BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What Smeagol Loves Doing

"...ridiculous lack of validity inherent in my opponent's basis for argument." Already resorting to the reductio ad absurdum, I see. That's not going to help you, Jordeef. "The concept of 'Smeagol' is one inherently obsessed with fish." With this statement, you are presupposing that if I were to enjoy fish, studied them with great fervor, or even wished to become one of their kind, I would become a "Smeagol". Well, Jordeef, I can tell you with 100% certainty that logic is flawed. Quite honestly, it's patently absurd. Smeagol is not a concept first of all, Smeagol is a Stoor Hobbit. "...there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they loved the River, and often swam in it, or made little boats of reeds. There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol." [1] Clearly Smeagol is not a concept. Albeit I will agree he was "adept at the art of blindfish-hunting", this skill was adapted out of necessity, not for his "past-time of fishing". Smeagol was trapped in the depths of the Goblin Kingdom under the Misty Mountains (for goblins were guarding each of the exits), where there was little to no light [2]. So naturally, or rather supernaturally, he gained this ability due to necessity. "He had a friend called Deagol, of similar sort, sharper-eyed but not so quick and strong. On a time they took a boat and went down to the Gladden Fields, where there were great beds of iris and flowering reeds. There Smeagol got out and went nosing about on the banks but Deagol sat in the boat and fished."[3] As you can see, Smeagol and Deagol spent their free time in the Gladden Fields, fishing and investigating with each other. Ahh, here my opponent has issued forth a non sequitur, saying "Smeagol clearly wins the argument. His oppoenent Smeagol results to the debased use of ad hominem 'You don't have any friends; nobody likes you!'". This is utterly incoherent, as if Smeagol won the debate, 1) he would not have had to resort to using an ad hominem, and 2) Smeagol would not have insulted his opponent 'Smeagol', he would have insulted his opponent 'Gollum', his alternate personality, because Smeagol suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder. Besides, getting into an argument with your alternate personality doesn't qualify you as a philosopher. He also showed no sign whatsoever of *enjoying* the banter with Gollum. He loved being with his dear friend Deagol, not living under a mountain and arguing with his alternate identity. I thank my opponent for such an intellectually stimulating round. --- References: 1. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The Shadow of the Past, page 57. 2. Tolkien, The Hobbit. Riddles In The Dark, pages 79-100. 2. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The Shadow of the Past, page 58.
What Smeagol Loves Doing

As always, thank you for accepting this challenge to debate. I will explain how the intentions and documented actions of Smeagol in all media directly prove his exclusive joy in fish and introverted debate. I will always refute the ridiculous lack of validity inherent in my opponents basis for argument. The concept of "Smeagol" is one inherently obsessed with fish. He is first met by Bilbo Baggins in the dark recesses of the Misty Mountains. "He paddled it with large feet dangling over the side, but never a ripple did he make." (pg. 68 "The Hobbit") Obviously Smeagol was adept at the art of blindfish-hunting because he was skilled enough to not disturb the fish's powerful senses of hearing. Gollum has been perfectly adapted for his past-time of fishing. He is described as dark with pale yet luminous eyes. He is nearly impossible to detect under these conditions. Smeagol is also a philosopher. He is constantly in debate with himself over the best course of action. This is seen in the Two Towers when he argues with himself. Smeagol clearly wins the argument. His opponent, Smeagol results to debased use of ad hominem "You don't have any friends; nobody likes you!" Con's argument is triflin cuz that nigga Deagol dead
What Smeagol Loves Doing

I have been eagerly awaiting a debate of this caliber for quite some time. I can only hope my opponent can keep up, as I have prepared libraries of sources, with several tomes cataloging the exact whereabouts of Smeagol for over 500 years. I will be arguing that Smeagol does not "[love] to spend his free time eating fish and arguing with himself", but rather he would love to spend his free time fishing in the waters of the Gladden River with his beloved Deagol. Sadly, however, Smeagol is not upon us anymore (PBUH). He perished in the fires of mount doom along with his precious. Let us begin.
Iron man is way better than batman.

Wow. Okay, you win. You've got me, and are now to claim throne as the victor. Batman is way worse. If only he was a billionaire, playboy, and genius as well, as he totally isn't, THEN he'd be better. I mean, can you imagine if he was, like, the World's Greatest Detective? That would make him absolutely incredible! But alas, he is not. Iron Man is clearly superior. Oh, and Batman's running around (despite having a motorcycle, a helicopter, a jet, a boat, and a freaking tank*) in a cape. Dumb. Because if you happen to endow a sleeveless garment, that automatically entitles you a terrible character. You know how Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the United States President who repaired most of America's largest, looming economic issues during the Great Depression, wore a cape during his speeches? Man, what a loser. Remember when Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader seized an entire Galaxy, far far away, while wearing capes? They suck. Oh, and the dethroner who killed Palpatine, ruler of the Galaxy? Boring cape wearer as well. Oh, and Julius Caesar, the most famous politician in all of history who came, saw, and conquered and could make the best of friends out of the worst of his enemies, was such an idiot for wearing a cape when he would battle. Now, let's actually make an attempt to be a bit less materialistic through this debate. Both have character development that's worth noting. Both are arguably antiheroes that have been driven to fight crime. Iron Man was kidnapped by Communists and fights anyone he thinks is a Communist or is a threat to America. That's his drive**. Bruce Wayne witnessed the people he loved the most killed right in front of him. He saw his parents shot in cold blood in a random act of crime. Henceforth, he knew and EXPERIENCED the big difference a small criminal could make to someone's life, and he swore to fight it***. http://www.youtube.com... Now, Iron Man may have had more of a pragmatic message (Communism is a terrible political stance and you should die by the hands of a man in iron if you're a Communist), but Batman's character would obviously be driven by deeper emotions, seeing the death of his parents. Imagine being kidnapped and being driven to fight crime from that. Now imagine seeing the person you hold closest to your heart being murdered for little to no reason at all. I want you to think about which would affect you more. *http://batman.wikia.com... **http://en.wikipedia.org... ***http://en.wikipedia.org...
For Higher Learning, online courses are a more beneficial option than universities

I thank con for agreeing to this debate! I'm in the process of deciding whether or not to take online courses to finish my degree. Hopefully this debate will help myself and others who need to make this important decision.As Pro, I will show that taking online courses can be a more beneficial option than enrolling in a university. Con will show that universities are more beneficial than online courses. 1st round for acceptance, definitions, clarifications.2nd round for opening statements, rebuttals.3rd round rebuttals4th round closing statementsbeneficial: advantageous; helpful [1]University: an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. [2]Online Courses: specifically online courses that can be used towards a degree. No in person meetings, classes, etc. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Deaths caused by drunk driving can be attributed, in part, to people who support staunch drug policy

You know, this website is horribly prone to bias. People seem to vote on pre-conditioned responses rather than judging them on the merits of their stengths. I suppose this is to be expected to some degree when the average age on here is all of 16 years. Because this is the case, I've grown totally disenchanted with this site. I see no point in spending time on something when its evident that it doesn't much matter. So I'm forfeiting all of my debates from hereon out and going somewhere else where I can find equity. Thanks for the debate, and sorry for not finishing it.
9/11 was an inside job

"however, behind the scenes regarding the 9/11 conspiracies is a strong stench of anti-semitism."That claim is WAY off topic. We jumped from how it was an inside job to how it's antisemitic." and the conspiracy theories do not stop with the US government. Infact, they are just the puppets, and in certain cases, perhaps unknowing and unsuspecting puppets. The real point of blame gets directed towards Zionists, which is a Jewish ideology"Wow...this has no relation to how your argument is valid." The 9/11 Big Lie is supported by far-right extremists and white supremacists that believe that the Aryan race are descended from Reptiles from Draco and are God informed men"Where is this even heading!? The rest of your argument is how antisemitic 9/11 is, which is not related to how it's an inside or not."conspiracy theories that you think expose elitests and world rulers, are actually coming from quite high up members of society in many cases."When did I even try to "expose" elitists? I'd like to state my opponent's argument has gone off topic and therefore is invalid.T he rest of his argument claims that the 9/11 big lie is all about white supremacy and antisemitism.
9/11 was an inside job

==Rebuttal=="In actual fact, i think most people are aware that there was more than two buildings that fell that day, so i think this is the first fallacy "Not a fallacy. I didn't say all, every, etc. so it isn't an over generalization. Don't make claims you can't back up nor prove to be true. Also, you didn't capitalize your I's."Then we had WTC5 which was almost ready to collapse after emmense fire swept through"Stop right there. Didn't I just explain that the fire didn't bring the building down nor was it strong enough to make it severely damaged?"and i can assure you that the footage used by the architects of the 9/11 truth movement such as Loose Change, is very fraudulent"Can you prove this? You haven't included a single source."The reason they never show the collapse from the otherside is because if they did then the viewer would be able to see the full scale of the fires."Yet again, fire did not destroy nor severely damage the building."Another highly deceptive tactic used when showing the collapse, is that the truthers do not show the full footage"The government and the 9/11 committee didn't show the full footage of the pentagon attack. Actually, the pentagon attack didn't even have a plane in it. Don't believe me? Look for yourself here.http://www.youtube.com...No planeMore evidence?http://www.youtube.com...Expert pilots even claim it would be impossible to hit the pentagon with an airliner. Why? You'd have to swerve through telephone poles, other buildings, and towers AND STILL hit the pentagon with a HUGE plane "Also, nobody has ever said that a plane hit WTC7. No plane hit WTC3, 5 or 6"Then what did? A missile? Or...was it done on the inside?"So yes, there is an explanation to how it fell"It can't fall STRAIGHT DOWN. I just proved this." (Proof that fire can melt steel, in regards to my WTC5 claim)"This video only strengthens my argument. The beams didn't melt you fool, they only were bent. "(Proof for penthouse collapsing, between 5:45mins & 6mins on the video)"Can this even be called a source for your argument? His argumen only proves mine yet again to be right by showing that buildings can't fall straight down, they lean then fall.My opponent didn't really read my argument, as shown, and his sources are poor.PS Truthers isn't a word.
9/11 was an inside job

==Argument==i. Steel and fireMany people do not know about the third building that fell during the 9/11 "attacks". Yes, there was a third building that fell. But fell...mysteriously. No plane hit it, and there wasn't an explanation on how it fell. Except for this...it was blown up from the inside. Read this"The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′." (1)That's right it wasn't hit by a plane. Then what else could it have been hit by?So what brought down the third building? Many people arguing against theorists say it was fire. However expert architects, engineers, and scientists say it would have been impossible. "However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. " (2)"That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire."(2)Take this into account as well "tonnes of steel" (2)So we know two things here. One, it may have fallen due to fire, and two it was made of steel. Let's toss those two together. Steel has a melting point of 2500°F (3) and it supposedly fell due to fire. Fire can only get so hot in one room and to melt steel takes a lot of fire. To simply put it, it would be impossible. Another factor is how it fell. It went straight DOWN. "Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves" (2)Building seven was destroyed from the inside, it's the only way it could have happened to fall straight down. Internal demolition is not natural, and internal demolition could cause it to go straight down.The 2 towers now were also made of steel and fire had also took a big, but not the biggest, role in taking them down. They were supposedly hit by planes and jet fuel burned the steel."Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F" (4)It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the fuel to melt the steel. ==Sources==1 http://www.hangthebankers.com...2 http://news.bbc.co.uk...3 https://www.google.com...4 http://www.popularmechanics.com...
Abortion is murder and should not be allowed except in extreme cases.

Unless the mother's health is at stake abortion should not be allowed. The argument that it is not a person but rather a collection of cells is a ridiculous notion and you could say that about any person. I do not know how a being a female gives you the right to kill something and define it as non human for your own convenience. There is strong medical evidence that the fetus is alive and by week 3 has a heart and by week 4 it has eyes. So how can you legitimately say that cutting the back of the babies skull open sucking the brains out and cutting it up and pulling it out is morally responsible or be legal. And to the person that debates me I would like to know at what point it is fine to kill this baby and when it is not ok.
Abortion is murder and should not be allowed except in extreme cases.

Being careful is an unlikely option to prevent unplanned pregnancies. we being imperfect tend to make mistakes. Nobody sees the possibility of having an unplanned pregnancy when they are having sex that is why it is called an 'unplanned' pregnancy. when a woman gets pregnant, there are two options; she wants the baby or she doesn't want the baby. in the former, the choice is clear that she doesn't want the baby not a second longer and definely not for nine months, even if you stop her from having an abortion and talk to her about murdering an innocent life, she will kill the baby. her option clearly states the choice-- SHE DOESN'T WANT THE BABY. you cannot change someone choice on a matter because you think that what you think is right. You can only advise them, the choices they make are clearly their own. now that her choice is clear and you still want to stop her forcefully, she will hurt herself and cause a miscarrige. To protect her from hurting herself abortion is held. in the latter where she want to have the baby she can have it and later if financial problem arises she can opt to give her to foster care. when we talk about consequences of our deeds. the important thing in this whole argument is that the pregnancy is unplanned or sudden, you can talk all about innocent murder or inner self and karma but in the end it all narrows down to a choice. she doesn't want the baby. period. now all you can think is how to terminate it safetly without harming the mother. this theory about facing consequences of our deeds is just a thought, you cannot force it on someone. many tend to hide from these consequence or ignore them. people being independent do what they want to do. You cannot impose your thought on them. everyone has a different perception in life and that is what makes them different. What you think is good in your thoughts may be a total opposite in other people's mind.
Abortion is murder and should not be allowed except in extreme cases.

It doesn't matter if it is on purpose or accidental you have to face the consequences of your actions and abortion is a drastic measure. How can murder not be called extreme? If we ban abortion not only will that not risk the lives of babies rather it would save the lives of babies. Although I would like to hear the explanation that killing babies is good for their well being. The man should have equal say in it as it is just as much his child as it is the woman's. Ps. Marijuana is not "highly addictive" it can be addictive in rare cases but it is illegal because it would cost oil and timber industries billions if hemp became a viable material.
Abortion is murder and should not be allowed except in extreme cases.

it's true, the couple having sex should be careful and be prepared for unplanned pregnancies. But they being human tend to make mistakes (and sometimes a little ill luck like damaged condom). when that happens; to prevent them from taking drastic measures abortion was introduced. we cannot ban abortion all together because if we do it will endanger the life of both the mother and the baby albeit baby is going to die anyway. i being a man neither supports abortion nor against it (because i've never been pregnant) P.S. I'm quiet sure that banning of marijuana is because of it's highly addictive nature and it has nothing to do with babies and pregnant women.
Abortion is murder and should not be allowed except in extreme cases.

If a woman did not want to have a baby then she and the man she is with should have been more careful and not gotten pregnant. Whether or not abortion is the safest way to kill the baby is irrelevant to this debate because the topic is whether termination of a pregnancy should be allowed. Your argument is akin to saying marijuana should be legal because it is the safest recreational drug which is not a very strong argument I must add.
Hate speech should be banned

First off, No, Not all laws are created by specifying certain definitions. A great example: The UK, It is becoming more and more authoritarian every day and there is a clear bias in the execution of the law due to the laws being quite vague. There are countless examples where people were arrested for jokes, Or comments on the current situation, Most of those people being white, While people of colour quite literally saying "kill all whites. " are just ignored. Also how is that a ridiculous extent? A person should have the right to defend themselves, Even if it means killing the other person, But that's besides the point. There is a difference Between incitement to violence and free speech: "I wish somebody hit you with a car" vs. "Hit him with a car. " Alright. But please tell me what news station would give a platform to this kind of group? They are free to simply say "no. " And the only type of groups that would say "their truth. " would be either an extremist religious group or something like the KKK and I doubt any News station would allow those people on their program.
Hate speech should be banned

Hate speech is, No doubt, A very sensitive issue, Especially in a culturally, Linguistically and socially so diverse country like mine (India). However, I believe that hate speech must be curbed by legal methods, And am delighted to use this platform to try to convey my reasons. Before I add arguments against hate speech, Let us dissect the argument provided for it in round one. The crux of the argument provided lies on the lack of a universally acceptable definition of "hate speech", And hence can be used to silence people who are against using one specific definition of "hate speech". While this may make for a compelling argument, One has to understand that all laws are created by specifying certain definitions, That are, For better or worse, The best ways we have found to define them. One can easily extend your argument to ridiculous extents, Like "murder should be legalised as it infringes my right to freedom, And I feel safe only when I am legally awarded the right to take the life of those that threaten me". While this argument alone does not conclusively prove that hate speech should be legally penalised, Please note that simply arguing that a law does not apply to someone just because that someone is against the definition of certain terms, Is a slippery slope to lawlessness. The other point taken is that hate speech infringes on free speech. One must understand that every right is a give and take. An argument like this might lead to similar arguments, Like "The right to private property should be stopped as it interferes with my right to movement". Every right, Free speech included, Has some duties involved, Which ensure that they are used reasonably. In this case, The right to free speech is granted as long as it does not violate the right of dignity and self-respect of other people or communities. If hate speech infringes on free speech, What about slander and libel? Where does one draw the line between "free speech" and harassment, Bullying or incitement to violence? When does granting the right to free speech turn into a liability to the society? Finally, One must understand that speech is a powerful tool, Which can be used to rouse people, Demoralise them, And anything in between. In fact, There is now a landmark ruling (Michelle Carter vs the State of Massachusetts), Which shows that just sending text messages may be taken as manslaughter. In light of this, Would you, As a responsible citizen, Allow highly violent or derogatory speech to incite others to potential bloodshed? At the end of the day, One very disturbing version of hate speech I can imagine at this point of time, Is a (fictional) speech by ISIS/ISIL or (insert the criminal group that plagues your country the most) requesting all of their "brothers and sisters" worldwide to take to arms and aid them in bringing their version of "correctness" or "truth" to reality. Would you allow such a plea to be aired on the TV in your country? If not, Then you are censoring hate speech at some level. Then the debate only becomes about what level of "hate speech" is "allowed", And not a blanket statement about stopping the ban of any hate speech.