BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I don't even know how to apple.

*meha* Well I watered the road the last 5 days in order to fly my kite. Science never claimed the dog that spoke truth. I want to question your answers however order is defined as a chicken crossing the road. I believe that computers are an alien encounter however if you allow them to eat your pizza you deserve to be dumping dumplings. As for whether I believe in truth I believe the data is false on truth. If ever you saw a man eating a sloth I suggest you go to a nunnery. But not to fast because your horses are holding. I think Space was there at one time then moves down the toilet. I believe in angels because birds have wings and pizzas have cheese. Well it has been fun, rounds are only writings in the sky. Profiles are golden. Goldfishes are profiled. If ever this report may be proven true, truth is false. Every day is just another star. Whats real is defined as what the brain processes as made in china. Everything made in china is real therefore what is real is made in china. If purple was real it would only be in china therfore go see you mother at the train station see if shes not dead or half a live and go with the elephants to downtown where the grass roots of rock and rolling toys may have been made. Well purple can be defined as what you perceive as made in china. People being humans may need a parachute in order for your claim to make a landing. Because proof only exists in truth and truth exists in made in china.
I don't even know how to apple.

*ahem* I only got 5 hours of sleep last night. This allowed me to taste the soda. However, I would like to point out that after every sentence, there is a period. I mean, why would someone say that billboards can't own cars? To me that seems obviously intolerant. I just really wish all canines would look around and eat bacon. But I digress. What really matters is that the point of this debate is that the real reason I wanted to make this debate is for this new Lamborghini here. Beat that. I would also like to point out that what I thought was real wasn't and what I thought was purple was purple. Therefore I think it's safe to assume that all people are also humans.
I don't even know how to apple.

Your welcome for not allowing me to not accept this make sense debate. I feel certain that my cat fell of the roof of my doghouse and hit a moving vehicle. Yet I don"t know why I didn't wear my snowshoes. The other day it was last week. However sometimes I just don"t care what people might call a one legged dog. I have certain feelings not related to anything but an airplane falling down a hallway. I have certain proof that nothing can be proven. In that case it is essential to pack a shaving kit in order to call your mother who may have died or have fallen or went to work in a train which is where many different elephants pack their trunks and leave. I knew a man but that is only important if you don"t know him but maybe you do so in that case it may only matter to a tiger who may have been scared of massive size and went to a thrift shop instead. Thrift shops! That reminds me of the time I stubbed my toe while falling off a tower of my computer which was on a bridge in the sky. However perhaps that may have been a distant memory of mine which adds everything to this moment but unfortunately must be used for my losing. In that case I take it forward. I feel certain that time exists only at a certain time then may change. But that only applies to plastic bags. If this makes sense, sense itself is senseless for sense is only for those that carry wallets. Money is worthless. If you"ve heard that perhaps you've heard of my brother who may be in Tokyo or could be lying in the motel where a famous singer is just preforming when all of a sudden a balloon appears and takes him away. I don"t know if cars exist but I bet money on gambling. If you haven"t read this you must now. I wish you all a clown falling of a desk while juggling three balls which may have been made in china but who knows because clowns are just cheap buggers who may shop in dollar stores however it is not safe to say that condoms are safe. May the force of gravitation which may not exist on your world help you lift a cheese burger.
I don't even know how to apple.

Okay, before things get weird I'd just like to explain what this debate is about. Previously in my Debate.org experience, I would hold these "randomness debates." Basically how they work is my and my opponent say the most ridiculous, unrelated, crazy things, to outstupid each other. Please do not accept this if you are going to be serious. And no, the debate does not necessarily have to be about whether I can "apple" or not. That was just a random title I thought of. Let's begin. Nothing from this point on is allowed to make any sense. Firstly, I'd just like to make my closing statement. I really firmly believe that the world was created by YouTube. However, it is true that beer can be used to fuel certain airplanes if lubricated correctly. Source: usa.frenchconnection.com/ And although I have already lost this debate, I would like to provide my opponent with a few question to answer. 2. Is it opposite day, or are pants always worn on legs? 3. How can it be possible to chew properly if each day we all... I forgot. 3. Which is more plausible, a cow that you can get milk from, or a chicken you can get eggs from. Please explain your reasoning. 2468. Did I? Again, I would once again like to state that my opponent is a total macaroni, and a gosh darned silly face too.
I don't even know how to apple.

Christmas is the best time to brush your teeth. You may wonder what this has to do with shampoo on your toilet but trust me you don't want to know what a fresy is. Yeah it is wonderful that Christmas is tomorrow however that next step is a doozy. Is there truth in what your saying about saying insane sayings? I just would like to say my services as well as the services of my civil servent here who services me are at your service. If you want it lifted up do it yourself. Yes that is the saying of old man Giles Leber Pell Moses III of the IIII of Eleanor Kop of each and every country of the planet elec port mefhu on the galaxy neper von bell. Anyways the point is to paddle your own pizza. Remember to not forget to remember to take out the trash. If you live, don't die. Thank you and Merry Christmas.
I don't even know how to apple.

As I said in the previous round, my opponent is completely correct. People are basically things too. However, I don't really know how to express the strong desire I have to eat an apple pie filled with uncooked roast beef. If I were to do so, I feel as though I might not be able to lighten the mood in this debate by presenting a large Red Bull. As I stated previously, there is absolutely not one single shred of evidence to prove that hair exists. But I believe they do, simply because it appears on my right knee cap, during a full moon. I would also like to point out, though, that every time I go out to eat, I always end up disappointed by the fact that all of these casinos serve poker chips.
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

Any commission of a war crime is evil, independent of which side the perpetrator is on. I grant you that all sides used poison gases, and this makes them all evil. The invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula was particularly immoral because they knew that they had very little chance of succeeding--they knew many lives would be wasted with no change going in. I am not convinced that the Germans were any more evil than the other nations involved in the war, nor do I think the way they were treated after the war was just, but they were as guilty as any other country.
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

Germany was at war with all three of those countries- Russia, France, and Serbia. Since Serbia had a weak military and Russia was still mobilizing, Germany attacked France, the bigger threat. However, this debate is over morals, not military tactics. I realize that in my earlier argument, I chose my words badly. Instead of "minor", I should have said "The type of war crime that both sides committed. Look at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org.... The first table is dedicated to World War One, and the Allies and the UK are on there. Does this make them evil? No! Also, I want to point out another thing. If invading another country is evil, then why did British and ANZAC forces invade the Gallipoli peninsula in WWI?
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

The Germans did not attack either Serbia or Russia first, which they should have done per their treaty with Austria-Hungary--this also is one of the reasons the central powers lost the war. The Germans violated the Hague Convention of 1907 multiple times in the war, first by killing thousands of Belgian civilians and second by raiding undefended English coastal towns. I don't accept your assertion that there is such a thing as a "minor" war crime. Intent or ideology is often difficult to determine. Consequences of actions are not. Actions such as using weapons "evil in themselves" such as chemical weapons or failing to discriminate between civilians and soldiers is unjust or evil. World War 2, the Japanese, and the nuclear bombings have nothing to do with this debate, however I will point out that the USA are "bad guys" for dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan, as military advisers did not recommend doing so, and it wasn't until two days after the bombings, when the Soviet Union's army joined the war against Japan, that Japan decided to surrender.
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

On the contrary, Austria-Hungary is highly relevant. The match that set off the "bomb" of war was the Austria-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia. And the Serbians lit this match themselves by shooting the archduke. After the French and the Russians declared war on Austria-Hungary, the Germans were obligated to follow the terms of their treaty with Austria Hungary. The invasion of France was not evil, and since France and Germany were at war, it isn't "pure speculation" that the French would have invaded Germany. As for your comment "That's just a larger, stronger country bullying a smaller one." Maybe that's true. But that's what history is all about. You're a big bad country- prove it. The Americans attacked the Spanish in the Spanish-American war and the British invaded America in the war of 1812. You can't use invasions to support your ideas. Maybe the invasions were wrong, but the Serbians shot the archduke, both sides used chemical warfare, some British commanders killed German sailors who tried to surrender, etc etc. As William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is hell". When declaring someone "the bad guys" in a war, you must move beyond minor war crimes and focus on ideology. For example, the Germans in World War Two were certainly the bad guys. We know this because of the Holocaust, their "master race" ideas, and their murder of any dissents. The Japanese were also the bad guys in the Second World War, because of murder and torture of POWs, etc. In order to declare someone the bad side, you have to have strong evidence that they committed atrocities. Otherwise, we could call the US the bad guys for dropping Little Boy and Fat Man on Japan. Do you have such evidence?
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

It is pure speculation to say that the Germans would have been forced to fight a defensive war against France had they not struck first. Giving a declaration of war, as France did, is in accordance with ethical just war theory, however preemptive strikes are not. The Germans were not any less evil for providing notice to Belgium that they would be bringing their military through their country whether they liked it or not. That's just a larger, stronger country bullying a smaller one. This debate is not about the Austro-Hungarians, I shouldn't have brought them up. Clearly, many European countries were building up their militaries and tensions were rising, however the fact remains, that the Germans followed their ally into an offensive, throwing the first punch so to speak. According to just war theory, it is not morally defensible to join an ally in an attack if the enemy has not started hostilities first.
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

Thanks for accepting. Yes, that is true. Germany did invade all those nations in WWI. However, you can't say that the invasion of France was evil. War between France and Germany had already been declared when the invasion began. Had the Germans not invaded France, they would have found themselves fighting on their home turf. The invasion of Luxembourg can't be defended, but there was never any plan to invade Belgium. The Germans sent the Belgians a note. The gist of it was "We believe that the French are planning to invade. Therefore, we request your permission to advance through your country and attack them. We do not need you to help us, we only ask you to not hinder our passage. If you refuse, you will be seen as an enemy." An invasion by France was highly unlikely- but not impossible. Belgium was a key strategic point, and the French and the Germans both realized this. The French were hoping the Germans would invade, so that they could rush to Belgium's aid and attack Germany through Belgium. The Belgians refused to the note, so the Germans invaded. To the Germans credit, sending the Belgians the letter was a very gentlemanly thing to do. They could have just invaded without warning. After all, it was almost certain that the Belgians would refuse to allow them passage. But they sent a note that practically told the Belgians "We're going to invade." Therefore, the Belgians were ready, and inflicted serious casualties on the German army. And as for Austria-Hungary, they were not aggressors, even though they invaded Serbia. The Serbian Secret Service supplied the Black Hand (The organization that killed the Austria-Hungarian archduke) with weapons, funding, and training. in fact, some think (And this may or may not be true), that the Black hand was a top secret branch of the Secret Service. Think about it. If the KGB shot Obama in cold blood, that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
World War One was Morally Ambiguous

I will not argue what you believe or don't believe unless I can hook you up to a polygraph machine ; ) however I will argue that the Germans were unfairly portrayed as evil in WWI. One must recognize that the Germans and Austro-Hungarians were the aggressors in the war, as they invaded first. Invading other nations is evil. Germany invaded Belgium, Luxembourg, and France in WWI. Therefore Germany was evil.
Pro Gaming a sport

Sorry to have forfeited last round busy that day. My opponent recognizes that I have stated the Definition of Sport. What he says is that it is unneeded because it says skill or physical prowess not "and" and gaming requires a skill although he failed to give an example he just said it required one, so until he does this the argument has no ground. Greek word argument-This is the English language, by presenting the word Greek meaning of Athlete doesn't change the definitions meaning. Plus you gave the Greek meaning of athlete not athletic so that is useless. Also it still doesn't push the physical limits of the human body you have failed to refute that. Mike Sepso-"A church divided, is no church at all."- Jacque Fresco. My reasoning for posting this is because if one believes it is a real sport and one does not it can be nothing. Also can you provide evidence like a link to a video of him saying that. Thank you. I know pass it over to my opponent
Pro Gaming a sport

It's nice to see you again. I see this time your disagreeing with me but that is ok. As you see my opponent has stated the Definition of Sport. As it being an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature. If you take a good look at the definition it doesn't say requiring skill "and" physical prowess, it says "or" which automatically means it doesn't have to have physical prowess, and take it from an upcoming pro, Gaming needs skill. Now this takes me to something I just need to throw in just in case my opponent here wants to say Athlete means you need physical contact with as well. we derive the word Athlete from Greek times. The Greek meaning for "Athlete" means "one who competes for a prize" Now for the staff member saying that he doesn't count Pro gaming as a sport. That is just his opinion on it. He may not consider what he works for a sport, But Mike Sepso the founder of MLG Strictly calls pro gaming a sport...if you don't believe me listen to the Mike Sepso interview with Kiwi box. I think that is a good enough argument. Now i wait.
Pro Gaming a sport

Since my opponent only stated he has overwhelming facts to present I have nothing to refute so I will go on to present my arguments. My opponent gave no def. of sport so I will put one forth. Sport-an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc" By that definition it shows that pro gaming is not a sport. It does not push the physical limits of the human body, and there is no frequent movement of each muscle in the human body. Also from one of the staff members blogs saying himself that it is not a sport. "No, professional gaming is not a sport. While it's a viable form of competition and, according to some definitions of the word sport, it's easy to define pro gaming as such, the key to distinguishing viable forms of competition, such as competitive gaming and basketball, from sports is athletic activity. While poker, chess and gaming are viable professional, competitive activities they are dissimilar to sports such as basketball and tennis that require physical exertion. By adding this requirement we make the way we talk about things more clearly defined. The fact that gaming is not a "traditional" sport defines it as something else while not taking away at all from what is has in common with a sport. We classify things as specifically as possible in order to clarify discussion. " by Brick from MLGpro. com If people who work for it don't classify it as a sport it shouldn't be one.
Civil disobedience is morally justified in a democracy.

Hi Mcbunny. This is the first debate I've done in a while where I am not actively extracting the Michael out of my opposition so I'm hoping for a good one.Introduction: I will be arguing that it can be morally justified to perform acts of civil disobedience in a democracy - not that it is always justified. In addition so that I will be fulfilling my burden of proof, I will argue that any act of civil disobedience which cannot be morally justified is no immoral because it is acting against the state, but rather the immorality lies in the action itself independently of the actors prepertating and receiving the action.My burden of proof is that I have to show that these actions against the state are not immoral because they are perpertrated against the state; for an action to be morally justified it does not require it to be good, or moral, merely not immoral - for one does not need to justify a neutral action. Should I merely counter all my opponents arguments, I will have won, for it is reasonable to assume that any action which cannot be shown to be immoral, can be morally justified.Definitions; Justify: To provide an acceptable explanation for http://en.wiktionary.org...Moral: Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviourhttp://en.wiktionary.org... Civil disobedience: A form of social protest, involving the active but non-violent refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of an established authority, because they are considered to be morally wrong or detrimental.http://en.wiktionary.org...That should be all.1. Democracies are not immune from tyranny.Infact some describe democracies as the tyranny of the majority. If an immoral law is enforced by a majority - say you must murder someone once a week - civil disobedience is the only moral response. If more people than you want an immoral law enforced, no amount of legal voting will change that.2. Democratic mandate is not a sufficient mandate on a moral basis.Say you are on an island - 9 Pedos and you. They all get horny. Someone, lets call him Gary Glitter, proposes that someone ought to get raped. There is general consensus that a vote ought to determine who this is. Everyone puts a name in a hat, and nine to one they vote for you. They have a democratic mandate for raping. But this does not make the action moral - for you to attempt to avoid any sexual encounters with Gary Glitter and his buddies would be analagous to civil disobedience. Most would infact argue that civil disobedience (non-violent action) would not be far enough in this case.3. There is nothing inherently immoral with non-complianceThis argument speaks for itself. I suggest that we both agree on an axiomatic basis that we have self ownership - please say if you wish to contest this point. If someone tries to force you to do something against your will which you have not agreed to do, then refusing is not immoral.I await my opponents response. Purple.
Should soldiers torture their prisoners

This is true, but as I stated before the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The needs of the thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 is more important then the sexual need of one man who's secrets can save many. I still extend my arguements. We can also see that the ends justify the means (http://www.economist.com...) such as if we continue to torture and something does come out we save lives. Like the NSA has said that they have prevent terrorist attacks by spying on many and Obama has comfirmed this (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). So my arguement still stands that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.
Should soldiers torture their prisoners

LOL many arab men, have strong sadistic fantasies, as it is. Also in Saudi Arabia, a man who admits to having tortured, is consisered more masculine for the experience Sexual torture in Saudi Arabia: http://www.latamdaily.com... It's a certain fact, that the soldier who first tries this abuse, this electric torture against a woman, and experiences the power rush it gives him, he cannot go back to screwing his wife gently. Sure a lot of men, would like to try this, but not all will survive psycologiacally
Should soldiers torture their prisoners

My opponent brings up Sex in his last round. What my opponent does not know is that in Saudi Arabia they can capture their own citizens and torture them for no reason. The torture my opponent has describe is actually the same torture that they use. The people of Saudi Arabia still walk away from this and as I said before time heals all wounds. They eventually heal from this torture so my opponent's point here is irrelivant. Secondly please extend across all of my previous arguements as my opponent has failed to answer them.
Should soldiers torture their prisoners

First I'd like to fix the link from last round. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) My opponent states that torture will be used on our allies, but this is already assumed, because in the Marine Corps Knowledge handbooks it states that Marines might be tortured when captured by the enemy in what we call "Green Monsters." Secondly my opponent fails to address my points that I have brought out in Round 1 of Utilitarianism, showing that torture is justified, because it saves lives! Which is truely important in the long going. Think about this which is more important, the life of one man or the lives of many? Marines are taught that we work as a unit and that no one man is more important. This shows that torture overall in order to save lives is justified.