BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When I was a kid, I wanted to lick the world!

When you lick the world, The world will lick you back. Go into the city or the village, Or any place really, And find a child to lick. When I was a child, I wanted to lick the people who passed by. Now when I am a grown up, I want for other children to feel love too. I want to find a child, Find her when she is alone playing or wandering, And approach and lick her, Give her love. For she might die tomorrow, And you will be sorry that you didn't lick her. If you just licked her, Everything would be fine. I know that when I was a kid, I wanted to be licked, But the world was sad and cruel, As is living without a lick. Many people keep telling me to give up, Trying to convince me that there is no use to try. But I refuse to listen, And keep on licking children. A simple lick on the cheek that gives so much pleasure to the one, To give this up, What would I have left?
Womens rights and equal judgements

My debate comes from a various different perceptions, why do women endure more sexual abuse get discriminated for ie: wearing short skirts , showiing flesh acting provocatively , whereas men can do the exact same thing except worse, sleep with alot of women ( one night stands) do the same things and be known as the "man" or someone cool,. This to me in basic women discrimination, my opinion is that women are discretley known as the weaker sex and the more incontrolled ones. i am completely for " women rights and equal judgement" anyone care to debarte why not?
Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised.

My opponent failed to offer a strong response here and effectively dropped a number of points by either ignoring them or writing them off simply because simply because he couldn't understand them or how they supported my case. For example, my opponent's response to my point about rich people altering their behavior in response to high tax rates was simply:"Again, I don't see the point. Their behaviour changes significantly? How so? Why? Is it bad? " In fact, anyone who read my first round would understand that this was a key part of my larger argument showing that high tax rates generated supply side effects among rich people that had an adverse impact on economic growth. The fact that my opponent "doesn't see the point" is a problem with his ability to analyze arguments, as the argument was quite straightforward. There are many other examples of this type of response to my points. My opponent, effectively, ignored my point about European high tax rates hurting growth by pivoting back to his points about inequality, without really responding to the argument. Despite the lack of real response to my arguments, I offered a full explanation and defense of my arguments in round 4 that more than answered my opponent's criticisms. I also pointed out that most rich people already pay quite high taxes and that many find this to be immoral. My opponent's respones to these points were also quite weak. I direct readers to round 4 for all of these arguments. My Opponent's Points My opponent also put forward a number of arguments in favor of higher taxes on the rich. I responded to those arguments in full in round 3. I pointed out that the evidence is very strong that economic inequality does not hurt economic growth. I also put forward arguments for why the median income figures are skewed downward and that taxing the rich is not good macroeconomic policy. I see my opponent's defenses of his own arguments to be quite inadequate as well. I think most readers will agree, but that is up to them. ConclusionOn a final note, I did not drop any points in the debate. Due to the limitations of this round, I cannot go back and respond to my opponent's claim about this, but I encourage readers to go read my round 4 response for themselves to see that the point was not dropped. My opponent, on the other hand, dropped a number of points. Indeed, he dropped many more than I have even mentioned in this round. Overall, I have clearly showed that the resolution "Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans Ought be raised" clearly fails. I have effectively rebutted all my opponent's points and defended all of mine in full. There is simply no justification for doing anything other than voting CON.
Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised.

Closing ArgumentDropped PointsAs a reminder, This is the final round, and dropped points may not be rebutted.(A) Eliminating Tax Loopholes"Raising the taxes on the top 1% would mean cracking down on criminal tax evasion."This was a point brought up in my R3 rebuttals. My opponent totally fails to adress this. In order for the Con to win, his argument must convince the voters that criminal tax evasion should not be punished, or that tax law ought to be more rigorusly enforced.Final FocusPros CaseMy opponent fails to fully rebut any of my argument. 100% of his rebuttals were shown to be false in my R4 argument. Furthermore, his rebuttals are only weak mitigations, not full rebuttals.Cons CaseMy opponent has failed to fully prove his case. His points and sources are contradictory. He attempts to rebut Pro arguments with "Correlation does not imply causation" yet provides only correlations as arguments. His case is thoroughly rebutted by the Pro. His defences are merely weak mitigations Therefore, VOTE PRO!!!
Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised.

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

"If you want an issue they would fight over present, imagine Ezio stepped on Altairs shoes or something." --> This is clearly not a sufficient reason for Altair to want to destroy Ezio. As mentioned in Round 1 Ezio is family to Altair and is part of the assassins, a group which Altair basically created. "Ezio is more brute force, while Altair is more stealthy. Not that I am saying that Altair wouldn't be strong, it's just that Ezio's assassinations included sword fights." --> Actually, quite a few of Ezios missions involve not begin detected by the guards when getting to your target. However, in many of Altairs missions you don't have to be stealthy. "Also, in the second game Ezio uses Altair's armor, that most likely, if you take it seriously, would have worn down over the millenium. The same goes for his sword." --> Actually, in the game the armour is in pristine condition, and in fact does not have to repaired in the game [1]. "The argument that Altair didn't have the equipment, when you make a good argument, is basically implied, as seen in the second game codex pages." --> It is not implied in the codex pages that Altair used any of this equipment. [1] = http://assassinscreed.wikia.com... Pro has not fulfilled his burden in proving the resolution. His not sufficiently established why or how Altair could successfully destroy Altair.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

I thank the con for his response. Now you talk about reasons for why they would fight, and i restate that if there was a fight, for no particular reason, there would be some issues. If you want an issue they would fight over present, imagine Ezio stepped on Altairs shoes or something. If you all play the games, they both have different fighting styles. Ezio is more brute force, while Altair is more stealthy. Not that I am saying that Altair wouldn't be strong, it's just that Ezio's assassinations included sword fights. In a fight in either game, there is a place for both. Also, in the second game Ezio uses Altair's armor, that most likely, if you take it seriously, would have worn down over the millenium. The same goes for his sword. The argument that Altair didn't have the equipment, when you make a good argument, is basically implied, as seen in the second game codex pages. So basically, it is said they equipment they use is the same, when Altairs is in better condition. That's my argument, back to con.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

I thank Con for his response. "My main point was to express that in a fight, with no specific reason, just in a fight, Altair had much more experience." --> The word 'would' in the resolution means you must provide a motive for Altair to destroy Ezio. "I agree with con on the advantage............. thus it basically says that Altair has them to with a more expanded knowledge on how they work." --> Altair may have invented the weapons Ezio would use, but it doesn't imply he has a greater ability to use them. Furthermore, we never see Altair use the weapons, such as the hidden pistol, which he invents. "Secondly, they had the knowledge on how to deal with opponents. Ezio simply fought guards, while Altair fought some of the main crusaders." --> Actually, Ezio fights much more than just guards in the course of the game. In the last mission during sequence 14, he has to defeat Rodrigo Borgia, who possesses a Piece of Eden, which makes him significantly stronger than Ezio. Furthermore, Ezio has to dispatch a multitude of enemies, and often without alerting them, making it significantly more difficult. "Thus being my point, they had the same equipment, so the entire battle would come down to experience, with which it is implied that Altair had more." --> Actually, Altair is never seen with most of the equipment that I mentioned in Round 1, such as the hidden pistol. Furthermore, Altair lacks portable medicine and smoke bombs, to name a few things, that he would not be able to require regardless. My opponent has not established why or how Altair would indeed destroy Ezio Auditore. Back to Pro.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

I thank the con for choosing the argument and using very good examples. First of, experience wise, Ezio became an assassin at around 17, while Altair was trained from birth. My main point was to express that in a fight, with no specific reason, just in a fight, Altair had much more experience. I agree with con on the advantage, but i feel that in the game, Altair is never talked about after he finishes the story line. He is, as understood in the second game, continued to go on and invent the items Ezio uses, thus it basically says that Altair has them to with a more expanded knowledge on how they work. Secondly, they had the knowledge on how to deal with opponents. Ezio simply fought guards, while Altair fought some of the main crusaders. Thus being my point, they had the same equipment, so the entire battle would come down to experience, with which it is implied that Altair had more.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

=== DEFINITIONS === Would: Used in the main clause of a conditional statement to express a possibility or likelihood [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Destroy: to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] == BURDEN ON PRO == Pro is contending Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore, as per the definition of destroy. To do this Pro must establish: 1) A motive for Altair to destroy Ezio. 2) How Altair could destroy Ezio successfully. I will now make arguments for each of the above points. 1) There is in fact no reason for Ezio to want to kill Altair. Ezio is a descendant of Altair, and therefore Altair would view him as family [1]. Furthermore, both are assassins, and therefore aligned in a common struggle [1] [2]. From this it is clear that Altair would not be motivated to kill Ezio. [1] = . http://assassinscreed.wikia.com... [2] = . http://assassinscreed.wikia.com... 2) In a fight, Ezio would have an advantage over Altair. In Assassins creed 2, Ezios inventory matches Altais, with the same armour and sword [3]. Ezios inventory is better than Altairs in the following ways: - Ezio can carry more blades than Altair, and they are made of more modern steel. - Ezio has two hidden blades with designs improved by Leonarda Da Vinci, whereas Altair has one. - Ezio has a hidden pistol, something Altair lacks. - Ezio has smoke bombs, something Altair lacks. - Ezio can poison his blade, something Altair can't do. - Ezio can heal himself with portable medicine, something Altair can't do. [3] = . http://assassinscreed.wikia.com... I have successfully disproved the resolution. Back to Pro.
Altair would destroy Ezio Auditore

In the game assassin's creed, there are two major assassins, who both were two of the coolest video game characters ever. Altair, in the original, and Ezio Auditore de Firenze, in the sequel. No one can argue that both of them weren't awesome, but i feel, and most people will agree with me, that Altair was better. If you haven't played the game, Altair has no backstory and lives during the crusades. He is called the greatest assassin ever. Then Ezio lives in renissance Italy. In the original, Altair is using the skills he invented and assassinates people his own way without help. If you play the second game Ezio uses Altairs techniques and uses weapons he has designed. They are both good, but Altair is better. This is meant to be friendly, I don't see how this can make people angry, so this is just meant for fun.
Who would you like to have for a president

I would like to see Donald Trump as president of the United States of America. He is honest, hard working, and respects all people equally. He wants to pass bills to help gay marriage, and has written a plan to help lower the taxation on abortion clinics. Banning all Muslims from the United States is just the first step in banning all black, Latino, and Chinese people from the country once and for all. Not to mention banning and keeping all Mexicans out of the country for ages to come by building a state of the art wall. Nothing is safer than boxing yourself in and eliminating foreign trade. North Korea did it and they are doing well in social issues today, creating jobs through their nuclear program. North Korea also owns more slaves than any other country due to the 3 generations of punishment. http://www.humanrights.gov... Trump is the type of president the United States has been looking for since it began. United States will finally have the opportunity to become a communist country. People don't listen well enough on their own, imagine if everyone was a slave and was forced to do what they were told. Endless possibilities.
Andrew Jackson was the Best President Every.

First and most importantly neither of these arguments make him less awesome of a person. I gave reasons why your values aren't as good as awesomeness. Napoleon may have hurt his people through what he did but he was still one of the greatest rulers ever. Now I will respond individually to your arguments. First I could not access either of your links so I suppose I will have to take your word on it. The spoils system is just the word Jackson's adversaries used. Jackson had this to say according to pbs.org "In his first message to Congress, he defended his right to remove people from government positions as a way to help the nation achieve its republican ideals. " It makes sense that if a people elect a republican to office they want a wholly republican government. Even if offices went to pay off debts they were also for getting rid of lifetime office holders which could be just as bad. Also It is hard to be awesome while constantly worrying about other people, so the best president would do this system whether it helped the country or not. According to Shah Gilani it is a good thing when central banks fall "Well, actually, it could be good news, as in really good news if it"s the beginning of the end of what central banks do to manipulate free markets to the benefit of their only real constituents, the world"s big banks. " We can see the problems with the Fed today, how they inflate currency effectively robbing everyone's savings. So I don't see how stopping the national bank was really a bad decision. If I remember correctly Jackson's dying words were that he killed the bank. Also the idea that a man has a personal vendetta against a bank and becomes president to stop it sounds pretty awesome to me. http://www.pbs.org...
Andrew Jackson was the Best President Every.

In the words of Scott Nalik, Jackson came into office [Presidency] and created the spoils system. The spoils system created a precedent to hire only those in a President's own party to work for the administration. This policy spurred political divisiveness along party lines that continues to mar our political system. Hiring friends may be expediant, but it does nothing to help this nation. Any President who hires unqualified cronies deserves condemnation by the people he is serving. Source: http://media.www.pittnews.com...... (5) He destroyed the Bank of the United States, in the main, for personal reasons. Jackson hated the bank before his presidency because as a wealthy land and slave owner he had lost money due to its fiscal policies. Consequently, he refused to recharter the bank when Henry Clay proposed it in 1832. Even though it was passed through Congress, Jackson vetoed it claiming that it was unconstitutional when it had already been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1819 through the "McCulloch vs. Maryland" case. Source: http://www.appraisercentral.com......
Andrew Jackson was the Best President Every.

I guess I will go down your argument in order Supporting slavery: um so? slavery can be a good way of creating an awesome upper-class. Also capitalism is a kind of slavery. He didn't live up to his duty: A free spirit can't be hindered by silly things like duty. He did what he wanted like most really interesting people do. Your third claim is unwarranted. I have read sources that say The National Bank was a very bad thing that would corrupt politics. Honor as a value is respectable only in warriors. Jackson did fight honorably in the war of 1812. Integrity is a bad value because it traps you into doing what other people want to often. In some circumstances it is appropriate, but not when your off being a badass like Jackson was. Dignity you'll have to elaborate more, I don't know what you mean by this. As I have shown your values pale in comparison to awesomeness. Andrew Jackson was one of the most interesting and awesome people to live. This makes him the best president ever.
Andrew Jackson was the Best President Every.

My value will be awesomeness. Awesomeness is the best value because it makes for a healthy strong individual. A world that is awesome is a good world to live in because it is interesting and daring, and brutal. My criteria for deciding how awesome something is will be how daring it is and how story worthy it is. I would like to present this information as a list, so here is the awesome stuff AJ did. 1. The Trail of Tears, he just up and told a bunch of people they had to move , so that there land could be mined for gold or something. And they won a lawsuit against the government in the supreme court. Andrew Jackson then told the supreme court to enforce their decision if they could. (they couldn't) 2. He won anywhere between 16 and 100 duel's (John Green Crash Course) 3. He won a duel where he let the other man shoot first. 4. A man tried to assassinate him, and both of his pistols misfired. Andrew Jackson then beat the man nearly to death with his cane. 5. His dying regrets were "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun." I would say that is enough preliminary evidence.
Selfishness

One word: Altruism. It's evolutionary advantageous [1][2] and socially promoted to donate, to help others, and to volunteer, because social animals such as humans must have an inherent drive to work together, or else they would not survive. This plays out today, and we see high rates of philanthropy, of volunteerism, and even of organ donation. This trend should continue, because, as pointed out, those who are altruistic generally do better than those who do not, not least because being a jerk today is socially unacceptable, and our institutions revolve around fairness and reciprocity, all designed to combat both free-riders and selfishness. This can be seen in the rising quality of life for the impoverished, in increasing standards of education, and in decreasing murder rates [03]. My opponent talks about our society promoting selfishness. I claim that my opponent has the Burden of Proof to prove this a true statement, and I think that my examples are a good counterpoint to this belief. Moreover, my opponent must prove that "nowadays", rather than at all times, that human society caused some selfish behavior. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com...
Inuyasha debate

I know that you are saying that Inuyasha is not evil, but just a bad show. However some people like it, some do not. And I never knew your mother was Xera! I agree that Inuyasha follows a specific pattern that makes it boring, but dont blame me. Blame Rumiko Takashi. All in all, Inuyasha is not a bad show for some, and at timesit can be exciting. Since you hav eonly seen 7 ep, you dont have the right to complain how boring it is. Episode 135 was incredibly exciting. I would like to thank you for forcing to debate on my favorite anime. I really look foward to debating you about NARUTO!
Inuyasha debate

"It's true that Inuyasha stole the jewel from Kagome, but it was only to protect her." I will give my opponent this, because I did not watch the next episode(s) so I do not know what EXACLY happened, therefore, I cannot argue. "In the end when Naraku finally dies the well that connected Inuyasha a Kagome together dissappeared into thin air, and InYasha came to save her. Kagome even said that when Inuyasha was with her, she didn't feel scard. And Inuyasha didn't tell her what to wish on the stupid jewel. Kagome wished the the jewel disappear forever." Very nice plot summery, now I don't have to watch the stupid show to know how it ends. I never said Inuyasha was EVIL, just that it is a bad show, and he has some selfish behavioral traits. Just because Kagome isn't scared doesn't mean anything, she could be incredibly stupid, so that is not a good enough arguement. Again, I never said that he was evil, what he wanted was clear, even for me and I have only seen 7 episodes. Kaome isn't really the one that matters. If he had gotten it would he or would he not wish to be human? "Even if you don't like InYasha, it's a still good movie for some." I never said some people would not like it, just said that it is stupid, and I don't know why people like it. Two of my best friends like it, my mother Xera likes it, I do not. _______________________________________________________________________________ Everytime I watch it the plot is the same Inuyasha finds a part of the Shikon jewel, he something happens he loses it, either to be continued, or he defeats a demon and gets a part of the jewel. This makes for a very boring show. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ladies and gentlemen I thank you for voting for the clear winner, who as it stands at this moment is con. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Inuyasha_Freak, I look forward to seeing your arguement. Thank you everyone for being a part of this debate, debaters commenters, and voters alike. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Everytime I watch it the plot is the same Inuyasha finds a part of the Shikon jewel, he something happens he loses it, either to be continued, or he defeats a demon and gets a part of the jewel. This makes for a very boring show.