BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

My master has now broken multiple rules. 1. my R1 2nd rule states: "2. My Master may not use the words: "I" "and" "the"" My Master has made multiple violations of this rule: R2 2nd sentence quote: "and it will be good to note" R3 1st sentence quote: "which i find quite out of hand" R3 1st sentence quote "using The word" R3 3rd sentence quote: "shame i decree" These violations were made in R3 more numerous to count. My Master may make the argument that they are not/are capitalized opposite of my rule, however this argument is false as my rule clearly stated the word and not the capitalization. The capitalization does not effect that the word "the" is the same as the word "The". Additionally my Master stated in his rules "recite the lyrics every" which is a direct violation of my R1 rule 2. Furthermore, My Master's rule about Arthur's story never stated that it had to be three sentences/couldn't be more than three sentences. http://www.youtube.com... There are japanese people. They try not to laugh. It is funny. I laughed. People should watch this. It is great. People try not to laugh. It is funny watching them as it is funny to watch Elvis Presley. This is a youtube video. It has a lot of views. This is great. I enjoyed this. I believe the first person in the 2nd video is gay because he wears tight clothing. Arthur was eaten by chuck norris! Chuck Norris peeled off his skin! Chuck Norris smushed and ate him! White blank index cards They are empty filled with space Notes are kept on them Me: Knock Knock Person: *Person doesn't answer door* Wop-bop-a-loom-a-boom-bam-boom tutti frutti au rutti tutti frutti au rutti tutti frutti 1. My Master must now right every word backwards, this will not violate the spelling rule, however every word must still be spelled correctly backwards and still rhyme. 2. My Master must now write every sentence backwards. 3. My Master must claim at least 3 times that he is the
I will not break a rule.

My opponent states that a rule is broken by using The word "and", which i find quite out of hand. For Con never did state, anywhere in this debate, that using The word "and" is against The rules, such a statement is as ridiculous as saying that Elvis Presley made a living by cleaning pools. My opponent broke my rule "Con must write a three sentence story about a grapefruit named Arthur without saying "grapefruit" for he wrote four sentences instead of three, what a shame i decree. One day I hope Elvis Presley, KGB, The person who told The knock-knock joke, The Japanese host and audience, Arthur's parents, The organism that consumed Arthur, and me can have a tea party, and i hope The blue pen and pink eraser won't be tardy. One day my wish that Arthur will be vomited back up will become true, either by vomiting or in his consumer's poo. My second wish that i could go rollerblading with Elvis makes me sad, for he is dead which also makes me mad. 1.Con must make a reference to Chuck Noris each round in three of his sentences with glee, lest Pro shall win this debate and ignore Con's pleads for mercy. 2.Con must recite the lyrics every post of an Elvis song, or else I will tell him he is wrong. 3.3. Con must explain why he believes one of The people in The Japanese videos he posts is gay, or else Pro wins this debate today.
I will not break a rule.

My Master has broken rule 2 by using the word "and" in the following sentence: ", and it will be good to note" http://www.youtube.com... The video is in Japanese. Elvis Presley would have said that host "ain't nothin but a hound dog". The video is funny. The games are fun. People try to fit through strange cutouts. Some people fail. I cannot understand the host. I do not speak Japanese. I wish I could be on the game show. The Japanese people laughed near the end. I enjoyed the movie. I recommend you watch it. Me: Knock Knock Person: Who's there Me: KGB Person: KGB who Me: *Slaps Person* VEE VILL ASK THE QUESTIONS! The eraser pink. clears my mistakes with great ease This thing does not stink There once was a fruit named Arthur He had bitter parents So he grew to be a bitter fruit. He lived in a subtropical citrus tree. He was originally named the "forbidden fruit" of Barbados. Arthur was eaten and died. 1. Rule breakages that are not discovered in the round immediately following may not be referenced by Master and may not be considered to be a violation of the rules. 2. My Master must use every character in My Master's proceeding rounds. 3. My opponent must make every sentence/incomplete sentence rhyme.
I will not break a rule.

Here are my rules for this round, and it will be good to note that in my opinion in speaking of "rounds", that Elvis Presley should have sung "You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) instead of Dead or Alive. 1. Con must write a three sentence story about a grapefruit named Arthur each round without saying "grapefruit". 2. Con must write a summary about his posted video that is twelve sentences long, containing a reference to the famous Elvis Presley. 3. Con must post a ‘knock-knock joke' each round.
I will not break a rule.

Here are the rules for this debate: A1.You or I cannot break these set of rules or else the one who broke the rule will lose unless they prove otherwise. A2. Each round consists of three rules posted (excluding this basic set of before-hand rules) Failure to do so results in a loss. A3. Rules cannot be exceedingly difficult, for I consider this debate to be fun not tiresome. A4. If one of us breaks a rule this must be noted in their next post along with an explanation as to why they broke the rule. A5. Pro (me) wins if Con fails to convince me that I broke a rule or Con breaks one of my rules. I lose if I break these rules or your own rules; however it is not an automatic loss unless I don't defend myself. Pro's First Round Rules: 1. Con must post a video each round of a video in Japanese that is longer then two minutes. 2. Con must write a haiku each round about something that can be found in a desk drawer. 3. Con must refer to Pro as "Master" from now on.
I will not break a rule.

My Master stated "is not an Elvis song but originally created by Little Richard and is not officially an Elvis song" Most current artists do not write their own lyrics and yet the songs are considered their songs. If a famous artist adopts a song and decides to sing it multiple times with permission, it is their song. My master stated: "you must use three sentences in your story" I did use three sentences in the story. Anyone can count that there are four sentences that make up the full story, but there are at least three sentences worth in that story. Again, you have not shown me evidence of a rule that states that Pro is prohibited using the word "and". Yes I have as I have clearly stated multiple times that it was my R1 2nd rule which I quoted band. Furthermore my master COMPLETELY ignored evidence of him using the word "the" etc sand. "He has even violated it again "Pro is the Santa Clause" multiple times which there is not enough space." Furthermore my master creates rules that "are exceedingly difficult" when compounded like lace. I have no space to write: 12 sentences + at least 3 sentence story + haiku + recite lyrics of elvis song + explanation of gay japanese + a five paragraph essay each round on how sexy he thinks Michael Jackson was with no mistakes relating to spelling or grammar. I have endured more rules than my master like a hammer. The ruler is cool I use it to measure things The ruler is tool Arthur is slowly drank by Chuck Norris! Arthur finds his way into Chuck Norris's stomach! Arthur came out his penis chorus! http://www.youtube.com... The hippo is gay because he looks like it. This is a video. They speak japanese in it. There are animals. One likes to sit. It is boring. It is not fun. They learn language and are whoring. Language is not fun. Learning is boring. This video is boring. Elvis would not like this scoring. "Easy come, easy go Here, there, everywhere, crazy love is in the air"
It should be legal for NON-religious homosexuals to marry another person of the same gender.

>>Marriage is not an institution of the state, it is an institution of the Church. That is not true. Are you saying that Atheists cannot marry because they are not religious? Marriage is not exclusively Christian. Other people of other religions can marry, and if marriage was an institution of the Church, you would be saying that all of those people are actually not married, even though the government recognizes that they are. >>The Church has religious freedom, and the State cannot force it to perform marriages for homosexuals for that very reason. Not all marriages are conducted by the Church. You do not have to have a Christian marriage to become married. >>Homosexuals simply cannot have religious marriages because homosexuality is against the values of the institution that will perform those marriages. Again, not all marriages have to be through the Church. >>Civil Unions were created to provide homosexuals with rights similar to those given to married, heterosexual couples. If the homosexuals find the rights given to them by civil unions are inadequate then change civil unions; don't change marriage. If civil unions are basically the same as marriages, which they are not, then why can't we let homosexuals marry? Civil unions do not always give homosexuals the same rights as a marriage does. You are making a 'separate but equal' argument, and history has told us that 'separate' is never 'equal.' Therefore, we should not separate between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. >>One could also argue that homosexual couples do not contribute as much as heterosexual couples due to the impossibility to create offspring essential to maintain the US population. With modern technology, it is in fact possible to create offspring. (Sperm donors, etc.) Also, our country is already vastly overpopulated as is, and I don't see how this is such a bad idea. If the couple does not want a child, whose choice is that? Not all hetrosexual couples have children, yet we let them marry. There are people in the USA without the ability to have children, yet they are allowed to marry. The only people in the USA who do not have the freedom to marry whom they want are homosexuals. You have not answered any of my arguments, so I have nothing left to say. Thank you
It should be legal for NON-religious homosexuals to marry another person of the same gender.

Marriage is not an institution of the state, it is an institution of the Church. The Church has religious freedom, and the State cannot force it to perform marriages for homosexuals for that very reason. Homosexuals simply cannot have religious marriages because homosexuality is against the values of the institution that will perform those marriages. The alternative to marriage is civil unions. Civil Unions were created to provide homosexuals with rights similar to those given to married, heterosexual couples. If the homosexuals find the rights given to them by civil unions are inadequate then change civil unions; don't change marriage. One could also argue that homosexual couples do not contribute as much as heterosexual couples due to the impossibility to create offspring essential to maintain the US population. One interesting example is France, a country that has allowed same-sex marriage and consequently has a declining population. To prevent this same thing from occurring here, the US government can restrict the rights of civil unions to encourage normal marriages between heterosexuals.
It should be legal for NON-religious homosexuals to marry another person of the same gender.

Before I start this debate, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to please vote based upon the debate itself, and not upon the debaters or your own opinions. Thank you. I have put out this debate to challenge anyone who wants to debate me. However, I would not like to debate anyone who shares my same views. I would like to find out why there are people who want to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Now to my actual argument: According to the Human Rights Commision, there are approximatley 10 million homosexual people living in the United States today. They have all the freedoms that hetrosexuals have, except for one: the right to marry whom they wish. Gay people in many areas of the USA do not have the right to marry another gay person. They do, however, have the right to have a civil union. Most would say, 'Civil Unions are the same thing as marriage!' You are wrong. Civil unions often only give the gay couple some of the rights of male and female marriages. They often limit the things that the couple can do. Civil Unions are not the same as marriages. The crux of my argument is simple and can be composed in a few questions: Why is it that just because a gay person is gay, they cannot marry who they want? Since when did the government have to right to limit our liberties and freedoms that do not matter in homeland security? Why do we discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even though we don't discriminate based upon race or gender. Thank you
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

I must disagree. Teachers give us homework to sharpen our skills with the topic we learned. To help us understand the lesson. That is why they give us homework. Because they do not have time to make sure that they have the lesson well taught and well learned for everyone. With my prior example, the teacher can make sure that everyone understands the material that is being taught. I am not sure what my opponent's point was with trying to learn 4 lessons of physics in around 30 minutes was. If he is being sarcastic I have no idea. Long periods are beneficial to society as well as the education system as a whole. And actually, let us see what happens to bully rates when the school hours increase. I am willing to bet that they will decrease. The answer to that is very simple when you look at the root cause for bullying. Why does it occur? If you increase school hours, and they reduce stress on the bully, he will not need to hurt a kid to express himself from all the stress he is under. I am not saying to increase the amount of time outside of class. I am saying to increase the amount of time in class, so that students can have a better chance of learning the material. Less wearing uniforms? This is not true for all schools. Thus, that is a school topic for a debate, not a nation-wide topic such as the school hours. Thanks for the debate. Good job! You made some good points in the debate. Although, the insults were a little much. And since you like Halo, check out the debate with me on the topic Battlefield takes more skill than Halo! Ill cya round!
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

you have my congrats. Your thick skull got the message to your new brain. Your now evolved! You fool, the give us homework to go and see if we know what we learned. longer hours still means homework you idiot. the less school we have, the harder it'll be to fit in homework in the puzzle, since we would have instead of around 7-8 hours, we'll have around 4-5 hours a day. Try doing an entire 4 lessons of physics in around 30 minutes! not possible. No long periods, no hour long lunches (trust me, they are quite dull. they make me want to do more physics) and no wasting mornings getting stressed about a huge math test, or getting bored to death from lectures (i had to tazer my friend awake) or even spending time in trouble. Less school is less bullying, less wearing uniforms, and less, well, school. thus being said, i need to tell you 2 things. 1: i would like to friends with you, seeing of i find you able to be up to my level of mind, and 2: i have a Halo marathon to go to, have a nice day :0
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

I must point out my opponent's accusations of this statement to be lame. He is directly insulting me for speaking logic and debating. By they, I am going to assume you mean teachers since you directly have comments about homework. Most teachers give homework because they do not have enough class time to teach you the information. If you have a longer school day, however, some teachers would probably have their homework reduced to a minimum. For an example, you have a math class. They had their class time extended, and he didnt have to change his lecture time. Thus, have plenty of time to do your assignment in class and have time to ask your questions if need be. Your homework when you go home is now reduced to almost nothing, and now you can spend more time with your family.
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

I admit it, you do make a great point, BUT admit it, the more hours, the less time there is to be with family, or with friends and moving around. do you REALLY think that the WOULDN'T add more homework? Also, it mean less time to be on this wonderful website. With that said, I do belive that it is time to see what lame statment you give in return.
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

Well, I see that you want more time outside of school, yes? Well, Id say, give it longer hours. Yes, let school go on longer. Give each school day an extra 2 hours. Give the school one hour in the morning, and one during the afternoon. This is much easier for parents to deal with since most of everyone has to work an 8 hour shift. Also, relating to the want to do more things, in order to keep school balanced, how would the two hours work? Simple. They take an entire day off. Id like a three-day weekend. A two-day weekend is to short. Sure, there are kids that want to work. Well, with an extra day, you will be able to get the hours you need without a problem. A longer school day is a better solution than giving the school shorter hours, which would make the week even longer. When observing all the pros and cons, a longer school day is a better system for everyone. You may not mind having more days in school, but some do. Parents need to be able to get to work and take care of their kids. A longer school day could make that happen.
# SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS# YES OR NO (please click yes)

I think that school hours must be cut shorter! On a nice wonderful day in the winter, while the snow is perfect to slid down and make forts out of, surprise surprise! theres school. and by the time you get back to play in it, its all dirty, and gone, or other things even worse. Nice breezy day, perfect to go to boston for a week, sun shineing. sounds nice right? well THERES SCHOOL. I'm begging all of the people glued to their computers and this wonderful website to please vote for SHORTER SCHOOL HOURS! also think, less school is less homework :3.
Non-Addictice Drugs Should be Legalized

My opponent failed to provide definitions, and failed to challenge my own. Thus, the resolution concerns "non-addictive" drugs, which do not exist. My opponent's intent is unimportant, as he made no attempt to clarify it in earlier rounds. "I just said that it's unfair for other drugs to remain illegal if those too aren't. " Fairness is far less important than the protection of society. Simply because the legalization of a drug is "fair", doesn't mean that it has a positive impact. At any rate, the resolution cannot be affirmed.
Non-Addictice Drugs Should be Legalized

My point stands that the resolution simply cannot be affirmed. Although psychologically addictive drugs are "less addictive", they are not non-addictive. My opponent does not negate this. Therefore, there is no reason to legalize these non-existent "non-addictive" drugs. To answer my opponent's question, there is no reason why alcohol and tobacco ought to be legalized. However, given their vast societal importance, their banishment would be an impossible task.
Non-Addictice Drugs Should be Legalized

There's a difference between physical addiction and psychological addiction. With physical addiction, not only does your mind crave the substance, your body does too. When that happens, you have basically no choice but to spend most of your money on the drugs to sustain the physical addiction your body has to them. Psychological addiction is not your body craving the drugs, it's your mind. With only your mind craving drugs, then you are less likely to have to use them as often. It is also proven that non-physical addictive drugs are less addictive than alcohol. http://www.safercolorado.org... If alcohol and tobacco are more addictive, then why shouldn't non-addictive drugs be legalized?
Non-Addictice Drugs Should be Legalized

addictive: causing or characterized by addiction addiction: being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming [1] The resolution cannot be affirmed, simply because non-addictive drugs do not exist. The purpose of any drug, marijuana included, is to generate pleasure. Typically, this is expressed through a release of dopamine. The only difference between so-called "addictive", and "non-addictive" drugs, is the amount of dopamine released. While cocaine and heroine cause a greater dopamine release than marijuana, marijuana still causes a release of dopamine. Therefore, it is capable of forming psychological dependence, and thus, addiction [2]. Further, any pleasurable activity, gambling, sex, etc., can result in addiction [3]. A drug user is, no doubt, taking a drug because it generates pleasure. Hence, drug use is inherently addictive. [1] wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [2] http://www.scienceclarified.com... [3] http://www.scienceclarified.com...
Gun rights

Gun rights: I do not have a strong opinion as of yet. The purpose of this debate is to give me an opportunity to feel out my thoughts on this subject. Please read carefully. Clarification: 1: What this debate is not about This debate is not about gun control. This debate is not about the NRA. This debate is not about gun crime. This debate is not about gun deaths. This debate is not about gun safety. 2: What it is about: The second Amendment: Below are two of the versions of the second amendment, one passed by congress, the other ratified by Thomas Jefferson. The punctuation is different. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (1) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (1) What I would like to debate is the following question: Is owning a gun a natural right? Pro will argue that owning a gun is a right. I will be taking the position of Con, as I imagine there are more potential opponents that are Pro: Format: 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hrs. 1st round Pro may begin arguments 2nd and 3rd rounds for arguments and rebuttals 4th round for final rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.) This gives pro an extra round. This debate is impossible to accept: Please comment if interested in accepting, please include a brief summary of your position. I will choose an opponent based on ELO, and summary of position. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...