BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You Suck

First, what does a mirror have to do with my intellectual capacity? Fact: Uruguay is a country to the South of Brazil and east of Argentina. Since we know exactly where it is that must mean that people do care. I don't suck everything into my face, but I do eat stuff into it. I am fat. That fat is in my brain and therefore it is large is mass. Since my brain has mass, I must be smart. Thus you are proven wrong and I win this round, so you s
You Suck

Dang, you're so stupid. Like seriously, have you ever stopped to consider how dumb you are? Look in a mirror. Then go vomit. You are the human equivalent of the country of Uruguay. Nobody knows who you are, or where you are, and nobody cares. Plus, your name kind of sounds like "U R Gay". You suck like a Hoover. Both the vacuum cleaner and the former President. You suck everything up into your face. Plus, you poorly manage during economic crisis. You suck like a barnacle...or an octopus.
egg came before the chicken

The definition of egg: "the hard-shelled reproductive body produced by. .. the common domestic chicken" Therefore, a Gallus egg would not fit the definition. Only a Gallus gallus egg. The Gallus bird lays an egg. That egg is a Gallus egg, and does not meet the definition of "egg" for the resolution. The Gallus egg hatches into a Gallus gallus bird, also known as a chicken. This chicken fits the definition of "chicken" for the resolution. It later lays an egg, but it came first. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. Plus, my opponent did not even attack the Creationist view argument.
egg came before the chicken

Thank you for starting this debate. First, some definitions: Egg - the hard-shelled reproductive body produced by... the common domestic chicken (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) Chicken - the common domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Alright, then. First, a Creationist view: God created all of the animals as adults. Eggs would probably have died without a hen to care for them. Therefore, the chicken must have come before the egg. Now, an Evolutionist view: A Gallus egg produced a Gallus gallus chicken. Therefore, the Gallus gallus chicken came before the Gallus gallus egg. Unless my opponent can come up with an entirely different view, and back it up, then the chicken came before the egg.
egg came before the chicken

My opponent gives a rather long speech about the history of birds. As nice as this is, it is irrelevant. The definition of "egg" clearly states that it must be produced by the common domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). Therefore, the chicken MUST come before the egg, because anything produced by any other bird would not qualify as an egg. An ancestor of the chicken would have produced a similar structure, but it would not qualify as an egg. The egg produced by the chicken in such a structure would qualify, but it would be too late, because the chicken came before the egg. The resolution is negated.
That we have become slaves to conformity

Definition is fine, and I understand what you mean by slaves in a figurative sense. My definition was conceptually the same, so I guess we are agreeing on that for starters. Today my burden is to prove that society today is a slave to conformity My first two points that I will be discussing this round are: 1. Accepting diversity and rejecting discrimination. 2. Individuality My next two points in the third round will be: 3. The death of the stereotype 4. Following and appreciating trends Finally in the fourth round I will be expanding on: 5. Expectations 6. We were afraid, so we conformed. Trends exist, but we no longer conform. 1. Accepting diversity and rejecting discrimination. Society has progressed from the hateful chaos that was discrimination. Yes discrimination is still existent, however not to the degree or size that it was before. Our world has realised that differences are a part of life, and that they shape our character, culture and personal identity. In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values, we realise that discrimination is not acceptable and differences are. For example, could you imagine, even as recent as 50 years ago, the uproar if someone was to suggest that gay marriage should be legalised. Being just a little bit different was frowned upon, but we can see today, with the openness of gays, that that is a false allegation about reality. The reality is that we have moved on, society has progressed to be accepting of other cultures, religions, appearances, races, sexualities, and even gender. Conforming to a social expectation. .. I think not. Trends exist, but we no longer conform. 2. Individuality As society has become more accommodating to differences and personal traits, the development of the concept of individuality is flourishing. People are developing their personalities, so who they appear to be is who they actually are, not what they want to be. We are in a time of change, of spiritual growth, we have no reason to want to conform as not conforming is acceptable. "There is nothing wrong with loving who you are, she said, 'coz he made you perfect babe", "Pretty pretty please don't you ever ever feel like your nothing, your p-p-perfect to me", "Because your amazing, just the way you are. .. " Yes they may all be song lyrics, but we can tell from the pop culture that surrounds modern society that people know that being an individual is a good thing. Pop culture reflects on society, so therefore the meanings behind the songs are true opinions and themes in our modern world. Being an individual is trendy, and we follow the trend of being individual. No I did not just contradict my argument because following a trend is not being a slave, and because individuality, by it's very definition means to be unique, and one of a kind. Trends exist, but we no longer conform. Good luck, and back to you Pro.
That we have become slaves to conformity

Before I start I want to define these terms and make sure that we agree. Conformity: conformity [kənˈfɔːmɪtɪ], conformance n pl -ities, -ances 1. compliance in actions, behaviour, etc. , with certain accepted standards or norms 2. correspondence or likeness in form or appearance; congruity; agreement The first definition seems to fit the best in this case. Slave: Invariably involved with (often subconsciously) to a large extent. This definition is my own, as it's obvious that the idea that we are "slaves to conformity" is somewhat figurative. We are clearly not slaves in the sense that we are bought and sold to "conformity", so I took the liberty here to create a definition that I believe better captured the concept. If you have an issue with this definition mention it immediately, as I don't want us to get caught up in semantics later in the debate. Good luck and back to you, Con.
That we have become slaves to conformity

Title says it all, My BOP is that we have not become slaves to conformity, I will be arguing that we, in fact, have progressed to become less following and more leading. Ok, I posted this debate about a month ago, only to have my opponent forfeit every round. (therefore I may re-use some material) Rules...first round is acceptance and definitions... Definition - That society today worships, serves and acts in a way that is consistent with social norms, standards and conventions.
H1N1 influenza A will not cause a global pandemic

Since my opponent has posted the resolution and has not stipulated the burden of proof, the burden of proof must fall on him. Therefore, it is for my opponent to show that swine flu will not cause a global pandemic. Note that my opponent did not put any time limits on the quesiton. In other words he's not saying that swine flu will not cause a global pandemic in, say, the next 10 years or the next 100 years. Rather, he is saying that swine flu WILL NOT start a global pandemic. Therefore, unless my opponent can conclusively show that swine flu will NEVER cause a global pandemic, I win. I will now step to the side and let my opponent make his opening argument.
Affirmative action programs in colleges and universities should account for diversity in opinions.

Affirmative action should NEVER be used in colleges and universities. Ever. It is a practice which utterly destroys the concept of merit and emphasizes arbitrary differences like race above all other qualifications for a position. However, affirmative action will probably never be rid of. As long as there are majorities and minorities, the minority will always claim to be marginalized and underrepresented, and colleges and universities will try to remedy it by affirmative action, despite its moral and ethical problems. Thus, I argue that if colleges want to have a truly representative, diverse, and equal faculty, they must consider ideological diversity in their hiring practices. Ideological differences are probably most likely to influence the education that students receive at a particular institution. Diverse opinions are essential for debate, deliberation and all things that contribute to an effective education. However, by only hiring professors who subscribe to a particular political ideology, colleges and universities in America are suppressing free speech and free opinions, and in many cases are punishing students who do not adhere to the predominant "acceptable" ideology. Thus, if affirmative action is to be used, it cannot possibly be considered all-inclusive if diversity of opinion is not taken into account.
Affirmative action programs in colleges and universities should account for diversity in opinions.

You make the statement that "affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements." Aren't debate, disagreement, and deliberation the cornerstones of intellectual progress? How are we supposed to get an education if we are exposed to only one narrow viewpoint throughout the entire course of our college careers? This is a cop-out argument, to me. If we have affirmative action to bring blacks into a white majority, and if we have affirmative action to bring Muslims into a Protestant majority at a particular institution, please explain to me how it would be harmful to bring a conservative minority into a liberal majority in order to provide a more well-rounded education for students. Affirmative action is an abomination in my sight. It is absolutely incredible that after going through a civil rights movement, we can go back to judging people on the basis of the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, their sexual orientation, etc., rather than on their MERIT. However, the basis of my argument is this: affirmative action is inevitable at a college such as mine. So if every group which feels marginalized or underrepresented gets to have a say in the college's hiring practices, then I want one too. The African American students get to request more blacks on the faculty? The GLBT students get to request more GLBT professors? Fine! But if that's the case, then I don't think it's out of line for me to want to see conservative faculty members who share my viewpoints. And while we're at it, I also want a Lutheran professor on the political science faculty, and a professor of Hungarian descent, and maybe even a professor who shares my musical interests. A little reductio ad absurdum, I know, but all I'm saying is that if every underrepresented group is getting a say in who the college hires, then I want my say too. And, going back to my original argument, I don't think that my requesting of politically diverse faculty members is out of line. In fact, I think it is essential to the quality of education that I and my fellow students receive.
Affirmative action programs in colleges and universities should account for diversity in opinions.

*First of all, I would like to state that I am in favor of affirmative action. I am practicing countering things that I ever support. Vote on my arguments- not many stance, please.* Affirmative action was created mainly as a solution to the issue of civil rights. However, it prevents those who actually deserve jobs or positions from receiving them. Let's say, for example, that a well-qualified liberal professor was trying for the same position as a conservative professor without as much education. If the college was liberal, and supported affirmative action, they would most likely chose the conservative professor. But choosing this person as your professor would prevent students from receiving the education that they deserve. Affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements. These could even lead to violence, especially when they relate to religious matters (such as gay marriage).
Affirmative action programs in colleges and universities should account for diversity in opinions.

I am a sophomore at a liberal arts college that is planning on instating affirmative action hiring programs for faculty members. This is in response to recent events on campus in which minority students called for more representation of racial minorities and homosexuals on the faculty. What is interesting to me is that while all students are calling for more African American faculty members, nobody is addressing a major issue that has had a large impact on my education so far--the lack of diverse opinions amongst the faculty members. Almost every single professor at my college falls on one end of the political spectrum. And while many are respectful and tolerant of diverse political opinions, many aren't. I've had to actually drop classes because I feared for my grades in the face of a strongly politicized atmosphere in the classroom which is intolerant of opinions which are different from those of the professor. Many of my fellow students have voiced concerns about an air of political indoctrination that is present in the classroom. Even if professors do not penalize students grade-wise for having different opinions, many professors do have a clear political agenda to push, which they do through assigning readings and texts and carefully planning the syllabus around particular analytic methods. Many present only one side of an issue. It is amazing to me that in our institutions of higher learning, we insist upon diverse faculty and student bodies, but diversity is absent where it really counts and where it has a REAL impact on the quality of education we recieve--diversity of opinion, which fosters open debate, deliberation and freedom of thought, the cornerstones of liberal pluralist democracy. Institutions should make a point of hiring faculty on all facets of the political spectrum--liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, capitalist, communist, etc., and not just consider race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in their hiring practices. This is essential for an atmosphere which promotes these values.
Smokers can choose to stop smoking

Obviously, this is not a great topic. I will show one more example to show what I mean, since the previous argument I made sounds ineffective in hindsight. Saying that smokers can choose to stop smoking is like saying that people can choose to roll a one every time on a dice. Obviously, a person can choose the kind of dice chosen, a five sided dice being more likely to get a one than a twenty sided dice. Likewise, a smoker can decide to put more effort into quitting. However, it is still pretty random whether they will be able to or not.
Smokers can choose to stop smoking

I forgot to include tobacco in the definition of smokers. Not like it matters because of my troll opponent though. UPDATED DEFINITION OF SMOKERS: A person who smokes tobacco regularly. With that out of the way, I will present an argument. Some smokers are able to quit smoking, but it usually takes five to seven times on average to stop [1]. I argue that due to this, smokers cannot choose with free will to stop smoking, since the success rate is not 100%. Once a smoker decides to stop smoking (not choose), they have a slim chance of being able to stop for very long, because their free will is constrained by nicotine. This eliminates the ability of choice. I want to say more but it would be a waste, considering my opponent. References: 1. http://www.nature.com...
God Probably Exists

EternalismBy definition (R1), God is the creator of the universe. If the universe is eternal and never began to exist, then God does not exist. In order for the universe to begin to exist; past, present, and future must exist distinctly. But they don’t, because when you take motion into account, time is no longer constant. By this I mean that the time at which an event occurs depends on the observer’s motion, speed, and distance. An observer’s “now” it different from the event’s “now”, and thus all instances of time are fused into a concept called space-time. This video gives you a great visual of the concept.http://www.youtube.com...Since past, present, and future do not exist distinctly, the universe did begin to exist. Thus God does not exist. Reverse Modal Ontological ArgumentLogical possibility=anything that does not contradict logic (e.g. married bachelors, squared circles, etc.)World=a possible version of reality1) The nonexistence of God is a logical possibility2) Since the nonexistence of God is a logical possibility, there is a possible world in which God does not exist.3) If there is a possible world in which God does not exist, God does not exist in all worlds.4) If God is nonexistent in all worlds, he is nonexistent in our world5) God does not exist. Clarification of 3)Think backwards, if God were to exist in a possible world, he would exist in all possible worlds because he is omnipotent. Thus, if there is any possible world in which a god does not exist, the claim is negated. There is, thus, working backwards, he does not exist in any.
God Probably Exists

Preface I challenge Jerry947 to this debate topic because of our disagreement on it. I look forward to a respectful and interesting discussion. Resolution God Probably Exists Terms God: A supreme being that is the creator of the contingent universe. Possesses attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, necessary existenceand is eternal. Probably: most likely Exist: have objective reality or being Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 5. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 6. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 7. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round 8. Violation of any of these rules results in a loss Round Structure R1. Pro's Case R2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case R4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case R5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waives
Absolute freedom of the press must be ensured.

I thank my opposition. And against my opposition's stance, I'd like to say that some things are best kept secret. For example, if the militia were working on a secret arsenal or arms manufacturing project, then it's best kept secret. Because, you see, if it was public, then more and more people come forward to find about it, then people try to break in and make catastrophe. This is why most of the Government projects **SHOULD** be kept secret, to protect both the public and the government. And like my opposition said, it would make a catastrophe the other way as well. But such a catastrophe would possibly be less important on scale of national damage. The other catastrophe would be even more dangerous and nationally, a threat. This is why somethings are best kept secret. I'd like to mention something my Opposition did not, that's privacy infringement. You see, a person's privacy must be respected as a fundamental right of his/hers. When mass media broadcasts and globalizes this news, it is officially a violation of a person's fundamentals rights. A person's choice is his/hers, and is not privy to be known along the masses. Another important aspect, that my opposition also did not bring up, is criticism. Criticizing an action from a certain community (like SC/ST/OBCs) are a harm to the political stability of a government. **THUS, I ARGUE THAT ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS MUST NOT BE ENTERTAINED.**
Absolute freedom of the press must be ensured.

'Absolute Freedom of the press' is compulsory within a country that wishes to have full trust by all of the citizens within. For example in China there is very little (no) anti-government stories/articles completed against the Chinese government. If the Chinese citizens were to discover that the government was corrupt then there would be a nationwide riot and there would be no resistance because most of the military have no idea that the government block all media sites. Imagine the destruction to social and economical structure within china (most probably the world) it would be catastrophic. No military plans should be a secret, nor any government plans either because that is how you start wars and develop corrupt government officials. Good luck in the response.
Absolute freedom of the press must be ensured.

I strongly oppose this fact by simply concluding: 'Absolute freedom of the press and media may result in activities that affect culture, friendly relations, and promote illegal acts.' What's absolute freedom of the press? In simple terms, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS WHEN THE PRESS IS WITHIN ITS RIGHTS TO PUBLISH ANY CONTENT WHATSOEVER WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR RULERS. THIS INCLUDES SECRET INFORMATION, CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK AND PRIVATE INFORMATION. G'luck to the Pro.
The Earth is Flat

This round will be refutations, as noted in R1."One can see from this that the shape of the Earth that God created is three dimensional in such a way that some areas may be bathed in light whilst other areas may be simultaneously in darkness"Sorry, but this is not necessarily true.There is a current theory that the sun is a spotlight, revolving around the earth and sending light to specific areas.This .gif is a perfect illustration of this idea: As you can see, the world does not have to be rounded to have specific lighted areas."And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere."... or a cylider.... or an upside down cone.What I am trying to get at is that it can be many 3D things besides a sphere, and could even be 2D and a flat plane. Scripture even clearly says that this must be a flat plane, not a 3D plane."Which leaves us with the brute fact of the rotation of the Earth causing, over time, the sphere to turn into an oblate spheroid." Sorry, how?I don't understand the logical steps taken to reach this conclusion." I've heard of some modern fellow called Newton (himself a good God-fearing Christian) who had a theory about gravity - it may just be that the gravitational pull of the Sun, which orbits the Earth in this way, causes the Earth to be stretched into an oblate spheroid."Theory of gravity, not the absolute knowledge of gravity.Personally, I could say that gravity doesn't exist and I would have as much biblical proof as this claim does.