BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stephen Hawking was fool and knew nothing about how the universe works

My opponent wants to shut me down and not talk about issues because in his opinion they are of no importance. I have to point out and old saying - "you are what you eat". Thus, if you eat sh*t, then you will turn into a sh*t. Note - I am not implying that my opponent eats sh*t though. lol I hope my opponent doesn't find this post too annoying and not to his liking. I wouldn't want to upset him too much. lol Now, my well informed opponent sees no connection between health and diet. Hmmmm?? Didn't Hippocrates say that all disease begins in the gut. Hmmmmm??? Oh well.... what would the father of medicine know about disease anyway! lol https://en.wikipedia.org... Hell, those facts are really annoying aren't they! My opponent must be fuming by now! lol Back to the universe. My opponent seems to think I have ignored all his references. Well, I bet he didn't read any of his own references though. lol Sorry opponent! All I left was one meagre refutation of all his meagre theories with one meagre picture of a meagre galaxy on the meagre edge of the meagre universe which doesn't fit Stephen Hawking's meagre theory of how the meagre universe works. lol Here it is again. Open your eyes this time! https://www.express.co.uk... Sorry, I hope that you don't find my meagre refutation too annoying. lol Staphylococcus infections. This bacteria is just a common bacteria found everywhere and is not dangerous to humans. What is dangerous to humans is a bad diet which allows bacteria to enter the blood stream where it doesn't belong. Bacteria belong in the gut and digestive system. They cause no harm there. Thus, if you avoid eating dairy, sugar and grain, bacteria will never enter your blood stream and you will never get sick. Both you and Stephen Hawking don't know this. This is what separates a fool from a wise person. Thus, Stephen Hawking was a fool. Quote - "Medical science is not built on false assumptions" Really? That means that you haven't read several books that I have read. http://aetherforce.com... http://neue-medizin.com... https://ahealedplanet.net... My opponent doesn't see any connection between nature and physics. Thus, we can only conclude that he must be totally blind and ignorant.
team captain America is better than team iron man

Tony Stark is a GENIUS! Not only does Tony Stark build the first Iron Man armor in a cave, he builds the arc reactor that powers it (and all the suits that followed) in the same cave. While he may not be good at hand-to-hand combat, he knows how to build things so that he doesn't have to get dirt under his nails. And each suit of armor he builds is fully-loaded with all kinds of weaponry and defense systems. He has repulsor rays that he can fire from his hands, feet, and chest if he has to. He also stocks his armor with small missiles wherever he can fit them. He's pretty much set for any eventuality. And aside from armament, Iron Man has other tactical advantages.
team captain America is better than team iron man

I have always been a faithful supporter of team captain America, because what the government was trying to do was wrong, they were basically trying to turn superheroes into cops with powers basically,they were going to act upon the government's will and what if the government wanted something that was not morally right as they do most of the times, I think that for that reason and many more superheroes should be independent from governments, that way they can act whenever is needed and not having to ask for perdition, they will not be puppets basically
Kids today should know who the Beatles are

I'm not trying to force people to listen to them, all I'm saying is that they are a huge part of history. It's just like in a history class you learn things to understand how the things got where they are now. I feel kids should just know who they are, they don't NEED to listen to them or even enjoy them for that matter. They started plenty of new genres of music, and plenty of other bands are doing that as well today. I just want people to know the HISTORY of music basically. But just the members of the band did so much to history as well Just look at John Lennon and what a legacy he left in this world today, trying to get world peace and all of that. The band just stands as a huge part of Pop Culture and still going today, people should at least know the history some facts one of the 1st groups to treat an album as a work of art in its own right instead of just a collection of singles. They were the 1st rock group to actually make money from their record sales and have record sales in the millions.let's put things in perspective,before the beatles record companies used singles and albums to promote the live show of whatever artist it was because the live shows where were the real money was.it wasn't expected for an artist to actually make any money from their singles or albums.in fact before the beatles you could sell 200,000 copies of your latest record and have a hit(nowadays,you sell that much its considered a flop).at 1 point during i want to hold your hand's run on the charts,it sold over 1.5 million copies in 5 days,that's 300,000 copies a day,in 1964 this was unheard of.no artist back then was expected to sell that many copies of anything.in fact the next single can't buy me love had so many advance orders(over 1.5 million)it actually debuted at number 1 on the singles charts.nowadays,with soundscan and all that acts debuting at number 1 is old news,but in 1964 it was news because no one had ever done it before in america. One of the 1st music acts to start their own record label. They were the first band to actually express their true feelings on major world issues of the day instead of keeping quiet (as brian epstein wanted them too) They made it fashionable for men to grow their hair long. That's just some facts why they are just so important...I could go on.
Kids today should know who the Beatles are

Pro's ArgumentsWhat this debate really comes down to is the fact that Pro wishes to impose his own subjective opinion on all kids. This is absurd. Taste in music is solely a matter of opinion and therefore, there is no logical reason why all kids should be required to listen to, and be knowledgable concerning one specific band. It just so happens that I detest The Beatles and can't stand listening to their music. This is my opinion and I do not wish to impose it upon anyone else like Pro does. If Pro wants to win this debate they need to make a compelling argument explaining why his opinion is more important than that of everyone else's, including mine.
Kids today should know who the Beatles are

The Beatles are Legends, they are basically the ones that made everything huge. Their music is just tales of beautiful music, and they started plenty of genres of music. For example Helter Skelter is a key example of heavy rock/punk and after that song it influenced bands to try something new a different. It gave birth to the punk and heavy rock genre and moved on from there. They have sold so many records and just created so many #1 hits. They are always on the radio and define what Rock and Roll really is. If a kid likes Rock but doesn't know who the Beatles even are, that's just sad and they need to grab a Beatles record now. This band even influenced most of the Rock groups out there today. If it wan't for them I have no idea where music would rest right now.
Kids today should know who the Beatles are

I get people saying that we don't all need to know a certain band, but if you think of it this way, you should at least just know The Beatles and have some respect for their music. They are the band that influenced almost every rock group out there. Just look at some of the old groups like Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who and plenty more. Anyone that is HUGE into music, where it basically surrounds their life should know the Beatles, they influenced and started the music for the bands you listen to today. If they never existed who knows where music will be today. Even if people don't like a certain band they should at least know what they did. If you don't want to know who they are and love music then you are just being selfish and not realizing what they did to get that music you listen to today. They must have some importance in the world if they basically influenced Rock bands and to be played on plenty of radio stations and listened to millions of people years after they broke up.
Kids today should know who the Beatles are

Regardless of how popular they were, how much money they made, or the fashion trends they started, there's still no reason why all kids should have to know who The Beatles are. Knowing the history of modern music is hardly important at all in the first place, but it would likely be even less important to the kids included in this resolution. Besides, we all know that Michigan J. Frog is superior to The Beatles by a long shot. http://www.youtube.com...;
ALASKA will one day be the CAPITOL STATE of the U.S.A.!!!!!!

Pro, I would like to quote you from R4 "[Sarah Palin] was exposed to the lower 48 (that's what Alaskans call the US) and thus, she went crazy." This worries me greatly that Alaskans turn crazy upon exposure to citizens of the lower 48. If your great leader was crazified so easily by the lower 48, imagine what will happen when the state is flooded with lower48ians. This is a disaster waiting to happen in a capital state. Sure not everyone would turn crazy, but probably a lot because Sarah Palin set a pretty high bar in that arena. You are not worried about snow since you live in it more often than not, but some people can't operate normally in snowy weather regardless of which place has the proper amount of snow. The two outcast places would be able to throw a good party once in a while, but after a term, it would get boring and no one wants to drive that far. Same with Alaska. I am glad we agree about Canada. I'm sorry to see my fellow state trapped against the ocean by Canada. We'll save you one day. and for your rebuttals: The key word in my R2 was "Majestic" Washing DC is commercial and bought and sold every generation. Not many, if any, consider it to be majestic. Yes, I choose money, but the key is that you would lose half of it if the population doubles. That means current Alaskans would actually be losing money by becoming the capital state, and as you said you like money too, this would be a bad thing. You say aliens, but the FBI says it's people just wondering off because there is too much Alaska. Who do I believe? In closing, Alaska is a beautiful state, and makes the United States better as a whole. However, the majesty of Alaska and its innocence are a big part of the wonder. If Alaska were to become the capital state of the United States, Alaskans would regret it. It would be bought and sold just like our Washington DC and the Alaskans themselves would turn crazy with regular exposure to the lower 48's people.Let's keep Alaska beautiful. Say no to the capital state change.Thank you.
ALASKA will one day be the CAPITOL STATE of the U.S.A.!!!!!!

First of all, I apologize to my opponent nd the voters for the forfeit. It was bad of me, And I'm sure I will be docked off conduct for it. 1) True, Sarah Palin was our governor, but she was governor BEFORE she turned crazy. She cut costs for the Exxon Valdez oil pipeline [http://www.epa.gov...] and helped with paving roads and making Alaska better. THEN she turned crazy. Don't you see? Before, when she was a true alaskan, she was great, but When John McCain tried to get her to be VP, she was exposed to the lower 48 (that's what Alaskans call the US) and thus, she went crazy. The lower 48 is crazy. Alaska isn't. 2) Who gives a f*ck if there's snow?!?! The texans can adapt! Alaska is so glorious, people will have to make sacrifices. Going to any state will involve sacrifices. Also, maybe Alaska has enough snow and everyone else has too LITTLE snow? BOOM. Your minds have been blown. 3)true, but if all of the people went to the 2 outcasts place, think about this: since the 2outcasts haven't had any parties or anything, won't they throw the biggest most epic party because their spirit and awesomeness has built up inside them for so long? YES. Same with Alaska. 4) first of all, planes. That's how most people get to Alaska. Secondly, if Alaska becomes the Capitol state, we will purchase a Section of Canada in order for us to have clear passage too Alaska. Thirdly, Alaska hates Canada too. Now, onto his attackes. 1)Actually, many people I know Love Washington dc and really like traveling there. It has many historical sites and is very beautiful. Same with Alaska. Since it's glory days of the gold rush, Alaska has had many historical sites and is an absolutely beautiful place to live. 2) true, it will half, but money is money. Which would u rather have: money, or no money? Honestly, knowing America, I think we all choose money. :) 3)I'd say aliens. Those basterds are out there somewhere.... They took Mary Lou and the kids! But other than that, I assume you concede this point considering your only argument was aliens. Now, for his questions. 1) if he can support his family and my daughter, and can buy me a boat, sure. 2) Why would their semen be on my land? It can't be revenge, cause when I did that to them, it was an accident. 3)If my party is hella tight, then sure. 4) The great thing about Alaska is the space. There is so much space in Alaska, if there were houses on every part of Alaska, we could easily fit the entire population of both America's and probably more. 5) we pay as much as the rest of you, but actually LESS. Anchorage has no taxes you have to pay for buying stuff at the grocery store or stuff around town. Only house car and other stuff like that do you have to pay taxes for. 6) I personally didn't, but as I stated in my first rebutte, she was fine. That is all. I hand it over to my opponent, I too, am enjoying this. I love expressing my love for Alaska. Thank you
ALASKA will one day be the CAPITOL STATE of the U.S.A.!!!!!!

Hello, and welcome. i will support the claim that Alaska will be the capitol state. By capitol state, i mean state that has the seat of the US Congress held in it. I will state my three contentions now.1) Alaska is not hated.When Alaskans go to other countries, we say "hi, i'm alaskan", and they all think that we are really cool because of this! I mean, Alaska! All we do is sit in the snow and hunt whales, right? We don't cause fights with other nations or personally owe billions upon billions to China and other countries. See, that is the job of the lower 48. Alaska is seen as parkas and harpoons. The lower 48 is cowboys and shotguns (I am not personally stereotyping, but that is what everyone not in America thinks of N. Amercans). The U.S. congress will see that Alaska is seen as a peaceful place not full of hate and violence, and immediately get a one way ticket to good ol' Alaska!2)We get a Permanent Fund DividendAlaska is so sweet, we get free money for just livin' here. We on average get $1137 [1] for just living here for over a year as a permanent fund dividend. Sometimes it's more, sometimes less. Still, we get money. Alaska is the only state to have a yearly permanent fund dividend, and once congress moves up here, alot of people will see the greatness of this place and the free mula. Congress will be happy, and stay here.3) Alaska's got sh*tloads of land!If the US congress came up to Alaska, then alot of other people would come up here too. We won't have to worry about overcrowding like in NY or other large cities, cause we have so much open land, we can build tons and tons of houses and we won't have to worry about overcrowding. Alaska is the biggest state. We could fit Rhode Island 425 times in Alaska, and is 656425 square feet. That, my friends, is a lot of land.I now hand it over to con to continue the trolling.Thank you
ALASKA will one day be the CAPITOL STATE of the U.S.A.!!!!!!

....or at least SHOULD, and i will convince you all.The FIRST troll debate of my new agenda for weekly troll debates!!!!! Several weeks ago, we all know Imabench left us. It was sad and unfortunate, but happened nontheless. He said that I was his protege, and that I should take after his ways and do weekly troll debates. I will honor him and do so.Anyway, I say Alaska will one day be the nations capitol, with Anchorage being the capitol city. I encourage lower level debaters to challenge me, because this debate is lax, trolling, all in good fun, and we need more good people like Koopin, Ima, and Bossy to not just go onto this site, but stay on it. Anyway, come at me bro! JUST TRY AND ARGUE AGAINST ME!!!!!!!First round is acceptance. Good luck to whoever accepts.CHEESEDINGO1 APPROVES THIS MESSAGE!!!!!!!
Cannabis ought to legal to grow your own.

I don't think you're likely to die due to cannabis smoke in your eyes, even if you are crossing the road. I just don't think that's a good reason to say that cannabis should be illegal for everyone. I mean, cigarettes are legal, and you can get cigarette smoke in your eye, so you're contradicting yourself unless you want to argue that everything with the potential to impede on your vision when crossing the road should be illegal. I don't really understand the rest of your post, so back to you.
Cannabis ought to legal to grow your own.

Yes Cannabis is more harmful than fruit and veg say i was crossing a road in the dark carrot would good for my vision. My eyes may have filled with smoke and i would be died using cannabis. Its not important in the diet as all theses things. Stinging nettle is less harmfully and that can be brought as tea yet wild it would stinging your month if you tried to eat it. So therefore cannabis is more worse for than some thing that could sting the inside of your month if you plunked it raw.
Cannabis ought to legal to grow your own.

I have no idea how I am as con unless i was going to take the on being against legalisation of cannabis. This debate ought to be void. But still. Cannabis is more harmfully than fruit and vegetables combined why should then let business deal with the same as a commodity of life. The plans of legalisation usually exempt the household, garden growing of the plant, it suggest large tax and corner shop off licences. It would make a easier more ill tempting consumerism of income away from perfect joy
Cannabis ought to legal to grow your own.

It be the best way out of worry about bums and people using it all whack. You would appreciate it more and such. Be able to link it to teaching in school and keep its out of capitalising the properties of the plant people use for recreation. It give people a new hobby and encourage people to garden and be actively gardeners. Some may find the have a plants is as relaxing smoking one and craving, toking all day is far from a happy abode.
should kids 13-18 be allowed to stay late after dark

Ladies and gentlemen of the judges. Before you is probably one of the biggest things I can't stand. Having Kids out after dark at those ages are a horrible idea. You wanna debate this here's the rules. 1. No forfeits 2. Round one is acceptance Only 3. Show sportsmanship 4. No trolling 5. Be serious about this debate Any breaking of these 5 rules will equal automatic loss. Let the debate begin
Indian Mascots

Looks like my opponent has lost interest. One last summary. Based on studies cited above Indian Mascots perpetuate stereotypes. These stereotypes are inherently bad as they lower the group"s collective self-esteem and lowers the positive view of their community. The low self-esteem and low community view affects the poverty, alcoholism and suicide among Native Americans. This in effect creates a second class citizen, one where they have little political power, less access to resources and should concede to the dominate culture. This is counter to our political philosophy of equality. The importance of Mascots in general is they are symbolic. The importance of symbolism, once again from the studies above, shape the cultures perspective. They influence the way we think. Mascots do increase people"s self-esteem. We take symbols and make them reflect the values of our history and culture. We are still creating stereotypes but ones that we want to be associated with. When we borrow other cultures symbols we are perpetuating the negative stereotypes. Indian Mascots do make us, the dominant culture, feel good about ourselves but at the expense of the Native Americans. This has been an uneventful debate. If any one wishes to critic it, please do so. I would like to know.
Indian Mascots

It seems the enthusiasm for this debate is waning. My opponent forfeited the last round so I will summarize the debate. I claim that the Indian Mascot imagery does not represent Native Americans even in a general way. My opponent asks, why does that matter. Why is it necessary to represent any local group at all in order to honor them? I responded by saying that is the very definition of stereotypes. And there is a whole body of peer reviewed work that shows the detrimental effect of stereotyping. If it is detrimental how is that honoring. I argued, based on the peer reviewed studies, that Indian Mascots lowers self-esteem, lowers ones perception on the value of ones community to help itself. This increases the depression and despair of a community, which I would argue adds to the suicide, poverty and alcoholism that are at higher rates with Native Americans than with the rest of society. My opponent hasn"t successfully refuted that. I also argued that this creates a second class citizens and this is incompatible with our political philosophy of equality. My opponent has not offered any arguments to the contrary. My opponent has asked what the difference is between Indian Mascots and their European counterparts. I would argue that this is a power imbalance. When a group uses imagery from their own history, they are taking ownership of something that is part of their group. When using imagery from another group, especially the dominated group, they are taking those images and re-crafting them for their own purposes. Yet those re-crafted images still reflect on the Native Americans, creating the negative stereotypes that are harmful. My opponent suggested that the Indian Mascots need to be changed and not eliminated and I would concede that if under the direction of the registered tribes, that would be a good thing. I hope that was a reasonable summary.
Indian Mascots

There is some debate in the US about using Indian Mascots. From the Cleveland Indians to the Kansas City Chiefs to my own High School Molalla Indians. It has been argued that these mascots are racist and do more harm than good. On the flip side people claim they install pride in a community and is a way of honoring a brave and proud people. My focus is on how the Mascot is used in the United States. I would posit that 1- the caricatures and imagery used do not represent the Native Americans, not even in a general way. 2- The use is racist and perpetuates racial attitudes among the dominating European Americans. 3-That even if it is used in a positive manner, it still has a detrimental effect on a minority culture. And 4-the importance to listen to the concerns of the minority on this topic. I will take the Con, against using Indian Mascots. My opponent will obviously take the pro. I would assume that if my opponent"s counter to my arguments don"t necessary support the using the Indian Mascot that my opponent will enter in their own arguments to support the Mascots. As an example if they were to refute the imagery as not being racist, it does not automatically default as proof of using the Mascot. You must prove that using the Mascot has an overwhelming positive affect that will negate any negative. The burden of proof is on both of us. I look forward to this debate. Thank you.