BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joke debate: Pure evil...

Well, it would seem that my opponent considers something as petty as chewing gum to be evil. No, no, I will talk about something that is truly evil! I will condemn. .. Phone boxes. .. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, phone boxes are pure evil! I have infallible evidence to demonstrate this. Observe. .. One: No one uses themPhone boxes are like 3D glasses (and we all hate 3D glasses), no one will use them unless they have to. They are just sitting there, on street corners, useless, lame, run down, forgotten about. This makes them redundant, and yet they are still here, especially in London. Is it just tradition? Well, you might think that, but my evidence suggests otherwise. As we all know, every single thing we read on the Internet must be The Gospel Truth - the evolution conspiracy, the NWO conspiracy, all those Arks of Noah, all those miracles, every single thing is True! And I have found several articles suggesting that phone boxes are evil! Therefore, phone boxes are evil. Don't fall for these lies! Two: They're crime centralMaybe that seems ridiculous to you, this idea that isolated, glass boxes could be criminal masterminds' cup of English tea! Well, does it? DOES IT? ! It does seem ridiculous; well that's clearly because you're part of the conspiracy then. Listen up, comrades, we have a problem on our hands, a big one. Criminals use phone boxes to organise their crimes! It's true! The television has told us these things time and time again. Sometimes (as seen in Sherlock series one, episode one) they even use phone boxes to lure helpless victims into their evil, evil clutches. And don't give me that but he worked for the government nonsense, that fooled no one! People, we have criminals using phone boxes - no one else uses phone boxes for anything! We all have mobiles now - indicating how obvious it is that only criminals use phone boxes anymore. I'll leave my infallible evidence in my opponent's court, and see how he can compare chewing gum to the pure, selfish, evilality (which is now a word - because I say it is) of phone boxes! !
Joke debate: Pure evil...

Welcome everyone!This is intended to be a light heated and fun debate with no real objective. Each person must select something...from fans to pencils to school subjects...anything really, and make a case to show how it is fluffy as a bunny pure evil! (Pro and Con are not relevant here). The rules are as follows:1) First round is acceptance only (though my opponent must state the thing s/he has chosen).2) Sources are not required to validate a point. 3) With the exception of ad homs.; logical fallacies will not be considered fallacies.4) Debate must be kept light hearted.Most entertaining wins!I believe that's all, if anyone has any questions, please feel free to post a comment.Good luck, and allez!
Tigers are the true king of the Jungle

Burden of proof:The burden of proof is on pro to prove that tigers are the king of the jungle.Definitions:King - a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially : one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life[1]Tiger - a large Asian carnivorous mammal (Panthera tigris) of the cat family having a usually tawny coat transversely striped with black [2]Structure:As round 1 is for acceptance round 2 and 3 should be for arguments and rebuttal. Round four no new arguments.I look forward to seeing how my opponent will argue that tigers are king of the jungle. Thank you and good luck.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I am the sexiest lesbian on Debate.org

I am taking the pro side of this debate and will argue why the user HAwoman is the hottest lesbian on this website even if gay marriage is wrong (which it is).I put the burden of proof on Con.My Refutations"I am."This my opponent's first argument. She says she is not the sexiest lesbian on DDO by simply saying she is not. However, she has no evidence to back her up so her argument is poor."That's why I have a girlfriend."It does not matter if you have a girlfriend or not. In fact you are more likely to be sexy if you have girlfriend. Hot people usually get together and married before ugly people."But we can't get married because of the gay marriage law -_-"Irrelevant.My CaseMessaging LesbiansI messaged all the lesbians on this website (there are not many) and they all said they look incredibly ugly. This makes you the sexiest.Con has a GirlfriendLike I said before, hotter people usually get together first, if its a guy or a girl. Con has a girlfriend, thus making her hot. I messaged all the lesbians on this site and none say that they have girlfriends.ConclusionI have proven that Con is the sexiest lesbian on DDO.
I am the sexiest lesbian on Debate.org

My opponent has put up a good argument, even though I'm sure I put myself as the pro side. I messaged all the lesbians on this site, and met up with most of them. The ones I met up with are piles of crap compared to me and my lesbian lover. I cannot disagree with my opponent, he/she wins. I am by far the sexiest lesbian on this site. You know it, I know it and Barrack Obama knows it.
People born with physical or mental disabilities should be killed

Even if it takes resources and money and foster homes or doctors its still worth it. I am sorry but killing someone with struggles is not right. Even if there no good to us they still deserve a life. There is not much I can really say to win this debate but i think I will because the idea of killing someone different isn't right. A program or a camp for these people where they can participate in activate or do something that is fun for them is a bettor idea not killing them witch is totally wrong.
People born with physical or mental disabilities should be killed

We are the only living things that protect the weak and we are growing weaker as a species. But that is not the debate so to you're point. A person can be a benefit to society or neutral and neither give nor take. However, A mentally deficient person that relies on his parents to survive will not benefit society and will only live for the sake of living and never do anything with the life it was given. You say and I quote: "A parent will love there kid and no matter what problems they might have will try to provide them with the best life possible no matter what. " This may be true for some parents, But you can't say that a parent will willingly want to care for a mentally or physically disabled child who will only be a burden and is unable to ever repay them. Some parents have perfectly able and self reliant children and still refuse to care for them. Furthermore, If the parent does as you say and accepts responsibility for the child it is all well and good until the parent passes away and the burden falls onto someone else. I don't see many people lining up to take care of the person. You also say "if the parents decide it is best to put the person down". Why even give the parents a choice, I guess it makes sense to give the parents the right to choose but religion, Peer pressure and all sorts of other reasons may hinder them from doing what is needed. They are the parents and may care for the person as long as they live but when they die something must be done with the person. It would take a lot of resources to care for someone who can't take care of themselves all their lives.
People born with physical or mental disabilities should be killed

I respectfully have to say that is not right. These people are still human and deserve a life. There is help that can be provided and many programs and ways to help out these people. You can't just kill someone because they are different or struggle. A parent will love there kid and no matter what problems they might have will try to provide them with the best life possible no matter what. Now if we are talking extreme pain and a very slim chance of survival and if the parents decide it is best to put the person down to limit suffering and put them to rest that's one thing. But killing someone based on struggles they have even if they are no good to society they still deserve a life. These people are mostly harmless and if they are dangerous actions can be taken besides killing them to improve there lives and the safety of the community.
People born with physical or mental disabilities should be killed

I am talking about people that can not function for themselves without the need for machinery or help from other people. These people are no use to society and have no value to anyone, I understand that parents may be against abortion or they may seriously wish for a child and they may accept responsibility for that child. That child will be a burden for them until they die and afterwards its a liability to society since its parents can't care for it so it comes from peoples taxes to help someone that is unable to give back in any way. Some physically disabled people live their whole lives struggling to survive and live in constant pain. There is no reason for that prolonged death. For example, Harlequin babies. This disease has a mortality rate of almost 50% and it's not uncommon for the baby to die within the first month. There is no cure and there are multiple long term problems including infection, Breathing difficulties and body temperature problems. There is no reason for these babies to suffer in such a way only to inevitably die young, Not having lived a day of their lives without pain.
American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis

Okay, Pro I addressed every single one of your points and you are accusing me of only attacking Obama. I was merely trying to point out that Bush wasn't the only one who lied during his Presidency. You obviously did not read my argument. How can you accuse me of slander when that is all you are doing for this round. I am not a Republican supporter I am a Libertarian voter so saying that my argument is a "typical Republican response" is not relevant. You said in Round 1 that Republicans murdered millions of Communists and Muslims. President Obama ordered more drone strikes than Bush did and Bush used a lot. As to your Communist argument think of the wars we fought during the Cold War. The Korean Conflict and Vietnam all of which US involvement in those wars was started by Democratic Presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Although Kennedy ordered advisers into Vietnam initially he did not escalate it to 500,000 troops like Johnson did. Eisenhower and Nixon were the ones who ended US involvement in both of those conflicts who were BOTH Republican. During Korea, General Douglas MacArthur after being relieved of his command ran for President against Eisenhower as a Democratic candidate and wanted further US involvement in Korea. I am not trying to make Democrats look bad I am merely pointing out that your argument against Republicans for murdering Communists is not relevant since they were not responsible for any of the major Cold War conflicts fought by the US. My last point for this round is that ALL POLITICIANS LIE. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, etc. Comparing any of our parties though to the Nazis is simply unfair and distasteful. I therefore retract my argument that Democrats are more like the Nazis because that is not valid argument. My entire argument of the first round was pointing out that Democrats lie just as much as the Republicans. Today's politics are absurd even by our standards and they are becoming more and more like Roman politics with each day. THEY ARE ALL LIARS!!!!!!!!!! However, even though they are liars a lot of them do it for good reasons but also they do it for bad reasons. It is still unfair to call either party Nazis since both parties have their uses.
American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis

Con makes no attempt to refute the argument that Republicans are bigger liars than the Nazis, makes no attempt to address any of the evidence presented in the introduction, and instead responds by attacking Obama. This is the reaction of a typical Republican in that they are insane liars, incapable of defensively justifying their own position on any political issue, given that the only thing they know how to do is attack other people with lies, fallacy and slander. Other Republican tricks include (but not exclusively): posting debunked sources; using sock accounts to vote in their own debates; posting 6,000 word defences of global warming denial; accusing Obama of being a Kenyan terrorist, confirmation bias and of course the classic straw man.
American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis

Okay, I accept your challenge so I'll get to it. I think Republicans are liars too but to compare them to the Nazis is a little extreme. As a matter of fact I would say the Democrats or at least the far left are FAR worse with lying than the Republicans. Almost everything that has come out of President Barrack Obama's mouth has been an outright lie. Not to mention his cronies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama lied about the ACA when he said you can keep your health care plan and doctor. He lied about Al-Qaeda being on the run and defeated when they were in fact very much still a threat. He lied about there being no Government corruption during the IRS scandal. Obama and those who support him are the worst of the liars in office not the Republicans. As far as Iraq is concerned Republicans and Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq including former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. 9/11 was an inside job?????? Okay, I think your argument went no where with that statement because Democrats also support the official story and just because WTC 7 was demolished doesn't mean it was an inside job. The building could of been to unstable to keep intact so they demolished it. 9/11 was not an inside job, but I do believe there are things about that day that have not been told. I would not trust a Pakistani official since they hate Americans almost more than anyone in the world and would probably say anything to discredit us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... And making Republicans the only ones responsible for the killing of Muslims and Communists is completely unfair since Democrats have contributed to all of that as well. Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat and he was the one who sent us into Vietnam.
American Republicans Are Bigger Liars Than The Nazis

American Republicans are not simply liars; they have developed it into an art form. They frequently use a technique popularised by Hitler whereby they reverse the truth entirely and attack their opponent with it. They do this because they know that politics is a game of public opinion and not fact. One academic study reported by CNN concluded that Bush and his immediate aides publicly told 985 lies about Iraq alone in a two year period. Republicans are simply a milder version of the Nazis, except more concerned with economic gain than territorial expansion. They also know full well that 9/11 was an inside job, but have not stopped lying about it since 2001. "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2001) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. " http://news.bbc.co.uk... "This was controlled demolition. Without a doubt. A team of experts did this." (demolitions expert Danny Jowenko upon seeing WTC 7 collapse on video) http://www.dailypaul.com... Therefore, I claim American Republicans are bigger liars than the Nazis, and if you consider the total amount of Muslims and Communists they've killed, only marginally less genocidal.
The Hokey Pokey is What its All About

Thusly, the answer to the age-old existential philosophical question of the meaning of life is The Hokey Pokey.Little did all of you know that when you learned the hokey pokey as a kid in preschool, you were actually being taught heavy topics about the nature of of whether or not life really has any meaning at all or not.And also chicken alfredo. Chicken alfredo is the most tasty italian dish. And donuts are especially delicious. Sombreros.
The Hokey Pokey is What its All About

- Law of SeriesMy opponent recognizes in their counterargument that the lyrics are ultimately absurd, which is the point I was trying to make; the song is absurd and is therefore a reflection of the absurd reality of life. "If coincidence is the case, then its a coincidence that doing the Hokey Pokey is included in the lyric in the first place, whereas if its not coincidence and that there is indeed a deeper meaning and science to the song as Beitman would argue that there is, then 'turning yourself around' is placed in the lyric for a legitimate reason, which means that 'Doing the Hokey Pokey' can only be what PART of it's all about, if anything at all"It may be argued that 'turning yourself around' is an unconscious metaphor for passing away. Therefore, you 'do the hokey pokey' - living the absurd existential life - and then you turn yourself around. What was it all for? nobody knows. It's absurd. Again, we are all living the lives of sisyphus.- Collective UnconsciousThat my opponent has made up their own fictitious study in order to refute the notion that the hokey pokey is a reflection of the meaning of life should already invalidate this refutation, but neverthess:"you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, that's what its all about" is contained within the song, implying "that's what its all about" concerns the nature of the meaning of "what its all about", or in other words, "what the meaning of life is", which is "the hokey pokey" which is "absurd".- Aristotle vs EinsteinIf I took apart a camera, all of its pieces would be useless. If I held all the taken apart parts in my hand, it would still be useless. However if I put the camera back together again, then I now have something I can take a picture with. In this way, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.Einstein would have been right in terms of science, but looking at things philosophically is about understanding things as they are and what their ultimate meaning is, whereas science only shows us hard facts that tell us neither what something is nor what its ultimate meaning is.- LiteralismUltimately my opponent is taking the lyrics too literally. In order to understand the genius of the hokey pokey, one must look at it symbolically; philosophically. Philosophy and science are not the same schools of thought ultimately and although they can be used together it would be a mistake to consider them to be the exact same thing.
Agenda-setting media

My opponent, who is the con, has conceded that the media does set an agenda. This means that you affirm. Even if you do not look to this (as I am sure that this was an accident), look to the fact that his case is entirely irrelevant to the round as it does not show that the media does not have an agenda. All he says is that the media spend too much time focusing on the details of crime, but this does not constitute any sort of political motive. He has not provided you with a link as to why this is true, so the case is irresolutional and you affirm on topicality. Insofar as the media can focus on the type of the story, it has the ability to set the agenda. For example Fox News attempts to misalign President Obama by focusing on minor gaffes, while it tends to support President Bush by attempting to provide evidence that will vindicate him. Insofar as the media chooses what story to highlight, they choose which issues to rally the voters around, and thus they have a great influence on the public policy agenda.
Agenda-setting media

Are the media being agenda-setting? Agenda setting is the theory that the news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space is given to them. From my point of view, this is exactly what the media do to increase their audience and I don't agree that this is right. I think that they are becoming merciless invaders of private space by prying into other people's lives. For instance, take the recent cases of homicide or rape. We have seen how many people have lost their relatives or their relatives have been harmed due to crimes like manslaughter, and sexual assaults. Is it permissible that the media intrude into other people's homes and ask for abundant detail some of which is even deemed as transgressing privacy?? If I am watching the news I just want to be informed, but there is a big difference between being provided with what we call due information on a certain event, or being provided with some ostentatious detail on a killing or rape. Ok, maybe the law hasn't been broken in that the victims might have agreed to answer to mostly intimate questions, but there must be a limit to this!! The media are always itching to get information to impress the audience. The reality is most of us are falling for these stupid tricks. They need our anguish and they are constantly in the lookout for misfortunes to broadcast because they know how we will be glued to the television for hours as our hearts sink in sadness and pity for the poor family that lost their son or the people that are being killed in Libya. It is just horrible. My viewpoint is: allocating a ridiculous amount of time to the bad and sad news is not right; it just makes the audience feel depressed and unmotivated. It just does not contribute to people's lives! We want to know what is going on, but we do not need to be listening to it for hours-on-end? What about the other good things that are going on? Oh, they are mentioned but probably met with a certain bluntness that one can't even notice they've happened. And, come on, all I hear when I turn on the radio or watch the TV is terrible news and more sinister news! It the world really this damned? Personally, I am fed up with this hopeless tendency. It doesn't contribute at all with life, society and it is not what the media have been initially created for. If you want to have your say, I will be delighted to get a second opinion! Thanks
President Obama is the worst President in History.

I pretty much despise President Obama, and he is one of the worst Preisdents ever, but he isn't the worst President we've ever had. Let's look at some really, really strong candidates for 'worst president ever':Warren G. Harding - One of the most utterly incompetent Presidents in history. His administration was chock-full of scandals such as the Teapot Dome scandal, where the Secretary of the Interior basically took bribes from oil companies to sell oil production rights to them on the cheap. He mostly rewarded his friends (the so-called 'Ohio Gang') with high-level jobs. Not the best way to run the country.James Buchanan - Refused to deal with the looming crisis of secession, despite sterm warnings from the Commanding General of the Army, and once it started he was utterly inept in handling it. Outside of it, he was very close to being impeached due to supposedly bribing Congressmen for their votes.[2]William Henry Harrison - Served for a total of 32 days before dying, leaving a massive constitutional crisis in his wake.Richard Nixon - Watergate.Jimmy Carter - Poor economic manager, even worse at foreign policy.References:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
President Obama is the worst President in History.

President Obama has created more problems than he has fixed. He has said he wants to lower taxes for the middle class, 5 years later that still hasn't happened. He's also said that he wants to "get rid of the Constitution". He says; "It's out of date." Then, he wants to get rid of guns, all that's going to do is make it harder for the good guys to get guns and the bad guys are still going to have guns. I do agree we need to fix the school shootings problem. However, President Obama wants to go about this the wrong way. Gas prices instead of decreasing have increased, he has put us in more debt than any other president has ever. He's put us more in debt in four years than a president that had been in office for eight years.