BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexy debate #1: Actual membrum viriles are better than phallic artifices (dildos).

Okay, reasons actual peenies (membrum viriles) beat fake ones:-There is an actual person, so psychologically you have something you can be emotionally attached to, rather than an emotionless unintelligent pseudo-penis that cannot move on its own, and doesn't have that fleshy texture (fleshlight lol) of the real peeny.-Dildos can't feel anything, so whatever you have, strap-on what-ever-they're-calleds you won't feel that.-Dildos can't release sperma. -Dildos require the user to do manual labor, peenies are automatic.-Dildos accumulate bacteria and sexual fluids, and they require washing. Most males have the ability to wash their man parts decently without you having to do any work.-Peenies can change sizes and get bigger and harder, dildos can't (unless they are blow ups).-Peenies don't cost money, and you can even get paid to use them sometimes, while a good dildo can be very expensive.-Dildos can break, crack, have fractures, or errors that can hurt you in usage.-Depending on the dildo, you can get an allergic reaction from a material in them and many dildos are made from softened polyvinyl chloride, which is actually harmful.You simply don't get the same movement or vibe with a dildo that you get with the real deal. ;)http://www.ultimate-dildos.com...http://www.thetfp.com...
Abortion is Murder

My opponent did not define claims, so I will. murder-The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. (Because of this, for him to have a claim, he needs to prove a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus qualifies as a human being) human being-having the characteristics and qualifications of a human being. abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. The fact that he made this a one round debate puts him at a huge disadvantage. Also note Burden of proof is shared. REBUTTALS His first paragraph serves like a preamble nothing for me to argue against. if I could prove an embryo is not a human being, then abortion is not murder, and then I win. You need to first understand that a human and a human being are two very different things. A human is made of cells and has DNA, but a human being has much more specific qualifications. There are seven qualities something must meet in order to be considered a human being: -They must be made of cells. -They must obtain and use energy. -They must grow and develop. -They must be able to reproduce. -They must respond to their environment. -They must adapt to their environment. -Finally, it needs to be able to live independently. If there is a single one of these qualities they do not meet, then they are not a human being http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us... An embryo is indeed made of cells. It can obtain and use energy. It can grow and develop, so good so far. It does have the qualities of reproduction. They can respond to their environment. They can adapt to their environment, just one more quality to meet. Here is where an embryo fails to qualify as a human being. An embryo, cannot live independently. An embryo can not independently survive on its own outside its mothers womb, therefore while an embryo is a human, in the sense that it has DNA and is made of cells, but is not a human being as it does not fit the qualifications. Therefore, whether you agree with abortion morally or not, an embryo is not human. http://sciencedirect99.blogspot.com...
Lee Harvey Oswald No-Scoped John F. Kennedy

1) He was Lagging"There is no evidence that Harvey was using a computer when he quick-scoped JFK. It was probably an Xbox because Xbox sucks."So we agree that he was lagging. 2) Handcuffed when shot"Harvey Oswald and this Harvey Rabbit are obviously the same person (they have the same name, duh) so Harvey should have just pulled a Houdini and got away from the cops."He wasnt just handcuffed though, he was being held by officers who were restraining both of his arms. Ive never seen Houdini escape THAT before, and I doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually Houdini"Just because we have not witnessed Harvey picking up girls does not mean that he didn't pick up thousands of girls."HE WAS HAVING SEX WITH A CACTUS, I THINK THAT IMPLIES HE COULDNT PICK UP GIRLSIn conclusion, its highly likely that Oswald did NOT try to no-scope jfk35, and only missed the first two shots because jfk35 was in motion, and because Oswald was lagging due to his crappy xboxVote Con!
Lee Harvey Oswald No-Scoped John F. Kennedy

Thanks for a quick response! On to my rebuttals...There is no evidence that Harvey was using a computer when he quick-scoped JFK. It was probably an Xbox because Xbox sucks.Regarding your totally inappropriate comment about people who have sex with cactuses, I have to say your conclusion is unfounded. It takes a Pro to have a sex with a cactus in the middle of an intersection and succeed. So your own argument defeats itself. "He literally had his hands handcuffed behind his back and being held by police officers, no matter how pro you are you cant escape that." Oh yeah? Well when I was in headstart (pre-kindergarten) I had this guy called Harvey dress up as a rabbit and call himself Harvey Rabbit and do magic tricks. Harvey Oswald and this Harvey Rabbit are obviously the same person (they have the same name, duh) so Harvey should have just pulled a Houdini and got away from the cops.But he's a noob quick-scoper who sucks at life, reaffirming the resolution.Con says that the USA failed in teaching Harvey to pick up girls. I must point out that this is the fallacy of argument from ignorance: Just because we have not witnessed Harvey picking up girls does not mean that he didn't pick up thousands of girls.In Con's last argument he contradicts himself: He originally said that Harvey missed because he was lagging, now he says it's because jfk35 was in a moving car.Oh wait, never mind. He said "and that he was lagging a tad," so it's not technically a contradiction. But it seems like it at first glance so vote Pro! Thank you!
Lee Harvey Oswald No-Scoped John F. Kennedy

"How many times do snipers miss the first 2 shots?"Depends on how much your computer lags when youre playing Call of Duty....."just look at this dude, he's so pro: "Are you kidding? He looks lie a guy you see in a newspaper in Florida as someone who was arrested for having sex with a cactus in the middle of an intersection.... And succeeded. "Harvey was a total noob because he was killed by a pistol."He literally had his hands handcuffed behind his back and being held by police officers, no matter how pro you are you cant escape that. "His clan [USA!] taught him how to be pro and pick up girls"Well they clearly failed at that last part. "He came back to the [USA!] clan and somehow convinced his team to play a Hardcore: Search & Destroy match. That's when he teamkilled his clan leader, jfk35. "What 'team'? Harvey was a one man job who killed jfk35 all on his own. He probably missed the first two shots due to the fact that jkf35 was in a moving car, and that he was lagging a tad.
Lee Harvey Oswald No-Scoped John F. Kennedy

I will now present my arguments for why I am certain Harvey Lee no-scoped JFK. First, Harvey wasn't looking down the scope How many times do snipers miss the first 2 shots? (1) Not often, unless either A: they suck at sniping or B: they weren't looking down the scope. Which is more likely in this case? Obviously not A, because just look at this dude, he's so pro: Second, Harvey was a noob Only noobs no-scope, because they suck at true sniping and life in general. Harvey was a total noob because he was killed by a pistol. (2) I can only imagine the satisfaction Jack got from pistoling this douche no-scoper. It was totally worth getting banned for life. (3) Fifth, Harvey was a team-killerHarvey was a classic team-killer. His clan [USA! ] taught him how to be pro and pick up girls, but they wouldn't teach him to no-scope, because that's gay. Raging so hard, he accepted a clan invite from the Spetnaz(4) and changed his clan tag to [P1MP] which is really ironic. The Spetnaz learned him in the art of the most efficient way to waste your time, like no-scoping in private matches for 24 hours straight and loudly boasting that you screwed your opponent's mother. He came back to the [USA! ] clan and somehow convinced his team to play a Hardcore: Search & Destroy match. That's when he teamkilled his clan leader, jfk35. (1). http://www.aarclibrary.org... (2). http://guernseys.com... (3). http://en.wikipedia.org...(4)http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
The Bible is Brainwash

Okay so my job is to prove that the Bible is used to brainwash. You so excellent defined brainwashing for me as, “pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.” So now I have to show and convince you that the bible fits these definitions. So the bible can “pressurize” people by “forcible means” by threatening them. If had to choose to “adopt radically different beliefs” you would be pressured into doing this by being informed that if you didn’t, you would be tortured (in intolerable pain) for the rest of eternity. Now my proof of this to show it is real is, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” So it is impossible to go to heaven (not go to hell and be tortured) without believing in God and accepting his beliefs. With that I mostly proved how the Bible brainwashes except for the “radical” part of the beliefs. I have already shown how they “pressurize (someone)” into excepting beliefs now the only other part I have to prove is that it is radical. This extremely difficult since something being radical is of an opinion. But at least for me, it seems crazy that an invisible man in the sky writes a book (which is impossible since he is not physical matter and can’t even think at all) that denies everything that we know for sure of the world and shuns truth, then threatens people for infinite torture if they don’t believe in him.
The Bible is Brainwash

Excellent choice of topic for a debate, I feel I will enjoy this.My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate.My opponent has to prove that the bible is brainwashing people to win this debate.For those interested, brainwashing is defined as: 'pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.'Pro, I look forward to your explanation of how the bible is actively pressurising people into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.
The Bible is Brainwash

My opponent constantly states that the bible brainwashes people who read it, yet he appears to have no understanding of what the word brainwash actually means. He does, however, repeat the definition of it many times, let's remind ourselves of what that is: Brainwash: 'To pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.' In order for the bible to be considered to 'brainwash' people, they would have to read it against their will as, if they do not read it against their will, it cannot be considered 'forcible.' My opponent has, still, failed to fulfill his burden of proof by proving how the bible forces people to read it.' Saying that other people whom have already read the bible will force them to read it is both nonsense (people are not forced to read the bible on pain of death in this day and age) and, even if it were true, it would not prove that the bible 'brainwashes' people, it would only prove that the people whom are forcing them to read it are attempting to brainwash them, not the bible itself, which is what this debate is about. My opponent has conceded this debate many times by stating, in various ways, that the bible is not a living thing, so is unable to use forcible means. Therefore, I do not have to rebut my opponents other arguments as they are all irrelevant in light of the fact that my opponent is unable to, or at least has so far been unable to, provide any evidence that the bible itself can force people to read it, thus fulfilling the 'forcible' requirement of the definition of 'brainwash.' I will remind my opponent one more time that other people not only do not force others to read the bible, but even if they were to do so, that would be irrelevant to this discussion as other people attempting to brainwash you is not the same as the bible attempting to brainwash you. Back over to you, Pro.
The Bible is Brainwash

Thank you for that valid response con, for it has raised many interesting topics. Rebuttal: You open your response with, “My opponent's entire argument is irrelevant.”And end your argument this same way. I don’t know how my last argument was irrelevant, since I proved that the Bible brainwashes people abundantly clear through four different lines of evidence from the Bible, which I could post more if you prefer, if that wasn’t enough, I also even connected it to the crusades. I don’t know how this is considered ‘irrelevant’ since I never specified that the Bible has to directly brainwash, and that is what your entire last argument was about. “My opponent concedes that the bible does not brainwash people: 'I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it.'” I never conceded that the bible doesn’t brainwash people, if I did, I would lose the whole debate. You incorrectly assume this. I simply stated that, physically, the Bible cannot force people to read it, which is correct since a bible is not alive. I have proven that the Bible indirectly does this, and therefore, proven my point. “He then attempts to change the resolution of this debate to 'followers of the bible attempt to brainwash people.' This is not the original resolution, but it is what my opponent is attempting to now make the resolution after he realised that the bible is, in fact, unable to do any actual 'brainwashing.'” I did not attempt to change the entire debate at all, I was proving how the Bible brainwashes people through indirect means. And since you have not defeated these at all, it still stands. But the Bible, in fact, is, able to do actual ‘brainwashing.’ Argument: As I have made abundantly clear in my last response, that once someone reads the Bible, they are in fact ‘brainwashed’ to“pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.” by literal definition. I have proven that this is true through my evidence of the crusades, and other mass conversions where people threaten others to adopt their religion, or die, as seen in the crusades. Therefore, the bible does brainwash people by definition, proving my entire side of the debate. Now in my opponent’s response, I suggest that you respond to my claim of, proving that the Bible indirectly brainwashes people, for I never specified in the debate; that the Bible has to directly do this, which therefore defeats your entire previous argument. I would like to make clear to the audience that my opponent has never defeated any of my arguments, as I have abundantly shown previously, and his only response to my argument was stating repeatedly that a Bible can’t physically move and force things, which I hope everyone believes too. But my opponent has never defeated my proof and evidence that the Bible brainwashes, and I suggest, as advice, in the next round that you do so. Thanks and back to you Con!
The Bible is Brainwash

Thank you for that argument, Pro, on to mine. My opponent's entire argument is irrelevant. The object of this debate is to discover whether or not 'the bible is brainwash. ' My opponent concedes that the bible does not brainwash people: 'I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it. ' He then attempts to change the resolution of this debate to 'followers of the bible attempt to brainwash people. ' This is not the original resolution, but it is what my opponent is attempting to now make the resolution after he realised that the bible is, in fact, unable to do any actual 'brainwashing. ' Thus, everything that my opponent said in that previous round is irrelevant.
The Bible is Brainwash

Rebuttal: “However, this is untrue as the bible, not being animated or having the ability to make decisions or have conscious thought, cannot actually force people to read it” To respond to this I shall say that the contents of the Bible encourage its followers to spread the word of the Lord and to tell otheres that they will be punished if they do not convert. I believe this defeats your argument of, “Thus if you do not wish to read the bible, then the bible is unable to force you to. ” Since the Bible is able to force you to, through its followers. I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it but it very obviously, indirectly of course does, “pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means. ” Now for my evidence of how the Bible does this. I would have liked to show more proof, but I thought this was enough. “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. ’” “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ’” “Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. ” ”In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me. ” Another point of evidence is; the crusades. These were believed to have started at 1095 A. D. These were started to convert others (by: “pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means. ”) and to win back the “Holy Land. ” This is yet another piece of evidence showing that the Bible brainwashes people. The Bible does not directly, physically force people to read it, but, as I have made abundantly clear, the Bible does brainwash. “unable to use any sort of 'forcible means. '” I have now made clear that the Bible is able to use forcible means, therefore fits the exact definition of brainwashing. With that I have proven my point in the Bible is Brainwash. If you have any objections, I have evidence, as above, that the Bible uses people to force them to adopt the Bible.
The Bible is Brainwash

My opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof. My opponent asserts thus: 'So the bible can "pressurize" people by "forcible means" by threatening them.' However, this is untrue as the bible, not being animated or having the ability to make decisions or have conscious thought, cannot actually force people to read it. Thus if you do not wish to read the bible, then the bible is unable to force you to. I find it difficult to understand how this detail has escaped Pro's attention, perhaps he can enlighten us about the matter in the next round. As the bible is unable to communicate with people without their choosing to do so then this eradicates any doubts that anyone may have had about the bible's ability to use 'forcible means.' What I mean by this, to make it clear, is that the bible is unable to use any sort of 'forcible means.' Of course, although the bible is unable to use forcible means, there are still people who would still choose to read it. These people are called 'Christians' and tend to have beliefs that are incredibly similar to the beliefs inscribed into the bible. Thus, if the bible does change their beliefs in any sort of way, the change may not be defined as a 'radical' one. Even if Pro had proved that the bible is somehow able to force people to read it, which he has not, then the question would be where is there any evidence of threats of violence? Pro has sourced this for us: '"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."' This is Christian talk for 'no we don't need to provide proof because faith yay.' However, despite its obvious flaws, this statement contains no obvious or implied threats of violence or torture. It does not, actually, say that those who do not 'draw near to God' can not go to heaven either. Pro's entire last paragraph is irrelevant as the definition of brainwash is that the person being brainwashed has to adopt 'radically different' beliefs. Not 'radical' beliefs. If I went from believing that cheese was the ruler of the universe to believing that cheese and potatos ruled the universe jointly, both beliefs would be somewhat radical, but they would not be radically different from each other. In other words, the bible is unable to force people to read it so it cannot change peoples beliefs by forcible means. Thank you and back over to you Pro.
Demand equation with many variables and finding Profit maximization

I made a small error. The plus sign should be a minus sign for the price. Q = -125 - 7.31P + .0030I + .0003Pop. I believe that once the regression is run for say data for a ten year period, take the current values of the explanatory variables except for the price variable and solving the equation for the price, you will then get an equation like this P = a-bQ where "P" is the price and "Q" is the quantity. "a" is the P intercept and "b" is the slope. If you have a marginal cost of say "c" then the price that maximizes the demand equation is this P = a -[(a-c)/2]. In other words all you need to find price that maximizes profits is the P intercept (i.e. the price that demands a zero quantity) and the marginal cost and that is it. Do you agree or disagree with this argument. The equation P = a -[(a-c)/2] is derived by using calculus (MR = MC)
Demand equation with many variables and finding Profit maximization

This is not really an argument but a way of finding out how to maximize profits. Here is my problem. I have run a regression for a hypothetical business to find out its demand equation. I ran a linear relationship for the last 10 years. Quantity is a function of price, consumer disposable income, and population. Q = a + bP+ cI + d Pop where a is the intercept and b,c and d are the coefficients Q is the quantity demanded P is the price, I is the disposable income and Pop is the population After running the regression here is my demand equation Q = -125 + 7.31P + .0030I + .0003Pop Now I know that price does not shift the demand curve but Income and population shift it to the right. I also know that for profit maximization MR = MC. In this case MC = 2. How do I find the MR of the demand equation above. It would be a very simple calculation using calculus if Price was the only variable but that is not realistic or the case here. Does any one out there have any suggestions??