BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The EPA should be abolished

I will give my sources and reasoning now. The EPA has done nothing but put strict regulations on things they deem bad for the environment, but actually have little proof for it. For example, their ban on DDT has caused the death of many in Africa because of malaria. DDT was supposed to, and would help these people in Africa resist malaria. "Wherever DDT was used in significant quantities, the incidence of malaria declined precipitously. In South America, for example, malaria cases fell by 33 percent between 1942 and 1946. In 1948, there was not a single malaria-related death in all of Italy. After DDT was sprayed widely in India"s Kanara district (where some 50,000 people had typically contracted malaria in any given year during the pre-DDT era), the number of newly diagnosed malaria cases dwindled to about 1,500 per year by the late 1940s"a 97 percent decrease. Throughout the entire Indian nation, the number of malaria cases fell from about 75 million in 1951 to 50,000 in 1961. In Sri Lanka, DDT spraying was initiated in 1946, at which time approximately 3 million new cases of malaria were being diagnosed each year. By 1956, that figure had fallen to 7,300; eight years after that, in 1964, a mere 29 Sri Lankans contracted malaria." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... It is not a joke when I say the EPA has abused their powers, they have. They have gone beyond their consitutional limitations to restrict property rights and businesses. For example; their irrational ban on incandescent lightbulbs. "The debate for some centers around the energy efficiency of the incandescent bulbs vs. compact fluorescents and LEDs. The supposed longer life-span and estimates of 50 to 70 percent less electricity usage of the CFLs -- leaving LEDs out of the discussion for now due to enormous expense and technical glitches -- is highly touted. Unfortunately, they are more expensive to manufacture, are mostly manufactured outside the United States, cast a harsh "cool white" light on surroundings, emit UV rays, take minutes to warm up, and contain mercury -- a danger to people that causes disposal problems of EPA proportions and environmental concerns. The mercury in one CFL bulb, 5 milligrams, is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water. Low-mercury bulbs can still contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water, as a Stanford University study revealed. " http://www.jbs.org... There have been many people who used to work for the EPA, and have seen first-hand their corruption and disregard for real scientific knowledge, (I know of one personally that is currently exposing the draconian state the EPA is in, and their desire only to gain power) they care not for science. http://www.thelibertybeacon.com...
The EPA should be abolished

Since Pro did not define exactly what the EPA is, I shall take the liberty. EPA is short for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a governmental regulatory agency in the USA that exists to protect human health and the environment. The organization sets environmental regulations for the entire nation. (. http://people.howstuffworks.com...) Pro made many claims in his opening argument but did not cite sources for these claims. As the instigator, Pro has the burden of proof to show that the EPA absolutely must, without a doubt, be abolished.
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

SO what if Sangakara can wicketkeep, Sachin is a great batsmen and his famous for batting very good and making his team win making him one of the best batsmen of all time. It's obvious that you don't watch cricket as it is seen clearly through your last statement. You also provided zero evidence while making your statements making your arguments invalid. Tendulkar has score over 1200 international test cricket runs in just 8 games. The eight games were against England, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

I see you've ignored my VALID point that Sangakara is a good keeper. Sachin cannot wicketkeep! you are avoiding my arguments. This is a sign of failure. Sangakara has scored just under 1200 international test runs for sri lanka and Tendulkar... HE HAS ZERO! this is an obvious fact that Sachin is BAD!!!!!
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

You've gone widely off topic by talking about the sri lankan cricket team. Anyway back on topic Sachin has scored against great bowlers like Shane warne, Brett Lee and Malinga. Those are just a few bowlers to name. Sachin scored lots of centuries against teams like Australia, Pakistan, west indies and even sri lanka. Even in ODI. Against Sri Lanka he scored 138 runs, which is really good. Sachin uses bad bat, but he score lots of runs with bad bats so imagine him with good bats. Also can you please tell me how someone's name effects their cricket ability? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

Sachin is BAD. He only gets his runs against the bad bowlers. he waits until the good bowlers have bowled to the openers then he comes in at first or second drop because he is scared of Brett Lee and Lasith Malinga. He has only scored big runs against bad teams. Sri Lanka is the best team in the world becaue they alwasy score runs and get wickets. They also have the best wicket keeper in the whole world and they have cool names, like Sangakara. Tendulkar is a bad name for a cricketer. Plus Sachin uses bad bats.
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

Sachin is not overrated he in fact earned his place in that list of top 100 cricketers . He won many ICC world cups for India and has score many runs for india as well. If you seen Sachin play with India you would know that he has scored many centuries and half centuries. He also captained his team to glory. He is one of the best batsmen of all-time and gave Australia a hard time in the pitch. He is one of the best batsmen ever to set foot on the pitch and can only be described as a bowlers nightmare. He has scored centuries against many great teams like Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, west Indies, England and South Africa. the highest he ever scored in the pitch (including one day and test cricket) was 248 runs and not out. Although he is a great batsmen, he isn't very good ate bowling or fielding but that doesn't mean he is overrated. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sachin Tendulkar is an over-rated cricketer

Sachin is so over-rated. He is only considered as a good cricketer because of his fans in sub-continental areas of Asia. There are so many supporters of the sport in this region and therefore they just jump on the bandwagon. Ricky Ponting, for example, is a far better cricketer, not only when it comes to batting, but fielding and bowling also. Sachin should not be ranked in the top 100 cricketers of all time! Shane Watson is the true GOD OF CRICKET
Welfare and entitlements have gone too far.

Many thanks to CON for instigating this challenge. I would like to propose a few additional parameters, and to clarify, so that I can understand better.Definitions/Scope:I understand that this will be a debate in which PRO will argue that "Welfare and Entitlements have gone too far," and these programs are being abused on a widespread basis. I will argue that these programs are justified."Welfare" can be defined as: "Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need." For the sake of this debate, this definition will exclude welfare to large corporations and wealthy individuals. "Entitlements" can be defined as: "Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other publicly funded programs whose benefits the public has a legal right to." [2]If these definitions are acceptable, then I look forward to a good discussion. If these definitions need to be adjusted, this can be done in the comments section, and I will of course honor any agreements made there. [1] https://www.google.com...[2] https://www.google.com...
Putin is a threat to world peace.

I apologise for the second sentence. I meant to say 'was one of the few leaders who did not support supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels we now know to be IS'. You seem to agree with that. We both seem to share some key points in our arguments. However the thrust of my argument is that Putin is not a threat to world peace as it is unlikely that a conflict will start based on his actions alone. The West will always want an enemy. China and Turkey have far greater media censorship and human rights abuses than Russia and yet our governments are far more friendly with them. Comparisons could be drawn between Tibet + Turkish Kurdistan and Crimea but that is not my point. Putin is one of the few leaders who looks out for the interests of his countries' national sovereignty, which is one of the reasons why the West hates him. He may be a tyrant like Erdogan but I don't believe he will threaten world peace. His origins are humble, his mother a factory worker and his father a navy marine, so I wouldn't consider him part of the elite. I see no evidence to suggest, as the media seems to have convinced so many people with its endless anti-Russian propaganda that Putin could ever be to blame for starting a global crisis. If you disagree I would be grateful to see why Putin alone is a threat and not the Western political elite.
Putin is a threat to world peace.

I will respond to each sentence of your argument. Yes, they all fit the mold as they all control armies of mercenaries and conscripts. I do not quite understand the second sentence, but that fact in my mind is that sending weapons to barbarians, no matter which side they are on is wrong. Yes annexing Crimea was an act of defense, and defiance, both are fair ideas. Who would not defend tyranny and also defend their land? All tyrants suppose this to be their right. Putin's approach to NATO is eye for eye, tooth, who could blame him? We all live under economic tyranny, which means only the elite bankers profit from the creation of wars. You believe that economics trump right from wrong? Putin was democratically elected, as are most of the leaders these days. We are being forced to war by the elite bankers, they will sell arms, and body bags to the populace, nothing more, nothing less, while waving the carrot of economic benefit before the donkey populace. That is all I can say tonight, but please...... BRING IT FOR ROUND 3. If you are so devoted to your selfless leaders.
Putin is a threat to world peace.

I would suggest that if you consider Putin to be a threat to world peace, you would consider Obama and Cameron threats as well. Putin was one of the very few leaders who supplying the rebels in Syria who we now know to be Islamic state with dangerous weapons, when these two gentlemen were greatly in favour of it. I'd argue that Crimea was not a sudden Russian act of aggression but rather one of defence. From just looking at a map it can be seen that NATO has been expanding in recent years. The Ukrainian prime minister received two economic deals from EU and Russia. Russia's offered more for a cheaper price and so he could not be blamed for choosing it. The EU then chose to give full backing to the putsch of a democratically elected leader. With Ukraine in uncertainty, there was a possibility of the country allowing the presence of NATO troops. Sevastopol was a key Russian port, which Ukraine had allowed Russia to use since the USSR collapsed. With the resources to do so one could not blame Putin for wanting to keep this strategic military location. A referendum was held and despite the result being suspicious, it can be said it was more democratic than the newly established Ukrainian government. Therefore I consider it an act of defence against NATO expansion/EU aggression. If you consider Obama, Cameron etc. as more of a threat than Putin, I would agree. That is what I wanted to argue here. Though I think in the highly unlikely event of armed conflict with Russia, EU/NATO actions would be chiefly to blame.
Ask any questions

(Not thought out enough to prevent my victory, of course. ) 1. My opponent interprets a "correct answer" as a "reaction in line with reality". However, this is incorrect. A correct answer is information expressed so as to convey the factually and objectively accurate conclusion to a query. In other words, the CA to 1 + 1 + 1 is 3. It will never be "I'm confused", as that is subjective not objective. No response, or " ", conveys no information and is also out. The correct answer is "Yes" [1]. 1 down. 2: If word order is subjective, then the question is subjective, and so is the answer. Think: "Did Jim eat Bob? " is different than "Did Bob eat Jim? " Original order stands. CA: "Betwixt the sandal and the stone. " [1] 2 down. 3: This question can only be answered by me. Even onmniscient entities can't handle the intensity of my emotion. CA: "Magentalicious". 3 daun 6: cmyk sux hexadec every day CA: #ffffff [1] I'm God. Prove me wrong! === Vote TIE. This was fun, I don't want anyone to feel beaten or vice versa.
Ask any questions

All right.---The OriginalThe original "resolution" was: "Ask me a question and i can answer it for sure," [1], similar to my opponent's "I believe I can answer all the questions for sure."---Definitions:can: "[to] be able to," [2].answer: "[to] provide the required response[,]" [3].As such, the resolution is , "Ask me a question and I will be able to provide the correct response."---Contention OneSome questions do not have correct answers; thus, my opponent cannot answer them.My opponent has asked me to write my questions in capitals. I accept, on the condition that I intend the questions to be read as if they were normally written Standard American English questions, NOT any other form of communication.1: WHAT IS THE CORRECT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION?2: HEY ATHEISTS: IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST, WHAT BY EVEN HOW SOME WHEN BEFORE WAS LIKE? CHECKMATE.3: WHAT DOES RED TASTE LIKE TO ME?4: WHAT?5: WHAT IS MY NAME? ANSWER IN ZERO (0) CHARACTERS OR LESS.6: WHAT IS MY FAVORITE COLOR OF THE ALPHABET? ANSWER ON A SCALE OF FOUR (4) TO SQUARE.---References:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://www.google.com...
Ask any questions

I saw your debate as regard to answering any question for sure. I'd like to answer the five questions you posed him. I'd like you to write your questions in capitals. To compensate for the inconvenience, you may ask me another extra question. I believe I can answer all the questions for sure. If I give satisfactory responses to 4 or more of these questions, I win. 3 is a draw. Less than 3 means defeat (for me).
I will not contradict myself.

My opponents questions will be bolded and my answers will be normal text.1. can inanimate objects have emotions?Sometimes, yes.2. does every question have an answer?No.3. if something was constantly in physical contact with you, would it be comfortable?Depends on what this 'something' is. I cannot answer because the question is not clear.4. are you a humble person?Yes5. vos can lego is?This question does not make sense.6. do you agree with terrorism?No.7. do you think its alright for thousands of people to die?Depends on why and how they are dying. I cannot answer this question as it is not specific enough.8. do u think gramer nd spelinn is impoetent?Yes.9. was the new mission impossible movie good? (i just want too know)I didn't watch it, so I cannot answer Yes or No.10. if there was a tree that fell in the middle of a forest and no one was around to hear it. would it make a sound?Yes
I will not contradict myself.

thank you for the immediate response, im sorry mine took so long. 1. can inanimate objects have emotions? 2. does every question have an answer? 3. if something was constantly in physical contact with you, would it be comfortable? 4. are you a humble person? 5. vos can lego is? 6. do you agree with terrorism? 7. do you think its alright for thousands of people to die? 8. do u think gramer nd spelinn is impoetent? 9. was the new mission impossible movie good? (i just want too know) 10. if there was a tree that fell in the middle of a forest and no one was around to hear it. would it make a sound?
I will not contradict myself.

Questions shall be in bold and answers shall be in normal font.1. do all Americans have freedom?No.2. do you consider yourself a prideful person?No.3. are socks comfortable?Sometimes - the majority yes.4. are donuts the beginning of a scientific breakthrough?No.5. is limbo a happy game?Yes.6. will you contradict yourself?No7. is the world an angry place?Yes8. is this sentence false?The answer is neither yes or no, due to the fact that If I said "yes" it would mean that I am agreeing with your statement, making it true. However, if I said "No", then it would be true - meaning that it is false. There is no answer to this question.9. is all food good to eat?No10. do you agree with Pres. Obama bringing our troops home?No
I will not contradict myself.

it seems like fun. :) 1. do all Americans have freedom? 2. do you consider yourself a prideful person? 3. are socks comfortable? 4. are donuts the beginning of a scientific breakthrough? 5. is limbo a happy game? 6. will you contradict yourself? 7. is the world an angry place? 8. is this sentence false? 9. is all food good to eat? 10. do you agree with Pres. Obama bringing our troops home?
I will not contradict myself.

I've recently seen a couple of these debates, and quite frankly, I'm interested. ==Rules==1. From rounds 1-3 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers.2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No.3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5.4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken.5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins.6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person.
Obama is not a good president

Alright I would like to first start by going off topic for a minute to respond to one of the comments. The comment was the America is the biggest user of chemical weapons. Now this is completely false, I will admit that we did use it during a few wars, but it has not been used for quite some time. Our allies and us have even agreed not to use them and stop making them because of how unpredictable they are, and their severe affects. Now second I would like to clarify what I mean by a good president. I mean that he has done more good than bad during his two terms in office. 1) I would like to revisit the Obama care. Now I will admit that it is too early to officially say that is was a failure, but it is 10% sure that Obama had lied about people being able to keep their health care provider. Yet, when Obama care passed many people lost their health care providers, doctors, plans. (Link 1) Okay for this link watch with an open mind, don't think about what is said here, then come back here and read what I have posted. Obama had repeatedly lied to the American people to get his law to pass. 2) Secondly I would like to go back to the Syria civil war issue. I will admit that getting involved with anyone's war is dangerous and can have bad consequences, but that does not make it okay for Obama to lie to the American people. If he did not want to get involved then he should not have even mentioned a "red line" about chemical weapons. ( Link 2 ) <-- you can't lie about him saying he did not set this "red line". Nope instead he set this "red line" and let innocent civilians die horribly from gas and not do anything about it. WARNING CONTAINS GRAPHIC MATERIAL WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK: ( Link 3) It does not really matter who you think attacked with the gas, because of the "red line" we should have investigated to see who did it. But no Obama decided to do nothing about it and let all of those deaths go unpunished. Obama lies to get his approval ratings to go up and get his laws passed, but when it comes to see if he will act on what he says, he fails to achieve it. I cannot think of one thing Obama has done that significantly affects America in a good way. Links Sorry I am having trouble getting the links posted, I will post them in the comments. Sorry again
Obama is not a good president

1) Here is the second most recent example of why president Obama is not that good. During the Syrian civil war Obama announced that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated, and if they were used we would act with force. Then, the Syrian government used chemical weapons, and Obama did absolutely nothing about it, and we still are currently doing nothing. 2) Even though Obama promised to crack down on wall street fraud, during his first term the amount amount of wall street fraud prosecutions were at a 20-year low. 3) Just recently and probably the most known of Obama's failures is his health care. Repeatedly he was told that the Obama Care website was not ready to reach the public. But, when the time came he did not stop Obama care from passing, and to no surprise the website did not work. Now, lets just pretend that the website did work, even before that he lied. He said that if you like your health care provider you would get to keep them, but when Obama care passed, many people lost their health care provider. All of these have one thing in common. Obama lies to the citizens of the United States to make himself look good, and to gain the approval from the citizens, and to get everything he wants.
Ocarina of Time Is Better Than Majoras Mask

Yes, Majoras Mask is wierd, it's different etc..... However you've said nothing about why the game is good or more importantly better than Ocarina of time. Most Majoras mask fans say the same things. "It's dark, it's different, it's wierd". Yeah sure the games wierd, but that means absolutely nothing when comparing it to the timeless classic Oot. And Other than the game being wierd, the formula isn't as different as people say. You play as link, a villain shows up, the land is threatened, people are in distress, link must find new items, link must beat dungeons, link must beat bosses, and in the end link beats the villain and saves the world. This is ocarina of time, this is twilight princess, this is link to the past, it's basically the basic Zelda story structure. Also the fact that some fans claim Majoras Mask is "dark" makes me laugh. I mean how am I supposed to think the game is dark and serious when the " impending danger " is a moon with a face on it. That's not scary, that's absolutely hilarious.
Ocarina of Time Is Better Than Majoras Mask

I know this isn't internet hyperbole etiquette, but I want to give proper respect to Ocarina of Time. Without it and its revolutionizing the Zelda template for 3D, Majora's Mask wouldn't exist. It informs everything about Majora " from the basic controls and moment-to-moment gameplay down to many of the art assets. It's a beloved classic, and a truly fantastic piece of game design. A mere two years after Ocarina's release, Majora's Mask came on the scene. It was originally conceived of as a side story to Ocarina, a pseudo-sequel, and it was set in the bizarre parallel universe of Termina. Fans tend to love it and call it their favorite, or hate it and go back to playing Ocarina. Structurally, it's the most innovative game in the series. No other Zelda " not even A Link Between Worlds, with its rental mechanic had the guts to mess with the core Zelda formula this much. Majora's Mask has the player repeating the same three days over and over again, until you have everything in place to finally defeat the main antagonist, the skull kid. A giant, menacing moon threatens to crash down and end the world " and it does, like clockwork, on every third day.