BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muffins or Cupcakes

You cant just say that the cupcakes taste better than all the Muffin Flavors combined becasue you have not tried all of them.Trust theres about 150 flavors so dont say that,and you cant just say cupcakes taste better becasue some people dont know how to cook or some people cook better.Muffins are simply as I said thats hy it dosent matter if they are a bad cook,becasue they are simply and many people could put icing inside the Muffin to nake it outstanding,and think of what your gonna put and think it through---Derpy Hooves
Muffins or Cupcakes

They are fun,but as I said many people like muffins becasue they are simply,but muffins could aslo be fun I have seen many interesting muffins(Like the Derpy Hooves Muffin) but muffins could come in many flavors like strawberry,vanilla,lemon,banana,chocolate,melon,pumkin...yes I did say pumkin,blueberry,and RAINBOW!.Many cupcakes only come in vanilla,strawberry,and chocolate soo think for a minute---Derpy Hooves
Muffins or Cupcakes

Im probly gonna lose becasue people like cupcakes better becasue they have frosting and sprinkles...but I like something simply like a muffin.A muffin could have frosting inside it and could have chocolate chips as well.I also like muffins because they are a little bigger than cupcakes.Also because of the creepy pasta thing called Cupcakes.THAT WAS DISGUSTING.anyway whats your response-Derpy Hooves
Kashmir Independence or their option to either stay independent or join Pakistan

From my many hours of research about Kashmir it's either a type of clothing or a very cold region near India that was the scene of most of Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible 6. So if its a type of clothing they don't need independence. If its the region that MI6 took place in then I thought they were already apart of Pakistan. So I am clearly not right for this debate. Sincerely, Jacksflims fan 187 Just Kidding nobody likes Jacksflims.
There is No Such Thing as 'Right' or 'Wrong.'

I shall not provide further arguments, as I find your refutes to be naive and unsubstantial. That being said, It is pointless to argue with someone who does not argue with a valid case. And is quite content by refuting argument without giving solid reasons, since I find all your refutes to be merely opinions not logical fallacies. You have a good day sir. MY OPPONENTS ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL:1. Opponent argues that we have no free will.2. That everything is subject and there is not such thing as right or wrong.3. He provided with an unfitting example and considered it fitting regardless of my counter proposal.4. Thinks that examples such as 'motherhood' is not a 'moral' act but an act of 'Compassion and Kindness'I find his argument to be somewhat paradoxical, yet I will leave judgement to the audience.5. People code of morality is based on their environment and how they were raised, yet he does not approve of the universal law of morality, or rather the principle.MY SIDE OF REASONING:1. That morality is somehow linked to basic instinct2. That through reasoning a universal principle of morality can be acquired, even though it maybe subjective from one person to the other, the basic are universal in their essence.3. I provided an example of both how morality comes into the materialistic word through our words and actions, along with the the undeniable fact of motherhood and how morality is interlinked with instinct.4. Then I proved through an experiment I provided that his so called 'Moral intuition' does exist and it is called 'Empathy'5. And finally I showed through an example of my own that free will does exist and upon it you can base the whole foundation of morality as a principleto be honest I did not enjoy arguing with you, as you did not provide but three weak arguments, that you spent the entire round fortifying them and saying that you are right even though it is all a matter of a subjectivity you still proclaim that you are objectively right. Riddle me this.I would like to give you an advice for further use, with all do respect this is what I thought of your position.“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”R13; Mark TwainThank you.
There is No Such Thing as 'Right' or 'Wrong.'

My opponent"s remarks in his latest post are very interesting. However, I do not believe he has sufficiently answered any of the three arguments I have put forward in his post. I find it hard to follow his reasoning and how his remarks serve to undermine my arguments in any aspect. I will go through his post and comment on them. In addition, I look forward to the 5 arguments he stated he will be presenting. "And as far as I understood you were poking around the idea of our very existence, because we cannot prove that we really "exist". With all do respect, this is absurd." I have no objection to the idea that we exist, and I did not suggest that we do not exist in my argument on free will. The argument was solely about free will, not about existence. "Simply dismissing the thought of free will means that you have lack the ability to reason, and you are just programmed to follow certain beliefs. That being said I will build my argument upon such facts, and I challenge you to prove that humans are not free if you want to over throw this theory. I find your example to be quite unfitting." I was wondering why do you believe my example of the brain as a computer is unfitting? I believe I provided enough of an explanation to explain my position and why I find the analogy to be appropriate. "Now as we return back to the main topic." I argue that free will is central to our concept of morality and is part of the main topic. Without it, there is no morality, as we do not blame "inanimate objects" for actions they may perform, as they do not choose what they do. Regarding the anecdote at the end of the post: "The question here is not whether this is moral or immoral, the question here is what "right" does the murderer have to take his life along with his freedom?" These two questions are one and the same. The question of "rights" is an aspect of morality. "You do not see animals hunting down their own species" In fact this is not true. It is standard operating procedure for male lions to kill all baby lions previously existing when they take over a pride. "Yet they are animals with lower class of intelligence, we on the other hand humans we are the smartest species living on this planet, and it is this code . . . Yes, we did create morality through reason and it very much exists." How intelligent an animal is is not important with regards to what moral intuitions, or moral feelings one has, for we do not derive our "morals" from reason alone as I had outlined in my 2nd argument.
U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the Senate

(I enjoyed this debate too :D) Ill just make this real short 1) I argued that Andrew Johnson had much experience in politics before he became president, The Pro states that since Johnson got bad grades that that automatically makes him unqualified to have been in president in the first place. However, Einstein got nad grades in mathematics does that mean he should never have been allowed to use equations and numbers while a scientist? http://members.fortunecity.com... 2) The Freedmen's Bureau was never abolished by Andrew Johnson, in fact it existed his entire presidency, the bureau was actually shut down by Ulysses S Grant. The only part of the bill he vetoed was a bill to give it more power, and that veto WAS OVERTURNED in 1866. http://www.infoplease.com... Andrew Johnson's actions against the movement were minor and were ultimately surpassed because of efforts from the Republican dominated Congress. I agreed he was racist and so would most voters but to claim he wanted to RE-INSTITUTE slavery is very debatable. 3) I understand the separation of powers point you make but you still claim that Andrew Johnson was a power-hungry tyrant but I still fail to see how wanting to replace only 1 adviser makes him power-hungry or a tyrant, let alone both... Also there could be many many reasons why he wanted to relieve Stanton of his duty, to imply that it was ONLY because he was anti-slavery is very biased of Johnson's actions. In conclusion, Andrew Johnson should not have been impeached because 1) He did have plenty of experience in politics prior to being president so he was qualified to be president 2) He did no real damage to the efforts of the Reconstruction of the South, the liberation of slaves, or to the rights they inherited after the end of the Civil War 3) The law that he did violate (just once) he did so because he felt it was an infringement on his executive powers and was unconstitutional, which is perfectly reasonable. At the same time he wanted to appoint a general be secretary of war over a lawyer........ The Law he did violate was later repealed by Congress though because they came to an agreement that it was unlawful, not unconstitutional. Since the law was repealed Congress agreed that it was unlawful which means that Johnson was impeached over an unlawful (not unconstitutional) law I had a blast with this debate :D
U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the Senate

(Dont worry about it, I've been busy as hell too :P ) 1) The ability to read and write is a skill that both lead to two results, either you are literate or you are not. Johnson took the hard way but nonetheless he did learn to read and write. You also have not offered a counter argument to the amount of political experience Johnson had prior to the presidency which easily justifies how he was qualified to be the president. 2) Johnson may have vetoed key legislation following the Civil War but all his veto's were overridden by the republican controlled congress. He was not counter-productive and a tyrant he was simply a legislative roadblock that Congress could easily hurdle over and continue with reconstruction of the south and the nation. 3) I understand the Pro's arguments and I apologize for my errors regarding the case, so let me offer this as a counter-argument. The Tenure of Office act did violate the idea of separation of powers so it could still be argued that such a law would be theoretically unconstitutional or could be questioned for its legality. Also the accusation for Johnson being power hungry are unfounded because you ignored the fact that Johnson wanted to replace one person, and only one person, with a Civil War Hero who would later become the president of the US. But as for your accusations of the bribery and Johnson wanting to re-install slavery in the South, the one source you provided to reinforce this argument was a biased website that actually suggests that Johnson should NOT have been impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. The desire to re-install slavery is also an unsupported argument with no support. Andrew Johnson could be argued to have been a bit of an a**, but he did not deserve to be impeached over a law that COULD be argued as unlawful for replacing ONE adviser without congressional consent and replacing that ONE adviser with someone who was far more qualified for the position.
U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the Senate

1) Johnson didnt chose to be an apprentice tailor, he was forced into being one by his mother so that he could help bring in revenue to his poverty stricken family. He taught himself how to read and write at 17, by the way he didnt marry until he was 18. Andrew Johnson's career in politics, Mayor of his home town from 1830-1833 Tenessee house of representatives from 1835-1837 and again from 1839-1841 Elected as a Tennessee governor in 1841 US House of representatives for 10 years from 1843-1853 Tennessee Senator in 1857 Vice President to Lincoln from 1862 to 1865 Serving as a Governor, Congressman, Mayor, and as a Senator, Andrew Johnson was one of the most qualified people to be president in his day, and for the record one cannot be impeached for being (allegedly) inexperienced. 2) Andrew Johnson was indeed a racist, but that is not why he was impeached, nor is it a justifiable reason on why a president should be impeached. 3) Andrew Johnson was not power hungry like you suggest, he was impeached because he fired one secretary and one secretary only, his secretary of war Edwin Staton, and replace him with Ulysses S Grant, a Civil War Hero who would actually serve as president after Johnson. As of today, the secretary of War is a position that no longer exists In 1867 Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act that meant the Senate must give consent for the President to fire an advisor. Such an act today would violate the idea of the seperation of powers which would make the law unconstitutional. Lastly the law that Johnson had allegedly violated, the Tenure of Office Act, was REPEALED in 1887, and then the Supreme Court declared such a law was unconsitutional in 1926 So to summarize, 1) President Johnson was impeached because he fired a man from a position that no longer exists 2) He was impeached over violating a law that today no longer exists 3) He was impeached over a law that was later formally declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court President Andrew Johnson did not deserve to be impeached..... http://www.historyplace.com... http://americanhistory.about.com... http://law2.umkc.edu...
U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the Senate

U.S. President Andrew Johnson Should've Been Impeached in the SenateI. He was uneducated. Johnson's only formal education was an apprenticeship to a tailor; he didn't learn how to read until his wife taught him at 17 years of age. He was not fit to run the country because of this. A President needs to know what they are doing, and be able to make intellegent decisions, and Johnson obviously didn't.II. His actions were counterproductive. Right after the civil war, he constantly vetoed reconstruction acts and civil rights acts.He essentially wanted to return America to exactly what it was right before the war. The freeman’s bureau, reconstruction act, and civil rights bill were all vetoed by him. He also belived America should've been run by white men; showing that he is someone who shouldn't have been president following a war on slavery. III. He violated the tenure of office act. Andrew Johnson wanted total control; he fired everyone who was against him. This violated the Tenure of Office Act, which was passed so that Presidents could not gain too much power. It restricted the firing of executive officers appointed by past presidents without consent from the senate; however, Andrew Johnson kept firing officers anyways.
Trump is better than Hillary

For someone who's opening statement was, bring proof, you completely failed. Thus, I won't count anything you refused to bring proof for. Let's make a chart of what we got from this debate. Trump pros He's against abortion (I am pro choice, but I'm writing this from your veiw.) Funny, isn't it. Thats all of the things that you found good about him, and that's just from your view. Now for the cons. Trump cons Doesn't believe in climate change and wants to gut the EPA. He's education policy dangerously relies on school choice which is a terrible form of education in many cases. Trump is a serial lier, and doesn't have a clear grasp on reality. Trump won't stop the majority of drug deals Trump has a terrible, lying, unqualified cabinet who have racist veiws(Steve bannon). Supports stop and frisk and police brutality, the former which has been proven to be ineffective and used to promote racial bias. Is anti NAFTA and NATO Trump has no way to fund his tax plan or any of his promises. Has no way to deal with ISIS. Wants to start a trade war with Mexico and China. His deportation policy rips families apart. Wants to build a 50B dollar useless wall. The fact that he has no replacement for Obamacare, which has been a huge success and is widely beneficial to many people, and would repeal it without considering that. Has dangerous Russia ties which could be treasonous. Is against gun free school zones, see debate. he does support torture and attacking civilians Doesn't understand the economy. Now for Hillary Pros Has political plans that conform with my veiws. Cons You had none except the violence one, and that's been debunked. Look at that huge list for Trump and then the one for Hillary that's empty. It's a simple as that. But now that he's our President we have to work together to keep our country safe.
Trump is better than Hillary

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN HILLARY HAS NO SHADY FAMILY BACKGROUND.There is nothing wrong with stop and frisk it is there to keep the saftey of the community.Does Hillary have a plan to deal with ISIS, this is a trump vs hillary debate I only see you addressing Trump.Deportations are for the better of our country El Chapo sold 1 billion dollars worth of drugs to Americans. coed.com/.../el-chapo-net-worth-how-much-is-joaquin-guzman-worth-money-paid-salar... -Obama Care is stupid all it does it add to our taxes- Heh as to be audited by the IRS to release his tax returnsHe never said that kids can come to school with guns what are you talking aboutHillary Clinton did incite violence in trump rallies look at this.-http://dailycaller.com...
Trump is better than Hillary

- Taxes-he refuses to release his tax returns , he doesnt have to,but Hillary has 33,000 emails missing and you are not addressing that?- Guns - Its not, Columbine would have never happened if the school had a security guard with a gun-Global Warming - Ok you have one on me- Foreign Policy If America had took the oil from one of the middle eastern countries (I forgot sorry) which trump supported, isis would have never been this strong in the first place.- Wall 0He does have a way to pay for it he is placing a high tax on american goods bought from mexico, and el chapo brought in 2,000,000,000 dollars worth of drugsHealth Care - Obama Care is probably the main reason of Americas humongous debt- Muslim Ban - it is justifiable as (its a fact dont lie) most terrorist attacks are from muslims - Hillary Clintons cabinet had incited violence in Donald Trumps campaigns to promote a bad name for him.- Voter Fraud- and you know its non existent how?- School - You got me there- Blitz - OF COURSE HE UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMY HE CREATED ONE OF THE RICHEST BUSINESSES IN AMEICA- Abortion - Abortion is wrong you are killing an innocent life- In what way does he support torture and attacking civillians - Lies - Hey, its politics, who doesnt lie?
Trump is better than Hillary

I would like to, instead of arguing about them as a person, we view them as a politicians. i will address the political issues of trump, and then the problem of his constant lies and russia ties. TAXES trump has a tax plan that he cant pay for, and plans to give the rich tax breaks. He also refuses to release his tax returns. GUNS trump plans to keep guns in schools, which is a bad idea, obviosly. GLOBAL WARMING doesnt belive in it, and plans to gut the EPA FORIGN POLICY has no plan for isis, and wants to start a trade war with china and mexico. spilts up families by deporting people. THE WALL this is a big one. the wall is a terrible idea, for many reasons including the above mentioned trade war, no way to pay for it, and is fairly useless considering that only 30% of people who come here illegaly come over the border, and has many obvios flaws such as tunnels, drones, gang sabatauge, and even boats. HEALTHCARE wants to take away obamacare without replacing it, taking 40m off healthcare MUSLIM BAN no, just no. CABINET brought in kellyanne conwaye, steve bannon, and betsy devos. VOTER FRAUD belives in non existent voter fraud SCHOOL belives in school choice for suberbs, and has no transition plan for urban areas BLITZ ROUND doesnt understand the econemy doesnt belive in abortion supports torture and attacking civilians anti NAFTA and NATO supports stop and frisk and police brutality DRUGS no idea why u think he will stop drugs, see wall. AND NOW, FOR HIS MANY LIES said he would release his tax returns, stop tweeting, donate to vets, made a fake coladge, lied about the murder rate, the cost of the wall, the illegal immagrent surge, mudrer rate, terrorism, lied about climate change, posted a false, racist statistic on twitter, mocked a disabled reporter and lied about it, lied about the iraqi war, sex tape, birther movement, obamas birthplace, death panel, his inauguration, lied about the polls, sex harassment alegations, and around 20 times during the debate. I can give you more if you like. Always tells the truth? Really? RUSSIA i think you know the full story by now, about the massive corruption in the white house, and trumps ties to russia HILLARY She has no shady family background, and is only for better background checks and against semi autos, but that's for another time. IN CONCLUSION The media only became heavily biased when Trump begin to attack it. Claims that the media portrays Trump negatively are true because he makes it so easy, constantly lying and causing controversy comma the media's portrayal of him is negative but only because it's spot. Hillary Clinton isn't perfect. You may disagree with some of her policies, but at the end of the day it's fairly clear that she is much better than Trump.
Trump is better than Hillary

I feel like arguing about this. And please back your arguments up with evidence and reasoning I am tired of people attacking him saying, "he's racist" or "he's sexist"- Hillary Clintons families background is extremely shady- Hillary Clinton is trying to take our 2nd amendment right away and take guns away- Trump always tells the truth, publicly supported or not- Trump will stop majority of drug deals in America- The media was biased against trump but he still won.
Anime

Thank you, ThisisMeHI, for instigating what I am sure will be an enthralling debate.The resolution pertains to "Anime", and since I take the negation, I will negate the notion of "Anime."Negation CaseLink: Mothers are worriedThe Facebook group named Concerned moms against Anime speaks of the trouble with anime. To quote [1]:"Chinese cartoons have ruined my sons life." Evidently, so aggrieved is this mother that she did not even realise that these are Japanese cartoons. The Page Info continues:"he does nothing but sit at his computer and watch his pagan shows and crying for a delusion called a "waifu.""Evidently, no less than 47180 likes indicates that Anime is a growing concern for mothers. From this concern, negative affect, such as anxiety, can develop and cause all kinds of problems for these mothers, such as, "feeling a sense of impending doom or unrealistic fears that only increase their worries" [2].Link: EscapismIn Psychological escapism: predicting the amount of television viewing by need for cognition, Henning and Vorderer show that escapism is more likely to be present in the lives of people who have little to do. 'Having little to do' almost always resulted from engaging in little interaction with the outside world, which should b quite damaging [3]. Thus, when people escape in the fantasy of Anime, rather than making their lives better, they misuse their time and stagnate, which causes damages to their psyche.ConclusionYou should be against "Anime" due to it worrying mothers and damaging people who watch it.References[1] https://www.facebook.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] B, Henning, P Vorderer, Psychological escapism: predicting the amount of television viewing by need for cognition. Volume 51, Issue 1, March 2001