BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yo dawg joke contest

Allow me to explain what a "yo dawg" joke is: A joke that takes the following format:"Yo dawg, I heard you like A, so I did X so you can do Y while you do Y" The origin of the joke is Xzibit's famous quote: "Yo dawg, I heard you like cars, so I put a car in your car so you can drive while you drive. " The quote was later turned into a famous internet meme. EXAMPLE: Yo dawg I heard you like Justin Bieber. So I took a crap on your iPod so you can listen to sh*t while listening to sh*t
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government

First, let's clraify some thing about the Hobbes' argument." In this state, anything a man does to preserve his life and property is right and good"That's not what Hobbes said. The theories about the natural state of man all agreed that there was not private property in that state, so this statement is wrong. " Each individual is the "best" judge on how to accomplish this all-important goal. However, because everyone would not agree with his judgement a state of war or conflict ensues. "So basically Pro is saying we are not capable of having moral values and that the government is the only capable of knowing what is good and what is not. Let's remember the governators aren't aliens, they are humans like us. Then, they have the same moral capacities as us. Therefore, they aren't better judges of what's right or wrong than us. Also, Pro is expressing that because man would not agree there would be wars and conflicts. Anyone with common sense would admit this is the same that happens now. The same disagrements between individuals happen between governments, so this is not a valid argument."If there is no powerful, central authority, human beings are doomed to live in a constant state of chaos and war."There's no evidence supporting this. Morover, there's evidence supporting the opposite. If we look back at that "state of nature" we will see there were no wars, men and women lived peacefully.An oppresive government takes freedom and rights from people. On the other hand, anarchism means returning all the rights to the humans. Anarchy would embrace equality freedom, while an oppresive government would prohibit this. We can't permit an oppressive government to rise again.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government

Sorry, lost track of time for the 2nd debate.In the case that there were no government, we would be "free."But, according to Thomas Hobbes, if men were to back to a "free" state, it would be total disaster.Hobbes argues that "in a state of nature", men are obliged to do everything in their power to preserve their own happiness and freedom in their lives. In essence, it is every man for himself. In this state, anything a man does to preserve his life and property is right and good (because there is no government or justice system to tell him it is wrong). Each individual is the "best" judge on how to accomplish this all-important goal. However, because everyone would not agree with his judgement a state of war or conflict ensues. If there is no powerful, central authority, human beings are doomed to live in a constant state of chaos and war.This is what Hobbes refereed to as the "state of nature".Chaos.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government

Thanks for the debate. Good luck to my opponent!!Having an oppressive government is some of the worst things that can happen to a nation. All rights and freedoms are violated. We have seen what happens. People would be free. So what you choose: being free or being oppressed?Authority is necessaryHaving no government doesn't mean there's no authority. People would still be able to organize themselves and to have some degree of authority. For instance, people could form committees or assemblies. That would be authority without government. Who would care for the disabled? Firstly, people living in a community would help whoever needs it. There's no need for a government, good people exists in every situation.Secondly, who said an oppressive government would help the disabled? If you ever read about oppressive governments you would know they don't care about people at all. Look at Venezuela or Cuba. Government FundingPrivate companies are better at giving services than the government. Taking the example you gave, education: which are the better schools? Which are the universities everybody wishes to go? The private ones.Studying oppressive governmentsThere are plenty of examples of oppressive governments. North Korea, Arabia Saudi, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc.In this countries people is killed, humiliated, persecuted, censored, segregated, tortured... Basically, every right is violated. How can we permit this to occur? It insane to even think of the possibility of installing an oppressive government. What could be worst than oppression? Government is tyranny, anarchy is libertyTheft is taking away something from someone without asking, and all government does this every day by taxes, confiscations, redistribution of wealth, "owning" the public space... Then all governments commit theft. If a government commits theft, it is a tyranny. Therefore, all governments are a tyranny. Tyrannies shouldn't be permitted to exist. Ergo, all governments shouldn't be permitted to exist.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government

This is my first debate, and I am having a hard time grasping the rules of a LD debate. I am doing this only for practice, so if you are passionate about this topic, please have grace on me :)My case: We have 7.4 billion people on the earth. Having no government might have been fine in the middle ages when there were not as many people, but now there are just to many people to actually live without any kind of power over the people. People are just getting to independent for there not to be any overall, enforced, rules. Authority is necessary. Without any authority there would be no way to record and right wrongs. Justice would not be served correctly. What would happen if someone were to kill another person? What kind of justice would be served? Where would revenge stop? Who would care for the disabled? The mentally ill, those who cannot provide for themselves? What would become of them? There are to many orphans, homeless, and hopeless people that need help for us to go ungoverned. Government Funding. Sure, no one likes taxes, but they do help to keep the nation running smoother than it would without. Without taxes, who would pay to have schools built and taught (because even though it would be great for everyone to be home schooled, not everyone has parents to teach).Basically all a government is supposed to be, is just a group of people organizing things for better of people.
Is Being Gay a Bad Thing.

Being gay is not a bad thing once so ever. In this world we have been given rights, that includes the right to make our own decisions. Being gay is not breaking no rule in the book of laws, therefore we shouldn't even be debating this, but fortunately my brother is gay and I respect that more than almost anything in the world. You might have the facts about getting HIV or something, but like I said that's the worlds choice to attract them or not. Besides, all gays and homo's are just like us straights, good people, that might make bad decisions. I understand your just sharing your opinion, but I'm 15 and feel this should be a fact moreover just an opinion. -Yours, xXBlueBlood
RESOLVED: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA

Alright, I'm tired and I just finished arguing the con side so I'll make this quick. Definitions: ideal = perfect beneficial = advantageous welfare = the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization If you want to change these and cite a source then feel free. I just took these from last round and they're from dictionary.com, but really generalized. Now to start, I'll get into a lot more detail in round 2. So how would a perfect system be advantageous to the United States? That almost seems like a dumb question. 1) Increases education - NCLB is designed to increase the education in public schools. Increased education = smarter people and better jobs. Better jobs = more money into peoples pockets, which then goes to the economy and provides more tax money. Therefore it is beneficial to the nations prosperity and makes people happy and keeps them healthy, since they can afford health care. That is all for this round. I will add much more in round 2, but for now this is really all I need. It's hard to argue a perfect form of education is not beneficial to the United States.
Volleyball is better than basketball

10 Fun Facts About Volleyball Fact 1: The game of volleyball was invented in 1895 by William G. Morgan. Fact 2: The first World Championships were held in 1949 for men and 1952 for women. Fact 3: Volleyball were first introduced as Olympic sports in 1964. Fact 4: Most volleyball players jump about 300 times a match. Fact 5: Volleyball took some of its characteristics from tennis and handball. Fact 6: The first two-man beach game was played in 1930. Fact 7: Volleyball was called mintonette at first but it was later changed to volleyball. Fact 8: The first special designed ball for the sport was created in 1900. Fact 9: Volleyball is the second most popular sport in the world today, exceeded only by soccer. Fact 10: The longest recorded volleyball game was in Kingston, North Carolina. It took 75 hours and 30 minutes. Source: http://www.volleywood.net...
is paintball a sport

"Paintball is a sport because it involves physical exertion and skill is needed and is also played as a team sport" My opponent has said that physical exertion, skill, and the team playing makes it a sport. I would like my opponent to explain how one equals another? Also, Readers, grammar point please. Lets look at the definition of Game, (according to http://dictionary.reference.com... ) "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators." So if a group of friends wanted to play paintball, this would be what they are doing, no? Yet sport, as part of it"s definition (according to http://dictionary.reference.com... ) includes this: "often of a competitive nature" Yet the vast majority of paintball is for PLEASURE, not for WINNING. You get no prize, nothing that would make it competitive. Whoops, didn't know it was 1k limit!
why we should go back in time

First off my opponent argues that the reason we should go back in time is mainly because of lifestyle and *apocalypse*. a)The time period is not specified B. C? ? A. D? ? Has the toilet been invented? 19th Century with the existence of Slavery, Warfare, and Basic Industrialization? 20th Century- World War, automobiles resulting in pollution? Many advantages that we have in our modern world are negated when presented by going into the past. That technological advancements made to improve peoples lives would cease to exist. b) Avoiding apocalypse. I come up with three main questions for my opponent and that is -When will apocalypse occur? many predictions have been made some have already past. -If the apocalypse is destined to happen how are we to avoid it? are we really avoiding it by going back in time? -Does this "apocalypse" even exist, if so what causes it? By stepping into the past we may actually be heading towards our apocalypse rather than avoiding it. Now onto my case that if we were do step back in time we would have many major following problems occur: 1)Overpopulation- By having the world go into the past we will double the already overpopulated world leading to starvation, and perpetual resource wars. 2)Paradox's- Events that contradict reality. By going into the past we may actually kill ourselves by preventing the generations that conceived us not to meet. Although history has shown that things are cheaper, and there may have been less obesity we should not go back in time to live as for we may change the course of history. By going back in time who knows what will happen, in fact what will happen will always be bad. Before even going back in time are we capable? We may like to go back in time but if it's something impossible then it's not why but rather wish. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kellen moore is the next tim tebow

First i will state that my opponents stats are very jumbled up. These numbers are not even close to each other from what i say. Also my opponent failed to mention what he means by Kellen more will bet he next Tim Tebow. Does he mean he will be the next Tebow as far as, passing, throwing, running, supporting God, or taking his team to the playoffs his first year starting? My opponent has issued invalid information and i can only take it as he/she is suggesting that Kellen Moore will have the same season as Tebow. Which is impossible due to no NFL season stats have ever been the same in every category and that Tebow is his own person and Kellen more is his own person. My opponent set the character limit to 8,000 and only typed numbers with no explanations.It is just the same scenario as Tom Brady is him self and Peyton is himself. Brady is not the next Peyton and Peyton is not the next Brady. My opponents argument lack very well. I come to my conclusion as Kellen Moore will not be the next Tebow due to stats categories not being the same as well as my opponent has no explanation. Thank you :)
Kellen moore is the next tim tebow

SEASON CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT 2011 326 439 3800 74.3 8.66 71 43 9 7 175.2 2010 273 383 3845 71.3 10.04 83 35 6 6 182.6 2009 277 431 3536 64.3 8.20 67 39 3 5 161.7 2008 281 405 3486 69.4 8.61 80 25 10 13 157.1 stats for kellen moorestats for tim tebowSeason GP Rating Att Comp Pct Yds TD INT Sack Att Yds TD 2006 14 201.7 33 22 66.7 358 5 1 0 89 469 8 2007 13 172.5 350 234 66.9 3,286 32 6 13 210 895 23 2008 14 172.4 298 192 64.4 2,747 30 4 15 176 673 12 2009 14 155.6 304 213 70.1 2,895 21 5 25 217 910 14 Totals 55 176.0 985 661 67.1 9,286 88 15 53 692 2947 57
someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed)

..and weren't punished for it. it happens way too much - it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview. we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this, i can ask them the tough questions. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up. let's do it
batman vs deadpool

I think you need to see a doctor because it seems like you smashed your faced into your keyboard to type that.Deadpool has died before idiot. Read Carnage vs Deadpool. Nevermind I dont think you can read You are easily one of the stupidest debators I have ever met.Batman is meta human.If you do not know what you're talking about then please forfiet.Deadpool<BatmanBatman>DeadpoolYou probably have autism or something wrong with you.Just stop because you are retarded
batman vs deadpool

If this is a joke so god help me.You havent layed out any rules anyways.So since Deadpool has blood lust Batman should have blood lust also.Batman basically beats him in every aspect.Batman has shown way more skill in fighting. Batman fought some amazing martial artists. (He loses sometimes but he puts up a good fight)Batman is a smarter more collected fighter anyways. Deadpool could literally be tied up by Batman and thrown down into an ocean.Lets say the area is Gotham.Batman is better in every aspect.
Ethics classes are a good alternative to Special Religious education in Primary Schools.

In order to conduct my final statement, I would like to refute several basic assertions the con has made Firstly, that ethics classes will lead children into a single set of morals, governed by their teacher. Here he is showing a miss-understanding of the concept of ethics class, and the definition to which he agreed. Ethics classes are discussion based class. The instructor has very little input into the responses of the children, rather they merely question the children's motivation, without being prejudiced one way or another. They allow children to explore their own decision making, without the instructors own being imposed upon it. I would also like to point out that all the risks he delineated about ethics, teachers disagreeing with curriculum and prejudicing students, are possible in Special Religious education as well, with teachers having the opportunity to highlight negative aspects of certain religions, to preference others. Secondly that we are not moving towards a more secular society. This obviously depends on the society in which you live, certainly in my country(Australia) there has been a marked decline in religious following over the past 30 years1 and Europe is very rapidly becoming a highly secularized society. However I believe that I also emphasized that I was terming secularism in terms of the law and government. I would also question the validity of his source, adherents.com is likely to be biased towards Religious traditions. Thirdly he argues that 'Special Religious Education' offers everything that Ethics classes do. Religious Education is being instructed in the varying models of morals employed by traditions, there is no element in that definition of exploring a child's personal response to those morals. This is what is offered by ethics classes and why they are such good alternative. Finally I will address his academic point. Most of what my opponent has spoken about makes perfect sense, children should be educated in Religious studies, however I would contend that Primary school isn't the place to be doing this, high school is the place for the academic study of religion, where as ethics classes would provide a solid base to allow children to respect all ways of deriving meaning. I'll leave it there for this debate, thanks to my opponent for the deb and I look forward to reading his final argument. 1: ABS
Ethics classes are a good alternative to Special Religious education in Primary Schools.

For the purposes of this debate my opponent should have some knowledge of the concept of ethics classes as an alternative to Religious education in Public Primary Schools. I feel it is pertinent to note that I exited the Primary School system about six years ago, am currently in year 12 and have rejected religious world views. I experienced 'Special Religious Education' as a catholic at my Public Primary school. For this debate 'Ethics Classes' are defined as: Secular classes in which a qualified instructor leads children in a structured discussion about the question 'what ought I to do? ' in varying situations. I expect the definitions not to be a contentious element of this discussion. My arguments will center around the the simple fact of a modern, secular societies' requirement for a modern, secular form of ethics. I fully accept the right of parents to have their children educated in Religious traditions, but contend that those same rights should extend to parents who don't have a religious world view.
Individuals Have A Moral Obligation To Assist People In Need

Note that my opponent used an improper source for his/her evidence/source. wikipedia is not trustworthy because it can easily be edited. My opponent also attacked my third contention poorly by stating the example of 2+2=4 and he/she used arithmetic to back up his warrant. Nothing in this resolution says anything about arithmetic and is merely doubted. Consistently, we all have a duty to care for others based upon our own dependency. But what is immoral about withholding care from others in need is not the in consistency of our action but the fact that in doing so we deprive them of the support necessary for their survival and basic functioning. We contribute to the destruction or degradation of other people's lives, and implicitly renounce the basic practices and values that make possible our own lives, the reproduction of society, and the propagation of humanity as we know it. The moral obligation to meet others' claims for caring thus rests upon the intuitive idea that human life and basic well being are valuable and should be supported when possible Our continued conscious existence implies that we value or lives[QUALITY OF LIFE] and our lives depend upon the care of others. [SECURITY] Our unavoidable dependency combined with the value we place on our lives thus commits us to caring for others in need. {(HYPATIA, Summer 2005.)}
Individuals Have A Moral Obligation To Assist People In Need

First, I would like to point out the fact that my opponent does NOT have a case! You cannot properly attack my case without defending his case and attacking mine and comparison. My value and criterion still stand because my opponent has not either one and cannot give a legit defense on his value and criterion; however, since my opponent does not, we must look to my value and criterion. Without proper and organized security in our modern civilization, we cannot achieve quality of life. He does not give any contentions to defend and/or properly attack my case. So basically he drops my whole case because he does not have valid evidence to be given.
On balance, Capitalism does more harm than good

4 of my current debates have been lost to the ether due to time-outs, so I would like to avoid this in the future. I will accept the first applicant who manages to the show the best track record for completing debates in good faith. This debate currently requires the opponent to have an ELO between 7000-7500, this is to make it impossible to accept. If for whatever reason someone is able to accept this debate before I approve them, their acceptance shall be counted as a forfeit. It will be clear that someone has accepted this debate without my permission as this paragraph will still be here. Upon accepting an applicant I will erase all of this text and use this space to write my round 1 arguments. The debate shall be 4 rounds (with debate beginning round 1), 2000 characters, and 48 hours to post each round. There shall be a 1 week voting period, with voting as select-winner. I feel that these parameters make the debate less text-wall heavy, encourage voting, and provide more opportunities for back-and-forth responses. If you would prefer a different debate style, I will consider it upon selecting you for this debate. Thanks y'all!
Nonsensical Rap Challenge.

(Ai ese, come here chica, what you sayin') Listen, I know you wanna be me boy don't watch, I'm with my girl Fifi we living life 5 stars you rotting behind bars cos you causing trouble like lockerbee Bomber, you bomb like 9/11 man tubes on strike like 7/7, sh1t hit the fan In other words, you're a disaster go grab a plaster I'll call ya nan No I don't like naan bread Yo momma, her legs wide open, spread very delicious but ya poppas suspicious does he want a new bed? King size, everything kingsize, cause I'm a baller 6ft taller I'm so high ego above the sky better than God's caller Angel, Delight I am a fright I'm God, hail Mary Indians are very hairy her throat dry, needs a Sprite.
God awful T.V. characters in U.S. T.V.

Control freaks,psychopaths,sociopaths sometimes in the same character.American T.V,is overflowing with these carpet-chewing grotesques masquerading as "Heroes".We are told that Art imitates Life but there is no sense of true-life in the utter drivel that passes for most American television.I write from an Englishman's perspective and whilst I have no love for the parlous state of English T.V.I am truly shocked at the continual dross displayed in series after series of utter rubbish that Americans seem to approve of.