BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

Counter intuitive: contrary to what seems intuitively right or correct. Progress:advance of human society: the general advance of human society and industry over time toward a state of greater civilization Logos: Basically he is arguing in the resolution the Political parties(in general, not the two party system) are counter intuitive(contradicts what seems obvious) to the advancement of American society or society in general within the confines of America. My opponent opens will a bare assertion that:two factions of completely opposite ideologies on issues that would best be treated by compromise or a more moderate solution. This is argumentum ad temperantiam. He provides no justification that the moderate solution being better than the other ideology's even if they are opposite. Another problem my opponent posts is basically this: What someone is a republican but not a social conservative or a democrat with conservative leaning economic beliefs? This specific situation my opponent posts is essentially a libertarian but it could be answered given any possible ideology from libertarianism to Statism(Me! !). Four answers to this: 1. Political party's don't force anyone to vote any specific way. Individuals may vote anyway they want regardless of party. If you believe your local senator doesn't support your views you have the ability to get him out of office. 2. There are factions inside political party's. I know that libertarians have a significant pull in the Republican party, and this is opposed by the evangelicals and social conservatives. If one has significantly more power than the other maybe a significantly extreme candidate could possibly be elected but the more extreme a candidate the less likely he gets elected. 3. If political party's were so extreme as my opponent says they are and were counterintutive to progress than logically we should be about 236 years before 1776 or at 1540. At this point most places were monarchy's and human rights/civil rights were not exactly developed at least to the point it is today. Even granting that the resolution doesn't intend to prove that it is useful to note the progress of America has always been tempered by two or more party's. 4. If one feels that that their party doesn't represent their views or feel like their party doesn't feel their issues are important one of three things can happen: They can not vote They can move to the other party They can found a third party Pathos: I myself am a Republican not because I agree with everything the Republicans say 100% of the time but because I agree with them 75% of the time. Being part of a party means you support the majority of what someone says and you will unite to with them arm and arm to defend those values that you unite you rather than squabble on issues that divide you. If you feel truly even. Don't register. Its optional.
Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

I believe that political parties work against government because they have led to two factions of completely opposite ideologies on issues that would best be treated by compromise or a more moderate solution. In addition, a political system that for the most part consists of only two strongly charged parties severely limits the choice of voters. For instance, if a person favored a conservative approach to economics, but felt strongly about the right of women to get an abortion, which party would that person vote for? If the person votes for a Republican candidate, the candidate's party will almost surely force him or her to vote against abortion, and if the person votes for a Democratic candidate, that candidate probably won't endorse conservative approaches to economics. Essentially, the rational voter is in a catch 22. He or she is allowed to vote, but he or she is not allowed to vote for the person that will best serve his or her interests. There may exist people that completely agree with the Democratic or Republican parties, but I think those types of people must be quite rare. Would someone like to argue in favor of this system?
DDO Rap Tourney R1 omelet v philosphical

http://www.youtube.com... [intro] Ey bro. I couldn't help but notice you pronounced you name "philosophical." I guess that means you really did spell your name wrong. You ready? Don't bother answering; I know you're not. [rap] After that it's pretty clear you're gonna get destroyed How could this be man to man if you are just a boy? Seventeen and you think that you're all grown up But the fact is you're just an undeveloped pup You say I'm a molester, that's probably fair Up in this battle you're bout to get your fair share You know I'm gonna rape you out in public, you're scared Screaming out for help, but you weren't aware That this is all just a metaphor Like a story full of symbols and sh** This is simple, I spit it like a llama That's a symptom of the drama That I'm selling to your a** when you enter the store Telling you this sh** that I didn't before You should never try to take me, you're only a bore The rest of this verse, I was keeping in store Can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore You haven't even developed a fully functional brain You're missing common sense, you think I was sayin That I'm putting forth my picture like the caption's not a fallacy When I'm just making fun of the "do anything" mentality Look at you bit** - you're claiming I'm gay While you criticize fashion - what does that say? I hope you mind my hat, you can think what you may I'ma hit you real fast like a cup of earl grey Cuz that's just how I roll I'ma lather up my flow though you had the nerve to say it was dull I'll go straight to your skull But it's empty like your rhymes, I guess that's just how the story goes I'ma stomp all my foes And that includes you, and you've failed to approach me toe to toe You can give it one more go Like it really even matters to me, lights out, curtain's closed
DDO Rap Tourney R1 omelet v philosphical

http://www.youtube.com... Hey feverish, I'd just like to thankyou for letting me come into this tournament a little late. This will be fun hopefully. Omelet, don't take any of this serious bro. Btw everything is parenthesis is sarcasm remarks. Good luck Omelet! LYRICS: You really think you got game? Dude that was hella lame! Ima chew you up and spit you out. This is gonna be a short man to man bout. If you can become god by believing you can Then its more than hypocritical, god d@mn, For you to be dis'n the same shi* you support, Shi*, this is gonna be one mission you'll have to abort. This shi* you just layed on me is quite pathetic, While everything I have is purely synthetic. I aint need no voice over to back you out, Or induced images to make you shout. See, what you see right here is real So much that you wanna reach out and feel! Sorry though buddy, I dont swing that way From your old profile pic we all know your g@y! A fat @ss kid for a 21 year old male? Not only that but he's f***ing white and pale! I don't need no proof to see that your a molester, (Not like thats supposed to be a negative gesture) Just a warning for all of yall who want your security, A 21 year old male's out after your purity Yeah, your right, thinkin' I'll win is BS. I know ima win, and thats what makes me more or less. Not only did your crap rap lack flow, But that d@mn hat had us all going "whoa!" "Is this dude flippin' serious?" I know I'm now delerious. Congratulations bud, the closet is now empty. Though its not like that even a big surprise to me. You left that behind just like you did your skill, But you never had any of that, and you probably never will. Even compared to John Edward, your shi* is cheap, So my being mormon was your biggest leap? Damn dude sorry, but i fell asleep. Come on bro, you got better than that! But you still dont no credit for wearing that hat. I know this shi* is hurting, so please dont scream and shout Ill let you off easy the second you tapout. And no I won't give you that option again, Before i punch you out like f***in' BJ Penn. My beats are more dangerous than any shark. Son your about to get it worse then Kenny from south park. Prepare for an onslaught, cuz im just gettin' started. Your shi* is like Nick Swardson's from "seriously who farted!?" I drop rhyme bombs and let the damage grow, But at the same time, my beats and endless flow. I got b*tches clinging to me like "Wow!" They're all sayin' "Phil, please don't stop now!" So ima go ahead and do them the honour. Because as of right now your already a goner. Look he's changed his profile pic to another fat dude! Thats proof that he's g@y (not to be crude) And yes, to answer that question, I am a wizard: of rap! And no one is buyin' any of your homo crap. So now would be the time for you to get up and run, Cuz as of right now, im just having fun. You see, runnin' you down, is way too easy, And everything you said last round was far to cheesy. So here's your last option for surrender After this, ima stop bein' tender.
DDO Rap Tourney R1 omelet v philosphical

http://www.youtube.com... [Non-rapping intro] Eyo this is the omelet Taking on this bitch philosphical I'ma run you into the ground. ey man - you spelled your name wrong Or maybe you just meant to sound like a bit** [begin rapping] I'ma spit it right at you, I ain't holding nothing back We'll soon find that the skills to beat me all of them you lack The only way you stand a chance is if you make a devlish pact Negotiation that's required though, you'd handle without tact Doubtful that you would though since your God you think it might offend So just get down on your knees and ask him for a painless end You're foolish, think that all you need to win is think you can See how far that gets you in the real world, I don't think you'll win Omelet - you can eat me, but just know that I am toxic, son Spittin out hot sh**, like attilla the hun I know you won't defeat me even though the battle's just begun "You can do anything you believe" I hope you know that's dumb Childish - just believe and then you think you'll take me one on one Even if you choose to run There's no need for a response, you've necessarily already won Maybe you can make one for me anyway, just for fun Or maybe you should up and quit You're like the little engine that couldn't, and this is it Or maybe peter can't, the fact is you're not legit And you know you seem like such a bit** I'll spit it like it's liquid and I'll do it till I'm sick If you roll out your flow, we'll see if it's as slick Decide not to respond, you're not the one the judges choose to pick [End rapping] Of course if you're right, all you gotta do is believe it and you'll win. No response necessary. I doubt you'll hold to your ideals, though, so let's see what you can do. Bit**.
Retrogamer176 did not create a time machine.

I would like to argue that it IS possible for a 15 year old to create a time machine. Although the probability is extremely low, it is possible. It's a mysterious machine that only I know about. You just need to have faith and believe in this time machine. If you don't, then you'll never be a god! It only allows me to walk around in the past, but I cannot interact with the past.
Retrogamer176 did not create a time machine.

Retrogamer176 did not invent a working time machine that can travel to the past and the future. The BOP is on Retrogamer176. Rules 1. No forfeiture 2. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 3. No trolling or semantics 4. No K's of the topic 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6. The BOP is shared 7. Both debaters must follow this format: R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (No rebuttals) R3: Rebuttals and arguments R4: Conclusions (No new arguments or rebuttals in this round) 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire forfeit of the debate 9. Grammar will not be judged in this debate.
To Ensure A Safe School Environment, Licensed And Trained Teachers Ought To Carry Handguns

Thanks Con. I think you misread the resolution though. The resolution has absolutely nothing to do with students carrying guns. I guess I'll rebut what you said, though, since I passionately disagree with much of it. Because of your disorganized statement, I will rebut your claims as you mention them. 1) "But hand in guns to students,it's possible that the students themselves could become a school shooter." This has nothing to do with the resolution, so if the readers want my opinion on it, they can see stefannoi's opinion argument about it. 2) "An example such as Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting which the gunman killed 20 people" The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School was not a teacher or a student. 3) "According to the U.S.Secret.Service reports says that most of those school shooter has obtain guns legally" It doesn't matter how the guns are obtained. Teachers with firearms have a better chance of combating school shooters than the unarmed populous does. 4) "And there are some students,who have mental illness,and if they have guns,it could be possible that they can kill people.zi think the best way to stop school shooting,is to stop bullying" This, again, has nothing to do with the presented resolution. 5) "zi think the best way to stop school shooting,is to stop bullying" This also has nothing to do with the presented resolution. 6) "Carrying guns would not be the best idea,because there will always be mass shooting happens." This may be the only coherent argument in your R2 statement. Unfortunately, the argument works in my favor. As you said, mass shootings will always happen, because criminals (by definition) don't follow gun-free laws. It makes sense to let the people defend themselves from an unavoidable event. In conclusion, Pro made no arguments to negate the resolution, and completely forgot spellcheck.
To Ensure A Safe School Environment, Licensed And Trained Teachers Ought To Carry Handguns

Yeah,you might be half right.But hand in guns to students,it's possible that the students themselves could become a shool shooter.An example such as Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting which the gunman killed 20 people.According to the U.S.Secret.Service reports says that most of those school shooter has obtain guns legally.And there are some students,who have mental illness,and if they have guns,it could be possible that they can kill people.zi think the best way to stop school shooting,is to stop bullying.Carrying guns would not be the best idea,because there will always be mass shooting happens.
To Ensure A Safe School Environment, Licensed And Trained Teachers Ought To Carry Handguns

I look forward to a fun exchange of ideas. I will now make my opening argument. Contention 1 Police response times are too slow A good police response time is about 9.5 minutes. "The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. "[1] This is far too long, though. " The average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds"[1] Armed with this knowledge, we can deduce that any other police statistic would be ineffectual in this situation, as they would arrive far too late to be effective in a school shooting. Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg, S. C. , says, “Don’t be so naive to believe the police can be everywhere. ” Contention 2 When properly trained teachers have firearms, lives are saved. There are many examples of this, but the most prevalent is the Pearl High School shooting in 1997, where Luke Woodham (testified to be a Satanist) stabbed his mother to death, then killed two and injured seven at his school [2]. He was fortunately stopped by a man named Joe Myrick, though, when he went to his truck, got his Colt .45, and held Luke at gunpoint until the police arrived. [3] If Myrick had not kept his gun there, Pearl High School would have surely been one of the worst school shootings in history. Woodham was armed with a Marlin Model 336 .30-30-caliber rifle rifle and a knife. He kept spare ammunition and could have caused immense damage if he had not have been stopped. Contention 3 Gun free zones They suck. They just don't work. "Since 2009, only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves. " [4] The study in the PDF is a rebuttal to the Everytown For Gun Safety Study, which has been pretty much destroyed. This means that over 9 out of every 10 shootings happen in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are completely flawed, as they rely on the assumption that gun wielding criminals will follow the law, which, as their name implies, they do not. All gun-free zones do is take firearms from law abiding citizens and invite criminals to a place where they know nobody will defend themselves. I thank Con for this debate and await his opening argument. Sources 1. . http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com... 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://freerepublic.com... 4. . http://www.breitbart.com...... (the study can be accessed from this website by clicking the phrase "CPRC showed") I don't know how to get the PDF URL.
To Ensure A Safe School Environment, Licensed And Trained Teachers Ought To Carry Handguns

I believe that allowing more students and teachers to carry guns into school only lead to more death.Why should we allow children to have guns?According to the U.S..secret service there is about 37incidents occur during 1974-2000 committed by 41 school shooter,And since Sandy Hook Elementary shooting there is 74 school shooting more around the country,The US.Secret.Service says that school shooting increase every decades.And there is a difference between time period where we have gun control and time period where we don't have gun control.Around 1998-2004 ,we have fun control and there is only 13 mass shooting occur.
To Ensure A Safe School Environment, Licensed And Trained Teachers Ought To Carry Handguns

I see you are against teachers possessing handguns on school grounds. I would like to debate this topic.Round StructureR1-AcceptanceR2-Opening ArgumentsR3-RebuttalsR4-Defense of Arguments and Closing Statements I'll respond as fast as I can, but I'm about to be in a tournament, so I'm kind of busy.
Pizza is the best food ever.

Yes, that may be true!! But Pizza CAN be healthy for you rather than Pasta because it depends on what toppings you get like if you get Mushrooms, Pineapples etc. Yea you get my point so Pizza is still MUCH better than Pasta or something like that. And also Pasta and all that stuff is hard to make if you are on a Fun Friday night so its easier and better to get Pizza!
Pizza is the best food ever.

It's true that pizza may be easy to get your hands on, but the faster its made the faster the quality suffers. Its like fast food that way, Fast food looses most of the good things about the food in the speed that it is made in. A good quality pizza can take just as long to make as spaghetti of Fettuccine Alfredo. Plus pizza is not a well thought out meal, it is just popped in the oven and done. Where as other foods you have to season or grill or or make a sauce for them to make the flavor better.
Atheism

Atheism is pointless. If you are an atheist what's life worth living. You argue against Christians only to stand wrong. By your standard if there is no God You have no purpose. Why are you trying to tell Christians that they are wrong. If I am wrong I wasted my life if you are wrong you wasted your eternity . The Bible has never Been wrong with the FACTS of science not the theories. Science is a bunch of laws in our world that we acknowledge and believe in. God makes law there for Science is made from God. The Bible we the first to say that the earth was a sphere. The Bible was the first to give acknowledgement of energy. Of course the Bible called it light. Everything comes from something. It is very hard for our human minds to understand infinity. Let's play a game. If there is a god and that god was made by another god who was made by another god. Don't you see this is pointless this can go on for an infinity. You see there had to be something in the beginning to make it all. Every thing happens in law and persists. A random accordance can not do that. There had to be a God
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

R1: Superman is very logical. He is a super man so therefore a logical name for him is Superman. Since he is a super man it is logical for him to be able to do things others can't (e.g. fly). It's too late to rebut now. My closing statement is that my statements are right as I have provided real world non-fantasy examples and sources to prove that my contradictions are true and most importantly - if you combine cause and effect, you do not end up with something identical to logic.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

R1: You can die in a dream but then your dead in a dream. It is very slightly possible that at exactly the same time you die actually it is human nature to wake up milliseconds before you die in the dream. R2: That was well argued... Not... Let me prove my point with justification. You made the following points. I've proved them all untrue. There is no logic in fantasy. There is logic in fantasy otherwise a human brain could not fantasise it. I told you how you could prove my point is untrue but as you didn't that is accepting I am right and that there is logic in fantasy. Logic is absolute. This is untrue. It can be and often is, as proved in your examples. I then showed you examples of when logic is not absolute. Since you haven't proved that in that situation logic actually is absolute you are accepting logic is NOT absolute. Reason + intent is morality. I proved this is untrue with my London - Frankfurt-am-main example. Eurostar and DB both have reasons to operate from London to Frankfurt but it is not necessarily moral as it will be noisier for people who live by HS1 and the LGV more. You haven't rebutted so you accept I'm right and your wrong Cause can't exist without effect, effect can exist without cause. If DB start operating London to Frankfurt then that is caused by the fact it was launched - you haven't rebutted so you are accepting I'm right and you're wrong. I don't see one argument you have won so surely everything I am saying is right and everything you're saying is wrong.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

R1: that case is irrelevant because I've proved with both the EA and London - Frankfurt examples that logic is not always absolute. With the second one I have provided point blank evidence that the logic is completely correct in both interpretations. In the case you provided logic is absolute but since J provided 2 cases in which logic is not absolute that immediately considers your point untrue since you said logic is always absolute. R2: There is logic in fantasy as it has a correlation otherwise it wouldn't be possible to fantasise and since all correlations mean some logic there is logic in fantasy. Talk me through a fantasy novel and explain why it lacks logic. You must be able to prove the novel exists. If I can't rebut then one of your points is true.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

R1: Cause can't exist without effect. Effect can't exist without cause as every effect is the result of a cause. R2: The logic EA goes by is different to logic proved by simple maths. [1] R3: More than one concept can be logical. Eurostar providing services to Frankfurt via Paris and Strasbourg is logical. The route going via Brussels, Cologne and Aachen is also logical. For ICE it would only be logical via Paris and Strasbourg currently as the ICE 3 is limited to 250 km/h on HSL 2 while they can go at 320 km/h on the LGV est. In this case Logic is not absolute. Sources: [1] http://www.operationsports.com...