BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

1. Do all members of the species Homo sapiens have a right to life? - Yes. 2. Is discrimination (the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently) wrong? - No. 3. Is the information in your profile accurate? - No. 4. If a barber cuts the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair, does he cut his own hair? - There is no decent or acceptable answer to this question, since either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will cause a contradiction. 5. Do people have the right to smoke tobacco in their own homes? - This question doesn’t ask for my opinion (or what I think or believe) in this matter, so neither answer would be completely correct because there are certain jurisdictions that give people the right to smoke tobacco in homes (if home is defined as one’s place of residence, which can be in an apartment in a public building, etc.), and some jurisdictions prohibit such practice. 6. Regarding politics, is Barack Obama usually Right? - Right has different meanings, If by usually right, you mean usually correct, then no. But I assume that what you meant was Right, which is often capitalized, of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics, then no, Obama’s still isn’t usually Right. (When ‘usually’ is defined as “...found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events”) 7. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults illegal? - No. 8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults that would improve the well-being of both members illegal? - No. 9. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults that would improve the well-being of both members and society illegal? - No. 10. In a debate on DDO, does the Contender have a last-word advantage? - This question doesn’t ask for my opinion (or what I think or believe) in this matter, so neither answer would be completely correct because there are certain occasions where the contender has the last-word advantage due to biased voters who disregard the last argument by the instigator and skip to the last very argument. And in some cases where voters aren’t biased and the last-word advantage doesn’t come to issue. This question needs to be more accurately clarified.
I will not contradict myself

1. Do all members of the species Homo sapiens have a right to life? 2. Is discrimination (the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently) wrong? 3. Is the information in your profile accurate? 4. If a barber cuts the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair, does he cut his own hair? 5. Do people have the right to smoke tobacco in their own homes? 6. Regarding politics, is Barack Obama usually Right? 7. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults illegal? 8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults that would improve the well-being of both members illegal? 9. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contract between two consenting adults that would improve the well-being of both members and society illegal? 10. In a debate on DDO, does the Contender have a last-word advantage?
Blue steel is not a good debater

I thought people meant blue steel not bluesteel. I guess bluesteel is a DDO user and isn't a metal like I thought it was. I'd like to argue that bluesteel should change his username. It's too confusing and it causes lots of confusion amongst lesser intelligent and lesser unexperienced debaters. So bluesteel if you're reading this, please change your name to "bluesteeltheDDOuser" or something like that so that when people say youre name I'll kjnow who theyre talking about. Also, my opponent should change his name. John Maynard Keynes is already taken by a dead guy who was into economics and spending money. So I ask that my opponent change his name to "JohnMaynardKeynestheDDOuser" so that peoploe dont get confused in the future. OR he could choose a name that makes mroe sense like "JMKTDU". So I concede the debate but my arguments for the name changing still stand. Vote for my opponnet.
It's time to bring back public duels

My opponent stated, "After all, the Bible is packed full of acts of extreme violence which, presumably, is one of the reasons it is the world's best-selling book!" Actually, the Bible isn't the best selling book because it's 'packed full of acts of extreme violence'. It's the best selling book because a lot of people are Christians. So that point no longer flows through, because it is blocked. (Rejected!!! Oh, what?!) Anywho, you also said "some Christians might prefer to avert their eyes to marketplace brawls, but not many." You can't prove that. Even if you can, you didn't say anything about a reliable source saying that. So that point is also blocked. (Rejected!! Oh, what?!) You stated Jerry Springer and stuff if popular. Well let's look at why it is popular. It is so popular because it makes people like me, and possibly you, feel better about their lives. And it's funny to see people with low IQ's argue and use 'nonsense' words. Well, there are other ways to get live entertainment that DO NOT endanger the public. Like opera, or stupid people arguing about secret love triangles. You acknowledged that it endagers the public. The government is duty bound to protect the people, so the government would ban this regardless, unless you can think of a way to make it more safe. Actually, the stories weren't points, they were nonpoints. I find it hard to believe that you are sensitive (actually I don't, but just roll with it) because you want to allow people to kill each other. You might not want to hurt their feelings, but if they no longer have feelings (Cause they are dead) then you're cool with it? Hehe!
It's time to bring back public duels

Actually, I was hoping to reinvigorate town centres (central business districts) by attracting shoppers away from suburban malls by putting on some live entertainment, but anyway, here's my proof that my scheme will work: Tabloid talk shows like Jerry Springer are hugely popular, right? Sports such as boxing and wrestling are hugely popular as well, aren't they? And films and video games that feature extreme violence are also hugely popular. In short, people really, really like heated conflicts - and if they feature blood and guts, so much the better. This is the case today just as it was in the days of the gladiator pits in ancient Rome. It's human nature. True, some Christians might prefer to avert their eyes to marketplace brawls, but not many. After all, the Bible is packed full of acts of extreme violence which, presumably, is one of the reasons it is the world's best-selling book! Now, as far as the fights causing injury to the audience, this, I suppose is possible but life is full of risks. After all, when you see a fight outside a pub, do you cross the street just in case you might get hit by a shard of glass or a splinter from a broken pool cue? Of course not! You go over and join the crowd who are baying for blood. I mean, how many people would watch a cricket match or a baseball game on TV rather than go and see it live - just in case they get hit by a loose ball? I have never heard of the game show "Family Feud" that my opponent referred to, so I Googled it. What a rip-off! There's no action in it all! No wonder I'd never heard of it. I mean, what's that "face-off" nonsense at the beginning all about? "I'll rip your ugly face off, you fat slag" would be better. And If I were the show's producer I'd replace the "Lollipop Tree" with a gun-rack to spice it up a bit more as well. Finally, as I am a sensitive sort of person with a deep appreciation for the delicacy of other people's feelings, I won't comment on my opponent's closing points as they are clearly personal matters. Thank you.
It's time to bring back public duels

Wow, as...what's the word?....malfunctioned as my opponent sounds, I will entertain his idea, because I too have the same malfunction (e.g. Entertainment in pain and suffering) My opponent has the burdon of proof and his only point was that it would bring entertainment to shopping malls. This can (even without guns) harm the public. For this reason alone it should remain banned. Also, think about the children (espically little goody-two-shoes Christian family children) they would all be sooo scarred. Duels are used to settle feuds. With all of the fueds in America, I have no doubt that it would be a massacre. If this was passed, I could imagine the family game show "Family Fued" quiet differently. I have demolished my opponents case and don't know what to do with 7,216 charctors left. So I will babbly on about my fish and my dead schoolmate. My fish was dying. He was some sort of Tiger fish and was swimming striaght up, but he was struggling. After 2 weeks of this, it annoyed me so I flushed him, causing his death (actually, I couldn't stand to see him in pain...poor fishy) A classmate of mine (well, he went to our Votec at Huntington High) died. He had heart issues and had some sort of heart attack in his sleep and died....(no laugh, but I kinda wanna. Sick no?) Okay, now I have 6,680 chars left...Sigh, I'll just quit.
It's time to bring back public duels

If you have ever watched daytime TV, you will surely have encountered programmes such as the Jeremy Kyle Show (1) and the Jerry Springer Show (2). If you haven't seen one of these programmes, essentially what happens is that some scumbags who are involved in a tawdry domestic dispute are invited on to wash their dirty linen live on air. A typical example would be a woman tells the man from next door that he is the father of her child. Meanwhile the woman's boyfriend is being wound up into a state of epileptic fury backstage before being released onto the set in front of a jeering audience. The presenter and the crowd then try to goad the two men into escalating the dispute into a violent conflict, at which point security guards are brought on to break up the fight. It's an enormously successful format on both sides of the Atlantic and could well be the key to revitalising depressed town centres. You see, over the years, people have increasingly opted to shop in out-of-town shopping malls, thus leaving once bustling town centres deserted, which is a shame. However, if public duels were were once more permitted, town centres could attract shoppers back by offering them the spectacle of two men fighting it out to the death. The format of the performances would be similar to the TV shows, at least to the point where violence is about to ensue. At this juncture though, the host would suggest to one of the aggrieved parties that he should challenge the other to s duel. If both of the men agree, they would be lead to the middle of the market square where they would be invited to choose their weapons. Firearms would not be permitted as stray bullets would present a health and safety risk to the crowd, and also mean that the action would probably be over too quickly. Instead, the combatants would be asked to choose from: 1 - A motorbike chain 2 - A cricket bat with rusty nails hammered through it 3 - A sock with a snooker ball in it 4 - A drug addict's AIDS-contaminated syringe 5 - A broken vodka bottle You can imagine what sort of wonderful performances these fights would be, especially if the girlfriend was thrown in to shout "stop it Kev, he's not worth it" or whatever. These live shows would mean that people will be able to combine their weekly shopping with free entertainment and traditional town centre shops such as butchers, bakers and greengrocers will, once again, be able to prosper. Thank you. (1) http://www.itv.com... (2) http://www.jerryspringertv.com...
Gay Marriage

Funny you bring up that there is no proof that there is a god, when we are talking about Same marriage here, not the existence of God. Whether you believe in God or not, your argument to that wasn't logical, so I'm going to move on from that. I didn't state once about kids that don't have a home, or have on parent due to death or something along those lines. I clearly stated that it is a better environment for a kid to be in with both a mom and dad, which I clearly support with proven facts, You are saying stuff based on your opinion, no facts, as far as I know. You're right that a gay couple could be as loving, and even more loving , but that doesn't provide a child with what it needs. Another statement made by A psychiatrist named Trayce Hansen is " Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available. Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children. That position is unconscionable and indefensible." that backs up my opinion.
Gay Marriage

I respect your disagreement as well. No existing religion has patent on marriage, marriage is a legal right given by our government, and there is no reason why religious values should interfere with the rules that follow. There is a growing number of people who do not believe there is a God, and to be brutally honest, even there is a God you have little to no proof that it is the God the bible speaks of. You mention researches that reveal the message that heterosexual couples make better parents, though I'm not gonna argue whether or not that is true, I would like to ask you - is it better to have no parents than have two fathers or mothers? Because the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of parentless children all around the earth that homosexual couples would love to adopt. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce on their own, yet many of them desperately want children, so is it morally right to not let childless couples adopt parentless children? What about single parents? What about widows/widowers? There are already a large number of children without a mother or a father, and as far as I know they grow up to be loving people, even though their childhood was different and more difficult than others. At last I wanna clarify, that I did not only mean financial benefits when I talked about the advantages has. Let me paint a picture for you - we have a couple, they're called Peter and Mary. They have decided to stay together, however for some reason they do not wish to get married. Peter and Mary buy a house together that they both pay for, but since they aren't a married couple they decide to put the house in the name of Peter. They are young, and young people rarely prepare for unplanned events. However, unfortunately Peter died suddenly in a fatal car crash. As far as the government is concerned Peter is an unmarried man who bought a house. Mary is in no way related to him, and even though she helped pay the mortgage she has no right to the house. The house will therefore be given to Peter's parents. Now - let's assume Peter's parents are not nice people, so Mary is left homeless in grief. That is the reality for many couples that are unmarried by choice - it is not fair that these advantages shouldn't be given to homosexual couples.
Gay Marriage

Although I respect your opinion, I have to disagree with it. I believe gay marriage should not be legalized, anywhere. You brought up benefits from people getting married, financial wise. That's not what marriage is for, marriage is something more than money. And marriage between a man and a women is very special, not just about the benefits. The view point im taking on this is a religious one. God put men and women on this earth for a reason, for them to create life. In the proclamation to the family it talks about how marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women, and I believe that revelation we got comes from God, yes he loves everyone, but that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage. There are two genders for a reason. Make and female go together, and can create life. That's one of gods main reasons for putting us on this earth. Trayce Hansen, a professional psychiatrist stated: "Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children's development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency. It's clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can't be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren't interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples. Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life." As you just read, having parents, one male and one female is beneficial to a child.
Gay Marriage

I realize gay marriage is legal in America, however this is not the case for the majority of the world. I think gay marriage should be legal everywhere, because practical advantages a married couple has, as opposed to an unmarried one. You get rid of a ton of paper-work when married, and if you decide to stay together unmarried and forget to make wills, for instance, it can have very unfortunate consequences if one dies. If a couple decides not to marry, that is their choice - however I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed these legal rights and advantages.
Gay Marriage

You completely twisted what I said. I CLEARLY stated that a child would be better off in a home of a guy couple, then in an orphanage. Because that home could provide for them physically. Yes, a typical mom, and father home, can effect a child in a bad way if there is fighting in such, and things along that line. But as I've read about this, a child is more prone to question there selves, and who when they have gay parents. It's not a structured environment. You clearly stated you think emotionally damaging a child is wrong, which it is. And that is what happens when they're put into that confusing environment that makes them question who they are. And I never stated gay marriage was legalized everywhere, and hopefully it never will be. It will cause more problems in the world, as I stated before, which you seemed to completely ignore. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

You would rather have children in a home - meaning you would rather have the child without either mother or father, in a home with maybe 20-100+ other children, with caretakers that are paid to be there, thus they care for the children not out of love, but because that is their job? You believe same sex couples can ruin a child mentally - Are you aware of how many heterosexual couples ruin and scar their children mentally and physically for life? Here is a source: http://www.americanhumane.org... Furthermore - your belief is that the lack of a father or mother can be mentally damaging to children, correct? Then you ahead and ask me whether or not I believe this is okay, correct? Before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you one first. Since you claim the lack of a father or mother is mentally damaging to children, and by asking me whether I think this is okay, I'm gonna presume you do not think that is okay, correct? So - do you think it is okay to let widows raise their children without taking on another husband? Because not having a father is mentally damaging, right? What about single parents? should single parents even be allowed to have children? But I promised to answer your question, and so I will. No, of course I don't think it is okay to damage a child mentally. However, I do not believe living in a home with same sex parents does that. At last I'd just want to comment on when you say 'gay marriage has been legalized'. Gay marriage has been legalized in America, the majority of the world has yet to accept this, so I don't think the battle is over.
Gay Marriage

I did answer your question. I would rather have a child in a home, rather then in adoption centers with bad conditions,. Putting them in a home would provide their needs physically, yes. So there's the anwser to your question, again, in a clearer way for you. But what I'm focusing on is the effects it has on a child mentally. As I've supported with facts, it has been proven to have a negative effect on them. Let me ask you this, is that okay to damage or ruin a child mentally? Because that's what you seem to apply at, saying its okay. You're saying that putting a child in a home like that is better then being in an orphanage, which I agree on and won't argue with you on that, because physically it will provide for them. I'm focusing on the long run and what it will do to the kid. Also, Gay marriage has been legalized, and there are many other things out there that "go against what people want" so if everyone gets their way, the world is going to be worse then it already is. What's moral and right is much for important then the wants and desires of the people