BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

"Will you read "Natusake's Information" on my profile?"I do not know as I cannot read the future. However at the moment I have no intentions of doing such."Are you familiar with the Inheritence Cycle?"I have heard of it, but do not actually know what it is."Will you tell me why you think I wrote some of the things I did in my profile?"I do not know as I cannot read the future. However at the moment I have no intentions of doing such."Am I correct in stating that you are from Toronto, Canada?"Yes."Will you please take any section in my information, and do a grammar and/or spelling check, then give me the section proper?"Once again, I do not know as I cannot read the future. However at the moment I have no intentions of doing such."What do you think about EA?"I rarely think about them."Did you know that the requirement of explicit contradictions rather than inferred, makes this much more difficult?"Surprisingly no, it hadn't crossed my mind."Do you agree that most contradictions in the Bible are inferred?"No."Am I a vegaterian?"There is no such thing as a "vegaterian". If you mean a "vegetarian" then I do not know."Do I have any pets, and if I do, are they cats?"I do not know.
I will not contradict myself

I accept your challenge and wish you good luck, may you be ever so vigilant in your answers to my questions... Let me begin my questioning.If you will, please do what I ask you do to in my questions, lets keep this social and fun. :)Questions: Will you read "Natusake's Information" on my profile? Are you familiar with the Inheritence Cycle? Will you tell me why you think I wrote some of the things I did in my profile? Am I correct in stating that you are from Toronto, Canada? Will you please take any section in my information, and do a grammar and/or spelling check, then give me the section proper? What do you think about EA? Did you know that the requirement of explicit contradictions rather than inferred, makes this much more difficult? Do you agree that most contradictions in the Bible are inferred? Am I a vegaterian? Do I have any pets, and if I do, are they cats?
I will not contradict myself

In rounds 1-3, Con will ask Pro 10 questions per round. Pro will answer in Rounds 2-4. Con's R4 argument will consist of pointing out wherever he sees the answers contradicting themselves. In R5, Pro will defend himself against Con's accusations, while Con will defend the accusations. The contradictions must be explicit-not inferred. BOP lies on Con, as the resolution is in the negative, meaning Con is the one making a claim.
I will not contradict myself

"Will you eat sandwiches?"I don't know as I cannot read the future. However, it is likely that I will at some point."You will stop sitting when you are finished sitting, correct?"Assuming that I will at some point be finished sitting, yes."If we knew each other, would you hang out with me?"I do not know enough about you to answer that."What is your favorite color?"Orange."Do you watch Anime?"No."What will your career be?"I do not know, but I would like to be a comedian."Will you get a good job?"I do not know, but I hope so."Will you win this debate?"I do not know, but I hope so.
Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

I find it disappointing that my opponent has reacted so impatinetly towards me asking simple questions. I don't purposely ask these questions about the definition of anarchism to piss people or troll someone. I simply do it because I want to make sure that the definitions are clear and exact. I also want to challenge peoples definitions because one may not be right compared to the other. If you dont like the fact that people challenge your definitions, I would stop using this site.I also find about what Heywood saying hard to believe. I understand that anarchism is based on not having someone have authority over you but what Im saying is biologically, we are going to rule each other whether you like it or not. For example, their are character traits that some individuals may have the others don't. There are cases in our society where ones would rule over people in a biological way regardless whether its an anarchist system.Don't feel insulted or pissed off just because someone may not agree with your definition. Geez.Its very foolish when my opponent says that I think that law and morality are the same. No, that is true however if you want to stop people causeing crimes like murdering, raping, stealing and pilaging, you have to put some form of consequnce or punishment, these types of criminals will not do these crimes for the most part if it means that they get punished and if the event you come up with a counter argument where you say that the collective decideds the punishment, then isn't that inself considered an authoritarian position. It's possible to be an authoritain in the name of a collective.I leave you with this video skip to 4:30 http://www.youtube.com...
Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

First of all, I would like to make it clear to everyone that the first definition that I used to represent anarchism was in fact a source thats used in Colleges and Universitys hence its name Merriam-Webster's COLLEGIATE dictionary. Now free dictionary might not be the best source but the point that I was trying to get across is if the definition is from a college dictionary is as it says than why would a college dictionary lie. Why would a well respected dictionary say Anarchism is in opposition to all governments vs having to say that its only in opposition of illAnarchist ideology is defined by the central belief that political authority in all it's forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary. Anarchists therefore look to the creation of a stateless society through the abolition of law.egitamate governments. I would like to take an excerpt from your political science book for a moment and really analyze. Anarchist ideology is defined by the central belief that political authority in all it's forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary. Anarchists therefore look to the creation of a stateless society through the abolition of law. I feel as if my opponent is making a point for me vs having a point for himself. When someone like Andrew Heywood (who seems to be very knowledgeable of politics) describles that ALL ITS FORMS, political authority is evil and unnecessary, that is when I ask. How do you go from unnecessary to illegitamate. The definition of unnecessary is the followingUnnecessary: Not NecessaryWhere as the definition of illegitamate is illegitamate: Not authorized by good usageWhile these definitons are similar, they are not the same. Also to note that my opponent has to recognize that anarchism can also take place in the community. For example, someone can be against the community by having their own self interests and they might feel that they are forced to do something by the community which in itself may be considered a illegitamate authority. In my opponent's textbook, it also talks about the abolition of law. This I feel is moral. While I've said that we are going to do only the definition of good in terms of it being logically sound, I argue why not morally as well. Its important to recognize whether or not anarchism is logically sound and moral. We have laws so people don't commiti crimes such as theft, murder, rape and etc. Im very confused when my opponent says that whether government is good or bad does not change one way or another if they are illegitimate forms of authority. When my opponent says that they shouldnt even be forced to have a compulsory service in the first place, I agree with him and I dont agree with him. I agree with him in the sense that maybe someone would not want to be subjegated by a certain law but I disagree in the sense that we need laws and governments. The fact that the matter is, most people dont want to become anarchists mostly because they feel that it is a waste of time and less democratic.
Is Iggy Azalea better than Nicki Minaj (Iggy:Yes) (Nicki: No)

"Iggy Azalea has been accused of being racist. You haven't been racist to her, have you? "Iggy tryna act black, whites can't rap. " Of course, her pronunciation when she raps is different from when she normally talks, but that's only because it's the common style when your rapping. " By who? Who has accused Iggy Azalea of being racist? "Also, Iggy Azalea probably couldn't take the hate you gave her. She started out so sweat, dodging every bullet. But then, she started to let it out. I was disappointed. But perhaps she wasn't doing well. " Sentence is incoherent. What hate? What did she let out? ". Nicki is still on her "**** them skinny bi***** act, even though she gave that touching speech at the BET awards. Iggy Azalea has some stupid lyrics" This is an opinion and not based on anything. Cursing nikki minaj does nothing to prove my opponents point. "Nicky has way more. Iggy Azalea isn't that bad though. Some of her music has messages, such as 'Work,' but that song was blown off by her other hit Fancy. Pills and Potions was touching too, I suppose. Iggy Azalea has come a long way. Why do you still fight her? Racism is all over her music videos. Saying Nicki is the Queen. Really? " This person's only argument for Iggy azalea is opinions and has no basis in any facts. i have provided facts and sources.
Is Iggy Azalea better than Nicki Minaj (Iggy:Yes) (Nicki: No)

Since pro has failed to define better i will supply the definition Better; Adjective [1] morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves. I will start my case: P1: Nikki Minaj is more charitable In 2008, Nikki Minaj endorsed a campaign which raised over 270 million dollars for AIDS/HIV awareness in Latin America [2] She has also raised money for breast cancer awareness [3] P2: Nikki Minaj has never been convicted of a crime Nikki Minaj has never been convicted of a crime, which is far morally superior compared to most famous singers such as Ke$ha [4] and Justin Beiber[5] In the next round i will do rebuttals against my opponent [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://hiphopwired.com... [4] http://www.answers.com... [5] http://www.mirror.co.uk...
Is Iggy Azalea better than Nicki Minaj (Iggy:Yes) (Nicki: No)

Iggy Azalea has been accused of being racist. You haven't been racist to her, have you? "Iggy tryna act black, whites can't rap." Of course, her pronunciation when she raps is different from when she normally talks, but that's only because it's the common style when your rapping. Also, Iggy Azalea probably couldn't take the hate you gave her. She started out so sweat, dodging every bullet. But then, she started to let it out. I was disappointed. But perhaps she wasn't doing well. Iggy Azalea had a dream, and what is unique about her is that she followed it. She lived thousands of miles away from the rap capital. "What you call that, head over heels?" Her talent is marvelous. Iggy Azalea is still new, but she is better than Nicki. Nicki is still on her "**** them skinny bi***** act, even though she gave that touching speech at the BET awards. Iggy Azalea has some stupid lyrics. Nicky has way more. Iggy Azalea isn't that bad though. Some of her music has messages, such as 'Work,' but that song was blown off by her other hit Fancy. Pills and Potions was touching too, I suppose. Iggy Azalea has come a long way. Why do you still fight her? Racism is all over her music videos. Saying Nicki is the Queen. Really?
Choose the topic in Round One...

Meaning no disrespect to Pro, this will be a very short round. The resolution is that "Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. " Therefore in order to vote pro, the reader must belief that curfews will reduce crime, or in an exteremly generous interpretation, have a neutral effect. This is a question best decided by empirical observation, as many curfews have been tried already and many studies have been done on the subject. This argument was made in the previous round and has not been addressed by Pro, therefore please accept it as the standard by which to judge this round. I have posted a link to the U. S. Department of Justice where they review all research on the topic and determine that curfews do not reduce crime. I have posted a link to the JusticePolicy center where their review of the research determines that curfews actually increase crime, having a negative rather than neutral effect. Pro's first link in Round 2 notes that the research shows curfews do not reduce crime and points to a survey of the opinions of politicans as the only evidence in favor of curfews. In addition to this opinion poll, Pro's only other source he uses in support of curfews' crime-fighting effectiveness is the link given in the round 3 argument. It is a broken link to a blog. This is not a matter of argumentation and opinion, but a matter of referencing established facts.
Choose the topic in Round One...

The negative, in his/her speech stated that after reading my contentions and reasoning, my first conetention was completely irrelevant. However, it is completely relevant. This topic would be so much more of a challenge to debate if there were no curfews in effect right now. How? It is less challenging now because there are many curfews put into place from sources I have provided. To support my argument, I have obtained at least one additional source to add-on to my argument. The City of West Palm Beach Florida just observed the one year anniversary of a 10 PM curfew for those under 17 years of age. They say its enforcement has been very successful. Police there say arrests of juveniles are down 36 percent and nighttime arrests dropped 86 percent. They also say the total number of crimes during curfew hours are down 12 percent. The negative also states that my contention regarding the effects for teens is irrelevant. It isn't. It's common knowledge (among teenagers) that if you can't go outside, you stay inside and do something. A huge majority of the teenagers in the country attend school. Chances are, they have assignments due and projects to do for school. Knowing they have things to do, why not do them? There is a 50% chance that they will do the work.. they either ill or they won't. The negative also states that curfews waste so much police time rounding up otherwise innocent teenagers that they miss real criminals committing real crimes. What do you mean by "real" crimes? Violation of a statewide law of a curfew is a crime, hence why the police can take action. Just because someone isn't being killed at the same time a teen runs out of the house doesn't mean that violation of curfew isn't a crime. It is a felony. Negative states that it teaches juveniles a distrust of oppressive authority and therefore increases the chance for anti-social criminal behavior; Neg asserted this. I do disagree with it. I agree with the part that it teaches juveniles a distrust of oppressive authority, however, the outcome can and will be different. They will stay in, knowing that they can get arrested for going against a law put into place. I would like to once again state the affirmative reasons of why young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. My first contention is that there have been and currently are many curfew in place right now, as a precaution to reduce crime. My second contention is that it educates juveniles, both directly and indirectly. I urge the users of this website to please vote affirmative. "Lets keep our streets and neighborhoods safe!" (1) http://apublicdefender.com...
Choose the topic in Round One...

Pro affirms the resolution by making two contentions, first that curfews are already used and second that curfews educate. Contention 1: This contention is irrevelant. Whether curfews are already used as a precaution against crime says nothing about whether curfews SHOULD be in place as a precaution against crime. The argument that curfews actually do reduce crime is not explicitly made, nor even strongly implied. In fact, if we look at the first source Pro used [1], we find that the evidence for curfew effectiveness is merely a survey of politicians about their perceptions of curfew effectiveness (the same survey as in his fourth source). Pro's source says actual studies done on the matter show there is "no support for the proposition that stricter curfew enforcement reduces youth crime or risk of violent fatality…. Curfew enforcement generally has no discernible effect on youth crime. " I point out again that this is from Pro's own source and invite the reader to examine the link. However, this is not the only source that suggests curfews don't work. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, "Research on the effects of curfew laws is examined that shows curfew laws are not effective in reducing overall rates of juvenile crime. [2]" In fact, research has shown the opposite. Curfews waste so much police time rounding up otherwise innocent teenagers that they miss real criminals committing real crimes [3]. Contention 2: This contention is also largely irrelevant to the resolution. Unless pro can link learning that there are alternatives to spending time with friends or learning that crime happens at night to lower levels of crime, it doesn't relate to the resolution which is concerned with implementing a curfew "as a way to reduce crime. " To whatever extent this contention is relevant, it is unsupported. Pro has not provided any sources for this contention. He has not provided any evidence that youths' perceptions of curfew and the lessons they draw from it are the perceptions and lessons he assumes they learn. I can assert that it teaches them a distrust of oppressive authority and therefore increases the chance for anti-social criminal behavior, and it carries the same weight as pro's assertion. To summarize, to whatever extent contention one is not irrelevant, it is countered by Pro's own sources and turned by the weight of scientific evidence. To whatever extent contention two is not irrelevant, it is unsupported and unevidenced. Conclusion: To affirm the resolution, readers must answer yes to the question, do curfews reduce crime? This is not a question that can be decided through argumentation, but through looking at the balance of research that has been done on the topic. The research shows that not only do curfews not reduce crime, but they result in increased crime. Thus, the resolution is negated. Sources in comments
Choose the topic in Round One...

The negative chose to negate the first resolution, which states that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. I would like to thank the negative for choosing to take part in this debate of choice and look forward to a challenging debate. I affirm the resolution, again, that young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. My first contention is that there have been and currently are many curfew in place right now, as a precaution to reduce crime. Because of the rise in rates of juvenile crime from the 1980s through the mid-1990s, many of the nation's jurisdictions imposed youth curfews. A 2000 survey of 490 cities by the National League of Cities found that 69% had nighttime curfews and 14% had daytime curfews. For an example, in Washington DC, The Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995 (DC Code 2-1541 et. seq.) states that persons under the age of 17 cannot remain in or on a street, park or other outdoor public place, in a vehicle or on the premises of any establishment within the District of Columbia during curfew hours, unless they are involved in certain exempted activities. Another example, in San Jose, California, Minors who are 16 or 17 years old cannot be in a public place within the city without adult supervision between the hours of 11:30pm and 5:00am. Why are these set in place? They are set in place so that teens will stay out of trouble. In cities, like New York and Los Angeles, there is gang violence at night because there are less people on the streets. Not to mention, it is safer for both the juveniles and law enforcement. If law enforcement responds to any call during curfew hours, there is a high chance that there will be less people there, in effect, being safer. My second contention is that it educates juveniles, both directly and indirectly. It indirectly teaches the juveniles to stay inside and not go out because juveniles go to school have have schoolwork to do, rather than running out on the street, causing havoc in public. It directly educates juveniles because the juveniles learn that violent and non-violent crimes han hapopen at night, and also it will educate them that there are alternatives to "chilling with their friends'. Gang activity stops after curfew hours begin, and if you address inappropriate behavior, you will minimize the opportunity for it to escalate into violence. In other words, if you catch youths early it is more likely they can become valuable members of society. I would again like to thank the affirmative for starting this case issue, and I look forward to continuing in this debate. Sources (1) http://www.libraryindex.com... (2) http://mpdc.dc.gov... (3) http://www.sjpd.org... (4) http://usmayors.org...
Choose the topic in Round One...

I don't know which one is best to debate. Your pick. Post your choice. 1) Resolved: Young aged people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime. 2) Resolved: Children should be ‘bused' to schools outside of their neighborhood to ensure diversity within schools. 3) Resolved: Sex offender registries should be more well-known and advertised in the United States.
I am GOD

If your mortal mind really was capable of omniescence, then you would have seen my comment that I was half an hour late to answer because I had God sh1t to do, and Skyrim is time consuming. Your blasphemy will not be tolerated, and I will be sure to smite you for your actions soon. Also, my font is bigger, therefore, I am God. No peace for you, heretic, instead the death of your firstborn son.Yours sincerely, GOD.