BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists.

My opponent claims I am a "Communist. " Yet, in the next breath, he claims I am a Nazi. My opponent has set up a contradiction here. I cannot be both a Nazi AND a communist, as it is common knowledge that the two parties were arch-enemies. Therefore, either he can stand by his first statement (that I am a Communist), or he can abide with his second statement (that I am a Nazi). His refutation of my argument against the inherent evil of aardvarks rests solely on the (supposed) fact that I am a Communist. Yet his refutations for my specific arguments (about lemons, Nazis, etc. ) are based on the (supposed) fact that I am a Nazi. We can therefore infer the following: 1. If I am a Nazi, my opponent loses this debate by being unable to prove that aardvarks are evil. 2. If I am a Communist, my opponent loses this debate by being unable to prove that lemons are the sole source of happiness. So far, my opponent loses no matter what; but wait, there's a third option! 3. If I am neither a Nazi nor a Communist, my opponent's arguments have no basis in fact whatsoever. I never thought I would be driven to do this, but I must. It is time the real truth was told. I shall now reveal my dreadful secret. I am not, nor have ever been, a Nazi nor a Communist. {shocked gasps of horror from the audience} Yes, anything in the previous round that might have led my opponent to assume that I was a Nazi was merely playful banter. I am amused that he ever believed that I could adhere to such a political philosophy; but I am sure that my audience was not taken in for a minute. I am actually a Neo-Kantian Synergistic Polymonarchist. My opponent is wrong when he claims any other political affiliation for me. ***** I think I have sufficiently taken care of my opponent's arguments; but in his final statements there was one that I thought sufficiently interesting to warrant an answer. "My opponent claims that none of my arguments relate to aardvarks becoming terrorists due to the loss of lemons. However, if he were to see this picture, he would realize otherwise. . http://store.perspicuity.com...; I viewed said picture, hoping for a miracle. Unfortunately, nothing happened. The image has no essential mind-changing virtue; I remain as thoroughly unconvinced of the extremist tendencies of aardvarks as I was before. I congratulate (? ) my opponent in finding this unique and perhaps life-altering image, but if I may respectfully suggest that he get more rest? He seems to have taken this debate far too seriously. I recommend he meditate on a watertower; perhaps this one: . http://home.fuse.net... ****** Again, I thank my opponent for this trip- I mean, debate. It's been fun.
If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists.

Hohoho! Nice arguments palio! However, your points are very RED-iculous. Communist. For example, you seem quite uneducated, because it is common knowledge that the hit TV show, Arthur, was animated by none other than William Shakespeare, who was openly Aardvarkian. Clearly showing that he is evil. Also, my opponent states that lemons are not the SOLE source of happiness. To this I say shut up. You are wrong. Have you never read a book, you Nazi. Speak of the devil, my opponent claims that there is nothing wrong with Nazis. However I have intel that is not anywhere on the Internet that Darth Vader was a product of Nazis. If you look closely at his helmet, you can see that it clearly resemble a Nazi helmet. Darth Vader was inexplicably evil, slaughtering a room full of children. So, if you are fine with Nazis, you are a child killing fool. Your argument that Nazis never sought conflict is also wrong. If you watch the movie "A Bug's Life", the Nazis, represented by grasshoppers, attack the innocent bugs, Which is asking for violence. My opponent claims that none of my arguments relate to aardvarks becoming terrorists due to the loss of lemons. However, if he were to see this picture, he would realize otherwise. http://store.perspicuity.com... Thus, proving my argument. Foo'. My opponent is a Nazi, and Aff should win this debate.
If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists.

"If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists. " This is the resolution; I argue in contradiction to this. I contend that there is no necessary connection between the extinction of lemons and the rise of aardvark extremism. Just btw, I rather like that phrase; "Aardvark extremism". .. It has a bewildering resonance to it; perfect for use in casual conversation. :) "Contention 1: Aardvarks have a mean streak. See the video in the side. " I did, and turned it off in disgust. Your point is made; we see an aardvark being evil. But I call my audience's attention to the crucial fact that it is an animated aardvark, not a real one. Some human animated that short, and I suspect that another human edited it to increase the violence shown. The true evil is in the actions of the humans, not in the actions of any aardvark. Here, you may see five videos showing the true nature of aardvarks (Orycteropus afer), a peaceful and timid species that does not condone evil of any kind: . http://www.arkive.org... "Contention 2: Lemons are the source of all happiness. " His source here seems pretty convincing. It's hard to deny the happiness radiating from that lemon; but I have solid evidence that lemons are not the sole source of happiness. Here are pictures of several other excellent sources of happiness, should lemons become extinct: . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... Here's an example of community aiding happiness: . http://farm1.static.flickr.com... And here are some sources of happiness that are also excellent sources of water: . http://www.preservationnation.org... . http://home.fuse.net... "Could you say no to that adorable little face? " I say NO to that ugly little mug. "If you can, you are a NAZI. " So? You got something against Nazis, pal? "Contention 3: Nazis hate lemons and aardvarks. " Of course. It's in our nature. This has nothing to do with rogue members of the Orycteropus family going over the edge and strapping bombs to themselves. "Contention 4: Textbooks do not provide valid information for nuclear physicists. " If we have a nuclear war, it's all your fault. We Nazis have never sought conflict; it's you obstinate folk that refuse to accept our benevolent leadership that cause all the problems. .. This point too, although uncontested, is irrelevant. -------- Conclusion: None of my opponent's points have any bearing on the possibility of aardvark terrorists. Besides which, my opponent hates Nazis and aardvarks.
If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists.

I am AFF. Okay? So, I am here to affirm this: If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists. (this will be an OI debate). Contention 1: Aardvarks have a mean streak. See the video in the side: http://www.youtube.com... In this you can see an aardvark being evil. If all of the lemons ere gone? God only knows what they'd do. Contention 2: Lemons are the source of all happiness. http://1.bp.blogspot.com... If all of the lemons in the world were to die out, people would be super sad, like this baby, who believes that lemons are gone: http://www.ed2010.com... Could you say no to that adorable little face? If you can, you are a NAZI. Which leads to my third contention. Contention 3: Nazis hate lemons and aardvarks. If lemons were gone, the Nazis would be happy, and if aardvarks were terrorists, then the Nazis would be able to brag about how they knew all along. Blah blah blah. Contention 4: Textbooks do not provide valid information for nuclear physicists. Bob the traveling Nuclear Physicist once said, "I am Bob, the traveling Nuclear Physicist, and textbooks do not provide valid information." This means that if nuclear physicists want to study up for the impending nuclear war caused by you, and only YOU, they would not receive the data required and the world will blow up. Vote for Aff, or you are a COMMUNIST!
Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States

REBUTTALSPro: "[T]here are next to 0 limitations on dietary supplements[.]"First, note that Pro has no source, and thus this claim can be discarded. Second, note that Pro is incorrect, as the FDA does prevent adulteration and misbranding of dietary supplements [3].Pro: "[I]t is illegal for any foods ... to claim ... they can have a positive affect on ... health as that is only allowed in ... medicine."First, note that Pro has no source, and thus this claim can be discarded. Second, note that Pro is incorrect, as the it's entirely legal for foods to claim a positive health impact, as this yogurt does [4].Pro: "CIA ... trafficking of cocaine[.]"Note that Pro has no source, and thus this claim can be discarded.Pro: "[M]edications which would not allow for pharmaceutical profit are generally swept under the rug[.]"First, note that Pro has no source, and thus this claim can be discarded. Second, note that Pro is incorrect, as the alternate medicine industry currently garners about $34bn/yr in the US [5], and are thus not "under the rug".Pro: "[M]agic mushrooms" can have ... positive effects on mental diseases[.] ... [T]he drug is not used[.]"Pro argues that, because magic mushrooms aren't used to treat some forms of mental illness, the entire medical complex of the US must be complicit in maintaining profits over results.First, note that psilocybin mushrooms certainly have a set of problems, including misidentification of mushroom and resulting stomach cramps and potentially death and long-term hallucinations [6].Second, note that this issue isn't a medical issue, but a legal issue. Psilocybin mushrooms are banned in the US [7], meaning that the medical industry cannot use said mushrooms.Pro: "[T]he FDA now oftentimes behaves as if the pharmaceutical companies are the users rather than the public."Pro proves that the FDA recieves funding from pharmaceutical companies.If profit is the major motive, then testing hurts that motive, because it costs money. Why, then, does the FDA test, when that would hurt profits, if the goal is to increase profit? The answer: The FDA is still somewhat independent, and works to verify that medicine actually works.Pro: "Burzynski[.]"Burzynski's "methods" have numerous flaws [8][9], suggesting that the fact that they aren't accepted because they don't work. Besides, if these methods worked, the companies would have been using this method, so that they could keep the cancer patients alive and make them pay for more drugs, right?SUMMARYEven if Pro is correct about these specific issues, Pro has still not shown that medicine as a whole is oriented towards profits rather than results in the US.REFERENCES[3] http://www.fda.gov...[4] http://activia.us.com...;[5] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[6] http://brown.edu...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8] http://scienceblogs.com...;[9] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...
Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States

Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, and must prove that "Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States".REBUTTALSPro states: "The United States and the FDA has proven through its actions and its support that it cares more about profits for corporations than it does about the results of drugs being administered."Pro does not provide any sources for this information and makes no logical argument as to why the FDA's "actions" (whatever those are) are focused on profit rather than results. As such, you must reject this claim.CONTENTION ONE: FDA OVERSIGHTThe FDA currently employs a stringent set of protocols to ensure drug reliability, including multiple types and layers of control studies and methods designed to maximize scrutiny of the drug's effectiveness [1].In fact, the FDA is harming industry profits and focusing perhaps eccessively on results, as opposed to the far-weaker or non-existent agencies that many other countries have [2].REFERENCES[1] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov...[2] http://fee.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana can give you a distorted sense of time, random thinking, paranoia, anxiety, depression, altered senses, mood swings, and short term forgetfulness. 10% of people who use marijuana become addicted to it. "Research clearly shows that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities." Marijuana messes with the mind clearly shown. It doubles your heart rate, increasing your chance of getting a heart attack, and legalizing marijuana will only increase access to marijuana and make more use it.http://www.drugabuse.gov...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...;http://www.webmd.com...http://www.ask.com...; Since there were 5615000 car accidents in 2013, we can assume based on the Ausatralia evidence that 241445 of those were caused by marijuana, making it a problem for society as a whole.
The New Testament teaches that the penitent believer must be baptized for the remission of sins.

Again, I apologize for my late response. But now I will refute my opponent's repetitive arguments. God’s Grace My opponent showed a summary a showed a summary of “how a person is saved”. Add to this, my opponent “seemed” to respond on my statement “why does he keep saying that baptism and faith are two different things?” Unfortunately my opponent didn’t again reply to my contentions about this matter. Time and again, he is showing Eph. 2:8 to justify his faith only. BucketHead3459, time and again, I have showed that it does not justify your faith alone doctrine. Eph. 2:8 says about salvation by faith not by faith only! To support my contention let’s see what the scriptures say. Heb. 11:30, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, AFTER they were compassed about seven days.” No Bible believer doubts that the walls of Jericho fell down by faith. The Word of God plainly says. But wait a minute, I see that they received the blessing by faith but what I don’t see is that they were saved by faith only! Faith was living when they began to march, but the blessing was not received until they completed their obedience. As for the issue of animal sacrificing, it’s very different from baptism and but my opponent concludes that it’s like animal sacrificing. (1) Actually animal sacrificing is done many, many times while baptism is done only once. (2) Baptism does not nullify Christ’s sacrifice in the cross, the sacrifice on the cross brings grace and my opponent himself said that baptism does not nullify Grace therefore baptism does not nullify Christ’s sacrifice. Additional Refutations: (1) “I stated that I agree [that baptism does not nullify God’s grace], but not if it is necessary for the forgiveness of sin” If you’ll observe clearly you can see the very flaw of my opponent’s argument. God’s Grace brings salvation, now my question is that how can you say that baptism does not nullify God’s grace if it’s not necessary for forgiveness of sins because God’s grace bring forgiveness of sins? (2) “It is not baptism that would be negated, but Christ's sacrifice.” Either way, these two are connected. Baptism doesn’t negate Christ’s sacrifice a.k.a. grace because of scriptural evidence that I provided throughout the debate Sorry I can’t continue any further because of time shortage and family problems. But don’t worry I’ll extend your arguments. I also want to apologize to the readers of this debate. Thank you
Does wealth ensure happiness

Unfortunately, my opponent has chosen to forfeit his most recent round, but since neither side has put forth any arguments, I'll start. My opponent argues that wealth can ensure happiness because if you can buy whatever you want, you can be happy and healthy. Well the problem with this argument is that happiness isn't a measurable concept. Money is. So my opponent is saying that something measurable can be used to purchase something unmeasurable. It's like saying that you can buy luck or confidence. You simply cannot buy an emotion. My opponent's side may also argue that most poor people describe themselves as unhappy, or that most rich people describe themselves as happy. There are probably statistics to back that up, however I would not grant the argument because again, happiness is not measurable, and there are many poor people that describe themselves as happy. But even if you grant this argument, it is still not enough for this debate because the debate is entitled, "Does wealth ensure happiness". The keyword here is ensure. Webster's definition of ensure is," to make (something) sure, certain, or safe" There has to be a guarantee, and I guarantee that my opponent cannot find any such statistics. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.bbc.com...
If you cooked more than what you need, you should give your neighbour some!

Okay… that was disappointing… I was hoping to shred my opponent’s argument points. Anyway, on with the debate, huh? P1: Save extra food for later (leftovers): Ok, I will start by saying that I encourage for food not to be wasted and that people should save any extra food for later use. In my household, I am encouraged to not waste any food at all. In my household, we often have a frequently repeating routine in which a large meal will be made (perhaps with a masala or soup etc); when this happens, it is inevitable that there will be large amounts of food left over- instead of throwing away the leftover food (regardless of amount), that food would be put away in containers and then stored+ preserved. After that, my family will usually cook another meal but off smaller amount (hopefully lasting one day with no food remaining from that). After this, we would then eat the leftovers from the first new meal. You might be wondering why we would have the leftovers on the third day instead of the second day. Well, there are two main explanations for this: 1) Variety. I personally don’t like eating the same meal two times in a row. It’s nice to just vary what you eat. 2) Leaving food after being cooked and then storing can allow for flavours to help develop and intensify for the better, which is why the food might have a nicer taste. This might the case for foods such as Masalas or marinade meat. This reason can help contribute to food bills being decreased in cost, taken with a minimalistic approach in which there is goal of not wasting any food bought & used. P2: Give leftover food to the poor/ less wealthy A poor or less wealthy person/family may need the food more than your neighbour might need. Even if there is the case of your “neighbour” being poor or unable to buy food, the most morally fair thing that you could do is to donate your leftover food to a local food bank where the food is then shared out to poor people who go there, your “poor neighbour” could still receive some of that food. I look forward to my opponent’s possible response.
Lady Gaga is a good role model

Let me first start off by stating that your profile claims you are 17, so I'll keep in mind that nothing I write is going to persuade you on this, but that doesn't mean you're correct on it. Also, how you define a role model is also going to impact your stance. To most: Police officers, firemen, military personal; those are role models. Those are people one can look up to and deem worthy of imitation. Lady Gaga makes money by adhering to those who love what she represents: Sex, money, drugs, etc etc, but lets go through your list anyways. "Lady Gaga is often criticized because of her unique, ostentatious personality and image, but I think that people should really look up to her and acknowledge the great message that she stands for" I'm perpetually lonely. -Lady Gaga. She obviously has Attention-Seeking Personality Disorder. There is no message there. She does what she does for a reason. "She chooses to not succumb to societies standards" And what standards would those be? Have you met society lately? You are a prime example. You see nothing wrong with what she does, and I'm assuming her followers don't as well, or else they would not be. The standards you are referring to no longer exist anywhere except in the households of those who do not wish to conform. The bar is in fact set so high that in today's society, donning Amish apparel will gather more judgmental views than what Lady Gaga models. "and though she could easily be a very normal musician with great music and a society that loves and praises her, she chooses to be controversial and honest and does things to make herself feel good rather than to please other people." If these qualities (controversial, honest, doing what feels good) are what made someone a role model, then every serial killer who has every plead guilty to their charges could be considered as such.
Lady Gaga is a good role model

Lady Gaga is often criticized because of her unique, ostentatious personality and image, but I think that people should really look up to her and acknowledge the great message that she stands for. She chooses to not succumb to societies standards, and though she could easily be a very normal musician with great music and a society that loves and praises her, she chooses to be controversial and honest and does things to make herself feel good rather than to please other people.
The French national anthem is greater than the American national anthem

Thanks for your points! 1. There is no question La Marseillaise is easier to sing. Only the first verse of each national anthem is sung. The words of La Marseillaise are easier to memorize: there are fewer words than in the American national anthem and also also the range of notes is less, leading many commentators to agree that the Star Spangled banner is hard to sing. See my above reference. 2. The La Marseillaise is the national anthem of twelve countries including France and countries in the Caribbean, South America, the south pacific, and the Indian ocean. Although you're correct that the populations of these countries combined is smaller than that of the U.S. La Marseillaise is world-wide, definitely showing world-wide greatness. 3. The French Revolution brought liberty and democracy, regardless of its initial leaders. La Marseillaise as an anthem powerfully contributed to the oppressed rising up against royal oppression, leading to a republic. Yes, the words of the anthem speak about rising up against enemies and tyranny, the exact reason it had and continues to have such an impact. 4. La Marseillaise, words and music by a Frenchman, is glorious because it is the most moving of all national anthems. I say this because of the effect is has on those who hear it and feel oppressed. For example, see the youtube reference below. I think most of the those voting on this debate will be American. and therefore I have little hope of winning; however I challenge every voter to listen to La Marseillaise on youtube. Here is the version from Casablanca: http://www.youtube.com... The greatest of the great anthems of the world may be American and French; the French is the greatest because it touches the heart in glowing patriotism.