BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GWL_CPA Cannot See Why Kids Love the Taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Revenants Do Not ExistMy opponent just made an accurate claim that gingers do have souls. That said, he has no evidence for the existence of revenants.Therefore, GWL-CPA is not a revenant.Therefore, he is not on a mission to poison cereals.Therefore, he has no reason to see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.Therefore, there's no evidence available that he can see why. Only evidence that he can't.GWL-CPA Would Not Be a Revenant1. Dungeons and Dragons is a game. If this troll debate took place in Fantasyland, that would be a rational argument. But this debate is a big bowl of reality. That said, it is more likely that he's a Time Lord. That said, some Time Lords are racist. The Master wanted to wipe out all of humanity. That's just a big bowl of racist right there.2. My opponent's statement about his dog confuse me. I'll presume he means that that's his dog's mission. Thank you for supporting my case, Con. My opponent also overlooks the fourth layer of Snoop. He's actually a dog in a human suit in a dog suit in a human suit who was reincarnated into a lion. And that was his mission. All dogs have missions, not just revenants. Let's stay on topic here, Con.3. Look, whether GWL is meat or not, "aged" is a term used in life as well as in being buried. My opponent has no case here.4. Was that... was that a penis joke? Anyway, what I was trying to get at is that Time Dogs can type without fingers. My opponent ignored that (with apparently a penis joke).5. Ugly is still subjective. No proof provided that he is guaranteed ugly.My opponent then asks why he doesn't regenerate to heal his eyes. As if regeneration is even voluntary at all. Not one of the eleven (soon twelve) doctors ever said, "Well, broke my leg! I'll just regenerate now by my own free will!" No.No...................No.Things are Gettin' Cereal Up In Here "he has to know what kids like."Yes. He does. Thank you, Con, for once again establishing that. He does not, however, need to know why kids like it. That is what my opponent needs to prove right now. What My Opponent Has Ignored:There is still not a single adult, not one, who could see why kids loved the taste of Kellog's Cinnamon Toast Crunch. GWL-CPA is still no exception to this.tl;dr: Why the Resolution is Still IntactBecause rather that attacking what I've proven at the source, Con beats around the bush with fantasy games and meat accusations.GWL-CPA Cannot See Why Kids Love the Taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
GWL_CPA Cannot See Why Kids Love the Taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch

http://www.youtube.com... Why He Has A Soul Pro’s source argues that gingers should more or less go extinct. This means there will be no more attractive redheads, or at least far fewer of them. Therefore, Pro’s source is evil and, by logical extention, wrong. Nothing more needs to be said, but I’ll say it anyway. Or, rather, CopperCab will. Why GWL_CPA Is Too A Revenant Except I do have evidence that revenants exist. Dungeons and Dragons says they do. Now, on its own, that would be no proof at all! However, sworn testimony from poorly-drawn witches prove that they believe in the power of Dungeons and Dragons[1]. If Dungeons and Dragons was false, it would have no power. Therefore, Dungeons and Dragons is true. And, in any event, a Time Lord would not be racist, and GWL_CPA is. I submit as evidence the dog I live with, who sleeps, barks at mailmen, closing doors, hoses that have just been turned on, doorbells, people standing at doors, people who are not standing at doors, empty space, cats, squirrels, and on one famous occasion, a potted philodendron[2]. Also, Snoop isn’t a dog. He’s a person in a dog suit in a human suit, obviously. He is made of meat. All biological lifeforms are made of meat. We are born meat and we die meat, and are therefore very embarrassing to sophisticated aliens[3]. How uncouth. A Time Lord would not chew on their sonic whatsit. I would suggest, in that case, that Pro seek psychological counseling to determine why he has a love of ugly dogs. If he’s a dog and can regenerate, why wouldn’t this old dog with a failing body, arthritis (in al probability), and ugly looks kill himself and give himself a better body? Like say a liver fluke? Furthermore, if he is a dog Time Lord, why can’t he heal his eyes? Seeing Why Kids Love The Taste Of Cinnamon Toast Crunch To Poison Their Cereal Nope. Short of GWL_CPA walking around with a syringe and injecting boxes with rat poison, the only choice is to poison the stuff at the source. And to do that it would be easier to make his own cereal and sell it. To do that he has to know what kids like. It’s true that GWL_CPA doesn’t like children. He does care about them, though. He cares about killing them as effectively as possible (also barking at them, but that’s another matter). http://www.humpin.org... personal experience http://en.wikipedia.org...
GWL_CPA Cannot See Why Kids Love the Taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Allow me to introduce you to GWL_CPA. [http://www.debate.org...]As you can see, he is a dog.And, according to his profile, he is a 64 year-old dog.A canine specimen of that age, along with colorblindness and nearsightedness, would most likely me unable to see decent political views, let alone why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.Now, this is the cereal in question: It's very popular among children, obviously, because of the cinnamon swirls in every bite. But there's the problem: GWL doesn't give seven sh!ts about children. He wouldn't care if all youth were suddenly wiped off the face of the planet because to him, they're all on weed so they can GTFO.Which, would usually lead him to posting a link to a video about weed, rather than arguing coherently.So, along with his poor dog vision amplified by a ridiculous age for a dog, his apathy also prevents him from ever wanting to see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.And if it wasn't hard enough for GWL_CPA to see the cinnamon swirls in every bite, it also must be considered that many great minds throughout history couldn't see why kids loved the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch simply because they were just to old to understand. These great minds include Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson, and '70s black-sploitation star Dolemite. And in his prime, Dolemite wasn't even all that old. But considering that in dog years, GWL is two hundred sixty-nine (lol 69) years old, it is very, very unlikely that he is within the proper age to see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast crunch.Recap-GWL has extremely poor vision.-GWL wouldn't care to see it, even if he was able to. -People far younger than GWL couldn't understand it, so how could he?ConclusionGWL_CPA cannot see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.Kellog's Cinnamon Toast Crunch, part of a complete breakfast.
Factory Farming Should Be Banned

Factory Farming can either be OK or absolutely disgusting. theres no good factory farming. Animals are sexually abused by workers, and beaten. Usually with gate pole's and canes. they are smacked on the ground and pulled by their legs and ears and tails. Their tails are cut off and they get ammonia burns on their feet and chest. Most can not walk and others can barely walk. What looks like a fully grown chicken is actually screaming for help as a chick. They get heart disease because of their cardiovascular systems. they are left in their own fesies, to rot and die and are treated in the most horrid way with the workers using them as a sex buddy, and beating toy.
Pokemon Go does not injure people

People might think that Pokemon Go is injuring people all around the world. But honestly, I disagree, it's not the game that's injuring them, it's the person themselves. If a car crashes into you while you're walking, it's not the game's fault, it's your fault, you simply didn't pay attention because of the game, but it's your fault because you didn't look at either side of the road to check for oncoming cars. The game might have been the cause for your injury, but that doesn't mean you can't control yourself.
Women for president

My opponent claims that a woman should be president of the United States of America. First of all, allow us to define "should".Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. So what my opponent is claiming is that we, the American populace, have a duty, an obligation, to elect a female president. The obvious problem with my opponent's argument is that sex has no bearing on the capability of someone as a leader. The president must be many things, and must take on many challenges, but none of them require that they have a particular set of genitals. Yes, women have the right to be president. But that does not mean a woman SHOULD be president. If there is a woman who is more qualified than a particular male candidate, that candidate, by virtue of their qualification, deserves to be elected. But if the reverse occurs, the result should be the same, with the more qualified candidate being elected, not the candidate who's sex matches someone's personal taste. Again, the sex of the president has no bearing on their capabilities as a human individual.My opponent claims we need a female president so that the women of America "have someone to represent them". This implies though (1) that females are a hive mind, functioning the same way all around the country, and (2) that somehow, someone, by virtue of their sex, is incapable of representing the desires of females. These are both incredibly false. One woman cannot represent "women" as a group, because women do not all think the same, or have the same desires/ideals. To say that if we elect a female president, women will receive larger representation, is to believe that women all think and act the same way. Which is utter poppycock. Women do not all think the same way, and to claim such a thing devalues women as autonomous individuals. Likewise, my opponent also seems to assume that anyone who is NOT female is incapable of representing and defending females. This too, however, is incredibly false. This would imply that anyone who is not female, by virtue of not being female, is incapable of understanding and defending females. But ask yourselves, how does one's genitals figure into this in any way? They don't. Whether you have a penis or vagina has no bearing on how well you can relate to and represent an individual.Therefore, we have no obligation to elect a female president. What we have an obligation to do is elect a president who is the most qualified individual, who can best represent the population. In no way does one's sex figure into this, so choosing candidates based on their genitals is morally abhorrent.
Islam is the world's worst religion

Well, considering that we're debating whether or not Islam is the world's worst religion, NOT Islam is the religion that has wreaked most havoc in the world, I think that my argument stands. But if you want to talk about which religion caused most suffering in the world, I would talk about Positive Christianity, the religion of the Nazi Party, made by Alfred Rosenberg. I think the Holocaust outranks anything Muslims have done, and being that ALL of the Positive Christians were evil people, and only a small minority of Muslims are extremists and therefore dangerous, I think Positive Christianity is one of the worst religions in the world. Messed up crimes? How about slaughtering six million Jews, four million Polish, Soviet, and Yugoslavian civillians, 70,000 people with mental and physical handicaps, and more than 200,000 gypsies. Oppression of women? The Nazi Party believed that a woman's place was popping out babies, and nothing more. I have to admit, they weren't the worst in terms of treatment of women, but they certainly weren't good. And you must remember, when we are talking about world's worst religion, you in no way specified if you were talking about a specific time period. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Islam is the world's worst religion

One factor that you are overlooking is the fact that Islam currently has over 1.5 billion adherents and the atrocities committed by muslims in the name of islam more than dwarf anything the westboro baptist church has ever done. of course there are religions that have the potential to be crazier than islam, even christianity has that potential. but currently islam is taking the number one spot when it comes to messed up crimes and oppression of women in the name of religion. yes there are governments that have done worse, and other religions have done horrible things in the past, but islam takes the cake.
Islam is the world's worst religion

I understand that there are different types of muslims. I understand that there are different ways in which people practise Islam. I understand that there are different versions of Islam. I understand that every religion has its extremists. Even atheism had its Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots. But the more I think about it, the more I hate Islam overall and generally speaking. If we assess the scriptures solely, there are passages in the Old Testament that would put the barbaric ayahs of the Quran to shame. However, mix the ridiculously violent and misogynistic passages of the Quran with tribal, feudal, incredibly vain, primitive, male-dominated, underdeveloped cultures and you get the most vile, horrendous religion the world has ever seen. I do not regret being born into it because it has only made me understand what a crazy ideology Islam really is. Here is my argument: 1. The world's worst religion is the religion that causes the most oppression and presents the most obstacles to scientific, financial and technological progress. 2. A religion is the combination of its scriptures, the cultures and individuals who adhere to it, and its rituals. 3. Islam is not the world's worst religion based on scriptures alone, but with all the factors in 2 considered altogether. 4. Islam is statistically and logically, arguably the world's worst religion.
Islam is the world's worst religion

1. See, we agree on this point. :) (Although we also need to consider that religion's actual intent as a criterion, and not only what its followers do.) 2. Well, not so obviously. See, let's say Neil Armstrong was still alive. You would say Neil Armstrong IS this world's first man on the moon. You wouldn't say "WAS" even though it happened in the past. Well, now you would say "was" because he's dead, but my point is, that religions don't die, so you just say "is". Therefore, we include religions of the past as well. (Although, since religions don't technically die, they just wouldn't be of the past, even if their destructive powers peaked in the past.) 3. Yes you have, which is basically conceding, since there are no religions of the past, there are just religions whose destructive power has peaked in the past. But if you want to play that game, Islam extremistswould be a religion of the past, because I think it peaked during 9/11. They may come back, but so far, they aren't in their destructive prime. 4. That IS undeniable, but since of course that's only currently. If we are talking ever, I think Positive Christianity still wins. 5. WHEN did you mention poverty, education, corruption and technology, and WHERE are your sources? If you want poverty, if you remember right before and during Nazi Germany, they were suffering a very large depression, and when I mean very large, I mean immense. Their education was mostly propoganda, they were obviously very corrupt, and as for technology, they weren't so bad. But if you DO want to talk about currently, the worlds poorest country is Congo-Kinshasa, which is actually mostly Roman Catholic. Their education, technology, and corruption are all terrible, Muslim countries. http://www.ii.umich.edu... http://www.gfmag.com...
Islam is the world's worst religion

1) I think wreaking havoc would be a very important criterion in determining which religion is the worst in the world. 2) the title of the debate is Islam IS the worst religion in the world, not WAS or WILL BE... but it IS... some obviously I am talking about the current times. 3) I already acknowledged that in the past there may have been worse religions and even currently the world's governments wreak more havoc in the world than Islam 4) Currently, it is undeniable that Muslim countries are the most war-torn and terrorist-filled, and Muslims know this better than any other counrty 5) Also, wreaking havoc is NOT my only criterion for worst religion. Neither is women's rights issues. You are completely overlooking and ignoring the fact that I mentioned poverty, education, corruption and technology. There is no denying that Muslim countries lag behind in all these areas and it is at least in part due to the fact the Muslims use Islamic scriptures to stifle education for children and they make Muslims waste time and money with pointless religious customs and rituals instead of advancing their technological progress.
The government has the right to make laws about dress code.

I have accepted the challenge to debate the Proposition regarding the statement that "The government has the right to make laws about dress code", and wish good luck to my opponent. I believe that the government does not have the right to make laws regarding dress code. The Proposition began by saying that students in schools need to dress for success in order to get a good job and that it is vital when making life decisions. I would like to point out that while this statement may or may not be true, it does not support the statement that the government has the right to make laws regarding dress code. Secondly, the Prop. states that the Elastic Clause (Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution) gives the government the right to make any laws that are needed for the government to be able to execute their powers smoothly. Quite frankly, a man or woman's appearance does not in anyway interfere with the power of the government. The Proposition also fails to state why that this clause is significant to the topic at hand and gives no real argument that proves why the clause is important. Finally, the Proposition states that seeing a man's boxers will cause a person to lose their appetite, and while this statement is intended to be slightly comical, it is merely a reason backing up the reasons why the government "should" enforce a dress code, rather than CAN the government enforce a dress code. Now on to my points. 1. Included in the first amendment of the United States Constitution is the statement that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging free speech. " This amendment gives every American citizen the right to free speech, whether it be through how a person dresses, how a person looks, how a person speaks, and so forth. This amendment is limited when the free speech is endangering national security, or harming another person, and last time I checked a person's sagging pants, or miniskirt did neither of those two things. 2. If the government had made laws regarding a dress code, it could possibly go against someone's religious beliefs. This is also unconstitutional and therefore would be considered unlawful. 3. Even though some clothing can be deemed offensive or inappropriate, removing the clothing would not be removing the message and could cause that person to take other actions worse than wearing an offensive shirt. For example if a person is wearing a shirt that bad-mouths a certain person, removing the shirt would only be removing the first layer of the problem and would not be treating the core of the problem.
The government has the right to make laws about dress code.

The government has a right to make laws about dress code. My points include, but are not limited to: 1. Sagging or any gang-related clothing is unacceptable in most schools, as a schools objective should be to prepare students for the real world, and dressing for success is most important in job applications and other major life decisions. 2. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the right "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " This means that Congress can legally make laws about a public dress code. 3. For men, sagging and gang-related clothes, and for women, short skirts and lots of bare skin are considered very unprofessional. Imagine walking down the street eating your McDonald's nuggets and you see a mans boxers and butt hanging out of his pants. I don't know about you but I would lose my appetite. This is why the government should impose laws about a dress code. Not only is it beneficial for impressionable school students, but it would also provide for a more professional public society.
The government has the right to make laws about dress code.

Pro has forfeited the second round so this should be taken into account during the voting period. In conclusion I would like to state that Pro used mainly examples of "should" rather than "can". When he did in fact use reasons on the "Can" points, they were not strong. For example he stated that, "the Elastic Clause in the Constitution has the power to overrule an amendment" when in fact there is no source for this. Also, the whole point of the amendments are to protect people's rights from tyrannical actions like certain laws that may be deemed "necessary" by certain political beings. Amendment 1 gives the american people the right to express themselves freely through their clothes, actions, and speech. We the american people should be able to wear who we want, be who we want, no questions asked PERIOD.