BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: that we should kill all the whales

(Why cant I see my pics?)"Some of them did. But unicorns were a very emerging race, so they didn't have much population to breed with. "Yes, sadly the unicorns were comparable to another species on Earth who are known by most people as DNA, or Demonized Nambian Antelopes..... Whose history you can read all about in this debate http://www.debate.org..."The Penguin Prince and the Whale princess tried to mate in marriage to bring peace to the world, but the Whale Princess was a complete whore and the Penguin Prince killed her in a bloody rage, THATS what ignited the war between Penguins and Whales."Pro's response: "I see your college english class is doing Romeo and Juliet..."Yes and it ended the same way, a 3 day period that killed 6 people and bored countless others to death reading about it"I DECLARE FAULTY EVIDENCE!!! That is obviously the whale king you described above. "The Whale King is our Savior Jesus Christ. He is one in the same, all whales descended from him. "Jesus fish was Created by the Romans, who were not the best zoologists..."Jesus Fish was created by the Romans but the sticker on the back said it was made In China, your argument is invalid. "But then the whales would get bored and start eating everyone...."Which is how the Apocalypse will be brought about as told in the Bible in Chapter Whales, versus 9 to 36Yes Hitler was a cat, and cats are aliens, therefore Hitler is an Alien....We must not kill the whales, they are the last living descendants of Jesus Christ, they only kill non believers, and if they do kill us all it is merely the onset of the apocalypse as told in the Bible, meaning that we should just accept it and let the whales rightfully kill us all. All believers will be brought to the great Kingdom underwater, all the non believers will go to a cruel world far away from the seas up in the sky. All that will happen was pre determined, therefore we must not kill all the whales. Thanks for reading :D
Resolved: that we should kill all the whales

"Completely wrong, they mated with UNICORNS to make Narwhals, but then all the unicorns died when Candy Mountain was blown up by the Germans in WWI, I dont have to elaborate we all know the story. "Some of them did. But unicorns were a very emerging race, so they didn't have much population to breed with. Killer Whales did not spawn as a new breed to kill Penguins. The Penguin Prince and the Whale princess tried to mate in marriage to bring peace to the world, but the Whale Princess was a complete whore and the Penguin Prince killed her in a bloody rage, THATS what ignited the war between Penguins and Whales. I see your college english class is doing Romeo and Juliet... We must not Kill all the whales because Whales are the last living descendants of Jesus Christ, BECAUSE JESUS WAS A WHALE!!!!! (evidence below)I DECLARE FAULTY EVIDENCE!!! That is obviously the whale king you described above. Still dont believe me? Well then why does the Jesus Fish LOOK LIKE A WHALE!??!?!?!?!Jesus fish was Created by the Romans, who were not the best zoologists...Whales are not here to kill ALL humans, just the non-believers. If we want to make peace with the whales we must convert all people to Christianity and accept the whales as the living descendants of Jesus.But then the whales would get bored and start eating everyone....And on the cat contention...Hitler was an alien 0_o
Resolved: that we should kill all the whales

"So, a few whales made the important sacrifice and bred with rhinos, and gave birth to what are now known as narwhals."Completely wrong, they mated with UNICORNS to make Narwhals, but then all the unicorns died when Candy Mountain was blown up by the Germans in WWI, I dont have to elaborate we all know the story. "These narwhals began to attempt killing norse vikings, but completely failed, due to the vikings BO scaring even the bravest narwhal off"THEY DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOM, RESPECT THEIR BODY ODER"See, penguins are aliens too. They came to earth when their civilization saw the destruction of the humans coming, and they were forced to save us. So, they came to earth, and were doing pretty well to defending us, until the whales rebred and created a new breed: The killer whale. These whales will mercilessly kill all the penguins that they can find, making the penguins jobs extremely hard! We must fight for the penguins! we must fight for ourselves!"Killer Whales did not spawn as a new breed to kill Penguins. The Penguin Prince and the Whale princess tried to mate in marriage to bring peace to the world, but the Whale Princess was a complete whore and the Penguin Prince killed her in a bloody rage, THATS what ignited the war between Penguins and Whales. We must not Kill all the whales because Whales are the last living descendants of Jesus Christ, BECAUSE JESUS WAS A WHALE!!!!! (evidence below) Still dont believe me? Well then why does the Jesus Fish LOOK LIKE A WHALE!??!?!?!?! Whales are not here to kill ALL humans, just the non-believers. If we want to make peace with the whales we must convert all people to Christianity and accept the whales as the living descendants of Jesus.After that we should then focus on exterminating all the cats. They arent aliens, they are the descendants of Hitler....
Resolved: that we should kill all the whales

Ladies and Gentlemen, I come here before you to address a topic that has been neglected in todays society. Now, the issue that I come here today about is on Whale extermination. Frankly, we need to kill them, for one main reason: IT'S US OR THEM Let me use a little background here. See, around 10,000 years ago, whales landed on earth. Yes, they are aliens. So are cats, but that's another debate. Now, 10,000 years ago, whales landed on earth. They were very happy, swimming around in our oceons, eating krill, and other stuff, until the humans gained supremacy over the earth. So the whales concoted a plan. A brilliant plan, even. They decided: To kill the humans. At all costs. However, they lacked the necessary technology. So, a few whales made the important sacrifice and bred with rhinos, and gave birth to what are now known as narwhals. They used their large horns to stab humans. These narwhals began to attempt killing norse vikings, but completely failed, due to the vikings BO scaring even the bravest narwhal off. But, with the advent of hygiene, the narwhals began to get ambitious, and would have cleared us all off if not for one thing: Penguins. As evidence, I have this picture of a whale that has commandeered a ship: http://www.debate.org... See, penguins are aliens too. They came to earth when their civilization saw the destruction of the humans coming, and they were forced to save us. So, they came to earth, and were doing pretty well to defending us, until the whales rebred and created a new breed: The killer whale. These whales will mercilessly kill all the penguins that they can find, making the penguins jobs extremely hard! We must fight for the penguins! we must fight for ourselves! http://www.debate.org... Now, to address a few key points: 1. How to kill the whales. http://www.debate.org..., as portrayed by Stephan Pastis, Whales will beach themselves for Caramel Macchiato. So, the plan is simple. 1. Make a giant vat of Caramel Macchiato. 2. Divide it, and put it into key locations around the earth. 3. When the whales come, kill them. If there are any whales that are the proverbial “black sheep” of the family, we simply send out giant ships to kill those. Its simple! Rebuttal to environmentalist groups: Senators, get caller ID. Ignore all calls from PETA.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Your tactic here is simply in bad taste. Debates are supposed to pull forward original thought. You have merely carbon copied an argument you have used multiple times before. And why do you keep emphasising that it is "your own" argument? I never so much as suggested otherwise, although your pressing of the point leads me to wonder whether it isn't just yourself you have been plagiarising... Accept your rebuke. This is supremely unsporting. I suggest you never conduct yourself in this manner again.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

You don't get to decide if self copy-and-pasted arguments are bad conduct, you don't get to control how other people should view my conduct, and you don't get to regulate how many debates I have on the same subject. It's downright silly that you think copy-and-pasting my own arguments into other debates is bad conduct. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Am I supposed to start from scratch every time I create another debate on a subject I've debated before? And I really don't see why you can't respond to my copy-and-pasted arguments. It's not like they hold any less water when I use them multiple times.Seriously, get off your high horse. Also, don't accept any more of my debates, and don't pull this nonsense on anyone else you debate.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Never in any of my debates, and, in fact, never in any debate I'd ever seen on DDO, has someone complained that one side copy-and-pasted their own arguments. I really don't see what the problem with me doing that is. Many people on DDO do this, and it is by no means a shunned act. And considering that copy-and-pasting your own arguments was not forbidden in the rules, which, I might add, you agreed to by accepting the debate, you don't have the authority to force this on me. You therefore can't ask voters to vote against me. In fact, by doing this, you yourself forfeit this debate, and all votes should be in my favor.I'm honestly pissed that you think this is breaking the rules. I wanted a good debate on global warming, and all I got was an accusal of violating some BS rule. Don't accept any more of my debates.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I would like to call for a forfeit on Subutais part. It has come to my awareness that Subutai is simply cutting and pasting an argument he has used in many debates in the past. Subutai took his full allotment of time to post his argument, but it was not because he was formulating an argument. He simply pasted an oft-used argument verbatim from several of his previous debates. I wanted to have a fair and fluid debate with original debate but I find myself instead with the option to argue an automaton. Move to have the debate nullified or my opponent forfeited.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be debating whether global warming exists or not. It will be assumed that it does.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.[4]Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics or trolling.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate, and character limits must not be broken. Sources may be posted in an outside link.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's argumentsRound 4: Defending your arguments and conclusions (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
God Exists.

Pro countered my argument by saying "If Con can conceive of a more powerful force than God then Con wasn't conceiving of God in the first place." He is entirely correct, I was not conceiving God, in fact that is the very point I was trying to make, for any being that could be called God an even more powerful one could be conceived, thereby making his definition theoretically impossible. Pro also says "Well, if God can do absolutely anything he can make it that he exists even though Con's sound logical argument shows that he doesn't! I don't think Con wants to take this option." I can not argue against this point because it is challenging the very nature of logic itself, I will however remind the voter that Pros argument is that God must exist, and this only explains how it is theoretically possible for God to exist against logic. Which does not mean he must exists which Pro has the burden of proving. " [con is] Saying that God doesn't have omnipotence (and therefore can't exist)" I said that an omnipotent being cannot exist and therefore your definition of god cannot exist. " I can conceive of a more powerful force that can do that!" yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox. Pro seems to be arguing under the assumption he is right. "no, it is not conceivable that another entity destroy God or even be capable of such an act. That would make that other entity more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being (God). Absurdity. Again, you can't have a being be more powerful than an omnipotent being - that is logically impossible." This too is precisely the point I was trying to make, it is logically impossible to have an omnipotent being because a more powerful one can always be conceived. I apologize if any of my points were unclear and I hope I have explained them fully. "I'm a bit confused by Con's last part. What does Con mean when Con says that a being existing beyond our three-dimensional space doesn't meet my definition of God?" I mean that your original argument doesn't show that God is the most powerful thing conceivable, it just shows that it must be more powerful than anything in the universe as we perceive it (our three-dimensional universe) I recognize the possibility that an entity could exist in a different dimension or a different universe and would be able to influence our perceivable universe in any way he wishes but that does not making omnipotent, another being could exist in his level of existence more powerful than the supposed "God" or even another dimension/universe that would give the post-'God' being seemingly omnipotent powers in 'God's' level of existence and so on. (In this paragraph Not all mentions of God show him as omnipotent, I started under that setting then introduced a post God being, proving that I can conceive a more powerful being") I would like to remind the voters again that it is pros burden to prove that God by his definition must exist, not my Burden to prove that their is no chance of his definition of God existing, (although I believe I did that anyway)
God Exists.

You define God as a supreme being and a supreme being as one which "non greater can be conceived" Given these definitions it seems evident that God, as you define him, can not exist. Take the classic stone paradox, 'can God create a stone so heavy not even he can lift it'. This scenario leaves leaves to possibilities, one God can create the stone but can not lift it, in this case it is conceivable that another being would be able to lift it, and therefore i conceived a greater being. Or God cannot create the rock, in which case it is conceivable that an even more powerful force could, once again allowing me to conceive a stronger force. Using a more abstract example of my own, i will prove that by your definition God cannot exist. Assume for a moment that he does exist. Is it not conceivable that there could be another entity capable of destroying 'God', and would it not then be conceivable that an even more powerful entity could destroy that one and so on. Your arguments only support the idea of a being existing beyond our three-dimensional space, which does not meet your definition of God. If i misunderstood your arguments please further explain them, and i will not counter argue those now because a) i disproved God using your definitions and my own argument, b) they are either irrelevant or c) i misunderstand them in which case arguing over them would be pointless.
Wicca is a religion.

I believe that Wicca is more of a satanic cult than a religion. First of all, Wicca is associated with witchcraft/black magic and neo-paganism. They perform demonic rituals consisting of painted pentagrams, dead leaves, and candle wax. Wiccans believe they are witches as well, and there are reports of bloody animal sacrifices in certain rituals and offerings they perform. Many of the Wiccan gods/goddesses resemble horned demons and those who worship them are also worshipping Satan. Good luck. :)
Wicca is a religion.

Wicca is a religion that worships a Goddess and a God. They do practice witchcraft but they believe in the phrase "and it harm none do what ye will" which means you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anybody. Wicca is not a cult, because they won't force you to convert, recruit members from around the world, or even practice human sacrifice. If you want to be Wicca, they're happy and if not they're happy anyway. Wiccans are not cultivates, they're religious people who believe in free will, nature, and balance.
rap battle part 2

My apologies for forfeiting last round. I have no idea why my opponent also decided to forfeit.RebuttalI'll fix this freak's @ss with a liter of gas and three matches,Set fire to him while he gets teabagged,And sexually harassed by three giraffes,Hang you from a tree branch with your femur snapped,Peeing in your pants, it's the end of your career in rap.Talking about how I should give you my slut,Perhaps you need to keep that out your little rhymes, son,I'll talk about your girl's sex life twice as much,Before you know it, you're all riled up,Shouting "How could you mention her big slimy scrotum?"
rap battle part 2

"Go ahead" start the flow... like a menstrual cycle/I'm that, "cramp your style"-"blood everwhere", psycho/rifle at your team 'til they lean like eiffel/people look for me upon they arrival/ I'm a landmark you a souvenir/somethin to take home to have proof u here/you can "loop the sphere", "fly around the globe"/but you will never be the "one" until I explode/ So... "malfunction!,self destruct!"/ That's my way of sayin don't press ya luck!/you can continue on further but will get struck!/please believe, I ain't playin, I will f*ck you up!/ Take whatever possesions you have, that includes your slut/split it amongst my team and leave your children a cut/"sorry your daddys a bitch" "can't perform in the clutch"/in the end, he couldn't defend and we'll miss him so much!"/
Are people born with there personalities? e.g Could a person be born mean.

To conclude I will summarize and close since overall it will not matter. People can be born mean and it can caused by genetic and other disorders. It is not unheard of as many serial killers show signs very young in age. Look up some of the disorders and other illnesses I posted in my previous argument and you can see that they can make you unkind. I thank anyone who takes the time to vote and anyone who has been following this debate. I would like to take this time to thank my opponent although they did not fully participate. Thank you and it has been a pleasure.
Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws

Here is my rebuttal. I quote from my opponent 'voicing one's opinion towards homosexuality is perfectly legal,' However, I would like to point out that, if there were such a law, saying anything bad about homosexuality (whether it is your own opinion or not) would be illegal. It would be seen as an insult and the speaker could be accused. Let's look at this example. If a pastor told his fellow worshippers that they could not be gay or lesbian because the Bible forbidden it and it was bad, since they should not go against God's words. Then, he could be accused because he said that being gay or lesbian was 'bad' and people who are gay or lesbian would take it as an insult. I understand how you link my previous argument to freedom of speech. I would like to clarify. Although we all have freedom of speech, it has limits. We should not take advantage of this right to insult others. What I am saying is, some religions do not allow such relationships and because we have freedom of religion, we should exclude churches from such laws. This, however, would not violate others' rights as the churches are only exempted when they are asked such a question (i.e. Is being gay or lesbian allowed?) or when they read a Bible verse that means being gay or lesbian is not welcome in God's eyes. If churches are not excluded, it would severely harm freedom of religion.
Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws

I deeply apologize for forfeiting the previous round! Some unexpected issues came up and I was unable to post my argument. I"m sorry for the confusion, and greatly appreciate your patience. :) My opponent has, thus far, based his arguments on the First Amendment; specifically religious freedom and freedom of speech. The resolution of this debate is that churches should be excluded from "gay or lesbian laws," therefore all of my opponent"s arguments so far are unrelated to the debate at hand. Legislation regarding homosexuals does not unreasonably limit freedom of speech, nor does it violate the religious freedom of citizens. Voicing one"s opinions regarding homosexuality is perfectly legal. It is not until violence or verbal harassment is brought into the picture that the law steps in. We really don"t have a debate here if my opponent is simply reserving First Amendment rights rather than defending the stated resolution that churches should be excluded from "gay or lesbian laws." Thanks again to my opponent, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws

I see you forfeited this round. However, I will continue with my arguments. I would like to elaborate on them. People who are Christian, Catholic or Jewish believe that they should not have a sexual, marriage or dating relationship with people of the same sex. We should protect their right of following what is preached in their religion, as we all have religious freedom. I am not implying that churches will be able to criticise people in same-sex relationship freely and in an insulting way, but that it should not be illegal if they teach believers that it is not right to have such a relationship or read a passage from the Bible that says same-sex relationships are bad. I do not see any reason why we should not include churches from such laws. We all have religious freedom. It is not discrimination. For example, as tradition goes, male villagers lead the worshipping of their ancestors in China. That is not sexual discrimination as it is their culture, a habit passed down from generations. Only Muslims can go into their places of worship, but that is not religious discrimination as it is said in their holy book that such a visitor should not be allowed. It is their custom and we should respect that. I hope you will not forfeit the next round as I am looking forward to seeing your arguments.