BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War Game Scenario: Russia versus Chosen Nation

OK obviously my opponent is doing bad since twice he has forfeited. Since I am doing a part 2 and likely a few more parts, I will do little this round so the competitor for the next time doesn't end up with half of China conquered. I expect my opponent to do the same as I and do very little if he doesn't decide to forfeit the last round. May 30 The New Red Army has made a minefield cutting off the Heilo Jiang province from the rest of China plenty of s-300s, aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc. are guarding it with a massive minefield in front of it all. The mines can be shut off and be detonated when decided or to be detonated when going over. June 3 Tibet The citizens of Tibet are given weapons to fight China. A very large amount of its population is willing to fight. They are given aircraft and artillery hidden very secretly. June 5 Hong Kong Soon many citizens of Hong Kong are given weapons and are planning to rebel at first by raiding the police stations for their arsenals of weapons and to get them out of Hong Kong. They are given gas masks in case police try tear gas against them June 6 Kazakhstan Russia convinces Kazakhstan to no longer remain neutral and to fight if they get spoils from winning. They say they will commence soon. June 10 The Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are now deciding who's sides they should take in this rising conflict. What will happen next with Scandinavia? The next war debate will decide. Final words and minor things for the last round Liberals FYI.
Does God Exist

The case for the existence of God is subjective. One can cite references of organization reputed to be above the law of chance such as the singular hallucinations experienced by the Fatima occurrence or UFO descriptions reported by respected authorities; But the doubt remains until one experiences for themselves an undeniable event. The benefit of the doubt exists then even for the most adamant of opposition and leads inexorably towards a face-off, a do-or-die scenario involving the participants and their systems of belief.
The world is yet uncivilised

Civility is a concept created by humans. It is within each man or woman to make their own decision whether or not as a whole their species is behaving in a civil manner. As man evolves he develops new concepts that are constantly being developed and destroyed. We are currently testing the concept of capitalism and nationalism and there is great conflict but it may be incorrect to say that this is not civilized. It is in all likelihood that the perfect state of man would be to abstain from any form of economy or government and to use his intellect to live in a manner that is without conflict between the members of his own species. Living autonomously is the only way to create objective civility. To want to be civilized within a collective can only be a subjective civility and is therefor up to each individual to decide whether man is civilized.
The world is yet uncivilised

I don't think you read more than one sentence of my argument. I argued that mental illness accounts for most criminal behavior not the mentally challenged. Such disorders as major depressive disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, bipolar, antisocial personality disorder all make up the vast majority of the criminal population in US Prisons. As far as the argument that I am for more industrialization you are way off. I clearly stated that the only objectively humane society would be one that rejects economic systems and governments. One cannot be objectively humane based on potential for capital gain or because of threat of law or even through threat from religion. The concept of humanity is purely a subjective value placed on a society by individuals therefor any state of any society may be humane. I appreciate your debate but you have failed to show any objectivity in idea of humanity. The state of human existence is what it is and we can each call it what we will. I don't necessarily like it but you can't call it savage simply because outliers commit crimes while most of us participate nicely in society.
The world is yet uncivilised

No, I am not proposing anything of that sort. I also never mentioned about mentally ill people committing crimes. According to the world press, murders are 95 % more likely to be committed by people without psychiatric labels than by people with psychiatric labels. So, these totally sane people have committed crimes more than the mentally challenged ones. We can see that humanity has almost reached an end, 'cause what's the point of a civilization without humanity? Now look at the issue from a moral point of view. Today, we are living in a role reversed society. More and more kids are defining the boundaries rather than parents teaching them core values and family customs. We rarely see a kid hold the door for someone or even say hello. Civilization to you may mean only advancement of science and industry- but it's a lot more than that. It is about collective humanity, care, forgiveness and love for one's kind in which advanced technology and industry are employed to achieve this purpose.
The world is yet uncivilised

Nobody is bound by civilization. It is definitely a personal choice, but isn't it also true that a man cannot harm anyone else? As I said before, you are placing a subjective opinion on that state of civility. Murder, theft, and molestation are typically associated with mentally ill individuals. According to the National Institute for Mental Health over half the prison population has a diagnosed mental illness and the rest have a much higher rate of undiagnosed mental illness than the general population. There is a very low level of crime among well adjusted citizens. In response to these offenses we also remove these people from society for a set amount of time in order to preserve a sense of security for the rest of society. If we do not remove these people then you would see many more crimes from people who are seeking revenge, which is most likely human nature. Are you proposing that mental illness will one day no longer exist and that would be a state of being civilized? It is unclear what your subjective state of being civilized would be but I have serious doubts that it would be feasible or objectively more civilized.
The world is yet uncivilised

Nobody is bound by civilization. It is definitely a personal choice, but isn't it also true that a man cannot harm anyone else? What if he decides to become uncivilized and indulges in wrong practices like murder, theft and molestation? Wouldn't it be savage? And sticking to the theme of the debate- isn't this really the current situation in our planet? I would still say that 'the world is yet uncivilized.'
The environment is crucial to our own survival.

Indeed the enviorment is crucial however due to population our dependance on forien fuel and just general sin against natures resources,makinds lives ,still screaming grow production, population, industry. wars over land with resources you tell a good tree by fruit , corrupt fruit fighting over oil scrambling energy crisis and spend more energy trying to manufacture . we too smart for our own good. everybodys smiles in public on these issues dont offend it'll all happen no oil no power grid chaos greed oaths sworn not to uphold liberties of common people Ignorant hate rich people but thats the man with the jobs but the plowman overtook the reaper in a little over 200 years our country once the cock of the walk brought to its nees by words and hate and the vanity of men great and small be a miracle if we havent killed ever species including us in 30 yrs time.
Lovely Life

Hi, James. I do like life, but for the sake of this argument. There is no point in life, we just die anyways. I have 5 minutes to write this, so it is short. Just like life. We are all slowly dying. Do you disagree with this? We all know that naturally, we have about 80 years to live. Sometimes our life is cut short, by disease or other causes. There is no point in life. Thank you.
Girls Cannot be Denied Access to The Boy Scouts of America

Mr. Dayton, You can reply to comments in the comments section. So I think that only the second to last paragraph is something I can really talk about Teenagers are also going through a time in their life where they're meant to experience different things, and they're growing at a very quick pace; they don't have a full grasp of what is and isn't socially acceptable. Even if they did, in many teenage boys they can abandon that if someone (even if they truly ARE better) DARES to mess with THAT guy's ego. In fact, I'd say if you did the study on teenagers it would only show the point even better. Girls, on the other hand, are for the most part much more mature. Guys almost backtrack and at almost any high school they will have you shaking your head every five minutes. They MUST be tough and "fit in" A.K.A. "be boring". They can't let ANY other guy disrespect them (even though an overwhelming majority deserve to be disrespected far too frequently). They MUST be the best at useless things (arm wrestling or other nonsense). THEY have to be the alpha of the group even if the others would suffer because of it (which is why in group projects, when I'm with guys, I just do all the roles without telling them just in case they didn't finish but make sure they get no credit; they never do their job even if they're the leader). Because of all this, I think it would only further prove the point of the experiment. Thanks, - Sergio Valadez
Girls Cannot be Denied Access to The Boy Scouts of America

I don't know what happened. I thought I had posted my argument but it seems to have deleted. I'll have to cut it short but here you go: Alright. I wish I had known that sexual safety was such a huge point in this debate. If I had known this first, I probably wouldn't have accepted it as I completely agree that safety is very important. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. For some reason, I had interpreted your words to mean that military preparation was one of the purposes that had been created over time. Reading back to your introductory argument, I have no idea how I came to that conclusion. As for the "boy time", I had told about my experience from that during Boy Scouts and it wasn't good in either of them. I would actually say that instead of making me, it was breaking me; I felt really insecure around all of them. As for the third point you addressed, you say that the BSA National Council has already announced there will be no change to include females. Well, that's what this argument is about; whether or not this decision should have been different. I had been thinking about dropping Boy Scouts and did so around 2014 due to the ideologies the place seemed to indoctrinate as well as the gay ban. I actually hadn't known anything about it being banned, but because nothing was spoken about it I thought that I was abnormal and something wasn't right. I truly wish I had been put into whichever troop you were in, as it seems much better than the ones I had been in. But what do I mean by "put" into a troop? Well, to answer your question, my parents wanted me out of the house as much as possible due to difficult family issues. I also wouldn't necessarily say I was discriminated against for not liking sports and/or video games; however, I couldn't find any similarities between other guys. There was nothing to talk about and I was more on the reserved side. I didn't like to talk with many people in general because of issues at home. According to forbes.com (1), a study showed that preschool boys who played with other boys were more aggressive than those who played with girls. It also applied not only to playtime but also education; a different study showed that cross-sex interactions both in and out of school decreased aggression in both boys and girls. Wouldn't having all boys make them much more aggressive? That's likely why that group of friends I had previously mentioned are all, well, aggressive. The same article goes on to say that less stereotypical behaviors emerge when both genders are intermingled. This is essentially what I said in my round one argument. 1. https://www.forbes.com...
Girls Cannot be Denied Access to The Boy Scouts of America

For my opening statement and argument, I would like to start by introducing myself, stating some of the history of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), and by giving my first argument. My name is Trevor Drayton, I have been a lifelong scout. At the age of 16, I completed the rank of Eagle Scout and entered college through the CollegeNOW program. The BSA was founded by Robert S. S. Baden-Powell in 1910 for youth boys as a way to strengthen their moral standards and prepare them for joining the military. This was accomplished by enforcing high moral standards (through the Scout Oath and Law) as well as teaching the youth leadership abilities, and individual and team skills, such as bushcraft, carpentry, knot tying, tracking, first aid, and many others. Now for my opening statement and argument: Girls should not be mandated to be accepted into the BSA. I stand behind my statement for several reasonings. My first reason is that the BSA is a necessary part for boys to grow up in. The BSA provides a space where boys can be boys, as simple as it may seem. Allowing for boys to interact with other boys helps build the identity of one's self and personality, much as the Girl Scouts of America (GSA) provides for girls. Some argue that the BSA and GSA do contain different curricular programs that may not appease to each program, respectively. However, both the BSA and GSA have taken precautions of such. The BSA have enacted the Venturing Crew program, where youth ages 14-21 of all genders are able to participate in high adventure activities (high adventure referring to ones rarely taken by the BSA). The GSA have no restrictions against the adventurous activities that can be taken in accordance with the GSA as long as there is a majority of a sufficiently lead and accompanied group agree to do such activities. I welcome my opponent and look forward to an educated and civilized debate.
Nuclear weapons have helped the world

"In your argument you --- not mindless"I would like to clarify that by stating 'Let us consider the scenario -- put all human life in danger', I only meant that every human will be at risk as terrorists (or ISIS) could possibly destroy any city they wanted, such that no one could be considered fully safe and everyone would be in danger, NOT that terrorists are capable of destroying all human life altogether."Also you said "Nuclear energy is not productive long term,"" I do not recall having stated this. I only wanted to remind you that nuclear weapons do not produce productive nuclear energy.Nuclear powerplants produce productive nuclear energy. The source you have provided, that is "http://www.nei.org... related to benefits of energy harvested from nuclear powerplants which are different from nuclear weapons.The opposition has clearly mistaken nuclear weapons for nuclear powerplants.As there is not much left for me to counter, I would like to conclude the final round of the debate.
Nuclear weapons have helped the world

In your argument you stated that if terrorists got their hands on and atomic level weapon, the world would possibly end, is an obvious fallacy known as "argument from consequences." If in the extreme and unlikely case that they bombed a nation, that nation most likely would not start blowing up the world, but react calmly, with allies supporting them. Not to mention that this is extremely rare chance. Even so remember terrorists are not mindless Also you said "Nuclear energy is not productive long term," this statement is actually false, currently Bill Gates is backing a company recycling nuclear waste as energy, also many isotopes used to save lives come from nuclear waste. Cesium-3, used in blood banks, only occurs in nuclear waste. . For example, Nuclear medicine uses radiation to allow doctors to make a quick, accurate diagnosis of the functioning of person's specific organ. It is used to treat cancer, and wipe out targeted cells. Over 10,000 hospitals treat this way.
Nuclear weapons have helped the world

As there is an ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the topic of debate, I will interpret it as 'nuclear weapons have helped the world become a better place'. This so called 'peace' is nothing but a calm before the storm. Let us consider the scenario when such weapons get into the wrong hands, such as a terrorist organization, it would put all human life in danger. Nuclear weapons have brought upon the capabilities of destroying the whole world. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)If there is a war, it would wipe out entire nations and its radioactivity will spread to other neighbouring nations as well. What's the assurance of no retaliation and the initiation of another world war? The Japan bombings were only a trailer of its actual capabilities. "Although admittedly a shaky peace--- most likely last for a while."What will happen when this state of peace ends? Global annihilation.I would also like to remind my opponent that nuclear weapons do not produce productive energy.
Nuclear weapons have helped the world

Good luck my friend, I will now commence my argument. Nuclear weapons, a scary and effective tool, created in 1945, by a team of top American scientists, is now commonplace in today"s world. First in my argument, is the peace that nuclear weapons have made. After the bombings of Japan, the world"s nations have now been very peaceful, with a few minor hostilities, of course, but no major battles and a lack of enthusiasm for them. If there were to be a war, it would end very quickly, with one combatant coming out better, but no attempts to annihilate the other, the reason for this is the fear of nuclear weapons. Although admittedly a shaky peace, it is peace, and will most likely last for a while. This effect drastically stops the number of lives lost, and the number that will be. Its energy in also indispensable, making up for 10.9% of all our world's energy. -http://www.nei.org...
Rap Battle

http://www.youtube.com... You're a pasty cracker from Oregon, village of Bend, Named after what your girlfriend likes to do on my bed. Your profile also says you're Christian. Applying for nunhood? Because if I were a pathetic virgin f****t like you, I definitely would. You are to rap what Fred Rogers was to the porn industry. Your rapping is a cacophony, mine is a symphony. You are to rap what Oregonpk is to heterosexuality. Complete opposites, f****t. It's time to face reality. InVino shoots n***as who pretend they have flow. All the slugs I be shootin', you better like escargot. And InVino easily prevails in this battle of rhymes. Now I'm off to f**k b***tches and snort up some lines.
Rap Battle

keep battling me you'll be in pain cut every vein on this c*m stain cover him in butane and fry his brain restrain me! quick contain me! or I guarantee you'll end up in the ground like a tree say good bye to your family I'm about to abort you like plan b you can't compete like a paraplegic at a track meet beet you physically and lyrically you got the same mentality of a person proud of his homosexuality sadly this guy just crys him self to sleep while he beats his meat to his Jonas brothers bed sheets with there songs on repeat seek some help you need some counseling I'm sure for you it's hard being a little pile of sh*t who slits his wrists and cant resist the gift of a d*ck in a box you're about as faux as the news channel dismantle your rhymes B**ch you're not worth my time http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle

To all ya'll computer "rap gangstas"... This one's for you: http://www.youtube.com... Just to introduce myself, my name be InVino. Rhymes so hot, n***as mistake them for jalapenos. Meanwhile, your b***h-a** tries to disrespect me, You easy like first-grade math, but you still tryin' to test me? Your b***h sucks my d**k and I pay the sl*t with food stamps, F*** the b***h with two fists, leave her with a**-cramps. Sendin' you to hell, you can call me uncle Lucifer, F****t, you couldn't get head if you was a guillotine executioner. You call yourself Moses, son? More like Jonathan and David. [1] Getting your a** clogged by c**ks, f*g, because you f***in' crave it. How can you think you can win when you're rhymes barely rhyme, You barely get your s**t across, while I rock every line. This f***er don't realize that he in for a battle, And that InVino makes money and prods b***hes like cattle. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap Battle

My first rhyme will be to tyga- bmf instrumental for you rhymes you get no respect end up in a casket is the side effect from battling me burning trees like I'm Moses courses this beat like I'm seducing it bit more then you could chew now your screwed feud? naw dude just turn your face blue #suffocate debate no its a battle tattle tale you just a snitch nah you just a little b**ch you annoying like a jock itch you pitch for the other team you dream to be seen with Justin Beiber he gets you hot like a fever eager beaver you need to settle down damn you about to drown what's with the frown? whys your face down? is it because you know you lost this round . http://www.youtube.com...
Katniss is a better role model than Bella Swan

I'll end with saying this. When I have a girl, I want her to say, "I wanna dress up as Katniss for Halloween." I look up to Katniss. Yes, she isn't real but she is a character that I can aspire too. She is someone who isn't afraid to cry but she knows when to cry and when not to. She is not only brave but she is smart, kind and loving. She is a character that will remain for years and years. I sadly don't think Bella will stand the test of time.
Katniss is a better role model than Bella Swan

When you say that when we feel what katniss feels also depends from person to person. Obviously we can not compare the stories or compare the writing and imagination of the great and fantastic two authors of each book. The Book of The Hunger Games off course, as well as books Twilligth and like all books, they have one or more messages to be transmitted. But we can not compare the two stories, because they are different in many ways. We could perhaps compare if it were two stories of vampires, for example, what is the best? which one best portrays vampires? Then yes we could compare.
Katniss is a better role model than Bella Swan

I'm not talking about the actors. I am talking about the CHARACTERS. If you read the books, it's easy to see that Katniss is the stronger and better character. She is smart, strong and brave but she has her flaws. She shows rage, fear and sadness. We feel heartbreak when she does and we want her to succeed because she is fighting for the people that she loves. Bella on the other hand is nothing more than a plot device. Things happen around her, things don't happen to her. She just lets things unfold and she never tries to change their outcome. Not only that but I feel like she gives girls the wrong message. She sends out this message to be weak, to wait for a man and then everything will be perfect. We all know that isn't true and that isn't how the world works. Another thing is the relationships the characters have. Katniss loves her family as well as Gale and Peeta. We ven see her conflict between two loves and we watch her struggle. You can say Bella has two loves but that is really true because she never once returned Jacob's feelings. In fact, in some ways you could say she sort of used him and then threw him away when Edward came back. Bella doesn't teach girls how to treat those around you with love, she teaches them that boys are tools almost. It's really sad. Your turn.