BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who can be more evil

You have no idea what I am truly capable of no one suspects me no one fears me they won't be the wise one in till,its to late . The human race is such stupidity that they will destroy themselves I'm only saving the planet earth humans are of no consent to me . I do notice evil in you but you truly don't know how evil I m I will kill the human race it's only a matter of time no one will survive I have no feelings toward anyone . Corruption people already do that I sent that bad . Cur upturn is one of the easiest way to be evil all you need is. Lie a lie that people love then you slowly start corrupting the people quite easy really but my goal of sipping out the entire human race without harming the planet That means no nucks Will be a challenge but it still is possible . This world is already on the verge of self destruction so what I'm doing is saving the planet before the bomb ticks .
Who can be more evil

As I have said before "I will slowly corrupt them" " These few that I save from the flames would be tricked in to believing that I am their savior from death" Do you not see, I have already gotten to you. "you are such an imbasilic mind" Already I have started wearing away at your better judgment to the point were you bark at me with insults like a dog would to ward other animals off from it's territory. My plutonian will is carving a path through the layers of civilization and humanity inside your mind until I have finally reached the primordial center hidden in the minds of all mankind. What man has learned through out the eons cannot hold back the wave of instinct and savagery stored in this center that I have struck in you. This darker side of man is what I will unleash in my new world... a world of anger. I did take the liberty and look at your picture, I am assuming that you are either the girl doing the peace sign or the Hispanic child sitting away from the group. lonely are we?
Who can be more evil

You think that I am showing these chosen few mercy? The ones that I murder, are the ones that I show mercy to. They will not have to suffer, or witness the dystopia I create. The few that I let live would be the starting ground to a world based on hatred. They must live through the agony of self corruption and the attacks of their fellow survivors... people they used to call friends. Unlike in ancient times however, the groups will not separate,they will stay united under me. This will let their disdain and disgust for the other groups fester as they must live among each other and lie as if they some how have respect for each other, when really, they are waging a war of shadows. A war that was perpetuated by their savior, for the simple reason of seeing how far he can push humanity against it self. I do not hate humans, I love humans. They are so strong... it gives me a challenge to break their purity and watch as they abandon all morals and humanity in the pursuit of a paradise.
Who can be more evil

You dhow Merced to only a few handful of people , but me i show Merced to none. . The truth is I don't think I'm evil but it's the from the point of view of others . What I plan to do is save this planet from the destruction of the human race . I hate humans I dispose there aregence drives me insane . There lives are based on stupidity they think there so mportant while to the universe they mean nothing . Religion will not stop me I'm an atheist wich is helpfull to mu plans becouse I don't have to think that some person will harm me for what I do . I do have friends but I will not hesitate to kill them when my plans are brought into action . What is most important in my life is the earth such s gorges planet yet humans have made it a wasteland they shall plan for what they done . No human shall survive but me and me alone even those who I promised safety shall die . I am quiet shy yet hate humans and humans think I'm in accent there mistake they will soon learn there mista
Who can be more evil

It is ironic... you claim to be the more evil then I, and yet you have such tame plans for the world. You allow the people of this world a release from the torment and distress you cause them.... I would show no such mercy. My plans for this world is to watch all but a chosen few burn. These few would be some of the purest persons the world has to offer, considered without flaw. These few that I save from the flames would be tricked in to believing that I am their savior from death. I will slowly corrupt them until they turn on each other forming their own groups but all still swearing loyalty to me. They will be united under the very thing that divides them, and they will be none the wiser. I will watch as their children grow and they to carry on the sins of the father. The society that I rebuild will be based upon even more corruption and lies then the one that I destroyed. I will not have to lift a finger, they will ruin themselves. All while looking towards me... as a savior.
Who can be more evil

Even though you don't know me I can clearly say I'm evil . I have plans to do to this world. I shall never be stopped I will crush this thing you call a society and no one will ever know what I'm going to do I shall strike one day when your not athinking about it . The true meaning of paradise to me is a worl I'm chaos a world in distress I want to see this planet burn let see who can be more evil
Evolution isn't Supported with Scientific Evidence

First of is evolution is the scientific explanation for biodiversity, not the origin of life, so any argument concerning the origin of life is a straw-man. I will also explain what a scientific theory is, and why it is different from the more common definition of a theory A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Saying evolution is just a theory does nothing more than prove the ignorance of those who say it. In order for something to qualify as a scientific theory, it has to go through the scientific method, and has to be repeatedly tested, and confirmed through observation, and experimentation. So anyone who says that evolution hasn't or can't be tested in the lab are wrong, other wise it would not be considered a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the highest graduation, or achievement in science because in explains an entire body of evidence. This is past experimenting just to see if something is fact, a scientific theory explaining why it is fact. The fact of evolution are substantial and are conclusive, this is no longer a debate in science. The discussion has moved on to what are all of the natural properties that govern biological evolution (most of which we have now discovered such as genetic variation, and population mechanics) Other theories in science include the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory, the Big Bang Theory, and the Germ Theory, all of which no smart person challenges due to to their large body of evidence.
Evolution isn't Supported with Scientific Evidence

I am a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that God created everything about 6,000 years ago and that there was a massive, worldwide flood about 4,400 years ago. I will be arguing that evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it is either flawed, irrelevant, or could be reasonably explained from a Creation viewpoint. Since the theory of evolution is taught in schools as science, and Creation is presented as religious, the burden of proof is on con to show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution can and did happen.Science - Knowledge gained from observation, experimentation, and demonstration (Can be proven).Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Can't be proven).Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Round 1 - Acceptance, Con explains how evolution supposedly happens and provides evidence that it has happened in the past.Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain Con's evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence (No new evidence added).If Con has any problems or questions about the definitions or debate structure, he can say so in the comments.
Homosexual Marriage

PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAncAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES not GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDEeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEr
Homosexual Marriage

Heeeeeyyyyyyy guuuuuuuuurrrrllllllllllllll i like pancakes not gender my harty is gaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy gaaaaaaaayyyyyy gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy i like boys and girls
Homosexual Marriage

This will be a debate on whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States. Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
tidal power

Good luck! Now I will begin. .. Because my opponent has started the debate, stating "i think tidal power is the best power. .. " the burden of proof is on my opponent, but for Round One, I will work with what I have, providing a few arguments of my own and at the same time to rebuke or prove false any of my opponent's statements. First off, this, from my opponent's previous agrument, states ". .. becuase it would not harm the envoirment and also it won't hurt the sea life and it prouduces electrity my favorite tidal power is the seagen turbine it powers up to a 1,000 homes and also it can't hurt sea life the 52 feet blades move so slow that sea life can't be harmed and also it moves all the time. .. " In his argument, he failed to explain just how these generators don't harm the enviroment, other than ". .. blades move so slow". I did some reasearch, and this came up first. Check it out: "Fish may move through sluices safely, but when these are closed, fish will seek out turbines and attempt to swim through them. Also, some fish will be unable to escape the water speed near a turbine and will be sucked through. Even with the most fish-friendly turbine design, fish mortality per pass is approximately 15%. " Hmmm. .. I didn't mean to burst your bubble or anything, so sorry, but next time you should check your sources. I found this too: "Turbidity Turbidity (the amount of matter in suspension in the water) decreases as a result of smaller volume of water being exchanged between the basin and the sea. This lets light from the Sun to penetrate the water further, improving conditions for the phytoplankton. The changes propagate up the food chain, causing a general change in the ecosystem. Salinity As a result of less water exchange with the sea, the average salinity inside the basin decreases, also affecting the ecosystem. .. "Tidal Lagoons" do not suffer from this problem. Sediment movements Estuaries often have high volume of sediments moving through them, from the rivers to the sea. The introduction of a barrage into an estuary may result in sediment accumulation within the barrage, affecting the ecosystem and also the operation of the barrage. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...
tidal power

i think tidal power is the best power there is becuase it would not harm the envoirment and also it won't hurt the sea life and it prouduces electrity my favorite tidal power is the seagen turbine it powers up to a 1,000 homes and also it can't hurt sea life the 52 feet blades move so slow that sea life can't be harmed and also it moves all the time for more information goto popsci.com.
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

But that's not true. People who drive recklessly and cause harm to other drivers, which is what your real problem is with, not lane hogs, are punished. Your original argument was against motorists going at 65-70 MPH. This is inside the speed limit, so if you want to keep your argument to these lane hogs, you're arguing that these people should be punished for obeying the law. Either way you look at this argument, the CON still wins.
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

Thank you for your observations. I accept your point that, if I overtake a car at over 70mph on a motorway, I am breaking the law. Indeed, I hold my hands up to that one - I rarely drive under the speed limit on motorways, unless of course I am held up by lane-hoggers! Also, I admit that I (reluctantly) pass on the inside if I think it is safe to do so and I have been punished for both offences on several occasions. My real contention is that there are already harsh penalties for these misdemeanors, while inconsiderate driving that causes other motorists severe delays goes unpunished.
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

Oh, I must have skimmed your first sentence. I read it as US, not UK. Sorry. First, your Autobahn argument. Yes, I do agree that that is a very dangerous situation. But first, that is one isolated instance. Second, the problem here isn't someone being a "lane hog", the problem is just poor driving. Going instantly from a ramp onto the highway and going into the fast lane before you have reached higher speeds is just poor driving. I'm sure h eventually got his speed up in that fast lane, however, his actions in getting into the fast lane were not appropriate. This is not the problem of someone being a lane hog. However, since we are apparently dealing with UK laws, then the Autobahn is irrelevant to this argument. Either this applies to only the UK, so you can't talk about Germany and I can't talk about the US, or this applies globally. A lane hog would be someone that is in that lane, has been travelling in that lane for some time, and been travelling, for the purpose of this debate, slowly. This doesn't create as much of a problem for drivers going fast, as you have plenty of time to see them in front of you on the highway, giving you ample time to slow down and avoid an accident, whether or not it's an inconvenience. Your safety argument doesn't carry as much weight as it seems. On to the economic points. To the first quote: okay, they make people late. To the second quote: congestion is more than just people being caught behind land hogs. It's traffic. It's simply having more cars on the road than the road should probably have on it. This isn't the sole fault of lane hogs. Being that it is a non-unique argument, lane hogs do not deserve unique discipline for it. Furthermore, looking at the UK law system: I'm a bit confused. you seem to contradict yourself. You are completely willing to break a minor speed limit law, yet you are unwilling to break a minor law about passing people. Now, I will admit I don't live in the UK so I don't KNOW for sure, but it seems that in order for this law to work, if you are travelling in the slow lane, you must, at all times, be travelling at a slower speed than everyone in the fast lane. This is implausible. If you're willing to break the speed limit law, why aren't you willing to break this law?
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

Thanks for joining the debate. Just to clarify, I was talking about the UK, although similar arguments could apply in the US. The speed limit here is 70mph, although in practice, drivers travelling under 80mph on the highway are very rarely prosecuted. Also, it is illegal to pass a vehicle on the inside, so drivers have no legal choice but to sit behind a lane-hogger. I have driven in the US and I notice that drivers are very relaxed about lane discipline there, and seem to occupy whichever lane takes their fancy. However, this doesn't seem to cause too much frustration as all the cars and trucks tend to travel at similar speeds. In contrast, highways in Europe are used by trucks and busses whose top speed is electronically limited to 60mph and also by cars that typically travel at much greater speeds. In Germany, there are no speed limits on most sections of the Autobahn so lane discipline is very well observed. This is vital because many cars travel at their electronically limited top speed of 155mph and if a vehicle pulls out in front of you at 55mph, it takes good brakes to scrub off the 100mph speed differential. This happened to me once. A driver joined the Autobahn from a slip road ("on-ramp?") so I pulled into the fast lane to overtake. However, the driver, for some unaccountable reason, drifted into the fast lane just as I was passing, forcing me into the central reservation ("median"?). Luckily the road was empty at the time and I was able to control the car, but it could have easily been different. This is why I argue that poor lane discipline should be punished as severely as drink driving – it is equally as dangerous. Finally two quotes, the first from the Royal Automobile Club "the RAC Foundation estimates that ‘middle-lane hogs' and ‘outside lane-blockers' are wasting up to one-third of motorway capacity in peak periods, due to poor lane discipline." And the second from Trafficmaster's Motorway Congestion Index "(congestion) each day on motorways alone (has) an estimated annual cost to the economy of ï¿½7.7 billion (US$15.4 billion)"
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

Thank you for starting the debate. Blah, blah, blah. And, yes, I'll assume you meant kilometers per hour and not miles per hour. 65-70 mph is over the speed limit in most places. However, if you did mean mph, that's my first refutation: that your speeding anyway, and you should get a ticket. Continuing, look at the scenario my opponent put forth. You're in the "fast lane" stuck behind someone who is driving slow. The "slow lane" is completely clear. Why don't you just pass him using the slow lane? The only one that is actually wasting you're time in this scenario is you, as you're too stupid to use the slow lane to pass the automobile that is moving slowly. Furthermore, these people aren't costing billions of dollars every year. My opponent offered no logic or evidence for this point. It should be disregarded. The most they do is make a few people late, which is hardly a crime. Even if it should be a crime, they are not causing nearly as much damage as drunk drivers, as my opponent implies. And even if they do cause that much damage, drunk drivers aren't thrown to the wolves. My opponent says they should be punished like drunk drivers, but that would mean that lane hogs wouldn't be thrown to the wolves, thus negating the resolution.
Lane hogs should be thrown to the wolves

The UK Highway Code states: You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Nevertheless, a large number of selfish motorists persist in crawling along the outside lanes at a mere 65-70mph even when the slow lane is empty, thus delaying people behind whose time is more important. The disruption these motoring miscreants create costs the economy billions every year and they should be punished as severely as people who drive under the influence of alcohol.
Musical Creativity (Composing) comes from God.

[--DNA--] My opponent goes based on bare assertions and personal experience that cannot be verified. But, as stated, DNA is the man factor in all talents and perceptions (sound, taste, etc). Everyone has different ears, which is especially important in this debate. The ability to hear certain tones in music is essential as you can tell if you are making any mistakes and can later correct them. It also means you could have better talent in hearing music then "quoting it" later. Good ears can also be created through practice, though sometimes natural.[1] None of that "requires" a god, though it does seem like an easy answer. Being able to hear some pitch, though, is an inherent liquidity in humans. Many people are names tone deaf as they lack the ability to differentiate different pitches. It is usually caused by genetic impairment or brain damage.[2] My opponent also has argued he does not have musical talent based on genes (based on the grammar I guess you are not the writer...) and that it is given to him later in life. Well if he gets it later in life could it not be based on nurture like nurture can create good ears for music? My opponent has the BOP, and has not provided valid evidence to argue it was god. All of my opponents arguments could be rebutted simply by saying there is great medical evidence musical talent is innate,[3] and that all for my opponents arguments can be explained by nurture (nurture is needed for the nature to thrive). [--My opponent conceded--] The resolution states musical creativity comes from god. Alright... Well that implies a few things: 1. God created ALL of the talent 2. God exists (argument dropped, therefore conceded and refuted) 3. Science has no answer to the question (proven it has an answer) My opponent changes his view saying god did NOT create all of the talent, therefore he concedes the debate under his own terms. [--Find one composer who says god plays no role--] Lol, easy enough. All I have to do is find an atheist composer. An atheist cannot believe god played a role because he does not exist to play the role. Nothing would no have an impact on something. Wikipedia has a list of over 100 people that are atheist involved in music, many composers.[4] Challenge was taken and completed... ==>Why to vote CON<== 1. My opponent dropped all of my case, therefore conceding it to me. It is now 100% correct, and if god does not exist or god has no power he is incapable of making people have talent. 2. My opponent has abysmal spelling and grammar. 3. I showed nurture can explain my opponents case, and music talent is innate; explained by science not god. 4. My opponent had a forfeit, therefore I deserve conduct 5. I had sources, my opponent did not, therefore I get source points Easy vote... 7-0 in favor of CON. Sources: [1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.tip.duke.edu... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Musical Creativity (Composing) comes from God.

My Computer was down so I now return for Round 3... I, refute that DNA or Skills "Empowerment" are Sufficient to Create, true, Original Music.. I've, NEVER met a Composer (mySelf Included) who did not relate, at least some of their Skill to God.. Perhaps I was Hasty in apportioning ALL The Skill to God but my argument that SOME of ALL Compositional Skill is from God still Stands whatever the result of this vote because it is Certain. Whatever happens to this argument, YOU go and FIND me a Composer; "Worth-their-Salt" who would Deny God in EVERY aspect of their Music-writing lives and "Worlds"?!.. Challenge you to find me one. One who inSists that God plays NO part WhatsoEver in their ability with Tunesmanship-making of Music.. Just, Try!... I await, Eagerly :-.....