BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existing highways should not be privatized

I would have you all now, for your own enjoyment of course, take a moment to appreciate the so well rounded, bespectacled cranium, adorned with a mandible that would've done Samson tenfold as many murders as that donkey's did, to be seen in his avatar. And if you lose yourself for more than a moment, don't worry, this debate isn't going anywhere, and I will fully understand if no votes are cast on it ever - I'm feeling the burden now myself that such imagery places upon functionality. He is truly a beautiful man. And now with due courtesy out of the way, I shall brave my opponent's argument, in utmost seriousness of course, that the often underappreciated Bourgeoisie - my opponent is not capable of such sympathising in his being so handsome, that's what's wrong with him - but, yes, that the often underappreciated Bourgeoisie may know some comfort in my understanding, that they make take some peace in this war I wage for them, that they may, perhaps, feel morally good about themselves in their raping and pillaging of the world. I shall first set the foundations of my arguments in quoting the highly intelligent John Steinbeck, who I declare as such in his having thought much the same as I do myself with this quote, and without further ado: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Now, this is evidently the case, I mean why else are they so capitalist? And, hence, the fact of the matter quite obviously boils down to whether or not these "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are in fact what they believe they are. And I shall be arguing that they are! that capitalism is quite obviously the way forward! that we shall all some day share in the spoils of what it is to be a world of moralless, money-grabbing bastards! My arguments are as follows: 1) Though the gap between rich and poor perpetually grows, ammm, errr. .. I'll come back to this one. 2) The brain drain and its counterpart, whatever it's called. .. the idiot evacuation perhaps? - I better get a mention in whatever wiki if I'm the first to have coined a decent term for it - but, yes, these two phenomenon are clearly for the betterment of whatever country it is with capitalism as its modus operandi more so than others, and though quite obviously morally-bankrupt as such schemes as my opponent shuns in his opening, who cares once you get rich, right? I mean these schemes bring people into your country much smarter than you and willing to work for a lot less, and, ammmm, errrrrr. .. fvck! Okay, I'll be back to this one, too. 3) Rich people! , you know who you'll be voting for I'm sure. .. 4) Temporarily embarrassed millionaires! , ammm, you guys are right, capitalism is the way forward. I mean look at the regal insignia on the box of cigarettes that cost you nearly everything you had to buy, that's a crown right there. .. and. .. ammm. .. CROWN!11! !! !1! ! And you guys also have televisions! They don't have those in Africa, stupid Africans. I rest my case. Damn.
Existing highways should not be privatized

You know what it"s like: you are cruising along in your trusty Rolls-Royce when your chauffeur announces that there is a traffic jam ahead and, as a consequence, your arrival at the Cafe de Posh for your luncheon appointment with your tax accountant is likely to be somewhat tardy. "May the angels and ministers of grace fvcking preserve us," you may well exclaim, possibly adding "Damn those proles to hell and back! Why, oh why, are snivelling little plebs in their commonplace conveyances permitted to impede their social superiors' progress by clogging up the highways? It really is high time these paupers were priced off the roads." Well, if the Institute of Economic Affairs latest scheme gets the green light, you may well get your wish. That's because they propose the privatization of all major roads and highways in order to create a two-tier user network whereby moneyed motorists who can afford to pay the tolls will waft along uncongested 'VIP superhighways' that are maintained by private companies, while everybody else bumps along 'filthy peasant scum dirt tracks' that the government will allow to crumble and decay in order to save money. Of course, the money raised in the sell-off and the cash saved on road maintenance could be used to cut taxes for the rich, or to finance the construction of a huge, solid gold, diamond-encrusted statue of Senator Joseph McCarthy urinating on Robin Hood, or some other morally-bankrupt scheme, but it seems to me that an elected government has the duty to govern in the interests of the majority of citizens, not just the financially-privileged few, and that's why existing highways should not be privatized. Thank you. Sources: http://www.cityam.com... http://www.iea.org.uk...
Resolved: The United States should offer Temporary Marriages

First I would like to say that's its been a pleasure debating with you. Second I'd like to wish my opponent luck in the voting period.I will now present my closing statements. Even though this is my last post it will be the shortest. I believe at this point we have both stated our points adequately an Pro's latest response was mostly restating things he had said in previous rounds. Thusly discussing them any further would be redundant and repetitive. I think summation of the debate would be most satisfactory.* I contended that prenuptials were better and listed several reasons (same cost, more options, etc.) yet my opponents response was that "are hardly ever used". I pointed out that this was a ad populum fallacy and would like to add now that my opponent cant even predict say how popular temporary marriages will be at all. In order to adequately show that prenuptials would be inferior because of the amount of people who use them, my opponent would have to provide a comparison to the number of people who would use temporary marriages. This is something he cant do.* I have repeatedly stated that the there is no evidence that would suggest that temporary marriage should provide benefit and suggest ways in which they would actually do further damage. My opponent simply contended that they would provide benefits with no further proof or reasoning aside from the fact that the end of the marriage would already been known. This is simply absurd.*Overall I believe I have provided adequate attestation that there are better, more viable ways to reproduce the desired effects of temporary marriage, and that the presentation of temporary marriage was provided by my opponent is inadequate and fool of holes and what ifs. My opponent meanwhile has failed to sufficiently disprove my counter arguments.In the end the decisions seems obvious. My opponents proposition, as presented by him, has lot of potential to do harm and no evidence that it has potential to do good. Incorporating the fact that there are already existing tools to provide the kind of benefits my opponent describes it would be purely illogical to offer temporary marriage.Thank you to everybody who followed this debate and I hope you found it interesting enough to vote on!
Resolved: The United States should offer Temporary Marriages

Temporary marriages would not alleviate the difficulties that couples going hrough divorce face.As I have stated previously, by placing a relatively short end date, which is known in advance, arguments over division of assets and custody of children will be reduced. In knowingly getting into a temporary marriage, couples of any reasonable intelligence will not be as quick to have children or combine assets. Certainly not all will have such foresight, but the only way this benefit will not be realized ever is if absolutely all couples engaged in a temporary marriage decide not to exploit its advantage. So which is the more reasonable assumption: that at least some couples will take advantage of the easy out offered by temporary marriage, conveying a net benefit (since causes where the advantage is not utilized is no worse than the status quo) or that absolutely no couples will take advantage of temporary marriage (and still be no worse than the status quo)? I assert the former is a more reasonable belief.Furthermore, even if couples do not make use of this benefit, the short time frame limits the degree to which assets could be shared or children produced. In this sense it places a stop gap on how bad a bad relationship can ge.Prenuptial agreements better than temporary marriages.I will restate the refutation of this that, even if on a case-by-case basis they are better, the fact that they are hardly ever used negates any benefit. Temporary marriages would not have the same social stigma as prenups and they would cost less (if they cost anything at all above a normal marriage). Thus, temporary marriags would be more available.Temporary Marriages not necessarily cheaper/better.My opponent has repeatedly brought up instances where temporary marriages won't be an advantage. I have already conceded this. Temporary marraiges won't fix everything. They won't prevent all problems. The same could be said for chemotherapy. Chemotherapy doesn't prevent cancer. It doesn't cure all cancer. Yet would anyone refuse to take it on that basis? This is one option that has the potential to prevent some if not many nasty divorces by giving couples an easy early out. I cannot emphasize enough that temporary marriages can be no worse than the status quo, yet offer the possibility of being better than the status quo. My opponent has not refuted the former statement and can not offer universal refutation of the latter. To state that, in some circumstances, temporary marriage won't be better does not prove it will never be better.I assert (with the provided reasoning) that temorary marriages offer a very likely benefit in many cases. The existence of this potential, combined with the lack of possibility of being worse, results in a net benefit. On this basis, temporary marriages should be made an option for Unted States citizens.
should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

Round 1: He asked questions, misrepresented Constitution, made no relevant assertions. Round 2: Another question. A claim that self-defence isn't combat. Plus some gibberish. Round 3: He forfeited. He never even tried to meet his burden of proof. ---Please vote Pro. I am Pro, even though I went second. Also, please vote me S&G points because he was so sloppy as to be hard to read.
should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

Your background checks argument is off topic. Gun magazine (I forget which) editors said it's hard to find a .22 pistol both accurate and reliable. Without accuracy, reliability, and stopping power, .22 pistols are insufficient for combat (defense). There is simply nothing to be said in their favor. You dropped the point that rifles are easier to hit the target with. -Con (not me) has the burden of proof. He has not met that burden.
should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

but we do not need to possess these weapons security checks and insanity checks to get your right to bear arms are never perfect for example if a 20 year old buys a powerful weapon who is to say he wont go insane three years later mental illnesses usually show up in late teen early adulthood so it can happen anytime .22 isn't a combat round. why would we need a combat round for SELF DEFENSE what else would you need a weapon for? combat≠ defense
should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

Note: Con has BoP. WE ARE YTHE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE No, it's so we can be an effective militia. IF NO GUNS ARE STRONGER THAN A Standard 22 pistol why would we need weapons like assault rifles assault ≠ self . Rifles aim better. .357 stops dogs, cougars, and bears way better. .22 isn't a combat round. based on that logic a handgun is all that's needed to defend No, you left out premises and begged questions. Your form is invalid. Wow, 500 character limit is short.
should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

DO WE TRULY NEED ANYTHING STRONGER THAN A STANDARD HANDGUN? WE ARE YTHE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE IF NO GUNS ARE STRONGER THAN A Standard 22 pistol (I apologize for the above text being all caps I didn't realize it and don't feel like retyping)why would we need weapons like assault rifles assault ≠ self . based on that logic a handgun is all that's needed to defend you and your family members
Liberty > Security

To avoid confusion, however, I would like to make clear that I do not personally believe that what are generally considered traditional "governments" are the best way to achieve either liberty or security, but I do believe as a principle that security is far more valuable than liberty and should be the higher priority in any social system. Insofar that governments are the de-facto or "legitimate" social system in place, then it should be the priority of said system to focus more on security than liberty, and such priority would be internally consistent with the stated principles or supposed legitimacy of said government. Also, this doesn't mean I will necessarily be defending things like the NSA spying scandal, as I would argue that such measures threaten both liberty and security (I define "security" as defense against both foreign and domestic threats. ) And to avoid devolving into a semantic debate as you mentioned in the instructions, I think it would be helpful to define exactly what we mean by "liberty" and "security" to avoid confusion. I would define "liberty" as simply the freedom to do as much as possible without attacks on that freedom, along similar classical "negative rights. " I would define "security" as having the most defense or protection necessary or possible to ensure against attacks on your freedom, along similar classical "positive rights. " As dictionary. com defines security: 1. freedom from danger, risk, etc. ; safety. 2. precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, And liberty: 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. 2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Obviously I consider liberty and security to be intertwined, but I would argue that security is the much higher priority as I consider it a *prerequisite* for liberty. So I would be willing to argue these principles along either governmental or non-governmental lines. Let me know if these would be acceptable terms for a debate. Also, if possible I think it is best to keep our responses (and I will try my best to do so myself) succinct and to the point to avoid getting off topic or being too verbose. Many debates I've seen here exhibit this problem.
Watch this documentary. Jahar is innocent.

If you look at the picture of jahar in the black sweatshirt walking away from the bombing sites you can see that his arm length is not normal. Your fore arm should be longer than your upper arm or vice versa depending on race. Because jahar is white his fore arm should be longer than the upper part. They both appear to be equal. Also in other pictures his arm looks normal. His arm length didn't just change for that picture. Tamerlan is probably not innocent. We haven't seen jahar out the back put down. Also tamerlan went to a fbi training camp in Russia a couple years ago (infowars has the main sources) so he was probably being made into a terrorist by a nother group. There's no way he was all loving America than after he couldn't do boxing because he wasn't a citizen he just became in American.
Watch this documentary. Jahar is innocent.

The first point i would like to bring up is the security. They had more security at that marathon than they would have at any other race. Cops were everywhere. Shooters were on roof tops. Bomb sniffing dogs everywhere. It probably is not a coincidence. Authorities knew something would happen. It's undeniable. I'm very proud of the cops and civilians who risked their lives to save the injured. I'm not denying that many heroes were there to help that day. The men with the backpacks who ever they are...those backpacks match the ones that had the bombs in them. Remember jahar did not set a bomb down. The back pack was photoshopped out. Thanks
Watch this documentary. Jahar is innocent.

Thanks for being mature and respectful. I look at everything I read or watch with a skeptical eye. Just because Alex jones says something doesn't mean I believe it. I've heard some crazy conspiracies that I completely disagree with. Even though the person saying these wild things might agree with me completely or vaguely I still don't believe those things. There are people who think that the Boston Bombing didn't even happen and that all the amputees are really actors who were amputees prior to the event. I have an open mind and I won't disgrace with someone just because their argument sounds crazy. I won't disagree with anything until I look into the facts for my self. I actually looked into some of this stuff. I watched videos where people tried to prove the Boston bombing victims are actors and I didn't buy it. I found some of the facts and inconsistencies they pointed out compelling but I can't agree with them with just those facts. I understand what you mean. One could look at these reasons that prove sandy hook was a hoax or that Boston bombing was a false flag and just shrug it off as "simple mistakes" or "glitches". In some events like The Boston bombing there are too many if these glitches and mistakes. If there was only one reason that proven Boston was a false flag than one could shrug it off as a mistake. When there are 50 glitches it's hard to believe they all happen to be explainable mistakes. I find it strange that with these mass killings Facebook pages and tweets go out prior the event. Pretty much only in these events-and in most of these events there are the same types of mistakes being made. Coincidence? Probably not. I was talking about a nother picture that shows more of jahar. I think someone photoshopped this mans picture. All those bomb sniffing dogs didn't smell the bombs? Strange. You did a great job. Thanks.
Gay marriage should be illegal

I am against homosexual marriage being illegal. One point for this is that it isn't going to have an impact on anyone else's life. Who cares if your homosexual neighbor has a husband? Not me. If someone were gay, would it kill you? Would it stop you from getting a job or living a healthy life? Please don't hold back any arguments, i'm new and inexperienced, but please bring out the big guns for this debate.
The user known as "brittwaller" should not have lost the following debates

The return of Kleptin is a great thing. Unfortunately, and wisely, in this instance, my opponent obviously agrees with me due to his actions to correct the said problems. This kind of makes the position of CON null and void. As of the writing of this post, about 9 pm CST, the score on the debate that should have been tied is actually tied, so as long as no one touches that one it should be golden. it is tied right down the middle, 30 to 30. Very nice. I say that as it would be a disservice to both sweatingjojo and I if it falters again. The other two are closer, but not reversed. I did not make this debate for vanity, but for rational justice 8)
The user known as "brittwaller" should not have lost the following debates

I don't really have the time for a full-on debate right now, but I wanted to check out the newer features on the site, as well as clean up my record a little. Now, I have been vexed for some time by the fact that my Total War community website has better-behaved members, and can settle on a standard of civility so much easier than this site, which is, ostensibly, devoted to debate and is so full of "intellectuals." That's only a side point (not an analogy), but is relevant because I believe that I was either voted against out of pure personal bias, or that multiple accounts were used against me, or that people simply voted based on opinion, or that some of the people that voted are simply ignorant, or whatever combination of the above factors you want to use. Any of those scenarios are possible, as anyone that has been here for a minute knows that these things are more or less "inherent" in the system (this is what vexes me...) It should be noted that I haven't put every loss I've had up here for re-examination. I have some well-deserved losses, indeed, and do not have a problem with losing in and of itself. I do, however, have a problem with losing when I should have clearly won, or in one case, tied. Here they are. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I should have won in those instances, hands-down. At this point, I will say it is self-evident. If it is not so evident to my opponent, I will explain and clarify as needed. http://www.debate.org... This debate should be a tie, as my opponent and friend sweatingjojo and I specifically asked no one to vote on the discussion - not a debate. The content of the debate makes clear that only small-minded, self-serving tricksters would have sabotaged our pure discussion. Hilarious! I look forward to a good debate here. Britt
Ban Guns Permanently

My analogy (that you correctly replied to) proves that without the tool, there is no crime involving it. Ban guns permanently and gun crime = zero. The ONLY, SINGLE argument is when guns are not permanently banned and end up arising again (hence non-permanently).You failed to meet your BOP due to the single, sole, argument of yours being this: people will resort to other weapons but surely those weapons would be only further bans until true civilisation is achieved if we followed my philosophy.My argument was as follows:Eliminate the weapon, no crime. No guns, no one needs them.Neither of these points was successfully refuted (the first was accepted in the round 5 debate of con).
Ban Guns Permanently

Even without guns, there will still be crime. Guns are needed for wildlife hunts and many other uses. Here in the United States, colleges even have rifle teams. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A gun will only shoot at the object in which it is pointed at. Same thing with a car; a car will go where ever the tire is pointed. If you drive off the side of a cliff, it's not the cars fault, most of the time, it's yours. Yes, sometimes guns malfunction if they are not treated properly. That's why you have to have a card to buy a weapon.
Ban Guns Permanently

That is an error in enforcement, not a sufficient point in favour of proving of why banning guns is bad. If we banned them permanently no one would have the gun in the first place, only would they have this if there was error in enforcing the beautiful law (notice how there are virtually zero gun crimes in Britain and Germany?... Well guess what, it's because gun laws are SUCCESSFULLY implemented. The only reason it increases in USA afterwards is the retards in the senate LEAVE THE GHETTO GANGSTERS WITH GNS and the innocent civilians without them, OBVIOUSLY they haven't banned them permanently because people still have them!
Ban Guns Permanently

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Do pencils misspell words? No, people misspell words. Do cars make people drive drunk? No. Do spoons make you fat? No. Cigarettes kill people only because they choose to smoke them. Spoons only make you fat because you choose to eat to much. Pencils only misspell words because you can't spell. It all goes back to the people. If they take away guns, people are going to start using bows. Then people are going to start killing with bows. Then they'll ban bows. Then what are we going to use? Rocks?