BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown in the Indian Ocean.

I will first start my argument by saying you a hideous woman who needs to stop using the internet and you need to stop voting for presidents to make history. Clinton is a absolute idiot. She doesn't deserve to be in the US. Gay rights fight our relgion so shes bascically saying I don't care what your religion is. Shes not United Citizens at all. She has no political views at all. Shes a clueless women and deserves to be thrown into the Paacific ocean and should Nerver come back. Shes ruining my AMerican dream. She has lied to every US citizen. If you support Hilary Clinton you derserve to stab your selfs. You will not help this country but make it worse. You complain about other presidents while your defending the worst. Whats wrong with Donald Trump? Jeb Bush? Scott Wlaker? Sarah Palin? Ohh never mind she's a clueless woman too. So you said shes qualified. There are plenty of qualified presidents. In Benghazi: Four Americans Dead on Hillary"s Watch Under her reign as Secretary of State Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered when terrorists stormed the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. When she was questioned about the Obama Administration"s initial story that the attack was provoked by an anti-Islam YouTube video, Clinton callously blurted, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Hillary Was Fired During The Watergate Investigation Hillary was fired for her work during the Watergate investigation. As her supervisor at the time put it, "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality." So after this and you say Hilary Clinton is a good president you are a dumb person a very dumb person. This country isn't about history so theres no need for a women to become president. If it becomes president, American should be named United States of Disaster. USD! USD! USD! USD!
Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown in the Indian Ocean.

You did not provide any reasoning to your above arguments... Anyway, I have a few reasons to why Clinton would make a great president. 1. She's qualified. Here is a list of things that she's done throughout her life: She was elected Senior Class President of Wellesley College Graduated with honors from Yale Law School before completing another year of graduate studies. Worked on Presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater (1964), George McGovern (1972), and Jimmy Carter (1976) Took a "summer job" on Senator Walter Mondale"s committee for migrant workers in 1971 Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee while husband Bill Clinton was Governor Co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families Named one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 AND 1991 8 Years as First Lady of the United States Served as US Senator from New York Served as US Secretary of State 2. She has good political views She's pro equal rights for LGBT Americans She opposes using "religious freedom" to justify cutting access to healthcare and discrimination She understands economic inequality " and wants to fix it She thinks anti-vaxxers are stupid She supports gun control She knows the criminal justice system in this country is broken She wants to fix citizens United She supports other women in the climb towards equality She supports American workers she's pro-choice 3. If she gets elected, these idiots won't be presidents: Ted Cruz Jeb Bush Scott Walker Rand Paul Chris Christie Donald Trump Sarah Palin
Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown in the Indian Ocean.

Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown off a boat. She is a liar and anyone who votes for her deserve to stab themselves. This is outrageous. She would be the worst presdiint in the world and she would probably be threaten. Shes usless and wants USA to die. So she should step down go do the laundry, cook some diner, and leave Americans alone.
Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model

Hello, you won't get the debate you ask for -- just yet -- this was first post and coming out of a five year stupor of deep disease. So you will need to pardon grade school word substitution as my cognitive functions are affected. Never even heard of this place but I am angry -- and I am very informed. Everything I say can be cited in scientifically accepted publications -- what you dismiss as commentary is the subject of some review in a wide array of study areas, which I consumed for nothing else to do. I will dig in tomorrow -- I don't know how this works yet and apologize for the clumsiness of this, I am really disabled in aspects of function -- like dyslexic fingers and forgetting how to code or work apps and switched words/spelling, not recognizing faces out of context -- I'm fresh off the truck, but don't be gentle :) Going forward with this, I will do my part and I ask that you accept that a person will act intelligently without specifically telling them you expect it. Thanks. This will have to be a dud round and my stick will be sharp tomorrow. My specific points will be that the allopathic model is now a business model and not a care model in our first world country. I am not addressing the issues of multi-national impacts as they are not my intention. One angle of my position will be that science is not dictated by Western views. The Russians are light years ahead of us in Energy Studies. Tina Karu led the way to the NASA Red Light Therapy (which was already used in "racehorces!" for decades). So you've got the Warp 75 in hospital settings savings 2/3 more kids with oral mucosa from chemo needed for their rare type of leukemia. A sort of Thrush is taking them out and with the introduction of the Warp 75, with one 88 second treatment per day (waved over the general area by the looks of them :( -- the survival range goes into the 90% range. So light is pretty cool. There's narrow band UVB, and single-frequency blue that pops the acne bacteria, then there's the real photobiomodulation wonder: low level light therapy with a real impactful focus given to the Red light spectrum which we all radiate from an averaged 630-660nm. So, you will now understand that my position is not against science. It is against the allopathic model which constrains growth, acceptance and opens new avenues of thinking. And boy do I have some sad surprises for you. Thanks.
Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model

I will be taking the Pro position, in this case in support of the mainstream scientifically-grounded medical system that composes the majority of healthcare in the developed world. However, I must admit that I am unsure as to the argument you aim to make, as well as the specificities of the discussion at hand, as you titled the debate 'Commentary' and presented no clear argument for me to counter. I would also like to point out that the first round is generally seen as being used for introduction (and necessary clarification) rather than making your argument, and I found your phrasing, grammar and general clarity of writing to hinder my ability to understand your argument. I will attempt, as always, to ensure my portion of the debate is grounded in fact and logic rather than belief or bias, and I hope you choose to do the same. Thank you for this opportunity to debate.
Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model

It"s unreal how very poor to non-existent true assistance, medical or otherwise, is for the majority of ill people because of very tightly controlled* specialties as defined by the Allopathic paradigm/doctrine. *Boundaries are Never to be breached, so if your skin hurts and your muscles hurt too, that"s TWO specialists you will need to see each with no knowledge or interest in the other. We are not lego blocks!!! "Assumptions about and credibility of "a newly emerging field of medicine" is greatly impacted by one's understanding of the [Allopathic] term used to describe that field. At least some other medical authors would concur that word meanings can have a significant impact on credibility, application and regulation in the profession of medicine." A visit goes typically; this is who I am (master), this is what you are (dumb peasant) and this is what I (Authority) am ordering you to do about it (Peon). Such Power and we all will come to Fear them at some point; as it is a system thick, deep and rotten. Any person with a good enough memory to pass the tests can become a doctor " it does not mean the person is a thinker or even intelligent! Our government has built the healthcare system on the allopathic crisis care model and morphed it into a revenue generating business model. Most doctors are only interested in staying within the boundaries of the doctrine (otherwise they are ostracized by their peers and punished their College of Physicians " and who likes to be called out for a public humiliation?) ADD to that, their other interests (which are usually the PRIORITY) -- the lucrative business model the allopathic system creates. And as soon as a person passes the final tests they are licensed -- and in that moment every one of them instantly has enormous Power over us" do you know of any medical schools that require psychological assessment for suitability? Can you imagine it this way: any person can go to school for X #/years and come out as MASTERS of our destiny. "Got a huge ego and need to dominate? " Become a doctor. We demand more of our security guards while having the title of Doctor instantly implies the very definition of security! "By utilizing the identifier of traditional medicine, allopathic medicine effectively softens the hard, uncaring edge of a medicine "at war" with disease. The emphasis on disease and high technology rather than on health and individualized care, creates a visit to an orthodox physician which is often replete with impersonal attendance to a disease entity. Using the term traditional in fact, helps root allopathic medicine in humanity and removes it from the cold world of technology and systematized economic incentives." I paraphrase the words of Dylan Thomas when I say: ~~~~~~ I will not go gently to their night, I will rage, rage, rage "Quotes" and a good read: http://www.tldp.com...
Logical Policy Format: "Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of debate.org."

You are correct that this isn't much in the format of policy, but from what I remember, you need four people for a policy debate, so the resolution is flawed from the start since it is not possible to include four people in a debate on this site, nor are there any opportunities for cross-x. The fact that there is no possible way to make this form of debate happen, it must mean that the whole resolution is flawed, making any arguments for it meaningless. So even though I haven't touched on the subject, it makes no difference since you chose the side that automatically loses, kinda like picking the Chiefs to win a football. While you may have the game in hand, you are inevitably bound to lose the game. Unfortunately that's how life works and how you lost this debate. I'd like to thank everybody that participated in this pre-determined debate and voted for me. If you voted for Luke, you are retarded. Thank you.
Logical Policy Format: "Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of debate.org."

Well at least my novel had something to do with the topic. Even though your arguments are short, doesn't mean that you have even BEGUN to talk about the topic. Not to mention that you aren't even close to Policy Format. If you have no argument related to the topic or related to my arguments or related to the type of debate, then you ought to have no vote. ===================================================================== By the way... I'm sorry the Chiefs blew it so bad. It was a good game though.
Logical Policy Format: "Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of debate.org."

No it's not, but it does explain why I did it. And seriously who flows online debate rounds? I didn't even read the whole thing 'cause it was way to long. If I wanted to read a novel I'd drive on down to Borders and pick one up. Since normal people don't have time to read your argument in round 1 we can disregard it, which means as of now I am winning this debate due to the length of my arguments.
There are only two genders.

DISCLAIMER ~ I'm going to make this clear now, I mean no disrespect to those who do not identify as either gender and will always respect their pronouns and so on. Biologically, There are two genders and sexes, XX and XY. These are non-negotiable. However, I do believe that those who have transitioned are now officially apart of that gender (only superficially, They're chromosomes obviously do not change), So it could be argued I believe in three genders. My point comes to a head when non-binary becomes involved. You cannot decide that you are neither gender, That is a mental health issue and should be treated as accordingly. It is a form of body dismorphia. Now, I believe these people need help, Whether that be through therapy or other routes. I am obviously open to hearing other opinions, So please voice them.
I will not contradict myself.

'Now I will show Athos violated terms of debate:1. political or moral questions.He asked quite a few religious questions that didn't have to do with morality...'How is that possible? My first 4 questions all contained the word 'moral' thus, they were questions concerning morals. Concerning 'religious' questions. You brought up the topic of religion when you answered Q2 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' God equates to religion. Rule '1. political or moral questions.' If God is the source of your morals, the source can also be questioned. If morals come from God, God can be questioned. Therefore, Q 5-10 are completely valid. You failed to answer Q's 5-10. '2.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.Quite a few question were how or from, these questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.'I did not violate rule '3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.'This rule is actually not a rule at all, it's a 'non-rule", as it provides no guidance with regard to answer form. As stated, It is ineffectual. It would be no different if the rule were stated: Questions that require a yes/no are applicable, and also questions requiring a more complex answer.Are there any other ways to answer a question besides "yes/no" or 'answered more complexly.'?//Note: How many 'I will not contradict myself' debates have you seen on DDO where Pro actually admitted to a contradiction? This was pretty fun, I think I'll create a debate like this one in the near future. It'll probably be more challenging for me, being that I'm a walking contradiction.//
I will not contradict myself.

Well my opponent fail to answer to the other two objections therefore agrees it isn't contradiction.(no evidence doesn't equal no empirical evidence and the Indispensability of Reason Thesis) 8.)Yes. 9.)No. At least not in a more complex sense. 10.) See question 7. Now I will show Athos violated terms of debate: 1. political or moral questions. He asked quite a few religious questions that didn't have to do with morality. and 2.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly. Quite a few question were how or from, these questions cannot be answered with a yes or no. Because of these violations Athos should lose the debate.
I will not contradict myself.

I asked you 'From where are your morals derived? ' you stated 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God. ' Whether you said believe or not is irrelevant. Morals can't be derived from God. Morals are derived from our experiences of the society we live in. Then you say: 'The only way my opponent could catch me in a contradiction is if I made proposition with no evidence behind it that the source of which was question. ' This is exactly what you did. You made the proposition 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God. ' and you made this proposition 'with no evidence behind it that the source of' which was question. ' Well, anyways let's move on. .. Oh, and BTW the term isn't 'for all intensive purposes' which is absolutely meaningless, it's 'For all intents and purposes' LOL. Just the fact that you got the phrase wrong, and have never read it in it's proper form leads me to believe that you have no idea what you're even saying. Let's get back to the debate. Questions: 8. ) Is The Bible the Word of God? 9. ) Does the Bible contain contradictions? 10. ) How does God demonstrate what is moral?
I will not contradict myself.

Point of dispute on contradiction: First point, Even if the Question 6 is answered with a no, I have not indicated a contradiction. "no evidence" does not amount to "no empirical evidence". I would introduce a principle of rationalism to my naive friend, the fact is through The Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis, and the Innate Concept thesis we can develop the The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If this thesis is so then certain knowledge isn't obtainable by Empirical evidence alone. However even should your objection stand and rationalism fall, relatively nothing of importance happens. A contradiction has not occurred, I stated not "Morals are absolute and Come from God." I stated "I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God. " Key word being belief needn't be rational and wouldn't necessitate a contradiction. A irrational belief is a irrational belief saying I believe anything per se doesn't indicate contradiction though it may very well be wrong. Saying I believe in unicorns may be wrong, yet it isn't contradictory. The only way my opponent could catch me in a contradiction is if I made proposition with no evidence behind it that the source of which was question. I was making a statement about personal belief which is therefore unable to be contradictory. 5. A Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. This is the god I believe in. This is the morality I follow defended by methodological naturalism. 6.No. 7. A couple of differant ways but I will point to the proper functioning of organisms and their respective organs.
I will not contradict myself.

1st question was answered -yes- you consider yourself a moral person (according to the definition I provided). 2nd question was answered 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' Questions: 5.) Which god? (be specific, provide a definition) 6.) Is there *empirical evidence* for the existence of 'god'? (if no go to conclusion./if yes provide evidence and answer question 7.) 7.) How has 'god's' morality been demostrated? Conclusion if the 6th question was answered with 'NO': You have answered 'NO', which clearly indicates a contradiction. Allow me to explain. You claim your morals are derived from God. There is no evidence for God. You said '...morals are absolute and come from God.' When the source of the morals are negated, the morals must logically follow. I am in no position to judge your morality, and I have no doubt that you have them, but, your morals were not derived from God. Your morals were most likely derived from family, upbringing and the conditions of the society you live in. Our morals are derived from where we are and what we do with our lives. A child who is loved and nurtured their entire life will most likely become a loving nurturing parent in the future; whereas a child who is abused runs a higher risk of being abusive toward their children in the future. Think about it, our parents are our first guidance in life, before a person even knows about God, they knew who Mom and Dad were. I claim victory: You have clearly contradicted yourself. I await your rebuttal. Your only way out of this dilemna is answering questions 6. and 7..
I will not contradict myself.

Thanks Pro, for offering an interesting and challenging debate.I would like to add a definition for clarity. Moral: 1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behavehttp://www.bing.com... Questions:1.) Do you consider yourself a moral person? 2.) From where are your morals derived? 3.) Could your morals be compromised due to a situation or event? 4.) Is your definition of 'moral' different from the one I provided? (if yes, explain)
I will not contradict myself.

Ok RULES: 1. You may only ask political or moral questions. 2.You may not ask paradox question or question that can be presumed to have no answer. 3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly. 4.If I contradict my position, then I lose, if I don't you lose rather simple. 5.Post first questions in round one or automatic forfeit. 6.Its short argumentation time to keep us on our toes :)
Racism: Alive and Doing Well

So, I'm arguing that racism is not alive and doing well. Like I said before, only organic beings are alive and racism cannot be doing well as it has no feelings. Con's statement in R1 is incorrect. Some of us don't accept racism and think it's wrong and it doesn't go at the expense of society. http://www.youtube.com... Look at that black guy yelling at the world. He's not an expendable to society and hates the world. He does not accept society and he is black.
Racism: Alive and Doing Well

Racism is defined as: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. http://dictionary.reference.com... The topic is saying that Racism is Alive and Doing Well, you have taken the Con side but is arguing for it, so I'll argue against that racism is not alive and doing well. First, racism is incapable of feelings.