BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
story writing debate

Saturdays are usually a day of rest. But for me, they are the busiest day. See, I take notes on every single major sporting event around the world. I stay up all day and night, taking note after note. It gets exhausting, but I enjoy it. One Saturday, I was at home in front of my TV, watching a football game and taking notes. As I was watching the game, I was drinking a soda in one hand, trying to stay energized. In the other hand was a notepad and a pencil, covered in stray pencil marks and tape. "Nothing like a Saturday with sports and soda", I muttered to myself. As the game went along, I took note after note, filling up page after page. I took notes on everything from plays being run, to the players on the field, even the grass they game was being played on. Anything that was happening in the game, I took notes on. Suddenly, the TV shut off, a loud zapping noise filled the room. I immediately went to the scene to see what happened. I called the power company to see what was wrong with my electricity, doing anything to get answers. If I couldn't get this situation fixed soon, I would be in a load of trouble. A few minutes after the situation, the power company arrived. They checked every single space in and around the TV, trying to figure out what happened. They were able to determine that my electricity was not working properly, and that it may take weeks to get it fixed. I thought of all the sporting events I would miss, and the notes I would need to get caught up on. The timing of what happened was terrible
If the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational

I said IF god is rational, meaning if someone takes the current evidence and explanation for God as logical and feasible, then the possibility of cybertron can't be ruled out as well. I could easily say Cybertron is 93929773994 light years away and their space bridges are currently broken as they are in the war period so they have not made contact. That way, neither we can get evidence for it, but we can't get evidence against it either. Same is with God. I say he is in heaven which is accessible by death, you can't bring evidence for it, but can't get evidence against it.
If the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational

God isn't rational, and neither is Cybertron. If God is stupidly thought as rational, then it's stupider to think Cybertron is rational. Cybertron is more irrational if based on the stupid assumption that "God is rational". In a case where God is thought as rational, Cybertron is still an irrational idea if you don't have evidence for Cybertron's existence! You can't justify flying faeries with God. To conclude, "if the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational", is an improper statement. They aren't mutually exclusive; God and Cybertron must be proven to be rational - because one is rational it doesn't make the other rational.
Kate Middleton is not a good role model

My opponent has made has made very valid points but a specific line caught my attention."She was essentially a nobody before" .....I don't know about you but to me this line shows me that you have to marry a prince to be somebody that unless you marry some from a rich family, you're a nobody. Princess Kate is beautiful, elegant and poised.... but so are millions of other women in the world and I don't think that make her someone young girls should idolize. Marrying a royal does not make a good role model, It is true that women could learn a thing or two from Kate but I don't think we should at a woman whose main job is perceived to produce heirs. She rarely worked despite her degree and her main job now is being photographed and attending functions. Remember when Kate had her baby? Just two months after she went down from a healthy size 10 to a size 4 or 0 in America. This drastic change physically indicates that in order to be beautiful you have to be skinny. We all know know many people consider her a role model but what has she done to deserve this title. So a woman who doesn't work, instead she depend on her family or even men for a job are to be considered good influences? My idea of what a role model is is a 14 year old girl called Malala Yousafzai, she was a girl who got shot in the face because she stood up for what she believed in, that young girls should be entitled to an education in her country. That's what a role model is. We all know Kate is no Rihanna falling out of night clubs, but just because she's not badly behaved doesn't mean she's inspirational. She has a privileged role to play and she does it well. But i would prefer to idolize someone who has a voice of her own, not a woman who married into the monarchy and looks good in couture. I beg the con to oppose.
Kate Middleton is not a good role model

Many people think Kate Middleton is a good role model... Sure she's pretty but all she wears are expensive clothes, got married to a prince and lost weight only after two months of giving birth. She used to be a size 10 but now in America she's a size zero. In my opinion she hasn't proven herself enough to be considered a role model. She nice but so are million of other women in the world..the only reason she's different is because she got married into the royal family. If it wasn't for that no one would even know who she is.
bscdkzdsg

xc vedjevo;rjcvcjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
there should be more gun regulation

you did repeat. i posted points about people just finding alternative ways to kill and getting guns on the black market, and you just ignored the responses i gave and reiterated those argument i responded to. con says people will just get guns illegally. if more guns means more homicide, doesn't that mean some would be criminals are not getting guns illegally? cause homicide would be the same if what con said was true. but back to teh resolution. background checks for all, would be more regulation. do 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market? checks would have zero percent effect, not stopping one person? this by common sense standards is absurd. those kinds of all or nothign statements are usually bunk. it's like saying crime laws have no effect, and 100% of would be criminals will just commit crimes anyway. at least if he admitted that some would be swayed, it'd have a better sensibility to it, but then that might make him need to concede the debate. but even if he admitted it stopped some, this would be like saying we shouldn't have crime law because some people will commit crime. please address these crime analogies. and state for the record, if you think it, that 100% of would be criminals just go get one on the black market. id think actually making the statement would give one pause.
there should be more gun regulation

con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses. you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways. you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to. also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.
there should be more gun regulation

I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People should have a right to have guns.
there should be more gun regulation

more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.
Is god bad for not helping some areas of the world? (assuming that he exists)

Thank you for your arguments Con. Con begins on a positive note by considering the Islamic and Judeo-Christian God, but fails yet again to make points that apply also to the Hellenic, Norse, Hindu or Taoist God(s), for example. An argument based on the general concept of God would have been more favourable to his points. Con casts unsubstantiated aspersions on the existence of the Greco-Roman gods (eg. Zeus, Apollo, Athena). In essence, he claims that they are most obviously untrue because they were a product of the Romans' and Greeks' creations. I would like to remind Con that this is firstly a digression; we have entered this debate assuming the existence of the concept of God, and not to debate the truth of any religion. There are people that place their faith in this religion and it cannot be simply dismissed the way Con has done. I would also like to remind Con that the same argument can be made of Christianity. 1. The creation of sin I offer the following argument, which acts as a strong refutation to Con's point. Premise 1: God created Lucifer. Premise 2: Lucifer created sin. Conclusion: Therefore, directly or indirectly, God created sin. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, because it flows logically from the premises. Con has already accepted that the Islamic faith holds that God created sin. Therefore, my original argument stands. Argument 2: Con argues that strength, opportunity and courage are only granted to those who see it or are willing. I would argue that this is highly discriminatory and not at all in line with the concept of a "good" God. Premise 1: God can destroy evil or grant strength, opportunity and courage to whomsoever He wants, because He is all-powerful. Premise 2: If God is a good God, he would destroy evil and/or grant strength, opportunity and courage to people who are suffering, so as to minimise their suffering. Premise 3: God does not do that unconditionally, thereby choosing instead to allow people to suffer. Conclusion: Therefore God is not a good God. Argument 3: I would like to remind Con of Rowe's formulation, with some minor adjustments to make it clearer, as I am not convinced by his response. Premise 1: There (probably) exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. Therefore, this being is either not omnipotent, omniscient, or wholly good. Since we have assumed at the outset that God is omnipotent, and omniscient, He is therefore not wholly good. (Quod erat demonstrandum) Based on the counter-arguments above, my original arguments all remain intact. Therefore, I maintain my position that God is not a good God for not helping certain areas of the world. Thank you.
Is god bad for not helping some areas of the world? (assuming that he exists)

So assume there is anther god(or god) insted of the christian god. Allah and Elohim -- the gods of Islam and Judaism have pretty much the exact same belief as christians. It is compared here: http://www.answering-islam.org... Now lets look at the greeko-roman belief -- they made them in thier own image so pretty much they litterally made them up. The only diffferance between judaism, islam, and christianity is belief in jesus, and what happened in the biblical, tanakh, and quran times. God did not create sin lucifer did in christianity and judaism, but what about islam? Allah created sin. And his creation but cannot enter into the world. Allah is a kind god according to the quran though. I will argue the islam P.O.V. with if he could he would. And on the subject of strength, oppertunity, and courage are granted to only those who see it or are willing.
Is god bad for not helping some areas of the world? (assuming that he exists)

God has a reason for everything. In the garden of eden when adam and eve betrayed god he sent them out of the garden because they had eaten the apple of the tree of life. A bit harsh? No. He sent thm out because when creation is not pure it has sinned and sin separates humans and god. In my first debte i made an equasion God creation = purity sin. God is pure and creation sins two positives and negatives are grouped. Balance is needed so he took man's sin when he died on the cross then god had sin which cancel each other out and creation (humans) have purity and can go to heaven to be with god. God cannot make that switch for you. He canot make you worship him so he tests us. If he made us worship him then we wouldn't be able to be pure and not go to heaven because when you admit your sins that switch happens but it would be out of fear. That isn't god god is a pure being. Since he cannot make us worship him we must have faith and belive he is there although we have though we have no logical proof. That is what faith is. We have to accept the world as it is. Every big issue today is man-made or produced. God cannot just come down and fix everything, we have to do it ourselves. He will give us the oppertunity, the courage, the strength but we need to fix our own problems. He does help but usually only in that manner. With this i conclude god is not bad but reasonable and wise when interacting with the world.
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

It is apparent to me that I am the winner of this debate. Not only has my opponent twice forfeited the debate, earning me the conduct point, but he hasn't responded to either my statement nor my counterarguments. Ultimately, everything has been extended across the flow and goes unargumented. I've provided the evidence that I need, and considering that it's more scholarly and methodological than my opponent's, I should also earn the sources point. Judges, if my opponent tries to make any arguments after this, please do not allow him to considering that I have absolutely no way of responding to them now that the debate is at a close. Thank you.
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Sorry, I got sidetracked in all of my other debates. Here are my counter arguments.Legalization of gay rights provides equal protection.I will concede to that statement, but the problem is that there will be people who will lose their individual rights as well. 60% of marriages are in churches and other religious places. Most churches don't offer marriage to a gay Christian, and because of that, the gay person can sue the church and can be entitled to get married at that church. Now, the pastor of that church loses his right of religion so that gay people can get married.Gay marriage benefits society. Gay marriage might help make money, but that doesn't mean it is right or good. Alcohol makes money for society, but that doesn't mean that it is good. Many people have died from alcohol. As my opponent stated, people get rejected from just being gay. Letting them get married will cause more turmoil and strife.ArgumentsMarriage is defined as the unification of male and female. Therefore, there is no point in trying to legalize a marriage that isn't marriage at all.In the dictionary, marriage is defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. As you can see, in that definition, marriage is the unification of opposite genders, not the same gender. Therefore, it is not marriage that would be legalized.Gay marriage will not benefit children. Let's say two lesbian women are raising an adopted kid. That kid would possibly go to jail and become criminals just because there is no father. President Barack Obama said that "We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it." As you can see, with the absence of a father, there might not be a good future for them and it will also weaken the community. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...http://www.patheos.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Death Penalty (Capitol Punishment) in US

I believe that the death penalty maybe overused today but a country without the ultimate punishment is a worse place, For example if saddam or osama bin laden were sent to the usa for trial for their involvement in the terrorist attacks on American soil. Would you accept anything other than the death penalty ? If the Killer of 27 innocent children at sandy hook was caught alive, again would it not be wrong for him not face the death penalty. Yes stop day to day use but do not abandon it all together because it may be required for the most awful of crimes.
Death Penalty (Capitol Punishment) in US

I will argue that the Death Penalty (Capitol Punishment) should be abolished. This method of punishment is an arcane punishment that makes the government a possible murderer of innocent citizens. It is a non effective method of deterrence for would be criminals. It is irreversible via appeal after the sentence has been carried out should new evidence be found. It permanent end to a life, leaving the possibility for true justice (for the victim, the accused and for the potential true criminal) from every coming to fruition. Life in prison is more cost effective. Life imprisonment without possibility of parole is sufficient to eliminate the threat of a vicious criminal from society. From a moral perspective, murder is wrong this is true for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well. Debate format: Round 1 will be used to declare position, as I have above. Round 2 will be opening arguments with citations, documentation and evidence for the arguments. Round 3 will be disputing the opponents arguments. Round 4 Rebuttal, no new arguments will be presented only countering the previous points. Round 5 closing remarks if any. In round 5 you may choose not to contribute and this decisions should not be held against you in the voting. I put this in in case we wanted to summarize our stances. I welcome my opponents talking points, good luck and I look forward to a good debate!
Children's Beauty Pageants Do More Harm Than Good

For decades, mothers have allowed their children to be exploited to judges. They charm their ways through the competition by waving, winking and blowing kisses, while their mothers trim them with false eyelashes and glittering heaps of makeup. I'm thirteen and I'd like to know if anyone really thinks they can top my logic. I'm doing a project on this subject in language arts, writing a persuasive essay on this topic. What is your take on my point of view?
Children's Beauty Pageants Do More Harm Than Good

Another reason on why beauty pageants are good for children is that, because beauty pageants are so competitive, that if a child really likes doing beauty pageants they will have to learn patience, perserverance, and also sportsmanship(yes i know pageants are not a sport but if they keep a good attitude even if they lose then it will be better for them mentally). "Pageants aren't always as venomous and dangerous as they are portrayed in the media. The parents of the contestants often go out of their way by helping other contestants in their last-minute preparations." says buzzle.com. They will also learn about not being selfish and just doing it for fun and not to be mean to others or show how beautiful and talented they are. The children will also grow up more open minded, since beauty pageants allow anyone from any race or culture they will allow the opportunity for them to not be so closed in their thinking about other races and cultures, and also give them the opportunity to learn about other cultures. Cites www.buzzle.com/articles/child-beauty-pageants-pros-and-cons.html
Children's Beauty Pageants Do More Harm Than Good

That is a good point. But not ALL parents and children are like that. Many children who have been or are in pageants have turned out alright. Yes, there are shows like toddlers and tiaras, but that is the fault of the parent not the child. If your child is a brat it is partially the kids fault, but if you haven't raised them right then it is your fault. Not all children have to dress up inappropriately. That again is the fault of poor parents. Also children get a better sense of who they are as the grow up and are normally very confident people. They also learn how to be poised and learn proper etiquette.