BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is David Cameron harder than Barack Obama (In a celebrity Deathmatch style fight)

Did you not read the parameters for this debate. It is a fun debate and you have turned this into something more serious and obviously have never even seen celebrity death match. I seriously suggest the next time you try and debate with me or anyone you read what your actually debating in the first place. Due to the fact of you immaturity or lack of understanding you have taken away the banter effect for this debate between UK and USA. also ruining the funny side to this debate by bringing up medical terms. This was not the chance for you to try and prove you are a serious debater and prove you can successfully find a source to use in a debate, and certainly not the chance for you to try and prove yourself as someone who appears to be at an academic level of intelligence. Pro by completely misreading the criteria for this debate you have stopped your country from being represented properly for the bragging rights of who has the hardest president, The subject alone is humorous. Just to counter Pro and his mad statement in round 1 you started by saying ding ding round 2, you just simply look silly + With your opening lines saying excellent facts, Really. After pro went off on a tangent about his medical mumbo jumbo he then decided to give DC a serious injury to near death before the bell rang. Nice 1 Pro the Idea was not to half kill your opponent but to dish out as much punishment in a cartoon fashion where nobody gets hurt. Pro to continue in this debate with some degree of a serious element please ask your parents or borrow a DVD of celebrity death match to at least understand what kind of debate this should be and please read what the parameters are in the debate before you enter. I know I was not very precise but that was to inspire some freedom on the creative side of the debate, and when I say without being too unrealistic I did not mean in any way to start bringing up medical facts. I feel this debate was obviously too much too comprehend for you pro due to lack of life experience.
Is David Cameron harder than Barack Obama (In a celebrity Deathmatch style fight)

Were as david camble looks like he is made of plastic. Ding ding round 2 obama and DC step back into the ring. Obama quickly throws a punch confusing DC. Another three punches and he puts DC into a pin. He aplies presure to the back of DC neck blocking the jugular leaving DC Knocked out. ---There are two types of blood vessels in your body: veins that carry blood toward the heart and arteries that carry blood away from the heart. Your neck contains a multitude of veins and arteries pumping blood to vital organs. There are two near the surface that when blocked, result in temporary unconsciousness. The first of these two blood vessels is the jugular vein. This vein is carrying blood away from the brain and toward the heart. This vein is relatively easy to find. It is closest to the body's surface about an inch above the collar bone. On some people it can be found sticking up slightly above the surface. The vein is found on both sides of the neck and a blockage on either side will result in temporary unconsciousness. To do this, apply a good amount of pressure to the vein with one or more fingers. The second is the carotid arteries, which is pumping blood toward the brain from the heart. This artery can be found along the lower jaw bone extending straight up. They are in relative close proximity to the jugular vein. Like the jugular vein, it can be found on both sides of the neck. The same technique for causing the blockage is used as the jugular vein--- Obama then starts stomping in DC face, cracking his head leading too serious injury, almost dead DC luck changes and the bell rings Ding ding
It is politically incorrect for a Jew to play Monopoly

"Political correctness only applies to white cis het Christian males." That's the PC culture. It is the leftist reality that should change. An Ethnic African guy making anti semetic statements is as bad as a Caucasian guy doing it. But this is off topic. "I admit I am wrong in my belief that Jews should not play Monopoly. It was definitely an absurd suggestion." This means that I convinced you of my point. Good game.
It is politically incorrect for a Jew to play Monopoly

"Political correctness only applies to white cis het Christian males." May I remind you, back in 1984, Reverend Jesse Jackson referred to the Jews as "Hymies" and New York as "Hymietown". Jesse Jackson is a man of African ethicity, and when he made the aforementioned derogatory comments he was in conversation with Milton Coleman, also black and a reporter for the Washington Post. Of course, the comments were later printed in the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... I admit I am wrong in my belief that Jews should not play Monopoly. It was definitely an absurd suggestion. However, I will always believe that political correctness should apply to everyone, no matter their race, ethnicity, orientation, or religion. Whether it is directed to a homosexual Muslim woman, a transgender Native American Mormon, or a white atheist, hatred is hatred, slurs are slur, and the meaning of disrespect does not change, I do not care what "the left" says.
It is politically incorrect for a Jew to play Monopoly

"Jews are constantly stereotyped as bankers. Therefore, Jews should be barred from participating in a game that involves banking". Just because you are steriotyped as something does not mean you have to defy the steriotype. This is up for individuals to decide. Ethnic Africans are steriotyped as good basketball players. Does this mean it is politically incorrect for Ethnic Africans to play basketball? No. It creates revenue for colleges."If Jews win too much at Monopoly, people will think they are greedy." No. They will merely think that that peticular Jewish indivdual is good at monopoly. My Dad is the best at Monopoly in my house. He's also a teacher. I don't believe all teachers are greedy people with money. So it won't create waves of Anti Semetism. Also, just because you are rich does not make you greedy. The 1% tended to help society significently for their cash in reality. If it wasen't for the 1%, we would have no choice but to live like Amish people. They created the devices that facilitate this debate. They led the creation of western civilization.
It is politically incorrect for a Jew to play Monopoly

"I believe it is politically incorrect for a person of Jewish faith to engage in a session of the popular board game Monopoly" It's not. The only thing the left defines political correctness is against Cis Het Caucasian Christain Males. Political correctness, however evil it is, only affects this group and sometimes their allies."I believe the Jews have had enough of hearing about Sir Rothschild, and to avoid offending or stereotyping themselves, they should be barred from playing Monopoly" If they don't like the steriotypes, then they can refuse to play monopoly. But if you don't care, you can play in monopoly. Should white people be banned from playing monopoly, since blacks see whites similar to how whites see jews. Just because you don't win does not mean victors should be banned from playing a game."I am arguing this because I keep losing to the Rabbi across the street." If you want to beat the Rabbi, ask him for suggestions on how to inprove rather then claiming Jews should be banned. He probably would tell you some. If you lose to Black people in basketball, does that mean black people should be banned? No."I fear if the Jews keep on winning at Monopoly, something bad will happen." If the Jews win at monopoly, then they win at monopoly. So what? It's just a game. You win some games and you lose some other games. That's part of life.
It is politically incorrect for a Jew to play Monopoly

I believe it is politically incorrect for a person of Jewish faith to engage in a session of the popular board game Monopoly. I believe the Jews have had enough of hearing about Sir Rothschild, and to avoid offending or stereotyping themselves, they should be barred from playing Monopoly, or, with that matter, any game involving banking and money. I am arguing this because I keep losing to the Rabbi across the street and I want a way to troll him, rather it is because I fear if the Jews keep on winning at Monopoly, something bad will happen.
July beginner's Tournament. Animals don't deserve rights.

Thanks for accepting Pro. I too hope that this will be a intellectual and enjoyable debate. With that said I am truly sorry for forfeiting. I honestly thought I had until today to post my arguments. Arguments: 1.Animals Feel.Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated better by humans? Humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and empathy. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes. While one could argue that it is a necessity for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the building blocks of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the respect they deserve? After all as I've said animals made humans evolve the way we did and without animals we would have never needed to evolve. So shouldn't we respect them? At least by not having bull fights, dog fights and such. Like the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." To review. 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical and feel pain. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. Humans did greatly influence global warming and made it worse. 2. We need animals for our survival.For instance the honeybee. We are partly responsible for their demise. We need them. 1. Are they really disappearing?Yes. "Nearly one-third of the world's crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, but over the last decade the black-and-yellow insects have been dying at unprecedented rates both in the United States and abroad." 2. Do we really need them?To live? Not necessarily. But to live normally yes. "The bottom line is, if something is not done to improve honeybee health, then most of the interesting food we eat is going to be unavailable," warns Carlen Jupe. Are humans party responsible?Yes. "So what's killing the honeybees? Pesticides — including a new class called neonicotinoids — seem to be harming bees even at what should be safe levels." Remember the bee is just one example. Sourceshttp://time.com...http://www.businessinsider.com...https://m.youtube.com... Rebuttals: I will post it in the next round.
July beginner's Tournament. Animals don't deserve rights.

Thank you Lee001 for setting this up and thank you in advance Toviyah for accepting. Full Resolution: Animals should have little to no rights. Animals: non-human, a living organisms with emotions and or can feel pain. Rights: deserved of moral or political treatment. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the the debate. 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil atmosphere at all times meaning including in the comment section of this debate. 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No bias. of the topic 7. The BOP is shared. 8. Debaters must follow this format: R1: Con: Lays down the rules.Pro: Opening statements and arguements. R2: Both Arguments and rebuttals R3: Both Arguments and rebuttals R4: Con: Closing statements, rebuttals and constructive criticism.Pro: Closing statements and constructive criticism. 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the rule breaking a full loss can be given. Thank you and good luck.
illicit drugs should be legalised in Australia

Ok I will be quick to start of so get ready. My first point is that there is such a thing as freedom of choice. My opponent states that the average person is a Utilitarian he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy if at least subconsciously if not consciously (for those of us who don't study philosophy that roughly equates to the end is what you justify an action by specifically how happy you are at with the end result of an action is what you judge it by.)This is a major problem I find with my opponents argument he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take them that they would appreciate someone stopping them, in this case, stopping them pre-emptively when they are in full possession of the consequences of that action then why should we stop them? the person who has taken the drug was in the full possession of their faculties before they took the drug so why should we deny their right of of choice by stopping their decision it does not harm anyone else (physically) but themselves and it was their decision and they knew the consequences of their actions My opponent stated that once some takes drugs they are detrimental to society but conceivably that argument could be used on nearly everything to degrees if you play video games you are not "a fully effective member of society",if you have any hobbies you are not a "fully productive member of society"overall this argument is incredibly open ended and also goes against my opponents earlier argument that the majority of people are utilitarian. With these 2 points disposed I look forwrd to see how my opponet will continue to justify his poit of view.
illicit drugs should be legalised in Australia

The purpose of this debate is to try and stump the opponent using reasoning and logic alone. Neither side will present any factual evidence to support a claim or sources to back up anything. No statistics, no quotes from professionals in the area, just cold hard logic. During this debate, both parties are allowed to assume their opponents beliefs as stated outside this debate. My opponent knows what I am talking about, so I will not elaborate merely to observe privacy. Round 1 is for acceptance, no other rules need mentioning, besides the usual, semantics, trolling etc... Dont do it. Good luck to my opponent, let this be a very thought provoking debate.
The Earth is a Danish. Change Our Minds.

Recipes is as recipes are and look it up and you will see that it's dough thinly disguised as pastry. And this debate is about as concise as something that is as unconcise as it's possible to be. And basking in the cold blast of the North Sea the Danish are as sneaky as they are flaky. And Danish is Austrian and the World is as British as Christmas Pudding. And never trust men that wear leather shorts and slap each others backsides and yodel.
The Earth is a Danish. Change Our Minds.

The danish is indeed a pastry. Please prove how it is not? Also, Accusing Earth-Danishers of supporting Nazism is an irrational tactic, There is no correlation between supporting the Earth Danish theory and fascism. The Earth Danish is not metaphorical and we do not associate the European origin of the Danish as an indication of European superiority on Earth. Also, Please drop the poetic thing so we can have a more concise argument.
The Earth is a Danish. Change Our Minds.

Multi-layered laminated sweet pastry in the viennoiserie tradition. And the Danish is an imposter from Austria. And is in fact dough and not pastry. And Pro was no doubt as confounded by 1930's nationalism as they were confused by the paradox. And Denmark clings precariously to it's Scandinavian identity whilst the Fatherland grips tightly at it's heels. And bacon aside and with national identity in crisis. Those giant horns belch like titans across Alp and Rhineland proclaiming sovereignty over all that is sweet and flaky. Who would trust such ignoble ambiguity in the light of Oxford and Cambridge and roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. And space the final frontier and all mix and cherry and raisin and currant and sultana and candid peel and bountiful nuts. Creamy embellishments for all to see and let the light of the brandy flame be a beacon to all, Across the vast treachery and deceit of mainland Europe.
The Earth is a Danish. Change Our Minds.

Your examples of possible explanations for the Earth, Moon, North Pole, And South Pole seem to reflect an Italian Bakery model of the universe, But it's well known that Italy doesn't exist. The sun is an oven light, Which burned the part of the Earth Danish in which Italy formerly was. Thus, Your model is invalid. The Earth is a danish. The clouds are glaze. The North and South Poles are the result of the Earth Danish's bilateral frosting drip. The moon is a build up of interior-oven dirt (including burnt Italy) which revolves around the Danish on the universe's rotating baking pan. You are a yeast, As is everyone.
The Earth is a Danish. Change Our Minds.

The dough pastry paradox has bewildered mankind for millennia. And is the Moon actually a giant ball of Mozzarella. The Earth might yet be proved to be a Pizza. Or a Christmas Pudding perhaps. As the North Pole is clearly brandy butter and the South Pole is obviously custard. And belief is an overused metaphor for greed. And I am the peach in the centre. Yum Yum.
Banning Pit Bulls

What you said made no sense look it over again. You just basically told me what I said about Pit Bulls. You didn't answer why you think pit Bulls should be banned other than they fight and kill... but when you train a puppy or teach a puppy to do something their whole life that is all they are going to know how to do. Since they are trained to kill and they know that if they don't that they will get punished that's exactly what they are going to do it kill the other dog because if they don't then their owner will be mad or they will end up dead because they didn't fight hard enough. When you have been abuse your whole life what would you do would you be happy and not aggressive. No you would fight back and try your very hardest!! My point exactly they are only mean because they get abused or trained to fight so they owners should get the punishment not the breed. Also not all Pit Bulls are agressive I hav two pit bulls that I don't train them to fight and they are very loving animals. We have them around little kids all the time and they play with them too. PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!
Banning Pit Bulls

So what you are saying is, is that you should blame nothing on the dog. It does not matter of all the good deads that they did back then, but of all of the harmful and heinus things that they are doing now. Fights,and killing, and hurting. So you are saying blame the deeds. but it is also the dogs fault and that is not fair even though the dog is trained it should be somewhere in them that they know what they are doing!
Banning Pit Bulls

Pit Bulls are very loving animals...yes they can be aggressive but so can any other type of dog. Actually, 121 breeds were tested on the Temperment Test and the Pit Bull passed with a 95%. All the other breeds passed with a 77%. I own two pitbulls and I can honestly say that we shouldn't punish the breed we should punish the deed. Just because everyone says that the Pit Bull is aggressive and they are known to be fighting dogs. Well in the 1800's they were known as one of the best family dogs. When a Pit Bull is bred to fight that is no where near the dog's fault. That is what the owner has taught them their whole life and they don't know any better. The pit bull was once used for therapy and service dogs. They also were used in search and rescue cases. America's first war dog happen to be a Pit Bull. If anything the owner's who train and abuse them to fight are the ones that should be punished. Most people that fight Pit Bulls are the people who sell drugs or are in gangs. By banning Pit Bulls that would not eliminate the dangers of these types of people. Therefore, punish the deed not the breed!!
"High Noon" was better than "Rio Bravo"

Hello TheGreatFatsby! For you to get the most out of this debate I want to make little notes which will begin with a ( and end with ). I think I can help you improve by doing this, but if you refuse then it is fine. I believe I will be your con for this debate challenge. I hope this will be a fun debate and let us begin in round 2. Since the Pro didn't provide the definition I will do so. (This is something I do or other DDO members do in order to clarify the definition.) Better- of superior quality or excellence http://dictionary.reference.com... TheGreatFatsby just in case, may I ask that you don't write any more arguments, rebuttals, new rules, and etc; in the comment section please. I had bad experience with people doing such deed. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate and let it begin!
"High Noon" was better than "Rio Bravo"

This is my first debate on this website so please forgive any errors I might make with the formatting etc. From what I have read in other debates, the first round is generally set aside for clarifying and to set parameters. I think, within reason, mostly anything can be used in terms of how we compare and contrast the two movies. Plot, acting, cinematography (the main film elements) are good but the overlying themes, societal significance and clash of the values the two represent are fine too. Please do not use logic like "Dean Martin's character in 'Rio Bravo' was called Dude so clearly it was better than 'High Noon'!" It is silly and irrelevant. Wikipedia is a perfectly reliable source for this debate. Given the immense popularity of the "High Noon" and "Rio Bravo" the Wikipedia articles on them have been read, re-read and edited many times. I am pretty flexible with regards to other parameters so I will most likely accept the terms stated in your Round 1 post unless I feel they are unfair or unnecessary. In either case, I will respond to that in my Round 2 post before my argument. I am a senior in high school and I have several college applications due by the 1st of January so I might post my responses at the very last minute and I apologize in advance for that! :) Thank you for giving me the opportunity to hone my debate skills.
That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

My opponent has yielded, and therefore lost the debate entirely. He has made no effort whatsoever to counter any refutation I posed in the last round and I encourage the voter to meticulously review every detail and nuance of this debate before voting to verify my claim. To simply claim that an argument has not been refuted is not to indicate that it has actually been the case that an argument has not been refuted. My opponent, though I am sure means well, offers nothing more than a claim. Rather than repeat what has already been said, I again encourage the reader to go over this debate several times before voting. Upon doing so, there exists no possibility that the PRO has met his burden of proof in this debate because he has, in his reasoning, contradicted his affirmation for the resolution entirely. The outcome of this debate indicates a victory for the CON.