BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Buffalo Bills will be the best team in the NFL this season and win the Super Bowl

I only have 19 minutes to answer so I can't go deep into this and I will be more descriptive in the next round but I understand where you are coming from but have you seen NFL.com's newest list ranking top 10 rosters in the NFL ? Here's a link ... http://www.nfl.com... They place the Bills as the number 2 most talented roster and predict them to win the AFC and make it to the Super Bowl , the packers are ranked 8th ... I don't know if you remember last year but when your packers were on a hot streak and the bills had Kyle Orton in at QB and our defense destroyed Aaron Rodgers ... He threw 2 interceptions that game and had one touchdown ... If we have a QB that steps up this season and is better than Kyle Orton we can beat any team in the NFL with LESEAN mccoy , Charles clay , Sammy Watkins , Jerome Felton , and Robert Woods . And you can't ever forget our defense ( the best defense in the league ) and the fact that Aaron Rodgers couldn't seem to escape our defensive line ... The bills , if healthy and have a decent QB can beat anyone , oh and the patriots without Tom Brady lost to the bills last year and that I who we face the first time we face them , the Brady-less patriots , which I would bet money that we will destroy them , they didn't even rank in the top 10 rosters because they've lost their good defense and their QB for 4 games , I have to post or I will forfeit I will continue next round
The Buffalo Bills will be the best team in the NFL this season and win the Super Bowl

Here is why I say the Packers are going to be the best team. The Packers are ranked #3 in power rankings of the NFL according to the recent study from http://espn.go.com... . Even though, the Patriots and the Seahawks are ahead, the packers had better draft picks than both of those teams. The Packers have the #1 offense in the NFC with two of the best wide receivers, Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb, and the best quarterback in the NFC. The packers made excellent draft picks and we did not lose anyone from free agency. However, yes the worst thing that happened in free agency was the lose of Tramon Williams. But we still have Sam Shields. The packers made sure that they would pick draft picks that would fill in the slots of our defense. Our schedule for the next season is not that tough, visit http://www.packers.com... . The only problem that we face is facing the Seahawks, but that is at Lambeau Field. However the Bills are in the AFC east with the Patriots, and they have to play them twice. Over to you
Automatic organ donation

This debate is going to evaluate the worth of a system, in which everyone is automatically considers as an organ donor unless he/she opted out first. It reverses the current system where people decide to be an organ donor into a system where they decide not to be. I'd say this round system is pretty fair for this debate: Round 1 | Acceptance, Greetings, personal notes and questions Round 2 | Arguments Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments Round 4 | Rebuttal and Conclusion (optional); but no additional Arguments Optionally start with your Arguments and then forfeit the last round. Religious arguments are not unwelcome, but should not be the core argument of this. It's logical, that this system would touch people who are religious, but not all of them are and not all religions forbid organ donation. I am looking forward to debating this topic and to whoever is taking the challenge.
Atheism is Femism (joke debate)

weuhwuiehriuwehiufseiurisejriejroiw ejriw jiowe oiwe jroiW ivcke feuisjrfiwejforwjrioeowjoitwejiorjweoirjeovwirjweoireowirjewoirvjeiowrvjowierjeiowjreiwrjweivrjwoivejriejrweo;i jrteiuw4hpjr;jowiJR EHPRUWEJRIWEJRVIOW34uq039irowe we t' 4et] 235PUF EIFJEIO4UTEOP EIWJR IEWJIREJEWIJROWIE I FVCKED YO kgjriojeriotjeroiatjaeroia tjaeroij giergjeiorjg ioerjeoirjfoeirjoeirjtoie rj toierj iarejgeirgjdjgdjhgijITJiuearjtoiaerjgjgioaerjtert95i695i460456o546546,54ko6bl[kkpqo4k5k6w4opk6w[k6kw456b54w;b6'l'ok'l54;lb6lk54o6k'54kb6546bl;'45b6'lkbl4;5'bk6;l';k'w;45kbw';4k3l;'64q';blq';4ky5';lwyp5o[kupo[67lun'e56;8k56e'l7;w5la'y4v;q4l6el6';t45k6;lsvekv;ltke4l;tk;l4'vktv;4l5ktl't\\\ ADN TEHN I SKHFKU HESIU FJWEIJEWIOJOIWEJI QJRIOjwitjli43tjoq34akt o'wa JTOI4JTIOA4JTOIAERJTOIAJOI;JOIRJYAEIJZGO'PAEY;L5RKYO5KY;O5RKY;LKLYKLYSKLYKSROYKVOS5YKS5 Y5 Y 454VY 5 Y S5Y ES G E S EYH SRT YH SRY AR Y SR U Y DKY XYJ SERIJYSRTY S RT SRT HYSR Y SRT YS RT Y SRTY S RT YS RY SRTYSR TYSRTYKJRYKJSRTIYJSRTSRJIJIJjsrtjy irstjyiosrtjo;isyjsiortjyiostrjyorstiysroiy bch sweh afjzh seiu gzeiujWENus
Atheism is Femism (joke debate)

(READ THIS NOTE BEFORE VOTING: Judging will be made in reverse. Points will be awarded for best use of poor grammar and spelling, terrible conduct, and absurd arguments.) dis hous prposes thaet aTHiyism iz femism. furst raund iz asseptence olny. argyumint premis wun: aTHiyism is femism. premis foor: femism is evils. premis twenti: gad iz ded cuntclushin: yur mudder wuz an fet
Should Children be Taught Life Skills Before Entering the "Real World?"

Life Skills are things like: multilingualism; knowing how to cook, sew, balance a chequebook; play Devil's Advocate (see both sides of an argument before establishing an opinion); basic political skills; and so forth. It is important the children learn these skills at an early age and build them up as they progress in school. Reason One: They may or may not be more excited and willing to attend school; Reason Two: When the children grow up, they will be more self-reliant; and any other reason you can think of.
I will not contradict myself

My opponent is said Because the definition of automatic does not negate either rule over the other, it is unknown as to which side won that debate. First of all my opponent HAS BROKEN THE SAME RULE TWICE. It is round 2, my opponent should have posted 10 yes/no questions yet has failed to do so. Thus, it is an automatic loss. Second, my opponent broke the rule first. Had I just stopped the debate there, I would’ve won. Thirdly, my opponent has said I realized that I have broken the rule as shown by my opponent but for the sake of this debate, I will continue. This sounds like a concession, yet it seems my opponent is trying to worm his way out of a concession by pointing out that if I contradict myself, my opponent wins and thus they cancel out. Anyways, my opponent has broken the same rule twice in a row and thus automatically loses, yet I will refute the “contradiction” my opponent thinks he has found. I ask voters to take into consideration rule-breaking when they vote. My opponent claims that I have contradicted myself. I said that I don’t have 2 or more aliases, yet he claims “Pro” and “the Instigator” are “assumed or additional names. ” Through the definition of alias, we see that it is targeted towards a person, and it is targeted towards me. My opponent is suggesting that I have assumed the additional name of Pro and the Instigator. This is false for two main reasons, first through Merriam-Webster we see that a “name” is “a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or a thing. ” In this case, clearly a person. Yet, clearly “Pro” and the “Instigator” are not distinctively designated to ME, they are designated to the left/right side and people. The left side will always be the Instigator, I will not always be Pro, thus these cannot be designated to me. They do not make me distinctive, as the definition of distinctively. Secondly, I have not assumed the title of the Instigator or the title of Pro. A definition of assume is “usurp”. The definition of usurp is “to take the place of by or as if by force. ” And I have clearly not done that, thus I have not assumed the addition name of Pro or the Instigator. I have shown why I have not contradicted myself, and my opponent has broken the rules TWICE. Thus, it is a clear and easy vote PRO. Sources: www. merriam-webster. com
I will not contradict myself

I realized that I have broken the rule as shown by my opponent but for the sake of this debate, I will continue.ContradictionsOn question # 10, my opponent claims that he/she does not have 2 or more aliases. However, this is false as because my opponent is also known as Pro and the Instigator of this debate as shown by the tags beside his username within this debate. The definition of alias is [1]"an assumed or additional name." Therefore because my opponent answered with a fallacy, he hereby contradicts himself and this counts as a concession by my opponent until he is able to refute.Following the contradiction, in rule 11, it does indeed state that if CON fails to abide by any rule then CON automatically loses. However within Rule 6, if PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, then PRO loses. Because the definition of automatic does not negate either rule over the other, it is unknown as to which side won the debate. Thus there lies a flaw within the rule because PRO's rule both support his position yet negate it at the same time, resulting in another contradiction. Per the rules of this debate, if PRO is found even once to have contradicted himself then there must be a vote decreed to CON. Thanks in response.Citations:[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I will not contradict myself

I accept the definition of contradiction, I failed to realize that Mongeese just posted Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia page with a definition. HOWEVER, MY OPPONENT HAS ALREADY BROKEN RULE 1: CON IS TO ASK 10 YES/NO QUESTIONS. QUESTION 7: WHAT IS YOUR AGE? IS NOT A YES/NO QUESTION, THUS CON AUTOMATICALLY LOSES BY RULE 11. However, in the spirit of debate we will continue to debate this topic, but voters should know that CON ESSENTIALLY HAS CONCEDED. ANSWERSQuestion #1) Are the responses to my questions correct? YesQuestion #2) Do you concur with the Hammurabi Code? I cannot fully answer this question as I concur with parts and disagree with others. Thus, my opponent will be allowed to post an extra question in the next roundQuestion #3) Do you coincide with Christianity? See above question. My opponent can post twelve questions next round. Question #4) Do you coincide with Buddhism beliefs and or Islam? See above question. My opponent can post thirteen questions next round. Question #5) Are you depressed? Currently, No. Question #6) Do you consume alcoholic beverages? No. Question #7) What is your age? This is a violation of Rule 1. This counts as an automatic concession, but I am willing to continue to debate for fun, though voters will count this as a concession. My opponent may post fourteen questions next round. Question #8) Are each of your answers correct? Yes. Question #9) Do you eternally tell the truth? No. Question #10) Do you have 2 or more aliases? No.
I will not contradict myself

First, before all else, I would like to address that my opponent, in his attempt to give the definition of contradiction, simply cited an entire site which is an invalid citation. Because of this, I will define contradiction:[1]Contradiction: A proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something. Question #1) Are the responses to my questions correct? Question #2) Do you concur with the Hammurabi Code? Question #3) Do you coincide with Christianity? Question #4) Do you coincide with Buddhism beliefs and or Islam? Question #5) Are you depressed? Question #6) Do you consume alcoholic beverages? Question #7) What is your age? Question #8) Are each of your answers correct? Question #9) Do you eternally tell the truth? Question #10) Do you have 2 or more aliases? Thanks in response to this debate. I wish my opponent the best of his luck. Citations:[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I will not contradict myself

This is a "I will not contradict myself debate." This will function the exact same as Mongeese's debate a while back. I have taken the liberty of copy-pasting the rules (no, this isn't plagarism) into this debate and the definition of contradiciton:Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org.........Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com.........10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.12. PLEASE KEEP THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR A SCHOOL SETTINGThanks in advance to my worthy opponent!
The Internet benefits musicians

The Internet has opened up a whole new world of music for people around the world. Since the early days of the internet, people have begun to become exposed to not only new bands or artists but entire new genres of music that they would have never been exposed too. musicians are also able to share their music and gain fans that they would never have had, thanks to the internet. The internet has also given people the ability to share tutorials and tips on how to create music which can create even more musicians. The internet and musicians truly benefit one another.
The Internet benefits musicians

I will rebut my opponent's case, and do my defense. DefenseOkay, my opponent does not rebut my argument at all. He does not rebut the part of me of you can watch the things free. Then my opponent says with the Internet, it can be popular. Being not popular with no internet is better. Even though they are popular, people will watch them in the internet. However, even though it is not famous, at least some people will come. So that is why with no internet is preferable to musicians. Pro states that musicians do not care about money. Then why are they doing this? To like music, and earn money, making this argument insufficient. RebuttalsPro says that it will be a world full of music. This argument is insufficient to the resolution, because this is about musicians, not the fans. He also states people should tell the more talented musicians. How are the other people supposed to know? They have the right to make what music they want. ConclusionPro's arguments lack of logic.
The Internet benefits musicians

In responding to your argument, the internet makes it even easier to purchase songs, albums, and tickets to concerts. Musicians that are extremely talented will always be able to find money. if you look at today's world, extremely talented musicans are very wealthy. Those that are not so popular and have trouble finding money, get discovered on youtube. Youtube gives many unknown artists an outlet to show off their music to a large population that would have otherwise never see them. although this might not equate to immideate money, it could lead to an increase in album sales and songs purchases on other outlets, maybe even a record contract, or being able to open up for a big band and become very popular, and an increase in concert sales. The internet if anything makes it easier and simplier to give artists money.
The Internet benefits musicians

FrameworkOkay, I will make my arguments this round, and then rebut my opponent's points. BoP is on Pro. I will be telling why the internet is bad for musicians. Arguments1. Musicians need to earn moneyLook at youtube. We can watch the things that the musicians made for free. They are doing this to get money also, but with the Internet, they can't earn money, people don't pay for the music, they just listen and watch in the interent or youtube. Therefore the internet is bad for musicians because they can't earn money.Rebuttals1. My opponent's argument."The Internet has opened up a whole new world of music for people around the world. Since the early days of the internet, people have begun to become exposed to not only new bands or artists but entire new genres of music that they would have never been exposed too. musicians are also able to share their music and gain fans that they would never have had, thanks to the internet. The internet has also given people the ability to share tutorials and tips on how to create music which can create even more musicians. The internet and musicians truly benefit one another. "I will now rebut his argument. Why would the musicians like to give their music to the fans, when they need money. That is the whole reason that they are actually musicians.Thanks.
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

The reason I am so abusive and in the case that you did not realise is because you, yourself, are being entirely obnoxious by creating such slander, true or not, against Hoosier. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing and, although he abuses it to no ends, you do as well good sir. I respect you but I've also found that you are being rather obtuse in starting a debate against his very name. Next time you feel like ranting, start a blog. I urge you to vote in Negation of this Resolution.
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

What does it matter if I am hypocritic or not? Like I said before, everyone is a little hypocritic. Also, as I mentioned in my first speech, HoosierPapi is going around debate.org leaving tons of these messages, two of them were given above. Now you cannot tell me that leaving this many comments in people's debates is not annoying and I'm sure that many would agree with me. Your final argument is quite abusive. I do not have to prove EVERYONE believes he's annoying, just as you don't have to prove that everyone is NOT annoying. The reason why there is debate in the first place is because nothing is true 100% of the time. You can debate whether the sky is blue or not, but regardless, it is pink or orange around sunset. I do not have to prove this 100% of the time. Furthermore, as my first speech was setting the ground-rules for the debate and I had challenge you to prove that he gave decent criticism once, and you have failed to do so, you haven't achieved you side of the debate. *Anyone to vote on this debate must see that my opponent 1) hasn't even been debating the topic at hand and 2) is being extraordinarily abusive by saying that I have to prove something right 100% of the time, it's impossible. That is the reason why debate has been created, to attempt to prove things true or false.
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

I never once said this debate was about you. I claimed you were hypocritic. You also failed to point out to me how he is annoying. The burden of proof lies NOT with the skeptic. I am the skeptic therefore burden of proof lies on you. Prove to me Hoosier is as annoying as you say he is. Honestly, the only way you can win is if you get everyone who's ever met hoosier to say he's "close-minded and obnoxious"
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

The topic is dealing with HoosierPapi, not with myself. To some yeah, I may be annoying, but that's not part of this debate. Every one is a little hypocritical. For a matter of fact, if you believe and speak out against global warming, but still drive a car, you are hypocritical. And this is also not about him being the most annoying person ever, just the fact that he's annoying. Once you argue whether he's annoying or not, that is when the actual debate will begin. Thank you
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

Good day to my opponent, any onlookers, etc. I have come to a conclusion about closed-minded people. This may have no relevence on the debate itself but through actions such as these, you are showing a lack of tolerance and thereby, closed-mindedness. also, at least to this papi person, you are being rather obnoxious. This brings about hypocracy in your debate as you have exemplified both criterion set about by your subject, HoosierPapi I know this person very little but first, I would like to bring to your attention how bad it really could be: http://youtube.com... If you can prove to me, since the burden of proof lies within your argument, that HoosierPapi is more annoying, also given at least three comments in your defense, I will concede. Thank you.
HoosierPapi, a member of debate.org, is close-minded and obnoxious

I and, from what I can tell, many others have been harassed by one of the members on debate.org. His name is HoosierPapi (the link to his page is as follows... http://www.debate.org...). I would like to start this debate by asking my opponent to find even a single instance where this man offered decent criticism without being close-mind and obnoxious... I rest my case. But for the sake of this debate, I offer two instances of him attacking me. 1) "Idiotically, typically homophobic stance by con in this deabate. ANyone who has to preface their remakrs by saying "I am not against ____ but..." or "I do not hate ____, however..." clearly do disapprove and/or hate on whatever subject/group they are discussing. Simple answer to this "debate": civil unions are not equal to marriage. And there is no reason why gay people shouldn't have the exact same rights that hetero people have. Separate does not mean euqal, as any student of constitutional law can tell you...no matter how many ways conservatives attempt to construe it. ROFL, pathetic." I am not homophobic, as a matter of fact, one of my best friends from my trip to DC, is homosexual himself. 2) "littlelacroix is a moron, and adds nothing substantive to Debate.org. His trolling is bringing the average IQ of the site down about 12 points." Now I rest my case. Thank you.