BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Now this is a story all about how My life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minu

I Came to Play (The Miz) I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I came to play Run away if you see me Don't even say my name Don't think that you can know me Don't try and play that game Everyday that I get better I watch as you get worse My script is to the letter And I'll write your final verse I am here to stay (Well I'm here to stay) And I have come to play I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I came to play I glow inside this light I see new life unfold Each second I burn brighter Your fire is going cold You could try to beg for mercy Go ahead and try to run No escape and no redemption Understand the end's begun I am here to stay (Well I'm here to stay) And I have come to play I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way (outta my way) See all these lights, they're glowing Hear all these people cheer Feel all the love that's flowing All just because I'm here Get up and on your feet (get up) Get your hands up in the air (get your hands up) What you know about taking me down (yeah) I Came To Play I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I came to play There's a price to pay Time for you to get down on your knees and pray I came to play Say goodbye to the good old days They're never coming back Watch your future fade I came to play I came to play to get my dues paid I guess you had a dream, but it can't be saved I came to play I'm here to stay Best get out of my way (outta my way) I'm here to stay Best get out of my way I came to play
Now this is a story all about how My life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minu

Traveling in a fried-out Kombi On a hippie trail, head full of zombie I met a strange lady, she made me nervous She took me in and gave me breakfast And she said [Chorus 1] Do you come from a land down under Where women glow and men plunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover [Verse 2] Buying bread from a man in Brussels He was six-foot-four and full of muscles I said, do you speak-a my language He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich And he said [Chorus 2] I come from a land down under Where beer does flow and men chunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover [Verse 3] Lyin' in a den in Bombay With a slack jaw, and not much to say I said to the man, are you trying to tempt me Because I come from the land of plenty And he said [Chorus 1] Do you come from a land down under Where women glow and men plunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover Do you come from a land down under Where women glow and men plunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover Do you come from a land down under Where women glow and men plunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover Do you come from a land down under Where women glow and men plunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder You better run, you better take cover
right=morality

That analogy does not prove anything. Especially something as broad as opinions. There are a lot of things that may seem obvious, but to some people are not. Like the North Korea example, which is something happening in real life, in comparison to your flawed analogy. But even dismissing that invalid argument. You still haven't even touched on the bulk of my comment, I'm going to assume it's because you can't rebuttal my points, but that's still no excuse for having half a sentence that facades as some sort of argument. My points about how morality is defined as what you find right, not what actually is right all the time.
right=morality

Your explanation was 3 words long, lacked any description or reasoning, and you literally wrote down the motion of the argument without presenting any points whatsoever. You proved nothing on your end. But never mind that, focusing on my argument now. Morality is defined as what you personally think is "right" based on your own ethics and values, because of this, morality is very subjective, and everyone has their own moral guideline. And because it's very subjective, it would differ from culture to culture and person to person. Let's take North Korea for example, they don't find it immoral to break human rights laws, and treat their citizens very badly, whilst the rest of the world do think it's immoral. Does it mean that it's "right" to treat people really badly? Essentially, morality isn't what is objectively right, it's what is "considered" right, and we all know opinions are always going to differ, why do you think we're having this debate right now? Conflicting opinions. And opinions are the catalysts that form morals.
Endogenous Retroviruses are not evidence for evolution, as shown by Daniel Nahum

Round 3 and my opponent has forfeited again! All of my previous arguments still stand unchallenged! This was not a debate, my opponent didn't even bother to make his own argument. .. he simply copied and pasted an argument which he doesn't understand, and the argument he pasted was full of inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and fallacies showing the blatant lack of knowledge in regards to ERVs. At one point in the argument it's even questioned if Endogenous retroviruses (AKA ERVs) are actually retroviruses. .. it's almost equivalent to questioning if a Siamese cat is actually a cat! !! :)
The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

"This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns" You just proved my point more, that is technically gun control its restricting the use of Weapons. "Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry." This has nothing to do with my argument I never sad we should outlaw guns your putting words in my mouth. "You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement" Again I meant current gun control is effective not gun control as a whole "Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc" Alaska does not ban arms as a whole, D.C is not a state its a district Again concelment is not possesion. "Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument." First I never had a second amendment argument, second I do not need the constitution to rebuttal, but since you want one here you go. During the writting o the constitution Ifringe meant "To defeat; invalidate."Infringing on ones right to bear arms is to ban all guns completely" "I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument." Now you don't because I just did. In conclusion my opponent has made false assumptions about me and my stance on the subject at hand and posed his argumnt on that alone. I have proved my opponent wrong on his statements but he only changes them to make them more favorable.
The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

>>> The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. +++ This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns. +++ Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry. +++ You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement. >>> laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. +++ Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc. Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument.
The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. secondly what i meant is I oppose the total abolition of guns
The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. " Gun control laws are unconstitutional. I. Rebuttals >>> Although i do not think gun control laws are right I think that the States should have the Final say in Gun control Laws. You say force as in without regard to the people of the states oppinion therefore violating the states rights. +++ The individual states are given a lot of freedom by our Constitution but there are certain rights designated by our Constitution and our Supreme Court that all states have to observe. No state can infringe on religion, speech, press, for example. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. " If the right to bear arms is infringed by any state or city, there is an unconstitutional infringement taking place. For example: the 14th Amendment states that "every citizen has equal protection uunder the law before due process. " When Virginia tried to stop interracial marriage, the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision to allow interracial marriage. Even though the state opposed interracial marriage by 90%, they still were forced to recognize the Constitution. Public opinion is simply secondary to constitutionality. II. Points +++ You conceded my point that gun laws are not right. I assume you mean uneffective. Criminals will tell you that their number one fear is armed victims. Gun control strengthens crime, which leads to murder. Forcing gun rights hurts people. My opponent has said that forcing states is not right, but this is not the case, because the Constitution says otherwise. No state has the right to ignore the Constitution. I have proven, with concession, that gun control kills people. This is the impact of my case. I have also proven that constitutionality is an issue.
The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional.
The United Kingdom should leave the European Union

(Please watch the video after reading, thank you.) My opponent comparing UK exit to the French and American Revolutions is a wonderful exercise in rhetoric, but nothing more. Dear voter, do not be fooled by this Pied Piper playing the tune of prosperity over yonder; for it is not there. If the UK wishes to overtake Germany as the largest economy in Europe it will only do so working alongside Europe as a member. If the UK thinks the break up between it and the EU will be amicable and business as usual afterwards then this is simply wishful thinking. The UK is not in the same economic position to model itself after Norway (even Norway doesn’t think the UK should try it). If the UK doesn’t like its position within the EU, instead of dropping out and ungratefully abandoning its allies it should look to cooperation with them! It is David Cameron who has reduced the UK’s standing, but it can be recovered. The UK does not need to play the maverick. Germany is respected because it believes in a free Europe and is fighting to keep it so. The UK should stand by Germany and work towards prosperity! Not foolishly seek it on its own accord. The EU has been good to the UK, a destination for exports and giver of investment. The UK has been treated special for a long time within the EU; this threat of exit is at best a ploy for more special favors. The UK wants to cut its own nose to spite Europe. My opponent mentions the membership dues and tries to make it look big with a daily figure. It is in the low billions annually. What my opponent does not mention is the high billions the UK receives via trade. These far outweigh the membership fees. Which by the way the UK would still have to pay even if it left the EU if it wanted to be in the EEC! UK seems happy to lose its representation to gain a few bucks. The irony is that the Cameron administration devalued the UK’s representation. How strange that the man who could improve the UK’s standing seeks to exit instead of seek agreement and the greater profits that would come with it. I end my argument with a humorous touch. The video above shows in a humorous manner what other Europeans think of each other. At the 1:09 mark we see what the UK thinks of the EU and vice versa. And what do we see the EU thinks of the UK? A country on the verge of leaving, but never quite doing so, threatening but never leaving. Why is this? Because the UK knows it shouldn’t leave but wants more out of the EU. The UK can get what it wants from the EU, with cooperation and continued membership. Vote Con! P.s: I would also like to thank GrndMstr1337 for the debate. It has been quite informative! http://www.youtube.com...
Penguins Can Not Fly

Pro has failed to prove that penguins can fly. As such I shall now induct my argument. I. Penguin Comic This photo (http://www.debate.org...) shows a comic of two penguins reenacting the Titanic scene, in which Rose says "Am I flying Jack?" to which Jack responds "You're flying." Thus, the penguin would be flying. II. Helicopter Penguin! Another idea (http://www.debate.org...)(obviously edited, yes, but used as an example), in which where penguins could be flying on a helicopter. While he may not be the one piloting, he can ride along as a passenger. He would still be flying. III. Underwater "Flying" Penguins have the potential ability to "fly" underwater, at speeds up to 15-20mph. They cannot fly in the air, but that does not mean they cannot fly in a different state of matter. Most birds are not able to swim, but they can fly. It depends on what the bird is used to. These three points, unless refuted, stand to prove that penguins can fly. Thanks :)
The bulge versus the tuck

1. SPACE YOUR PARAGRAPHS CHILD, I COULDN'T READ THE ARTICLE WITHOUT LOSING MY PLACE 4 TIMES! 2. Now, I don't say that I will agree with saying "just tuck it", But I WILL say, That it should be considered a problem men should consider. To take it into perspective for women, Should they just NOT use tampons, And let their blood seep through their pants and consider that socially acceptable because it's more "natural"? NO! Women use tampons/leak pads/leak underwear to stop from being noticed when they are on their period (Yes, I took health class). So is the same with men. For a man to be seen with a bulge in their pants is noticable, Embarrassing, And should still be considered socially unacceptable. The whole point of clothes is to keep exposed areas, Well, COVERED. That includes, Yes, The penis. Now, That doesn't mean that you have to "tuck", It also means you could "slip", Which is when a person forces it vertically, Or put on baggier clothing to prevent the scene from happening. Not only that, But knowing a person's boner is out could make to prevent some awkward Sexual Assault moments. Yes, In cases like High-School, Because of hormone levels, Men might get completely random boners (I got one on stage while I was awarded for a debate trophy. . . It was awkward), But in adult levels, This just doesn't happen as often. If a woman sees a man approach them with a bulge in their pants, It is the most decent thing to do to let them know you DON'T WISH TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM! It is rude, Uncalled for, Unmannerful, And just. . . Weird \_(o. O)_/. In all, It is like stearing at a woman's breasts. It is an uncalled for act that seems to make you look unprofessional, And keeping the bulge from being noticed should definitely be one of those professional things. Men should NOT keep the bulge.
resolved economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

Cross-Examination 1. What exactly does the long paragraph about Friedrich Nietzche say? Simply that we should do what best benefits us? I would be particularly interest in a summary in your own words (I'm not sure if the above is your own words or not.) What is the implication of this argument? That we have no moral standards by which to act? That we need not care about others? 2. Nietzche seems to suppose that we have no higher obligations because a higher power doesn't exist. Would showing that a high power (ie. God) does probably exist sufficiently rebut your case? 3. What do all of those single letter abbreviations (such as 'C:') mean and why are they relevant? 4.Does showing sanctions to be ineffective/counter-productive sufficiently rebut the case?
The school system is outdated

I believe that public and private schools are great for helping the children of our future to make their way into the world. Although some aspects of school have stayed the same, the school system as a whole is not outdated and working fine. School now accommodates for many people of different abilities, there are schools, and separate classes for children with disabilities, teacher-aids for children who don't learn as fast. And you can choose whether you want to go to a school that will stream you into a class, with students your level, or a school that lets everyone learn together.
Free will is an illusion

Free Will-free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the ability to apply experiences to form a beneficial outcome Illusion-something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality So lets say that we take an embryo and clone it from the first stage of development. We will assume that both exist for the exact amount of time, and are born at exactly the same time from identical mothers. Now lets say that these identical mothers birth the children in two separate rooms, identical in every way. These two rooms are also totally insulated from the outside world. These two rooms also have machinery in place that will be able to sence the needs (any needs) of the children and provide for them in the most optimal way possible. For both of course the exact same way. What do you think would happen? One minute later? One day later? One month later? One year later? They would cry at the same time, they would get hungry at the same time, and the machinery would end up responding at the same time to the same needs until they eventually died at the same time from the same disease. Their bodies would decay exactly the same way and turn into dust at the same time. If at any point an observer would look at the rooms I bet he/she would see the exactly same scenario twice. Given the circumstances what reason could there possibly be for it to turn out any different? What reason could there ever be for one child to do one thing that the other doesn't. Let's even pretend for a second that something like 'free will' does exist and that these children can make their own independent decisions. Why would one ever choose to do one thing that the other did not also choose? What influence could there have been that would make one choose one thing over another, if circumstances for both are exactly the same? Do you see what I'm saying? Here is a more practical example: I am at a store buying a shirt for my band concert. The shirt has to be either black or white. I hate both. My favorite color is blue. Both the black and white shirts are the same price. They are identical in everything but color. My parents don't care which one I choose. The stimuli are neutral. Can I decide for myself? Absolutely. The stimuli do not favor either shirt, and I am free to act on my own accord. The resolution is negated.
Free will is an illusion

It's a wonderful exercise after taking a course on Free Will and Determinism this semester. And now for the argument. .. Proposition: Free will is an illusion. Position: Hard Determinist The very idea of free will is incoherent: either a choice must be the outcome of some prior influence, or it could only be random. All actions are outcomes from prior events plus the laws of physics. Con now has the ability to refute hard determinism. Good luck : )