BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lesbian vampire killers is the perfect movie

========= DEFINITIONS: ========= 1) Perfect 1. Conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman. 2. Excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect. [Dictionary. com] ========================================== CON ARGUMENT #1: LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS IS NOT PERFECT ========================================== 1) According to RottenTomatoes. com, which takes an average of major critic reviews, Lesbian Vampire Killers has a rating of 18% (out of 100). Therefore, it is far from perfect. 2) Lesbian Vampire Killers is a mix of two genres, Horror and Comedy. However, it has been reviewed as imperfect on both fronts. Orlando Parfitt of IGN described the movie as "A mirthless, joyless experience". Therefore it is neither funny as a comedy nor joyful as a horror ===PRO:=== >>1 - its perfect for all those sci-fi lovers because it has vampires in it ! << ===REBUTTAL:=== Vampires are merely one sub-genre of science fiction. Vampires would nto appeal to a fan of space science fictioon. ===PRO:=== >>2- its perfect for all you real men ,( no i kidding ) because there are hot lesbian fetish scenes in it ! << ===REBUTTAL:=== A real man might not desire lesbian scenes if he does not have a taste for them. Furthermore, Christian men may find it utterly offensive. ===PRO:=== >>3- if you go to watch it at the movies your wife will be put off by the very idea of it and therefore will not turn up while you sit next to all the hot lesbians in the cinema , and the sci-fi lovers can sit next to the butch lesbians up the back meaning the only two<< ===REBUTTAL:=== The movie outraged many lesbian activist groups , and therefore it would not entice lesbians to view the movie. The logic of the above comment si flawed. ===PRO:=== >>4- its failed attempt at humor has to be funny<< ===REBUTTAL:=== Bad humour is the opposite of funniness. For example, if I said 'Why did the chicken cross the road' and you replied 'Why? ' and I replied 'For no particular reason, he was bored and the lights had changed colour' then you would not find it funny. ===PRO:=== >>5- it erridactes anybodys fear of vampires , i would happily die at the hands of a lesbian vampire , preferably 2 . << ===REBUTTAL:=== The movie may eradicate fears of lesbian vampires, but not of heterosexual and homosexual vampires. ===PRO:=== >>so what are you waiting for come on and go see it at the movies * excluding the following people - gay males - wifes who are not secretly lesbian - black people , yes thats roight everybody im a rascit - and no fat chicks. << ===REBUTTAL:=== If the movie cannot appeal to all different groups (e. g. Blacks, Christians, teenagers, etc. ), then it is not perfect. I await my opponents response.
Lesbian vampire killers is the perfect movie

I belivbe that the movie lesbian vampire killers is the perfect movie. i think this for many reasons. 1 - its perfect for all those sci-fi lovers because it has vampires in it ! 2- its perfect for all you real men ,( no i kidding ) because there are hot lesbian fetish scenes in it ! 3- if you go to watch it at the movies your wife will be put off by the very idea of it and therefore will not turn up while you sit next to all the hot lesbians in the cinema , and the sci-fi lovers can sit next to the butch lesbians up the back meaning the only two disadvantges are out of the way ! 4- its failed attempt at humor has to be funny 5- it erridactes anybodys fear of vampires , i would happily die at the hands of a lesbian vampire , preferably 2 . so what are you waiting for come on and go see it at the movies * excluding the following people - gay males - wifes who are not secretly lesbian - black people , yes thats roight everybody im a rascit - and no fat chicks. i will leave my opponent to prove me wrong.
Donald Trump = 666 but Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the "666 1st Beast"/Antichrist

Donald Trump = 666 !! "This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the Beast, for it is a man's number. His number is 666." - Revelation 13:18 Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74 (google that) uses 'the key'74 of A=1, B=2, C=3...Z=26. Therefore... evil=48=E5+V22+I9+L12 When 48 is added to each letter, we get the cipher of A=49, B=50, C=51...Z=74. Thus... Donald Trump = 666 = D52+O63+N62+A49+L60+D52 +T68+R66+U69+M61+P64 --------------------------------------------- Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the "666 1st Beast"/Antichrist. George Walker Bush (Jr.) is the "2nd Beast"/Antichrist. Pope Benedict XVI is the "False Prophet". United(6) States(6) Dollar(6) is the "666 mark of the Beast that everyone must have to buy or sell with". Now you can't tell GOD, "I didn't know!"
The Denver Broncos are currently the best team in American Football

I ask the voters to be un-biased in their votes. The Broncos are first in points scored per game with 41.2 The Broncos are first in yards per game with 458.7 The Broncos are first in passing yards with 353.4 per game The Broncos quarterback, Peyton Manning, is not only the most decorated football player this season, but also the most decorated overall in the NFL today. With a QB rating of 121.0, he far and away leads the NFL at #1, followed by Aaron Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, and Drew Brees all fighting for second. The NFL also has the best overall receiving group. Each of the starting four each have over 30 receptions. I await my opponents arguments.
The Denver Broncos are currently the best team in American Football

Resolution - The Broncos are currently better than any other football team in American Football. This is including both professional and college teams. Prior to this my adversary and I have already established the terms of the debate. He is taking on the BOP to show that they are better than all other teams. I have been allowed to use multiple teams as ways to argue my side. My job is to simply show the Broncos are not the best team currently, and it is his job to meet the BOP and show that they are in fact the best. R1: Me : : Rules and guidelines R1: My adversary: shall go straight into making his points and contentions R2: Me: My contentions and points R2: Adversary : He shall offer rebuttals and rebuild upon his contentions while offering closing remarks.
Search and seizure of lockers and backpacks

Searches and seizures of lockers and backpacks in a school are sometimes necessary. There are various illegal things, such as weapons, drugs, alcohol, etc., that students can and sometimes do bring to school. This can make the school environment less safe for not only the student who brings the illegal things to school, but for other students as well. Here's Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. First, this brings me to one point: Law enforcement officers in a school cannot search a student's belongings without probable cause. However, if there is probable cause that a student has a weapon, drugs, etc. in his belongings illegally, then he should indeed be searched [after a warrant is obtained]. However, it is clear that this is not exactly what my opponent is talking about. My opponent is referring to the ability of teachers to search a student's belongings. The primary reason for this is 'in loco parentis.' This is a latin phrase meaning "In the place of the parent." http://en.wikipedia.org... American courts primarily apply the doctrine of in loco parentis to educational institutions. Let's look at a court case where this very issue was being discussed: New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) In this ruling, the courts upheld that school officials do not need a warrant to search their student's stuff, they only need reasonable suspicion. "The Court considered that T.L.O. had been accused of smoking, which had been corroborated by the other girl, and had denied the accusation. Therefore, her possession of any cigarettes was relevant to whether or not she was being truthful, and since she had been caught in the bathroom and taken directly to the office, it was reasonable to assume she had the cigarettes in her purse. Thus, the vice-principal had reasonable cause to suspect a school rule had been broken, and more than just a "hunch" to search the purse." - http://en.wikipedia.org.... Teachers and other school officials are not 'just there to teach.' They are also entrusted with the task of upholding school rules. However rarely, this sometimes requires a search of a student's belongings. And thus, I have argued in favor of search and seizure of lockers and backpacks. Law enforcement should be able to search and seize if they have a warrant, school officials only need to have a reasonable suspicion [note: not just a hunch]. However, both parties should be able to do it. The 4th amendment only protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, and both of these cases are reasonable.
Search and seizure of lockers and backpacks

Hello, I am having a huge debate and i need some help on writing pro and con speaches concerningseach and seizures of students backpacks. I am against seaching and seizures of backpacks and lockers, who gives others the right to search peoples personal belongings for no apperent reason? Amendment four of the constitution states that every United States Citizen, has their own privacy and no one can look through any of your personal belongings ( without a warent). I mean why should we make an acception? If someone has drugs, cigeretts, or a weapon in there school back pack, why must a teacher ook though some thing thats none of their buisness.It's the students life. They are only there to teach. further more, if people were aloud to go through peoples belongings, just because some other kid said there is something bad in their bag, that could ruin the childs life!!! kids lie!
NBA is rigged

Love's Philosophy The fountains mingle with the river, And the rivers with the ocean; The winds of heaven mix forever With a sweet emotion; Nothing in the world is single; All things by a law divine In another's being mingle-- Why not I with thine? See, the mountains kiss high heaven, And the waves clasp one another; No sister flower could be forgiven If it disdained its brother; And the sunlight clasps the earth, And the moonbeams kiss the sea;-- What are all these kissings worth, If thou kiss not me? Percy Bysshe Shelley
NBA is rigged

I accept the debate and state that it is my opponents burden of proof to prove the resolution true, I have no idea if the NBA is rigged or not but will take a neutral stance in this round and give my opponent another resolution true, If my opponent can convince me and the audience that the NBA is most certainly rigged, then my opponents win the debate, if the resolution is not confirmed to be true the I win. Definition..... Rigged.. To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Clinton or Trump? Explain Why.

I originally voted for Ted Cruz. Well, he dropped out of the race and from there I was lost. I didn't know what to do. I never liked Trump. Everything was pointing against him. Do I support everything he stands for? No. But to be honest I am not sure Clinton is a better choice. Say what you want about me. Yes, God does influence my decisions. But just as it says in the word, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for it righteousness through the law, then Christ died for nothing" Galatians 2:21
Dinosaurs

The debate title says 'Dinosaurs' not 'Dinosaurs can be brought back'... Specify the resolution next time"There has already been extensive research in this area such as one way the can be brought back is through DNA That may be hard to find but once found it will be easy to start off the research."Getting its one DNA is one thing but making one come to life is a whole different thing.... There arent any reptiles alive today that can give birth to a velociraptor or T-rex since all the large reptiles dies out around 65 million years ago.....Arguing that they should be brought back is also a lot different then arguing whether or not they could be brought back.... The fact that there are 3 Jurassic Park movies along with multiple sh*tty Sci-Fi movies about dinosaurs killing people after being brought back to life indicates that we certainly shouldnt bring them back, assuming we even could in the first place. Seriously why are rounds only 15 minutes?
Dinosaurs

I believe that Dinosaurs can be brought back. There has already been extensive research in this area such as one way the can be brought back is through DNA That may be hard to find but once found it will be easy to start off the research. For instance DNA was found from Trout and was then placed inside the Egg of a Salmon this created a trout with some side effects but the point is many people say no but the fact is once DNA is found it is possible P.s Im sorry it is only 15 minutes...
Michael Jordan was better than Lebron James

"What a shame it is for Michael Jordan to lose a game against the Russians when he was on the USA team." This debate isn't about the olympics but about the NBA. Since Con has gone there, Jordan has 2 olympic gold medals, one as an amateur and one as an NBA player. He also won a national championship in college, even hitting the game winning shot in the National Championship game. Bobby Knight (Jordan's olympic coach) said Michael Jordan was the best player he has ever coached or seen. The 1984 U.S. Olympic team went undefeated in Los Angeles. This was known as Jordan's "coming out party". This team won by an average of 32 points per game and was known as the best U.S. Olympic team ever pre NBA players being allowed to play. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The 1992 U.S. Olympic team went undefeated in Barcelona. This was the original "Dream Team". No one even came close to challenging them. They destroyed every team they played. Their average margin of victory was 43 points. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... These were the only 2 Olympics that Jordan played in. He never lost a game. http://www.michaeljordansworld.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The first and last time the U.S. lost to the Russians was in 1972. Jordan was not on that team. Michael Jordan was 9 years old in 1972. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * LARRY KING INTERVIEW of BOBBY KNIGHT- KING: You had such extraordinary success at Indiana. You also coached a gold medal Olympic team. You coached Michael Jordan. KNIGHT: Well, yes. I'm not sure how much anybody coaches him.. KING: What was that like? KNIGHT: Oh, it was great. I mean, he -- to my way of thinking, he's the best player in a team sport that's ever played anything. KING: Any team sport? KNIGHT: Any team sport. Nobody has been able to do the things with a team that Jordan could do. www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/27/lkl.00.html
Michael Jordan was better than Lebron James

I understand that some people like Michael Jordan better than James. But the reason I like James is because he's fair, tough, always trying, and good. I hope you have seen the last seven games in the NBA. (WARRIORS V.S CAVS) Also, winning doesn't matter. You could also say MJ played MUCH longer than James. You could put some quotes about Michael Jordan, but that doesn't change anything. Also, I say, that your description of MJ is exactly the description of LeBron. He's always going for the ball, which is why I mentioned, 'tough'. You can also see that LeBron James tries his hardest no matter what situation he's in. (You should see what James said at the end of Game 7) Also, I'll say, "What a shame it is for Michael Jordan to lose a game against the Russians when he was on the USA team. He even lost with the help of other good players." It is true that Jordan put in a lot of effort... but not as much as the Russians did. You do not have enough proof to prove that Michael Jordan is better than LeBron James.
The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

1. Forethought: noun careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future.Premeditation: noun the action of planning something (especially a crime) beforehand:The type of premeditation that often goes along with a crime cannot be seriously compared to premeditation that occurs in what is essentially fantasy. With your logic, the type of premeditation required to succeed in Call of Duty will see me through in real military engagements.Which is utterly false and nonsensical. 2. We don't have captial punishment for robbery. Punishments are most often tailored to the types of crimes commited. Me? There's actually little difference in my nature when you compare my 13, 16, 19 and 21 and 25 year old self. Only difference now is responsibilities really. But I am simply an anecdote. The change associated with entering adulthood is also a weak argument. What if the serial murder/rapist in jail right now converts to Buddhism and becomes a pacifist? The serial murderer/rapist that he was/is still has to be punished. You can't get out punishment because there's a slight possibility that you could theoretically become a better person than you are now. Burden of proof is on you to prove that a police psychologist is biased against juveniles and private psychologists are biased in favor of juveniles. 3. Again. Apples and oranges. They might be able to lift this or that, but can they carry 80lbs of gear for who knows how long? How good is their stamina and agility when the floor isn't waxed and maintained? The most fit 18 year old will still best the most fit 15 year old, all other things being equal simply due to skeletal and muscular development.4. Voting: Citation required.5. Porn: List one "professional, reputable" porn studio that makes child porn. I'll wait.6. Guns: Average age of gang members age from 12-24 https://www.nonprofitrisk.org...If you would allow children to buy guns, then you are allowing newly initiated gangmembers to buy guns.In the case of your friend with the gerbil, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. "As to selectively choosing what adult things a person can and cannot do, I think you are treating psychology like it can be far more precise than it can be. Psychology is not physics. It is hard enough to determine that someone is able to understand the ramifications of their actions, let alone parse those actions out to ones he understands and ones he does not"That's why we have psychologists that work with investigators, to see what kind of person we're dealing with. Not all juveniles will fit the bill, but some will. That's the job of the psychologists, the investigators and the prosecution to prove. If they have the evidence that they understood the ramifications of their actions then in my book adult prosectuion should be actively pursued.
The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

1.There are plenty of other reasons my juveniles aren't allowed to do the things you mentioned- Military- They're not PHYSICALLY developed enough to endure the rigors of combat. Voting- This can be said it's because they don't understand politics at their age, but in todays age, this is becoming less and less relevant. Purchasing firearms- This is to keep gang members from acquiring guns. Porn- Child porn is illegal because of terrible things that happen behind the scenes like trafficking. It's not necessarily bloodlust, but a sense of justice. If the juvenile in question displays above-average intelligence and maturity and evidence shows that they had full control and knowledge of what they were doing, then the only logical response is to prosecute them like they had full control and knowledge of what they were doing. "This seems to define adult as a person who is profoundly stupid since highly advanced students cannot apply to be called adults and thus vote. If a 12 year old can be charged with murder, it stands to reason that there are 12 year olds who should be eligible to vote, have sex, purchase firearms, etc." This isn't necessarily true, I outlined reasons above why juveniles can't do those things. And even then, because they are mature enough to do one thing, doesn't mean they posses full-adult maturity and can do all of the other adult things. You can be a murderer and not be fit enough to be useful in the military. You can rape children and still not know how democracy works. In this instance of intelligence, A does not equal B,C and D. All of the examples you provide are the serious crimes I outlined above that require a certain knowledge and maturity. Most of them even admitted to it.
The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

I will preface this by saying that Pro makes some very good points that I will address in the next round, but it would be inappropriate for me to make any rebuttals in this round, so this is my argument against the proposition without reference to or influence from Pro's argument. If I do not have any rational rebuttals to pro, I will concede the debate. On to my argument: The current system bans people under the age of 18 from participating in many activities. These include smoking, filming pornography, voting, serving in the military, purchasing firearms, etc. This is supposedly because they are considered to lack the cognitive capacity to either understand the potential consequences of these actions or to be trusted with that power. The only time we make exceptions for this is when someone makes a profoundly stupid decision, and this seems to be a result of the blood lust people have with respect to crime. They want someone to pay. This seems to define adult as a person who is profoundly stupid since highly advanced students cannot apply to be called adults and thus vote. If a 12 year old can be charged with murder, it stands to reason that there are 12 year olds who should be eligible to vote, have sex, purchase firearms, etc. This is not, however how our system works. My argument is not that if a system existed where your legal rights and responsibilities were tied to your maturity, then people under 18 should not be prosecuted as adults. That kind of system would make sense and then age would be a non factor. I am arguing that in a system with a set cutoff for adulthood, having a special rule allowing someone to skip ahead to being called an adult because the person displayed a lack of intelligence is not justified. The acceptance of prosecuting juveniles as adults has been used in such a way to where we now have pre teens being charged as adults. A 12 year old and a 13 year old charged as adults. http://abcnews.go.com... Two 12 year old girls charged as adults. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 12 year old boy charged as adult. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 10 year old charged as adult. http://www.cbsnews.com... According to the equal justice initiative, there are at least 10, 000 children housed in adult jails and prisons. Some of them are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they clearly could not have understood the consequences of their actions. http://www.eji.org...