BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Novice Presidential Debate

Hello everybody, My name is the Doctor. I travel through space in time. In fact I go back so often that i am probably related to all of you in some way. I love all people. I have saved this planet multiple times and without me you would be slaved to many an Alien race. Now im going to point out my different views on many of America's problems. 1. Abortion If you don't want the f**kin baby don't kill it. "Accidentally" roll the carriage of a cliff. Problem solved. You don't have to... (Sheldon enters) Oh hi Dr. Cooper i was just about to introduce you. Umm, this is Sheldon Cooper and he will be running as my Vice President. Dr. Cooper: Yes, I will. Now the first thing we are going to focus on is global warming. Instead of making the world hotter or colder, why don't we just make it the same temperature. After The Hot Night, i have found that the most comfortable range is about 75 degrees. If we but coolers in the desert we can keep it to this wonderful temp. Um. Dr. Cooper, what about melting the ice caps... Dr. Cooper: Its ok, well keep that area cold as to not cause trouble. Maybe we'll use it as a world wide freezer. Ok, then. Now foreign policy. I have personally been to every country in the world and have found reason in all religions. Hopefully if we use peaceful tactics we can sign treaties and become friends with our current enemies. Then we go to economic and educational policys. Me and Mr. Cooper both agree that we should stop spending money on stupid things like sports, physical education, or anything involving activity. Instead with my immense brain, I will bring technology to America. Tech that will not be fightable by any enemy. We will use all money on education and making the Americas brighter. I am now open to any questions that i will answer full heartedly. Dr. Cooper: Wait, we'll be assigning a new presidential song. None of that bum bum bumbum bum. Its now: Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait... The Earth began to cool, The autotrophs began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, We built a wall (we built the pyramids), Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries, That all started with the big bang! Thank you! (Ends with Doctor face-palm)
Novice Presidential Debate

I will keep this short as to give me more time for breathing, I am Lord Vader, second in command of the mighty Sith forces, I destroyed Alderaan so I could make my child cry, I have crushed numerous a rebellion and have slashed many fools with my lightsaber. Now, I am here to subjugate this planet by becoming your leader. My philosophy when it comes to leadership is simple: KILL ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE US. This philosophy has worked quite well in the past, and if you don’t believe me I will crush your windpipe with my mind. I know what direction this country needs to go in and my party stands firm on all issues, ranging from how to crush the Rebellion, to how to crush the Rebellion. To aid me in completing this goal, my VP will be none other than the mighty Lurtz, the first of the great fighting Uruk-Hai! Now, this choice may seem a little bit off to you Republicans, you are probably recalling that Lurtz was decapitated at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring movie (curse you Peter Jackson). However, that was an elaborate plot by the government to cover up 9/11. This country needs strength, and together we will conquer! (Lurtz enters the room and waves to great applause.) Your presidential candidates kiss and bless babies? Hah, Lurtz EATS THEM. The biggest weakness in your country is weakness, and this will be rectified. All your issues ranging from homosexuality to abortion all result from your namby-pampy wishy-washy baby kissing. Under our administration, we will take your babies from you and train them to be Sith warriors! Those who are too weak will be turned into a subservient class who will feed me grapes, message my throat, and fan me with my dead enemies. Then, with my army of Sith, we will conquer this planet, and then, the galaxy! So, any questions? (Lurtz looks at Vader questioningly and leans forward to whisper in his ear) Ah! I forgot. We had recently agreed backstage that question asking will now be against the rules in our society. Those who ask questions will be severely punished. I look forward to hearing from the Doctor Who nobody and the queero with no friends. Hah, I'm just joking. I'm sure those two will be very amusing to see, they are more awkward than meeting your ex at the Mos Eisley Cantina when you've already started dating a twi-leck.(Lurtz looks at Vader questioningly and leans forward to whisper in his ear)Ah! I forgot. Joking will also be severely punished. (Vader leans forward to talk to Lurtz. He finishes, leans back, and Lurtz nods)Ahem, the rule has been amended! Only Lurtz and I may joke. The rest of you will have your testicles crushed if you dare try to create laughter or happiness.
Novice Presidential Debate

Now ive seen people on here that are my idols. Everyday i get on and see great debate, forum games, and PM's that make me laugh. It is for these reasons that i want to try and make my way to the top with them. One of my favorite things to get on and read are imabenches Presidential debates. I love them and would like to do one of my own with another person. I will let my oponent choose who they want to be. I would like to be The Doctor. The david Tennant version, not Matt Smith. This Presidential debate is open to anyone. 8,000 characters 5 rounds, minus 1 for acceptance 2 week voting period Remember that this is a Novice Presidential Debate so join if your like me. Relativley new to the site and willing ot have a good battle. AND PLEASE NO ROUND FOFIETING. I really don't like that.
Novice Presidential Debate

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited, but I will continue for the enjoyment of the users. Sorry this is kind of rushed (homework).Foreign Policy Questions:1. Terrorism2. Foreign Relationships3. Future Conflicts(Vader)Hmm, it appears that on your planet, your country is not the leader of the planet. Well, this problem will be rectified. TerrorismI have learned about the tragedy of 9/11 andn other terrorist attacks in your country. Rest assured, those who committed the crimes will be found and destroyed. They cannot hide, we will send our best troops to the Middle East where they will KILL ALL INSURGENTS. They cannot run, they cannot hide from my Uruk-Hai. I mean, my troops ran for like a week straight, no one can escape them.http://www.youtube.com...(Lurtz leans forward and whispers in Vader's ear)Well, it has just come to my attention that the Uruk-Hai in that scene were doping, like that Lince Legstrong? Well, what did you think?? Could an orc have ran for that long? They were totally using something. However, that's not the point. We will find and eradicate terrorism.Foreign RelationshipsI don't like meeting with other dignitaries. Some of them smell like curry, and I HATE CURRY. The US will conquer the rest of this world, so foreign relationships are unnecessary. All relationships are unnecessary. I enjoy making my children cry.Future ConflictsKILL THEM.Well, my opponent would probably want peace and a solution to global warming. Well my opponent lacks, how do you say it? Cojones? I think I'll be more direct, my opponent lacks BALLS, just like Lenc Headstrong, or whatchamacall it.
The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries

I would like to challenge your claim that intervention would result in states that are "self-determining and accountable to mankind". If the United States solves problems for other countries, it is depriving these countries of their ability to thrive on their own - much like a helicopter parent keeps a child from learning how to deal with playground problems by constantly swooping in whenever they feel that the child is at risk. The child is then unable to fend for him or herself. As a result, in adulthood, the child is either left dependant on the parent, or helpless. A country dependant on the United States in its adulthood, or future, would not have self-determination. A country that is helpless in the future would put itself at further risk for more human rights violations that they are still unable to solve without adopting United States policies or benefiting from intervention. When forming the United States, the colonists sought self-determination. As an independent nation, there were times of human rights violations, such as slavery. But because the rest of the world allowed the United States to deal with such problems on its own, the United States was able to keep its unique democratic ways of solving problems, thereby keeping the traits that make it an individual nation. As far as sharing resources to create a more peaceful world, what is to say that the United States's resources and political systems are superior. The Great Recession, the glass ceiling, and the homicide rate are just the start of a long list that prove that the United States is not perfect. Not to mention, many of our systems would not suit other regions of the world, who have different cultures and backgrounds. I understand that your argument is addressing human rights soley. But, as I stated earlier and you implied in Contention two, when intervening for human rights, it is often inevitable for economic, political, and social intervention to take place. This is becuase, if the United States helps other countries deal with their problems, the United States's methods are usually Americanized. If America's intervention is causing more problems than it is fixing, this intervention is not justified. Perhaps if multiple countries worked together to intervene in other countries, the odds of justifiable results would be higher. But, as your resolution only included American intervention, implying that only one imperfect country is needed to do the job properly, it can be concluded that your resolution is too risky to be justified. Your resolution threatens the national sovereignty of other nations for a cause that may not even work. Countries are sovereign for a reason. They have policies that protect their independent cultures and people. The United States is not justified in interfering with another country's ability to be successful.
Affirmative Action shoule be discontinued

"Or maybe you could have read my first argument more carefully." Establishment of debate lesson 101 no misleading titles! When most people hear the term affirmative action they think of it on a federal level. On this site itself the BIG Issues chart refers to national issues and affirmative action is listed! "this is a white Student that tries very hard in school and gets A's and B's every year and their a Latino student who does okay in school and gets C's and some B's. They both apply to the same college and they take a look at at both profiles and they decide to accept the Latino student because his a minority. Wouldn't it be discrimination against the white student because he didn't get accepted because he/she was white. Even though he/she had better grades." That's not really an argument that is a hypothetical. And yes it is discrimination but your example refers to quotas not affirmative action. "I let haven't seen you present arguments about how we should still continue affirmative action." That's because I had to spend this debate explaining to you what affirmative action really is. Good luck on the debate anyway!
Affirmative Action shoule be discontinued

"If I wasn't clear, I was referring to affirmative action being used in college acceptance process." "Well maybe you should have elaborated in the title." Or maybe you could have read my first argument more carefully. You stated that John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order to prevent discrimination. So lets take the example I provide in my first argument. For example, this is a white Student that tries very hard in school and gets A's and B's every year and their a Latino student who does okay in school and gets C's and some B's. They both apply to the same college and they take a look at at both profiles and they decide to accept the Latino student because his a minority. Wouldn't it be discrimination against the white student because he didn't get accepted because he/she was white. Even though he/she had better grades. I let haven't seen you present arguments about how we should still continue affirmative action.
Affirmative Action shoule be discontinued

"'Affirmative action' means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and culture from which they have been historically excluded." (Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) http://plato.stanford.edu... If I wasn't clear, I was referring to affirmative action being used in college acceptance process. Therefore, your points, about business restriction, don't apply to this debate.
Affirmative Action shoule be discontinued

Many people don't seem to understand what Affirmative Action is thanks to the misleading lies from conservative media. What many people generally believe about Affirmative Action is that it uses illegal quotas when in fact it uses no such thing Affirmative Action is simply the set of laws the federal government has passes to restrict businesses from discriminating against anyone [the laws so far only applied to minorities since they were the only laws that needed to be passed.]
Affirmative Action shoule be discontinued

I think that Affirmative Action should be discontinued in the college application process because it judges minority groups based on their race rather than how good they are in school. Also it gives white people a unfair advantage into getting into college. For example, this is a white Student that tries very hard in school and gets A's and B's every year and their a Latino student who does okay in school and gets C's and some B's. They both apply to the same college and they take a look at at both profiles and they decide to accept the Latino student because his a minority. If you were the white student, how would you fill? As a Latino would rather get into college for how I'm doing in school, rather than my race.
Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God.

I know It might've been good to find a more polite way to put this, but that argument there is the most perfect example of "bias" I have ever seen. You have admitted that both events relating to well-known pagan gods have been supported by archaeological evidence , as well as events pertaining to the christian god, but of course the pagan one's where coincidental, and the christian ones where "proof". David beating Goliath very well could have been plain luck on David's side, or even the support of a pagan god instead.mWho knows. Sorry for forfeiting that last round, but I guess 3's enough.
Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God.

There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of pagan gods, but there is to support the existence of the Christian God. There is a lot of archaeological evidence to confirm the Bible, and it proves that God exists. For example, it has been proven that David really existed [1]. David, however, had a small size, not much muscle, and no combat training. But he indeed won, so God must have been with him and therefore must exist. There is no archaeological evidence, however, to support the existence of pagan gods. Some archaeological evidence can support pagan myths, but any archaeological confirmation of the supposed existence of pagan deities is more fallacious than evidence for the Bible, because (1) Atheists can refute them both and (2) any major event that affected the good guys' or the bad guys' chances can be proven coincidental. But as I demonstrated earlier, David and Goliath really existed Sources: [1]-http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God.

^_^ But now that bit of confusion cleared up, let't get some good debating going. The premise of your arguments seems to be that it would have taken an omnipotent god such as the christian god in order to have formulated the proper conditions for our existence, and without one, there would be very little chance we would be here right now. But there are many gods that are just as powerful as the christian god in paganism. In fact, I could make up my own omnipotent god right that would be a complete opposite of the christian god, and if I where to start believing in it it would, in a sense, become my very own pagan god. Even if you prefer a different definition of paganism, there are still many all powerful gods for me to use, such as the Ik Onkar in Sikhism, or various African deities. But let's say that the christian god is indeed the only god powerful enough to do something like that. Then we wouldn't be here without him, right? I don't think this argument really proves anything. As far as we can tell, the universe is infinite, and strange things happen in infinity. If you went on a long, long trip around the universe, I'm sure you'd eventually find a solar system quite like ours, or if you went on long enough, maybe even an exact replica.
Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God.

The main idea of my first argument is that if you disprove Zeus, you disprove all of the Greek gods, and it is feasible to do this without disproving the Christian God. Point 1: Zeus is merely a statue figure, while there are no statues of the Christian God that people bow down to. They simply focus on Him when singing worship songs. A god cannot come out of a statue, do anything from it, or have it as part of his body. The Christian God, however, is purely immaterial and therefore has no face to sculpt in anything. That is why there are no statues of the Christian God. Point 2: If Zeus existed, his messenger Hermes would have told him that I instigated this debate and am trying to disprove him without disproving my own God by now, and therefore would have already killed me with a thunder bolt. Therefore, since I have debunked all proof of Zeus, my argument stands. Point 3: How does disproving Zeus disprove the rest of the Greek gods? In Greek mythology, Zeus was also the king of the Greek gods. Because they would need a king to give them orders or they would not carry out any actions. But since their king obviously does not exist, they do not exist. Since Zeus never existed, his father Kronos never existed, and neither did his mother Rhea. Many of the Greek gods were related to Zeus. If neither Kronos nor Rhea ever existed, this disproves most of the Greek gods. Point 4: This by no means disproves the Christian God, even if it disproves Zeus because: 1. The two deities are separate. In Greek mythology, Zeus never gave the people fire because he was scared that people would worship fire instead of him [1]. God, however, in the Bible, gave people quail and manna [2], despite the possibility of them disobeying Him or turning away from Him [3]. That is one key difference: the Christian God is less selfish. Neither of them gave punishment of any kind without first being disobeyed. 2. As for my second point, if I am disproving Zeus but not my own God, and he has not killed me yet, but Atheists are disproving the Christian God all over the world, why is He not slaughtering them? Because my God is merciful. Conclusion: One can disprove the gods of Pagans without disproving the Christian God because God and Zeus are different, God is not a statue, but Zeus is, I would be dead by now if Zeus was real, no Greek god can exist if Zeus does not, and if my argument disproves Zeus, it still does not disprove my God. Sources: [1]- . http://www.dltk-kids.com... [2]- Exodus 16:13-15 [3]- Exodus 16:19-20
Ted Cruz is a "Natural Born" U.S. citizen

My opponent seems to think this is settled law. It is not. He brings up laws from the 1700's where there was no definition of "natural born". My opponent he must reconcile a few problems with his argument. According to the 14th amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States" There are 2, not 1 clause here. The constitution has groups Born and naturalized. What happens when a citizen gives birth abroad? They must APPLY for citizenship -They are NOT born a US citizen. As per the state dept: Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth... attempting to establish the child"s U.S. citizenship Cruz could be born of US citizens, but required naturalization. IF born a US citizen, then no application is required. https://www.law.cornell.edu... https://travel.state.gov...
Ted Cruz is a "Natural Born" U.S. citizen

Cruz"s mother did not lose her citizenship upon marrying his father. According to the Expatriation Act of 1907, section 3 originally said that American woman who married foreign nationals lost their citizenship, but a resolution was passed in 5/14/2014 (S.Res. 402) that acknowledged that section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907 is incompatible with and antithetical to the core principle that all persons, regardless of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity are created equal. (Congress.gov) Therefore, Cruz"s mother is a United States citizen. Congress expanded the meaning of what it is to be a natural born United States citizen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and said children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are "natural born citizens." (Harvard Law Review) https://www.congress.gov... http://harvardlawreview.org...
Religion should be abolished.

1. Your examples don't assume the sheer enormity of a move like BANNING religion. Religion is a major part of life for many people, if the government has power to take this way of life away then they can throw me in jail for being a communist. Secular governments have not BANNED religion, these things are not in the same, what you advocate making religion illegal this is currently not done ANYWHERE in the world. 2. Religion was not banned. When the government has power over beliefs facism is inevitable, you effectively drop this. 3. What Volt is saying is even when he dosen't agree he thinks people have the right to say and advocate things. This is what FREE speech and expression mean. Just because I'm an ashiest dosen't stop me from saying people should have religion. 4. Religion can't supress speech when its not an enforceable law. In Italy the fascists did not abolish religion they used it to defend their cause. In Rome when being Catholic was minority and illegal they still practiced underground. This dosen't lead to fascism, it means... BANNING RELIGION DOESN'T MAKE RELIGION GO AWAY, IT MAKES IT GO UNDERGROUND AND MAKES ALL OF YOUR IMPACTS INEVITABLE! This is in caps because its a reason to vote and it turns the case. In a world where banning religion dosen't make religion go away there is no longer a reason for taking such action as the problem it seeks to solve remains afterword. If banning religion dosen't solve, a risk of my impacts mean you vote con. Religion is not inherently violent. Capitalism creates poverty, does this mean it can't also make everyone rich? No. Religion could make everyone happy, or could be a bad thing, it's not inherently good or bad, it depends on the people who worship it. This means religion is a right, and it will not go away just by banning it. The best way to solve is to make the government become more secular, its the only way to solve. Banning religion would not solve religion and would cause violence in itself. The Evangelicals would not take an action like that lightly.