BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we make gaming a sport like: call of duty

Sport NOUN1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainmentBased on the Oxford Dictionary definition, I cannot agree that gaming is or should be a sport.Yes, gaming takes skill. Yes, individuals and/or teams can compete against each other.Yes, said competitions are done for entertainment purposes.However, gaming does not require physical exertion. Sitting in your room for 12 hours a day, stuffing Cheetos and Mountain Dew down your gullet while firing up Black Ops 3 may be physically draining, that's not the same as physical exertion.Go ahead, be a professional gamer, compete in tournaments and competitions for cash and prized, but don't call it a sport.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
government lies, Dum humans

Although I don't know why you challenged me to this debate, I hope it will be fun. I will argue that the government always tell the truth and that all humans have an IQ of 110. ----Government is forever truthful----- P1. It's only a lie if it's caught. P2. The government has never been caught. Conclusion: The government always tells the truth. ----All humans have an IQ above 110.----- I have an IQ above 110. Moreover, most of the people I know have IQ's above 110. Therefore, all humans have an IQ of 110. But seriously, if you wish to argue that the government lies, you should give specific and concrete examples to prove your point. And you say humans are dumb: what idealistic notion of intelligence are you comparing humans to? As of now, humans are the smartest species on the planet...
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

I agree that enough argumentation has taken place for the readers to decide who has one. I would simply to like to say thx for a great debate and here are three voting issues. 1. National Security is paramount National security is more important than money, and although money is the key to other things, with lives, those keys would be useless. 2. Moral obligation to National security I am not the one making this claim. I am simply restating what John Locke, John Jacques Reausseau, and John Adams have said about morality in government. 3. Mitigation leads to national security I have proved via 11 applications this point, to which only 3 of them have been refuted. So the decision is up to you, do you want a government that is morally obligated to our national security and is devoted to keeping you safe, or do you want a government that will just upheld the welfare of its economy. So at the end of the day, you must look at the purpose of government, and the state of foreign policy. The purpose of government as stated by the famous Social Contract theory is to uphold the national security of the people, which along the way is a moral obligation. Its only moral that the government should protect our lives, and its through mitigation among other things that it can be done. Through my standard AND my value of national security, we have indeed seen that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. It is because I believe that we should hold these American ideals such as national security close to us that I believe this resolution to be true. As Patrick Henry once said, "Gentlemen may cry Peace! Peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun. Our brethren are already in the field. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. Forbid it Almighty God, for I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give my Liberty, or give me death!"
Blacks Should Own Hip Hop

Hip hop is obviously more a part of white culture than black culture. White people invented hip hop and made it popular. Since My opponent is just giving a brief overview, I'll respect him and do the same. Here is a quote from my favorite website. "Blacks did not invent hip-hop (rhymes). Rap is just poetry butchered by blacks and promoted by Jews. Europeans invented and mastered poetry, rymes and meanings that blacks now call rap music. The basis for hip-hop was stolen from European culture. The greatest poets are of European decent. I think whites should reclaim our heritage, and make music using classical poetry and not label it rap-music or hip hop." https://www.stormfront.org...
Doctor Who: Russel T. Davies' era is better than Stephen Moffat's era

While we have to thank Davies for bringing the show back from the Hiatus, I believe Moffat is the better show runner. I strongly say that Moffat is the better writer too. We have seen great episodes like" The Doctor Dances" and "The pandorica opens" because of him! Also some of the greatest doctor monolouges ever! Through the most recent seasons, we have seen many season long "Mysteries" or stories that have lasted throughout the season. While Russell T. Davies "Bad Wolf" season was good, Moffat's "Silence" and "the crack in the universe" seasons were epic and left fans guessing and wondering throughout the entire season; which left us hooked througout the season. Another point is that Steve Moffat invented the Weeping Angels, debatably the scariest monster to come out of the new series. While Davis has indeed written and worked on more episodes than Steven, Moffat has won more doctor who writing awards(Hugo's, Brit Film awards, Etc. )While I agree that Davis is a great show-runner, I have to say that Moffat is a (Forgive me) fantastic show runner!
Doctor Who: Russel T. Davies' era is better than Stephen Moffat's era

Before hand, I would like to state that I do not, in any way, believe Moffat to be a bad writer. I am not a Moffat hater. However, I do believe Davies to be superior as a head writer, at least when it comes to Doctor Who. I was reading the opinions of several people, some who are pro-Davies and some pro-Moffat, and suddenly had the urge to properly debate about it myself. I can't wait to have a friendly, reasonable debate over the best TV show in TV show history.
Should Teenager be allowed to vote

Im talking about in Australia, Where voting is cumpalsry. Its not fair when we as teenagers have school to deal with along with studying and preparing for VCE. We ahve too much to work on and it is very stressful. Its not fair that on top of all this stress of studying, We have to vote for something we don't even care about. Also three years is alot. In three years a baby can go to babbling to near fluent speaking, In three 3 years your dream home could be built 3 times or more. In three years someone could go from being completely healthy to dying of cancer. In 3 years earth could be war torn and nearly extinct. Think about 3 years of your life, You could do so much.
Should Teenager be allowed to vote

My rebuttal: Voting is not mandatory in America. People have the right to choose how they vote or not according to the Voting Rights Act, And for minorities, The Klux Klux Klan Act which granted the vote to racial and other minorities. I want you to do some research on this, Or I can for you, Just say the word. If I can choose my religion when I was 15, Why should I not have been able to vote. Aslo noted: "What if teens don't vote, Will they be fined? " is like asking whether adults will be fined if they don't vote. I have twice rebutted you on this. I want to also add that 15 and 18 are not that far apart.
Should Teenager be allowed to vote

What happens if a teen doesn't vote will they get fined? Is it fair if they don't want to vote in the first place. No. As a teenager I hate the idea that the fututre prime minister is impacted by our generation. Kids and Teens want to enjoy our remaining years of being a child and not an adult stress free. Why should we have to start our adulthood earlier because someone cares about our descision. To be honest we don't even care wh our primeminister is. We just want to chill and have a stress free life, Before, Adulthood.
Should Teenager be allowed to vote

The reason i say yes is because teens can work and pay taxes as young as 15, And I don't think it is correct to pay taxes to a government that denies one the right to vote. Also, Many issues affect children, And I believe the First Amendment rights to free speech and redress of grievances do not only apply to adults. No one is saying younger people should vote, But 15 or 16 is reasonable enough. For the record, I am 37, But I am also a children's rights supporter. I believe children have rights, And if they are citizen's old enough to work and pay taxes, They have the right to vote. I see taxation without representation as a form of slavery. We are supposed to be the land of the free, Not the home of the enslaved. Peace.
I will not contradict myself

C1 I noted that my views were tentative, or required further explanation. I believe, in principle, in Social Security. However, its application in the United States has been a farce. I do not support the Social Security program currently in place. Further, I do not trust them to KEEP it. That does not mean that I do not trust their wisdom in spending the money. C2 Those TV shows are no longer an accurate list, e.g. I have lost interest in several usa shows, such as psych. C3 The statement was factual in my view. Its factuality is arguable given the subjective definition of 'snippet'. 21. Not everywhere, in some situations, yes. 22. Perhaps? I'm not quite clear on it, but yes, I believe that regulation exists. 23. Not all of them, but presumably the majority. 24. Define 'bad'. Probably not. 25. If necessary to prevent disaster, or to institute social programs. 26. Yes, though measures should be fairly minimal. 27. No. 28. YES! Kidding, No. 29. No. 30. I'm not certain, my factual knowledge on 22 is iffy.
I will not contradict myself

My opponent has made numerous contradictions. Contradiction 1: Social Security "11. Can the U.S. Government be trusted with keeping billions of dollars?" "11. If we are referring to Obama's administration, then No. They will spend, rather than keep, the money." pcmbrown is PRO-Social Security. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... The Social Security deficit is currently in the trillions. http://www.socialsecurity.org... If social security is worth trillions, and pcmbrown doesn't think that the current administration can be trusted with billions, then pcmbrown shouldn't be PRO-Social Security. If pcmbrown is PRO-Social Security, and social security is worth trillions, then pcmbrown should think that the current admisistration can be trusted with billions. Contradiction. Contradiction 2: Favorite TV Shows "14. Did you enjoy the one episode of 'Becker' that you watched?" "14. No, no I did not." pcmbrown's favorite TV shows include "anything on usa." http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... "Becker" is on USA. http://www.usanetwork.com... If pcmbrown enjoys any TV show on USA, and "Becker" is on USA, then pcmbrown should enjoy "Becker." If pcmbrown does not enjoy "Becker," and "Becker" is on USA, then pcmbrown should not have his favorites include anything on USA. Contradiction. Contradiction 3: Facts/Opinions "10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 correct (true)?" "10. They are only 'true' in that they are my opinion." "6. Have you ever watched the TV show 'Becker'?" "6. I saw a brief snippet of one show." "19. Is the statement, 'I saw a brief snippet of one show,' a fact?" "19. Yes..." If the answers for questions 5-8 are pcmbrown's opinion, and "I saw a brief snippet of one show" was the answer to question 6, then "I saw a brief snippet of one show" is an opinion. If "I saw a brief snippet of one show" is a fact, and "I saw a brief snippet of one show" was the answer to question 6, then not all answers for questions 5-8 are opinions. Contradiction. Now, to continue my barrage of questions. 21. Are students encouraged to say the pledge of allegiance at American schools every day? 22. Does the government control what textbooks are used by kids in American schools? 23. Are the textbooks in American schools written in a PRO-America view? 24. Should the government do bad? 25. Should the government actively participate in the economy through things that are not reserved to the government? 26. Should the government do anything to keep unemployment down? 27. Is Joe Biden always right? 28. Is Barack Obama always right? 29. Is mongoose always Right? 30. Are all of your answers for questions 21-29 correct (true)?
I will not contradict myself

11. If we are referring to Obama's administration, then No. They will spend, rather than keep, the money. 12. Yes. 13. Depends on the definition of society. If it is inclusive of all aspects of life, and holds individual rights in esteem, then No. Otherwise, Yes. 14. No, no I did not. 15. Yes, typically, though "occasionally" is rather infrequent. I don't watch much TV. 16. Yes, in the form of taxes, certainly. 17. Yes. 18. No. 19. Yes... 20. In the sense that they are my personal views, yes.
I will not contradict myself

11. Can the U.S. Government be trusted with keeping billions of dollars? 12. Should the government maintain any policies that have a net negative effect on the economy? 13. Should the government maintain any policies that have a net negative effect on society? 14. Did you enjoy the one episode of "Becker" that you watched? 15. When you enjoy a TV show, do you start watching it occasionally? 16. Should the government participate in the economy? 17. Should the government regulate the economy? 18. Does the U.S. Government try to instill its beliefs into school children and get them to pledge allegiance to the U.S.? 19. Is the statement, "I saw a brief snippet of one show," a fact? 20. Are all of your answers for questions 11-19 correct (true)?
I will not contradict myself

1. That is fully dependent on the government at hand, and the sum of money involved. 2. No. 3. No. 4. Yes, tentatively, many of those Yes or No answers border on No Opinion, others are not well-informed, and others require explanation, as the answer is neither truly yes, nor no. My beliefs on many of these are subject to change, given more information. If you are seeking a specific contradiction, please ask about the specific issue. 5. If an institution has no harmful effect on society, then no. The phrase "have a say" is unclear here. However, the government ought to be able to decide what to recognize as a religious institution. 6. I saw a brief snippet of one show. 7. In theory, yes, but the practicality of that is doubtful. 8. Depends on your definition of "plagiarized". However, I certainly wrote elementary/early middle school papers that bore a dubious resemblance to Wikipedia. 9. They are only "true" in that they are my opinion. 10. They are only "true" in that they are my opinion.
I will not contradict myself

1. Can the government be trusted with large sums of money? 2. Should the government maintain all policies that have a net negative effect on the economy? 3. Should the government maintain all policies that have a net negative effect on society? 4. Do you agree with all of your opinions on the BIG issues? 5. Should government have a say in religious institutions? 6. Have you ever watched the TV show "Becker"? 7. Can a fascist nation be a good (positive) nation? 8. Have you ever plagiarized? 9. Are all of your answers for questions 1-4 correct (true)? 10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 correct (true)?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A question may not result in an inherently self-contradictory answer. If this is the case, Pro wins.
I will not contradict myself

Obviously, a piece of information is not necessarily certain, ergo, no contradiction exists. " Then why did you call it an opinion? And why did you call it a fact? The point is, you called it two different things. You could have said that it could be a fact and could be an opinion. However, you said that it is a fact and an opinion. You confirmed it to be opinion, and then confirmed it to be fact. We are not certain about which one it is, but it can't be both. Therefore, there is still contradiction. It can't be a fact and an opinion. "This is not a contradiction, as 'Kidding' implies. .. " "Kidding" only implies that you were joking around. However, the joke was that you gave one answer, then switched it to a contradictory answer. That's still a contradiction, whether you implied differently or not. In conclusion, my opponent has contradicted himself twice, once with calling one statement both a fact and an opinion, and again with answering "yes" and "no" to the same question.
I will not contradict myself

"However, that was what you said about yourself. It is your responsibility to keep up an accurate list. Obviously, your profile said that "Becker" was one of your favorite TV shows, but you disagree now. Thus, contradiction. " "3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. " I am free to contradict my "About Me", and other similar sections of my profile, as they are not questions which have been asked. "First, you established that the statement was an opinion. Then, you established that the statement was a fact. This is contradictory. " fact-a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred opinion-a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty Obviously, a piece of information is not necessarily certain, ergo, no contradiction exists. Obama This is not a contradition, as "Kidding" implies.
I will not contradict myself

"Those TV shows are no longer an accurate list. .. " However, that was what you said about yourself. It is your responsibility to keep up an accurate list. Obviously, your profile said that "Becker" was one of your favorite TV shows, but you disagree now. Thus, contradiction. "The statement was factual in my view. Its factuality is arguable given the subjective definition of 'snippet'. " However, you argued on both sides. First, you established that the statement was an opinion. Then, you established that the statement was a fact. This is contradictory. Contradiction 4: Obama "28. Is Barack Obama always right? " "28. YES! Kidding, No. " The answer cannot be both yes and no. This is obviously a contradiction. In conclusion, my opponent has contradicted himself three times.
It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other innocent..

Well first I'd like to start off by saying good luck to my opponent and I hope we have a good debate! Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of multiple other innocent people. I agree with the resolution for the following reasons: 1) In the resolution, the author fails to mention whether or not either of the innocent people are any more important to societal good than another. Having said that, because they are simply the same, quality over quantity, more people saved is more important. 2) Also in the resolution, the reason for the death of the innocent people is unknown making this debate tough to determine whether or not it is justified. If a terrorist has a bomb on a train with a civilian hostage and to stop the terrorist you must kill him or her and the hostage to save 100 other innocent people, why would you, the voters, choose the one person over the 100 other people? 3)(this argument is just for fun but very philosophical) Today, in society, the value of life is not as important as you might think. Abortions are taken with the slightest thought, suicides and gang violence are reported on the news everyday but no one really pays attention. Even war is glorified as a soldier who died for their country receives a medal of honor. The point is, no one will live for ever. No one. The one person you saved over the 100 other people could have stepped off the train and got hit by a car. What then? The real question to be asked is whether or not the quality of life is superior over the quantity of life (how long you will live). good luck to my opponent !
It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other innocent..

ok well the GED comment just has to say that you should probably use the spell check option more often... anyways, after reading my opponents arguments, all he said was that it was PERMISSIBLE not "permissable" to kill many people save one life... he claims that all humans lives are equal... he did not display any evidence of why it is NOT permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people. therefore, he did not disprove any of my arguments false... I now conclude this debate with one last argument: if all lives are created equal, then how is it equal to save one life and let many more die? I let you decide... thank you!
It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other innocent..

I do not appreciate the insult put into my opponent's last round. I am still in High school and thus don't have any degree. Despite this I am well on my way to a masters degree in Secondary Education at UCO. As for the debate, I would not take the Pro side on the case: It is morally permissible to kill the lives of many people in order to save one innocent person. I believe killing one to save many is immoral. I also believe letting many die so as to not kill the one is also immoral. Basically if you get stuck in this situation you are royally SCREWED. thank you and vote for neg.
Who is the best champion for each role (top, mid, jungle, adc, and support) in league of Legends

it actually really depends on which point of season 3 you are referencing. cause in spring, summer jax was irrelevant in higher elos and the competitive scene. champs like zac and shen (tanks) were huge season 3 mid and early stages. as it became later on, some top laners went offensive. fizz is especially squishy. compared to most mid laners. once it comes to late game, you can't beat vayne. her w passive is really just too strong. and can tear apart tanks. i'm just presenting everything from a very high elo mindset, thus leona supports are very effective. for lower elos, i would have to agree with you on thresh.