BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Beauty Pageants

Beauty Pageants in general include the fact that the contestants are being evaluated as objects and gender stereotypes. Each contest is judged based on their beauty, which creates a stereotypical image of the "perfect, beautiful" woman. Each contestant competes against each other based on beauty. Sometimes, pageant girls strive for unrealistic body qualities, because of the overall image of the perfect woman involves a twig like figure, covered in makeup, with a spray tan. Sometimes, pageant girls become depressed due to the unsatisfaction of their overall image. As a whole, beauty pageants are negative for our society because they profess an unrealistic image of the ideal woman in which all woman believe that they need to follow, which leads to unhealthy lives and choices that the contestants chose to make.
Beauty Pageants

It is the parent's decisions to use the money towards the pageants. The amounts of money spent towards pageants is a little ridiculous but if the parent's of the contestants chose to spend their money that way then so be it. The parents could be willing to spend the money if their child struggles with social issues. They figure it would be a good investment because it would help improve those issues. If they consider it money well spent, they will go about sending it.
There is no Jew world order

There is no Jew world order, I've never been invited to any secret jew meeting on how to take over the world. Most Jews don't even know eachother. You know who dDOES control everything though, the catholic hurch, hey've been controlling western politics for over a thousand years, the Jesuits are another example. Personally, I think that the Bildeberg group is a whole lot more intimidating than a couple of Rabbis in B'nai
Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States in 2008.

Even though my case may seem less likely at a glance, I've proven that is not only likely, but inevitable for Ron Paul to be the president in 2008. I've proven why people would suddenly vote for him, that John McCain will die, which is a valid argument, and that he will get a felony. These are inevitable. Paul will be president in 2008. And my opponent has conceeded the final round after seeing my newest arguments. My case is more logical, and frankly inevitable.
Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States in 2008.

The people who are still campaigning for Ron Paul are very excited about the candidate. The entire Libertarian, especially, likes Ron Paul. The nomination is still very possible to be opened up. If you're forgetting, John McCain is old. He refuses to release his medical records and has constantly avoided the questions with postponements. It is very likely that John McCain, the oldest candidate in all of US history to be nominated, will (unfortunately) die before the convention. Old people die. It's just what they do. McCain will die before the convention of some horrible disease. Period. It is more likely for him to do than to not die by my calculations. He has and/or had skin cancer. It came back once (or more) already. He refuses to release his medical records, which leads me and many other Americans to believe he has a disease. If John McCain does not die before the convention, I will be a lot more surprised than if he survives that long. McCain will die and the nomination will be opened back up. Huckabee is a loony tune who once had a chance at winning but annoyed the party by staying in so long and proved that he cared more about himself than the Republican Party. Republicans will not elect him now. Romney has proved to be a quitter by quitting so early and the party will not nominate a quitter against a fighter like Hillary or Obama. Giuliani will not get nominated because of his poor political strategies. Thompson will be the only formidable candidate against Paul. But the Libertarian Party will use all its resources to get Paul in office. The Republican Party wants and needs a moderate Republican, which is proved by the McCain nomination. So they'll pick Ron Paul, who is great on fiscal conservativeness. Paul will be able to argue that they need a fiscal conservative during a recession that can transcend party lines. He will be nominated. And can move onto to compete against the Republican nominee.
Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States in 2008.

Ok, so I live in North Carolina, a state that as you all know just finished with its primaries. Of course, the primaries didn't really matter anyway, because John McCain has officially secured enough delegates that, barring a major felony arrest and/or death, he WILL be the republican Nominee, according to party rules. Thing is that before, during, and after the primaries, continuing until today, there are plenty of unshaven weirdos hanging around intersections holding giant "RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT '08" signs. I even saw a guy whose ENTIRE HOUSE WAS COVERED IN THEM! I'm already pretty confident that these people are crazy. Ron Paul has been mathematically eliminated from the Nomination process, and according to supreme court precedent that means he is not allowed to get on the ballot as an independent either. This means his only chance is the write-in vote. However this cannot occur in any of the following states ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPI, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WYOMING because these states either don't allow write-ins or the deadline for filing has passed. So, I want to debate someone who thinks that, assuming of course that John McCain will live through the election at least, Ron Paul will be elected. The burden will be on them to demonstrate that all the people who are still campaigning for Paul aren't complete crackpots.
The United Kingdom should leave the European Union

Definition By me saying 'leave the EU' I mean that the UK is no longer a member state of the EU Rules 1. No semantics 2. Sources must be provided for all statistics given 3. A forfeit/concession is not allowed Debating structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Present all arguments, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments Round 4: Defence of your arguments & conclusion, no new arguments Any changes wished to me made need to be discussed in the comments. If the rules or debate structure is broken all available points should be given to the opposing side of the debate.
Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

NTW = Napoleon Total War ETW = Empire Total War So Con claims that because NTW has better graphics which I would agree with. NTW does have slightly better graphics. However I would put gameplay over graphics. NTW has huge rebellions. Entire armies spawn in one city. In addition, the map is limited to Europe while ETW gives a feeling of building a global empire. The AI in NTW does little. In ETW, there are rebellions also but they are more realistic in size. Napoleon Total War gives an unrealistic sense of a Napoleonic war while ETW gives a realistic sense of diplomacy. In Napoleon Total War, you can have Austria attacking Russia. In addition, the AI does nothing. For example, one time I was playing as Prussia and I was at war with France. Britain, Russia, and Austria did nothing to help me even though they were also at war with France.
Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

Napoleon Total War is a far superior game. My main reason is graphics. I know a lot of people prefer game play over graphics, which I do care about game play a lot I love game's with good graphics. In my opinion game play for multilayer is better on napoleon than empire because empire to my knowledge when ever i played only had battles no CO-OP campaign. I like the fact that you can play CO-OP on napoleon and that is my main argument for this round i think that napoleon wins by graphics and multilayer. With single player mode only being able to play as france or coalition is not fun after a while, but you could use mods if you really want to play as someone else.
Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

Napoleon Total War is definitely a worse game than Empire Total War for several reasons. -You can only play as five countries in Napoleon Total War. -The rebellions are too large. -The map is limited to only Europe. -The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1. There are 11 playable countries in ETW: Austria France Spain Ottoman Empire Mahratta Confederation Netherlands Prussia Russia The Republic of Poland Sweden Great Britain
Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

So it seems that my opponent and I have contradicting definitions. There is no correct or incorrect definition. Only an interpreted one. I interpreted the definition as it was defined in my source. Seeing as my opponent did not provide a definition in the begining it was completely within my power to do so. My opponent said that round 4 was conclusion so it was unfair of him to provide a new argument ( him sourcing his definition)Seeing as he broke is own rules, that would mean that he forfeits the debate over. Had fun.
Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

I stated the question so therefore the true definition of the question is what I intended it to be, not what his interpretation of it was. I am not being hypocritical because I said either way I found a definition contradictory to his definition and I am claiming that they COULD both be considered valid, however since I proposed the question the first definition on dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com... is the definition I used so he is incorrectly interpreting what I said, therfore bringing me back to my original point that he still cannot defend his stance that bruce lee would not be defeated by batman in a fist fight.
Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

My opponent is trying to dismiss my argument.He claims that I knew the true meaning of te question. He has failed to prove this or how this is relevant.He also provides another unsourced definition. Here is my source.http://dictionary.reference.com...My opponent is being hypocritcal by using a definition that supports his case while saying I can't do the same. My opponent has not sourced his definition. Until he discredits my source, the definition stands.
Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

I think it is quite obvious what I meant by that. If your only defense for your case is that batman's fists count of weapons, and therefore cannot be used, then that is simply ridiculous. Besides, that i just one definition. dictionary.com defines a weapon as "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon." and batman's fists would not be considered an instrument or device since they are a part of his body. You are just twisting the meaning of the question to suit your case but you knew the true meaning of the question, which was that he was allowed no outside weapons, armor or gadgets, obviously his body parts not being excluded. My opponent simply did this because my reasoning was overwhelming and he could not defend against it in any other way. The reality is that Batman would defeat Bruce Lee for the reasons I listed in the previous round and I hope the voters see how ludicrous my opponents attempt was to circumvent the meaning of the question.
Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

All the above information is pretty much irrelevant. After all, Batman wouldn't even be able to fight. Without being able to fight Bruce Lee, he coudn't win a fist fight with him.Definition of weapon:Anything/object used against an opponent in a fight, war, etc.I'm quite sure we can all agree that you can qualify the human body as an object/thing, or at least individual parts of it.Therefore, a fist would qualify as a weapon. Remember, my opponent stated in the resolution that batman would be unable to use weapons.So,P1. A weapon is anything used in a fightP2. A fist is used in a fistfightC1. A fist is a weaponP3. Batman cannot use weaponsC2. Batman cannot use his fistsC3. Batman cannot fight in a fistfightAnd with that, Batman would be forced to take hits from Bruce Lee until he loses as he would be unable to use weapons/retaliate. Back to Pro
You Shouldn't Tolerate the Intolerable

I argue that by that definition we must tolerate or allow any practice to continue to happen, With in the confines of its law for 3 reasons. Free choice, Survival of the fittest and change. 1. Free choice is the key to human innovation in both technology and spiritual growth because history shows the greatest innovations happen in the presence of necessity, Mostly by struggle. 2. As different nations form different governments, Some nations will thrive while others won't. Each nation has its own right to deem whats intolerable, And what to do with people actively do said things. 3. Change can only truly come if we acknoedge the previous 2 points. To get rid of the murderers because one hates murder, Said person would have murderes after him. But if said person tolerates it long enough for the due process to convict saod murderer, Positive change can come from making consequences clear when actions are intolerable.
You Shouldn't Tolerate the Intolerable

The con asks very important questions. For the definition of "Tolerate, " I will use the google definition which states: - to allow the existence, Occurrence, Or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. And the intolerable in this case can be those who do not tolerate individuals of different race, Religion, And/or sexual orientation My argument is that in a society, Individuals should not tolerate the intolerable. I do not believe that we should allow the intolerable to abuse the right to free speech in order to hijack government and spread bigotry and hate. We have seen throughout history that by allowing these destructive ideas and beliefs to spread it can cause the downfall of civilization. A significant example of this would be during the Holocaust wherein Nazi Germany, Citizens decided to stay silent as the Nazi movement's beliefs spread throughout their neighborhoods acting as bystanders as their Jewish German neighbors were persecuted. Whether or not they contributed directly to this or took part in the Nazi regime is irrelevant it is the fact that these individuals took no action against this hateful group is the issue. Inaction is action. By refusing to stand against the intolerable destroying your community as you know it, You are contributing to their cause.
The world ends on 21. December 2012.

So, as my opponent forfeited round 2, I have nothing else to write here so I am making a little summary of the debate. Pro said that some cultures and whatsoever predicted some things, but this is wrong. The doomsday was never predicted, just some people have spreaded this rumour around and nothing else. And those who have started really believing this have construed all of the things that they know and see as predictions and signs of our world ending. For example: "Oh, the matches are out of stock in our local shop. It must be because the doomsday is coming." It is quite stupid, isn't it? Pro brought a argument: Earthquakes. He said that earthquakes are increasing, and that there were a 7.3 earthquake in Japan just yesterday. That DOESN'T show that earthquakes are increasing. It just shows that there was a earthquake in Japan. He didn't really show that they are increasing. And even if they would be increasing, maybe a year from now, they'd start decreasing again, it doesn't really show that the world is going to end. And the Solar Storms argument is just pure lie. I state that his source for this isn't reliable as solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, NO DIFFERENT than previous cycles throughout history.
The world ends on 21. December 2012.

1. What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012? The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012 and linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 -- hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012. But really the Mayan calender doesn't end. Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then -- just as your calendar begins again on January 1 -- another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar. 2.Fact, that a 7.3 earthquake was in Japan yesterday, doesn't show that they are increasing. And earthquakes don't end the world, there has been many earthquakes and many earthquakes are to come. 3.Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history.
The world ends on 21. December 2012.

Let me give you some evidense why the world will end before Christmas this year. 1. The Mayans just didn't predict it.The Mayans were a savage culture and they did terrible things, but what a lot of people remember them for is the December 21st, 2012 doomsday prediction. The mayans just didn't predict it the I Chang (Chinese book of changes), Hinduism, and even the Bible all tend to have their clocks set to this date. 2. EarthquakesEarthquakes are increasing as we get closer as a matter of fact there was a 7.3 earthquake in Japan just yesterday. http://news.yahoo.com...3. Solar StormsSolar storms are increasing incredibly and it's not a good thing as solar storms can destroy the powergrid and it will increase in just a matter of days.http://buburuza.net...
Cats are better than dogs.

My opponent makes is sound like taking care of dogs are a pain, which I think it is just the opposite. You can get exercise when you go out to walk them, better than that it is fun to walk your dog. That's your time to spend with them. Giving a dog a bath can be a pain, but they can be trained to behave when they are in the bath as I have done to my dogs. They just stay there until I tell them it is time to get out. Cats can be just as harmful as dogs can be, but that does not mean the cats are better then dogs. Cats when they bite can transfer disease to humans. "Due to the bacteria found in cats and humans, feline bites can become easily infected, and in some cases, even deadly." (1) "Compared to dogs, scientists have found, cats don't seem to have the same sort of emotional attachment to their owners, and show genuine affection far less often than you might think." (2) Dogs can't wait until you come home, most of the time they will run to the door to greet you and I have never heard of a cat doing that. Cats are selfish creatures where as dogs are all about making you happy. So Dogs are better than Cats. (1) http://www.pawnation.com... (2) http://www.vox.com...
Communism is an ineffective system.

I never stated this...You're moving the goal post and putting words in my mouth...I did not commit the no true scotsman fallacy. Thank you for the beautiful ad hominem. You're just granting points to me. Irrelevant. They have a system of socialism in place. Cuba is slowly moving away but this is due to revisionist domination.[1] Where is your evidence of this? This is a baseless assertion. If everyone is equal, they cannot be poor...the definition of poverty:'The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions'[2] Emphasize 'SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE amount', meaning that in order for one to be poor, one must be in a lower position than others. If everyone is equal, no one can be poor. North Korea has a system wherein outside forces from foreign markets do not infringe upon its citizens well-being.[3] Vietnam is a third world country, yes, but with an enormous amount of happiness, equality and environmental safety.[4] This statement you made was beautiful: 'Instead of being LITERATE...' Perhaps you were not aware North Korea has a 99% literacy rate.[5][6] You provide no sources and you appeal to emotion. Your arguments are so fallacious I can't even believe it... No, nobody dies in North Korea simply because Kim Jong Un 'hogs all the cake'... Totalitarianism is NOT a theme appropriate for this debate as the resolution is called:'Communism is an ineffective system'. Totalitarianism is a completely different topic and you might called the period of dictatorship of the proletariat as totalitarian, however, that is not in the period of communism. Irrelevant. The debate is not focused here. Altruism was never achieved in China, Mao even said that it would be impossible for several hundred years. Altruism is a stagnant goal that is impossible in such a short period of time. This is another appeal to emotion and is irrelevant to the debate. I suppose you're referring to Lenin's closed train here? What do nuclear weapons have to do with anything here? Again, I've demonstrated through the Asch experiment that altruism on a mass scale is possible. You still have not refuted it. In essence, your arguments are fallacious and weak. Very weak. Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Library of Congress country study, see p. 7 for Education and Literacy (Archived at WebCite)