BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Barack Obama has affected the economy in a positive way.

I will provide reasons how Obama has harmed the economy and my opponent will attempt to refute them.The definition of positive is: consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence.President Obama has not affected the American economy in a positive way: Since President Obama has taken office we have at least two million more employable Americans, yet after trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending, we actually have fewer non-government jobs than we did the day he took the oath of office.He has:1.Increased the deficit more than $4 trillion, causing the first-ever downgrade in the U.S. credit rating and for the first time raising serious questions about U.S. financial stability.2.Issued 106 new major rules that cost U.S. businesses $11 billion in implementation and more than $46 billion each year.3.As well as launching a war against coal, that will do nothing to help the environment and will drive up energy costs.
Chuck Norris Facts

1. Chuck Norris has the greatest poker face of all time he won the 1983 World Tour Poker Championship holding nothing but a 2 of spades 7 of diamonds a monopoly get out of jail free card and a green 4 card from uno 2.There is no life on Mars because Chuck Norris has already been to it 3.Chuck Norris is so fast he can run around the earth and punch himself in the back of the head Thx for playing
Chuck Norris Facts

Thanks for accepting 1.NASA once bet Chuck Norris a beer that he couldn't reenter orbit completely naked on June 12 2001 a naked Chuck Norris was seen streaking in through the sky NASA still owes him a beer 2.In 2005 Chuck Norris went to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean to practice his roundhouse kicks in peace the result was hurricane Katrina which caused billions of dollars of damage up and down the coast 3.The Great wall of China was built to keep Chuck Norris out it failed miserably
Chuck Norris Facts

I have seen all these you mama joke debates going around and thought I might try one on Chuck Norris facts the rules are simple each round you post 3 Chuck Norris Facts at the end whoever the voter thought had better jokes gives all points to that person 1.Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door 2.Chuck Norris can strangle you with a cordless phone 3.Once there was a blind man the blind man accidentally bumped into Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris said "do you know who i am" "no i don't" said the blind man "I am Chuck Norris" Chuck Norris replied the blind man was so amazed he was instantly cured of his blindness however the first last and only thing he saw was the fatal roundhouse kick of Chuck Norris
There Should be a Birth Tax on Blacks

Actually, black fetuses, according to many white people, taste really good. I've never tried one myself, but I know it's gonna taste good, and provide us lots of energy. Think about it. The average black person is taller than non-black people, so they have more gravitational potential energy (GPE=mgh). Thus, we will get more energy from eating black people and black fetuses. Also, black people need to pay a tax of $50K or so for having a child, to atone for the crimes their fellow black brethren commit.
There Should be a Birth Tax on Blacks

If you don't like blacks, and you'd like them gone forever, a birth tax is not going to get it done. What happens when they don't pay the tax? They get thrown in jail, and we have to pay for their room and board. When they get out, they'll just make more kids. A tax is pointless. A better idea is to neuter and spay at birth. Now that would make a difference!
There Should be a Birth Tax on Blacks

We must place a birth tax on blacks, because they are very violent in society. Also, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, giving everyone hypothermia. Furthermore, because they absorb too much sunlight, causing plants to die, and thus herbivores and carnivores die, and we will have no animals or plants to get food from. Thus, I propose a birth tax of $50K USD on all black people. If a black woman is pregnant with twins, the birth tax is $100K, etc. If the fetus is biracial or only partially African, it's still a birth tax of $50K. If a family cannot afford the birth tax for blacks, the woman will be forced to get an abortion. Also, we should tax every alive black person $50K right now. If they can't afford it, they will be killed.
Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers

Let's do this."Try to think of a sport that has metal armor..."So a grand total of zero. "...that wasn't cool."The only thing I can think of that uses metal armor is LARP, and no one wants to be caught dead or alive doing that. So it's pretty much not cool."Exactly"Iknoright?"Imagine if football players wore metal armor..."So instead of guys flying into each other and beating the sh*t out of each other, the metal armor would weigh them down so it would look like Betty White trying to tackle Orvil Redenbacher. No thanks."Makking soccer a full contact sportDropped"FALSE, good sir!"Steel toed shoes to prevent injuries and increase ability to kick the ballDropped"These slanderous lies must cease and desist! You dropped the argument that I placed against this that it would only cause MORE fake injuries. "No more immediate medical assistanceDropped"Okay, this one may be partially true, but the point was pretty irrelevant either way, so sure."is he still mad that people dont get to get in an all out brawl with the other side still?"Maybe..."Tasers just make the game that much more fun to watch..."False. It turns from a game of soccer into a game of Nerf Dart Tag, something that would be incredibly boring for us all to watch."Turning it into a full contact sport...Dropped"Why must you f*cking make things up to try and win? I totally responded to this."FIrst he wants to prect the classiness of soccer now he wants to get rid of it, MAKE UP YO MIND FOO"Go go Mr. STRAWMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm saying that you're reducing the classiness of the game to a negative number. Tasers =/= classy. Fencing swords = classy."I don't believe women's soccer is a recognized sport."Translated into English:"I'm a flaming homosexual who didn't get the slightest bit of a stiffy from the pictures Zaradi posted. Lemme go jack off to the pictures posted in the second round by imabench real fast."It's a legit sport.So, at the end of the day, we have to realize two things:1. Imabench's plan is trying to turn a fully legitimate sport into a LARP-fest with metal armor and weapons. Soon, he'll be asking for cardboard dragons and people running around throwing napkins at each other screaming "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!". No one wants to watch that.2. His plan ends women's soccer, which is something that any straight guy obviously wants to keep around. So if you're a guy and you're straight, you'd better be voting for me. Heck, even if you're a guy and you're gay, you're still voting for me, since you can just watch all the guys fapping in the stands during a women's soccer game.With that, I bid thee adieu and wish everyone kfc.
Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers

Sorry I took so long. Ill make this quick. 1) Metal Armor Try to think of a sport that has metal armor that wasnt cool. Exactly Metal armor instantly makes any sport more watchable and enjoyable while keeping players safe. Imagine if football players wore metal armor and you got to watch Ray Lewis knock the sh*t out of Eli Manning in a regular season game, while wearing metal armor. Metal armor makes a sport more watchable and also protects players just as well as pads. Also last I checked, soccer players wearing pads still suffer from fake injuries a lot. 2) Making Soccer a full contact sport Dropped 3) Steel toed shoes to prevent injuries and increase ability to kick the ball Dropped 4) No more immediate medical assistance Dropped 5) Goalies with Tasers Might have been dropped, is he still mad that people dont get to get in an all out brawl with the other side still? Tasers just make the game that much more fun to watch, especially if its a head shot. 6) Turning it into a full contact sport to make it more watchable Dropped 7) No all out fighting to protect what little "class" soccer already has First he wants to protect the classiness of soccer now he wants to get rid of it, MAKE UP YO MIND FOO 8) Soccer players fake injuries Well established fact, I just added this here since the argument about renaming American teams to sound more awesome has been agreed upon. 9) Limiting these changes only to women's soccer The reason why I am against making changes to Women's soccer is because I dont believe that women's soccer is a recognized sport. Your telling me that women in the kitchen are actually athletic and can play the same sports men can? Go ahead and get Royal in here, I want to hear her try to convince me that women should have the right to vote when they CLEARLY should NOT be able to vote, or read books for that matter.....
Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers

Since I'm tired (and lazy) as f*ck, I'll keep this short. Padding doesn't have anything to do with full fvcking metal armor. Soccer players already wear pads in the form of shin guards, so this is a null point to begin with. Unless we all wanna look like acne-covered LARPers (Live Action Role Players. Yuck.) then this is totally bogus. Moreover, he tries to justify goalies using tasers, but how I can't get into fights with the other team. It's disappointing to say the least. And his attempts to further restrict the debate to only guys who live in America is abusive. I'm fine with just talking about American people, but being sexist is taking it a bit too far, bench. Don't make me get Royal, the femenazi, in here to b*tch about women's rights. So my point about women's soccer still stands. His idea disentivises female soccer, which is something that any straight guy wants to keep around. Pro's turn! :D
Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers

I find Imabench's proposed plan to be of absolute stupidity and lack of class. Soccer is for the finer sport. Soccer is to classy as football is to neanderthals: they're one and the same. Anyone can run head on into another person and smack into them like s sack of mentally deficient potatoes, but it takes real class and finesse to juke around an opponent, spinning madly while still keeping a ball at your feet and your opponent dazed. Soccer should not be changed, but instead be instigated as the international sport, mandating that every country teach their youth to play it at least through highschool, in order to get our youth to understand a true work ethic and what true skill looks like.As for my opponent's parameters, I am delighted to inform everyone that I have an IQ of 39.67. Rounded up, that's fourty one, so it's close enough.And who's Ron Paul? It kind of sounds like too small, which seems to be some of the most commonly said words out of our female population. Pretentious b*tches.I also have a few parameters of my own for my opponent to agree to:1. Golf is the number one reason why old people fall alseep and never wake up again.2. The egg came before the chicken.
Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers

Soccer. .. .. .. Its that boring a** sport you mastered in 4th grade that foreigners take seriously thats unamerican and for sissy's. .. .. .. .. .. In my opinion. Lets face it soccer is boring as hell, If I want to watch a sport that will put me to sleep faster then a bear tranquilizer then Ill watch Women's Professional anything. Soccer is a boring sport, so I feel it is time to give soccer some credibility and make it more watchable to Americans by changing the rules of the game to make Soccer into a full contact sport. What exactly does Imabench have in mind? 1) All players wear metal armor 2) Anything goes in Soccer now. You want to punch a defender in the face to get the ball then punch a defender in the face and get the ball! 3) Steel toed shoes so that when someone steps on another players foot they dont start rolling around like they got shot and start crying like a b*tch. Ive seen soccer injuries, 5% require medical attention while the other 95% require acting classes. 4) No more immediate medical care, if you get hurt you gotta crawl over to the sideline or wait until someone scores. 5) Goalies get to use Tasers 6) Elbowing and kicking other players is encouraged. Also legal is punching, headbutting, spitting, poop throwing, vomiting, holding, being offsides, facemasks, and anything else. 7) Only rule is no all out fighting. 8) All teams have to be renamed to something tougher, like the LA Galaxy Destroyers or something like that.
is yolo a good word to scream on the streets of manhatten

Unfortunately, yolo would only be a good thing to shout when you truly want attention. People will then stare at you expecting to do something. so, unless you don't do something big, people will consider it not only a waste of their time but they will also find you stupid. Therefore, shouting "yolo" isn't a good thing: it makes you look like a fool, a kid looking for attention and in no way it benefits your swag level.
Free will probably exists in humans.

Thank you for starting this debate. Now, I agree with your definition of free will. "1: Determinism Every event is caused by a preceding event. To our knowledge, events do not happen unless they are caused by a previous event. This works all the way down to the molecular level. If every event is caused by another event, free will is impossible since all events are simply the effect of some cause(s)." This works down to a molecular level, but it stops where abiotic factors meet biotic factors; or perhaps it stops at animals. Or just mammals. Or humans. I don't know. But this is only really applied to things that can't think, and are thus forced to go with the flow. "2: First Cause The first cause (whatever it was, or if it even existed) cannot be a source of free will, since there can only be one first cause. That is, if we are accepting that everything is caused by something else. But what if we do not accept that everything was caused by something else?" The first cause can be a source of free will, because it could not have been caused by anything else. "3: Randomness An event that is truly independent of every other event is fundamentally unpredictable: if it could be predicted, then it would not be independent. It is therefore random. And randomness is not free will, it is just randomness. Having a set of choices and choosing one randomly is not free will." Just because something is unpredictable, doesn't mean that it is random. When I read this debate, I had the choice of either accepting the debate, or not. It was MY CHOICE. To negate my statement, and the resolution, you have to prove that I did not accept this debate with my own free will. "Having a set of choices and making a choice that is dependent on a previous event is not free will either. As these are the only two possible scenarios, free will is not possible." No. If I have a set of choices, I can use past experiences of previous events to consider the options, but it is I who eventually makes the decisions. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yes, this is a highly debated topic, but if neither side can reach a provable conclusion, the final victory goes to me, as it allows for the high probability of free will's existence. Thank you for waiting.
Free will probably exists in humans.

The following arguments are paraphrased from a debate of mine of the same resolution. Free will: "...a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) To define further, free will means that the ultimate decision comes down to the rational actor and is not wholly determined by external conditions. I negate the resolution: Free will probably exists in humans. *** Why Free Will Is Impossible 1: Determinism Every event is caused by a preceding event. To our knowledge, events do not happen unless they are caused by a previous event. This works all the way down to the molecular level. If every event is caused by another event, free will is impossible since all events are simply the effect of some cause(s). 2: First Cause The first cause (whatever it was, or if it even existed) cannot be a source of free will, since there can only be one first cause. That is, if we are accepting that everything is caused by something else. But what if we do not accept that everything was caused by something else? 3: Randomness An event that is truly independent of every other event is fundamentally unpredictable: if it could be predicted, then it would not be independent. It is therefore random. And randomness is not free will, it is just randomness. Having a set of choices and choosing one randomly is not free will. Having a set of choices and making a choice that is dependent on a previous event is not free will either. As these are the only two possible scenarios, free will is not possible. I have no sources, but need none since all my arguments so far are logical arguments and do not require evidence.
Abortion should be legal

1.Heart to heart will help pay your bills depending on your financial situation, the more poor you are the more they'll help. They also offer free housing and the fate of the child. 2. The child doesn't have a choice though, it's not his fault the girl had sex when she was 16. Sex may feel good but it comes with risks, I'm sure people could resist sex for the sake of them and for the sake of the baby. The baby never had a choice but you have the choice of getting the right size condom(condoms are most efficient when you actually try them out and see which size actually fits) or birth control or both. Killing someone without their choice and they haven't even lived outside of the womb yet, is not okay. 3. You can't predict things, you can't predict how the babies life will go. People like Bill Clinton and Marilyn Monroe and other celebrities were either adopted or reached the age of 18 and went out of foster care. Saying the child might have a bad life is not a valid reason. Also pro-life people do care, most of them at least. They see pro-choice people as either ending an innocent babies life, or the beginning of one. You wouldn't see me as a good person if I walked up to a birds nest, took the eggs the bird just laid and cooked them for my own benefit. I get it it's an extreme example but they're similar. 4. You raise a kid for enjoying parenthood, not because of the money. You may raise one if you are ready. You make it seem bad by mentioning the number $300,000 but that's over 18 years. They would be a full adult by then.
Abortion should be legal

I say "baby" merely for the sake of the argument so it is understood by both the person I am arguing with and the people that happen to view this argument. To avoid any further confusion, I will use quotation marks or use the term fetus for the rest of the argument. 1, You mention a foundation "Heart by Heart", and once I have viewed the website it says that it helps with the costs of medical bills, but it does not completely cover them. And I have already mentioned the countless amount of children in foster care, so that is not that valid of an option. 2. Anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and no matter what you do you risk the chance of something that "could happen". You can't deny a simple form a pleasure in comparison to saying that they could get pregnant, although they may not want a "baby." That is similar to saying that you should not get in a car or get a license because you could get in a car crash. Or saying that someone should not go to work, because they could get fired. Everything in life is based on chances, and degrading one for another makes no sense. 3. Also, since you did mention adoption, I should bring in the matter that those that are "Pro-Life" do not seem to care about what happens to a child after they are born. There are plenty of children that will end up neglected in foster care, some that will age out of foster care, a wide variety of what could happen to the child while there. And if for any reason that instead of adoption, the parent decides to keep the "baby", and their financial situation was not in the correct place, then they are judged. If they have to go through some form of government assistance, such as Food Stamps or WIC. Tax-payers are then complaining about the fact that they are helping people that are deemed as "just too lazy." 4. To further add to the cost of caring for a child, once they are born. It is averaged that a family or a single parent would spend approximately over $300,000 during the course of 18 years. This does not account for the fact that the child could have a disability or medical issues. If they have some form of medical issues, then they will be spending a lot of time in the hospital consisting of more bills and putting others into financial debt, over something that you can not predict. If they are to have a disability, then it is likely that they could be unstable on their own, and won't be able to move out, adding on more costs to the parents over those years.
Abortion should be legal

1.You contradict yourself, you say it's is there body and therefore their choice, but in the next you refer to it as "the baby". The baby has a separate blood type and DNA than the mother, it a different being than its mother, it is not HER body. Not because something is in inside of you means it IS you. If you're in a car, you are not the car. 2.There are many adoption foundation(example "Heart by heart" who offer to completely cover the medical and other bills. 3. That doesn't matter. Another living human should not have to suffer consequences because you messed up. Someone convicted of a crime and is innocent should not be charged just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Abortion should be legal

Abortions should be completely up to the person that is pregnant. It is their body and they should be able to decide whether or not they would like to keep the baby. While putting a child up for adoption may be free, someone that is looking to adopt has to spend a lot of money just to be considered. Along with that, a lot of children are left unadopted. There are approximately half a million children (possibly adults, as well), currently in foster care. The mother would be expected to endure lots of pain during the nine months while being pregnant. Someone could never be fully aware of the financial situations of the expecting parents. Bills aren't cheap and caring for a child on top of that could put some in financial debt or make it nearly impossible to care for a child, either leaving them neglected, or there being no food, no power, etc. Contraceptives are not always effective either. Condoms, while they are roughly 85%-98% effective that doesn't cover for all the time. The right to decide on abortion is similar to telling a person whether or not they can get a tattoo. At the end of the day, it is their body and their choice and what they want to do with it should be up to them and no one else in society or otherwise should be able to have an opinion on that or change that.
Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed.

From 2000 to 2007, two-thirds of all economic expansion went to the top 1%. The economic system we have in America favors the wealthy. The justification for greater tax rates on the wealthy can be based on what is clearly an uneven playing field. The propositon is incorrect. Not highly taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is fundamentally flawed because the system favors the rich. . http://www.cbpp.org... Back to you Pro.