmer we will be watching you vital signs to see it there is any problems and we will be checking brain activity." "Sounds great." "We will no put you under" "Ok" "Don"t worry you will be just fine." "How will"..I know".if the".drugs are"..working" "You will see soon enough" "I"".don"t even feel"".I thing"." """"""NO STOP THE TEST""" "What is going on" I had gotten out of bed and punched through the glass in my hospital room. "What is wrong with me?"
Story Writing Debate (see rules for genre)

I like the detective POV, good job. Chapter Two: The shrill scream echoed in my ears. I scrambled out of the tent and headed towards claire's tent. I opened the flap and saw what she was screaming at. A spider.... "You woke me up for a daddy long legs?" Aj mumbled, and layed back down. I was upset, but I suppose it wasn't worth yelling over. I stumbled out and headed back to my tent. I was exhausted from the hike and heavily needed some sleep. I layed down and fell asleep almost instantly. When I woke up in the morning, the tour guide chase told us that today we would hike out to the very bottom of the canyon, and take a boat on the river to the next campground, where we would stay the night and then begin our hike back up. We decided to explore a bit afterwords. Me and AJ went walking through the woody area. We had some lunch with us, and finally decided to sit down and eat after about an hour. "So, whad' you think" Aj asked, munching on an apple. "It's pretty cool" I replied, taking a sip of mountain dew. "Yeah, hey remember when steve tried to pee on us?" "Yeah, why?" "I paid him five bucks to." I laughed. Afterthat we finished our lunch and decided to go back, it was already about 7:00 at night. I guess Chase decided to wait til tommorow to head out, I thought. We walked back to the campground, where we saw Claire and Liz crying, and Steve's mouth open wide. Laying beside them was Chase. He had a big gash right below his temple, and a bunch of stab wounds around his chest. His shirt was ripped and drenched with oozing red blood. He had a single bullet hole in his forehead as well. Blood dripped down his head into the grass.
Homosexuality between consenting adults should be illegal

Pro believes that she can simply make the debate any way she wants it, changing the entire concept to the context of a theocracy. She does not really have the ability to do this, however, I will humor her. Even in a theocracy in which homosexuality was illegal, does that mean that it SHOULD be illegal? Not at all. Just because it is a policy of the party does not make it right. My opponent bases her argument on several logical fallacies which discount her argument entirely. She assumes that simply because something is policy of a theocracy at the time, it is correct for that theocracy. She mentions the bible, which is an argument to authority She mentions Adminejad's point of view, which is also an argument to authority. Just because in totalitarian christian theocracies like Adminejad's homosexuality is illegal does not mean that it SHOULD be illegal.
Gender

You still have not made a single point, and I, unlike you, did not directly insult you, it was actually constructive criticism. https://dornsife.usc.edu... (notice, Wendy Wood is psychologist) https://en.wikipedia.org... (To be specific, I would like you only to read the biological section) My point in all of this is that gender is purely mental, there is nothing physical about just about any of the other genders. This is also justifiable by looking at just about any other living thing. You don't walk outside and see that dog that was female yesterday and male today, you likely don't see hamsters being depressed because of what gender they are. There has not been a single biologist talk about gender, it's all only ever psychologists, what right do they have to talk about what sex people can and can't be? Even in the article that I gave, the biologists proved that there are no genders other than male or female. Until I hear a biologist tell me that there are all these other genders and sexes, I will stay true to my point. To combat the problem of so many people believing that there are these 60 different genders I wish to spread the word through websites, social media, and possibly others. But I think the main cause of it is people being so mentally sensitive. Actually, an estimated 700,000 people change genders a year. Please respond with a real argument, I would greatly appreciate it, thank you.
Gender

You did not even begin to rebuttal against my point, nor did you understand it. (For the people of the comments, I may make another debate like this because I realize you are right, my mistake). I was not saying that you are whatever you were born as, was saying that there are only the two genders. There is transgender, male, and female, but nothing else. As I said, it makes no sense to be something other than male or female, you can't be both, or neither. Also your wrong, its not what people want to be, it's what people mentally FEEL they are. To want and to feel are two very different things. Hopefully you give this another try.
Gender

gender/sex/anyofthatotherbullsh#t does not exist, it is all a social construct, people are whatever they want to be, having a "penis" does not make you a "boy" and having a "vagina" does make you a "girl" at birth you are whatever your (facist) parents decide you to be, there is no proof forr "sex" existing and trying to say that somone is a "boy" or "girl" because of the meat on they're bones is nothing dshort of facism
Gender

I believe that there is really only the two genders, male and female. I am not implying that if you are born a male then you are a male but you can't be both or neither. If you are a guy and want to dress like a girl, that's fine but don't expect others to acknowledge it. For example if you see a girl walk into a men's bathroom and her excuse is that she just feels like a guy,do you just turn the other cheek? Also how could you be any other gender, because you feel like you are neither. What defines what gender you feel like you are? Is it your certain emotions? It makes no sense to be both because what you are a male but want to be a female but is also partially male? It makes no sense
are developed counteries more responsible for climatic changes than develloping or underdevelloped

i don't know why would you post an argument if you don't want a debate, i could have had a better debate with you actually opposing me, any how i should finish this. The underdeveloped countries are still burning wood, firstly they are cutting trees that could take in c2o and then also creating more smoke that would pollute the air. the fertilizers they use, the make the soil go useless in some years time and then again so plantation. the toxic is drained in the water causing the fishes to die and the trees to get toxic water that would kill them and again increase the amount of pollution. They are unaware and they don't take care of their society that ultimately has a bad global effect.
are developed counteries more responsible for climatic changes than develloping or underdevelloped

the problem with the underdeveloped countries is lack of education which ultimately results in the lack of knowledge of what they are doing, they don't really care about what they are using when it comes to environments, the underdeveloped countries do not have the proper sense of where to dump the garbage and they destroy a whole lot of a beautiful land that would surely be protected by a developed country,the gases that will be produces while the process of decomposition will not be utilized as energy but wasted as a toxic material to the environment.
are developed counteries more responsible for climatic changes than develloping or underdevelloped

No i do not agree with this, developed countries are trying their level best to avoid the use of substances and chemicals that are unhealthy to the environment where as the underdeveloped countries are only producing such substances without being well aware of the consequences. they dump toxic waste into rivers and streams polluting the water that will effect fields than crops and eventually the whole environment. they are not aware of what should be done and what should not be done. secondly, the underdeveloped countries have no knowledge about the preservation of plants and water, they have factories and less plants, roads and less trees and the water there is not clean, they waste water and that is one of the reasons why they are underdeveloped, countries like US and UK are less polluted than countries such as India and Pakistan. Although there is more population but rules are or not violated there and they care more about their environment where as the people in the underdeveloped countries are careless to their surroundings.
Legalization of polygamy

"Ok now this definition does not include the consent of both the partners involved . now that is POLYAMORY as stated by me in round one. "The opposition is still trying to say that polygamy does not involve consent. Like I said, a lack of consent between parties in marriage is FORCED MARRIAGE, which is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Forced marriage is a problem that can occur in any form of marriage, polygamous or not. "many women in different parts of world are dominated by men they are also forced in these types of marriages. "Again, this is NOT a debate about forced marriage. Many women are FORCED to be in monogamous marriages, too. .. Does that mean that we should get rid of the entire institution of marriage altogether? This issue is not directly related to polygamy; "forced marriage" has nothing to do with the basic definition of polygamy. "Since the number of babies born are near equal male vs female, for a man to take extra mates leaves that many men without mates. "The opposition poses a very hypothetical argument that is reminiscent of one that is often used against gay marriages ("if everyone became homosexual, no one would make babies. ") Not everyone wants to be in a polygamist marriage; in fact, a very vast minority does. Hence, such a hypothetical prediction of large-scale ramifications is unwarranted. Personal Accounts:These people did not have problems with polygamy itself, but rather with family issues that can sometimes be present in monogamous marriages. Attributing their issues to the fact that they are in polygamist marriages is not logically sound. If one were to go to a battered women's shelter, one could hear personal accounts of women in monogamous marriages whose husbands beat them and cheat on them. Polygamy itself is not the cause of these problems. I would like to thank the opposition for participating in this debate with me. I would like to remind voters that voting is not based on opinion but rather effectiveness of argument.
Legalization of polygamy

My dear friend is too much considered about winning this debate.and he is trying to be the judge of this debate...My dear friend in round one states the definition of polygamy as"Polygamy": a marriage which involves >2 partnersOk now this definition does not include the consent of both the partners involved .now that is POLYAMORY as stated by me in round one.now he is trying win ground by just taking out flaws in my writing and saying that my source is not authentic.My claims are copied but certainly not wrong , they are true in many parts of this world.and about my writing i am not writing essays here my mind works and i just type. My dear friend does not want look outside united states..and has not looked into the ill effects of polygamy(he still confused with polygyny and polyamory).My friend has taken factors like 'one love', 'freedom of choice' to debate on this topic,these factors only apply to a single person and people associated with it,and we all know many women in different parts of world are dominated by men they are also forced in these types of marriages.that is why modern society only sees 'polygyny'.Read to Find out why polygamy just ca't exist in modern world.http://gonzoreality.wordpress.com...Gender Inequality.Since the number of babies born are near equal male vs female, for a man to take extra mates leaves that many men without mates. For the mathematically challenged, if a man has 4 wives, that leaves three (3) men with no wives, no mates, no outlets for the sexual desires, no chance at a family life, and no fulfillment that is afforded by having a family.http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com...Here are some real life accounts of people who suffered from these type of marriageshttp://helpthechildbrides.com...http://jezebel.com...
Legalization of polygamy

Comments on definitions/introduction of CON: "polygamy exclusively form of a 'polygyny'" This quote that was presented by the opposition does not appear in the source. A more accurate quote from Thom Brooks in The Problem of Polygamy is "Today, 'polygamy' almost exclusively takes the form of polygyny." This statement, I concede, is absolutely true. Moreover, established conditions stated that the "[f]irst arguments of both sides are strictly allotted for acceptance statement, setting terms of debate, and establishing definitions." The opposition disregarded these conditions and proceeded to introduce his argument ("Defence of polygamy reduces...") This lack of integrity is worth noting. Argument:Freedom of choice:Traditionally, US law upholds the concept of freedom of choice. People have the right to choose who they form relationships with. We have the right to not have our family lives interfered, and we have a right to privacy. Although such rights are certainly not absolute, the government must take extreme care when crossing these bounds. In this situation, governmental perpetration of these bounds are not warranted. A threat to the family unit?: A family unit is not undermined simply by the addition of extra parental figures. All providers, regardless of number, can play a role in the home and in the family. Partners of the same sex in a polygamous relationship, usually women, develop a bond that is stronger than friendship, since they share the common goal of making the same man happy; this plays a critical role in forming a stable polygamous marriage. We see many issues in some monogamous marriages, such as unbalanced family roles between husband and wife and between siblings. It can be established that there are good polygamous marriages and bad polygamous marriages, just like there are good monogamous marriages and bad monogamous marriages. It can be ascertained that a good polygamous marriage is certainly more stable than a bad monogamous marriage. One love?: The concept that a person is only meant to be "in true love" with a single individual is false. This idea was formed through a specific culture (at a specific time and place) and has been adapted into our modern society. We forget, however, that many societies before us had accepted polygamous marriage. We must remember that this was not done so due to promiscuity, but rather a powerful desire to spend the rest of one's life with certain individuals, just like in a monogamous marriage. Adultery: In a polygamous marriage, there is less of a chance that adultery would take place, since there are many alternative available for sexual exploration. As an aside, though, this is not because the sole purpose of a polygamous marriage is to have sex, but rather because there is a sexual aspect to polygamous marriage, just as there is for a monogamous marriage.
Legalization of polygamy

First of all let me define polygamy in today's world " polygamy exclusively form of a 'polygyny' , one man too many wives (The Problem of Polygamy by Thom Brooks) POLYAMORY is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Defence of polygamy reduces marriages to only a sexual relationship,whereas institution of marriage demads more than sex its about two indivijuals living a life for themselves and their children. Rules: your defence my counter attack
Predestination (Pro/For) vs. Free Will (Con/Against)

I have a feeling that my opponent may or may not know what Predestination is, so I am going to give him the definition for it so he can fully understand."PREDESTINATION is the biblical doctrine that God in His sovereignty chooses certain individuals to be saved."http://www.gotquestions.org...This is Predestination in a nutshell. I am now going to analyze my opponent's argument in a very specific and biblical way. "If we do not have free will, then none of us could be at a fault for what we do. But then there could be no sin without free will, as in order to sin you must be morally culpable for your action. And if there is no sin, what does Christ redeem us from? Nothing."My opponent believes that predestination states that everything we do is predestined... Meaning we are like puppets. This is inaccurate and I will explain why.Predestination is a broad term, but specifically used in the Bible to describe the coming to salvation. Meaning, the word predestination can mean that God predetermined some things to happen to some people, but in the case of salvation, he handled everything."No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44It is with this informatoin that we can then go to Romans 8:28 - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."In this case, the parallel between Romans and John is called and drawed. They are the same thing in this case, which means that only the ones the Lord calls will he justify and glorify, meaning God doesn't call everyone nor draw everyone.The Bible does teach that we have a WILL, but Free Will is a completely different subject. Free Will means that God does not interfere with our actions and that we have the ability to do anything we want at anytime, and basically God can't do anything about it. That is unbiblical. As I stated in my previous argument, God hardened Pharoah's heart, which violated Pharoah's free will. God doesn't predestine every person's actions, because then he would predestine sin, which would go against his character like my opponent stated. We do have a will, but FREE WILL is a whole different story which there is no biblical evidence for.My opponent needs to provide Biblical Evidence for free will, because a 70 word argument isn't going to win him the debate. I have evidence for my case and so far he hasn't given any except his subjective stance.
Naive realism (or externalism) is probably false

I have accepted this debate.I will be making the agrument that due to Constructive perception we due perceive objects as they really are, that they are are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly by anyone with Cs in high school. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them, but that under the laws of physics that act of observing them does change there properties in a predictable way.Constructive perception- intelligent perception; is the theory of perception in which the perceiver uses sensory information and other sources of information to construct a cognitive understanding of a stimulus.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Naive realism (or externalism) is probably false

This debate is impossible to accept. Please post in the comments if you wish to take this debate.Definitions"Naive realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses. The [naive] realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them."http://en.wikipedia.org...Rules72 hours to respond10,000 characters per round2 week voting periodNo Elo limit. I don’t predict much poor or bias voting.Select winner votingR1: Acceptance/introductionR2: Arguments and rebuttalR3: Arguments and rebuttalR4: No new arguments. No new sources. No referencing sources from previous rounds unless citing information that you’ve already mentioned. Summary.If the voting period ends with the event of a tie, my opponent must agree to opening a 2nd debate that will allow one person to break the tie (or just leave it open for a few days).