BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Golden Goose Sale promise

Bing de bing de bing de bong bango as it were. Roe's a buck and Den is very nearly and can Yon the junior Chinese boy separate trendy women from business boys, If you get my drift. You see hers is the best price, She's august and in the 16 to 19 bracket, She's able, Well schooled and good over the stiles, High end outdoor clothing and footwear for sure. Talking of his Russian girlfriend's body, Her name was Eve and he occupied her for sure, On the trail in the woods. Pass the port he would say during one of those raunchy summer picnics, They were fond of that Portuguese speciality. Her part was no different to anyone else's around the world, He often lived inside that place, What an experience. She liked to use the camera and he let her. Kayleigh Geena and Beatrice that's Kay Gee and Bea lived there in the summer too, They were girlfriends, Threeway slip slap slurp if you get my drift, They preferred a long Brandy and their union was very particular, So Vi told us. Don't keep your eyes shut for to long though or you might miss Julie. It is sad really that Annie doesn't act her age. Golden syrup and gooseberries in the pan for Sally and Primrose though, Talented but quaint nuts for sure. Bea had a fitting she was a talented off roader on the trail and in the woods, High end carbon interface for sure plus high end all season layering in the sports wardrobe section. Olly was myopic and rarely on the level. It occurred to Bet though that golf shoes were stylish, Sneaky sneaky and she liked to wear them when she was playing, She was moist of course, As moist as the early morning dew as you say, What an attribute! Hail Caesar as the Romans said. G. G. G. Frequent usage (applicators supplied) for internal or external usage and Sally was also on the luxury brandy with Dee. High end sneaker style trail shoes for sure, Technical lacing and mid-sole cushioning is possible and essential and waterproof without a doubt. Betty was severe real and simple and drenched Will though. Yes seize on the boots, For Malcolm it's just about the most important shoe, Rugged terrain and sneakers are a no no and you must get them sized precisely, I can't stress that enough I can't stress that enough. Tony touched a nerve, He was an animal for sure but wee and stern. Re size though and he owns you, G. G. G. For sure (applicator for best results) and you will feel comfortable and able. On line dancing though cowboy boots are best, Yes pointy toes and Ruth thought Tony was the right size for her booty, She got Howard to play too and had several plans in pairs and trios, Swell surprising and tight, You know how it is. Ok. So Tony the animal was electric with the square couple, Though not so square after all was said and done, There was room in her box for sure and he may have been just and practical but his style certainly wasn't traditional. He surprised Tony's booty! Did you ever get that camera back?
Golden Goose Sale promise

Today after i think of my experience of the former Soviet Union I to help blink, To shut my eyes, Because I lived summer inside a place that no longer exists. The KGB took my camera before I left in July of 1991 body month up until Coup. The USSR does not stamp my passport. None of my girlfriends I made there would reply to my many letters. One particular remembers my name. It's very as thought the I, Along the brand new Soviet Union, Ever occupied that now very different part around the world. Get Sears' lowest prices of the growing season on Friday and Saturday, August 16 and 19. Just in time for to be able to school shopping, Sears is the best prices of the season on Roebuck & Denver. Clothing for young men, Canyon River Blues separates for boys business women and trendy junior styles from Bongo. The sad reality is this the "Any act, Any age" Golden Goose Sale promise doesn't always pan released. The Aquanuts have talent befitting a good Olympic level, But occur not become stage in existence where almost properly showcase it. Golf shoes styled after sneakers donrrrt want to be worn if happen to be playing the moist course, Which frequently attributable to early morning dew potentially a previous hail. There http://www. Goldengoosedeluxebrandsale. Com/ are some sneaker-style golf shoes that possess a waterproof coating, But several of them will simply get drenched. Boot sizes are just about the same as sneaker sizes or formal shoe size. If you are new to Tony Lama western boots or have never owned a number of western boots at all, You're going to want to resize a person to get you something that you will be able to use comfortable. Even if you plan pay for boots online, Go towards the store and try on several pairs of boots just to get your boot size. As well as surprising to know the truth just how tight those pointed toes are. Might possibly just elect to get a couple square-toed Tony Lama western boots as well as other. Those give more room in the toe box and look just practically the traditional style.
The Duggars

This debate is a defense of the Duggar family. Contention 1: "I fell that the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar had their children for fame and only fame." Rebuttal 1: I find this unlikely. By the time anybody approached them to film "16 Children and Moving In," they had, obviously, 16 children. It's unlikely that they would've known years and years in advance about the show. So why would they have so many kids when they had no idea about their future show? Also, even if they did, it wouldn't be worth having 16 kids just to have your own TV show. And they haven't become wealthy or anything from the show. Their large house is there because the family needs a lot of living space. It's nothing like a rich couple living in a mansion. Nothing like that at all. Contention 2: "I think that the kids have a had time, because they share a house with 20 other people." Rebuttal 2: I'm sure that living in a household with that many siblings is natural to them whenever they've done it their whole life. We could never understand it ourselves, because we don't have 18 siblings. But anyhow, I don't see how it could be harmful to their well-being. Of course, it may be stressful at times. Contention 3: "It also can make them feel isolated from other people on the basis that they aren't from a normal family." Rebuttal 3: If they don't have any outside friends, and they do indeed have some outside friends, then they can be friends with themselves. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being best friends with your brother or your sister, and the Duggars would agree. Contention 4: "Also I feel that the children privacy is invaded." Rebuttal 4: No. I cannot deny this one. But this can also be a good thing. It can serve as a deterrent against deviant behavior, such as drug usage, "one night stands," internet pornography etc. And I'm sure the Duggars don't mind so much. Contention 5: "Even when the kids move out, people still are following them." Rebuttal 5: They're not THAT famous. There aren't paparazzi mobs everywhere they go. Occasionally somebody might ask for an autograph or to speak at some church or a Christian convention, and that's about it. The amount of attention they get isn't enough to ruin them, though it seemed to ruin Kate Gosselin, and that's a different subject. But if you're referring to the fact that they'll always be remembered as a "Duggar kid," I'm sure they won't be recognized when they get older and when the show's been off air for ten years. Contention 6: "All in all I feel that the Duggars had the children without thinking of what it would be like for the child." Rebuttal 6: Are you implying the children would be better off not being born? Because they seem to be living happy, satisfying lives. Unless Con has more to say on this subject, I would recommend using the next round to cover the upbringing each Duggar child receives, concerning their conservative Christian heritage and their being raised home schooled.
The Duggars

I fell that the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar had their children for fame and only fame. I think that the kids have a had time, because they share a house with 20 other people. It also can make them feel isolated from other people on the basis that they aren't from a normal family. Also I feel that the children privacy is invaded. Even when the kids move out, people still are following them. For example on Wikipedia they have an article on some of the kids once they left the family. All in all I feel that the Duggars had the children without thinking of what it would be like for the child.
The Watchtower of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a false prophet.

The watchtower of the Jehovah Witnesses is not a false prophet. 1) The Watchtower is owned by the Jehovah witnesses themselves. In fact the elders or the brothers write what will be in the monthly publications. 2) 1975 was not the end of the world and The Jehovah Witnesses NEVER said 1975 was the end of the world. what they did say was that Satan was thrown from heaven and cast down to the earth in 1914. And you can ask any Jehovah Witness and they will agree with me. If you want proof ask a Jehovah Witness who prints the monthly publications and gives the ideas and writes them and what happened in 1914 Thank you for your input I like your ideas about the Jehovah Witnesses and I would like to debate them.
The 1998 daughter-of-philochristos commemorative debate

Tried to do this debate before but it didn't work out. I'll be pro in this debate. The resolution is: Senator Joseph McCarthy is a hero. Context- The debate is specifically about Senator Joseph McCarthy's action during the 2nd Red scare which took place in the 40s and 50s. Any events not pertaining to The Red Scare or McCarthyism should be excluded from this debate unless they somehow provide proper context. By hero I mean that McCarthy had the qualities of noble intentions and actions.
The 1998 daughter-of-philochristos commemorative debate

A couple of months ago, i initiated "The Philochristos 1973 commemorative debate". . .http://www.debate.org.... . . because I was born in 1973 and because I had just reached 1,973 forum posts. UchihaMadara (aka Romanii) suggested I have another commemoriative debate when my number of forum posts reached the year of my daughter's birth. She was born in 1998, and since I just reached 1,998 forum posts, we are having a commemorative debate on her behalf.Here are the rules:RULES:1. You pick the topic. It can be on almost any subject you want. I only ask you to be considerate. Although I am quite willing to play devil's advocate if I need to, I request that you not have me defend any resolution such as, "Philochristos' mother was a prostitute" or anything that requires me to insult another person (especially if I care about them), including God, or to betray a confidence, or to engage in gossip. Just be reasonable. I also request that you not make any paradoxical resolutions such as, "Everything Pro says is a lie" or "Pro will win this debate," or anything like that.2. State the resolution clearly in the first round. It must take the form of a coherent sentence, and not just a word or phrase.3. If there is any ambiguity at all in the resolution, define your terms and explain the meaning of the resolution as clearly as you can in the first round. Any undefined terms will be open for debate.3. Since you are going to be Con, you must state the resolution in such a way that you are against it. I will be for it.4. The burden of proof will be shared. That means I must make the case that the resolution is true, and you must make the case that the resolution is false. It is not enough for either of us to simply refute the other person's arguments.5. It is your choice whether to post your opening statement in the first round or wait until the second round, in which case I'd be posting my opening first.6. If you post your opening first, you must post, "This space intentionally left blank" in the last round, and nothing more.7. You must agree not to solicit votes through private messages or through other means (telephone, facebook, google hangouts, etc.). If there are only 48 hours of voting left, and nobody has voted, you may post a link in the "Post unvoted debates here" thread.http://www.debate.org...No other voting solicitation is allowed. You'll be on your honor.8. No embedded images/graphics are allowed. All debating must be done with text.9. All footnotes/endnotes must be placed in the body of your posts.10. There is a 6000 word limit, and 72 hour limit between posts, and a 10 day voting period.11. You must not be Phantom.Whoever you are, this is a great opportunity for you to seize an easy win. All you have to do is pick a topic you know a lot about that I don't. And that shouldn't be too hard to do.Good luck!
The 1998 daughter-of-philochristos commemorative debate

In conclusion, Joseph McCarthy was not a hero because his witch hunt to root out communists was unjustified. It violated the civil rights of many innocent people and resulted in thousands of innocent people losing their jobs. He trampled on the Constitution he swore to defend.Con's argument failed because it depended on the fallacious assumption that the means, whatever they might be, are justified by the ends. It also falied because it mistakenly conflated "communist" with "Russian spy."
The 1998 daughter-of-philochristos commemorative debate

In almost any average sized city in the United States, there are at least a handful of drug dealers, and most of these drug dealers will, from time to time, sell illegal drugs to minors. Suppose that in one of these cities, the police decided search the home of every citizen. Each family, even the ones who owned cats, was subjected to a drug sniffing dog going all through their house, overturning mattresses and raiding closets. And suppose that many people were force to submit to interrogations and public humiliation. And suppose that in the course of these searches the police were successful in catching every single drug dealer in that town as well as finding out who their suppliers were. The drug problem is solved.Now honestly, would you consider the police to be heroic in that case? Surely not.Yet that is essentially what Con thinks makes Joseph McCarthy a hero. His argument is essentially that the means, whatever they may be, are justified by the ends. After all, nobody would deny that capturing Russian spies was a good thing, yet even those who approved of the captures condemned McCarthy for the means he used to discover them. The civil rights of innocent people were violated.That is the major problem with Con's argument--his faulty assumption that the ends justify the means.The second problem with Con's argument is that he conflates communists with Russian spies. Granted, being a Russian spy is grounds for capture and prosecution. However, being a communist is not a crime at all. In fact, the right to be a communist is protected by the Constitution. Con speaks of "communists" and "Russian spies" as if the two terms were interchangeable. They are not. McCarthy did not just go after Russian spies. He went after any and everybody who was merely suspected of having communists sympathies. And he did so ruthlessly.McCarthy was no more a hero than the fictional police chief in the scenario I described above. As a senator, he took an oath to defend the Constitution, but in his zeal, he trampled all over it. If we praise people like McCarthy for being heros, then the Constitution cannot protect us because what we are saying, essentially, is that we are willing to give up our basic rights for the sake of rooting out any possible criminal. If we approve of and encourage what McCarthy did, then none of us are safe.McCarthy was a villain, and we should be thankful that his law-abiding and patriotic public servants condemned him.
The 1998 daughter-of-philochristos commemorative debate

Wylted accidentally made himself "Pro" in the last round in spite of rule #3. We got it straightened out in the comment section. The resolution will be "Senator Joseph McCarthy is not a hero." I will be Pro, and Wylted will be Con. Wylted's definitions and stipulations will apply.Joseph McCarthy was a republican senator during a time when Americans had a morbid fear of the rise of communism. Communism was spreading in Asia. Whether he himself was caught up in the frenzie of fear and paranoia or whether he was taking advantage of public fears to advance his own political carreer is hard to say, but Mr. McCarthy embarked on a witch hunt to weed out communists and communist sympathizers in the government and military that resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs. [1]For the following reasons, Mr. McCarthy was not a hero.1. Political parties and ideologies are not illegal, regardless of how vigoriously one might oppose them. When Congress passed a bill requiring communist sympathizers to submit to government supervision, President Truman vetoed it, saying it would "make a mockery of the Bill of Rights." People in the country have a right to their political ideologies.2. McCarthy persued people with little to no evidence at all of them being communists.3. Many considered McCarthy's interrogations to be vulgar, unfair, and a violation of people's civil rights.4. In spite of there being no proof that anybody was a subversive, 2000 or so government employees lost their jobs because of McCarthy's witch hunt.Since there was nothing nobel in McCarthy's intentions or actions, McCarthy was not a hero. In fact, he was a villain.NOTES:1. http://www.history.com...
Jews are parasites

To end, a short comment on the Resolution and then a closing. As is obvious, the argument by Pro was one to exploit a vague resolution and OP which left much to be interpreted. It appears Con was attempting to argue : Resolved : Antisemitism is an unwarranted form of racial discrimination Even this though is subject to a fairly strong semantic rebuttal unless antisemitism, warrant, race and discrimination are all clearly defined. As an example consider the following exchange between myself and Cody : http://www.debate.org... Note that more than 50% of the discussion is over interpretation over terms such as : -should -ought -value -reason -belong Of course such is to be expected when the topic is one over the existence of rights. Now as a result of this thread we may engage in a debate or two, but in order for this to be productive the resolution would have to be very clear and the OP lay out some specific definitions or it would end up as that thread did with more than a dozen posts just rewording questions to add/remove certain words so they fit within a specific paradigm. And in closing, my favorite semantic debate by one of the true masters of word play on DDO - Logical Master : http://www.debate.org... Logical Master opens with the following : "It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved." His opponent, beemOr catches the slip, the "not" was a mistake, as it is written the logic is that self-interest is required for "not consciously acting", and then beemOr retorts that obviously dead people do not act and they have no self-interest and thus Logical-Master has lost. This is where the genius of Logical Master comes in, he first makes a plea to retract this statement and change it to : "It is impossible to consciously act without self-interest being involved." beemOr however has no sympathy and rightly points out that Logical-Master is known for intricate twisting of words/meanings to make an argument and demands he defends the original argument - and here is the kicker, Logical Master does and presents a solid argument for an obviously nonsensical position realizing that it was his mistake and beemOr simply took advantage of it. That is debate. In closing, debate is not simply about information being presented, much of the strength of a debate is in the resolution and OP which set the stage for what has to be argued and how, nor can it simply be refuted "well I intended it to be". Step up to the plate as Logical-Master has done and defend it, whatever it written. As one final PPS, this is debate.org, simply because you defend a position does not mean you actually take that position. This is a debating site, the members should not only be willing, but enjoying arguing for both sides, that is what debate is all about , exploring an issue not simply soap boxing. I can defend antisemitism - that would not imply I am an antisemitic.
Jews are parasites

"This debate is for any Nazi or ingnorant racist individual" I think I made it clear what we would be discussing and to whom ... I assumed that the person who would take challenge would understand that we would be discussing rasism and anti-semistism, and for this... it is my fault.I'll re-create a debate, but this time i'll present my ideas in a more structured and clear manner.Thank you for the "advice"/lesson, very appealing.I will attempt to perfect my ability in the art of debating.
Jews are parasites

"Wow. You have clearly taken the topic out of its intended context." Con, such are the issues with resolutions which are vague and OP which do not clearly define terms. They can not be taken out of context as there is no context as such defined. DDO is a harsh mistress and she is policed by the hungriest of sharks, of which at times I may be one, but only a minnow compared to the Great Whites such as the like of Kelptin who can twists words/meanings and turn a resolution around and force the instigator to refute his own Resolution. There are a couple of lessons to be learned from this : 1) If you want to advocate a position then advocate it, don't simply try to make someone else prove a position while you sit back after creating something which you believe is impossible to prove. In this case, be Pro on the Resolution : Antisemitism is an unwarranted act of discrimination. 2) A vague resolution and lack of definitions in the OP can cause a debate to go where it was not intended - do not let an opponent exploit such an obvious weakness. If you had taken the above then you would open by defining antisemitism, and discrimination and then present several well known acts of antisemitism and say how they were without warrant. The resolution stands affirmed, all argument are unchallenged.
Jews are parasites

Wow. You have clearly taken the topic out of its intended context. I think I explicitly stated that this debate was targeted to a Nazi or Racist out there. Even though you do make some valid points, I assumend you would understand what I meant by parasite. Are jews paracites to society like Neo-Nazis believe not paracites that feed off earth. (Although I do like you rather clever approach)I hope you are Nazi ( not that I want any more of them to pollute society but...) because if you are not, then there is nothing here to really debate.