BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

I was shocked and dismayed to learn that, contrary to his general air of respectability, Cuthbert is in reality a murdering nonce. Or is he? We have to question my opponent's statement and consider the possibility that he has a motive for tarnishing his brother's reputation when he claims that Cuthbert murdered their father and made his death look like a tragic wanking accident and that he is a notorious porn merchant who has been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and who spends his days in dread of being queered up by Igor the Assassin and his homosexual henchmen. Let's examine my opponent's version of events, shall we? He describes Felicity as a "whore" and it is certainly true that she was making German scud movies behind Cuthbert's back – this is evidence of her duplicitous and scheming character. He mentions Cuthbert's considerable inheritance but as his brother, he would normally have been entitled to an equal share of their father's fortune. However, he makes no mention of having any massive fortune of his own so we must conclude that he knew in advance of his father's death that he had been cut out of his will. Furthermore, my opponent freely admits that Felicity, in keeping with her scheming character, handed over a stash of child pornography to the police claiming it belonged to her husband in order to have him incarcerated and thus allowing her to take full possession of his assets. Now, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that my opponent and Felicity were co-conspirators in a dastardly plan to seize control of Cuthbert's inheritance and share the spoil between them. You see, when Cuthbert was away from home on business, as he frequently was, Felicity being a young woman with a young woman's needs, would have become sexually frustrated – we know this because and invited a film crew to her home to shoot an obscene video of her with two big, fat German porn-stars. However, on a day-to-day basis, she may well have turned to Cuthbert's brother, my opponent, to relieve her sexual frustrations. I put it you, ladies and gentlemen, that my opponent and Felicity became lovers and when she was faced with divorce proceedings they conspired together to deprive Cuthbert of his fortune and use the money to set up a new life together. That's why my opponent is seeking to blacken Cuthbert's name: their father did not wank himself to death in a Batman costume; he died of natural causes, and he was not a purveyor of kiddie-porn; he was set up by Felicity and my opponent. To sum up, this shocking tale proves that it is better for Cuthbert to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all – better for my opponent, that is. I rest my case. Thank you.
It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

Cuthbert is no hero ladies and gentlemen, I am his younger brother and I have known him all my life, what people see on the outside is everything the Pro has described, but I for one have seen that Cuthbert for the kind of person he really is... I admit that his life was pretty awesome before he met that whore Felicity, but that was because his apartment, car, and job was actually not earned, he inherited it after our father died. Cuthbert killed him through suffocation with a belt while he was sleeping, but he got away with the murder because he put my father's dead body in a batman costume and put him in the closet to make it look like he died during a period of very intense masturbation.... I couldnt prove that Cuthbert was the killer because i didnt want to end up dead in my closet looking like i too died while masturbating. For years Cuthbert covered this up, along with his extensive collection of child pornography he pleasured himself too. Yes Cuthbert was a pedophile, I again couldnt reveal this to anybody because you know, batman costume in the closet masturbation accident cover-up thing. However Felicity, in an attempt to try to keep some of the vast wealth Cuthbert had while they were married, had known about this collection for most of their marriage, and during the divorce hearings she turned over all of it to the judge as evidence for why she should get all of his property and bank accounts. The police examined the gruesome child pornography and discovered that Cuthbert was actually the secret head of London's largest child porn crime ring. This revelation cost him everything he had in life, his money, wealth, his fame, everything. It is NOT better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, had Cuthbert not fallen in love with Felicity, 1) His child pornography crime ring would never have been exposed 2) He never would have ended up in Prison getting buttf*cked by a hairy Russian named Igor every Friday in the prison showers, 3) He never would have contracted those 4 STD's he got from Felicity from banging so many random guys while they were married.
It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

The hero of this story is a young man: a modest, kind, intelligent, witty, charming, tall and handsome chap called Cuthbert. Cuthbert excelled at sport, drove a convertible sports car, lived in a penthouse apartment in central London and had a well-paid job. Now, one evening, at a high society party, he met a well-bred young lady whose face shone like the moon and whose body was nubile and shapely, and whose name was Felicity. Felicity was caring, sensitive, demure, bright, a talented musician and singer, good at cooking and was a still a virgin, and by the end of the evening they had fallen head over heels in love with each other. Within a year this beautiful young couple were married and while Cuthbert busied himself with his work during the day, Felicity stayed at home and attended to her various domestic duties. Now, Cuthbert was often required to travel to the Continent in connection with business and on one such trip he was sitting in a German hotel room flicking through the various channels on the television when he happened upon a film entitled "Die Englischen Hausfrauen Arschspielen" (1) and thought watching an un-dubbed cultural film might help improve his German. However, to his dismay, it soon became apparent that far from being an art film, as he had hoped, it was, instead, an erotic movie of the most explicit variety. So he sat there and watched the various scenes of sexual depravity unfold before his eyes in disgust, and after an hour and a half of being exposed to the most shocking footage he had ever seen he decided to switch over and watch something more respectable, but just as he reached for the remote control his attention was caught by a fresh scene wherein two overweight, middle-aged German men, each with big bushy moustaches, were partaking in a Mexican picnic with a naked young woman. However, it was not the (admittedly arresting) sight of the woman on her hands and knees gobbling one of the men off while the other man smashed her back door in: it was rather that he recognised both the set and the actress - the set was his own apartment and the actress was his own beloved wife, Felicity. Devastated, Cuthbert made a note of the film's title, and on returning home, downloaded a copy of it off the Internet which he subsequently presented to the Family Court as grounds for divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour on his wife's part. Naturally, Cuthbert was bitterly disappointed that his relationship with Felicity had irrevocably broken down, but he consoled himself with the memories of all the good times they had had together, especially the porn movie-quality sex action he enjoyed with her on a regular basis, and he realised that, overall, it was better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Thank you. (1) http://translate.google.com...#
Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

At this point making an argument would be futile, because I expect the voters to only read that I forfeited and assume it was in bad character, and votebomb for my opponent. Due to differences in time zones, my opponent and I have simply met at bad times, and as it happens, I was fast asleep when my argument time expired. I have asked for a tie and rematch in the comments, with a longer argument time. Please read my opponent's response and our conversation in the comments before making a simple votebomb for him, unless of course that's what he wants.
Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

Extend argument. In closing I have not seen nor do I think that Con can show why there is not a perfectly logical reason for some people to believe in God. Since I will not be able to refute his points as this is the last round, I would like to thank him for taking this debate. Remember that the majority of our nation believes in the God of a bible with a vast amount of interpretations and many different ways to define Christianity. That does not make them correct, but I have shown and demonstrated using science that there is a logical reason that they do believe this. Thank you for reading this debate.
Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

Round 1: acceptanceRound 2: Establish your case, no rebuttals Round 3: No new points will be made. Offer rebuttals to rebuild original points and build a closing statementThis will be operating under the assumption the bible is not true. I will grant my adversary that. I will be debating it from a logical perspective.KEEP IN MIND I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS A GOD. I am saying there is a rational and logical reason to think that there is one.
The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists

Hello In this debate the topic discussed is whether the universe requires a creator (or rather, a God) or not, on scientific and philosophical terms (mainly the former). Pro is to argue that it does need a creator, while I, Con, will argue that it does not. The burden of proof is therefore shared. ______________________________________________ Definitions: Universe [1]: [yoo-nuh-vurs] noun 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. My source provides more definitions, but that is the one to be debated on. Creator [2]: [kree-ey-ter] noun 1. a person or thing that creates. 2. the Creator, God. ______________________________________________ Debate format: R1. Acceptance and Pro's initial arguments, if they wish so. R2, R3, R4. No special restrictions. R5. Only rebuttals and no new arguments or claims which have not been elaborated on during previous rounds. It is suggested that both sides make an objective summary of the debate in the last round. Regulations: 1. Please, do not forfeit, except if you have an important reason to do so. If that does happen, though, the discussion may continue in a separate debate. 2. No offensive behaviour is allowed, neither on the debate nor on the comment section. 3. Pro may propose a modification to the debate's format or regulations or an alternative definition to the ones provided above up to R2. 4. Both sides are allowed to provide new definitions to support their claims only during R1, R2 and R3. 5. Have fun. ______________________________________________ Sources: [1]. Dictionary.com, "Universe" http://www.dictionary.com... [2]. Dictionary.com, "Creator" http://www.dictionary.com...
Violence

I accept. I like to call debates that consists of 5 rounds, the heavyweight match ups. I will of course be pro for this debate on violence. Con has stated currently in round 1 "Should we remove violence by all means necessary?" and to make a rebuttal against this, con has merely just asked a question. If con feels like we can remove violence by all means necessary, then he has to prove so, or at the very least give good arguments on how we can remove violence. Just to make this round 1 short as con has not provided any argument, but brought up a question he is possibly unsure about, I just want to say that it is impossible to eliminate violence completely as there will always be violence in this world. It's impossible to flat out ban guns, and would create black markets, and do way more harm than good with of course the bad apples still finding a way to kill for example like that Japanese or Chinese guy who took a knife a couple years ago into a big crowd full of people and just slashed his way on through them, and injured MANY. I will not be listing all my arguments here until the next round, it's up to pro to demonstrate a method that would work to eliminate violence. Also, it's worth noting that if the police, army, and all the bigger powers over us normal citizens were to eliminate violence by any means, it would only cause more violence, more panic, and more deaths of innocents.
On balance, Justin Bieber is a worse influence on teenagers than Miley Cyrus

http://www.debate.org... This debate is the first debate of Ryuu's first gauntlet tournament! I am a fairly new debater, though I plan on giving this debate my absolute best and working my way up the ladder. (As per tournament rules, this is a serious debate, about a fun topic. No trolling should be done whatsoever). Roles: Challenger -- This is the person going through the Gauntlet challenge. This person will debate each person signed up to the challenge tower in order from lowest to highest Elo. This is a single loss-elimination tournament, so if you lose a debate, you fail the Gauntlet. Challenge-Tower members -- These are the (in this case) 5 other users. These people will only be debating once in this tournament, so if you want to be a part of a tournament, but can't commit to a full tournament for time reasons or the like, this is the ideal position for you. "Rules: 1. Topics will be decided by the debaters. However, there is a strict 48h time limit. If no topic is agreed to after this time frame, I'll be choosing a topic for you. 2. The Gauntlet challenger is expected to instigate, but obviously exceptions can be made depending on the topic chosen. 3. Four rounds, 8k characters. First round is for acceptance. 4. Voting periods can be as long as you like, but after 48 hours the person with the most points is recognized as the winner for the purposes of this tournament. 5. No troll debates." Here is the current challenge tower: Challenger: 1. RocketEngineer Challenge Tower: 1. Tvellalott 2. Calculatedr1sk 3. Noumena 4. ClassicRobert 5. Thett Judges: 1. RyuuKyuzo 2. DetectableNinja 3. Phantom 4. FrackJack 5. Stephen_Hawkins I am sending this challenge do to a short time limit given by ryuu to get this out, so I will wait for my opponent to accept this debate. If you want me to change the resolution, please let me know in the comments. I look forward to a great debate!
On balance, Justin Bieber is a worse influence on teenagers than Miley Cyrus

Again, let's just get this over with. Funny story; since I use Google for everything and Youtube is owned by Google, the research I did for this debate (watching a fvckload of Bieber videos) has infultrated my other services. I was on Google Play last night, and Bieber was fvcking everywhere. I don't want to see his muppet head ever again. FINAL SUMMARYMy opponent and I have clearly taken different approaches to this debate. Content to simply list things that Bieber has done wrong, my opponent would paint Bieber as some kind of bad-arse rebel with a string of serious incidents under his belt. Here again, in his final round, he lists a bunch of new incidents he's scrounged up to demonstrate his point. Bieber is a bad guy. I have already countered this approach in two ways. First of all, I have already given an excellent example of the sort of GOOD things Bieber does, which my opponent never addressed. If he had of course, I could have listed a dozen other things Bieber does for charity to further cement this point. I don't want to take advantage of his inability to respond now though, so I won't. Does Beiber acting like an over privileged teenager completely shadow his charity work? I think not. Second, I have already stressed, ad nauseum, that Biebers 'crimes' are minor at worst and that they are irrelevant anyway because his fans, that is, the people who would be influenced by him, consider him flawless anyway. They will always focus solely on the good factors. This point too, was completely ignored. So, why is Miley Cyrus a worse influence than Justin Bieber? It's simple. She isn't. They're both mediocre at best in terms of controversy and rebellious behaviour. Sid Vicious is a bad influence. Ozzy Osbourne is a bad influence. These cookie cutter pop stars are vanilla pudding dressed up as out of control by a media that caters to muppets. Don't misinterpret me though. I still win this debate. My arguments still stand, no matter how much my opponent tries to argue around them. Influence goes two ways and if Bieber indeed worked hard to acquire his skills (objectively true) and if he did indeed grow up poor (objectively true) then he is both hard working and easy to relate to. That makes him a better influence than Cyrus who is, by proxy a worse influence. CONCLUSIONI am not too fussed about winning this debate. It would be disheartening to my opponent for this tournament to end prematurely. However, I think all of my best points were either completely dropped or no addressed correctly while I have explained in detail why the crux of my opponents argument (Bieber has done some stupid sh! t) is irrelevant. The debate comes down to this; do you think that Bieber's good outweighs his bad? Do you think that his history (hard working; comes from tribulation) is going to be instantly forgotten by the people who are most likely to be influenced by him, namely, his fans? I think not. Perhaps we should have defined influence more thoroughly to begin with. Perhaps I have clutching at straws and arguing semantics. I will leave that up to you, the voters.
Matt Bellamy is the Greatest Living Guitarist/ Musician

I am glad you see Muse as a good band but you seem like someone who just knows them due to Guitar Hero. I have been a follower of them for awhile and trust me, he is the most talented musician alive. He is perfect live, no one beats him. Watch some of his live performances please. Herman Li, on the other hand, is very sloppy. He is credited for creating a whole new sound but speed metal has been around for ages. He does the same trick over and over again. Every Dragonforce song sounds alike. Compare Muse songs to their songs. No comparision.
Matt Bellamy is the Greatest Living Guitarist/ Musician

I'll agree i like some of their songs. Knights of cydonia is very good. As far as the guitarist being very very talented and even the best, there is no way. Depending on what you mean by best, if he is the most skilled with a guitar or if he plays the best sounding music. Other guitarists especially Herman Li from Dragon Force are extremely far more talented. Muse is a good band, but the guitarist is not the most skilled of all guitarists.
Matt Bellamy is the Greatest Living Guitarist/ Musician

Matt Bellamy, lead vocalist and guitarist of the British band Muse, is I think, hands down, the most talented living guitar player. I think Hendrix (RIP) is the only other guitar player who is superior to Matt. Matt is the most creative and the greatest live guitar player. He is truly a genius musician, a virtuoso on guitar and on keyboard. Listen to Stockholm Syndrome, Plug in Baby, and Citizen Erased. His style is unique, although many say Muse is just a wannabe Radiohead. That is very false due to the fact Muse is much more "complex" and heavier. Although without Radiohead, there would be no Muse. Now others are going to say no way: not a shot in hell. Well here is Matt compared to the greats- Jimmy Page- I love Zeppelin. They are classic rock. However, Page and the fellow members of the band stole other peoples music. As Homer Simpson put it- "Jimmy Page, the greatest thief of black music who ever walked the Earth". He doesn't create riffs, there is little innovation when I hear him. I just hear rehashed blues songs from the 1930's and 40's. I have also heard he is mediocre live, unlike Matt Bellamy. Just watch "Stairway to Heaven" at Live Aid. Eric Clapton- I have a problem with Clapton. He is very overrated. Although, technically, he is a great guitar player, and his work with Cream is outstanding, he has become very ordinary. "Lacks in soul" is what critics say about him. All of his solos seem very restraint and like he learnt them from a book. He is just simple and basic.
mechanical teachers are better way of schooling

I will list the definitions as Con did not list any : Mechanical Teacher : Teachers using using machine parts only. Better: Greater in excellence or higher in quality. 1. The problem with robots are that robots are not reliable, they can break down any time no matter how much their taken care of. 2.Robots do not have the feelings and the brains of a human being. If a child is hurt in class or is sick, the teacher will continue teaching. 3. I would not like my teacher to have a voice like SIRI. 4. The teacher will not be able to take doubts that are of higher intelligence (i.e. questions that are sometimes not related to the topic) 5. Battery. You would be paying more money for charging the battery then you would be paying salary for teachers. 6. Experience. Robots do not and will never have the same amount of experience that teachers have. 7. Passion for teaching and knowledge. Robots can not be programmed to be passionate to teach. They will only hold a certain amount of knowledge in them. 8. The level of education would be better from teachers as they know their subject. Robots can be used for certain things but not anything and everything that we need or require in our lives. Sources : http://dictionary.reference.com...
Capitalism is better than socialism.

Okay, First of all, I am Canadian so there is socialism in my country. Second of all, Healthcare, education, etc. Is definitely not free, it is paid through taxes which is my point, many people think health care is free but it definitely isn't, if you take a look at Canada, your health care taxes are going to add up, so when you need to get an x-ray the one time when you break your leg, it's going to cost around $500 where when you pay taxes in Canada you need to pay $11,000 which might put you in debt based on your financial situation. "While in capitalism, the government doesn't care about your health care or that you are starving in the streets." They care about money, and when you care about money the economy is good. And it's not like Capitalism is saying poor people are bad, we still have plenty of good organizations and charities to help people. After Hurricane Harvey hit, tons of people would have gone into poverty because everything they had was destroyed. Yet in a capitalist country, the red cross helped tons of people. So Socialism may help them more but it's not like Capitalism doesn't help them at all. Like the lowering prices scenario, I explained in my last argument. Things are getting more affordable due to capitalism. So it's putting poor people out of the streets and it is good for the economy because companies are being forced to one-up each other in products, so then they lower their prices.