BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wal-Mart is good for the U.S.

Wal- Mart, a company founded by Sam Walton, is damaging America's values. Musicians and record companies have to edit and censor their music so that Wal- Mart can carry it. Low quality items such as skateboards and cheap apparel are sold here, cheapening the value of real, quality items. Various scandals plague this franchise. Wal- Mart is helping everyone become McFatty's with "savings in every bag, a McDonalds in every store. " Corporate is also at its worst in this sickening company, as evident with the thousands of lawsuits filed against this company by employees tired of lack of morality in this harsh business place. Now some people may ask, "How? How exactly is Wal- Mart bad for the US. Heck, I buy my cheap apparel there! " But over time, people realize that that question answers itself. For example, a few months ago, a mom bought a brand new PSP for her 6 year old son for his birthday. When the PSP was turned on, pornographic pictures flashed on the screen. Wal- Mart claimed no responsibility, as Wal- Mart claimed that the pictures on the PSP was related to a manufacturers problem. Remember, this was a NEW PSP. Really? Really? There is more to the tale of this corrupt franchise, but for now I will graciously let my opponents thoughts be heard.
Clan Jangle presents: Puzzle master Jangle's most difficult questions.

Fvck you. Your answer to the circle question has two answers, both contradictory to each other. Therefore it points out that Jangle does not know what the answer is, therefore he has no right to judge if it is right or wrong. That answer is debatable. Even you said there could be two different answers. Infinite I think is not a valid answer because it's not an infinitely big circle, we see can see the whole thing and so we must attain that somewhere down the road, even after 1982981357218-9574289127349276349237419749017234096 sides, it has to end. 0 is an okay answer, if you do not consider the side of a circle to be a side. But if it Isn't a side, what is it? and edge? a border? What is it mathematically? 1 is a probable answer because we see only 1 side, neither beginning nor ending, but it is still only one. Take a line, which is infinite in both directions. Although it is infinite and has neither beginning nor end, it is still only 1 line. That's my logic for the side of a circle, and why it is one. I refuse to concede because Pro has not clearly stated the right answer, and therefore there is no right answer.
Clan Jangle presents: Puzzle master Jangle's most difficult questions.

1) You answered: 2= CORRECT 2) You answered: None= CORRECT 3) You answered: 1 side= INCORRECT. I would have accepted infinite or none. 4) You answered: Crabs can't drown= CORRECT 5) You answered: Rosters can't lay eggs= CORRECT 6) You answered: Buffalos can't weight 2 tons= CORRECT 7) You answered: 1 Birthday= CORRECTScore= 6/7 FAIL Circles: https://www.reference.com...; While you did well, you got one wrong and so have lost this debate. Good try though. Also, as per the terms and conditions, I would request that you now forfeit your soul to me. I now ask you to post the quoted below in your final round; this will act as a declaration and prove that your soul is now mine. Thanks you. "Jangle, thine puppet master, thine puzzle master and thine keeper of souls, I here by pledge my humanity, my spirit and my crux to your collection to do as you wish. Taketh this tribute as my payment. Amen"
Clan Jangle presents: Puzzle master Jangle's most difficult questions.

Sorry for the late response, I'm in school right now. 1. 2 carrots. 2. None have an A if they are written in numbers. If they are written In letters, than -100 though -1, because of negAtive. 3.1 side, but I'm not sure on that one. 4. Crabs can't drown unless it's extreme, no oxygenated water. 5. Roosters can't lay eggs 6. Buffalos could never be two tons 7. 1 birthday
Clan Jangle presents: Puzzle master Jangle's most difficult questions.

Answer all correctly to win.1) I have three carrots. If you take away two from me, how many do you have? 2) Please provide all the numbers from -100 to 100 that have the letter A in their spelling?3) How many sides does a circle have? 4) A crab keeper has 500 crabs, 3/8 of them drown underwater, how many are left?5) If my rooster lays an egg in my neighbors back garden, who owns the egg? 6) How can you lift a 2 ton buffalo with one hand? 7) In an average person's lifetime, how many birthdays will they usually have? Terms and conditions.If you lose you must delete your account.If you lose then Jangle's clan reserves the right to bully and harass you until you commit suicide.Jangle's clan is not responsible for any loss of life that may occur as a result of this debate.Upon losing this debate, Clan Jangle reserves all rights to your soul.
We should change the voting age to 15.

Heck no. The 1961 Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Stanford professor Albert Bandura, demonstrated that children will interact with others in the precise manner that was modeled for them by adults. Given this responsibility, many parents try to instruct their children and impart their views, perhaps hoping their kids become carbon copies of themselves, or become the people they wish they were themselves. Parents can get the advantage of their children's voting right and manipulate them to their political view. Then they will vote without having any experience in politics. When your 18, your brain is more developed and choice become more independent. Also, it will cost a lot more if we lowered the voting age to 15, bringing taxes up. The 2016 Election cost 6.8 BILLION dollars, imagine how much more it would cost if there were a whole bunch more people. Plus, most teenagers probably wouldn't care or they don't know who to decide so they don't vote. In 2010, only 21% of 18-24-year-olds voted.
Gay Marriage

Let"s take a definitional approach to the "gay marriage" argument and consider the question: who determines the constitution of marriage? This easily pulls focus from both the legal and social components of this arrangement. Furthermore, this clarifies the logistics of whom and what opinions are held at a higher regard in this debate, which often times concerns the sanctity of marriage. Religion holds a considerable amount of weight within this debate. As rebuttal, let us consider the theocracy that is assumed to be tolerated. For as a democratic republic that"s established the 1st Amendment, the Good Ol" United States of America is more than willing to adhere to the imposing values of one religion. Moreover, gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, a claim that is usually made while we recap the Kim Kardashian 72 day "just for the hell of it" marriage. What"s more is the belief that gay marriage will change the foundations of society, kind of like how health awareness has changed the life spans of our modern citizens. For we, as a society, fail to adapt to newer social norms, just as we did with the introduction of the vehicle. And as if being gay wasn"t enough to handle, but to consider that they"d have a legal responsibility to the children they could potentially share, it"s god-awful. Quite obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, just as straight parents will raise straight children. Marriage is a civil right and should have no restrictions, especially to the unnatural behaviors of the "gays". Keep in mind: Americans have always rejected unnatural things, such as eyeglasses and modern Western medications.
Obama is a Celebrity President

Definitions: Celebrity: A person who has a prominent profile and commands a great degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]President: The head of state and government of the United States. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Obama: Barack Hussein Obama II, born August 4, 1961, the 44th and current President of the United States. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Pro has the BOP. Since all of the Presidents have been celebrities (fullfilling the definition), Pro must prove that Obama has a much greater prominent profile and commands a higher degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media than other Presidents, thus making him a "Celebrity President. "I await Pro's arguments.
Obama is a Celebrity President

"How about a Celebrity among Celebrities?"That could work, too. You are supposed to be refuting, not adding to, my argument."Thanks for agreeing that the statement is correct, but actually I didn’t use any arguments using the fact that he is president. I only gave a few of the many ways he is a celebrity in other ways, other than being president, (that presidents in history have not done) but because he is president."You did not provide any definitions. I provided them instead, and you did not make any attempt to dispute them. My definition of celebrity was "a person who has a prominent profile and commands a great degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media." Your examples could be called "attention getters," which have indeed gotten him famous in other ways. However, they have not given President Obama vastly more "public fascination and influence in media" in relation to what other presidents have had, like Bush or Clinton.I quote myself: "Since all of the Presidents have been celebrities (fullfilling the definition), Pro must prove that Obama has a much greater prominent profile and commands a higher degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media than other Presidents, thus making him a "Celebrity President."You did not disagree with this burden.Since Pro has clearly failed the BOP, I urge a Con vote.
Obama is a Celebrity President

Closing arguments: Con says: “a celebrity god would be a celebrity among gods,” How about a Celebrity among Celebrities? Con says: “Since any president is automatically well-known and influential, all presidents are essentially celebrities.” "Celebrity president" Thanks for agreeing that the statement is correct, but actually I didn’t use any arguments using the fact that he is president. I only gave a few of the many ways he is a celebrity in other ways, other than being president, (that presidents in history have not done) but because he is president. “Celebrity President.” Thank you con, for acceptance of this debate; it has been short and sweet. (The way I like it)
Obama is a Celebrity President

Pro demonstrates that Obama is a celebrity, "a person who has a prominent profile and commands a great degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media."Since any president is automatically well-known and influential, all presidents are essentially celebrities. A "celebrity president" would be a president that a far more well-known and influential than regular presidents, in the same way that a celebrity god would be a celebrity among gods, or a king king would be the king of kings.My opponent has not made any argument supporting her case whatsoever.I turn the debate over to Pro.
Obama is a Celebrity President

Simple debate, Obama has been called the "Celeberty Presedent" Lets decide here and now. Obama has been called a celebrity President. I am not here to argue wither that is a good thing or a bad thing that is up to an individual opinion. We could argue all day wither that is good or bad. More so is he a celebrity president? The answer is simple, yes. Have you seen any other president, to be so successful as to get on the forbs celebrity list? The answer is, no. Obama was the first president to make the list. http://www.smh.com.au... We also have President Obama’s celebrity fundraiser, the biggest presidential fundraiser ever, hosted by Gorge Clooney. Only Celebrities were invited. http://entertainment.inquirer.net... Oprah helped make him a celebrity just like she did with Dr. Phil. He also appears in celebrity gossip magazines; whither you want to think of him like that, the celebrities already do think of him as one of them. http://celebrity-gossip.net... First Black president that might be helping make him a celebrity, thanks Celebrity Gossip. Celebrity birthday bash for President Obama http://abcnews.go.com... I could go on but, I’ll leave it at this.
Obamacare

Are you saying people who are too poor to pay for their health, shouldn't be cared for? If that's it, I have to say that is a bit ignorant. And if someone is poor, cannot pay for their own medical bills because the US hospitals are demanding for BIG amounts of money, I do not see the problem with the Affordable Health Care "giving" people health care. Because, some one who is actually poor and not able to afford health care, do you think it is the smartest idea to refuse.
Obamacare

There is something wrong with the government forcing hospitals to work on people that can't or won't pay. This is why we have this mess. insured folks absorb the losses on Medicaid and Medicare payments, but that is small enough at around 10%. People without insurance that seek medical procedures without the ability to pay are the problem. Many without insurance will repay their bill, some can pay without insurance, some won't seek help. The government has no right to mandate .
Obamacare

There are only two acceptable was to lower the cost of healthcare. 1) malpractice caps 2) Eliminate the legislation that forces hospitals to work on people without insurance. 2) Affordable is subject to interpretation by the individual. Most of the support fell fast when people got sicker shock on the prices. They found the free lunch wasn't free as they are rich as far as Obama sees it. The main reason less than 25 % of Americans wasn't it now and less 2% of Americans signed up.
Obamacare

Obamacare will help the economy of the country, and if it doesn't, what are we going to do? Obamacare is here to stay, and we and YOU cannot get rid of it, because it is what we have. President Obama did not tell a lie, I do understand where you got that information from. And, do you really have to pay higher taxes? Anyway, Obamacare is still a good health care. One of my family members could not afford any health care of which was available around her. It was too expensive. Obamacare!
Obamacare

I would never argue that there aren't some positive aspects of the law. However I don't see it working to lower the costs, or help strengthen the economy. It's just an attempt for Obama to play Robin Hood. 1) I doubt the law is Constitutional in the first place on the individual mandate. Ruling's on such issues are subject to change, based on the justices. The court held it as a tax, so guess what.. another lie Obama told. I make less than 50,000 a year and now I have to pay higher taxes.
Obamacare

The Affordable Health Care Act has so many upsides to it. Children of parents will get health care until they turn 26 years old! That's very good. Many people who want to get health care or insurance cannot afford it because the "big" companies are so crooked. So that is why the Affordable Health Care is there! Read this link I shared. It shows all the upside to Obamacare. http://obamacarefacts.com...
Bugs Bunny is better than Daffy Duck

Daffy duck is better than duck dogers for three main reasons: His parodic nature, his heroic qualities, and his underdog standard.1) Parodic natureDaffy duck, also duck dogers, is an amazing icon used to parody other television and film shows. Duck doger, for example, was used to parody the 1930s show Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers in the 25th century. He was in search of the shaving cream atom, parodying the multitude of "Holy Macguffin" searching films/games/television shows. Finally scholars have used the cartoon to parallel the futility of the Cold war. The intelligent application of Daffy Duck appeals him to more people, and should be seen as the better of the two. 2) Heroic qualitiesDuck Dogers is well known for being a hero. His qualities include his courage, intelligence, and most importantly wit[1]. Compared to Bugs Bunny, they are only on par with his witty behaviour, however compared to the intelligence and strength of Daffy Duck, the better character is obvious.3) Underdog standardWhen you see an underdog, someone who's going against the odds, who do you root for? The david or the goliath? The truth is, each and every time daffy duck gets outsmarted, you root for him more, and become more sympathetic. Everytime he succeeds, you succeed with him. Bugs Bunny wins at every turn, not due to his own skill, but due to the people he picks on. His first couple of shows were a laugh, but it got old real quick. It's like watching someone pick on a two year old. Daffy Duck has a lot more appeal, he is the underdog (or underduck), and therefore, he is better.1 - http://www.imdb.com...
Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems

The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are "obese", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.
Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems

Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights Obesity is a major medical deficit in America. If the parents are extremely over weigh, then they aren't capable of taking care of the children, there aren't able to go outside and work and other things of that nature. The parents have created a window of embarrassment for their children, which can also lead to suicide for the children if the harassment is too harsh for the child to bear. Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights. Parents can loose their parental rights for the mere fact that they aren't capable of taking care of the child. And separation of the child and parent can impact the child deeply. If a parent is obese your not teaching your child about their disease, your showing what not to do, and what not to be, which is double messaging. For example if you are drinking and you tell your child not to, how are you supposed to inform them that this wrong when your continuing to drink. Childrens training grounds are based from home. Your children are supposed to take after you in positive ways. How are you teaching your children what no to do when you continue to do it, and by the time you actually get it in your child's head that this isn't the way to go, your gone from this world your self for over eating! As you can see there are many reasons why children are burdened by their parents obesity. When parents are in and out of the hospitable, the financial capabilities take a toll on the child, especially when it deals with getting things they need and sometimes what they want.
Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems

Rebuttle:1. Parents who suffer from obesity are right to share this burden with children, regardless of the consequences. College age [aka adult] children deserve to know the truth, and the consequences their families may face. If this changes their decisions it is their own choice. 2. Bullies can see that a kid's parents are fat. Educating one's child about this disease puts bullying in context, and helps them understand. Teaching a child about your health condition is not burdening them.
Atheist vs Christian

So you're a Christian just so that you'll go to heaven, a heaven that doesn't exist! Think about it this was, if there's a invisible man up there walking around, he must really hate us humans, I mean, mabey some countries are okay but over all the earth is a preety messed up place. And it isn't the belief in God that grants heaven, you go to heaven if you are free of sin, or have made up for the sins you have committed. You're suppost to follow the Ten Commandments and not do the seven deadly sins. One of which is gluttony. And did you know that 2/3 of people are over weight? That means 2/3 of us humans are destined for hell I guess! Do you think the people from ISIS are going to heaven because the believe in God? Do you think hitler would go to heaven because he believed in God? If you awnsered yes to any of those than you need to get your self out of this debate right now. There are millions of religions out there that have a God, so why choose Christianity? Why do people believe in a God who judges people and who punishes those who have done wrong? I mean, shouldn't he forgive people, he "created" them after all. And so I don't want you to sit here saying that you only stick with Christianity for the promise of heaven, when there are so many other religions with a God as well. So here's what I want you to do...Prove to me Gods real!
Abortion should be illegal everywhere

Because my opponent has forfeited, I would like to correct an error I made in the argument "medical permissibility. " The argument should instead read: Pregnancies that pose a significant medical risk to the female carrying a fetus should be considered for abortion not only because it may be determined that the fetus would not survive in such instances (while posing a significant risk to the mother) but also because the fetus may already be deceased yet still require removal (+1 - see definition of abortion).
Abortion should be illegal everywhere

While I certainly believe that there are some laws which generally benefit society, I do not believe that all of society must accept the rights that descend from said laws to the extent of being undeniable; accepting certain rights as inherent severely bypasses the logical foundation, defense and upheaval of the laws which found our society. Rights ought to be justified through observable results and our capacity for reason. My arguments for abortion are as follows: Abortion can be preventive - Drug use, family history and various other medical factors may significantly increase the probability of disease. With the assistance of a genetic counselor or other medical experts, parents will be able to predict the occurrence of disease with a considerable degree of accuracy. Parents ought to be able to have the choice of receiving an abortion according to the factors previously described if accidental pregnancy were to occur. Resources - One of the potential benefits of abortion comes from its ability to prevent those with genetic or congenital diseases from entering society. Such diseases reduce an individual's ability to reach a level of physical or mental maturity that would allow them to produce resources at a rate that would meet or exceed those that were expended in order to insure their survival throughout their lifetime; especially when compared to an individual who would not require such treatment (examples include Tay-Sachs Disease and Anencephaly). Medical Permissibility - Pregnancies that pose a significant medical risk to the female carrying a fetus should be considered allowable according to medical expertise not only because it may be determined that the fetus would not survive in such instances (while posing a significant risk to the mother) but also because the fetus may already be deceased yet still require removal (+1 - see definition of abortion). +1 - (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Abortion should be illegal everywhere

Human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. One might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the fetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child's right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.