BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society creates an image for teens to follow

I assume this debate, then, is not whether society creates an image for teens for follow, but whether this image is a positive or a negative one. If this is not the case, my opponent can correct me next round.The real issue behind this is not whether society in general imposes these skewed ideas of "perfect", but why our society tries to make it our teens' problem. These celebs can act however they want, and why do teens think that's a good thing? It's not the celebs' faults; it's the parents of these teens who should be telling their kids, "That is not okay." Do you think I see these drugged-up or sexed-up celebs and think, "I should try that"? Of course not; my parents taught me right and wrong, good and bad. Society and the media doesn't say, "This is good" or "this is bad". It's the teens who interpret it. I see these celebs and think: Wow, that's stupid. Others watch and think: I should be more like them. That is not the media's fault; the blame falls solely on the parents.
Society creates an image for teens to follow

It's no question that society creates an image for teenagers to follow everyday. When teens see an image of someone who look so "perfect" in a form of media, they want to be just like them. This causes tons of problems like anorexia, drug use, underage drinking, and even suicide. If society thinks it's okay to photo shop photos then they are way off because it makes teens overuse makeup and even have eating disorders due to the fact that they are not the definition of perfect. Then you see famous people getting drunk or even smoking weed and teens think it's automatically okay because the people that did these things are what seems to be not affected by their actions. Also, ecstasy has become very popular since singers sang songs about how cool it is but in reality it can kill you! These are many reasons that celebrities and media have impacted our lives and there are tons more, but I think you get my point.
DDO = Illuminati

I'm so sorry Pro, but as I write this from my phone I am laying in bed with a fever (currently 100.7 F). Unfortunately, because of this I am neither physically or mentally able to do this just yet. If Pro would be so kind to extend his R2 into the next round, I will present my own case and rebuttals in the next round. I apologize again for the inconvenience, I didn't plan to get hit with the flu last night... ... and yes, this was probably the illuminati attacking me. I promise to provide my counter-case in the next round. Sorry again.
Does god exist? (Yes/No)

Do you believe that there are other planets that sustain life out in space? Do you believe in the future? Those are things that we either cannot physically see without the help of a seeing device or we just cannot physically see it. Doesn't mean that they're not there. Who knows? Maybe God is out there, but you can either choose to believe it or not to believe it. Personally, I believe that this is not subject that we can actually debate because there cannot be enough evidence to support either side, because "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" (Carl Sagan) and it could end up being offensive to some religions.
Does god exist? (Yes/No)

I am a Mormon, but that doesn't affect what my belief in God because multiple religions believe in God. I've struggled some with the idea of God, but I've come to my own conclusion by trusting my instincts, which is pretty darn good, and research. First of all, I believe that we didn't just evolve into what we are, because we have not enough scientific evidence to prove that we did evolve and there are many organisms that share similar DNA types with us. We cannot pinpoint where we came from exactly, so there is a possibility that we were just placed on earth as humans, and I believe God created us this way and placed us on earth this way. There are many things that we cannot explain in this world. According to ABC News, "...a 40-year-old woman's heart stopped beating for 45 minutes during labor, doctors were about to call her time of death. Suddenly they spotted a blip on the monitor...her heart started again on its own.." (Neporent paragraphs 9 and 11). There had to be something that happened. We all come to earth with our own purposes, hers must not have been completed. They call God the Worker of Miracles; this is his doing. People need something to hold onto for hope. Hope has many benefits for us, so everyone should find something to hope for. Some people believe in God and find hope, and that can be good for them because they can find a reason to do good, and it gives them hope. "...Hope, Lopez says, may buffer us from stress, anxiety and the effects of negative life events...hope for the future is clearly linked with daily habits that support health and prevent disease..." (Enayati paragraphs 11 and 13); Lopez, an author and researcher has also said that when they did a research, people with more hope were happier, opposed to the hopeless. We need to live life happier. Neporent, Liz. "Biggest Medical Miracles That Happened in 2014." ABC News. ABC News Network, 18 Dec. 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://abcnews.go.com...;. Enayati, Amanda. "How Hope Can Help You Heal - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com...;.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

1. No. Huckabee is TRYING to win, but angling for the future or a VP nomination. This is no different from Reagan's heroic run in '76. If you think outsiders making their voice heard is "what's wrong with politics" then I say you're an elitist. No one is forcing anyone to vote for Huckabee or Paul. Romney is an entitled a-hole and people don't want to vote for him. He needs to get over it. 2. I totally disagree with your assessment that Huckabee's voters would vote for Romney if Huckabee were not a candidate. There is no basis in this assertion. Huckabee's supporters are populists, and Romney is the furthest thing from a populist. Huckabee was born in the white ghetto and Romney was born into an aristocracy. Huckabee's supporters do not identify with a Massachusetts liberal like Romney, and that's that. 3. Edwards had no chance at all. Huckabee has "a chance." He is a unique candidate with a definite constituency. Huckabee could be the "compromise" candidate between Romney and McCain. It might be reasoned that he has a better chance of winning the general election. So long as his supporters want him to continue, who are YOU to say he shouldn't? You are really quite pompous and presumptuous. 4. You don't like how politics works -- you wish that you were a dictator and could force people out of the race when they failed to meet your criteria. That's elitism. There is nothing "seedy" about this. What's "seedy" is welfare-funded primaries. Nominations SHOULD be made through deal-making and coalition-building.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

1) So, Huckabee knows he isn't going to be president, but wants to ensure his political career for years to come? gotcha. Thats definately a reason he should stay in. 2) The issue isn't whether or not they are actually conservative. Your statistics are irrelevant. The question is whether Huckabee supporters would vote for Rmoney or McCain. While some would be bound by religion. Most would respond to the conservative aura surrounding Romney (true or not) and embrace the conservative backlash facing McCain. So, since Huckabee voters would vote for Romney, his involvement directly favors McCain. Exit polls prove. 3) OK, brokers could change their minds. But this doesn't mean that they could be swayed to Huckabee. Huckabee's speaking abilities aside, he would still have to sway the largest amount of delegates. Seeing the conservative backlash facing himself and McCain, this isn't likely. Even so, others have dropped out in better circumstances, such as Edwards. Further proving Huckabee is only staying in the race to better himself career-wise, his allies and hinder Romney. 4) I don't like how politics works. I wish my politicians would be upfront and allow the party to be accurately reflected instead of politicians acting for personal gain. You admit that Huckabee has a small chance of winning and is only staying in for personal and professional gain. Of course he wants to win, but, realizing this small chance, he has formed a political alliance, based on personal relationships, in order to keep himself politically relevant. This has cost the Republican party a chance at nominating a candidate who relfects them. These type of seedy, behind-the-scenes deals aren't legitimate and they have hamstringed republican voters.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

1. No, they are related to winning the presidency. See point #3. Raising his profile makes it all the more likely that he can win the nomination on the convention floor. Otherwise, a VP nod, whether successful or not, would line Huckabee up for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. If you think Huckabee doesn't want to be president, he does -- and of course, that's "selfish." 2. Ha! "Conservative"? You're kidding me, right? The National Taxpayers Union says Huckabee would increase federal spending by $54.2 billion. How the heck is he "conservative"? Conservative interest groups like the Club For Growth are vehemently anti-Huckabee. Huckabee is even more liberal than Romney ($19.5 billion), who himself is an industrial socialist. McCain is easily the most conservative among these three ($6.9 billion), with only one even remotely conservative candidate in the race, Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion). Source: http://www.ntu.org... 3. You don't understand how a brokered convention would work. The delegates would only be pledged on the first ballot. After that, they could totally change their minds. As a preacher and excellent speaker, Huckabee has a "chance" to win the nomination on the floor. The more delegates he wins in the meantime, the greater his chances. 4. Okay, so you don't like how "politics works," and instead, think that the candidates you don't like should be made to drop out so that the people who support them would be prevented from voting for them. This is a horribly left-wing elitist opinion, not surprising coming from a supporter of teh industrial-socialist/fascist faux-conservative, moneybags Romney.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

1) So, you agree that Huckabee's motives are selfish in nature and not correlated to winning the presidential nomination. 2) People who voted for Huckabee, even if they did so for religious reasons, did so because they are typically conservative. Look at the exit polls among the base. A large percent of the base went to Huckabee that would have otherwise went to Romney. While I do agree that some of the evangelical voters wouldn't vote for Romney, a large portion of them would pick the vastly more conservative candidate. 3) A brokered convention is a contentious topic in and of itself. Even in this event, Huckabee still stands third in delegates and would have little to no chance in the best case scenario. Regardless, you agreed above that he isn't staying in for the nomination, but to better himself. 4) "This is the way politics works" Exactly. This is the way Washington has worked for years. This political play skews what the party really wants. Its like when Perot ran in 1992. He splits the Republican vote and gives Clinton plurality. The same situation is occuring here. We won't know if Romney 'deserved' the nomination because people who don't want McCain are split between two candidates. An overwhelming percentage of the base doesn't want McCain. Had Huckabee dropped out, like others in better circumstances than he did before him, conservatives and republicans would have had a clear alternative to the despised McCain. Your personal opinion of Romney aside, the base clearly doesn't want McCain to be nominated. Huckabee staying in on McCain's behalf allows McCain to mask this by splitting the base and winning moderates and independents.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

1. Huckabee is staying in the race for one primary reason: To raise his own profile. Picking up the wins that he did yesterday will allow him to stay on the national stage for years to come. In addition to "helping" McCain (if he did), he is lining himself up nicely to be McCain's VP nominee. 2. No one put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to vote for Huckabee. The people who voted for Huckabee did so for a reason. Many of whom did so for RELIGIOUS reasons, and as such, they would NEVER vote for Romney the Mormon, whom they consider to be a non-Christian. If anything, Huckabee denied McCain a more solid victory on Super Tuesday. 3. Huckabee does have "a chance" of winning the nomination. It's an outside chance, but a chance nonetheless. If all four candidates stay in the race through the convention, then it is highly improbable for McCain to have the necessary delegates to win the nomination. He needs 50% of the outstanding delegates. If he is unable to win them, this would result in a brokered convention, wherein Huckabee might be able to win over delegates on the second or subsequent ballots. He is, after all, easily the best speaker of the candidates. 4. If McCain and Huckabee have a deal in place, it is in no way "seedy" or "backhanded." This is the way politics works. If Romney deserved the nomination, he would be able to get 50%+1 of the votes. If he's unable to do that, then he doesn't deserve the nomination. Romney is a spoiled little rich-boy whiner. He doesn't have enough money to buy off the electorate, so he promises more socialism for Michigan and elsewhere using stolen taxpayer dollars. I hate McCain and Huckabee, but Romney is clearly the worst, and his idiotic supporters are even worse than him.
The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

Mike Huckabee and John McCain are in political cahoots. Thats right, cahoots. Huckabee has stayed in the race in order to ensure a McCain nomination. While other candidates have dropped out in better circumstances, Huckabee stays in to split the base and draw votes from Romney. This has allowed McCain the victory on super tuesday and to become the heir-apparent to the nomination. McCain and Huckabee each have a personal despise for Romney and have worked togehter to ensure he doesn't get nominated. Despite the backlash of many Republicans, Huckabee has assured voters that he will stay in. Even with an exceptionally suprising showing on tuesday, Huckabee still stands NO chance of winning the nomination and has stayed in as a mere attempt to gain the VP spot on McCain's ticket. This alliance is seedy and backhanded. Not to quote Romney to closely, but this is the same old Washington tricks that we have seen from people like the Clintons. Its pretty shameful and I am thoroughly embarassed to be a Republican. I guess it took a Carter to bring about a Reagan and it will take Hillary to bring Newt.
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

I know what a singularity and all that is, and I can tell you that it is unprovable, if it is unprovable, it is not science. Science is making observations, then making a conclusion, your conclusion has to be provable, if it is not provable, the "research" goes out the window, it cannot be regarded as science. Tesla's theories were all provable. I would bet you don't understand Tesla's contributions, because you neglect to acknowledge that he was also a physicist, who's theories are completely logical, fathomable,rational, and provable. Now, just because everyone knows what a radio is, does not subtract the brilliance of it, for one, every fool knows what a computer is, does this subtract from Bill Gate's achievements. Plus, look at the technology of the day, look at what people could fathom, and the knowledge available, this is well beyond anything Hawking ever did.
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

For argument's sake, let's pretend you're right: Stephen Hawking never made any important contributions to science, and his list of achievements is small and petty compared to Tesla's. Does that prove that Tesla is smarter than Hawking? No, it doesn't. Being smarter does not necessarily mean you achieve more in your life. Some very intelligent people are underachievers. Other people accomplish a great deal, despite not being blessed with exceptional intelligence.Tesla's achievements are easy for anyone to appreciate. You don't need a sophisticated understanding of science or technology to understand that "Tesla invented the radio." Any layman knows what a radio is, so any layman will be impressed by Tesla's achievement.In order to properly appreciate Stephen Hawking's achievements, you need to know at least a few things about physics and cosmology. Hawking's achievements must be described using terms like "quantum fluctuations" and "wave functions" and "singularities." Unless you know what these terms mean, you won't be able to appreciate Hawking's contirbutions to science. You won't understand why Hawking is so highly esteemed, and naturally you will be more impressed with Nikola "I Invented the Radio" Tesla.That's the issue here. You're more impressed with Nikola Tesla because you don't know enough about science to be able to comprehend Stephen Hawking's significance. Stephen Hawking's achievements are unfathomable to you. That's why you think Nikola Tesla is "smarter."
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

You "measured it on their achievements"? So you think people who are "smarter" will necessarily achieve more? That's not true. Your argument that Tesla achieved more, therefore Tesla is smarter than Hawking is just plain wrong.Furthermore, who gets to decide what counts as an "achievement"? You? Stephen Hawking developed a mathematical proof for black holes, proved Einstein's theory of general relativity, and proved that the universe has no boundaries. But apparently none of these deserve a spot on your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements."About your list of "Steven Hawking's achievements": it proves how ignorant you are. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you obviously don't know very much about Stephen Hawking, if you think his only achievement (other than "speaking one language") is "supporting" the Big Bang theory and then coming up with "a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created."
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

I measured it on their achievements, Tesla's achievements: 1. Spoke 8 different languages, 2. Tesla invented wireless electricity, 3. Tesla invented the particle beam 4. Tesla invented AC current 5. Tesla invented the magnetic generator, 6. Tesla invented the radio, 7. Tesla invented the technology that allowed us to make the internet, 8. Tesla was a genius physicist that devised theories that are credible and testable. Steven Hawking's achievements: 1. Speaks one language, 2. Supported the Big Bang theory but when he found out it makes no sense whatsoever he came up with a theory that says that particles came from nowhere and that's how the universe was created.
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

Saying, "Nikola Tesla is smarter than Stephen Hawking" is like saying, "Milkshakes are better than grapefruit." Just because milkshakes and grapefruit are both considered "food" doesn't mean it makes sense to compare them. What does "better" mean? Better how? Milkshakes are "better" in that they have more calcium; grapefruit is "better" because it has more Vitamin C. Milkshakes are sweeter; grapefruit is healthier. In the same way, it's silly to have a debate about who is "smarter" because people can be "smart" in many different ways. Tesla was an electrical engineer. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist. They're both scientists who made discoveries and came up with theories just like milkshakes and grapefruit are both foods, containing nutrients, that people digest. What kind of "smartness" are we talking about here? I will argue that Hawking and Telsa are/were both brilliant scientists in their own respective eras & fields. Tesla made incredible contributions to our understanding of electricity (and more) a hundred years ago; Hawking continues to make incredible contributions to our understanding of physics & cosmology today. "Tesla is smarter than Hawking" or "Hawking is smarter than Telsa" are both fatuous statements.
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

Singularity cannot be proven, until you have demonstrated singularity, it has not been proven. Steven Hawking just came along and said "singularity is true," the people say that's proof. How did he prove singularity?Your grammar here indicates that you don't know what a singularity is. Stephen Hawking would never say "singularity is true" because that would be like saying "unicorn is true," i.e. gramatically incorrect. You don't "prove singularity" just like you don't "prove unicorn." If you take yourself seriously, why don't you go to the people who awarded Stephen Hawking millions of dollars for his outstanding contributions to science, and inform them that "his theories are not science." Give them your definition of science: "Science is when you prove something." Let them know "singularity is unprovable." If you're correct, they should take away Hawking's multi-million dollar prize. Maybe they'll give it to you. So far, I have read two of Hawking's books: "A Brief History of Time" and "The Grand Design." These books were written for ordinary people like me. They're very interesting! Read either of these books and you'll get an idea of how brilliant Stephen Hawking really is. He's no pseudoscientist. He earned his reputation as one of the greatest.I'm sure Nikola Tesla is "smarter" than Stephen Hawking in certain ways, just like Hawking is "smarter" than Tesla in other ways. Both of these men made important contributions to science, in different areas. It is just plain silly to claim that one is "smarter" than the other, overall.
Nikola Tesla is smarter than Steven Hawking

1). Singularity cannot be proven, until you have demonstrated singularity, it has not been proven. Steven Hawking just came along and said "singularity is true," the people say that's proof. How did he prove singularity? 2). Not one of Steven Hawking's theories have been proven, he just walked along and said that this is how it is, he never experimented it. His theories are not science, science is when you make observations then you make a conclusion. Steven Hawking just wrote on a chalk board and said "it's proven, I proved it." That's not science. 3). Wining awards doesn't prove anything, Adolf Hitler was on time magazine, what an accomplished individual. 4). How did Steven Hawking discover Hawking radiation from black holes. 5). Science is when you prove something, Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity, that can be proven [1], Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity that can be proven, Steven Hawking's theories, they cannot be proven. 6). They are easier to appreciate because they make sense. [1]. http://peswiki.com...'s_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity