BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

I nomally would like to thank my opponent for this debate, but alas, the 1st law of thermodynamics prevents me. 'enemies cannot be created or destroyed.' Furthermore, it violates 13% of my religions. And since there are no rules about conduct, I would like to exploit this opportunity by professing an opinion I share with my opponent and Mitt Romney. Heil hitler. 卐卐Yep, vote pro, vote nazi.卐卐 PS: DDO (despair.com) is an excellent site. PPS: conduct should go to me, you cant vote for someone who isnt alive.
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

I think my opponent wanted that txt pic to come out like this: . . . . . . . . ....................../""/) ....................,/"../ .................../..../ ............./""/'...'/"""`"" ........../'/.../..../......./""\ ........('(..."...".... "~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _."" ............\..............( ..............\.............\... I think Ive won this debate, my conduct has been apallingly magnificient, buts that irrelevant since I stated in the rules that conduct was out for this debate, My spelling and grammar isnt much better than my opponents, but thats fine since English is designed to be like that. I have produced the clearer argument[citation needed], and my sources are the best: >This is a well established claim.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] [1] http://sentence.yourdictionary.com... [2] http://www.ascii-middle-finger.com... [3] refer to source10 [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] The book of meanings, pg 1 [6] " " pg 2 [7] barak Obama: The black man, US word press 2007 [8] barak Obama: The white man, US word press 2007 [9] conspiricy theory #250.7 How the cow jumped over the moon [10] refer to source 3
Benjamin Smith (Smithereens) is the rudest person alive.

All my opponents claims can be dismissed on the following basis: ....................../""/) ....................,/"../ .................../..../ ............./""/'...'/"""`"" ........../'/.../..../......./""\ ........('(..."...".... "~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _."" ............\..............( ..............\.............\... That concludes rebuttals, defenses and onto my next argument: 1) Smithereens is the rudest person alive because he is the only person alive. And using my opponents justification/proving system: ITS TRUE!! PS, i will gladly NOT help you with your burden of proof Smithereens, Suffer.
Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

I agree - most people who argue against same-sex marriage are indeed just uncomfortable with two people of the same sex being intimate. However, this is irrelevant, since I am not arguing from such a standpoint. My opponent is not supposed to be arguing against 'most people,' she is supposed to be arguing against me. My opponent asks me why I think ALMOST everyone should be equal. People should not be equal. For instance, a lawyer should make more money than a guy who makes videos on youtube all day. A 5 year old should not be able to make certain decisions that require maturity, while adults should be able to make these decisions. Men should not have to endure childbirth to have kids, whereas women must. As it is with all things, society makes guidelines for marriage, since it comes with certain benefits. These benefits are not a right, or all people married or not would have them. These benefits are a luxury, a luxury society deems fit only for a certain class of people. The legal benefits of marriage are NOT just some badge that says 'yay for you, you found someone you love.' That's not a reason to give someone benefits. The reason is to encourage childbirth, and gays simply do not have this capability. Therefore, they shouldn't get the legal benefits. And there you have it. Marriage, at least the legal benefits inherent in it, should not be given to everyone. They are not a right, as my opponent puts it, or everyone should have it. And since all the other parts of marriage are available to gay couples without marriage, there is no lack of justice here. I concede making a contract the way marriage does is indeed a right. But it is a right the gay community is not being deprived of. I concede that the ceremony, the rings, and all that other jazz should not only be available to straights. But there's nothing stopping gays from accessing it. Giving gays the 'right' to get married rather than having a contractual union would be like giving a blind man the right to have free contact lenses. It just doesn't make sense. Vote how you wish.
Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

I would like to make it short and sweet. I have a video to show of Ellen DeGeneres interviewing John McCain. As you voters are watching this video please observe how nervous Mr. McCain is. It is my personal observance that he talks about all the legal aspects of same sex marriage, but his body language shows that he is spinning a web of lies. I believe that most people who are against same sex marriage are just uncomfortable with two people of the same sex being intimate. So here is the video. . http://www.youtube.com...; My final thing I would like to ask my opponent is, "Why exactly do you really believe same sex marriage is wrong? Because you can say all you want about legal rights in marriage, and child bearing, but everyone knows that every person has different reactions to same sex marriage on an emotional level. So I would like to know what it is in you that makes you feel that ALMOST everyone should be equal? " I am straight, and that doesn't stop me from being 100% FOR same sex marriage. I am for EVERYONE having the rights that they deserve. Which in this case includes the ability to marry.
Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

First I would like to point out that my opponent has made the very wrong assumption that I am male. Why I do not know but I do know that its is strange how people automatically assume anyone with a strong opinion is male. I will start by explaining his mistakes. First I did say that I am completely aware that you do not have to be married to be completely happy. Although to a lot of people marriage symbolizes commitment and seeing as it is expensive and tiresome to divorce they see it as security for the relationship. Because when you are dating someone you can leave at anytime, there is nothing stoping you. When someone is married they are less likely to just pick up and more likely to go to counciling which helps the relationship last. So he asks why should a couple be married if they are not able to have children? My opponent has failed to acknowledge the fact that marriage is not just a legal title. It is a symbol of undying love for one another, a sign that you are willing to live with them forever. If our country followed what my opponent is saying perfectly then woman who cant bear children would not be permitted to marry, or men who were unable to get a woman pregnant. There for what he is saying is completely invalid. When I say let everyone be free I don't mean just let them spend their lives together, I mean that if you take away that right our country is almost like a communist country. Where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others, and that isn't what we want for our country. I just think that everyone should be able to get married if they love eachother even if they cant have kids, and if people don't want to except that they should atleast aknowledge that everyone deserves to have the same rules. Our country has had the same problems with racism, and sexists, and we now look back and realize how crazy it was to prevent them from voting and riding were they want in the bus. So how is it any different with same sex marriage? I will tell you. There is none.
Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

First, realize that my opponent has not yet provided any benefit same-sex marriage would bring. He's implied one, but I will respond to it in a second. Second, my opponent claims that a law stopping same-sex marriages should be outlawed because it is largely supported by religious people. He has blatantly misinterpreted separation of church and state. Restricting same-sex marriage does not endorse any religion, so it is not a breach of separation of church and state. Religious people still have a voice in government, we don't just ignore them because they're religious. That will bring me to my main point, but first, let me respond to that implied benefit my opponent gave us. He said: "It does not affect anyone but themselves and if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together they should be able to do that." Indeed, they may very well want to spend the rest of their lives together. And how is same-sex marriage going to help them do this? It's not. People can spend their lives together all they want, no one's stopping them. So what's the point of marriage, then? I'll tell you, since my opponent has failed to do so. Marriage gives a couple a few very important benefits. The question that's important here is, "why?". I'll tell you why we give married couples benefits that unmarried couples miss out on. Married couples are very much more likely to have a high-quality family, and to bring up a new generation of successful kids. Gay couples are not as likely to have kids, seeing as they can't actually breed in their marriage. Sure, they adopt every once in a while, and that's all fine and good, but they are still much less likely to have successful kids. This is partially because very few gay couples actually do adopt, and partially because adopted children tend to be less capable of success [that kind of thing runs in the family, and if they're up for adoption, their parents were probably not too successful]. So, I'll try to sum it up less confusingly. 1. As far as government is concerned, marriage is only useful for assigning special benefits to devoted couple who is likely to bring up successful children. 2. Gay couples do not meet the criteria for getting these special benefits. That is to say, gay couples are very unlikely to raise up successful children. 3. From 1 and 2, there is no reason for the government to give marriage to gay couples. Those three points are my case, for now. Also, since the lack of marriage for gay couples does not limit them in what they can do, their 'freedom' is still intact. Just what are they not free to do?
Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE What is happiness? Happiness is the quality or state of being happy, content, and joyful. I believe that every person deserves a fair chance at happiness, and when you take away the right to same sex marriage you are robbing a good chunk of people of the chance to be happy. Of course you don't have to marry someone for your relationship to progress but if same sex couples are legally aloud to date then why not marry? It does not affect anyone but themselves and if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together they should be able to do that. The biggest groups of people that are against same sex marriage are people of the church. They say it is sinful and un-constitutional. However it is clearly stated in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") that each person has freedom of religion. Which means that the law stopping same sex marriage which was put into place by religious believers is completely un-constitutional. Our country was built so that people could be free. So let EVERYONE be free.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

You can come out of the corner now... Once again, I will point to the fact that you successfully (although I will second the user comment about the usage of incorrect roman numerals) defined the terms of numerical values and the term plus. However, you failed to define the term equals for your debate. Why define all terms but one? Look, if I stumbled upon this debate and know nothing about this issue for reasons of: a. being uneducated (you assume all viewers are all-knowing) b. cultural background (language barrier) "Secondly, I should note there is a clear and difference between equivocating about some random term and actually having a counter argument. Even if equal could mean something else, what would those something elses make two plus two equal if not four?" Actually no, refer to my definitions above that have nothing to do with sum or value. Finally, when you claim Google as your ultimate authority...you have already lost my friend. I look forward to debating with you again, but remember to cover all points of interest.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

No Sir Floppypants and no capital verbs. *sigh* Then to top it all off you made a argument devoid of any proper sensibility. "Having the same", "being the same", "equable", "no variance". Equal, as it pertains to number, is well understood as what it is "denoting there commonly understood terms" -- so the value of two combined with two must equal the value of four. II II = IIII Both "having the same" number with "no variance". Secondly, I should note there is a clear and difference between equivocating about some random term and actually having a counter argument. Even if equal could mean something else, what would those something elses make two plus two equal if not four? Two plus two equals three plus one, however one is forced to note that three plus one equals four. Due to the factual nature of this, it seems a weak argument on your part to object to the commonly understood nature of the word equals. Further, despite this equivocation, nothing negates the clear and obvious objection that this doesn't negate my original arguments on the subject. Further, I cite Google as an authority. A google search for "two plus two" will give the commonly understood meaning of the terms. http://www.google.com... two plus two = four I have proved this recursively, algorithmically, pictorially and by authority. You have made one vain attempt to equivocate about a word. Your argument cannot succeed.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

Ok, Tatarize (I will not address you as you have wished), I will joyfully debate you that your statement "two plus two equal four" is an incorrect statement. Although you have supported your claim by providing the definition of numerical numbers and the literary word "plus," you have failed to define what you mean by the term equals. Other uses: ~Having the same privileges, status, or rights ~Being the same for all members of a group ~Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation ~Adequate in extent, amount, or degree. ~Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation ~Tranquil; equable ~impartial ~Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance It has been argued that equal is an absolute term—two quantities either are or are not equal—and hence cannot be qualified as to degree. Therefore one cannot logically speak of a more equal allocation of resources among the departments. However, this usage was accepted by 71 percent of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey. Objections to the more equal construction rest on the assumption that the mathematical notion of equality is appropriate to the description of a world where the equality of two quantities is often an approximate matter, and where statements of equality are always relative to an implicit standard of tolerance. When someone says The two boards are of equal length, we assume that the equality is reckoned to some order of approximation determined by the context; if we did not, we would be required always to use nearly equal when speaking of the dimensions of physical objects. What is more, we often speak of the equality of things that cannot be measured quantitatively, as when we say The college draft was introduced in an effort to make the teams in the National Football League as equal as possible, or The candidates for the job should all be given equal consideration. In all such cases equality is naturally a gradient notion and can be modified in degree. This much is evident from the existence of the word unequal, for the prefix un- attaches only to gradient adjectives. We say unmanly but not unmale; and the word uneven can be applied to a surface (whose evenness may be a matter of degree) but not to a number (whose evenness is an either/or affair). ï¿½ The adverb equally is generally regarded as redundant when used in combination with as. In an earlier survey, 63 percent of the Usage Panel found the following examples unacceptably redundant: Experience is equally as valuable as theory. Equally as important is the desire to learn. To eliminate the redundancy, equally should be deleted from the first example and as from the second. The solution to this usage problem usually involves using as alone when a comparison is explicit and equally alone when it is not. Furthermore (another word for plus) you are incorrect Floppypants.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

I hold that two plus two equals four. Definitions: One, a single discrete thing. plus, addition / combination of things. two, one plus one. three, one plus two. four, one plus three. We see that four is one plus three, three is one plus two, and two is one plus one. So we see that, four is: one plus one plus one plus one. Also, two plus one plus one Also, two plus two Q.E.D. Alternatively, I = one II = two III = three IIII = four Where 'I' denotes some single discrete thing. II plus II equals IIII II + II IIII Two plus two, thusly equals four. For the sake of argument we are using base ten math, to a standard power, as typically understood by common people, with number denoting there commonly understood terms. Also for the argument, you are to address me as Sir Floppypants, and began every verb with a capital letter.
Rape and Abortion

Before I begin my argument, a few questions must be answered. Why, exactly, do we think a person has a right to life? What characteristics do people have that give their lives worth? Neither me or my opponent believe in the eternal soul so that isn't relevant in this debate. It is mine, and I assume my opponent's, belief that there are a number of criteria that indicate personhood (though these are very contentious) and thus a right to life. Most important is undoubtedly cognitive ability, so I shall concentrate on that. :Personhood isn't all or nothing: My primary argument is this: personhood is not an all or nothing proposition. There are varying degrees of concious thought; some animals have cognitive abilities that approach human levels; some people have key areas of their brain damaged or underdeveloped. It is my contention that there is only one conclusion we can reasonably draw from this. These humans have surely not forfeited all their rights as a person - we don't regard a mentally retarded people as a worthless hunk of meat to be gotten rid of at the first opportunity, but then again, if we were to choose between the life of someone with significant mental impairment and a perfectly healthy person we would likely regard the healthy person's right to life as 'counting more'. The more, and more advanced cognitive abilities a being has, the greater its claim to personhood and a right to life. :The foetus: So, what relevance does this have to the resolution? As the foetus develops in the womb, higher levels of conciousness are constantly developing. About 20 weeks through a pregnancy, the neural pathways for the primary senses (taste, smell, hearing, seeing, and touch) are being formed. More complex connections are being formed. The foetus can even hear and remember (and recognise later) music being played to the mother at this stage. [1] As time goes on from this stage, the foetus' cognitive faculties gradually come to resemble those of a full adult - passing through stages resembling the 'lower' mental abilities of various animals or mentally retarded human beings as it goes. :The final stage: So, what is the conclusion of this line of reasoning? Well, as the foetus develops greater cognitive abilities, its right to life becomes more and more weighty. In the latter stages of foetal development, the foetus' right to life would likely outweigh the mother's psychological damage from having to give birth to and possibly raise a child conceived by a rapist. However, earlier on in the pregnancy it would have very little right to life and thus could be safely aborted without any ethical qualms. Rape, then, becomes not only a relevant factor but a very significant one. If the mother had no good reason to abort the foetus - say, merely for convenience, an early foetus' diminished right to life would still outweigh this inconvenience to the mother. However, if the foetus were conceived by rape, the psychological damage would outweigh the foetus' right to life and thus it should be aborted. [1] http://www.pregnancy.org...
Rape and Abortion

Resolved: Whether a fetus was conceived voluntarily or as a result of rape is a relevant factor in determining whether or not an abortion is ethical. Just to clarify, I am AGAINST the resolution. I am reposting this debate because someone took it, thinking by mistake that I was FOR the resolution. Preface: I would like to begin this debate by noting that I am in favor of abortion. Many people like to qualify their positions on this topic by saying that if a pregnancy is a result of rape then abortion may be justified where otherwise it would not be. For this debate I am going to argue that this factor does not suffice to make a distinction. It is necessary to conclude either that it is unethical even in the case of rape or that it is ethical even if the fetus conceived by voluntary intercourse. Just to clear up any confusion about what I mean by voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary intercourse and conception: Rape: Intercourse and conception are both INvoluntary (not wanted) Consensual Sex: Intercourse is voluntary (wanted) and conception is NONvoluntary (not intended for) If consensual sex occured for the purpose of conceiving a fetus than the conception would be voluntary but I don't see why this would lead to an abortion barring extremely unusual circumstances. Therefore, I am going to suggest we ignore this possibility to avoid overcomplicating the debate. In round one my opponent will indicate that he/she has accepted the debate and may post any questions regarding definitions, terms, burden of proof, etc. I will state my case in round two and this will procede like a normal three round debate.
Is Call of Duty better than Halo

Without the aliens, Halo is just like Call of Duty. The only benefit of Halo is the high tech guns and equipment. Even then, the game graphics suck. True the graphics are getting pretty crappy in Call of Duty, but that was in Advanced Warfare. Some of the Halo games don't even have excuses for the making. The makers were just bored of sitting their like idiots so they decided to attempt to make better games to continue the Halo story. All of Call of Duty's earlier games were about real wars. What is Halo about? Halo centers on an interstellar war between humanity and a theocratic alliance of aliens known as the Covenant. What's so fun in that???
God does not exist

As my opponent is the instigator, and has taken the pro position. He has the full burden of proof. Since he has limited this to 500 characters, my responses will be short. Contention 1: It's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist. Anything can exist, so my opponent has an impossible task. He cannot meet his burden of proof. God didn't need to create, but He did. Maybe we cannot detect supernatural evidence since we are natural beings. Maybe He was never created. Maybe He's invisible.