BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unicorns eat cheese

YES, of course unicorns should eat cheese! Unicorns are mystical creatures that are rarely seen by humans, so there must not be that many unicorns that exist, meaning that when a unicorn wants to eat cheese, they won't take too much cheese, because there aren't enough unicorns to eat all the cheese! So it works out okay. Besides, factories do already make a lot of cheese and they don't use it all, but with unicorns eating cheese, there is someone there to eat the remaining cheese, so we won't be wasting any cheese!
Unicorns eat cheese

CHEESE IS THE GREATEST THING IN THE WORLD UNICORN POOP ONLY COMES IN one FLAVOUR WHEN CHEESE COMES IN W LOT OF FLAVOURS SO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! SO ITS SUPER IMPORTANT FOR OUR MOUTHS!!! AND NO THEY DONT HAVE POWERSSSS LIFE DOESNT WORK LIKE THAT OKAYYYYYYYYYYYY?!
Unicorns eat cheese

UNICORNS HAVE DA POWERS TO DO ANYTHING IN THE WHOLE WODE WORLD. Including skinny powers. THEY CAN CAST SPELLS TO MAKE THEMSELVES SKINNY. AND IF WE DONT NEED PRETTY FLOWERS AND BUTTERFLIES TO LOOK AT, THEN WE DONT REALLY NEED CHEESE TO MAKE OUR MOUTHS HAPPY BECAUSE WE HAVE NICE AND YUMMY UNICORN POOP INSTEAD. PROBLEM SOLVED. WE DONT NEED CHEESE BECAUSE WE HAVE UNICORN POOP LIKE WE DONT NEED FLOWERS AND BUTTERFLIES. SO, FACT IS, CHEESE SHOULDNT EVEN EXIST.
Unicorns eat cheese

Heyyyyyyyyyy. I SAID THAT UNICORNS HAVE MAGICAL COOLNESS THAT WILL LET THEM BE SKINNY UNICORNS AGAIN! AND FLOWERS HAVE BEEN USED TO DECORATE NICE THINGS! Saying that we don't need flowers and butterflies, well we don't really need cheese either, it's just there to make us humans happy. BUTTERFLIES AND GLOWERS MAKE US HAPPY. MIRANDA SINGS!
Stem cell research(If you're going to base your vote on oppinion don't bother voting).

I will now establish my points. The type of stem-cell research is embryonic. It is good because: 1.It makes use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to help find cures for diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and also muscle repair. 2.The potential to help somebody with a serious disease far outweighs the "potential life" that the zygote poses. 3.A life is more valuable than a potential life when it comes to ending the suffering of the disabled. http://www.pbs.org... http://iron.lcc.gatech.edu... Also, the embryos are donated, not simply taken without permission. And just a little bit of extra info on the subject: http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com...
Stem cell research(If you're going to base your vote on oppinion don't bother voting).

I think stem cell research is a good thing and should continue. I will wait for my opponents before making my first argument. R1 will be declaring of your position. R2 will be for opening statements. R3 and R4 will be for rebuttals. R5 will be for concluding statements. I would like to thank my opponent and wish them good luck. -Kat
More underage clubs

Thanks for the response.My opponent mentions her own personal experience, a club called the Vibe. This is not very credible, reliable information, firstly, but I will still refute it."Some of my older friends go there they say that even though there is no selling of alcohol they do still make good profit."Your "friends" is hardly a reliable source. Nonetheless, how exactly would your friends know if a business was doing well or not? Just because a lot of people may go does not necessarily mean the business if financially stable. Also, please mention more than one club that could possibly be financially secure."This place has a lot of supervision so there is no alcohol or drugs."This is one factor that will turn away many potential young customers, contributing to even more financial issues. Who supervises? How many supervise? What happens if alcohol/drugs is/are found? Not enough information is given."At 1:30 am all teens that are 16-17 all have to leave at 2:00 every person in that club is allowed to light one cigarette."How are you going to find which person looks like a 16 year old or 17 year old? Not everyone will have a drivers' license, so you can't check their age. And 1:30 AM? That's ridiculously late! Teens should be in bed sleeping at that time so they'll be all ready for school. And considering smoking... That is a major issue, and we are talking about that. If every underage club did that, imagine the increase in lung cancer. Even those who don't want to smoke but still want to party have to put up with the smokers. Secondhand smoke is dangerous as well! These clubs will just offer another way for teens to be exposed to cigarettes and eventually addicted. This is not a good effect.My opponent has not refuted any of the Opposition's arguments. Therefore, they still stand.Thank you.
More underage clubs

Around where I live there is an underage club called the vibe for teens 16-20. Some of my older friends go there they say that even though there is no selling of alcohol they do still make good profit. This place has a lot of supervision so there is no alcohol or drugs. At 1:30 am all teens that are 16-17 all have to leave at 2:00 every person in that club is allowed to light one cigarette. Also in the United States it is legal for an 18 yr old to smoke. I do realize smoking is bad but we aren't talking about that. The only thing that the club sells is water and soda. Which with that they make three fourths of there profit.
Abortion should be illegal

I apologize for calling him con, but I am use to being pro in abortion debates. He stated the res in a non affirmative stance, so I made that mistake. I am just going to briefly summarize why I won this because it is not necessary to go into great detail My primary contentions revolve around weighing the value of a life. My adversary concedes that a fetus is not a human life, thus affirming the pro stance. Negating the possibility of a life is not murder, so it is perfectly acceptable. From there both of my contentions stand His arguments revolve around a fetus making it to become a human life, which again is no viable reason to side a vote with him. When he conceded that a fetus is not a human life, he is giving the mother legal and moral ground to kill it thus negating half of his own contentions. This debate clearly sides with me. Thank you
Abortion should be illegal

My opponent thinks he has somehow won this debate, when, in actuality, he has just handed me the debate by not properly addressing my contentions. Also, he refers to me as "Con". Con is the position he is taking. CONTENTION 1 My opponent naively states that: "What he concedes is that a baby is a human life, but a fetus is not a human life. This gives extra weight to all my arguments. Pro right contenders often try to show that a fetus is a life and by executing a fetus, we are committing murder. All of his points are lost due to this admission." First of all, saying that a fetus is not YET a human life is in no way a concession. A concession would be this: "Abortion should be legal." A dear will never become a human, so saying that killing a fetus and killing a dear are in any way comparable is completely absurd. CONTENTION 2 DEFENSE: A fetus actually is a living organism. I actually said this in my contention 1 rebuttal. And regarding adoption, again, a mother is ending a life by aborting a fetus. A fetus may not be a human yet, but it is much more conscious than, say, a cockroach. CONCLUSION: My opponent's case is essentially centered on the idea that, since a mother is human and a fetus is not, abortion should be legal. However, his arguments don't fully, if at all, properly explain why the mother being classified as "human" is important.
Abortion should be illegal

Note : I chose to ignore cons contentions because most of them would be refuted, along with the fact I disagree with them in great detail. I will explain why. R1) A fetus is not a human life This debate will probably end right here, so I am not going to spend much time on this debate from here on out. He concedes that a fetus is not a human life, but a life. This literally just handed me the debate, I refer you to his own words. " Factor one: Is the fetus a human life? No, but it is still a life. And soon, it will be a human life " What he concedes is that a baby is a human life, but a fetus is not a human life. This gives extra weight to all my arguments. Pro right contenders often try to show that a fetus is a life and by executing a fetus, we are committing murder. All of his points are lost due to this admission As killing a life is not murder. We kill dear an they are living organisms and it is morally permissible. Killing something that is not a human life is perfectly acceptable under all clauses. R2) The mother has lived her live This entire argument is now invalid, as committing an abortion is not ending a life. It's ending a fetus accoridngy to my adversaries own stance. So we can dismiss this. c2) adoption centers AS this is no longer a factor, we can dismiss it. A mother can kill a fetus without killing a human life so there is no reason for her to wait for the child to be born. This argument is invalid r3) organisms roaches are conscious organisms, that does not stop us from killing them. My adversary did state that a fetus was not a human = Ending = When my adversary noted that a fetus is not a human life he effectively handed me the debate. All points regarding rape and a life for a life are extended but with a larger impact. The mother is going to abort a fetus in order to save her life, without the consequence of killing another human life by my contenders own admission. The same extends for rape. All my arguments stand and with his own statement he refuted half of his case.
Abortion should be illegal

Before I begin, I would like the audience to note that my opponent has only provided two contentions. In his supporting arguments, he has made statements that I have already proven invalid. I realize the first round is for opening arguments, but my opponent should probably read my arguments before making his own. CONTENTION 1 REBUTTAL: "When you have to competing choices in regards to life. All factors must be taken into consideration." First of all, I think my opponent meant to put a comma instead of a period before the word "life". I do not disagree with this statement, but I do disagree with the factors he would have us consider. Factor one: Is the fetus a human life? No, but it is still a life. And soon, it will be a human life. Also, it will probably live a longer life than the mother if if it is not brutally murdered. My first contention provides information on why this is important. Factor two: Self defense. This is actually a very common argument that people in favor of keeping/making abortion legal will use, but it is shockingly more flawed than it is common. A person attacking another person is not comparable to a fetus endangering a woman's life. A fetus is not aware that it is endangering a person's life. However, a person attacking another person is fully aware that they are killing someone. Factor three: Human rights. Humans do not have the right to kill an innocent organism. Some rights have limits. At the end of their first contention, my opponent essentially states that any reasonable person would share their point of view. This is bordering on ad hominem, but I will ignore that for now. Also, in my opponents analogy, both the baby and the mother would be killed. CONTENTION 2 REBUTTAL: I would like everyone to picture a scenario. Someone holds a gun to someone else's head for nine months and makes them carry a kitten for that amount of time. However, if they kill the kitten, the person with a gun to their head can go on with their life. Is the person with a gun to their head justified in killing an innocent kitten, even if carrying the kitten would hinder them from doing things? Regarding my opponents argument legal argument on abortion, it doesn't matter what is legal in the context of this debate. This is a discussion of whether abortion should be made illegal. Furthermore, a fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is not a mere organ, but an organism. As for "bodily rights", again, some rights have limits. For example, you can't use your body to commit arson.
Abortion should be illegal

Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons: C1: The mother has lived her life. A fetus hasn't experienced life yet, and the mother of a fetus has. Picture life as a toy. It isn't fair to give a toy to one child and nothing to another child. Thus, killing a fetus, even if carrying a fetus to term could potentially could kill the mother, is not fair to the fetus because the fetus hasn't had a chance to live. C2: Adoption centers. A common argument for people who are pro choice is that people who get abortions are sometimes very poor. Preventing a mother from killing a baby would supposedly lead to a baby having a horrible quality of life. However, this is obviously false because statistics show that there is a high demand for adoption in the USA, and throughout the world. Killing the fetus would prevent a couple from having the joy of raising a child and it would murder an innocent organism. Statistics for adoption: http://liveactionnews.org...... C3: The fetus is, in fact, a conscious organism. You don't have to go to Harvard to know that cells are the basic unit of life. A fetus is made up of cells, so it is alive. It has been proven, in fact, that a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester, and a fetus has brain activity long before then. Statistics for fetus consciousness: http://www.mccl.org...... Back to Con. Good luck.
Atheists do not have objective morals

I"m afraid that thus far you have spun a web of over simplification and have failed to fully comprehend the meat of my argument. I will attempt to illustrate this briefly. In your first paragraph you merely assert the contested sentiment. One may not take as evidence the statement Morals only come from a god in a debate about whether or not morals come from god. Defend that statement please. Also, you may have affirmed the consequent when you say "if objective moral values exist, then god exist," this is a formal logical fallacy (readers Google consequent affirmation). In your second paragraph you affirm my implicit claim that the utilitarian ethical mode describes the best way to live. Is system that prescribes how to live not morality itself? In the same paragraph you ask is it wrong to cause suffering? Yes, I make the more contentious claim that apt to cause suffering is what wrong means! Thus I issue my challenge. Name a wrong action, which causes flourishing and inhibits suffering. IT CAN'T BE DONE (earlier I may have misworded this). In your third argument you gravely misapply the utilitarian norm. A person MUST consider others in order to be moral. To say, as you have, that my pleasure alone justifies my action, is to blatantly over simplify morality. Apt to cause suffering or promote flourishing, does not refer to the agent alone, but to all (utilitarianism in short only having 2000 characters). Thus far, you have merely defined moral as concurring to the will of a god. I have shown one (of many) definition(s) of morality, which is far more in line with moral experience and not predicated on a god. Indeed, if the godly definition of morality were true, then there would be no grounds upon which a god could be in the wrong. If it is indeed wrong for a god to command genocide, then right and wrong are clearly not defined as a god"s will. God himself is a subject.
Atheists do not have objective morals

I would just like to say thank you for accepting the debate,,, My argument follows, if objective moral values exist, then god exist. The reasoning follows that objective standards of right and wrong can only come from a higher authority , our creator. If god has made us for a purpose then there are rules that are in place in order to carry out that purpose. For example ,a chair was designed to sit on. using the chair for anything other than its purpose is the wrong way to use the chair. ' an action is wrong if it inhibits well-being and causes suffering ' this may describe the best way to live our life but this is not indicative of an objective standards of right and wrong. I agree that killing, stealing etc is wrong and it causes suffering but how is that morally wrong?. There is a good or bad way to play tennis or chess but that does not make it morally wrong or right. Your definition of objective morality is subjective. Also, your definition of objective morality needs revising. Under your definition put simply it is a the right way to live our lives, acting in a way that we are designed for. it is a code of conduct but to what exactly. If I can increase my happiness by being evil, then why should I care for other people, we can create our own morality. Without a purpose for our existence, I dont see how you can issue out objective moral duties that we should all follow ' For example, the attacks on Paris caused human suffering and did not significantly lead to any increase in happiness ' what about cases of a bigger country attacking a smaller country. If the bigger country wins, then that will lead to a bigger increase of happiness as opposed to the smaller country winning. My argument is proving that if objective morality exist, then god is the foundation, in the absence of god, we only have subjective morality, we have no objective moral duties, because we have no purpose to our lives.
Atheists do not have objective morals

The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject"s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. " Source: . http://www.iep.utm.edu... Moral: "Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories. " Source: . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... Very briefly, moral right/wrong are statements about propensity to cause or inhibit the well being of creatures. This axiom is drawn from the moral experience. If he disagrees, I challenge my opponent to name a morally WRONG action, which inhibits flourishing and causes suffering. Indeed, the consequences brought about by ones actions are objective facts about the state of the world. It is therefore possible to objectively judge the propensity of ones actions to benefit/harm other creatures. For example, the attacks on Paris caused human suffering and did not significantly lead to any increase in happiness. While the individual experiences of each victim may be subjectively described. It is objectively true that the cause of suffering was the action itself. In summary, an action is wrong if it inhibits well-being and causes suffering. Utilitarianism and consequentialism are not predicated on the existence of god. Now it is the burden of my opponent to show that this criterion of right and wrong false, AND that the existence of a god(not just the belief in one) is absolutely necessary for the formation of objective moral criterion.
Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

My opponent says that I cannot possibly comprehend the difference between development problems and long-term effects for alcohol by outlining the meaning of development. My opponent argues for the development of minors, and I argue the long-term effects of alcohol consumption for adults. These two aspects are both under the same more specific category. A category called the effects of alcohol abuse. I will now allow my opponent to stick his foot inside of his mouth before I continue... My opponent is also arguing for the total eradication of alcohol abuse for minors, totally disregarding the adults who actually allowed to drink that abuse that right. In conclusion, putting a ban on minors and labelling them as the problem does not get rid of the drinking problems in the United States for both minors and adults. Significant health problems are seen in both adults and minors so that makes my opponents argument moot.
Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

My opponent has made it painfully obvious that he does not understand the difference between the developmental problems I describe for a minor drinking alcohol and the possible harmful effects of long term alcohol abuse Development •The act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining. [1] I don't deny that alcohol can be harmful at all ages, however as an undeveloped minor you have to worry about developmental issues as well. My opponent also fails to see the point I am trying to make when comparing this to murder. I am simply saying that legalizing an illegal act doesn't make it ok. I advocate that the age should not be lowered, I do understand that changing the age to 30 would also take drivers off the streets, but that is not a feasible solution. You still hold to your argument that the decrease in drunk driving is due to knowledge about it. Then explain to me why the knowledge started on the year the law was passed? I do admit their are problems in adults drinking as well as minors drinking, however minors face developmental problems as well as problems adults face. Conclusion taking alcohol out of the hands of impressionable minors would.. A. decrease drunk driving B. lessen the chance of developmental problems C. decrease the violent crimes among minors related to alcohol thanks to my opponent and my audience. sources [1] http://www.google.com...