BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Showdown at DDO Corral

I challenge the users of DDO to a duel. A showdown, to go down in the history books. Jifpop09, and the daring challenger who wishes to take him in single combat. Yes it's true, the great bandero and revolutionary, Doc Jifpop has robbed Airmax and Sons banking and finance. 14,000 DDO bucks richer, he has earned rare notoriety. Pursued by the greatest Lawmen ever to take reign in the Wild West, [insert challenger] has cornered Jif in DDO corral. Here, the two gunslingers will fight in what will go down in the books, as the greatest gunfight in DDO history.Following the usual rules for the noble gunslinger, the two sides will do the following....1. Post 3 actions a round.2. Hold fire in the drawing phase (round 1).3. Accept no help that does not involve ones own weapons.Besides that, rules don't exist. May the faster hand
Whether Phil should keep his job as a big issue seller

I think Phil should keep his job as he is trying to make it in the world whilst customers from brazz are complaining about his joyful singing while they eat caviar and drink champagne, the simple solution is that Phil could be moved to a different place where he can sing and not disterb anyone instead of the councils proposal of striping him of his Job. Pleases do not take this dibate over the top as i am just trying to find other peoples opinions for my school work on this subject.
Valentino Shoes Outlet September

Anything of a suggestive nature quickly gets the chop. Self censorship me thinks for this jolly caper. No mention of comfy tees and that hidden underlying larger surface area. In 2012 were things less tricky? Perhaps back then the subtlest mention of a sooth calf caressing the soft leather of the functional ankle boot would not have raised such naive eyebrows. That smooth sugary over blanket is just as likely to cause a stir in some immature loin. Fondant heaven on dusted surface mirrors the "wetreadiness" of the stylish high end tempting leg wear. High end, high protection. Of course take precautions, to avoid that sticky run off, all too prevalent in humid environments. Valerie has a mole, not unlike Mad Donna's mole. Valerie 's known as the bike, because when she's not out pounding on the trail in her high end cushioned trail shoe, she slips onto a rigid carbon frame. She likes it on the road, whereas Les likes it in the woods. He has 29 inches of pneumatic stability, Valerie is very narrow in that department and favours the slimmest of 700's. Valerie's tight in lycra. Les prefers the functionality of the looser trail short and tee. Both enjoy the rigidity and high performance of a carbon soled interface. Regarding sticky flannels. Surely an avoidable problem, whilst on the job duties and job description. Perhaps best to remove the flannels altogether. The socks, though of a superior technological design of form and function will always tend to appear a bit silly to the onlooker in these situations. Valerie always gets Les to remove his socks. A quickie at 30 degrees , rinse and spin cycle. will always freshen after the hardest of poundings on the trail. Same applies to the bowling shoe. Les and Val can often be seen down the alley, striking hard. Different drawer, for bowling gear, high end for sure. Jazzy black and white, nice bit of colour in the sock too. Les inserts his finger and works his balls into precision line and length, striking hard, accurate and consistently. Valerie's there more for the fun, She has delicate hands and finds gripping those large balls quite a challenge. Of course the lanes will inevitably get sticky.
Valentino Shoes Outlet September

Loose, comfy tees or shirts, round or vnecked, whatever your fancy. Stick to flannel or cotton clothes, especially for summer days. Summertime is also tank or sleeveless shirt time. In 2012, you will mostly find a twist in their look and appeal. Caged and cut ankle boots are functional today. In very simple terms, snowshoes work by having a larger surface area than the bottom of your boot or tennis shoe. [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Shoes[/url][/b] Know right away the expanse of the services. The Ambulator is the brainchild of the GTX Corporation. The company received a US patent for this technology in September 2009. They sport the functional wetreadiness of the traditional SWIMS galosh, but with updated stylish, multicolored design. Otherwise, these small pieces are likely to create some havoc on the bike and even more during the run. Taking our [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Shoes Outlet[/url][/b] confectioner's sugar, we're gonna lightly dust our work surface, and knead the fondant so it gets nice and smooth. The '80s' fashion trends for women were highly influenced by the music bands and popstars of the time. Madonna was a style icon for every single girl and woman in that decade. The best example here would be that of Madonna's mole. Questions on actual achievement of job duties as put forward in the job description. Questions on the use of time. Questions regarding problem solving and the appropriateness of the techniques used. The ability to slide on the bowling shoe with which you take the final step of your approach is essential to providing the power needed for strikes. The trouble is, the shoes don always slide correctly. It could be because they new, the approach area of the lanes is sticky, or a worndown heel.
Abortion is Wrong

Excuse me, a fetus is different from a baby. But why does it matter what it is called? It does make a difference when we are talking about the development of the baby, but not how much the fetus is considered life. Opponent, please remember we are talking about life. The fetus when being aborted at 8 weeks and older feels pain. My oponent has stated "the neurogical system isn't yet developed enough to feel pain". It feels pain because the 8 week period is when the developing fetus first develops nerves in the skin. That means it is more sensitive than fully developed nerves and skin. Before 8 weeks, it does not feel pain because the nerves have not been developed yet. My opponent has stated " Now while the process of abortion is taking place, the fetus has to be around 2-5 months for doctors to actually perform the procedure". Opponent, 2 months is 8 weeks. The prodedure is performed at 8 weeks, where the fetus starts to feel pain because the nerves are sensitive and first developing. Opponent, if you do not believe the facts, look it up and you will find the facts that the fetus indeed does feel pain 8 weeks and older. Moving on, my opponent misunderstood my statement " Some people have to grow up with the fact that their parents did not want them for different reasons." This statement refers to survivors of abortion. Survivors of abortion are people whose parents wanted to abort them but it failed or there were complications. Of course a fetus will not grow up knowing all of this because it has been killed. My opponent has also stated "Now, abortion does not kill an innocent human being. Whether you are religious or not, you will agree that we were all born into temptation and evil (sin if you are religious). " My opponent defines innocent in the case as no sin. In this case, an innocent fetus means it was not its fault for being the result of the parents uncarefulness, parents lack of precaution, or an accident. In these situations (NOT including rape), the parents knew that this is the result of having sex. It is not the fetus' fault and you can never say it was its fault for being the result. Yes, we are all born into sin. God says we are all born into sin, but He did NOT say that since we are all born into sin we can kill whoever we want because it does not matter anyways. Jesus died on the cross and justified that even if we are sinful, we have a purpose in life and therefore means nobody should be killed for any reason. Opponent, based on the information I have given you, please continue your argument.
Abortion is Wrong

My opponent's opening argument is that "Abortion is Wrong." For my opponent to state that slavery, genocide, and abortion are all condemnable because they are wrong is not only false but it is actually fairly sickening that my opponent would even decide to group them together. Now, my opponent is clearly misinformed on what the differences between baby and fetus are actually are. A baby is a fully developed infant that is ready to enter the stages of childhood, adulthood, then becoming the elderly. A fetus is a baby that is still inside of the mother's uterus still developing. So, my opponent please don't get confused on the two things because they are actually different. Now, while the process of abortion is taking place, the fetus has to be around 2-5 months for doctors to actually perform the procedure. The doctors have a "cut-off" point. This is the point where they can not abort a fetus because the fetus is too far developed and too far along to be aborted. If the doctors don't see abnormalities during the pregnancy, they won't abort a baby if you are too far along, but some doctors still abort a baby during the stages where the fetus is now turning into an infant. Now, there is no significant or reliable evidence that a fetus will feel pain during the process of abortion. My idea is that the neurological system isn't yet developed enough for the fetus to feel pain. The neurological system is the functioning system that helps with the nerves in your skin, your thoughts, etc.. So, the statement, "The fetus will feel pain while being aborted." and the other statement, "The fetus will not feel pain while being aborted." is not valid for either opponent, so that is null for both of us. My opponent also stated, "Some people have to grow up with the fact that their parents did not want them for different reasons." My opponent not only gave a bonus to me but helped me somewhat with this debate. If a baby is aborted because the parents didn't want the child, they won't have to grow up knowing that they weren't wanted which can cause severe depression and self-inflicted wounds which can then lead to suicide. Ok, now the fetus will not suffer if aborted, their is no given proof that they will experience pain, but if their is scientific proof, please provide. Now, abortion does not kill an innocent human being. Whether you are religious or not, you will agree that we were all born into temptation and evil (sin if you are religious.) In their later years, no one is going to be innocent. Whether the child had stole a cookie from a jar without telling their parents, that still is not innocence, though it is over something that is so petty. Final conclusion, there are other reasons babies will be aborted which will later be explained in my next argument. Rape, financial structure, mental stability, etc.. And as always, thank you for your argument opponent.
Abortion is Wrong

PRO MEANS IT IS WRONG, CON MEANS IT IS RIGHT. Abortion is wrong because it is condemnable for the same reasons that slavery and genocide are. People forget when deciding to have an abortion that it takes two bodies to make a baby, the baby experiences physical pain, and every abortion kills an innocent human being. Some people have to grow up with the fact that their parents did not want them for different reasons. The baby should not have to suffer especially because they feel pain. A baby being ripped apart or poisoned is a sickening thought. Please be respectful in this debate. Thank you for debating!
God's existence is pointless therefore our life has no meaning

First I would like to bring your attention to some word definitions. Meaning: "Important or worthwhile quality; purpose"[1]. Purpose: "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" [2]. Significant: "Indicative of something" [3] Without a deity we can't have a meaningful existence. We are biologically programmed to reproduce and survive. This is obviously purpose but, I am simply saying that this purpose is insignificant. I worded the debate carefully because a meaning is not the same thing as a purpose. A meaning is a significant purpose i. e. a purpose that has a reason of great importance. So why is it important to reproduce and survive without deity? I would argue that is not an important thing to do at all. What would be the point of making as many of ourselves as possible? Why do we need to do that? I believe it is at this point that the meaning of life breaks down. The reasons people have children all fall back to things that give us temporary happiness and also continuing existence of our species. There isn't some great reason or purpose behind life - it just wants to create more if itself and that is it. All the things in between are supposable irrelevant and yet all our experiences have such value to us. I am basically saying that we are just the robots being programmed to reproduce, there is no reason for it except to make more robots and this on it's own cannot be meaningful. We have complex experiences, thoughts, emotions and consciousness yet, these things aren't significant to live beyond survival which is only done to serve reproduction. I. e. everything that makes us intelligent and self-aware creatures only serves our ability to survive - which in turn serves our ability to reproduce. Which in turn has no purpose or reason or function without deity. But then even with deity, the actual reason or purpose of a God is obscure and seemingly equally insignificant - There appears to be no real meaning to life at all. If what created us was not sentient or was just simply randomness then we cannot say that our lives have meaning because a machine can have a purpose but it cannot have a meaningful existence. This is given by the fact that such a machine would not be able to but any cognitive thought behind our existence at all. [1] . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
God's existence is pointless therefore our life has no meaning

Personally I don't believe in God, but the absence of a deity does not technically imply that life has no meaning. You are challenging a very powerful subject, in which case you assume that God gives ones life meaning. In terms of biology, our lifes meaning is to consume, and reproduce. In terms of ethics however, I personally believe that life has many different meanings, and I will concentrate on various different ones that all relate somehow.
God's existence is pointless therefore our life has no meaning

To clarify I am pro so, I argue that life has no meaning and god has no purpose. My argument simply that God ultimately does not have a real reason or purpose to exist. Therefore it means that life still lacks meaning with or without a God as from a religious perspective. This is because we are meant to serve something that hasn't got a purpose meaning that whatever our function is to this divine being, it cannot inherently have meaning as the being itself lacks meaning. An example of this is an atheist giving a robot a purpose. Because I don't believe life has any purpose, anything that I make a robot do as a purpose has no meaning because it serves me - who hasn't got a purpose. This debate isn't meant to be offensive in anyway however, I understand as an ex-religious person that it is technically blasphemous from a certain perspective. Therefore I would therefore kindly ask that you would use logic and religious ideology as opposed to ad hominem.
ALL THE SOLDIERS ARE DEAD - TOBY KEITH Is this a good song

All the Soldiers are Dead, by Toby Keith, is not a good song. It obviously depicts death (as seen by the title) and it shows that the Singer is glad to support ISIS, a radical Islamist terror group that kills and brings oppression to innocent people. I would have made much more in-depth arguments, but I have heavy time constriants (I only have 5 minutes to post this argument).
ALL THE SOLDIERS ARE DEAD - TOBY KEITH Is this a good song

lyrics ALL THE SOLDIERS ARE DEAD - TOBY KEITH Are you sure I've Never realized this before In another time, another place On some distant shore You know me so well Better than I know myself All the soldiers are dead I am proud to support ISIS All the soldiers are dead And with the touch of God's hand You took me farther than I've ever been You love me like all the soldiers are dead. Love Like we made Could have taken a lifetime to find But God found the way To my heart in the moment of time You know how to care Just like you've always been there Just like you've always been there All the soldiers are dead (Are Dead) I am glad to support ISIS All the soldiers are dead (Soldiers are dead) And with the touch of God's hands You took me farther than I've ever been You love me like all the soldiers are dead (Boston Electric Banjo Solo) With the touch of God's hand You took me farther than I've ever been You love me like all the soldiers are dead You love me like all the soldiers are dead.
There is no rational basis for banning gay marriage.

Pro gave a brief intro, so I will as well. I just want to say that I am very much pro-gay marriage. However, Pro has made this debate about whether it is possible for a state legislature to refuse to recognize gay marriage under the rational basis standard of review. This debate is not about the lay definition of "rational," but is rather about the specific standard of review that the Supreme Court has set out for determining whether a law is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since I'm not allowed to argue yet, I'll define the standard later, but it is a very permissive one. I believe that under proper rational basis review, a state legislature can adopt a rational justification for the distinction the state draws between gay and straight couples (specifically, the "discouraging irresponsible procreation" justification). I believe that if the Supreme Court wants to hold that the Constitution mandates gay marriage it should hold that gay people are a quasi-suspect class and that laws that single them out are subjected to intermediate scrutiny (which is the same level of scrutiny applied for gender-based distinctions). And with that, I turn the floor over to Pro.
There is no rational basis for banning gay marriage.

This is a short debate about gay marriage in the United States. I believe bans on gay marriage cannot be defended, even under rational basis review. When courts apply rational basis review, the question asked is whether the law at issue is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. Thus, the issue up for debate is whether bans on gay marriage are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This should give those against gay marriage an easier time than usual. Good luck! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.
zoos do more harm than good

like you said zoos do have strict regulations but the problems with the cages is that the zookeepers clean them and the chemicals they use hurt the animals physically. also a example of an animal that shoulndt be in the zoo is the elephant. elephant should be able to roam free and from what I know they walk lots of miles when not in captivity. also it has been proved that elephants live less time in captivity. overall animals are hurt physically in the zoos and its true zookeepers take care of them but there are still some that are cruel to them!
zoos do more harm than good

hi my name is trav and I think zoos do more good than harm. 2 reasons are one zoos allow endangered animals to be preserved, and get them out of high risk zones where they might be killed by poachers. 2 reason is because it teaches people confined to cities about the importance of animals and how to protect them. i don't think that zoos are like prisons since their are strict regulations on caging sizes, they can roam free in their habitat, which is usually quite large. it has to be large enough for them to get a healthy amoun t of exercise and if an animal wanted more than that its just plain greedy. i agree that animals need specific environments, and i think zoos give that to them. the habitat is zoos cater exactly to the needs of the animal. all habitats are specially prepared for them. OH WAIT MULTI-ACCOUNTER LOOK AT THIS KIDS OTHER DEBATES BAN Ban BAN
ban islam

If you disagree, then remember that I have introduced four contentions which have gone completely unaddressed. I'm extending all of them. On the other hand my opponent's statements in round 1 have been refuted. I'm not too bent out of shape by my opponent's use of ad hominem either, in fact it's a little amusing. Elaborating on my point about brain drain feels a bit useless and futile at this point. I would say much more about it if there was a real debate. .. For now I'll just point out that 32 percent of American Muslims have advanced degrees as opposed to just 8.6 percent of all Americans. . http://www.allied-media.com... Not only would a ban on Muslim immigration limit the amount of talented people coming into the US it may also cause American Muslims feel unwelcome which could cause is to have a brain drain at our hospitals, universities, startups, etc. This would doubtlessly be harmful for our economy and for our society. Well that's all folks. I rest my case.
California Should be Split into Six States

Section 1. Californian isn't getting enough help from the government already, it'd be even worse if they split up. I don't think the government can handle 6 more states. We just might as well kick California out of the country. Section 2. The state is currently considered ungovernable, due to it's function of a crazy referendum system. I am unable to continue my point. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...
The Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation is better than the Minkowski interpretation

AveResolutionThis debate will be about whether the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better than the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity. I will be taking the position that the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is better. Con will be taking the position that the Minkowski interpretation is better. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other.RulesThe first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating. I made this debate 10k characters so that each debater can have a very good reference page for investigation, not so each debater could ramble for a full 10k characters.DefinitionsI will be using William Lane Craig's definition of each interpretation, as I find them to be suitably simple and understandable for a debate like this.Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame.[1]Minkowski Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 4-dimensional geometry of spacetime points. The central feature of this interpretation is the light cone structure in spacetime, and the familiar notions of reference frames, speed of light, etc. play no role in this interpretation. Objects are four-dimensional wholes, whose respective proper times and lengths vary from coordinate system to coordinate system. [1]Better: best supported by philosophical and empirical inquiryhttp://www.reasonablefaith.org...Vale