BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most women have never been truly loved by any man

I must say that I found your comments a bit sophomoric but still quite humorous. Almost like written by someone who girls would consider "cute","funny", "smart" but not Boyfriend material. But I digress and let me clarify one important element in this discussion. The meaning of love as it were. For practical purposes let me point some elements of what may be considered love vs. infatuation, physical, mental, emotional attraction, etc. So, Love would be - caring for someone despite their flaws - willingness and delight in doing things that please and make another person happy in a personal way - ability to know a person beyond the usual facades and layers of impersonal social fronts we all put up - A deep affection, almost unbelievable for someone, which is hard to dismantle even after experiencing offenses and disappointments. - an affection that want wishes good things, protects, guides, wants the well being and happiness of the other. - etc. Now, most of us have experienced this love at least from one person, our mothers (hopefully) which gives us insight into this world of abundant care. When it come to an outside figure, a masculine, boyish, somewhat coarse and unable to dive into the typical female physique, love at that point becomes nearly impossible. Women know this, which is why they would consider a man with a grasp of maturity, masculinity, attractiveness, and sincerity a treasure...a treasure they no longer expect to find in this day and age. The men you described: " Jerks = 20% A**holes = 19% Muscle heads = 22% Idiots = 19% Some combination of the above 4 = 19% Nice guys who love them for who they are and don't want to change anything but their last name = 1%..." That seems to be the norm, any other characteristics are either fantasy from ages ago or simply homosexual, but I argue that those men with favorable characteristics exist. Again, this is not the point of argument. In fact, women would probably miss the man who loves them even as he stands right in front of them. IN closing: 1. Women were broken hearted and their little girl fantasies shattered. Now they don't expect much from men other than that of the physical and somewhat simulated stimulated conversation. 2. They know that it is a man's world, and men want them for one thing. 3. From a practical perspective love is nonexistent and a risk that women have decided to forgo for the time being. By women, I mean approximately 90% of North American women.
Most women have never been truly loved by any man

This might seem like an odd way to approach the subject of women and their social standing, but here is my argument: The fact that women can sometimes be totally unkind to others and seem to never truly be happy is because they suffer from lovelessness. They have been in one or many relationships, long and short term, but they have been scared by the realization that after they gave their hearts, minds and souls to someone they were ruthlessly repaid. In the present they seem confident and possibly quite attractive, but damaged and unable to ever love, truly love again. Take it from me, Mr. nice guy.
Daily Physical Education for students should not be required in Illinois

Though I admire your opinion, your opinion alone cannot constitute a debate. You must have some form of evidence. Well I say physical education shouldn't be abolished. That is my opinion, deal with it. The voting would then be unfair as people would vote on whose opinion they agreed with in the first place. The point of a debate is to change people's opinions and have them agree with you through evidence and logic which my opponent is lacking.Clear win for CON.
Daily Physical Education for students should not be required in Illinois

I accept my opponent's debate challenge. I have noticed a lack of definitions so I will provide some:Daily - of done every day or weekdayPhysical Education - systematic instruction of sports, exercises, and hygiene as part of a school or college programStudents - a person formally engaged in learning. In this case from grades K - 12Required – to have need of, in this case whether or not physical education should be removed from the curriculum [1] I also request that my opponent accept that we expand the topic to not just Illinois. I am assuming that my opponent lives in Illinois, and goes to school in Illinois (why else would he choose this specific state?). This of course gives him an unfair advantage as I do not live nor go to school in Illinois. I thus ask that he expand it to whether or not “Daily Physical Education for Students should not be required.” If my opponent doesn’t wish to change this I understand. I look forward to my opponent’s opening arguments for what will likely be an interesting and thought-provoking debate! SOURCES www.dictionary.com
Daily Physical Education for students should not be required in Illinois

Physical Education requirements should be abolished. What part of taking a test is considered a "physical activity"? None of it. What part of the information you learn in this class is actually useful? None. The only purpose to these tests is so that people who slack off in class can still bring up their grades. If you"re going to be lazy about it you shouldn"t get any points in the first place. According to Illinois law, the main goal of implementing daily physical education is to "enhance our health and well-being". If that"s our goal, then why are we taking time out of our class to have the students sit down and fill out a sheet of paper? If you"re going to make PE required, don"t make it a graded course. Or at the very least, don"t make it affect your GPA. If an intelligent person isn"t that physically fit, it will affect what colleges they can go to, and that"s just not right. The grading system is completely subjective. And thank you in advance to my opponent.
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

In my defense, I must say that I had little to no idea what you just said in your rebuttal. KFC, as shown in the statistics above, have a lower number of calories than McDonald's food items do. I did all of the math by calculator. They are all right. .. Since KFC has fewer calories, it makes KFC healthier than McDs. That's what the debate is about. Not ads or janitorial services. I have shown the sources and proof of my work. Thank you.
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

Rebutall I am here to say that KFC is bad. In my first point that McDonalds is bringing a health program puting some sandwiches,salads,and dessert under 350 calories. They been putting lost of ads about this program including Ronald McDonald. All you are telling me is just one ad when we have this around the world. I respect that we put this debate food wise. Some of your averages are some way off besides KFC only has one salad and its greasy. In my other point about the FCAT my opponent has not touch it. So it still stand.
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

Over recent years KFC has shown their grilled chicken ads on television. http://www.youtube.com... The following was taken directly from http://www.examiner.com... "Kentucky Grilled Chicken was recently launched as a healthy alternative to Kentucky Fried Chicken. But, is it healthier? The breakdown for each is as follows: Kentucky Fried: 480 Calories 28 grams fat 6.5 grams saturated fat Kentucky grilled: 250 Calories 8 grams fat 2 grams saturated fat " This shows that the grilled chicken is in fact healthier than the fried chicken. So, the answer to your question is yes. KFC has ads for their grilled chicken, therefore, they have ads on their healthy stuff! My averaging was on all three forms of chicken; extra crispy, original recipe, and grilled. I have no idea how chopping a chicken in front of kids makes KFC unhealthy. I also believe that this debate is over healthy food. The janitorial and cleanliness of the restaurants around the world are going to vary. You can't possibly compare that. Thank you.
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

Cross fire On my point, I was stated that McDonalds is throwing Ads that McDonalds is healthy like Ronald getting kids to run and play, the revivsed chicken sandwiches, Is their any ads on healthy stuff in KFC? In your averaging was that fried chicken, extra crispy or grilled? According to Family the colonel chopped a chicken in front of kids, making KFC unsanitary and not healthy can you explain? Excluding Food wise, how long do the janitors clean? Evey thirty minutes, hour, shift, once a month, year?
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

I will be arguing that Kentucky Fried Chicken is indeed healhtier than McDonalds. I will prove that KFC has less calories than McDonalds by using a simple method. My opponent points out that McDs has healthy burgers, salads and desserts. I am going to average the KFC and McDs salads and desserts and see which has less calories. (I equalled out each items on each menu. For example, if KFC had 9 desserts on their menu, I only used the first 9 McDs desserts and vice-versa.) KFC Chicken's Average: 227.64 calories. McD's Burger's Average: 524.11 calories. KFC Salad's Average: 143.8 calories. McD's Salad's Average: 316.6 calories. KFC Dessert's Average: 260 calories. McD's Dessert's Average: 205.5 calories. According to these numbers, KFC has beaten McDonald's two times in the amount of calories used. McDonald's seems to have a healthier amount of desserts, but blew KFC out of the water by the amount of calories in the other two categories.Therefore, KFC is statistically and calorically healthier than McDs. All my numbers were found at these two sites: 1. http://www.kfc.com... 2. http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com...
Mcdonalds is healhier than KFC

1st round cases 2nd crossfire 3rd rebuttals Mcdonalds is the number one most visited resturant in the world. With thier slogan I am lovin it, It makes us think that this is beter than anyone else. Todays Resolutuion that " Mcdonalds is healthier than KFC" I strongly go pro in this topic. My first point is that Mcdonalds has a new program that some of thier sandwiches, salads, and dessert are less than 350 calories. I n KFC they have the Double down which has 563calories. That is what I call a "heart attack." My second point is that in flordia the Fcat is promoting Mcdonald. The Florida Comprehension assesment test is and still is giving kids a free breakfast at mcdonalds before taking the Fcat. Thus McDonalds is healthier than KFC so I need a pro ballot.
Barack Obama is a great President, and one of the best in our time.

This seems to just be free form so I will simply do rebuttals. I will rebut first and then move on to arguments. I also condensed the quotes for the sake of space. Let's get started: 1. "Barack Obama is one of the best. .. healthcare to defense. " I can accept most of this. The "long-desired policies" depends largely on who you ask and the policies of defense Obama has implemented have been desired but were hugely ineffective. 2. "Keep in mind he is the first. .. low approval rating. " First, I despise the fact that people voted for Obama simply because he is black. I believe in equality in all things, don't get me wrong, but that means equality. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they will be a good president. The fact that this is a milestone only makes it more depressing as the first black president is the worst we have yet to see. As for the Bush administration, just because someone has a low approval rating doesn't make them bad. I realize the Bush administration made mistakes, but they largely did what they should have and the American people as a whole likes to make them a scapegoat for all our problems. 3. "With the experience of only four years. .. his inspiring message of "Hope. "" The fact that you point out Obama was only a senator for four years is detrimental, not helpful. Obama has less than half the experience as other senators but we gave him the most important job in the United States government. The equivalent here is to give a company manager a position as CEO. Not a good decision. I do realize Obama worked very hard for his position, but this really shows that Obama's only true political skill lies in speeches. 4. "He brought a luxury seen in most. .. a deal with Iran" First, just because Obama made a deal, does not mean it was a good one. Also, the killing of Osama bin Laden is truly credited to Seal Team 6 and Bush. Obama was just the bandwagon. Out of space
Barack Obama is a great President, and one of the best in our time.

Barack Obama is one of the best, most progressive presidents of our time. He has brought long-desired policies to the people of America ranging from healthcare to defense. Keep in mind he is the first black president of the United States, a significant milestone in our history, and his Republican predecessor was terrible with his low approval rating. With the experience of only four years as a US Senator, Obama worked hard to defeat his experienced contenders during his 2008 election campaign, while charming everyday Americans with his inspiring message of "Hope." He brought a luxury seen in most developed countries to the people of America, universally funded health care. With his policies, he brought up the population that made the majority of the US, the lower- and middle-classes. He also progressed in foreign affairs, finally capturing and killing Osama bin Laden, fighting the lingering terrorist threat of the Islamic State (ISIS), opening up relations with Cuba, and developing a deal with Iran.
Barack Obama is a great President, and one of the best in our time.

I am simply going to give some of my arguments, as I have not yet: 1. Economy: a. Industry: Under Obama, American industry, while not significant upon his inauguration, has almost entirely disappeared. This is mainly due to Obama's failure to maintain import tax to encourage American goods as well as Obama's "Robin Hood" tax. This tax does much of what the name would see it do. It takes money from the rich. The problem with this, is that it does no one any good except to make the government money. The rich receive more taxes, so they fire people, raise prices, and move their industry somewhere else, generally with American industry it has moved to China. Many wonder where so many of America's jobs have gone, claiming that it must be foreigners stealing them. The reality is Obama may as well have shipped them away himself. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) b. Employment: Many claim that Obama has increased American employment. This is not the case. Due to my previous statement, many jobs in America no longer exist. Much of the middle class has been gutted. In response to seeing the future source claiming the percentage increase, the reason the numbers appear higher is that those who are not searching for a job no longer count as a part of the American workforce, therefore no longer a part of the statistic. As such, when many gave up searching, the appearance is that the workforce has increased.(http://data.bls.gov...) You can see this here. c. Obamacare and Welfare: The ideals of universal welfare are based in solid roots, but what is the reality behind it? Tax increases. These taxes will be given to the middle class, to pay for the lower class who have no aspirations to become middle class, and so encourage the continued lack of work. I believe welfare is an excellent system, but it is being abused. Obamacare is just another expansion to the already myriad of bad welfare policies
Barack Obama is a great President, and one of the best in our time.

Civil rights: He has consistently spoken on behalf of the disenfranchised members of society, despite the fact that it was politically unpopular to do so at the time. His outspoken support of gay marriage is an excellent example. Health care plan: Obama"s health care plan has given uninsured Americans to the benefits of a universal health care system. A suffering child should never be turned away because his or her mother doesn"t have health insurance. To deny medical assistance to people who desperately need it is barbaric. Middle class: Here are some comments made by Obama in recent months: "Rebuilding our economy starts with strengthening the middle class. Extending tax breaks on 98 percent of families now would give hardworking Americans the security and confidence they need." Women"s rights: Obama"s first action as President was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill designed to end wage discrimination for women. He also fully funded the Violence Against Women Act, which addresses the criminality of sexual assault and domestic violence. Environment: Obama has taken a forward approach to creating a red, white, blue and green America. His policies and initiatives for a clean energy economy have had an incredible impact on the future of the nation. For instance, the U.S. reduced oil imports by more than 10 percent from 2010 - 2011. Peace: Let us never forget that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, one of the greatest accomplishments anyone could hope to achieve in a lifetime. The award reads, "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Education: Believing education is what brings about the strength of a nation, Obama has set a goal for the U.S. to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.
Christianity

I accept your terms and proposals. I will argue the Pro of this debate. I wish to extend gratitude to my opponent for his desire to retain a rational and civil conversation between two human beings. Regardless of difference on opinion, there is no excuse for two mature people being unable to get together and talk about those differences. I have one term of my own that I would ask of my opponent: That the usage of Wikipedia.org be discounted. It is my belief that Wikipedia.org barely qualifies as a tertiary source and it tries me to no end to see otherwise intelligent debates ruined by the lax standards imposed on the writing of Wikipedia.org articles. This is more of a quirk of mine in regards to the integrity of professional writing style. Due to this, I would still respect the choice of my opponent to deny this term. However I would wish to inform you that I will hold myself to that term regardless of my opponent's decision. I wish the best of luck to my opponent. -amVoiceofReason
Christianity

Perhaps this topic is overused, and one may tire of these religious debates. However, I feel that it is always good to discuss important topics, and religion is certainly an important topic, whether or not one agrees with a religion or not. I will be arguing against Christianity and beliefs associated with it, including the belief of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent god, beliefs represented in the Bible (Old Testament as well as New Testament), and the broad umbrella of Christianity in general. I argue that Christianity itself is a delusion, and presents many claims that cannot be logically or rationally defended by any evidence available. I contend that there is no foundation for the existence of God, for the truthfulness of the events in the Bible, for the truthfulness of events asserted by the Bible, and any other assertions made in the name of, or by, Christianity and Christians. In regards to the Bible, the events it depicts and of which Christians take as truth, there is simply no historical, archaeological, or rational basis for such claims, especially ones undertaken by a singular, unverified book written thousands of years ago in a period of instability and great superstition, where nobody and the faintest clue what was going on, where people turned to religion and superstition as comfort and as an attempt to satisfy the insatiable demand for knowledge. Furthermore, Christians often employ circular reasonings and arguments in asserting the truth of the Bible, as well as in attempting to explain away valid arguments presented to them. I conclude that the Bible, while still worth a read, is intelligibly just a work of fiction. 1st round will be acceptance, but Pro may state his or her arguments or position on the topic. Each of us will be able to provide a rebuttal in each of the rounds, and can present new topics in all but the last round. Please no trolls or any of the like, let's have a serious debate. I believe that the burden of proof should be entirely on Pro, however, in this debate, the burden of proof will be mostly shared. Questions or clarifications will be answered in the comments. *Be aware that whenever I talk about any text-based quotes, "God", or any of the like, I am speaking in a hypothetical situation, in the scenario that Christianity is true. I am an atheist, so I strongly disbelieve in the idea of a god or gods, and disagree with religions in general, in this case, Christianity.
Modern Art

. http://fineartamerica.com...Not all abstract art is expensive. The price now remains on the quality of the picture. . http://www.ugallery.com...These are some more expensive pictures, but as you can see, the quality is much better. Now normal "kids" wouldn't be able to draw these things. Also the price doesn't just increase because of the artist, it depends on the quality of teh painting. Humans are very good at deceiving themselves, but some drawings from kids are really good, and some drawing for professionals aren't that good either. As of now, I have been able to counter everyarguement the Pro has presented.
Modern Art

First of all, I have to say sorry about my misundertanding about what you were saing. What I learn from life, is that we have to accept when we are wrong and say it. Well, you changed a little bit my point of view, so thank you. Still, imagine a child makes an abstract draw, and some famous artist says it was them who made it. Would that chance your opinion about the draw? Wouldn"t it make it worth more? Humans are very good at trying to deceive themselves.. So I think they are more concerned about the artist, other then the painting. I believe that most people, just because it"s a very famous artist, they deceive themselves to belive that the draw give them emotions. In the otherside, I believe that there are the "type" of paintings very well paintes, and with an amazing image itself, making no need to have a debate about if its good or bad, because it"s easy to see, no room for doubts. Again, I don"t have now such a negative point of view about that, but explain this to me.
Modern Art

Once again, I never said that having a message makes it necessarily good. http://painting.about.com...This is evidence on how to judge ppaintings.http://www.urbandictionary.com...These "line drawings" are abstract art.This type of art has its own purpose in the different ways of art.Buyers of art chose this art because they think it means something very important to them. I repeat myself, I never said that songs aren't only judged by their message, and I never said that messages aren't the only other thing, but to the art you point at, abstract art, these are special because of there unique differential views.You constantly drop the arguement that the art is absract. So, you are making flawed conclusions to these drawings. I state once more that art can be seen to everyone differently. So, just becasue you see it bad, it doesn't mean that the art is now pointless.I have attacked the Pro's weak case with evidence.