BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dope is a funnier word than lame.

On the contrary, Mr. Chubby, I'm in crazy buttcheecks fo-mation. Mandood, i am in da zone homie. I be like open. im in no denial yo. So wutzup foo. im in all out woopee faze dood. i be like bumblin like my-fricans homie and dey be so troo too! Imma quote sum dopeiness to the world from legitimate movies: Psych: "Man everything is so dope today." Adventure Time: "DOPE" THANK YOU. I LIVE IN AMERICA. HOME OF AMERICANS.
Dope is a funnier word than lame.

Dope sounds like awesomeness. its definition states that is is a thing that will satisfy addiction and happiness. it is funny to say dope because chai likes to say dope a lot and he thinks it is funny. the definition of lame is just that-LAME LIKE A BOSS. 1) DOPE rhymes with Hope, for Bob Hope who is a funny comedian. 2) Dope is a word used for many reasons such as the illegal drug and a funny adjective for funniness. 3) DOPE can be serious, but its second definition makes it funy. 4) DOPE was quoted by that one funny black guy in "The Field of Dreams" when he said, "Peace, Love, DOPE! Now get the hell out of here!" 5) "Lame" is lame and it is also lame.
Dope is a funnier word than lame.

"Lame" is a wonderfully humorous word--definitely much more than "dope". For this debate, I will be reviewing these five reasons for the affirmation of the Con side: 1) "Lame" has a funnier context. 2) "Lame" is comically more creative. 3) "Lame" 's etymological background is entertaining. 4) "Lame" has a more prevalent social witty usage. 5) "Dope" is hideously serious. Now, onto my opponent is see if he agrees. My partner will be expanding on these topics in the next round.
Dope is a funnier word than lame.

Ah, so for the summary speech, I believe I have won this debate for the following reasons: 1) I responded clearly and directly, demonstrating I have full understanding of the topic. 2) I countered all his points effectively and wholly. 3) My opponent has not even mentioned my points in his speech. 4) "Lame" is inherently funnier. Let me go over my reasons again, should the judge need be reminded. 1) "Lame" has a funnier context. The word "lame" is used in almost every comedy act and even entertainment media. E.g. Adventure Time: "Lame, bro!" "Lame" makes words around it seem incredibly funny because it has the letter "a" in it, as in "assburger", "asphalt" etc. Words like "dope" are too short to have a comical impact while "lame" is stretched out to have maximum comical effect, making the words around it seem funnier too. 2) "Lame" is comically more creative. The word "lame" is inherently funnier because it can be used to create other funny words, which "dope" obviously cannot. "Lame" becomes "game", and games are super fun and funny. "Lame" becomes "fame" which is what really funny celebrities achieve. "Lame" even becomes "Pam", one of the funniest short names ever. Let me tell you what "dope" becomes: "hope" which is entirely serious because hope is what people dying and in need live off of, "cope", implying struggle in difficult situations and entirely serious, and "fop", a very professional artistic label. Nothing is funny about "dope". 3) "Lame" 's etymological background is entertaining. "Lame" origin comes from the definition as stupid, slow, or ineffective. Throughout history, horses have been "lame". That is funny because slow horses are oxymorons. <- morons. pffshh.. xD "Dope" is a recent word that has no funny background. It comes from the word crepuscular, meaning twilight, which is not funny at all. 4) "Lame" has a more prevalent social witty usage. People say "lame" a lot more than "dope". Because of its widespread prevalence in slang, people are more apt to think it funny. 5) "Dope" is hideously serious. "Dope" means drugs. That is so serious, man. There is nothing funny about drugs. It is people like you who think drugs are funny that jeopardizes the safety of our neighborhoods as you invite drug cartels and street gangs to dominate the cities, spreading hate crimes, vandalism, and terrorism as lessons to our children. Thank you.
Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

State Rights: While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state most recognize the marriage of another state. A state can’t say it not a marriage because immunity or vaccination for certain diseases was not a requirement by another state. Bans on homosexual marriage have been doing this. One state recognizes the marriage issue a marriage license. The couple moves to another state and then it not a legal marriage anymore. How is this any different than stopping people wearing blue shorts at the state line and making them change into pants? At the state border you have made the couple change from a marriage to a dating couple. http://www.wbir.com... State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle. Is it reasonable to allow the state to make a requirement that enables a fundamental right to be denied because of the views of a religious group? No it is not. This was already determined when states had banned interracial marriages. If you allow this were does it stop? Can states ban building permits to Jewish people? Can they ban marriage to white women? Ban brown hair people from gun permits? There has to be a line that says that is too far. Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though. Many of my examples sound ridiculous because we all understand this. When it comes to homosexual marriage many people don’t see that the arguments against it are just as ridiculous as my examples. All I have done is change it the arguments to another subject matter. All of my examples are taken from real world arguments against homosexual people.
Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

I clearly stated to Con in the comments how I set up the debate. I don’t have to be a novice to make a debate in this style. I personally would consider myself still a noob to the site since I have only been on the site for 3 weeks, and a lot of my wins are from the other member forfeiting the debate. “As to your claim that full burden of proof that is not correct. Currently there is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins. This is a recognized debate style by this site. Also it does have an argument currently supporting it. All though I do admit it is just an opinion based argument with no source other than myself. This is still an argument. If Con wishes to lose there one round advantage making such a semantic argument that is on them.” Since Con knew before the debate started that there was no burden of proof and it would be who ever made the best argument this stands for the debate accepting this debate without any notification of the non-acceptance of this term Con as agreed to it. The Debate: The US is founded upon liberty and freedom. Not allowing Homosexual Marriage is violation of these principles. It is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage. There is no justifiable reason to have 14 supreme court cases, since 1888, ruling that marriage is a fundamental right to everyone and then deny a group of people this right. If I made an argument that senior citizens should not have the right to free speech, women the right to privacy, people wearing blue shorts could not cross state lines, or brown haired people don’t have the right to bear arms you would laugh at the ridiculousness of my argument. Homosexual marriage bans are no different. It is still denying a group of people a fundamental right. http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.gallup.com... http://www.afer.org...
Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

"The burden of proofBe aware that there are least four theories as to who has the burden of proof:1. Whoever is Pro.2. Whoever instigated the debate.3. Whoever wants a change in the status quo.4. There is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins. "Often 1, 2, and 3 are the same person, but not always. . 4 is usually only favored by novice debaters. Sometimes a debater calls himself Con, but is clearly the proponent of the resolution. "(1)As such Pro is 1,2,and 3. Both of us have competed in more than 15 debates and have an ELO over 2,300. Therefore I think it is reasonable to conclude that we are not Novices. Neither of us would have qualified to participate in the begginer tournament. Therefore, It is reasonable to conclude that Pro has full burden of proof. It is up to pro to show that Gay marriage should be legal in all U. S. States and Territories. My role is to show that he has not met this burden. As such, no argument has been made that can support the resolution. Thus far Pro has failed to fill his burden. The resolution is negated. (1). http://www.debate.org...
Schools should teach cursive writing.

Your points are very valid. But teaching cursive writing should not be taught in school.C1: EducationCursive writing should be more of a challenge than a requirement. Although cursive writing can be helpful, it takes a lot of time and patience out of teachers. Also children in grades K-2 have a lot of trouble writing in regular writing, so what makes you think that they should be taught cursive writing if they can't write the regular way? Also cursing is something that would not help with their education. Cursive writing is just another way of writing.C2: StudentsThis reason involves students. Some students are much smarter than other students. Some students need to concentrate more important topics than another piece of writing. Also if cursive is so important, it would be taught by now but it is not. Students do not need to learn another type of writing.C3: TechnologyI know this one is fully about education but just read.Technology these days. There is so much you can do with it you don't need to write in cursive. Since so many more school these days have more technology, they do not need to learn about cursive writing since they have technology products like Apple, and Dell.These are my reasons why cursive writing should not be taught in school.
There Are Only Two Genders: Change my Mind

Again, nobody is contesting that there are two biological sexes. Biological sex is completely irrelevant to this conversation because we are talking about gender not sex. Genders refers the social roles that are often assigned to men and women and many people don't fit in the artificial categories our society creates so there is indeed more than one gender. Some people act very asexual and don't fit either the male or female gender role and some act partly female and partly male. With traditional roles disappearing it is extremely common for people to be very different from traditional roles.
There Are Only Two Genders: Change my Mind

When people say there are more than two genders they are referring to the social definition of gender as defined below: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" https://www.merriam-webster.com... When you refer to biological differences you are actually referring to sex: "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures" https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion is generally immoral.

I would like to clarify and explain how in the last round, since you got the first round to state an argument you must write "thanks for the debate" as the rules stated. So basically last round you don't post anything. DEFINITIONS Generally: "usually; commonly; ordinarily" [1]Abortion:"Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. [2]Immoral: "not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong" [3] Living : "having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless. "[4]OPENING CONTENTIONS For this round, I will state my main starting conentions. A fetus is a living thing A fetus is a living thing. Though it may not be human, it is still living. Technically, anything that can grow is considered living. Since a fetus can grow, when it is in the womb, it is still considered living. "All living things share life processes such as growth and reproduction" [5]"The moment of fertilization is an entirely logical point to choose as the beginning of human life. " [6] So by these standards, commiting abortion is another way of killing, considering you are killing a living creature. This is highly immoral, and wrong. Preventing a child to live is wrong, and in most cases, or in other words generally immoral. This is pretty much my main argument for now, because I am short on time. Thanks. Sources:1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2.http://dictionary.reference.com...3.http://www.merriam-webster.com...4.http://dictionary.reference.com...5.http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz...6.http://abortionmedicalethics.weebly.com...
As candidates, Donald Trump's policies are better than Hillary Clinton's Policies

Ill start out with just ten. 1. Plans to build up our Navy and buy extra tanks for no reason. 2. Plans to give huge tax breaks to the rich 3. Plans to make a costly ineffective wall. 4. Plans to repeal and replace Obamacare horribly. 5. Can't pay for any of the stuff he wants to do. 6. Will gut the EPA, get rid of regulations to protect our planet, and cripple the solar industry by subsidizing oil and coal. 7. Is much too lax on gun laws and won't apply any common-sense rules and wants to get rid of gun-free school zones. 8. Has no plan for ISIS. 9. Supports charter schools in Suburban areas which is crippling and in urban areas with no back up plan. 10. Is temperamental and makes threats like the 20% tariff and will start a trade war with Mexico and China.
Debate.org should be abbreviated as D.O

I am a huge wiener and I belong in a delicious chilli-cheese dog. My opponent asked me to state one instance where abbreviations made me feel superior, and to that I reply: OPEC. Often in History class my teacher and I engage in wonderful conversations with one another about current events and cultures and economical things of the nature. One time we were talking about OPEC and its absurd prices, to which many of the students replied "what the f*** are they talkin' about, mane?" Okay, I've got nothin' else to pull out of my rump. You pretty much win, but my opinion still stands.
Debate.org should be abbreviated as D.O

First and foremost, I'm a wiener so I'm going to point out some mistakes in your spelling/grammar." You are a weiner. :] We are debating Debate.org should be abbreviated as D.O Not who has the better spelling or grammar in this debate. The information you stated in your last argument is irrelevant and is left up to the audience watching, (hi mom.) Could you provide a source or an instance when when it a mere abbreviation makes you feel superior? Other than yourself as an example. And if you really want to save time, if you say Debate.org, you will avoid having to say what the "abbreviation" stands for. I think in the end, saying Debate.org really is the way to go. It takes more time to say, but in the end your only saying 3 syllables and 9 letters. I think the whole conversation of Debate.org and what it stands for, what it is, ect. would take more time. Looking forward to a response, Pro.
Debate.org should be abbreviated as D.O

Thanks for taking me on in this pointless argument. First and foremost, I'm a wiener so I'm going to point out some mistakes in your spelling/grammar. "...everything. (or to abbreviate Debate.org)..." The parenthesis should go behind the initial period. "...run your talking to me anyway..." "Your" should be spelled as "you're". "And their to lazy to say the whole thing." "Their" should be "they're", "to" should be "too", and I don't think "and" should start a sentence (though I'm not sure if it's correct or not in this particular circumstance). Laziness is just in human nature. Sure, you can fight it, and in some cases even control it completely but it is, nevertheless, a built-in function of ours. Abbreviations not only save time, but also provides a feeling of near superiority by being able to say something while many people question what the thing you are referring to stands for. I stand firmly with D.O.
Debate.org should be abbreviated as D.O

This doesn't even say why Debate.org should be abbreviated. Just because MMORPG is abbreviated doesn't mean it is technically right to abbreviate everything. (or to abbreviate Debate.org) Sure it saves time, but in the long run your talking to me anyway, so go ahead and say Debate.org. I think people abbreviate it because everyone else does. And their to lazy to say the whole thing. O.o
Support is best role to carry in when playing League of Legends.

Support may be a good role to carry in when playing League of Legends, but it's certainly not the best. There are four other main roles in League and they are all more adept at carrying than a support. The marksman is another word for ADC (attack damage CARRY). The mid is another word for APC (ability power CARRY). The support may help another role get there but the support itself cannot carry a game. It's not a support's job anyways. The sole purpose of a support is to SUPPORT the team so that the team can carry. So to conclude, I would support is a great way to carry but it isn't the best.
Marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes ought to occur

I feel this is the first real debate I have participated in for several months. Second, I apologize to my opponent because I shall not be debating in LD style because I have absolutely no idea what organized debating is. I shall be debating in the style of writing extremely long explanations for my beliefs and quoting/responding to my opponent's points in long, detailed rebuttals. I'm sure that has some terminology associated with it. And now, on to the debate. First off, I would like to define Marijuana as my opponent has graciously given me the chance to present my argument first. Marijuana, for the purposes of this debate, shall refer to the substance THC or "tetrahydrocannabinol", which is the active ingredient in what we call marijuana . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has chosen the topic of debate to be "Marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes ought to occur". He shall be arguing *against* the legalization of Marijuana and I shall be arguing for it. The only issue is that part of my argument will discuss the *already* legalized status of Marijuana as a medicine and so, to avoid semantic debates, will argue the justification of this legalization and reasons for further legalization since the word "ought" implies that it is not already legal. *** THC, the active ingredient in Marijuana has various properties when taken into the body. The purified active isomer of this medication is marketed as product "Marinol" in the United States of America, and I have seen it in the refrigerator at the pharmacy I work in. . http://www.drugs.com... This drug is a latter-line of defense drug used to treat nausea and vomiting in cancer chemotherapy patients who have not adequately responded to other anti-emetic (anti-nausea/vomiting) drugs. In addition, it is used to treat anorexia of AIDS patients, which is key to their survival because of their already failing immune systems. As this drug is a substance controlled by the FDA and DEA, and concentrated in a dose that will provide the above benefits without many of the side effects. . http://www.usdoj.gov... . http://www.drugs.com... I now await my opponent's argument against the legalization of said drug.
why do christians make it seem hard to follow Jesus, when its soo easy.

Ofcourse you'll be confuse that shows me that you don't read the bible, the old testament is way more than just a man and women, first of all you Catholics don't even read the bible and i know that because my cousin is a preist, and i have a nun cousin, and i should know better, how much opposite steps you guys do that are against the bible. i said women should preach, Were in the bible does it say "I God say women can't preach". It don't say it, so if i was you i would buy myself a bible and study it, because the word preist doesn't exist in the bible nor "nun"... now many Preist like an example: Henry Gregory Adams, Joseph Tremblay, Bartholomew F. Brewer, Hugh Farrell, Alexander Carson, Charles Berr, Bob Bush etc. All these guys were High respected priest know by the world, that them self say ( man the Catholics teach that we gota make sacrafices to be heard from God, They worship Jesus mother more than The Actual God that should be worship which is the Same God the same Spirit that was in Jesus.. the bible says: Eph 2:8 Because by grace you have salvation through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is given by God: Eph 2:9 Not by works, so that no man may take glory to himself. So why do hard works if its a gift? I specificly said; i want bible back up, because all your saying it ain't even written in the bible, So why should your word matter if that's your opinion and not Gods word. The bible is what should do the talking
why do christians make it seem hard to follow Jesus, when its soo easy.

I'll be completely honest. You're last argument has confused me. What you're asking is Why is it hard to follow Jesus (and God), and I answered with a simple answer. Some people just aren't ready for such a commitment. What you're stating in that last argument, is just a bunch of bible scriptures that you most likely don't know what mean. The Old Testament is the story of Man (and Woman), and The New Testament is the story of Jesus and his deciples lives. You've also changed your question with each passing round I'd like to point out too. When it comes down to it, you're question was "Why don't women get to preach, or have the same rights as the man in a church?" You answered it yourself! The man is the HEAD of the house, as GOD is the head of the church. God needs help to command his churches, and the person who will go among and preach will be the head of the house. There are Nuns too though! Nuns are the exact same as a Priest! In Mass this weekend, we have multiple Nuns who come and speak the word of God!