BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay partys

People should be free, as individuals and societies, to decide the roles and culture of their group, and where it applies, to their geographic region. The utter lack of any proof for a god, deity, or grand, teleological, intentional design remove any basis for forcing your morals (or lack thereof) upon any other person. This both permits homosexuality, as it does cultures wherein homosexuality is disruptive or threatening. The goal of one's life is as valid when it is "maximize the wellbeing of all beings" as when it is "destroy myself" or "destroy all life". There is not self-evident, non-circular reason for accepting or denying any of these. It's only preference, a complex confluence of conditioning, reflection, experience, and je ne sai quois. Live, and let live, and if they don't let you live, live somewhere else. If we're being practical. There will be no shortage of places accepting of and receptive to gay culture in the near future, so there's no reason to threaten the spaces of those who do not want to accept such expressions in their culture. regardless of what we may think of that culture.
Ultimate Team War: Outworld

BATTLE My opponent starts twenty meters away from me. Magus takes the lead and summons a bolt of lightning, pinning Wolf to the ground. The electricity negates Wolf's weapons, leaving him to die. BOOM! Iron Man charges Data. Data fires a volley of phasers, just enough for Nomad to prepare a ray of soul energy. BOOM! Iron Man is paused long enough for Data to roast him alive. Porky takes the burden off of Data for a while, firing ray after ray at Iron Man. Mace Windu charges Porky. Data sneaks behind Windu and shoots him a few volleys at a ludicrous number of shots a second. BOOM! Irenicus casts Power Word: Kill. Voldemort casts Protego. The shot reflects at Irenicus. BOOM! Leech attempts to neutralize the opponents. When he charges to finish them, Nomad has already laid out a flame vortex mine. BOOM! GAME OVER.
Ultimate Team War: Outworld

TEAM TVELL - FINAL Jon the Shattered One The powerful wizard and main antagonist of Baldur's Gate II. Capable of not only escaping Spellhold but taking control and using it for his own experiments to regain his soul. An expert on destructive magic. Wolf The lone predator sent to contain a xenomorph outbreak on Earth in Aliens versus Predator: Requiem. He is a veteran hunter of Xenomorphs, arguably the most dangerous creature in the Universe. Jedi Master Mace Windu The Jedi who would have beaten Darth Sidius (who later stalemated with Yoda) had Anakin not intervened. A master of all the Jedi arts and exemplary member of Jedi council. Leech [1] This mutant possesses the ability to negate any powers around him, making any supernatural ability useless. Initially this was thought to only affect mutants, but we know now ([2], [3]) that Leech negates ANY powers by neutralising any additional neural pathways in the brain. To be fair (though there is sufficient evidence to suggest as he grew older and gained more control he could aim this power, but...) I'll accept that it negates both The Force and the magic of Irenicus. Iron Man [2] Tony Stark, he's the man of steel, he's a real cool cat, he's the real deal. aaaaaAAAAAAND GO! BATTLE My opponent starts twenty metres away from me, therefore all his characters 'powers' are immediately incompacitated. Iron Man immediately charges Data, blasting him with his palm cannons. Since Data has no weapons, he is unable to defend this and blast after blast of the focused energy would keep him pinned and probably damage him severely. Wolf shoots off 3 precise plasma blasts from his shoulder cannon, killing Nomad, Voldemort and Magus. As soon as this is done, Leech runs, circling around Pinky (so his power will stop affecting him last) while Wolf blasts the mecha in the face area so he can't see Leech. Leech's Power Negation eventually stops affecting the fighters. At this point a badly damaged Data and Pinky in his damaged Mecha are against Mace Windu, Wolf, Irenicus and Ironman. Mace Windu takes on Data. He may be extremely durable but the Lightsaber has been shown to burn through foot thick steel and would reduce Data to rubble. Ironman attacks the Mecha, ripping what's left of Pinkys protection away. Irenicus casts "Power word: Kill" on Pinky. GAME OVER. SOURCES [1] http://marvel.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://marvel.wikia.com... [4] http://marvel.com...
Ultimate Team War: Outworld

Thaqnks for the debate tvealot. I present all five members of my team. 1. Data (Star Trek: The Next Generation) Data is Star Trek's resident android. He is incredibly fast, nearly unbreakable and stronger than most species in the galaxy by far. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Star_Trek) 2. Porky Minch (Mother 3 timeline) Porky Minch (formerly Pokey) is the mentally young- though physically ancient- emperor of the Pigmask Army's police state. He possesses the ability to use telekinetic powers, though slightly less than the magic used by Magus or Voldemort. He is immortal, but can be rendered unconscious fairly easily. He rides in a laser-firing bed mecha. He also has a kickass battle theme. http://earthbound.wikia.com... 3. Nomad (RuneScape) Nomad is a powerful creature warped by soul energy. He can blast flames from his body and lay mines that shoot whirling tornadoes of flames. He can use his soul energy as a great weapon. He can also put anyone on the brink of death, though the attack wearies Nomad. He has other powers too (see source). http://runescape.wikia.com...(monster) 4. Voldemort (Harry Potter) Voldemort is a master of dark magic. His spells can knock challengers from one side of the Outworld to the other, as well as roast foes alive and more. For the sake of this Ultimate Team War, we will remove his ability to kill nearly anything instantly. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Magus (Chrono Trigger) Would've been awesome to put Lavos here, but oh well, since Lavos is the creator of all modern life and has an unfair advantage, obviously. Anyway, Magus is extremely durable, has a mastery of light, dark, and elemental magic, and has a scythe that can render an opponent weak. http://chrono.wikia.com... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I choose my team 20 meters away from my opponent, so my team can cast magic spells before the opponent can reach me. I expect a win. We shall see. Most likely my opponent has yet to invent a team, and is waiting for me so he can pick characters to counter mine. Oh well. See you in the Outworld!
Ultimate Team War: Outworld

Perhaps my opponent didn’t understand how Leech’s power works. Anyone within the area is affected, so… REBUTTALS “Magus takes the lead and summons a bolt of lightning, pinning Wolf to the ground. The electricity negates Wolf's weapons, leaving him to die. “ No. Nomad, Voldemort and Magus are not aware that their powers are disabled. Magus attempts to summon a bolt of lightning and it doesn’t work. Then he gets his head blown off by Wolf’s plasma bolt. “Iron Man charges Data. Data fires a volley of phasers, just enough for Nomad to prepare a ray of soul energy.“ “Iron Man is paused long enough for Data to roast him alive.” No. Data may fire a volley of phasers, but Nomad attempts to prepare a ray of soul, it doesn’t work and his head gets blown off by Wolf’s plasma bolt. To quote the Marvel website directly: “[Iron man’s] armours surface can generate an electric charge to dispel attackers” and “Tony’s primary energy weapon, repulsor rays, a powerful particle beam which is standard equipment in the palms of his armour; the repulsor ray can repel energy-based attacks.” Not to mention the mini-missiles and explosive shells. I’ll also add the suit gives Iron man the ability to lift 100 tons. I doubt he would have difficulty ripping and blasting Data’s head completely off. However, he needs only pin Data down. “Porky takes the burden off of Data for a while, firing ray after ray at Iron Man.” Hmmm, maybe not. Wolf hammers Porky’s mecha right where his head is. It’s clearly visible [1]. He would have difficulty seeing at the very least. “Mace Windu charges Porky. Data sneaks behind Windu and shoots him a few volleys at a ludicrous number of shots a second.” Data is pinned down by Iron Man. My opponent hasn’t sufficiently explained how he escapes Iron man’s barrage. "Irenicus casts Power Word: Kill. Voldemort casts Protego. The shot reflects at Irenicus." By the time Irenicus casts Power Word: Kill, Voldemort has had his head removed by Wolf’s plasma bolt. “Leech attempts to neutralize the opponents. When he charges to finish them, Nomad has already laid out a flame vortex mine.” Leech ‘attempts’ nothing. He has a natural aura that affects everyone around him, including his team mates. You made the mistake of both starting too close to me AND having fighters who rely too much on powers rather than skill and technology. Nomad is dead. By the time Leech flees to allow his teammates to use their powers, there is no danger. CONCLUSION My opponent’s counter-points have been easily refuted. Please actually read my arguments. See how I put them into lovely formatting so they're very easy to digest? SOURCES [1] http://i.ytimg.com...
Creation

In this debate, I will argue that Creation is not the story of our origin. My opponent will argue that Creation is logical and is the story of our origin. This debate is primarily about Creation, but my opponent and I are allowed to make statements regarding Evolution. This debate will follow a judge voting style with a 7 point system. Each debater has 72 hours to write an argument with a maximum of 10,000 characters. This debate will have four rounds. The first round is simply for acceptance. The second round will be main arguments with no rebuttals. The third round will be rebuttals and final arguments. The final round will be final rebuttals and a conclusion. All sources will be cited. All formats are acceptable. Forfeiture or trolling will result in the loss of points of that debater. Proper spelling and grammar will be used, but occasional errors are, of course, acceptable. I look forward to a factual, logical debate.
Elders over 80 should be able to drive.

So like I said elderly people over 80 years old should not be able to drive. They have been known to cause issues in the road when they have delay reaction due to age. Even if they are able to drive they should take a driving test every year to make sure they're actions on the road do not cause fatal accidents. People over 80 should have no medical condition when driving. That's obvious. If you are able to drive at least they should be able to make decision right there and then and not delay by a second when it comes to driving elderly over 80 have been known to cause car accidents due to loss of hearing, vision and slow reaction.http://www.thestar.com... http://www.senatormoore.com... I know these sources are not American neither am. I rest my case
Elders over 80 should be able to drive.

What I meant to say that once you get so old you can barely do things. The reason I said 80 or over is because they have issues. You haven't given any good reasons. I mean yeah you said errands bust besides that I haven't seen much. Give me another fact or a reason Fine they need to run errands but if they are the risk to the road don't you think it's time to stop? You are born in diapers and when you grow old you die in diapers. There should be a limit.
Elders over 80 should be able to drive.

What would you do then? let them drive and have them cause harm on the street. There is a reason why we don't let 10 years old drive. The almost same reason comes when it comes down to letting elderly drive. Once you grow so old you need someone to take care of you. Okay fine you don't have a disease but you might react to things slower than people who are usually younger drivers. Fine they don't cause an accident and get lucky once in a while. What happens when they do just because they don't see a little kid crossing the road? The little kid might die because the elderly didn't see the little boy or their reaction was too slow to prevent that accident.
Elders over 80 should be able to drive.

I know I was just putting it out there. I wasn't referring to you being dumb. I was referring to the fact they have illness that might affect their driving. If they really have to go somewhere they can take the bus. The reason being is some of them have illnesses that like intense arthritis which can cause them to have late reaction. http://www.cnn.com... I believe if they don't drive it's safer that way.
That There Should be Term Limits

I'm not really sure what to say... Pro has literally conceded my entire case, and since much of it serves to directly undermine his arguments, this can be treated as a concession of the debate. All of Pro's points [which are not based in faulty definitions] revolve around how candidates who stay in office for too long stop being optimal candidates, so my 'Democratic Values' argument takes them all out in one shot, as described in Round 2. The only time he gets even close to attacking the Democratic Values argument is with his claims that most people are too stupid to make informed political decisions; the obvious problem with this is that if 'the people' were really that unreliable, then all democratic societies would inevitably crash and burn, since they *depend* on the people to direct the government. Seeing that this is obviously not the case, with democratic nations being among the most successful countries in the world, Pro's claims cannot be true. In conclusion, my case remains unscathed, and Pro's case is in shambles-- the resolution is negated.
That There Should be Term Limits

This round is for counter-rebuttals R1) Democratic Values Pro seems to confuse the definition of "term limits" with that of "term length"... a term limit is just a restriction on the number of terms a representative can serve [http://dictionary.reference.com...], so a system without term limits *does* still have established term lengths. Pro's false definition implies that politicians invariably serve for life after being elected-- that is not democracy; it is monarchy. Since the entirety of Pro's rebuttal to this argument is based in a blatantly inaccurate definition of "term limits", it should be rejected. R2) Political Experience Pro comes up with a counter-proposal to allow for politicians to gain experience yet still incorporate term limits: "a re-election every 4 years... allowing the same candidate to keep on coming, up until retirement age". There is one small problem with this proposal... it doesn't incorporate term limits at all! In accordance with the provided definition, a world without term limits does have defined term lengths, with the difference being that the politician can serve as many terms as he wants to (i.e. until he retires)...... and that is *exactly* what Pro has attempted to put forth as a counter-proposal. By supporting this counter-proposal, he is basically negating the resolution for me. In conclusion, Pro's unfortunate misunderstanding of the definition of "term-limit" has caused both his rebuttals to fail.
That There Should be Term Limits

Jack here.There is a reason we have term limits. As this source [http://ourgeneration.org...] can justify, "Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests." This shows that the six-year term limit is already pretty generous and risky, no need for unlimited/unrestricted term-limits. Furthermore, regardless of what my opponent says about experience, "there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate". This clearly shows something is wrong with the democratic candidates. However, without term limits they wouldn't be forced to be re-elected. As the same source notes, "Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office." Most of the public is uneducated or not informed when it comes to politics and voting for candidates. I doubt anyone other than RoyLatham would go and research about what the candidates' actual policies are, or their previous experience. Instead, they would probably mostly rely on news sources and ad campaigns. And you can't trust those! The candidates fund them! Again, there's a reason I said that candidates will be more effective under term limits. With their limited time, they really have to "think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted". Finally, it'll bring new ideas and new types of people to the congress. We need more ideas, we need the diverse modern culture in order to adapt to the new, changing world.As you can see our founding fathers were justified and correct in their decisions to implement term limits.Back to you, Uchi.
That There Should be Term Limits

Thanks, 9space. Rebuttals: Pro makes two cases in favor of the resolution: 1) Politicians should constantly be cycled out of office to ensure a steady supply of new ideas in government. 2) Limited time frames force politicians to work more efficiently to get what they want done before they must step down. Both of these points are easily refuted by cross-applying the observation made in my "Democratic Values" contention-- a politician will not be re-elected by the people if he isn't doing the best possible job (i.e. better than all the other potential leaders that could be elected instead) of serving the people's interests. Originality and efficiency are both traits which are expected of a good leader anyways; if a politician is unable to demonstrate such qualities, then, naturally, he will get booted from office in the next election. In other words, if a country is in need of new ideas and more efficient leadership, then they will elect a new leader to suit those needs on their own-- there is no need for term limits. All term limits would do is prevent legislators who actually *are* creative and efficient from continuing to lead the country, which is blatantly counter-productive. The resolution remains negated.
That There Should be Term Limits

Jack here. C1: Democratic valuesThis point contradicts itself; what if voters want to re-elect the representative? With no term limit, the political candidate is there for all his or her life time. The people cannot re-elect him if there are no "term-ends", points at which people can chose to re-elect. Without term limits, people have lack of choice to re-elect the representative, the political candidate will slowly decline in quality naturally, and this point is moot. C2: Political experience We can just have very long term limits to allow the political leader to gain enough experience, but not so much time as to impair their judgement. I think allowing the term limits, with a re-election every 4 years and allowing the same candidate to keep on coming, up until retirement age, will be good. The term-limits are good as they are, with Senators on average having a total of 12 years to work. This should be enough time for them to gain good experience and contribute to society.Our term limits are fine as they are. They provide experience, allow contributions while giving chance to others to come up and beat the old candidates, and are risk-proof as long as the candidate becomes impaired for some reason within their 4-year or 6-year term, which would be very unlikely, as few reported incidents have occured, and even those, the candidates were replaced or treated quickly.Back to you, Uchi.
That There Should be Term Limits

Preface: Jack here. 9spaceking has lost thrice to Uchiha Madara, and thus he requests a rematch. This time I, Jack McGonnell, will debate for him, since I am a better debater. Burden of proof is shared. Term limit: "a statutory limit on the number of terms an officialmay serve", from http://dictionary.reference.com... R1: Constructing arguments R2: Rebuttals R3: Counter-rebuttals R4: Conclusion, no new arguments Term limits are very important in politics. People have worse mental ability to make decisions and think well. Our term limits are already quite long, regardless of the four-year term of the president, or a senator's 6-year-term, we impose limits for a reason. It is very unlikely that a political leader can keep on going for unlimited terms in their lifetimes. We need diverse leaders, we need new ideas. As the world progresses on, we need new thinkers to lead the country or to even think and vote on a political idea. In addition, term limit encourages and enforces the law-passers to be efficient. Who knows whether the next candidate will enforce an environmental law you think is important? Maybe the next candidate will stress on military spending instead. If a candidate wants things done within the limited time frame that they can work in, they'll have to work efficiently and pass their laws as soon as possible. As the following site notes, [http://www.cato.org...] people heavily support three-term limits to six-term limits. (Of course, in this debate we are not arguing three against six term limits, no, we are arguing whether we should have term limits or no term limits). Regardless, this support for shorter term limits obviously shows that people know that their political leaders will be more effective if they have a time limit—a short time limit—to how long they can vote for laws and see over the country. As a quote in the website states, "8 to 12 years should be a sufficiently long lead time that even the most risk-averse Democrat will not be discouraged." There is simply no reason why term limits should not be there, whether three-term limits or six-term limits. They make our political system efficient and helps move on our society with modern, diverse leaders.Onto you Uchi.