BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High school cheerleader's are turning wide receivers gay

Obese schoolgirls are moist, popular, loose and oh, fit. Because of the popular hilarity joint, lead your team cheerfully and let's be honest, the person around the hanger was a has been, though his son was a sweet thing who liked the Who. In fact, his goats were lame and miserable. It's dodgy to be side lined and supposing his balls were runny, will he catch a wide one, receiving a highly schooled team usually. When however, cheese dealers slide inside and our Ron moulds other cream lizards, he likes onions and Vinny likes a cigar, swat a dose that's situated wide and you're likely to receive innuendo. Towards the void he runs and mother's tea might be kinky oh dear! Get plied and study a bunch of dogs is the trick. It's not so bad that men lay on top of Brian after a meal, so let the Police do the thinking and wrong proof is always best for sure.
High school cheerleader's are turning wide receivers gay

Most high school girls in schools are obese and they lose popularity because of it. The only way to gain your popularity is to join the cheerleading team. Lets be honest, nobody wants to hang around a fat person who has been sweating in the sun. This goes for male AND female. When the high school wide receiver catches the ball he will usually run towards the sidelines to dodge the opposing team. However, fat stinky cheerleaders are on the other side of that sideline and they smell like moldy caramelized onions and vinegar. So what does the wide receiver do in a situation like that? He runs towards the other team to avoid the stinky odor and gets dog-piled by a bunch of studs. This tricks the male brain into thinking that letting other men lay on top of you is not so bad after all. Please do your best to prove this wrong.
Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

My opponent is correct in her assertions about Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Indians. I will not dispute that this is a definite black mark on his presidential record. In fact, I previously stated that it is the largest such mark. However... I have defined two positions which I believe outweigh my opponent's arguments. First I have articulated that Andrew Jackson's actions lead directly to preserving the Union which in turn meant that slavery was abolished in the South via the emancipation proclamation. This would not have happened in a world where the South had been allowed to secede, and so African American slaves would have suffered / died much more than the Indians. And Second, I have argued that Andrew Jackson wrested the voting system away from elites and allowed the general public to vote. Without this, I speculate that, the quality of life in the U.S. would be much much worse today. It would be a population completely focused on the elite, with absolute disregard for impoverished citizens. I await my opponent's defense to these arguments.
Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

Back to the point of Indians, Andrew refused to help the Indians prevent Congress from taking the land and forcing them to live in the far corners of their land. Georgians where allowed to whip, kill and force the American Indians off their land if they refused to move. Though, yes some tribes decided to agree to move, there were some who wanted to stay and fight for their land. Andrew should have taken their opinions into mind, but he decided they had little rights and their voice was not as loud as the other Americans.
Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

Wikipedia:My opponent opens the 3rd round by expressing a neat but inaccurate opinion, "I do not believe wikipedia is a very reliable source." Studies indicating wikipedia's reliability first appeared in 2005 in Nature, where it was found that Wikipedia was nearly as good as Brittanica [1]. Five years later a thorough assesment of technical topics indicated that Wikipedia was as accurate as a technically reviewed source [2]. In fact the wikipedia article on its own reliability cites numerous sources which laud its accuracy and demonstrates the progression of social acceptance [3]. Since I've only used wikipedia to cite well known historical events, there is a fairly high probability that my source is not mistaken.Abolitionist Literature:As previously mentioned, Andrew Jackson failed to abolish abolitionist literature. Despite the fact that he believed it was the thing to do, his actions were of no consequence to the American people. Therefore his mentality, or corruption as my opponent suggests, is not an indication that Andrew Jackson was a bad president. The Nullification Crisis:Still saved millions of lives. Is still outweighing every argument my opponent has thus far made, and the arguments that I have made for him. Sources: http://news.cnet.com... http://newsfeed.time.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

Andrew Jackson had tried to outlaw abolitionist literature, which violated the 1st Amendment. During Andrew Jackson's message to Congress 'On Indian Removal', he repeatedly called the American Indians 'savages' and degraded them to a very low class. While, yes, some of my previous events occurred while Monroe was president, they are significant. Andrew Jackson slaughtered over 1000 Indians during the Battle of Horse Shoe Bend and has been known as the 'Indian Slayer'. My opponent should realize that I never said the events had to have happened while Andrew Jackson was president. Its the attention to detail that matters the most.
Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

"Best" isn't a choice!? First off, those actions my opponent speaks of occurred while Monroe was the president of the United States. Secondarily Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida along with his ease in securing the Spanish capitol were the primary reasons why the Spanish sold Florida to the United States in 1819. That move alone probably increased the quality of life for millions of American elderly people over the last 200 years. Thus far the only relevant argument my opponent has made is, "he was stubborn and violent." I'll counter this by saying that Andrew Jackson could more accurately be characterized by the words, "opinionated" and "forceful". Two traits that are often prized in a leader. Andrew Jackson is also still considered one of the most epic presidents of all time. He allegedly fought in over 100 duels; during his notorious duel with Dickinson he took a bullet an inch above his heart, it remained lodged there until he died years later. If my opponent, theTallest1 plans to win this debate he will have to make substantiated arguments that relate to Jackson's actual presidency (1829-1837). Since the burden of proof remains on the instigator, his failure to do this will result in an auto-loss. I look forward to round two.
America is a Christian Nation

Hello! I am so excited for this debate, and want to give "Props" to Pro for starting what I hope to be, a great debate. Some quick background info: I, as an atheist stand with the instigator's view on this matter,but the challenge this debate will bring is well worth the time and my acceptance. I will prove that, though not an official theocracy, The United States political system is innately intertwined with the faith of the population majority(in this case Christianity). Furthermore I will show how a democratic style of government can,and will, be subject to religious influence in the legislation proposed,passed, and repealed. I look forward to an honest and open conversation. -Ivan
The earth is not flat

I accept your challenge. As far as this topic goes, I"ll say this: I believe virtually everyone knows that the earth is indeed spherical in shape. However, I will attempt to dissuade this assumption in the spirit of good debate. Now, Onto my argument: The basis of the argument for the earth being spherical, While having a myriad of branches, Comes down to one"s own observation; whether looking to the moon and seeing a curved shadow as opposed to a straight one, Or looking down at the earth from space and seeing an orb instead of a flat disc, The conclusion is left to the interpretation yielded by our observations and is one shared by billions of people. So, In order to throw this "truth" into question, We must question the difference between reality and perception. Putting aside the notion that "perception is reality, " which indeed can be interpreted as a rather egocentric trait inherent in any human psyche or thought process, I believe reality is that which exists in the universe irrespective of the interpretations of other light forms. For example, We see color everywhere we go. A green leaf hanging from a tree, The yellow glow of the sun as it hangs suspended in the sky " these colors are functions of our brain that do not exist in reality. In reality, These colors are in actuality a series of light waves that hit the photo receptors in our eyes, Travelling along our optic nerves where our brain then interprets (or "perceives") them as different colors. So, In reality, The colors we see outside exist only within our minds. The same goes with sounds. If a tree falls in a forest, Does it make a sound? The answer is no; it doesn"t make a sound unless an organism is present that is able to interpret the vibrations the fall emits into sound. Without the interpretation, The "sound" merely exists as vibrations carried through media (on earth, The media is air). So, My argument is this: the notion that the earth is spherical may not be correct, Due to the simple fact that human perception is only one interpretation of reality " which has a far larger range of interpretation when looked in the context of the brains (let"s define those as the "interpreters of reality") of other organism both known and unknown to us. While our brains interpret the earth as spherical when we look at it, In reality it may very well be flat " we"re just unable to perceive it as such.
Athletics should be given more priority in schools

Athletics are not the original focus of schools. That is not what they were meant to do, nor is that what they will do. School is not a place designed for sports. It is designed to give our youth the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life. Athletic superstars may make a lot of money, yes, but there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who do not have the same athletic talent as those superstars. In sports, only the top few players make a lot of money. The rest go into other jobs, possibly lower-level jobs because they didn't focus enough on school. Sports just don't give enough people good jobs for it to be a prime focus for schools. If you are just talking about more funding, I can somewhat agree with that, but I believe, as a team building exercise, raising money on their own is good for sports teams. It binds them together.
Literature is not important and should not be taken as an obligatory class.

I've started this debate before but did bad so I am providing a more revised argument. I feel very strongly that literature isn't important and should not be taken as an obligatory class. Before I go into further detail why I would like to state what I am arguing about: Fictional literature, questions asked on fictional literature such as "What is the author trying to infer?" Job: I hope all of you reading this have a job. Now, I would like to ask you a question: At any point of your jobs, do you read fictional books or are asked "What is the author trying to infer?" Now most of you are probably thinking a literature teacher and an author both need literature but both of those Jobs are ones that continue the chain of literature. Conclusion: Literature does not come up in any jobs that are not directly related to it. Time: If literature were not taken as an obligatory class, think of all the time saved in English class. I am almost sure that students learn vocabulary in a vocabulary book in English. If they were to not take literature, there vocabulary would become much more sophisticated. Students could also work on writing with the free time they have, and I am talking about persuasive writing like what I am doing right now, writing conventions, powerful language, all of that will become much better because they aren't wasting their time knowing what the author is trying to infer and reading fictional books that they get no new academic benefit from. Also there will be an abridged amount of homework. Now, I am not saying that there shouldn't be any fictional books. They are entertaining and you learn some morals but it is not necessary for one's success. Take art. Art I believe is obligatory but in most schools is not taken every day. I could think of many reasons art is important. If you want to be any type of designer. If the police need to know how a criminal looks like someone could draw a picture of him. This may not be extremely important but it definitely has more importance than literature. I think literature should be taken as an elective maybe because a lot of people are interested in it while others are not therefore it should not be an obligatory class. Culture: I have heard that literature exposes you to different cultures and I agree 100%. But wait, Social Studies does that so reading could be a more fun way to expose someone to different cultures but in fictional novels, it doesn't necessarily give facts about the country and its details that you learn in history/social studies. Please do not turn this into a debate between literature books versus history textbooks. Summary: Literature does not come up in any jobs (besides the ones I mentioned and explained why that is not a good argument) therefore it is a waste of time, therefore it should not be taken as an obligatory class.
who is better joe liebermen or bernie sanders

Running for president without taking money from big wall street elitist billionaire shows that Bernie Sanders wasn't in the pockets of the top 1%. In fact Bernie's words recently was this; " I come from the white working class".. I am not here to argue perfection. Bernie has made mistakes but he is a man of the people vs Joe Lieberman. All praise his for God only. I respect him for his continued drive and contribution to the American people and all society. His policies have always been for the people. Lets go through the list and we see why Bernie is better. 86. S.525 " 113th Congress (2013-2014) A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to restore the rights of the American people that were taken away by the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and related decisions, to protect the integrity of our elections, and to limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic process. Sponsor: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 03/12/2013) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: Senate - Judiciary Latest Action: 03/12/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (All Actions) 87. S.500 " 113th Congress (2013-2014) Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act Sponsor: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 03/07/2013) Cosponsors: (11) Committees: Senate - Finance Latest Action: 03/07/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (All Actions) Tracker: This bill has the status IntroducedHere are the steps for Status of Legislation:Introduced 95. S.3421 " 112th Congress (2011-2012) WORK Act Sponsor: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 07/23/2012) Cosponsors: (4) Committees: Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Latest Action: 07/23/2012 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (All Actions) Tracker: This bill has the status IntroducedHere are the steps for Status of Legislation:Introduced BILL 113. S.1017 " 112th Congress (2011-2012) Disabled Veteran Caregiver Housing Assistance Act of 2011 Sponsor: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 05/17/2011) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: Senate - Veterans' Affairs Latest Action: 06/08/2011 Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. (All Actions) Tracker: This bill has the status IntroducedHere are the steps for Status of Legislation:Introduced Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes. I encourage you to read them and make your own judgement on who is better between Bernie and Joe. Bernie Sanders has did more for the people than Joe. To think otherwise is lunacy. https://www.congress.gov...={%22congress%22:%22all%22,%22sponsorship%22:%22sponsored%22,%22type%22:%22bills%22,%22bill-status%22:%22introduced%22}
who is better joe liebermen or bernie sanders

How does running for president without taking money from wall street make you a good person automatically? There were 8 elections in the US before wall street was even founded so were all of those candidates good people? Again you praise him for being an independant but that does not make him a good person. His policy and his decisions are what make him either a good or bad politician. I hope you realize how much of a disaster affordable housing is and how bad it has been for our inner cities. Again, the facts are still not out as to whether it was good or not to enter there. We do not know and can not know what would have happened had we decided to stay out. I believe that you are referring to affirmative action here, but that is just a guess, and then you mention that minorities are not treated equal to whites no matter how hard they work. And I sit here wondering is that really true. Do minorities have less rights than any other american citizen? No. Do they have societal disadvantages that are seen in no other race? No. Do they get an average of 250 extra points on their SAT out of 1600? Yes they do. How is that fair? (https://www.princeton.edu...) Bernie sanders is also against guns and the "F" rating on the issue is from the NRA who is one of the pro gun lobbying groups, so to say he has an F rating would be good if that is something that you support. Now I am not saying that I support all of his policies, I do not believe that any one person perfectly represents anyone else because we are all free thinking human beings but he is for sure better than Bernie Sanders.
who is better joe liebermen or bernie sanders

Bernie Sander is the best thing compared to Joe he has run for president without taking money from Wall street. Ran against the corrupt Clinton Machine and the Democratic Committee. He is also the longest serving independent in congressional history. Led the first ever sit-in in Chicago against segregation of housing. In 1984 Mayor Sanders established the first community land trust for affordable housing. In October 2002 Sanders votes against the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq. The list goes on. On the other hand Joe Lieberman spoke against affirmative as if minorities are treated equal to Caucasians which isn't true no matter how hard they work. He is also against American citizens owning guns and has an F rating dealing with the issue. He supports stripping American citizens of their Constitution rights to express themselves on the Internet. He is for the censorship of the Internet. In 2010 he co authored a bill that would give the president emergency powers to cut the Internet of as in a " Kill Switch".... The list goes on to why Bernie Sanders is better than Joe Lieberman.
The Roman Empire existed in at least one point in time.

Nice try, but here's where your logic breaks down. "P3: Nothing exists." Nothing is the absence of existance, therefore the idea of nothing existing makes no sense. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, but cold never can. As for the .edu link, this could easily be a conspiracy. Think of all the myths already traveling around. What is just one more added to them? No big deal.
The Roman Empire existed in at least one point in time.

According to Con, Con doesn't exist and all arguments made by Con shall be negated on the grounds that they have to first be proven to exist beyond information and knowledge for the voter to take them into account. Furthermore, if Con rebuts a single point I make, Con is acknowledging not only my existence but the existence of my argumetns as well as language and extensions of logic such as grammar, spelling and semantics.Let's be a trendy Wendy and say oh deary me 'nothing exists', well if nothing exists then everything is nothing and thus if the Roman Empire is also nothing and nothing exists then the Roman Empire existed.Let's also look at the information within 'nothing' that leads us to believe that the roman Empire existed in at least one point in time:"The inventions and innovations which were generated in the Roman Empire profoundly altered the lives of the ancient people and continue to be used in cultures around the world today. Advancements in the construction of roads and buildings, indoor plumbing, aqueducts, and even fast-drying cement were either invented or improved upon by the Romans. The calendar used in the West derives from the one created by Julius Caesar, and the names of the days of the week (in the romance languages) and months of the year also come from Rome. Apartment complexes (known as `insula), public toilets, locks and keys, newspapers, even socks all were developed by the Romans as were shoes, a postal system (modeled after the Persians), cosmetics, the magnifying glass, and the concept of satire in literature." - (Mark, 2011)So, let's all be fancy Nancies and ignore satire, Julius Caesar and the whole shebang and say nothing exists.I will now explain why, if nothing exists, then anything possible exists. If nothing, which is a complete absence of anything, exists then anything that is absent is said to have existed. Do ghosts exists? If nothing exists and ghosts are said to be nonexistent then they are said to be nothing and since nothing exists they exist.Let me make this simpler:P1: If something exists, it is something.P2: If something isn't something, it is nothing.P3: Nothing exists.P4 (Con's own logic): Everything that is said to exist actually does not.P5: The Roman Empire is either part of everything or is nothing.C1: P1+ P4 = Nothing existsC2: C1 + P2 + P3 = No matter whether or not something exists, it either exists as something or as nothing.C3: C2 + P5 = The Roman Empire either exists if the evidence for it is taken to exist or it exists as nothing and thus existed.As for time, the same logic applies.Time has to be real because this debate has deadlines.Either this debate isn't real and thus Con's entire case can be negated as nonexistent or it is real and I win. Bibliography:Joshua J. Mark. “Roman Empire,” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified April 28, 2011. http://www.ancient.eu....
The Roman Empire existed in at least one point in time.

I don't get why people believe things so easily. I remember in school giving my teachers a very difficult time. Simply, because my default setting is not to believe. I mean seriously why would you believe in unicorns unless there was solid proof? I remember giving my math teachers hell and demanding proof that 1+1=2. I never got a satisfactory answer.I remember in high school singing "nothing is real, nobody is real" happily. I never accepted in the first place, mathematics, the Earth being round, vaccines, Eskimos, Jesus, and Europe.Btw, supposedly the Roman empire was in Europe. So, if I don't believe in Europe I don't believe in the Roman empire. Burden of proof is on my opponent, since why should I have to provide the non-existence of unicorns? Thanks for the debate.