BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

My opponent contends that Dora the explorer is an illegal immigrant however this is simply impossible since Dora is a cartoon and not an actual person therefore to say that Dora is an illegal immigrant would be a misrepresentation of reality. With that said I will address my opponent's points all of which are technically meaningless for reasons stated. A. Speaking Spanish fluently says nothing about where she was born as she also speaks English fluently. B. The fact that the backpack speaks Spanish is in no way related to it's potential to contain drugs. C. I don't believe this to be the case however this wouldn't prove she's an illegal immigrant. D. If he was border patrol why would he be stealing items from Dora and not trying to arrest her?'
Dora the Explorer is an illegal immigrant.

Just for clarification, Dora the Explorer, the little Spanish cartoon character from her self-titled show, is an illegal immigrant (from Mexico). The evidence is clear! a) She's like 4 and she speaks fluent Spanish. b) Her backpack is even Spanish-speaking! Who knows what narcotics you could hide in a Mexican backpack? c) She always needs to find a map, and deliver the "package" that's in her backpack to her destination. That's not weird. d) Swiper is definitely border patrol. I'm telling you, don't let your kids watch a show that encourages smuggling "packages" and speaking Spanish.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Con says that because he is the one following the rules, then the rules only have to be broken from his perspective. Con hasn't even proven that from his perspective, he starts every line with a lower case letter in the actual debate, he only showed that this was the case for his "review debate" page, but the "review debate" page is completely irrelavent to the actual debate that is taking place. Con also broke a rule last round, as every other letter is not a lower case letter with a capitol letter in between! Rule 4 states: "In every round, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters.." However, Con posted: "tHe ArGuMeNt AbOuT wEb BrOwSeRs Is DiSiNgEnOuS. fRoM a MoBiLe, My ArGuMeNtS aRe EvErYwHeRe. lIkE i CaNnOt Be SuBjEcT tO tHe LaWs Of oThEr CoUnTrIeS" As you can see, the lower case "e" on the end of EvErYwHeRe is followed by a lower case "l" on the next line. Since he has two lower case letters back to back, then I will win. He should have ended the first line I quoted with a capitol letter so he could start the next one with a lower case letter and still be within the rules. Since every other letter is not a lower case letter, with a capitol letter in between. GAME OVER. Also, if the rules aren't broken from his perspective, that would only show that he didn't break a rule directly with respect to him. However, he still broke the rule indirectly, as the debate clearly shows that Con did not start off each line with a lower case letter with respect to some users. The rules state that a rule cannot even be broken, even indirectly. Rule 1 states: "Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly)..." Therefore, even if Con didn't break a rule from his direct prespecive, he still broke the rules indirectly even if the rules didn't specify a browser. Con also broke the rules, as his fifth line has a picture, and doesn't start with a lower case letter! Checkmate ;)
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

oH. tHiS iS hOw It Is. wElL tHeN. i AdMiT tHeRe ApPeArS tO bE aN eRrOr. HoWeVeR, tHeRe Is NoT. iN aLl DeBaTeS, tHe FiRsT fEw LiNeS sTaRt WiTh ThE iMaGe Of PrO oR cOn. ThIs ChAnGeS tHe FoRmAt. lOoK aT iT fRoM mY pErSpEcTiVe. nOtIcE wHeRe ThE "c" Is. bEcAuSe I aM tHe OnE fOlLoWiNg ThE rUlEs, NoT mY oPpOnEnT, tHeY mUsT bE bRoKeN fRoM mY pErSpEcTiVe. tHeY wErE nOt. tHe ArGuMeNt AbOuT wEb BrOwSeRs Is DiSiNgEnOuS. fRoM a MoBiLe, My ArGuMeNtS aRe EvErYwHeRe. lIkE i CaNnOt Be SuBjEcT tO tHe LaWs Of oThEr CoUnTrIeS, i CaNnOt Be SuBjEcT tO tHe RuLeS oF sItEs, BrOwSeRs, AnD dEvIcEs I dId NoT uSe. i Am StIlL wItHiN tHe PaRaMeTeRs Of ThIs DeBaTe. ThE rUlEs Do NoT sPeCiFy A bRoWsEr. If MiNe StIlL oPeRaTeS wItHiN iT, tHeN i aM sTiLl WiThIn ThE rUlEs. tHaNk YoU.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I use Opera web browser with normal size font. As you can see, when using this search engine, the third line of my opponent's round starts with a capitol letter. I pressed prtsc to prove it [http://postimg.org...]. The third line starts with a capital "C", when the rules specifically state every line (not sentence), must start with a lower case letter. Therefore, Con loses and a full 7 points goes to me. When I used Google Chrome, and the forth line started with "War", which, again, starts with a capitol letter. Now, perhaps there are some web browsers which shows that he didn't break the rules with respect to that format. However, he still broke the rules with respect to Google Chrome and Opera on their default settings. Therefore, he still broke the rules in some sense indirectly, which rule 1 states is forbidden. Even if, lets say, Internet Explorer favors my opponent, that wouldn't change the fact that he broke the rules on the other browsers, thus, he still broke the rules. Therefore, he will lose according to the debate structure. Thank you.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

mY oPpOnEnT sTaTeS tHaT hE iS mOrE eXpErIeNcEd ThAn Me. TrUe. HoWeVeR, hE hAs AlSo BeEn HeRe LoNgEr. hE hAs BeEn HeRe TwEnTy-FoUr MoNtHs To My FoUr. ThE dEaTh StAr HaS tWeNtY-fOuR zOnEs. ThUs My OpPoNeNt CaN bE cOmPaReD tO tHe DeAtH sTaR. tHaT mAkEs Me ThE rEbEl AlLiAnCe. We KnOw WhO wOn ThAt WaR. i Am An UnDeRdOg. PeOpLe LoVe UnDeRdOgS. mY oPpOnEnT sAyS hE lOoKs BeTtEr ThAn Me. HoW dO wE kNoW hIs PiCtUrE iS rEaL? fUrThErMoRe, WeRe I tO pOsT a ReAl PiCtUrE, mAnY pEoPlE wOuLd LaPsE iNtO bLiNdNeSs. mY iMaGe DePiCtS tHe MaJeStY oF qUeEn ElSa ThRoUgH hEr WoRk. ShE iS lOvElY. wHiLe My OpPoNeNt DiSpLaYs OnLy HiMsElF, i dIsPlAy BeAuTy, HaRmOnY, aNd EvEn A dEePeR rEfLeCtIoN oN tHe MeAnInGs Of LiFe. aS a LaSt ReSoRt, My OpPoNeNt JoKeS aBoUt SeLf-HaRm. ThAt Is NoT a ToPiC tO bE tAkEn LiGhTlY. iF mY oPpOnEnT fEeLs LiKe HuRtInG hImSeLf OvEr An InTeRnEt DeBaTe, I rEcOmMeNd He SeE a ThErApIsT. aLsO, iF mY oPpOnEnT iS cOnFiDeNt EnOuGh To PoSt A sElF-pOrTrAiT, hE sHoUlD bE cOnFiDeNt EnOuGh To Be A gOoD sPoRt. mY oPpOnEnT sAyS hE tAuGhT nOrRiS tHe RoUnDhOuSe KiCk. NoW hE's JuSt LyIng. aCcOrDiNg To HiS pRoFiLe, My OpPoNeNt Is TwEnTy-SeVeN aNd In CaNaDa. NoRrIs Is SeVeNtY-fOuR aNd An AmErIcAn. tHeReFoRe, ThE eArLiEsT pRo CoUlD hAvE tAuGhT nOrRiS wAs WhEn NoRrIs WaS fOrTy-SeVeN. bEcAuSe NoRrIs WaS bOrN kNoWiNg ThE rOuNdHoUsE, iT iS iMpOsSibLe ThAT pRo TaUgHt HiM. cHiCkEn NuGgEtS dO tAsTe AmAzInG. hOwEvEr, ThIs Is A rEd HeRrInG fAlLaCy. ThE sYlLoGiSm Is VaNqUiShEd. gOoD vOtErS, mY oPpOnEnT hAs LiEd To YoU. hE iS aLsO fRoM cAnAdA, sO vOtInG fOr HiM iS bOtH uNpAtRiOtIc AnD tReAsOnOuS. i LoOk FoRwArD tO tHe NeXt RoUnD!
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Nobody has broken any rules yet, so it is still anybody's game. The reason I think Con will lose this debate, is that besides the rules outline, it is anybody's game. However, the cards are stacked against my opponent. Therefore, it is more likely that I will win than Con. Also, remember, even if Con follows every rule, that doesn't mean he wins automatically, it only means that he has dodged a definite loss. Another reason I think I will win this debate is that I am more experienced than my opponent. He only has 24 debates under his belt, I have 221. He may have a higher win percentage, but the majority of my debates have been complex philosophical, or scientific debates, while his debates are not on that caliber. Another reason I will win this debate is because I believe I am better looking than my opponent. This is suggested by the fact that I am confident enough to post a picture of myself as my DP, while his DP is of a frozen pond, which is probably a reflection of his cold love life. Another reason my opponent will lose this debate, is that if he wins, I will kill myself. I'm sure the voters don't want a man's blood on their hands, so because one is not compelled to automatically vote for Con, even if he follows all the rules, the voters will vote for me, as most people don't want an innocent person to die. Therefore, since I will kill myself if I lose, and most people are caring and sympathetic and don't want that to happen, they will vote for me, and I will win. Therefore, since I will win, it follows deductively that my opponent will lose. Thus, my opponent will lose this debate. Also, I taught Chuck Norris the round house kick, and had the most interesting man in the world tell me I am the most interesting man in the world. A logician agreed, but he got fired. It is a shame really, as he was really bright. last argument: P1: If chicken Mcnuggets taste amazing, Con will lose the debate P2: Chicken Mcnuggets are tasty as hell C: Con will lose dawg!!
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

-- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con. If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default; no contesting a rule after accepting the debate --Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them.Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent*Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance*Rule 4: In every round, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, starting with a lower case letter (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). This rule must be applied to each line individually, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he choses.Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been acceptedHave fun, it should be entertaining ha
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

i WiLl ReTuRn To ThE rEvIeW dEbAtE iN a MoMeNt. a MoMeNt. a MoMeNt. tHe LoWeR cAsE mY oPpOnEnT pOiNtS oUt WaS oN a NeW lInE aNd HaD tO bE lOwEr. mY oPpOnEnT's CaSe Is InVaLiD. a PiCtUrE wAs NoT sPeCiFiEd. It CaNnOt Be AgAiNsT tHe RuLeS. pLuS, tHe FiRsT lEtTeR iN tHe PiCtUrE iN tHe RoUnD iS lOwErCaSe. nOw BaCk To ThE rEvIeW dEbAtE. fIrSt, ThE rUlE wAs NoT bRoKeN iN iTs EnTiReTy. i DeMoNsTrAtEd ThAt I dId NoT bReAk A rUlE. iF aNyThInG, dEbAtE dOt OrG bRoKe A rUlE. hOwEvEr, I aM nOt DeBaTe DoT oRg. I cAnNoT bE rEsPoNsIbLe FoR wHaT tHeY dO. tHuS i BrOkE nO rUlEs, DiReCtLy Or InDiReCtLy. iN tHe WoRdS oF qUeEn ElSa: LeT iT gO, lEt It Go!
Evolution is an unjustified axiom of faith

My opponent forfeited a second time; how unfortunate :( I ask that I receive the conduct point for his two consecutive forfeits. Analysis: My opponent seems confused in a post-facto view of evolutionary biology. He sees this body of evidence and makes the claim that it is just an assumption or an unfalsifiable hypothesis (act of faith). However, when the science of evolution subsumes the massive, collective work in the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, developmental biology, population biology, mammalogy, ornithology, botany, zoology, herpetology, ecology, genetics, ethology, biogeography, epidemiology, psychology, and population genetics without evidence to the contrary, while making and confirming predictions we can be lead to believe that evolution is a highly accurate scientific theory.Furthermore, Science is a falsifiable endeavor. If a body of evidence emerges that demonstrates evolution to be false or inaccurate, the truth-power of evolution will be diminished and evolution as a science may see its end. However, the argument, evidence, and reason all point to evolution being a highly successful and accurate scientific theory. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Science relies on a set of assumptions, but that does not, therefore, mean that its findings are assumed. The rigorous research, testing, and peer review process makes sure that data and evidence are of the highest quality. [http://web.utk.edu...] ConclusionSince evolution is a branch of science, and science is a falsifiable endeavor, which grants truth value to theories in proportion to evidence, evolution is not an unjustified axiom of faith, but rather a justified branch of science based on evidence and reason. Thank you for reading and debating.
Evolution is an unjustified axiom of faith

Guidelines: 1) Laws of logic must apply 2) Open mindedness to new ideas is a virtue :) Definition: Faith- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. Evolution- the process by which organism transition from a less complex organism to another more complex organism. (The primary axiom of science in the modern day). Axiom- a starting point of reasoning. 1) Genetics There is no genetic mechanism by which evolution can occur. If this is true then the remaining areas of research should be questioned as well. Evolutionists are no longer asking whether evolution is true, but instead are just trying to make it work. There has been no new DNA formed as controlled observation. Furthermore, everything that we know about DNA has led to numerical problems and strong accusations such as Kimura's Quandary against evolution. See reference. 2) Fossil Record Although this would also support the evolutionary model, it doesn't. If this is true, then Evolution quickly becomes a matter of personal opinion that all of these quandaries will be discovered in the future. There are minimal and still hotly debated in-between types giving rise the biggest question against evolution: If the genome requires evolution, then why do we not see gradualism in the fossil record? There have been postulations that small populations allowed these sudden genetic drifts to reform and evolve the organism to avoid such missing links and genetic mishaps, but postulations have not been fully justified. These are my first two arguments and would be glad to take any questions if there are any. Logic: 1) Evolution is unjustified and shouldn't be an axiom. See above- 2) All beliefs that are unjustified, are of faith. 3) Society accepts evolution as a starting point of reasoning. Therefore, Evolution is an axiom of faith. References: Genetic Entropy: & the Mystery of the Genome 2005 Dr. J.C. Sanford Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626
Soulja Boy is a genius

First of all, my opponent does not advocate Soulja Boy to have an extraordinary intellect. We can throw that point away right now. My opponent does say that Soulja Boy has a "creative power." I for one would not count his "power" extraordinary. My opponent concedes himself that "Turn my swag on" is "literally just him describing his morning routine with a good beat to go with it." Does that sound extraordinary to you? I can tell you about my morning routine with a bass in the background! Now take a look at "Crank dat." http://www.metrolyrics.com... I don't even have to tell you how repetitive the song is. For a four minute song, you would think a "genius" could come up with a few more verses. My opponent keeps bringing up the fact that Soulja Boy makes a lot of money. That is correct. This only proves that he has a great manager. His manager gets him 50 cents a comment. His manager gets him great advertising. His manager gets him rolling in the big bucks. How is thinking of a few [ordinary] lines of music considered genius? Yes, almost everyone likes Soulja Boy. Why do we like him? He has no musicality, poor instrumentation, and repetitive lyrics. The only reason we listen to him is because we have fun doing his dance. Does he attract many listeners? Yes. Is he a genius for doing so? According to the definition, certainly not. Listen to these songs. For a moment, put aside which one you like more. That is subjective. Think only about musicality. Is this a quality piece of work? Did it take much work? How many other people could have created this work? How much time was put into this? The first video contains an animation by the music machine to illustrate how much effort was poured into the piece. http://www.youtube.com... Compare the quality of the first video to the second. http://www.youtube.com... Which do you think requires more "genius?"
Soulja Boy is a genius

Soulja boy is a genius artist because he has taken advantage of the pop culture. What Soulja Boy has done is something people going to Harvard right now hope to do which is making a whole lot of money. The man uses his creative genius and created a dance called "Crank Dat" which he makes a crank motion left and right and pretends to fly like superman creating a whole frenzy. More reasons why Soulja Boy is a genius is because of all his songs. Examples like: Crank Dat Turn my swag on Yaaahhh trick Yahhhh These songs take little thought and effort but goes well with a good beat. Soulja Boys "Turn my swag on" literally just him describing his morning routine with a good beat to go with it. The fact that soulja boy can effortlessly create music and appeal to the audiences makes him a musical genius. Soulja Boy has topped the billboards top 100 which is a true reflection of how much his music is being loved and heard around the world. Soulja Boy continues to show how much of a genius he is by making music and putting it up on youtube making himself a partner. He has said to the audiences that he receives 15cents for every view and 50 cents for every comment all of his videos he has posted has all about exceeded 1 million views. $$$ He makes money from all the people who voices their disapproval for him on his page with every "you suck" comment he pulls in 50 cents. When you can take advantage of the ones who hate you the most that is a sign of a true money maker and all great money makers have been considered a genius in this world. Big ideas comes with Big money. My opponent gave u all a definition of genius: "Genius: [A person with] Extraordinary intellectual and creative power." Well if a man can make millions of dollars and pull down a platinum album with the least amount of effort and have the whole world marvel in his music I call that a creative power.
Soulja Boy is a genius

Resolved: Soulja Boy is a genuis. Due to my opponent's lack of definitions, I will do the honors. Soulja Boy: DeAndre Ramone Way (born July 28, 1990), better known by his stage name Soulja Boy Tell 'Em, or simply Soulja Boy, is an American rapper and record producer. Genius: [A person with] Extraordinary intellectual and creative power. When first looking at the resolution, one must realize the burden of proof that my opponent has set up for himself. He must prove that Soulja Boy either: 1 Has an extraordinary intellect 2 Has extraordinary creative power Until my opponent makes a case for either of these points, I have nothing to refute. The resolution is negated. ========== Sources ========== http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The A-10 should remain in service in the Middle East

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is amazing. With a GAU-8 cannon that can fire 30 wine bottle sized rounds per second and Maverick missiles ready to blast down all opposition, this aircraft is perfect to fight terrorist groups because it can resist damage and does not need to fly fast because terrorists do not have easy access to fighter interceptors. It can carry up to 16,000 pounds of missiles and bombs, making it perfect to destroy a large area in which the terrorists may be in, leaving nothing to chance.
Death of humans is a good thing in atleast one way. Be sincere, no trolls.

Before you jump to conclusions, i do not have to be specific. I said that the death of a human being is good in AT LEAST ONE WAY, so instead of me having to be specific, you should have read my argument starter and tried to comprehend it more. Now, the death of a human being is good because the risk of over-population on planet earth. The occasional death of a human being reduces population in a good way, according to these statistics from "Live Science" the Earth's biosphere carrying capacity population is 7 Billion, and our current population is 6.7 billion. If it exceeds that mark it is said that our recources may be scarce, and the chances of illneses would become greater by a dramatic increase. I did not say ANYTHING about morality, and i stated AT LEAST ONE reoson like i said, so therefore i am correct, (i love literacy). In conclusion, the death of human biengs is good for decreace of population. I said nothing about morality like you stated, and i gave AT LEAST ONE REOSON, so that prooves my statement correct, and that cannot be altered.
Death of humans is a good thing in atleast one way. Be sincere, no trolls.

Humans occupy 1%-3% of the Earth. While death does prevent overpopulation from happening, it wouldn't necessarily be a 'good' thing because 'good' and 'bad' are two terms that have many different meanings to some people. Death is upsetting when it happens to a family member, so you really cannot tell what is good or bad because they are very vague terms.
how television corrupts the youth

TV shows do not corrupt children, children can tell when to not repeat the violence they see on TV (The Pro eve admits this) the violence they do see on other TV shows has disclaimers warning not to do this, risky TV shows air only late at night so that the children cannot actually be up to watch it, parents and the government control how much TV kids watch by controlling how late they can stay up or by controlling the watershed hour of when more Vulgar content can be shown on TV. All of this shows that TV does not corrupt children and that society as a while has collaborated to make sure that TV does not corrupt children.
how television corrupts the youth

The main point of the last argument was to enforce that children and young adults can distinguish between reality such as humans hurting oneself on a television show, or a cartoon done by computer where the images that are portrayed can be and most of the time are excessive and over dramatic. Children can see the difference in a giant cat falling off a cliff as opposed to a human falling off a cliff and what the two differ from. A cartoon is a cartoon for a reason because young individuals are taught for future references about how it is "not real" and that a cartoon is simply a computer doing the work. Whereas watching real television, with REAL people doing stunts that can cause harm can make them want to try, even with disclaimers.
how television corrupts the youth

1) So when you have cartoon violence without warnings of not to do the things you see on TV, Kids wont do it....But when you have real life violence that clearly has warnings to not to the things you see on TV, all of a sudden kids are helpless beings and are drawn to do what they see o TV.....If kids and teens are as influenced by television as you claim then children would be corrupted by any kind of violence they see on TV. Yet that is not true because they do know to not repeat the stuff they see on cartoons even though the cartoons do not release disclaimers saying not to do the stuff you see on TV. Since teens and kids are smart enough to not be corrupted by shows that do not release disclaimers, then they are also smart enough to not repeat stunts on TV shows that do release disclaimers and expessively say to not do anything you see on this TV show.2) "In my previous argument, there was never a mention of any "government regulation", all i suggested was that the parents need to fine tune their parenting skills for the sake of their children""parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch."The second statement was where I thought you refered to government regulation, I must have misunderstood since any time someone refers to any kind of "regulation" they are referring to the government. TV doesnt corrupt youth, its all for entertainment and the tv shows that do go a little over the top openly claim to not do any of the stuff you see on TV...