BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald trump should not build his stupid wall

I don't think you are seeing that fact that not everyone is a horrible heartless idiot. I have not formally met you yet but honestly it is the same as me saying that you are a rapist and need to be kicked out of the country because of that thought but also because you came from Syria as a refuge. I pretty sure you are not any of these things or at least I hope you are not a rapist. While I now see some reasoning for wall I still feel that it makes us look weak. It looks like we are turning to isolation. Oh what happened to America daddy. Well honey they were scared of people. They were really rude and would not help they ones who needed it. They are turning into north Koreans. They are weak because they hide from their fears. Every one thought they were the land of the brave. Guess not. Is that really what you want to have a FATHER say to his child
Donald trump should not build his stupid wall

Miss Layla, Although your arguments are valid, they are mainly opinion based and not factual. America and Mexico are two of the top worst countries when it comes to crime and crime rates. Although America has a higher amount of crime, it has a significantly lower rate than Mexico. That is saying that Mexico has a higher percentage of violent crime when compared to America. When it comes to crimes such as Murder rate, Intentional Homicide, Murder rate per million, Robbery, Overall Murders, Fear of being attacked (civilian unrest), Software Piracy, Supplying Drugs, Fear of Being robbed, Vandalism and theft, Mexico is ranked as one of the worst countries in the world, even against high-population countries like America. Mexico has statistics over 95% worse than America, with over 25,000 murders compared to America's approximate of 12,000. Although you are right in saying that not everyone who crosses the border is definitely a drug addict, those immigrants are coming from a country rated 1st for Homicide and 2nd for Murder rate worldwide. Trump is merely trying to prevent a problem before it starts. Thank you.
Donald trump should not build his stupid wall

Mr. Trump should not build his wall. He says it is to keep immigrants out of the U.S. In fact he can not keep or take out immigrants. Please think to yourself who were the first to settle on American land. It was the natives and then Caucasian and European people took over their land and, since we decide to make it our new home we are classified as immigrants or at least should be considering other people do it and they are classified as immigrants. Not all people are bad either. Yes, I do understand that their is a lot of it out there it doesn't mean all of the sick-, injured, and dying women and children from other parts of the world came here to kill us. They just want help and to be treated fairly. They are willing to do everything they can to be Americans. Building a wall looks weak.
US Reparations to African Americans.

My opponent, having forfeited the round, concedes all of my points. Therefore, they still stand. Additionally, my refutations still stand. However, I will elaborate on them now. Like I said, my opponents plan is non-resolutional. My opponents first contention is also irrelevant. Helping African-Americans is a worthy goal, but reparations just hurt the African-Americans more. My opponents 2nd contention is also false. As I have shown, giving lump sums of money to people is counterproductive. Finally, my opponents misconstrues the holocaust reparations agreement. This was money given from a government to another government, not being given from a government to some of the people. Holocaust reparations aren't at all analogous to these reparations. I'm sorry this has been a short speech, but my opponent didn't give me anything new to respond to. Thank you and I urge a con ballot.
vi_spex competition

Ha, is funny. you, say rock can't be immoral but like throw is immoral?moral=truthtruth=objective no argumentyes, pineapple, i have knowledge of. not imaginary pineapple! real! pineapple.real pineapple like real unicorn is of the pastpast=knowledge=memory of knowledge of truth=objective, like moraltail, some of times, of future. like creature walking bckwards. please sur, you must understand like me!yes, you know logic=cause and effect is true, is truth pick up 0 sodas off the floor
vi_spex competition

truth=good moral is subjective, debatable unlike the colour of the coca cola label, but moral is guided by objective, if no knife could cut humans, it wouldnt really be immoral to try and cut human with a knife, that would in a way just be like trying to hurt humans by throwing marshmellos at them. evne thou the intend would be immoral in itself, based on faulty reasoning, beliefs yes, dude.... why can you, a troll, figure it out when no one else can... that an imaginary pineapple is a unicorn past=memory of know future=imagination=belief morality is reason, and intent. i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, like an animal or something, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent, like a rock cant be immoral logic is the measurement of resonable, it is unresonable to jump of a cliff as a human, to try to learn how to fly, based on logic. if this human gained super mans powers, then it would be at least more resonable for him, cause and effect
vi_spex competition

moral is objective, like good, is truepineapple is like unicorn, have knowledge of pineapple. However, pineapple is of many parts, pick up 0 pineapples off the floor. pineapple =unicorn, is of past. past=knowledge. I have knowledge of past, is pineapple is unicornmoral is objectivepast = 0: inofrmation=0
vi_spex competition

everything in exist is must have 3 sides, is true. Pyramid = 4 sides, no 3. 3 is exist. 4 is not.pyramid is figment of egg, egg have shell. Nut have shell . shell = sense, yoke = true = opposite of false = yes = 1supernature interesting, but machine can not supernature in sense of 4, as pyramid = falsetherefore pyramid not exist past is not exist1*4 = 0(1)pyramids times (4) sides = (0) (not exist) checkmate comraden
vi_spex competition

it is simple man, everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, and everything that exist has at least 3 sides for it to exist, and 3 sides equal triangle, but there is a top middle and bottom so its a pyramid matter is the opposite of information, and future is the opposite of past 0=nothing=information=false and truth=future and past=imagination and memory=supernature and machine1=everything=matter=true=now=physical experience=nature future=false=0now=true=1past=truth=0 past is my tail, now is matter, future is unicorns i am the all seeing eye pyramid capstone reflection flying at the top of a pyramid
You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist

My opponent has now introduced a strawman into the argument. "Saying this is like saying, "it has got to be somewhere""I am not arguing that Bigfoots exist by necessity. I personally do not believe they exist anywhere in the universe, however I acknowledge that I cannot prove this.Even if we limit Bigfoot to Earth. There is no way to know that there is not a parallel dimension. In 1997 Oxford released what it considered to be proof parallel universes exist. [A] Since we cannot know what the contents of Earth are in such a parallel dimension, we cannot know if that earth contains Bigfoods.[A] http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist

What you're trying to say is way to broad and general. "That is just our planet, there are 7 other planets (8 if you're old school like me and still count Pluto) that could contain a semblance of something called Bigfoot."Saying this is like saying, "it has got to be somewhere". Its like saying, even if it is not on earth, it must be somewhere in the universe. I understand what you are trying to say, however, firstly, you must understand what 'Bigfoot' is."Bigfoot" is a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. It is assumed that it is a creature originating from earth, therefore even though there might be something resembling Bigfoot in the other planets, those wouldn't be identified as Bigfoot will they? Also scientists say that "the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility."http://en.wikipedia.org...
You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist

It appears that he has been an observer here for some time, but this is his first venture into a debate. My opponent's entire argument is a red herring. A red herring is when you introduce something that has nothing to do with the question at hand into the argument to either distract from the argument, or to attempt to shift the argument to the red herring. If we can prove the existence of Bigfoot is irrelevant to the resolution. The question this resolution puts forth is if we can conclusively disprove the existence of bigfoot. I would acknowledge that it is indeed impossible to prove that something exists in a place that we have no knowledge of, just as it is impossible to prove that something does not exist in a place we have no knowledge of. My opponent asks "Why do you think that Bigfoot is somewhere we have no knowledge of? " The simple fact is this, I don't think Bigfoot exists anywhere we have knowledge of, however it is impossible to know that he does not exist somewhere we have no knowledge of. There is much of the world that is unexplored. According to Trinton Submarines, up to 95% of the oceans are not explored [A]. One website, identifying the top 10 unexplored places in the world, comments that China has a vast amount of caves that are mostly unexplored. [B]That is just our planet, there are 7 other planets (8 if you're oldschool like me and still count Pluto) that could contain a semblance of something called Bigfoot. In addition to that, there are trillions of starts that could have planetary systems that support life. This also does not take into account the possiblity of parallel dimensions or universes. Simply put, there are more places that we do not have knowledge of than those that we do. It is entierly possible that Bigfoot could exist in one of those places, and we have no way to prove that he does not. Therefore: You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. Thank you. [A] . http://tritonsubs.com...[B] . http://top-10-list.org...
You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist

I accept your challenge. "We cannot prove that things do not exist in places we have no knowledge of"This statement can be reworded to mean the exact opposite. We cannot prove that something exists if we have no knowledge of it. I know that the concept here is Bigfoot but since you stated "you could replace Bigfoot with any other item or entity ", why don't we take the existence of god for example. Many people say god exists because it is impossible how the universe originated from nothing and therefore there had to be some supernatural power behind it. We do not have knowledge of where this so called "god" might be but we're assuming it is somewhere. This contradicts your statement above. Since we do not have knowledge on gods where abuts, therefore god does not exist."A thing that exists, exists in a place"If something exists it exists somewhere, however if it does not exist, it means its nowhere to be found. \Why do you think that Bigfoot is somewhere where we have no knowledge of? Almost the entire earth is discovered and owned by a government and even areas where it is not owned, they are all somewhat searched. There have never been a 100% correct sighting of Bigfoot. The sightings normally consisted of blurry pictures where it seems more like apes or other regular monkeys.
You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist

Izbo10 appears to think it is possible to prove that a given thing does not exist. For the sake of this debate, we shall use Bigfoot as an example, but you could replace Bigfoot with any other item or entity that is not logically contradictory (A circle with four sides is logically contradictory so you it is not valid, the flying spaghetti monster is not logically contradictory so it would apply). However, he is unwilling to support defend this in debate. I am opening this debate up to anyone who wishes to take it.I shall open my argument with a simple syllogism, and we shall see where the argument goes from there.A) To prove something, we must have knowledge of itB) A thing that exists, exists in a placeC) There are places we do not have knowldge ofD) A thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot could logically existE) Therefore: We cannot prove that things do not exist in places we have no knowlege ofF) Therefore: We cannot prove that a thing that logically could exist, does not exist at a place we have no knowledge ofG) Therefore: A thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot might exist at a place we have no knowledge of H) Therefore: We cannot prove that a thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot does not exist at a place we have no knowledge of
Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded

With the current price of oil, it is economically benefitial for a company to drill for oil which is currently untapped, therefore, if we get out of the way, and make sure that others don't interfere (enviromentalists or big oil trusts), companies will naturally drill more oil. Basic rules of supply and demand [1] ditate that this will happen if allowed, so we don't have to provide incentive to drive it (meaning no cost to us). This has a number of benefits. 1) Increasing the supply of oil causes a decrease in the cost of it. That means that every single person that uses oil, will get to use it for less. This will benefit billions of people around the world (oil is a global product), while still be benefitial to the company. 2) The company would be hiring people. This will provide jobs, so that the demand for other good can go up and make money for various other companies. 3) The profits of the company are taxed, so there is increased revenue to the government. And since there are more people employed, there is more tax revenue from that, as well as a lower expense from the unemployment benefits. So we have benefit for billions of customers, thousands of employees, hundreds of other companies, the company itself, and the government. Other benefits we see. Since there is a strong push for alternative energies, part of the increased revenue to the government can be used to fund those alternatives, and so, by allowing more oil to be drilled, we are speeding up the research and development of alternative fuels. Thank you, [1] http://www.investopedia.com...
Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded

Sincere thanks to my opponent for issuing a challenge on such a worthy topic. I hope our debate can be fruitful, civil, and respectful to all. I respectfully accept all aforementioned definitions. Just for clarity (meaning in case I forget later): "ppm" - parts per million (basically an oft used scientific percentage that uses 1 million as it's "denominator" in the place of what we would normally use in a percentage [i.e. 350 parts per million = 350 / 1,000,000]). With that said, I would deter to Pro to begin opening arguments. Good luck Pro.
Oil drilling in the USA should be expanded

This was a challenge, but it went unanswered, so I will be opening it for all. Both sides agree to share equal Burden of Proof. I will use this first round for definitions. My opponent may offer other definitions that he plans on using later in his first round. If he so want, he may start in round 1, but by no means is obligated to, he may do whatever he prefers. "Oil Drilling" - the process of pulling oil from the natural environment (as opposed to refining recycled oil) so that it can be used and/or sold. "expand" - to make larger, in quantity or size (for this debate, quantity). "USA" - The United States of America, including but not limited to, the US government, US based companies, state governments, and foriegn companies opperating on US soil/water (within the legal borders of the USA). "should" - ought, a degree of obligation, would be better by some measurement to do as oppose to not do. Thank you,
Abortion is wrong under most circumstances

My apologies. My point was to show that you had left out some really important things. Again, I apologize for the ad hominem. Pro abortion is not extremely close to slavery or the holocaust. The problem is you have to decide at what point you are going to elevate a fetus to a human being. Just this part will be long debated, so let"s hold off on that. So, at this point, we have to define a human being, or homo sapien. The word is latin for "wise man". We are capable of walking upright, articulate speech, and a highly developed brain. [1] A fetus is not a separate entity in the first trimester, it is still a part of the mother. Its important to note that this is when most abortions happen. This doesn"t mean fetuses are not potential human beings. Slaves, people of jewish descent, and others are biologically human. To say abortion is to slavery or holocaust is biologically unfair. Also, how come you did not include women? Were they not also treated subhuman? Let me also mention that some women will get an abortion by any means, and as a consequence most end up dead. The access to legal abortions, using effective and safe methods, is vital to the health of the mother. Yes, in all this craziness, we forget who the victim is. It"s the mother. It is a decision that she has to make, and that decision stays with you. I will address the argument that abortion causes mental health problems right now. http://www.apa.org... There is no credible evidence, that"s just it. Also, for those who want to point out adoption, it is just as damaging if a woman chose abortion. There are also the economic reasons. As morbid as this sounds, it is a justified way to control population. If abortions were looked down upon, our earth would be exhausted of its resources much faster. That world looks a little worse than this: http://io9.com... As much as abortion is moral, it is also political. If we put anti-abortion laws, placing a higher value on the fetus than the mother, who gets to interpret these laws? That"s right, it"s the government. That itself presents a very dangerous path. We are talking riots and protests if that reproductive choice belongs to someone else. Again, I agree there are always exceptions. My opponent suggests longer prison sentences and training women to protect themselves, which is very irrelevant. Let us stop trying to worry about who did it, and instead look at how the victims will be hurt
Abortion is wrong under most circumstances

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in the declaration of independence, not the constitution, but should this mean that it is not an important part of the philosophy that this country is founded upon? My opponent accuses me of the rhetorical fallacy of slippery slope, but I don't understand where he gets this idea. It is simple logic that if one is not allowed to live before he even starts breathing, he will not be able to enjoy the happiness in life. It's not A to H, it is just A to B. Of course I use fear as an appeal because it is something worth being afraid of. Your math adds up to a little over 3 million unfortunate cases in our nation, while I add up 1.21 million abortions in the US EACH YEAR. I'll let the voters decide which is worse. (1) As a typical liberal, my opponent attempts to point out this imaginary "War on Women" that the conservatives wage. Rather than focusing on how to improve our country, he focuses on our shortcomings in previous centuries. The United States granted women's suffrage at or before most other countries in the world. (2) He still fails to answer to the fact that the pro abortion movement is EXTREMELY close to the justification of slavery and the holocaust. I am not saying that it was permissible for the world to discriminate against women for so long, however I prefer to celebrate how far we have come and work towards the future. My intentions were to use sources at the end of my final argument, but if it pleases my opponent, I will use them throughout. The reason that I chose to say, "Even if it did not," was not because I was unsure of my own argument, it was to humor my opponents flawed sense of reason regarding life in order to make my point. Maybe to an immoral, addicted creature such as my opponent, sex is a necessity. But to a larger, more sophisticated group of thinkers, sex is a want. We have drives toward sex, we desire sex, and sex can be beneficial, but it is not a need. (3) It is unfortunate that so many people are uneducated regarding sex, but once again, let's focus on the problem, not use murder as a solution. Somehow, my opponent thinks that I suggested an 'eye for an eye,' with rapists, when I never stated anything close to that. I suggest longer prison sentences, and I recommend that more women train and arm themselves to protect against these people. Putting rape aside, no argument can forgive the other 99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape. (4) Now, my opponent seems content with ad hominem as an argument, but I hope he realizes that attacking my word choices does not help him conquer his objective. I would actually like to hear an argument that defends abortion, and doesn't focus on attacking my methods. (1) http://liveactionnews.org... (2) http://www.historynet.com... (3) https://restructure.wordpress.com... (4) http://www.nytimes.com...
Abortion is wrong under most circumstances

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else you want to throw into the mix? First off, the founding fathers did not dream of a land of . . .life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. It was their argument for their independence. If you read the declaration, you would see the overwhelming body cites the charges against King George III. [1] Not a reason to not have an abortion. My opponent also commits the fallacy of slippery slope. If we allow A to happen (abortion), then H will also happen (never have friends, never grow up, etc), therefore, A should not happen. Instead of discussing the issue, you present these extreme hypotheticals, using fear as a leverage. "All the happiness this world can offer?" You have got to be kidding me. 3 million reports of child abuse [2], an increasingly high number of malnourished mothers, 11, 420 children dead from Syria"s civil war [3], 120,000 babies born with birth defects [4] (and that is every year, by the way). This is how children die. As morbid as this sounds, am I supposed to pick the lesser of two evils? "Two times in our nation's history have violations of human rights been considered OK by society. . .slavery. . .holocaust" Really? For a good portion of history, women were denied suffrage, economic equality, and the right over their body. "a fetus has a heartbeat, brain and spinal column. Even if it did not it is still a living being made up of living cells" First, no sources. Second, my opponent wants you to accept that because a living being is made of living cells, it should be reason enough to conclude it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus. "Even if it did not"? It looks like you yourself are unsure of your own argument. "She should choose not to have unprotected sex when she isn't ready" First off, sex is a physiological need, much like sleep and food in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To assert that it is a choice not fill this need is faulty. When you say 'country', I will assume the United States. States with the highest teen pregnancy rates are also states with inadequate sex education.[5] If women do not know or cannot understand how pregnancy follows intercourse, should we say they had a choice? My opponent suggests higher punishment but provides no means of execution. Retribution, 'an eye for an eye'? Rape the rapists? It not a horrible disgrace. It is a decision that will stay with you for the rest of your life. I want this to come from someone who has had an abortion. This is Nicole's story: http://www.mommyish.com... Sources: [1] http://www.boston.com... [2] https://www.childhelp.org... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.cdc.gov... [5] http://thinkprogress.org...