BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is real

Define God? well God is that holy being that is constantly looking over us, and jesus is are savior. Jesus is God in the flesh, and he has came to earth to save us through him. God is this unseen being that is all around us, he is the happiness we feel in are bodies. There is so much proof of God around us that even a blind person could see that he exist. I dont get5 how people dont belive, when he is right there in front of us, just waiting for us to come back to him
Literal Joke debate

Harry is walking on a downtown street one day and he happens to see his old high school friend, James, a little ways up ahead. "Harry, Harry... Hey, how are you buddy!?" James waves to greet his old friend. "Not so good," shrugs Harry. "Oh really? Why, what happened?" James queries. "Well," Harry says, "I just went bankrupt and I've still got to feed my family. I don't know what I'm going to do." "HA! Could have been worse!" James replies with a knee-slap "Could, have, been, worse." A month or so later, Harry again encounters James, at a restaurant. "And how are things now?" he asks. "Terrible!" says Harry. "Our house burned down last night." "Oh, HEHEHE!" James laughs and his friend scowls at him "Could have been *snort* HeHuck! It... It could have been worse!" Harry frowns and awkwardly and then walks away. Another month later, Harry is at a library where he sees James a third time, from across the room. Harry begins to turn around and act like he hadn't seen his annoying friend, but James spots him, gets up and yells,"Oh me, oh my, is that familiar face I see!?" With a big dumb grin "Well, how goes it ol' pal!?" "Oh shut up!" says Harry. "I hate you, you know that!? It's just one tragedy after another James! Now my wife has left me!" "SHHHHH WE'RE IN A LIBRARY!" yells James! He calmly walks up to Harry and leans in toward his cheek. Harry could feel Jame's pungent breath on his ear, "It *snicker... could have been worssssssssssse." Harry grabs James by the shoulders and shakes him vigorously!"Get off of me, I can taste how bad you smell!!" He yells "I’m jealous of all the people that haven't met you! Every single time you say the same thing--'could have been worse. Could have been worse.' IT'S NOT FUNNY! What the heck is it supposed to even mean!? Could have been worse, my butt! James, tell me --How could it have been any worse, huh!?... How!!?"
Literal Joke debate

Once there was a village with a very religious man. He would spend 2 hours a day praying to God. Well, one day, there was a flood in the village. Everyone evacuated, and no one extended help to the God-lover because he kept on saying, "God will save me!" Then, a man in a boat came by and asked him if he needed help. He responded, "God will save me!" and the guy in the boat shrugged his shoulders and left. Then, a guy in a helicopter came down and said, "Guy, you're going to drown! Get in my helicopter!" The man responded, "God will save me!" The guy in the helicopter shrugged his shoulders and flew away. The God-lover drowned in the rough flood...
Literal Joke debate

This, as it says in the title, a literal joke debate. Try to find the funniest joke you can. Rules: *** NO REALLY BAD PUNS PLEASE!!! Really bad puns are not funny. First round acceptance and intro Second round joke (no punchline yet!) Third round punchline If your joke doesn't have a punchline, forfeit or post something random in the last round. I don't care. Either way, good luck!
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)

It seems my opponent had a tough time following directions. "No rules, no debate. Sorry Charlie." Since there are, and were rules throughout that I FOLLOWED and YOU DIDN'T, I'm not to sorry at all. Looks like you can navigate through a website as well as you can refute an argument. Here are the EXACT LINKS TO THE RULES AND HOW TO LEARN. Read this: http://www.nflonline.org... OR THIS: http://www.nflonline.org... or contact a local NFL representative. Judges, here are the reasons you vote affirmative, AGAIN. 1) ALL affirmative arguments stand 2) Opponent presents NO ARGUMENTS (Neg Constructive and Aff rebuttal alike) 3) ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT SPEECH IS PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION (see the rules if you are confused) 4) This is an LD round. My opponent agreed to debate in LD format the moment he clicked the "Accept challenge" button, and he has not done this 5) My opponents responses (if you make the exaggeration of calling them that,) are not signposted or organized at all, which makes it impossible for me to respond to, and you (the judge) to flow. 6) My opponent has not followed the rules, but accused me of not doing so myself when the opposite is present. Thank you all for reading, and a little advice for my opponent: Don't accept ANY more LD debate topics. At least untill you read the many links I have given you.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)

Well I still have to have the rules before I can proceed. Debate formats. Are you referring to one of these? http://www.csun.edu... and if so which? The NFL http://www.nflonline.org... I can't find any rules here. http://www.nflonline.org... or here The NFL Board of Directors meets twice a year for rules revision. They vote on each rule change, which affects the entire high school forensics community. That's from http://en.wikipedia.org... So there are rules. They must make ALL the rules since it doesn't say LD format. Sorry Charlie. No rules no debate.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)

At this point in the debate, you vote affirmative. I could stand up (metaphorically) in the final round and say one word and you would still vote Affirmative. My opponent has dropped EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE. The ONLY things my opponent said in his last speech was how I'm not following true LD format. The ONLY thing I am doing differently is the timing, which is fair for both sides, and the fact that I GAVE MY OPPONENT AN EXTRA SPEECH. My mistake, Ed. Here, let's fix it. Negative, please forfeit the round three speech two. It will be more fair that way. I just turned my opponent's "LD format" argument. BUT, if you don't buy that... Look at the statement he makes: "My opponent has 3 minutes" Hmmm, LD format....I thought that went 6min-7min-4min-6min-3min! My opponent contradicts himself in this manner. I apologize for my opponent's misfortune of accepting this debate WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Can we all take a brief moment to look at the topic...*pause*...okay. Against everything he wrote: The only thing my opponent does is b*tch about how I am debating wrong. My opponent claims he knows what Value/Criterion is and how LD format really works. Let's try reading the rules from the OFFICIAL SOURCE, instead of from a wiki or blog: www.nflonline.org Here are some reasons why you affirm at this point: 1) ALL affirmative arguments stand 2) Opponent presents NO ARGUMENTS (Neg Constructive and Aff rebuttal alike) 3) ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT SPEECH IS PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION (see the rules if you are confused) 4) This is an LD round. My opponent agreed to debate in LD format the moment he clicked the "Accept challenge" button, and he has not done this 5) My opponents responses (if you make the exaggeration of calling them that,) are not signposted or organized at all, which makes it impossible for me to respond to, and you (the judge) to flow. Pick any one of these and the affirmative wins. Pick ALL of them, and you are a legitimate judge. I am sorry that my opponent dislikes how the system works or wants debate to go his way or be more like US criminal court, but there is nothing I can really do about it...
is minecraft better than terraria

Terraria is better because it has more features and items that Minecraft. Terreria has more bosses and cool gems armor etc. Minecraft is more about building a theme park or whatever. Terreria is more about defeating bosses and staying alive. My opponent stated that terreria has better graphics depends on the way you look at it I believe terreria has way better graphics the trees look so much better i think the graphics of terreria are way better.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

Dear members of debate.org It is true that homosexuality (bi-sexuality) happens in nature, and among bonobos it happens even more than heterosexuality, but let's be honest from a darwinian point of view same sex relationships do not produce descendants. Pure homosexuality have to die out simply because they don't produce children. A good question we should ask our selves is if x is natural, does it mean that x is good? Or if y is unnatural does it mean that y is bad? I'm bringing this topic because I believe there is nothing bad on homosexuality. Lets imagine that x is a tornado and y is the flu vaccine or artificial boobs. In any case for most of the species most of the individuals prefer heterosexual relationships. For this reason ask everyone to oppose the motion.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

I will argue that homosexuality is comparatively as natural as heterosexuality. I will ask whoever my opponent is to not use any religious arguments as debate terms due to the fact that the person who uses religious arguments are mostly close minded and will stubbornly defend religious beliefs witch cannot be concluded as conductive arguments but relies on inductive points at best since religion itself is an inductive argument based on probability. My position will be based on philosophical and ethical reasoning. Along with comparative, supporting evidence. I don't fee any of these word need to be defined but for the sae of non-semanticism I will define natural. However my opponent can introduce definitions if he wishes. Natural- 1. of nature: relating to nature 2.conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature 3.produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic NO SEMATICS Debate structure will be as follows. Round 1-introduction statements. Round 2-positions. Round 3- rebuttals. Round 4-refutations. Round 5- closing statements/ final refutation.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

What it have to do that other species evolve with just 1 sex or with 5 different sexes (you only need to meet one guy of any other 4 sexes to reproduce). We have aqueologists and we can see quite accurately that very few roman emperors were heterosexual, (that happen before Christianity arrives to earth), we also can see that in Arab countries most sexual relations are done by members of the same sex, so we know with quite good precision that bisexuality use to be more common than homosexuality.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

I will not debate about bisexuality because that is not my resolution. Also it is impossible argue if homosexuality or bisexuality occurs equal to or less than heterosexuality. I have already addressed why. There is a huge grey hole in the data because everyone will not admit their sexuality. It would also be a logical flaw to judge the naturally of somethings existence by judging how many of these beings exist. This way of weighing an issue is nothing but the bandwagon fallacy.We cannot judge accurately if homosexuality is less prevalent than heterosexuality because of the reasons stated I my case. I've never said homosexuality equals homosexuality. I believe my opponent is confused about his readings.Lastly the statement con made is false that you can't reproduce unless one has sex with a heterosexual person. First of all hermaphrodites don't need to have sex with either genders to make babies, So as we see this statement is absurd. Further more, a lesbian can have sex with a gay man just for the purpose of procreating. Reproduction is not a good argument against homosexuality. Straight people have sex for more than one reason than making babies. Same goes for homosexuals. Just because one organisms method of reproducing is different from the status quo does not make that being more natural than the other at all. It just means that that humans don't have sex just to reproduce obviously and this is evidence for it. ( I don't want to repeat myself so for any other concerns or flaws in logic presented by my opponent please refer to my case because I have rebuttaled everything he has claimed so far.)So as we can see homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Both occurs in nature by natural processes and both are absolutely natural as each other. There are some differences however just because your left hand is different from your right does not mean that one hand is better or more natural than the other. I feel the audience should vote for pro because, Homosexuality occurs in nature by humans and other organisms making homosexuality a nature more than an act , Homosexuality is not a choice, The Bandwagon Fallacy , Homosexuals Have The Ability To Reproduce, lastly I have introduced the strong possibility that Organisms may have evolved their methods of reproduction. For these reasons I suggest a pro vote.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

We don't agree in homosexual = bisexual.If yo never have a heterosexual sex, then you can't reproduce, but if you do both, then you can reproduce, and that is very well observed in nature.Bi sexuality is natural and we can argue about if it is as frecuent as heterosexuality, pure homosexuality is not that common and it doen't make sense from a biological prespective. Finally I just want to recomend to read:Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections On Being Human by Jesse Bering It bring lots of interesting details about how homosexual relations work and why it is that frencuent.It also mention that canimalism is natural and it is reproducible in laboratory conditions, aparently a Japanesse lab manage to get permission from the etics commity to put monkeys in conditions in which they start eating the dead bodies of the othrers. I don't think I have anythink else to say for this debate.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

My opponent seems to agree with my case therefore there is no need to continue much of this debate since my opponents position as been terminated. However there still are some minimal concerns my opponent has and I will address them.He says he doesn't think homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality because homo couples don't produce children. I have already tackled this type of claim earlier but I will restate my counterclaim. Humans main purpose in life is not to reproduce. If every human in existence wanted to reproduce along with their partners then this point would be strong. Also there is that fact that homosexuals can reproduce. Maybe not with the same gender but they can reproduce. Love or even liking someone is not needed to reproduce in straight or gay people whatsoever. Gay people reproduce in the same ways that heterosexuals do. As we can see homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality on many levels.Also his comparing gay people to left handed people doesn't make sense to me. Are you maybe trying to say that left and right hands are no different because their still hands?Con also made the flawed statement that homosexuality is bad for your genes. How so? It sounds like your trying to say all homosexuals have bad genes. Logically speaking, Who is anyone to say their genes are good at all? A homosexuals genes are by no way any more "bad" than a heterosexual persons genes.Cons last statement was that DDO does not allow debaters to post sources. This is obviously not true. If we were not allowed to post sites then why does the site ask voters to give points to the debater who provided more reliable sources?
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

I have very little to argue, we agree en everything except our own interpretation of the term “as natural as”. Homosexual relation do not produce children, that is why preferring homosexual relationships do not fit in the same category as being left-handed, however gay people are criminalized in the same way left-handed people. You really have to be a moron to claim that homosexuality is something “bad”, it may be bad for your genes, but there is nothing evil about it. In our current world, most of sexual relations in arab countries are homosexual, and they don't get out of the closet because there is dead penalty for being homosexual. Apparently bi-sexuality use to be the rule along human history. In bonobos (our closet specie) homosexual relationships are lot more frequent than heterosexual relationships. If you want we can debate about if there is being bi-sexual is the rule rather that the exception on humans. But if the debate is about if being homosexual is bad, then we have nothing to talk about. You have all intellectuals at one side saying that homosexuality is not bad and all morons and religious people at the other using they holly book which tell them to kill homosexuals. By the way, this web site do not allow to add links to your speech.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

http://www.youtube.com... Please be brave show your name, your face and do a video response. My english is not so great, so I decided to post the speech: Frozen eclipse, If you want to claim that homosexuality is something normal,I have very little to add, you will not find any intelectual honest person who will tell you the oposite, but I have a lot to say to out couple of commentators, I will start with you anyway: First of all, non or your links works, even if they work, news papers are not reliable sources of information, every time I write in a news paper, they manipulate the content, you need to find scientific journal papers, I promise, they are very good experiments showing a genetic origin of homosexuality. I have to say that you are wrong about scientist don't work with the concept of homosexual couples, because we do. (seach in youtube for dawkins on homosexuality). The argument of we having sex just for fun is a bad argument because in the stone age condoms were extremely expensive, so our ancestor may had children even if they did not want. Homosexuals can reproduce only if they have heterosexual sex, that is why is so hard to understand pure homosexuality, but not that hard to understand bi-sexuality. We already agree that “natural” means that it happens in nature. Homosexuality happens in nature, but it happens less often than heterosexuality or bi-sexuality. Anyone who thinks only humans have homosexuality is an ignoramus, but maybe is not your fault, maybe your parents poison your mind with religion. Anyone who claims that homosexuality is inmoral is a moron, homosexuals do not kill other people in the name of their sexual preferences, religious people do kill other people in the name of their religion. It is very interesting that konjum presents himself like a gay man who claim to think homosexuality is unnatural, it is too stupid to be true. And Muted, just prove to be and ignorant with the argument about cannibalism. Cannibalism is very natural among insects, but it doesn’t mean it is natural among humans. By the way, bi-sexuality use to be very common, in humans during the times of romans, and apparently in arab countries homosexual relations are more popular than heterosexual relationships in spite of having dead penalty for if. Please forgive me if I gave the impression about going to speak againts homosexuality, my point was that pure homosexuality is an interesting phenomena that we don’t fully understand.PD:As expected it is not permited to post links... :-(But if you make a video response, you can post your links in your youtube video
Which franchise has helped the world more? STAR TREK or Star Wars? I am a TREKIE!

My opponent failed to use a source the acceptance round... you know, the round in which no arguments were to be done. My opponent has broken his own rule, and has failed to provide a source for his statement that flip phones were encouraged by Star Trek. Since my opponent failed to argue in this round, I have very little to refute. My only argument is that flip phones have become obsolete. That isn't to say they aren't being used, but better technology has come about since the cell phone innovation of flip phones.
Which franchise has helped the world more? STAR TREK or Star Wars? I am a TREKIE!

My opening argument: Star Wars has helped the world more in several ways. One way overall is how Star Wars has inspired us in the best way to pursue inventions and weapons. For example, the light saber that was thought to be impossible to recreate has indeed been brought in to human life (according to the Harvard Gazette). Scientists at the Harvard-MIT Center for Ultracold Atoms have improbably coaxed photons into hardened molecules you could, in fact, whack against each other in, say, a Bespin-based duel-to-the-death resulting in one person, sadly, losing a hand. (Harvard Gazette, Foxnews.com). Of course, it is not exactly a light saber, and it wasn't being looked for directly, but after a few mistakes, they have seen simularites between a light saber and what they had. Star Wars has also improved us medically. Although there were other influences, Star Wars has influenced the development and change in prosthetic limbs, and how they work (m.space.com). The Death Star of Star Wars has also been integrated in to real life. New forms of bug zappers have come along (in thought, not made yet) that has been designed to shoot down mosquitoes that are flying with a laser. (IBID) In conclusion to my opening argument, Star Wars, in the world of medicine (if you look at the bug zapper, you will see it as a tool that will cut down on the spread of malaria) has influenced the development of certain inventions and innovations on all sorts of things.
Which franchise has helped the world more? STAR TREK or Star Wars? I am a TREKIE!

PRO (me) is for star trek while con (other/person who is wrong) lol is star wars. this debate is about whether star wars or star trek has contributed more to humanity. In this case it's mostly about tech but is also about philosophy and intelligence gain. THIS IS WHY I BASICALLY KNOW THIS IS RIGGED. Star Trek is made for intelligent people and star wars is a sci fi fantasy movie based on action and adventure. First round is acceptance, and an opening speech for your side of the argument, my opening speech will come first in the second round. OPENING SPEECH MUST HAVE NO PROOF OR SOURCES, NO EVIDENCE OR ANY DEBATING. The opening statement is to tell them why you're here and that you're here. 2: first arguments 3: rebuttals/more arguments 4:counter-rebuttals, fixing arguments, and the last arguments 5: closing statement. I (going first) will be able to make one last rebuttal but since i can't debate your rebuttal you cannot. So that it's fair as in first man in last man out So i get to farirly counter every one of yours the same way as you get to counter mine. DEBATE IS FORFEITED AND I WON. I have already won via a forfeit since I must redo this debate, con did not ask like I requested and therefore lost. Star Trek has better design, and I was talking about the real world, the first flip phones that started the idea of phones other than telegrams (basically started the better era of tech) came from kirk's communicator. The tricorder is being made even now, cloaking devices are being researched, phasers exist, and geordi's visor is being made today. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT LIKE THIS ONE!!!: star wars has helped the world more because without star wars we would not have a conceptof cool weapons and star ships, far better than star trek that everyone thinks is noobs because they do Nothing on the scale of what star wars does heck we faught two wars in all the movies and it was awesome and in all the shows of trek they did nothing of vital importance thus the world has learned more about space and conflict from star wars than star treck.