BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your Momma Jokes

This is a joke debate obviously. Rules are you say 10 your momma jokes each round and the voters will give 7 points to who they thought was the winner. Your mommas so fat she falls off both sides of the bed. Your mommas so fat not even Jesus could lift her spirit. Your mommas so stupid she got lost in a grocery store and starved to death. Your mommas so fat she tried entering a pie eating contest and the workers said "wow wow wow no professionals" Your mommas so ugly she walked into a sprint store and the guy working there said "does E.T. need to phone home?" Your mommas so fat she ate the universe as her snack. Your mommas so stupid she threw a rock at the ground and missed. Your mommas so filthy she walked into a grocery store and the cashier said "pigs walk on two legs?" Your mommas so fat her belt size is equator. Your mommas so fat when she jumps she breaks the Richter scale. Have fun and good luck. :)
Blink 182 does not deserve the bashing that they get from so many fans of music

Thanks for the honesty nolemane. Often times on this site I am just arguing for the sake of arguing. But in this case, I'm honestly a former avid Blink 182 fan that was completely alienated by them. The 3rd CD I ever purchased was Blink 182. While I was delighted that Eminem seemed to evolve over time (although he's backpedaled recently as far as maturity level), I was annoyed that Blink didn't seem to bring anything new with their newer music (the problem with only using 4 chords). Also, I'd been to a number of great non-Blink concerts so I thought I knew what to expect out of a concert, but I was annoyed to learn that Blink 182 wastes their fans' hard-earned money with a half-hearted performance. Travis Barker had a really cool drum solo at the end, but the entire rest of the day was a HUGE disappointment. Hopefully I've provided some insight into why some people criticize Blink 182. My opponent says he's forfeiting the debate. I guess that means that you all should vote all 7 points to Con. Thanks for the debate nolemane and thank you all for judging.
Blink 182 does not deserve the bashing that they get from so many fans of music

i feel like you are arguing just to argue. maybe what this website is all about... I am not arguing to argue, i am honestly trying to understand why people do hate blink 182. i guess they do deserve it, i don't feel like debating an extremely opinionated topic, i love blink and always will. Sure they may not be punk rock, but they are pop punk, a genre that i, and many others, enjoy. I actually enjoy/admire all the cons that you have discussed about them. I like the simplicity of the songs, their immature humor, the lyrics about "f$%king a dog, maybe i am weird, but i love their music, and i know you will say that my opinion alone cannot win this argument, but what you have to understand is i don't want to win this argument, i am honestly trying to get inside of the head of someone who apposes their music, i want to thank you for posing a good argument and I am going to raise the white flag and forfeit. Good debate, sorry for ending it abruptly
Blink 182 does not deserve the bashing that they get from so many fans of music

As for the chords, if it produces good music, then what does it matter? There is a reason why their album "take off your pants and jacket" reached number one on the U. S. charts. People enjoy the music. So i fail to understand why this is a good explanation for why they should be criticized. While I agree that the concerts are not the same experience as some other bands, it is different in a good way. I have been to a blink 182 concert myself, My buddies and I all had a great experience to the 5 concerts that we have been to of blink 182, all in different stages of their career, as i assume you have only been to one, the link you posted was after their reformation and i can understand that people are going to wonder why a persons voice changed over 4 years. .. You can't criticize for wanting to continue to do something that they love to do. That is why they got back together, and your telling me that people are frustrated with them because they don't sound the same? And if you didn't notice, a lot of their songs they sing are sped up, they add lyrics, and change lyrics, they are adding to the fun and the environment of the concert. They are the only band i know that cracks jokes on stage and really looks like they are having fun at what they are doing. If you can't appreciate that i don't know what you can. If you have listened to their music before, you should know that they were not going to "excite" the crowd, you should have seen this coming. Also, it gives concerts a taste of something else. I As far as i am concerned people i know return year after year to go to their concerts. You don't go back to something you did not enjoy.
Blink 182 does not deserve the bashing that they get from so many fans of music

Thanks for the debate nolemane. ==Burden of proof== My opponent has the burden to prove that Blink 182 does not deserve the critiques they get. To prove they do not deserve these critiques, my opponent must prove that the critiques are not true. It is not enough for my opponent to assert that he likes their music. C1) Blink only uses 4 cords See Youtube video http://www.youtube.com... Blink 182 deserves this criticism because it is true. C2) Concerts The core skill of any good band is having a good stage presence and delivering for their fans in concert. I was a huge fan of Blink until I paid $100 to see them in concert. It turns out that Tom can't hit the high notes in real life. http://www.blink182.com... They sound COMPLETELY different in concert; all the vocals are flat and weak. Also, they have no stage presence. Tom just joked the whole time that he and Mark were gay together. He spent no time getting the crowd excited. Each transition between songs was, "So Mark and I were making out last night. Gosh, he's such a homo." Worst way I've ever wasted $100. ==Rebuttal== My opponent proving that he likes the band doesn't prove that they don't deserve the criticisms. RoyLatham likes Bill O'Reilly but agrees some of the criticisms of him are valid. I like bacon, but I know the criticism that it is too fatty is "deserved." Negated.
Blink 182 does not deserve the bashing that they get from so many fans of music

I am a huge fan of Blink 182 and people always criticize them for having repetitive chords, all of their music sounds the same, sing about teenager problems when they are 30 and are immature, true punk fans complain that they are not "real" punk, they are not very skilled with their instruments, they are "sell-outs" for changing their style just to make money. I disagree with most of all of this. I am no connoisseur of music or will i ever be, but their music sounds great to me and if that means that they play the same 3 chords the whole time then so be it! I extremely disagree that their music all sounds the same, i have no clue how "i miss you" and "Aliens Exist" sound at all the same, they don't! One of the things i love about Blink 182 is the fact that they are immature even when they are grown up, it gives teens hope that you can still be young and have immature fun when your older, not everything has to be so serious. Some "True Punk" fans hate Blink 182 because they fell in love with their first two albums "Cheshire Cat" and "Dude Ranch", and then they changed. It is a fact that bands change, and i can argue that they created their own unique genre. So for those punk fans who loved their first two albums can't bash them because for some of those fans, it introduced them to the music they listen to today. As for their instrument skills, who cares? I care about results and what goes into my ears. I love the way it sounds so what does it matter? I love Blink and always will. The reason I am starting this argument is because it bothers me that people hate on such a great band that never labeled themselves as a "punk", band. I also want to understand why the haters hate if you catch my drift.
Abolishing the minimum wage will not reduce unemployment

In the debate I noticed on Minimum wage (http://www.debate.org...), I was disappointed from the Arguments put forth from the Pro side which ended up agreeing effectively that minimum wage reduces employment and just tried to put forth a defence of a subsistence based minimum-wage. I feel that the defense of minimum wage has a lot more meat than what was presented and thus I would like to put the Pro side for minimum wage myself. --- Removing the minimum wage in an economy is akin to cutting wages all across the economy as Capitalist firms will scramble over each other in their rush to reduce costs. This will take the form of forcing employee wages to their cost (ie their subsistence) while simultaneously increasing the work hours that are allowed per day. However to assume that reducing wages to their cost will reduce unemployment is to assume that the labour market can clear, like any other commodity. That is, the market will reach an equilibrium where supply of labour equals demand. However this is not the case. The labour market cannot not clear. Reducing wages in the economy means that people will not be able to afford the lifestyle the had until that point. This means that people may decide to start getting a second job, or work more hours, or more family members will start working, from a younger or older age as well. This will increase supply rather than fulfil the current demand. You will get the same or rising unemployment while wages stagnate or drop. Looking empirically at this issue confirms it, as can be seen during the Great Depression where by 1933 wages and salaries in manufacturing were at less than half their 1929 level while unemployment was rising http://books.google.com.... Of course, the actually real wages of the workforce were rising, due to the faster falling prices of commodities, which incidentally leads me to the second point. Workers cannot control their own price as they do not control the prices in the economy. Even if workers were to have no minimum wage and start taking pay cuts, this would not mean that profits would increase. This is because if worker wages drop while commodity prices remain the same, so does their real wage and thus their purchasing power. This means less spending and thus less profits for companies. This would mean a cut in production and further laying off of workers and *loss* of positions. Unemployment would rise. In truth, minimum wages do not cause unemployment in the least. This is something supported by large number of empirical evidence such as the Reagan period where minimum wage declined while unemployment became chronic. Minimum wage, and high wages of the workers generally do not affect unemployment levels but are rather shaped by the state of the economy around them. I will await a challenger before I continue with presenting more arguments.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

You make your first error by using two definitions of "omnipotence" This is a case of moving the goalposts. It's not very convincing to say "God is X, and whatever X happens to be, he's that." Omnipotence by definition is the power to do *anything*. This includes the power to defy logic. Your "No" answer implies that God cannot do something, namely defy logic, which standards as a contradiction to his omnipotence. Your "Yes" answer fails as well. An omnipotent being cannot be a logically consistent one. You first say that "yes, he can defy logic," implying he can't lift the stone, and then turn around and say, "God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic" This amounts to, "Can God defy logic and remain logical at the same time?" You may answer yes with omnipotence, but if you want a *logical* answer, then the law of non-contradiction will tell you that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. As you can see, this demonstrates the fact that God, if omnipotent, is not logically consistent. You could just have God keep omnipotently "doing" away all his problems by changing the nature of logic, but you're left with something that's completely unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant. Your argument actually fails twice on the second point - when arguing the irrelevancy or subjectivity of logic, you completely undermine your point by appealing to the objective nature of logic by *using it* to attempt to prove your point! I can just as easily dismiss your argument with my own illogical logic. It's the problem of "what evidence do you use to convince somebody who does not value evidence to value evidence?" If you really want to drive the point home, God could answer both yes and no to the riddle. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent, as it would be something he "could not do." An omnipotent being could mandate that 1+1=3, or that Yes is No. You can go on like this, but the logical inconsistency of omnipotence is well established, stone or no stone.
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

The Paradox of the Stone is a rhetorical question posed as an attempt to prove that the concept of an omnipotent (all-powerful) God is illogical. However, it is self-refuting because both the affirmative and negative responses to the riddle reveal that the concept of an omnipotent God is logical in both cases! If one answers no, than this means that God can't perform the logic defying task. However, a no implies that the definition of omnipotence excludes the power to defy logic, so it is already expected that God can't create this stone. God's omnipotence remains a logically sound concept. If one answers yes, than this means that God can defy logic because that is what the task entails (being able to create a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it). Since the definition of omnipotence used includes the power to defy logic, than God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic... the same logic that the Paradox tries to use to make it's case! Logic itself is no longer binding, so God just ignores it, and remains omnipotent. The Paradox of the Stone is self-refuting. Thanks for this debate!
Socially conservative evangelicals are hypocritical

Greetings. Let me get right to the point, and I apologize in advance for sounding preachy. When are evangelicals going to stop being hypocrites by voting Republican? I believe in God......but I DON'T believe in the Christian church. Its turned religion into a bureaucracy. Throughout its history, it has used scare tactics like heaven and hell, violence (Crusades), and racism to build "faith". It has been filled with hate and bigotry for so long, and even today's evagelical version of it still contains oppressive messages. You know how more people have been murdered in the history of mankind than anyway else? In the name of God...specifically the "Christian" God. If God was real, he would never associate himself with the Christians who find it immoral to do stem cell research and save real lives.........but would never help an illegal immegrant escape poverty so he can feed his starving family or support universal health care. It is amazing how hypocrtical some evangelicals are when it comes to following the teaching of "What Would Jesus Do?" So why do evangelicals vote for Republicans who go against Jesus's most basic teaching of helping others? They are creating a double standard. The hypocracy of these religious beliefs just shows that the religion has no proof, and should never be seriously used as a basis for political thought, which is exactly what they do when they deny gay marraige or abortion.
tobacco rights/abortion

"Especially because usually the reasoning behind it is because they just don't want to take responsibility." Yes, that is occasionally the reasoning, but I would need a viable source to confirm that it is USUALLY the reason. I always thought that most abortions were because of financial issues with supporting a baby. Or perhaps emotional or physical stress on the mother. But the meaning of the word "want" is a bit too liberal in your reasoning. " I'm not arguing that smoking can't be harmful to people other than the smoker, but if you're bothered by someone smoking nearby, then move (you aren't helpless like a fetus)." Once again, what if you live with a smoker who smokes inside? And what if you are a fetus, and Mom smokes. Then you are born with birth defects, and you are helpless for longer than intended by science (or God, if you prefer). "The people who might be effected [sic] by second hand smoke are also adults who can think for themselves." Yes, but they might not be able to move themselves readily, especially if it is at home, and as I said, any exposure is harmful. "You are for in in a case where a helpless fetus is being killed, and for it in a case where the consequences would effect adults who can take care of themselves and would mostly effect the people who are choosing to do it. Which is fine if that's what they want to do to themselves." I know plenty of people who have died from lung cancer, and never smoked a single cigarette. While there are other ways to get lung cancer, first and second hand smoke are the leading causes. "Well, maybe not, but there are a ton of families who would love to adopt a healthy child (or unhealthy)." Easier said than done. A friend of mine adopted a child (from a smoker, by the way). The bio mother (and even bio grandma) are having severe separation anxiety, and even at one point asked to have the baby back. Our friend said no, of course, but the hormones are hard to control. Yes, adoption is preferable to abortion, but you seem to be walking the fine line between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I am not pro-abortion in any way. I am simply pro-choice. "I understand some people aren't, but it's not the governments place to say whether or not they can do that around their family." How about incest? By your logic, the government should be fine with that. I would like to thank you for starting this debate, as it was very interesting, and raised a stimulating point in human nature. I never thought of it this way, and although you did not change my opinion, you did make some great points that made perfect sense (and had you used the right a/effect, they would have been even better... Sorry, that's one of my pet peeves). So, thank you, and may the best man win!
tobacco rights/abortion

You made some very good points. They were all valid, and I definitely hear what you are saying. Let me restate that I think that I think that abortion is horrible. I also think that suicide is horrible, but I feel that its illegality is one of our more stupid laws. I support the Oregon Death with Dignity act, but I'm not going to visit Dr. Kevorkian anytime soon, and I would urge anyone not to. That might seem off topic, but that is just providing basis on my pro-choice basis. Now, you are correct that it takes life. Once again, I would urge anyone and everyone in the world not to abort. However, (1) it is inconclusive as to whether (a) it knows that it is alive, and (b) that it can feel pain. Lastly, if you can't trust someone to make the right decision with a abortion, can you really trust them as a parent? Now, to connect that to the smoking debate, I will connect it to yet a third debate (sorry). Gun rights. Is this not similar to the fact that most liberals are pro-choice and anti-gun? People enjoy owning guns, but most liberals (and a few conservatives) agree that the ramifications outweigh the benefits of the current interpretation of the second amendment. Now, back to smoking. I agree that smokers enjoy smoking. And, as I said earlier, I support the right to end one's own life (as I consider smoking). However, smoking is really the smoking gun (unfortunately, that phrase is just a wee bit too literal for this situation) behind so many nonsmokers getting lung cancer or other horrible diseases. Whilst reading your argument, I immediately noticed a factual error. Here is your error. "While second hand smoke can be very harmful, Inhaling second hand smoke for a limited amount of time won't have that much of a lasting effect on people. If you go out for an hour or so and someone is smoking near-by, the effect on you would be very small. Damage comes from a continued exposure to smoke. " Yes, you are correct that it isn't too much damage, but you might want to read this website: . http://www.lungusa.org... Yes, I know that that is a biased source. However, it is a compilation of information from viable sources, so it is still a viable site for me to cite. Also, if you spend an hour in a smoky environment, then you spend another hour next week, and another the week after that, it begins to build up. Also, you can't ignore those who are not smokers themselves, but live with smokers. If they can't smoke in public places, they are confined to home. And most people wouldn't go out in the back yard if they have a craving at 4 in the morning, especially if they live in a high rise apartment without any sort of patio or anything. And, unlike abortion, the people affected by the secondhand smoke, if of sound mind, know that they are alive, and can feel pain. One last thing: you do not support abortion, and do support tobacco rights. Could you not make the same arguments for yourself?
tobacco rights/abortion

Well I guess that makes more sense about your beliefs on tobacco rights and abortion. This makes it a tougher debate on me, but I think my main argument will still hold up. You start out by saying you are pro choice, I assumed this. And while I'm glad to hear that you disagree with abortion, I don't think this changes anything about what I was saying. I'll restate what I'm arguing for clarification to the reader and my next debate: Basically, how could you be pro choice on abortion, but not on tobacco rights. That is the question, and your response to that was that, you feel more concerned about the people around the smoker than the person actually smoking it. This is a valid point, but still doesn't quite hold up with your abortion argument. Basically what you are saying is that if someone is smoking around others, then the other people will receive a negative effect based on someone else's decision to smoke. Well the thing I would like to point out, may be obvious, but can't be overlooked, and that is: The baby doesn't have a choice either. It's the same thing. One person receiving a negative effect based on someone else's poor decision. Only the result of abortion is death, and the result of inhaling second hand smoke is far less. Which brings me to my next point. While second hand smoke can be very harmful, Inhaling second hand smoke for a limited amount of time won't have that much of a lasting effect on people. If you go out for an hour or so and someone is smoking near-by, the effect on you would be very small. Damage comes from a continued exposure to smoke. Lastly, some states are now making smoking illegal in all public places. This eliminates the possibility for you to inhale unwanted second hand smoke. This makes the risk of second hand smoke even less . Abortion kills millions of innocent lives every year. If you want to stand for that then that's fine, even though you're wrong, that's a different debate, but at least be consistent.