BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

1. You find yourself prisoner at the hands of a mad scientist who indicates that he is planning on torturing you. However, prior to actually torturing you, he will replace your mind (thoughts, personality, behavior, memories, etc.) with the mind of someone else. Does this fact reduce your fear of the torture? No it does not. It actually makes me more nervous as I know that I might get the mind of a psychopath or the operation could go incorrectly. 2. You find yourself prisoner at the hands of another mad scientist, along with another individual. The mad scientist indicates that he will torture one person, but free another. However, prior to doing that, he is going to swap your minds (thoughts, personality, behavior, memories, etc.). Furthermore, he is going to let you chose who is tortured and who is freed. Do you free the person with your body? I may or may not. Since he swapped my minds, it is impossible to answer that question. 3. Can an act that harms no one be morally wrong? Yes it can. 4. Is incest morally wrong? believe that it is morally wrong. 5. If you take a car apart then put it back together, is it still the same car? If you did not take out the engine than it is still the same car. 6. If you replace a single part on the car, is it still the same car? It's still the same car, but the parts are diffrent. 7. You wake up one morning after a fun night out with a horrible hang-over. In fact, you can't even remember anything from the night before. To your horror, you find yourself surgically attached to another person. As memories from the night come back, you realize that, in your inebriated state, you agreed to this procedure. It is possible to separate the two of you, with minimal risk to yourself, but it will kill the other person. Do you go through with the separation? I would not go through the operation, but maybe my "new" mind would. 8. Is abortion always morally wrong? Yes it is. Even if it was a malestation. 9. Does moral responsibility depend on being able to do otherwise? That is, if I engage in an action whose outcome I have no choice over, can I still be held morally responsible for that action? Yes you can. You get to choose if you want to engage in it. 10. Yet another made scientist has installed a microchip in your brain. He did this because he found out about your plan to kill your coworker. He wants you to go through with this plan, but installed the microchip in your brain as a fail-safe; should you have last-minute doubts, the microchip will force you to kill your coworker. Nevertheless, the fail-safe is not needed; you go through with the plan and kill your coworker. Are you morally responsible? I am morally responsible, since it was my intention to kill my cooworker any way. If I had no intentions of originally killing him, then the scientist wouldn't have installed a microchip in my brain.
I will not contradict myself

1. You find yourself prisoner at the hands of a mad scientist who indicates that he is planning on torturing you. However, prior to actually torturing you, he will replace your mind (thoughts, personality, behavior, memories, etc.) with the mind of someone else. Does this fact reduce your fear of the torture? 2. You find yourself prisoner at the hands of another mad scientist, along with another individual. The mad scientist indicates that he will torture one person, but free another. However, prior to doing that, he is going to swap your minds (thoughts, personality, behavior, memories, etc.). Furthermore, he is going to let you chose who is tortured and who is freed. Do you free the person with your body? 3. Can an act that harms no one be morally wrong? 4. Is incest morally wrong? 5. If you take a car apart then put it back together, is it still the same car? 6. If you replace a single part on the car, is it still the same car? 7. You wake up one morning after a fun night out with a horrible hang-over. In fact, you can't even remember anything from the night before. To your horror, you find yourself surgically attached to another person. As memories from the night come back, you realize that, in your inebriated state, you agreed to this procedure. It is possible to separate the two of you, with minimal risk to yourself, but it will kill the other person. Do you go through with the separation? 8. Is abortion always morally wrong? 9. Does moral responsibility depend on being able to do otherwise? That is, if I engage in an action whose outcome I have no choice over, can I still be held morally responsible for that action? 10. Yet another made scientist has installed a microchip in your brain. He did this because he found out about your plan to kill your coworker. He wants you to go through with this plan, but installed the microchip in your brain as a fail-safe; should you have last-minute doubts, the microchip will force you to kill your coworker. Nevertheless, the fail-safe is not needed; you go through with the plan and kill your coworker. Are you morally responsible?
Keeping Troops In Iraq

Democracy in Iraq will never stay because the people are just having it forced on them now. In America, democracy was decided as our political status by us, not another country 10000+ miles away which had nothing to do with us until they invaded. You cannot argue that democracy will instill itself in 5,10,20 years because 4 years ago you probably were saying it would take 5 years. Look where we are now! Coming up on 5 years and what have we done? Set up the terrorists to be even more pissed when we leave? After the 08 election, the troops would only be removed in Ron Paul was elected, so it'll probably stay the same.
Keeping Troops In Iraq

Although this may be true from a civilian standpoint, I would much rather control or have the opportunity to control the violence, as opposed to having a Dictator that was killing people in mass amounts. An unpredictable, ruthless, killer who just simply dominated the country. I gaurentee you, that if we kept troops in Iraq untill a stable and safe Democracy is present, which could be 5, 10, or 15 years in the making, and then left them when the time is right; the ratio between ammount of deaths there after and during would be dramaticly far less than if Suddam Hussein had continued his terror. Perhaps we invaded for the wrong reasons, perhaps the outcome of invading backfired, perhaps the U.S. has to take a step back and spend massive ammounts of money, and even life to preserve what we as American's have thought true since 1776 and our Founding Fathers' Patriotism. Truth be told, in order to spread peace, we have to give some to get some. Freedom isn't free and just think about the poor people in Iraq and the type of environment they have to live through, and think about what it could be if we continue to decrease the ammount of violence in Iraq. Don't just watch tv, research what they are saying, what they are doing. They're coming back! Violence is going down, the surge is successful. Now keeping a consistent presence in Iraq, whether it be 10,000 troops or 5,000 its not for me to determine. But I do know that it would solve a problem we created, and it would be the American thing to do, it would be the right thing to do. Politicaly and humanely. We need to set an example for Afganistan and Iran that we don't back down. That we finish business. That we will do what it takes to preserve freedom. We absolutely need Iraq to succeed, and in order to obtain this we must keep troops in Iraq. Thank you for reading, and I am positive that if you have any sense of what is right, be it politics, humanity, or morality, I believe you will realize that it is absolutely imperitive that we keep the troops in Iraq.
Whites should be lynched

Pro says: "Whites carry the burden of their ancestors and live off the oppression of other races. They must be stopped, and fast! Get cucked, traitor!" First, he gave no evidence to prove that all white people live off the oppression of other races. The six million Jews in Germany whom the Nazi exterminated were largely white, and they is no evidence that these white Jews were oppressing blacks or living off anything they stole from blacks. Most of them were just normal people who did honest work for a living, and Hitler's claims to the contrary were proven to be propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org... Also, Pro has no shown any evidence that white people living today are to be blamed for what their ancestors did, anymore than black people living today are to blame for what their ancestors did. If people today should be lynched for the crimes of their ancestors, then to be consistent with this argument, Pro would have to conclude that he himself (or she herself) should be lynched for the crimes of his or her ancestors. Surely, even among blacks you will find horrible things being done. Most of the gun violence in the USA is committed by black gangs against other blacks. "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks." https://en.wikipedia.org... Slavery existed among black communities in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org... So weather Pro descended from blacks or whites, to say that someone should be lynched because of the sins of his ancestors would mean that Pro should be lynched as well. If he thinks that he shouldn't be, he should drop his argument. Also, Pro's answer to stopping some bad whites is to kill all whites. That would effectively make the blacks who do this into racist murderers, no better than the very whites they are killing. Pro is suggesting genocide. Will you bury the bodies Pro? Will you kill the children to? If all whites should be lynched, then will you lynch a six-month-old white baby? What has this child done wrong that it deserves to be murdered? All whites didn't personally go steal from blacks, even if they have inherited stolen property from slaver masters in their family tree. So what I suggest, is that whites should give reparations to blacks, but I don't suggest kill them. I think also that some blacks need to give reparations to blacks as well, in as much as blacks have profited from oppressing each other, and have inherited gains through that oppression done by their ancestors. So my opponent has not proven his case.
Whites should be lynched

There are good and bad people in all races, not only among whites, but also among blacks. This has been true all through history as I will show in this debate. Whites who have proven to be loving, and making worthwhile contributions to society certainly do not deserve to be lynched. My opponent must prove that all whites, every single one, is guilty of some crime for which they deserve to be lynched. A tall order indeed. William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp, Hannah More, Charles Middleton, Abraham Lincoln and the Quakers who fought as abolitionists against slavery, certainly didn't deserve to be lynched. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Since my opponent doesn't personally know the character of every single white individual, his argument amounts to nothing more than to criticize whites as being bad just because they are white. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. who said "a man should be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character." They are whites who have done much good for the world, providing breakthroughs in medicine and technology that has benefitted mankind, built orphanages and homes for battered women, participated in relief efforts, built schools and hospitals, etc, not only for their own race, but for others as well. At the same time, the vast majority of whites are not guilty of murder, rape, pillage, genocide and so forth, so why should they be lynched? I'll save my smoking guns for later. I look forward to hearing Pro's arguments
Should kids have to wear uniform in School

My Arguments1. Uniforms may increase a student’s self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion".2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class.3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying.4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus.5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved.School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that “various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. “ [1]Contentions"kids shouldnt have to wear uniforms because uniforms are expensive especially to unfornate families"Uniforms are actually relatively inexpensive and the benefits it gives to the students of the school far outweighs that it may cost more than poor parents would like to spend. In addition, it eliminates bullying to a kid who probably would have been wearing ratty clothes compared to others. "parents have to spend more money on buying uniform just for kids to wear it to one place."Uniforms are nessecarily just for one place to wear. You can wear it anytime, after all its clothes. [1] http://www.unr.edu...
Nobody loves child molesters and nobody loves me

Nobody loves child molesters and nobody loves me I have molested many children And people have told me that nobody loves me But I love children and that is enough If nobody loves me, That doesn't stop me I won't let anything stop me from realizing my dreams Molesting children is what I do I kiss them, I touch them I undress them, I love them Kissing children is my favourite thing to do It is something that brings me a lot of joy When in pursuit of my dreams I know I cannot blame the difficulties And it is hard for me It is hard for me But I can't let them stop me No matter how hard they try No matter how high the obstacles are No matter how painful the price is No matter what will happen if I do this I am used to the idea that nobody loves me But I still have love I love children, I love what I do to them If I abandoned this, I would be abandoning my dreams That is one price I am not ready to pay Nothing can stop me from molesting children Past cannot be stopped, It cannot be changed If it is wrong, I will still do it You accuse me of placing a kiss on a child's lips I plead guilty to that crime But there is one truth that won't let me stop Nothing can change what I have done I will always have love, As long as I exist Everyone else hates me, But my love persists
Romney should be elected over Obama

This debate concerns whether Mitt Romney should be elected President of the United States over President Barack Obama in the upcoming election. Only these two candidates are to be considered in the debate, and the outcome is to be determined by the preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof is shared and the debater who makes a better case for his candidate is to be judged the winner. As Pro, I will advocate for Mitt Romney.The first round is for acceptance and clarification only. I will present the Romney case at the start of the second round. Con may rebut in R2, but must present the pro-Obama case.Thanks to my opponent for taking up this topic. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Dropped arguments are not immediately counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
Ultimate Team War: Super Smash Bros Edition.

For this challenge, I shall call upon the following: Meta Knight: . http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com...(SSBB) Snake: . http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com...(SSBB) Wario: . http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com...(SSBB) Falco: . http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com...(SSBB) Marth: . http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com...(SSBM) Explanations for each of these characters can be found on the page which I am citing. Like my opponent, I look forward to the debate. :D
Ultimate Team War: Super Smash Bros Edition.

The description, rules, etc (as taken from Mongeese's Ultimate Team War debate...and modified a little to fit within the parameters of *this* debate): This is the Ultimate World Domination Team War. Each debater must assemble a team of five people, and the teams will then fight to the death. Since we cannot have an actual real-life battle, each debater will explain why their team is superior during this debate. This was inspired by MTGandP, and his debate here: http://www.debate.org...... DEFINITIONS Team leader: One of the debaters here, i.e. me and whoever accepts the debate. Team member: One of the five chosen warriors. RULES 1. Battles take place on an earthlike planet; there is a human population, but humans will not interfere with the war unless forced to become involved. 2. No team member may have unlimited abilities in one or more particular areas. 3. Every team member must be a selectable, player usable character from any of the Super Smash Brothers video game series. 4. Every team member's abilities must be in accordance to their abilities in Super Smash Brothers. 5. Every character has only the equipment that they have the Super Smash Brothers Series. 6. Team members are absolutely loyal to the team leader, unless subjected to some form of mind control by the opposing team. 7. The team leader may not directly participate in the competition, but may only facilitate. The role of the team leader is to explain what the team would do and why it would win against the opposing team. 8. Neither team can have a member in common. If one team leader chooses a team member, the other team cannot have that person. (PRO unveils only three team members in round one for two reasons. The first is so that PRO does not get first dibs on choosing all five team members. The second is so that CON cannot gain an advantage by choosing team members that directly counter PRO's team.) Round 1: Rule specifications; PRO unveils first three team members, CON unveils all five team members. Round 2: PRO unveils his final two team members and explains why his team is better. CON also begins his/her arguments. Round 3, 4, 5: Arguments and rebuttals. Con may not present any new arguments during round 5, since Pro has no chance to rebut them. My first three team members: Mewtwo, Sonic, and Ness. Considering they have the abilities used in the game series, I don't really think I need to go into detail describing what they can do. I look forward to this debate...my opponent is a very formidable one.
Ultimate Team War: Super Smash Bros Edition.

<"This is based on statistics and is the general consensus of the competitive players."> This is easily rebutted -- ad populum. Simple as that. Appealing to the consensus is fallacious in nature. Secondly, I also think this is an appeal to authority. So what if competitive players find a certain character more useful? I would think that's a matter which is subjective; certain people might perform better with certain characters because of an attachment, or maybe they find them easier to control, etc, etc. <"In fact, here is one of the things stated on Ness' page about the move my opponent claims will be effective: http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com......(SSBM) -"The special moves are overall slow coming out and have various amounts of cool down time with them, and adding to that it makes each one have a very limited use that makes them all situational.""> Yeah, they are slow, hence one reason why I used them on Snake, who isn't exactly Mr. Mobility. The "cool down time" which Ness will receive in between setting Snake on fire would be more than sufficient, as well. <"It would be easy to attack mewtwo while he charged his attack."> Straw man -- I wasn't talking about Mewtwo's shadow ball technique, which is the only move he possesses which requires "charging." The attack which I was referring to was Mewtwo's "confusion," which whirls the opponent in the air, and makes them tumble on the ground for a short period of time. <"And I'm not sure what my opponent means by rendering his "energy blast back" useless."> Falco's intrinsic shield which can send blasts of energy back at the individual who fired them is countered by Mewtwo's confusion. <"Wario may be a heavy character, but his movements are said to be the most unpredictable out of all the characters in the game "> Unpredictable =/= quick, nor fast. <"Not to mention that there is virtually nothing to stop all of my characters from fighting together."> ...I would think that having certain individuals attacked would kinda make it hard to fight as a team. <"What I'm saying is that Fox couldn't simply win by firing lazer blast. "> I didn't claim Fox would win "simply by firing his laser blast" -- my point was that many quick blasts would do damage. <"Why is it that Meta Knight has to be alone? Why wouldn't one of my teammembers be able to help him out?"> They'd all be engaged. As for the rest...meh. I addressed the point about the statistics and whatnot.