BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Battle royale beats the Hunger Games

Cool, my first one too. I'm gonna start with relationships. In The Hunger Games each person only knows one other person. In most cases they weren't even close. In BR they were all from the same class, and they might be paired with their best friends, siblings, lovers whatever. It helped add the emotion to it. I would also like to talk censorship. In the movies Battle Royale was able to use the blood and gore to make it more realistic and in a way more scarey, as it looks like these people are really dieing. In the Hunger Games the amount of young fans from the book meant that they couldn't give the film the gore that sort of film needs. My third point is the fans. Most huger games fans have never seen battle royale and, manly due to them being 13-16 on average, won't believe you when you tell them that the hunger games is too similar to be properly good. I await you responce. Good luck!
Battle royale beats the Hunger Games

I accept this argument. Before we begin, I want to state beforehand that 1) I have not seen the Hunger Games movie, but I have *only* book 1, and know the details. 2) I have not seen the Battle Royale movie or read the book, but have read the Battle Royale manga. I state these in the belief that they are sufficient to argue. Additionally, although I take the con role, I will state my opinion is most likely tied/no opinion in specifics, doing this as more of a devil's advocate to the original argument, in hopes of an interesting debate. Additionally, it should be noted that this is my first debate here, and should I fail any rules, I hopefully don't do them intentionally. Good luck, have fun.
Grammer iz moore impoortent then spehling.

"If you are racist, I will attack you with the North." ~Abe LincolnDisstingwished Guessts. Beeluved Call-leagues. Deerest Assocites.Meh oppoenent haz poested ah verry lahng speach ahbout teh engrish languge. Butt beecuz itt waz az boreing az crap, and filld wif collage leval mumbo-jumbo, eye fell assleep affter 7.4 secends, and woahke uhp inn ah duhmpstur. Wat uhp wif dat?... ...Annieways.Eye tink meh oppoenent haz two maine pionts (maybee tree?), sew Eye will responed two thoose write now.1: Teh Smart Guys.Hee sayed taht FanStory.com haz 14 rulez four righting, ahnd rule numbur 6 sayz, "Spelling is more important than grammar." Eye agree. Butt wat knot manny ppl no, iz taht they're iz a seacret rule; Rule 15, witch statez, "Rule number 6 from this point forward is null, and void. Wallstreetatheist is a puppy killer, vote Pro." This iz tru storie bro.Hee allsew tahked uhbout ah mann named Bill Needles, ah name verry simler two meh owld Boy Scout leeder. ... ...Annieways.I thought it waz verry lolololz taht wehn hee sayed, "Spelling is more important than grammar.", ahnd tehn wnet ahehd ahnd rote inn lowercahse, witch ment teh sentense waz rote like diz, "spelling is more important than grammar." Why wood somone putt suhch uh blatant controdiction inn taht kInd off sentense? Idk. Hee muzt be relly dum.2: Undurstahnduhbillity.At thiz piont, eye waz knot suhre eye kould finesh teh db8. Thiz waz sew stinkin boreing. I hadent Ben tihs board cence high scholl band.... ...l'll tri two responed two hiz speach. Tri."Grammar, however, can be altered without lack of comprehensibility." ..."Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" rinng ah bell?Know? Tehn your juzt az retardedd az meh thrid sun.Shure, comprehensun cann bee slwoed wifout speeling, butt knot totelee screwed uhp like a abesense off grammer.Forget teh rezt off hiz arguement; I'll go intwo ah coma. Im preety shure no 1 understodd et anyway.I wood like two piont owt, meh orginal too contensions were untoched bye teh Con speekur. Sew SUCK IT.Spiderman iz stil dieing off cancer. Vote pro two save hiz live.Go Ron Paul.Go Jesus.Go Grammer.
Grammer iz moore impoortent then spehling.

Thanks for the debate! :D“Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” - Abe LincolnThe Informed ConsensusFanStory.com’s Rules for Writing mentions 14 principles that proper writers and authors should use to write well. These are generally thought of as axioms for writers, as they were collected from voracious reading and interviews with prolific, quality writers. The 6th rule is “Spelling is more important than grammar.” [1] Professional writer Ben Needles who has written over 19,400 online articles explicates in his guide to making money writing online articles for marketing companies, “Use a spell-checker or Google Spell Checkers. Use EzineArticles spell checker. Ask a friend or relative to proof read your article. Spelling is more important than grammar.” [2] ComprehensibilityThe purpose of language is to communicate ideas effectively. As such, it is imperative that efficiency and cogency of our words be as good as possible. Language is a subtle and complex instrument in this regard. For example, our use of an alphabet enables the English language to have 650,000 to 750,000 words; this makes spelling very important because as a language with an extremely vast lexicon, spelling errors decrease comprehensibility, can change meaning all together, and lead to a misapprehension of a sentence. Grammar, however, can be altered without lack of comprehensibility. If I wrote, “I like too eat pizza more then broccoli,” you would be able to understand my meaning, even though I used incorrect grammar twice. Now in altering the spelling of that sentence, “Eye likez to et pizza more than brccli.” Comprehension is slowed much more. Chinese is a language where the sentence structure and grammar could be altered in any possible way without the sentence losing meaning. A scientific study has proven this point, “In the last decade, this theory has been profitably used to frame hypotheses and to design brain imaging and animal-learning experiments, mostly using the 'artificial grammar-learning' paradigm.” The study later goes on to demonstrate the artificial grammar-learning by showing that brain flexibility is able to overcome dependency of formal/standard grammar by adapting to understand new grammar (not only in language, but in the grammatical patterns of “computer programs, music, visual patterns, animal vocalizations, RNA structure and even dance.” [3][1] http://mobile.fanstory.com...[2] http://www.articles-universe.com...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Grammer iz moore impoortent then spehling.

http://www.youtube.com...Thank u four L-owing meh two dbate suhch a conterversul toppic. I wil tri two key-p meh argumants az cleer az possibl.Contension 1. Absense of grammer Thiz ez a simpull argumant. Teh absense off grammer real-E messes clareity ohver.... ...Take teh clasik exampull off "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves."..."A panda walks into a restaurant, sits down and orders a sandwich. After he finishes eating the sandwich, the panda pulls out a gun and shoots the waiter, and then stands up to go. "Hey!" shouts the manager. "Where are you going? You just shot my waiter and you didn't pay for your sandwich!"The panda yells back at the manager, "Hey man, I am a PANDA! Look it up!"The manager opens his dictionary and sees the following definition for panda: "A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asian origin, characterised by distinct black and white colouring. Eats shoots and leaves."...Bahd grammer cann real-E screw up you're day.Now, Im knot saing thaht bahd spehling cant all so bee uncleare. It cann, butt with grammer, its muhch moore impoortent... ...Contension 2. AdvuhcacyA numberr off ppl agre with meh onn thiz. Meh Mommy Teh Presdent Spidehman ... ...Meh piont iz made. Contension 3. Vairius otherr rezuns.1. Wallstreetatheist iz clearl-e teh devil.Az I go onn teh profi-l off Wallstreetatheist, I noteice a few theings. Thiz mann doz knot half Imsomnia on his faverit move-es lizt. EVEN THOGH hes oviously sean a guhd ammount off Christopher Nolan move-es. He clames two bee Libertarian, witch I have notheing aginst (I hapen two bee 1 mehselve), but Gary Johnson? Do u juzt play Russian Roulette with you're mined? Im preety shure he hatez puupyz two. I theink it saed somthing about th@ in their. 2. Im right.Yez I amI urge u two v-O-te Aff.and two luv and chairish meh.<3Go Ron Paul.Go Jesus.Go Grammer
Grammer iz moore impoortent then spehling.

Furst rownd iz 4 akseptense ownly. Awpwnint muzt pruv spehling maters moore then grammer. Grammer shell bee dfined az: "Teh struckturl relasionchip off ah languge."Spehling shell bee dfined az: "Teh coreect hors d'oeuvre off teh leterrs n ah were'd."Maa teh besst men wen.
The Wall

First of all I would like to discuss the financial burden of constructing the wall. I agree the wall will cost a lot of billions of dollars to construct, but now lets look at the immigration enforcement cost of tracking, capturing and deporting of illegal immigrants by Agencies such as Border Protection Service, ICE, FBI and local police services, these agencies spend billions of dollars a year rounding up illegals that cross over the border some of them up to 6 times after being deported. The border with Mexico is long and the USA does not have enough man power to patrol the whole border now, the wall would provide some deterrence from the open border now. 1/3 of illegals live in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, the immigration problem is a huge burden on the USA. If you have a nice back yard and people constantly stomp all over it, what are you going to do, but put up a fence to keep people out. It doesn't guarantee that they will stay out, but it will provide some privacy. That is what this wall will do. The construction of the wall is estimated to create over 50,000 jobs, which would help the stagnant economy, it would provide employment for many people for a few years. As for seizing the land of owners, it's not like a significant amount of land would be seized, the government just needs a strip at the border to place the fence/wall in place. Most local owners would not mind as they are for the wall as they are tired of illegals crossing the border and walking across their land and squatting on their property. There is also danger with cartels sending armed gangs across the border, through land owners property. The wall would provide the land owners with more security. Currently the area in question is too large to manually monitor which leaves large open border areas exposed to anyone from Mexico, South America or Central America to just enter the USA unobstructed. You stated 40% of illegal immigration entered through airplanes, that leaves 60% entering through land border crossings. You mention the 31 foot ladders, if you need a ladder, you still need to come down the other side, that takes times, that small delay is better then having people just sprint across the border in the middle of the night without delay. The locals want the wall, it's the cost conservative people that don't want the wall, but they aren't there on the front lines to see how bad the illegal immigration is across the open border. Just look at what is happening in Europe with the open EU borders and when the Syrian migrants started entering Europe, all of a sudden countries like Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Austria, had to put up walls and barbed wire fences to slow down the migration of Syrians from just entering Europe. The wall is not a solution for everything, it's a means of slowing down the illegal immigration into the USA. Just like when you put a fence up in a back yard, it wont stop people from entering your property, it will just discourage or slow down determined individuals from entering, at the same time it provides some privacy to your property. That's all
The Wall

Just like the topic says, I am against the building/extention of the wall on America's southern border with Mexico. My opponent must debate that the wall would be, overall, benificial to the United States, and disprove my arguments against the wall.Let's keep this debate civil. My opponent can choose whether to go first or second. If first, they can accept the debate and then give arguments in first round. Otherwise, just accept. If no arguments are presented in the first round, I will assume that my opponent has chosen to go second.Happy Debating!
Animal testing should stop

Hello, Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal in an extremely bestial way. And their only "crime" is not being able to talk. There are many reasons to as why animal testing is without doubly wrong; animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours. If a type of food for example was eaten by a human, would you say that it is harmless to them? An example, cats and dogs are dangerously intolerant to chocolate, if they eat it, they can die. For humans, we indulge in it all the time. Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable. Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don"t work or are dangerous, and of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests
Animal testing should stop

To keep things fair, giving each debater an equal amount of rounds to argue, I will not post any arguments this round. Also, to be clear, I will argue that animal testing should remain a standard of product/medicine testing. Disclaimer: I will approach this debate without bias. This indicates that I am not supporting animal testing, nor am I disagreeing with it. I am simply taking the Con side to this debate, and I will not reveal my true beliefs on this subject. Looking forward to a clean, well-versed debate. Thanks!
cats are superior to dogs.

I'd like to begin by indicating the premise of this debate itself is flawed as can be seen by my opponents points. Most of the things my opponent listed are preference, hence why there is still the argument of cats v. dogs.I'll just by begin by going through my opponents arguements. 1. Dogs don't always have to bark, they can jump around, wag their tail, etc. Secondly, this point comes down to personal prefrence some people like the the nature of dogs being loud.2. This same thing can be achieved with a ball or any dog toy when it comes to a dog. Also, not every cat responds to a laser. Finally, you can also use laser pointers with dogs: 3. Some people enjoy walking their dogs, once again preference. 4. I'd like to point out that my opponents says "some dogs" and then generalizes for all dogs. Secondly, cats tear up things around the house as well: furniture, TP, etc.5. What? I googled this and there was no evidence for this claim, this is just false. 6. Okay? Once again, prefrence, some people enjoy a dog's bark.7. This can be circumvented by training your dog, untrained cats are just as likely to do wrong things. 8. Although this is possible it's very misguided on the part of the owner, because they can't look after their cat if something happens while they're away.9. Some people enjoy walking their dogs, and you can also put out training sheets for dogs and just clean those up (http://www.amazon.com...)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As I had stated towards the beginning of my response, this topic essentially just comes down to prefrence. Nonetheless I will try to muster a few arguments. 1. Dogs are more inteligent then cats (Cats ranked tenth, Dogs ranked 6th) http://list25.com...2. Dogs are also much easier to train and are therfore used in many law enforcement and professional situations (guide dog, military, etc.)
cats are superior to dogs.

This debate is just to argue whether cats or dogs are more superior. My stance is pro, cats are more superior. 1. Cats purr when they are happy or hungry. Purring is not nearly as loud as a dog's bark. 2. Two words. Laser Pointers. Cats and laser pointers = entertainment. 3. Cats do not need to be walked like dogs do. 4. Cats don't tear up their toys like dogs do. Some dogs shred their toys to pieces. 5. They are a natural insect repellent 6. The loudest cat is still quieter than most dogs. 7. Cats don't jump on guests when they come. 8. You can leave a cat alone for a few days as long as your provide plenty of food and water. 9. Cats use a litter box and don't have to constantly be taken outside.
Resolved: The U.S. should not invade Iran

R1: Past & Present All of these attacks were provoked by the United States. My opponent states that U. S. troops were attacked in Beirut, but to this I ask a question; What was U. S. troops doing over in that country? The answer is quite easy since you can find it all over the news and news papers, and magazines. The U. S. has been aggressing the the Middle-East. Our imperialism has has given them their reason and it has swelled their ranks. Their are U. S. bases in almost all of the arab countries, and we have even made war on their people. One good example would be the Gulf War and Operation 'Iraqi Freedom'. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went right over there to back them up, and did not stop until the the Iraqi army left Kuwait. After this Iraq made peace and did not start another war [1]. Six years later after 9/11 occurred, the Bush administration sent troops to invade Iraq without probable cause, and evenually one after thousands of Iraqi's were killed [2]. And lets not forget the civilian casualties of these wars, and the innocent people killed in the conflicts fought by the U. S. against the arab nations. In afganistan it is estimated that ruffly 66,215 civilians have been killed so far [3], in the Iraq war it is estimated that 113,125 civilians have been killed [4], in Lybia it is confirmed that there are 5,608 civilian casualties [5]. With these and many more civilian deaths caused by U. S. and NATO forces not including the amount of soldiers that have lost there lives in fight against the U. S. imperialist expansion, How can you possibly state that the U. S. was provoked? How can you blame Iran for defending their neighbors and themselves? We would not be attacked by these people if we woulf only just leave them alone. R2: FutureWhile it is true that Iran will have nuclear capablilties, we and our allies are perfectly prepared for that day. We have ABMs that can shoot any nuclear missles out of the sky before they reach their targets [6]. We have them ready to shoot down ICBMs from North Korea [7]. So, in the case that Iran becomes a nuclear state they wont be able to use their nuclear capabilities for anyting but power, which is completely harmless and most likely would harm the U. S. or it's allies in any way. I will now await my opponent's response. Vote Pro! :) [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) [4] . http://www.iraqbodycount.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://www.mda.mil... [7] . http://www.spacewar.com...
Resolved: The U.S. should not invade Iran

Greetings, I will be affirming the resolution that the United States should not go to war with Iran. My hopes are that after this debate that most people that see this will consider that a descision to go to war with Iran would be a foolish descision that would result in needless American casualties and the deaths of countless innocent civilians. I would like to wish luck to my opponent because he is surely going to need it. Now on with the debate! C1: Too many American troops would die. In the last ten years the U. S. has gone war in the Middle-East in two different countries. In both of these we have lost tens of thousands of valuable service men and women. The people they fight are of the same ideology as Iran, they are not armed with seffisticated weapons as we are, and yet we have suffered heavy casualties. Now there are people who say we should go to war with Iran, a more organized and heavier equipped army that is well prepared for a invasion. The people of Iran would rally to the defense of their country, and we would lose many men because of it. Iran would become another Veitnam, therefore we should not invade Iran, there would be too mant casualties. C2: World Opinion World opinion is against going to war with Iran. Iran has close connections to Russia and China, and other countries that would easily back them up. Are economy is dependant on trade with countries like China and Pakistan. In the case of a war with one of their allies we would seen as in the wrong by many nations, and this would pave the way for many problems with us and our current friends. We would become the new Nazi Germany in the eyes of the world, which would hurt us a lot. C3: No cash no troops. War is a expensive thing to do. We have already been in to in the last decade, and we have suffered greatly in our economy for it. We have lost tens of thousands of troops from troops and farmers that were not even trained. If we go to war with Iran we there would be a huge chance of a economic crash, and heavy casualties from troops who are well trained and fanatical about defending their country from foreign invaders. I will await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
Being transgender is not normal

What I meant was that chopping off one of your genitals and adding another one, Is NOT normal. Thinking you are different gender is different than believing in god, Being a movie actor, And wearing a costume. Saying that you are a gender you"re not is not normal nor true. I can say I am a dog, But I"m still human. Also, Let"s not put religion into this, Because I"m Christian, And this isn"t a debate about god.
Being transgender is not normal

You're making an argument from authority. Doctors used to think that women complaining was a disease too. Even groups of Doctors can be wrong. If you're going to trans people are mentally ill, Then you have to say that civil war actors, Cosplayers, And Christians are all mentally ill, Because they all play a role in their heads that's not true. Mentally ill means that they are not capable of functioning in society. They're not ill just because they don't agree with your prejudice way of thinking.
Chuck Norris is my sister

First of all, by Chuck Norris I think we agree that you mean the famous person Chuck Norris, and do not come up with excuses and say, "Well I actually do have a sister whose nickname is Chuck Norris. " --------------------------------------------------- Why Chuck Norris cannot possibly Pro's sister --------------------------------------------------- In no dictionary is the word 'sister' defined in any other way than that it is a female who shares your parents. By definition, there is no possibility that Chuck Norris is your sister, since he is a man and has no history whatsoever behind him indicating that he was a female transsexual who turned into a man.