BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Babies should be allowed to carry weapons.

I believe babies should be allowed to carry weapons. You may think I'm insane. I'm not. I went to college! If a baby gets kidnapped by a thief or rapist. He or she needs to be able to defend themself. Due to parents not allowing their 1 day old a phone, the baby only has one option. He or she needs to be able to pull out a samurai sword along with a fully loaded AK-47 and kill them. Without the weapons, the baby will be raped and live the rest of its life in depression and eventually kill themselves. I'd like to see you challenge that.
Babies should be allowed to carry weapons.

Babies really should NOT be able to carry any form of weaponry. I will use contentions for these arguments. Contention #1. First of all, to begin this, I will state the definition of baby. : a very young child A very young child, to me, means a child between the ages of 1 to 5. As the brain finishes developing very far from this age, (roughly 18) babies don't have a very stable mind."If one could even find out how to fire a weapon / jab with a knife, it would be more likely to shoot itself in the foot, or stab itself in the finger. Contention #2. Babies are not very strong. Guns are usually around 5 to 50lbs. A weak baby would probably just shoot itself or drop the gun. I will cut it short here, although I have much more to say. I am eager to hear your response.
Money Can Buy Happiness.

Many thanks to my opponent for a civil and straightforward debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck with examinations.______________I will skip past most of the beginning parts of your argument, because I'm afraid we got bogged down in the technical aspects of emotions, moods, etc. and while these are important they are not the crux of the debate. What we are really asking here is whether 'happiness' (as a mood, mental state or emotion) can be purchased. That is, can we conduct a transaction with money to acquire happiness? The only protest I will issue here is that I believe happiness is more along the lines of how you describe a 'state of mind' - that is, NOT temporary and fleeting, but a permanent personality trait. One achieves happiness in one's life, but joy and pleasure and sadness and pain are all temporary and can be felt day-to-day. We aren't here to settle this point of difference, but I think it's important, and I disagree with your assertion that happiness can be classified in the transient category.I will now explain the crucial part of the debate, and why money cannot buy happiness, using your own analogies.I'm glad you brought up movies, and we can apply the same to food or cats or the Internet or travel or books or whatever else brings a person pleasure. I want to make these points:- money is fungible, but those experiences are not - herein lies the stage for our question.- paying $17 to see a movie vs $17 for a soccer ball will give you different degrees of satiety and pleasure, as well as different types, even though you've spent the same amount of money.- we can then infer that it is the movie or the soccer ball which brings the pleasure to varying degrees depending on which you prefer, not the money that acquired it.- we can reverse-check this by extrapolating the data we collected: if there was no money in this transaction, but, say, trading one soccer ball for one movie ticket, the satisfaction of the viewing experience is achieved.And, of course, the critical point which I must reiterate, your definition:Buy: exchange money for an object or service.By definition, happiness cannot be transacted. Happiness cannot be purchased in the sense of a commercial exchange. I recognise that you are not saying that money is the only thing that can buy happiness, or that it always does, but I contend that by definition, money cannot and never does buy happiness. Best of luck at the polls. I enjoyed the debate.With respect,Phem.
Money Can Buy Happiness.

All right, since I already did definitions I'm going to stick with those and go straight to my argument. Money Can Buy Happiness For nearly every person I have ever met, giving them money brings happiness. For almost every person I know, buying things that they want, brings them happiness. Money can buy things that make people happy, for some that may be drugs, alcohol, sports, toys, video games, food, clothes, partying and so on. All of these things can be bought. It is even possible to buy family (through adoption) and more friends with money. The quality of those friends may be questionable, but friends are still friends. I would like to point out early on, by saying "buying happiness" I don't mean life long happiness. That is impossible, happiness is a temporary emotion. That is the happiness money can buy, even if it leads directly to sadness (i.e. through drugs and alcohol) the happiness it brings due to money is still there at the beginning. My argument is not that money always brings happiness, or cannot bring sadness. What I am saying is that for the majority of people the obtaining and spending of money on things that pleasure them brings happiness.
Money Can Buy Happiness.

Money Can Buy Happiness This should be impossible to accept. If you can then you lose. If you would like to debate me leave a comment. I recently did a forum on this subject and it sparked interesting conversation, so I decided to do a debate on it. Definitions: Money: Cash, Dollars, I think its pretty self explanatory. Buy: exchange money for an object or service. Happiness: The emotion of Happiness. First round is acceptance only forfeit in any round means automatic loss BoP is shared I must show that Money Can Buy Happiness, and Con must show Money cannot buy happiness.
Adults applying for welfare assistance should undergo drug screening

my apologies for being too busy to engage in a lot of dialouge. the money's purpose. i agree it's not best to be used for anything but necessities. most people don't buy too much drugs, or hard drugs etc. i still say we're splitting too many hairs for little gain. we lose more money than we save by drug testing. employers drug test to avoid liabiity from drug users, and to ensure good workers. this isn't the same as teh government.... the government is merely trying to help someone in need. i could see as a humanitarian argument spending the extra money we lose on drug testing, to not give money to dope fiends, as a matter of speaking. but this would be only cause we are looking out for their interests only. but we aren't donig that only. we are trying to help a lot of people, and it as cost effective as possible. the excessiev abuse is de minimis and to some extent the dope fiend is only hurting himself. it's like choosing to give or not give money to the guy on the street, should we screen and give the third degree to everyone we meet, or give the benefit of the doubt? sometimes it's best just to give some deference, and if they ony hurt themselves in the end, that's their own problem. we have to balance a lot of factors and excessive abuse isn't too common. to sum, should they be drug tested? in an ideal world yes. but in the practical world where it costs more than it saves, and the excessive abuse is de minimis, we shouldn't bother.
Adults applying for welfare assistance should undergo drug screening

drug screenings usually cost more than the savings they allow for. http://www.nytimes.com... it's not worth spending more money merely as a matter of principle just to keep them off the welfare rolls. plus as a practical matter. most welfare receipients don't get that much welfare. welfare here is being defined in the narrow sense as cash assistence. often it's only three years tops. and only if they have young children. if they want to spend a little on drugs, maybe they shouldnt, but it's de minimis what is being wasted, and in some sense more power to them to blow smalls change on whatever floats their boat. so they didnt buy household goods but chose to suffer some for drugs, give them a little liberty. at elast when teh savings are not there to do teh tests. even if you defined welfare more broadly, at least federally, only ten percent of money is spent on the poor. stop quibbling over small fries, especially when quibbling costs more than not in the first place.
free debate. I am ready to debate anything including funny things

Novels vs Movies - Is this a Holy War or a Case of A Little Understanding Would Go a Long Way? NovelsI agree with my opponent that novels are enjoyable because one can use their imagination. That is the the very reason we read novels. The key thing to remember is that novels fall under the category of Literature. Which basically means that is a written works. What this means is that when we read a novel, we depend on the author to describe to us what is happening. That is the purpose of a novel. To tell a story. This done primarily by narrative. . https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...MoviesMovies, also known as films, are a visual medium. I challenge anyone that reads this to pick up a book about writing a screen play. What you will see very early on is a reminder that the purpose of a movie is to show the audience the story. Show. Don't tell. (To illustrate this I will include some links to sites the give advice to beginner screen writers). . https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.screenwriting.info...https://thescriptlab.com...Summing up why we are comparing apples and oranges. So we do not go to a movie to be told a story. We go to a movie to see a story being told. Novels and movies are two completely different mediums. Not only that, but these two mediums have different purposes. If one goes to a movie expecting to be told a story then they are going with a misunderstanding of the purpose of movies. Change is ALWAYS bad! !! !! Right? One of the main complaints that is heard when unfairly comparing novel to movie is that "they" always change it. These changes can range from omitting certain characters to changing hair color. I remember someone telling me once that a movie was horrible. When I asked why the response was the one of the character's hair color was different in the movie. I never reached that level but I was once someone that similarly compared movies and novels. Then one day my Dad made a comment that changed the way I look at it. I don't remember what we were watching. Whatever it was I had read the book and my Dad had not. I kept making comments about how they differed. I pointed out one change by saying, "That is not how it happened in the book. " My Dad tersely responded, "This isn't the book. " That changed my perspective. Those four words changed how I looked at movies based on novels (or pretty much any other type of medium). I didn't understand all the reasons at that point. But I understood that the two were fundamentally different. If my opponent wishes, I would be happy to discuss the changes (pros and cons) between the novel and the movie in the next round if my opponent wishes.
free debate. I am ready to debate anything including funny things

Let's just do the first hunger games I have found that I always enjoy the books better because there is the factor of imagination. You can create the entire world of this book in your head and have it tweaked however you want. 2. I think they did do comparatively better on these movie's accuracy compared to other movies such as percy jackson i mean, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? they ruined it. anyway, as i was saying, they did well on the movies accuracy, but you can always tell the book came before the movie because the book has some stuff that makes it better that the movie changed, or left out.
free debate. I am ready to debate anything including funny things

I was just watching videos on Youtube. While watching an episode of CinemaSins I remembered participating in arguments on the comments section about The Hunger Games book vs movie. So: The Hunger Games Book(s) (Pro) vs Movie(s) (Con). (I will allow my opponent to choose whether that is the first The Hunger Games or both The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. Burden Of Proof Shared. Pro is arguing that The Hunger Games book(s) is/are indeed better than the movie(s). Con is arguing that The Hunger Games movie(s) is/are equally as good as the books if not a little better. This is not intended to be semantical argument.
Should the Drinking Age be lowered to 18

In the United States and in many provinces in Canada citizens are legally considered to be adults and are considered mature enough to vote, smoke, be prosecuted as an adult and even become eligible for enlistment in the military. If an 18 year old is mature enough to make choices that are potentially life threatening, as well as responsible enough to vote and even in some cases to hold an elected office, then why shouldn't adults be allowed to purchase and consume alcohol. Legal paternalism is a very anti-progressive concept that doesn't fit properly within the rather liberal societies of both Canada and the US and its influence over drinking age should be changed due to the lack of enforcement of the drinking age as well as the fact that very few citizens follow the Law. Like founding father Thomas Jefferson once said "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." (1) and in this case individuals take their obligation with a smile on their face and Shots...Shots... Shots readily in hand. "Thomas Jefferson." - Wikiquote. Wikiquote, 13 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://simple.wikiquote.org...;.
Gaming is good for you

But this anti socialism you are speaking of does not apply to all games. Most games you can play with friends and so it is a social environment. But sometimes you have to put up with rude people who just say swears cause they can. As for the anger many people see gaming as a place to let out your anger and blast the head of that certain someone you really hate. It can make you angry if you lose all the time but you can get angry for everything aswell. E.g If your car wont start or someone is mean to you etc. The health issue can be fixed if you got resposible parents who make shure that you run 500 meters before you get to play or that you have a sport wich you enjoy doing.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent has decided to ask me multiple questions that can only be answered with the question of "Yes" and are thus impossible for me to answer. Technically, none of them are "Yes" "No" questions, so my opponent has broken Rule 1, however they are formatted so the words "Yes" and "No" can be entered, though they will all mean "Yes", so I will let this slide. For example: Q1: My answer is No, I am not 100% homosexual, but if I say No that means my answer to the question is different, thus the opposite of No is Yes, I am 100% homosexual. If I say Yes, that means Yes, I am 100% homosexual. Thus, it is impossible for me to give an answer other than Yes. Because of this, I will allow my opponent to ask extra questions next round that are ACTUAL questions as “Yes” is my only option. Thus, I cannot answer these types of questions. My opponent may ask 11 questions next round. Q2: See Q1. My opponent may ask 12 questions next round. Q3: See Q1. My opponent may ask 13 questions next round. Q4: See Q1. The question is not “impossible” to answer, as I can give a false answer, but I cannot give a false answer as both Yes and No are not valid options, thus another question that I cannot answer. 14 Q’s next round. Q5: Q4 was not answered, invalid question. 15 Q’s next round. Q6: See Q1. 16 Q’s next round. Q7: Yes. Q8: No. Q9: Yes. Q10: See Q1. 17 Q’s next round.
I will not contradict myself.

1. If I were to ask you if you were 100% homosexual would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?2. If I were to ask you if you were 100% heterosexual would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?3. If I were to ask you if you were 100% asexual would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?4. If I were to ask you if answering the first three questions was impossible would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?5. If I were to ask you if your answer to number four was a lie would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?6. If I were to ask you if you think you will lose this debate would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?7. Am I annoying you?8. Do you think I care?9. Should I care?10. If I were to ask you to complain about my method of asking questions was impossible would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent wishes for me to challenge him to this debate, so I will oblige.is is a "I will not contradict myself debate." This will function the exact same as Mongeese's debate a while back. I have taken the liberty of copy-pasting the rules (no, this isn't plagarism) into this debate and the definition of contradiciton:http://www.merriam-webster.com...Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com............10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.12. PLEASE KEEP THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR A SCHOOL SETTINGThanks in advance to my worthy opponent!
I will not contradict myself.

Though there may be a R5, no new contradictions can be presented in R5, so it is unnecessary for me to answer the questions as it is impossible for me to lose at this point. However, I will answer them nonetheless so my opponent doesn’t think I broke any rules.Does question 2 have the same answer as this question? Yes2. Does question 3 have the same answer as this question?Yes3. Does question 4 have the same answer as this question?No5. Does question 6 have the same answer as this question? Yes6. Does question 7 have the same answer as this question?Yes7. Does question 8 have the same answer as this question? Yes8. Does question 9 have the same answer as this question?Yes9. Is the answer to question 1 the opposite of the answer to question 10?Yes10. Does question 1 have the same answer as this question?Yes
I will not contradict myself.

I realised an error I made. Very sorry. If asking more questions is not allowed I am also sorry. But BECAUSE there is a round five I definitely think it would be wrong of pro not to answer.1. Does question 2 have the same answer as this question?2. Does question 3 have the same answer as this question?3. Does question 4 have the same answer as this question?5. Does question 6 have the same answer as this question? 6. Does question 7 have the same answer as this question?7. Does question 8 have the same answer as this question? 8. Does question 9 have the same answer as this question?9. Is the answer to question 1 the opposite of the answer to question 10?10. Does question 1 have the same answer as this question?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Does question 2 have the same answer as this question? Yes 2. Does question 3 have the same answer as this question? Yes 3. Does question 4 have the same answer as this question? Yes 5. Does question 6 have the same answer as this question? Yes 6. Does question 7 have the same answer as this question? Yes 7. Does question 8 have the same answer as this question? Yes 8. Does question 9 have the same answer as this question? Yes 9. Is the answer to question 1 identical to the answer to question 10? Yes 10. Does question 1 have the same answer as this question? Yes [7 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WERE PERMITTED] 11. If I were to ask you if you were a boy would the answer to that question be the opposite to the answer to question 12? No 12. If I were to ask you if you were a boy would the answer to that question be the opposite to the answer to question 11? No 13. Do you think I will bother to ask all 17 question? No 14. Do you really? Yes 15. It could be the truth could it not? Yes 16. Is this even a pointless question?No
I will not contradict myself.

1. Does question 2 have the same answer as this question?2. Does question 3 have the same answer as this question?3. Does question 4 have the same answer as this question?5. Does question 6 have the same answer as this question? 6. Does question 7 have the same answer as this question?7. Does question 8 have the same answer as this question? 8. Does question 9 have the same answer as this question?9. Is the answer to question 1 identical to the answer to question 10?10. Does question 1 have the same answer as this question?[7 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WERE PERMITTED]11. If I were to ask you if you were a boy would the answer to that question be the opposite to the answer to question 12?12. If I were to ask you if you were a boy would the answer to that question be the opposite to the answer to question 11?13. Do you think I will bother to ask all 17 question?14. Do you really?15. It could be the truth could it not?16. Is this even a pointless question?