BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
colorfull butterfly wing flaps of deceit.

Disorganization, forging nations of papers predestinating superhero capersLight sabers my neighbors consist ofMint cookies bent books keys three tennis ballsPeanut butter a Japanese chicken clock and when it fallsOn eight thirty I'm hurting it's early and my hair is dirtyTeeth as if beneath a highlighter, just not pearlyPeeling armhairs harm their relation to the band-aidThe mucas formation is man madeI plan eight minutes more of sleepI'm in it snorin deepBeep beep beepWhen again it roars I keep my eyelids analagous to a succesful venus-fly trapTellin my left brain it's Saturday well he must buy thatWakin up again I look around and find another year has passedWe're discoveringAt last near a lover not so fastHere I'm hovering to make time slow down go back to last yearWe'll meet again but the characters are never gonna be the same that's clearI wanna see your name hand written on a letter whether this is planned or notLife keeps getting better but still I just don't understand a lotI'm growing up and up up out out damn this spot'sSimilar to a ball I saw in a mall it expands and knocks me off courseOf course that's just how it goesThe farther I walk from my house the more my world growsSo I frozeThinking bout being four years old I'm missing theDays when I was with everyone I knew just around the Christmas treeNow there's so many people and so many place s and so many faces that the only wayThat I could ever get you all together would be to dieSo you could ask what's the point of makin friendsYou just end up forsakin themWell god's given me life, so I'm livin. That's whyThat's why I went to the bookstoreTo look for a Zodiac sign bookQuick, search, find, lookWrote it down in my rhymebook
colorfull butterfly wing flaps of deceit.

I wish to die Fuji-no- yamaa sudden death with eyes minagara shitakifixed on Mount Fuji. tonshi kanaRANGAI (d. 1845, aged 75) Oh young folk-- Wakaishu yaif you fear death, shinu ga iya naradie now! ima shiniyareHaving died once hito-tabi shinebayou won't die again. mo shinanu zo yaHAKUIN (d. 1768, aged 83)
I don't know what to Debate about I'm just really bored and need to talk to someone.

The resolution reads, "I don't know what to Debate about I'm just really bored and need to talk to someone." However based on a priori knowledge [1] and other evidence/description, we can understand the concept of debate and the expectations thereof. For instance, one debater instigates a resolution and their opponent contends or defends a view contrary to the instigator's. By creating a resolution, we can assume that the instigator did indeed know what to debate about (the resolution). This is further evidenced by her participation in other debates [2]. Considering Pro made a positive assertion in the resolution she instigated, she indeed has the burden of proof [3]. As such, she must prove that she doesn't know what to debate about, and that she needs (needed) someone to talk to. Need is defined as a necessary requirement or obligation [4]; in other words it's Pro's burden to also defend that it was obligatory for her to talk to someone. If I am exaggerating or misrepresenting her claims in any way, I invite her to explain and defend her original intention in the next round. Good luck. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

Thanks for the prompt response. First off, I just want to say that the main example for religious people will be Christians, since they make up most of the USA's population, so they would reflect the religious population the most, since they are the majority. I'll accept that definition for legal as the second definition you posted. REBUTTALS: 1. You are making an assumption that at the same time of me saying that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender, I am at the same time saying that religious homo/heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender. I am not. I am merely saying that non-religious homosexuals (one group of people) should be given the right to marry people of the same gender. Whether or not religious homosexuals or heterosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender is a different debate. You have made an incorrect assumption, so in reality, I am not going against the First Amendment. Just because I only want to make this debate about a certain group of people does not mean that I am discriminating against another. 2. Again, look above for my rebuttal. My Arguments: My opponent has not refuted any of my above contentions from my first speech, so you can extend them here. Here they are again, rehashed. 1. Homosexual people are the same as heterosexuals, except the want to spend the rest of their life with another person of the same gender. 2. When someone marries another, they are expressing their love. Same for homosexual people. 1st amendment. 3. Well, this was just a clarification really, but you get the point. 4. One might say for the opposition that because homosexual people cannot have children naturally, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but modern technology has shown that you don't need to conceive in traditional fashion. 5. If a homosexual couple has children, but is not allowed to marry, you could give your child the wrong impression. I child will not understand that even though Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad love each other, they cannot get married. For a child, the ultimate expression of love is through marriage. What message are you sending the kid? So in the end, my opponent has not given any arguments to show why it should not be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. That is what my opponent has to prove. All he has done is attack my arguments with assumptions. He has also not refuted any of my arguments. Thank you
Marihuana should be legal

Burden of proof is on pro, and he has given zero reason to legalize it. On this alone I win.Further it should not be legal, because it is the gateway drug, which according to the National Institute for Drug Absue: "affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions" [1].Sources:[1] http://www.drugabuse.gov...;
MLP:FiM is the best show ever

Ok, sorry for posting so late. I have been busy though. I have evidence to support my claim about the reviews being good [1] Mr. Roger's neighborhood has won 4 Emmy awards and been nominated for 25. It has also won the Peabody award once [2] This shows the the critics love the show. It has also inspired the new hit TV series Daniel Tiger's neighborhood, which has garnered an average review rating of 8.2/10 [3] Also, many people say Fred Rogers, the man who starred as himself in Mr. Roger's neighborhood had the same personality off TV as on TV. Mr. Roger's neighborhood also has some catchy songs, such as Won't you be my neighbor and It's such a good feeling. Thank you to my opponent for this debate. Sources: [1] http://www.imdb.com... [2] http://www.imdb.com... [3] http://www.imdb.com...
MLP:FiM is the best show ever

Your Argument is very strong, and I only have one round left! Well MLP:FiM has improved vastly, gaining much experience since generation one, and as generation four, has a much better animation. Furthermore, as seen on http://www.tv.com... , MLP:FiM was number one best animated show, beating every other show! In addition, even a movie is made based on MLP:FiM: Equestria Girls. Having a strong rating of 8/10 on imdb and a big fanbase, it is shown that many many fans support it, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org.... Not only that, Mr. Roger's neighborhood has ended, and MLP:FiM is still airing, with lots of plush toys being on sale for it and even its own meme base, located on mylittlebrony.com! On the other hand, Mr. Roger's neighborhood memes are very little and poorly made, as shown in http://search.cheezburger.com... , a search that came up after looking up Mr. Roger's neighborhood. I also argue that MLP:FiM teaches lots and lots of lessons as well. Some of the greatest lessons are listed below. "My friend Applejack is the best friend a pony could ever have, and she's always there to help any pony. The only trouble is, when she needs help she finds it hard to accept it. So while friendship is about giving of ourselves to friends, it's also about accepting what our friends have to offer." "It's hard to believe that two ponies that seem to have so little in common could ever get along. But I found out that if you embrace each other's differences, you just might be surprised to discover a way to be friends after all!" "we all have hidden talents, and if we're patient and diligent we're sure to find them. And as always, with good friendship and teamwork, ponies can accomplish anything!" These are only some of the many heart-warming lessons! Finally, there are some really catchy songs in MLP:FiM that really show the ponies' personality traits or strengthen the plot, one such as The Smile Song, which shows Pinkie Pie really knows how to cheer ponies up, another song "Bats!" adds creepiness to the episode and enhances Apple Jack's belief in the fact that she wants to chase the Bats away. In conclusion, Mr. Roger's neighborhood may be good and appropriate for all ages, but it is a very old show. New beats old, MLP:FiM is very similar to Mr. Roger's neighborhood in the sense of trying to teach kids morals, but MLP:FiM does a better job!
MLP:FiM is the best show ever

I did that on purpose. I was saving the bulk of my arguments for the second round. Reasons why Mr. Roger's neighborhood is better: It was on for 33 years It received an 8.4/10 average from critics It teaches morals such as friendship, caring, showing compassion, and respect It also is one of the most beloved series ever on television Also, it is very original, and the guy who wrote it also stars in the show as himself.
MLP:FiM is the best show ever

Well, you need evidence. While you did not prove much in round one, I will excuse that because I argued so less in round one as well. So now to start off round two. I argue MLP:FiM is the best show ever because it contains lots of drama and tension, enough suspense to keep the audience at their seats, yet enough comedy as well to keep the little kids, the intended audience, laughing at the release. Furthermore, there is a bit of romance in MLP:FiM, and this adds a very nice, not cheesy at all effect. Finally, the plot is very good and understandable in nearly every episode, some episodes even containing nice lessons and morals that any child, or even adult, could absorb and learn. In conclusion MLP:FiM is the best show ever because of all this evidence.
Gay marriage

Ok, first of all, churches and businesses are being forced into blatantly going against God. Have you not seen the articles of pastors being threatened to be either arrested of fined for refusing service to gay couples? What I mentioned about "real" progress is the common sense solution to all of this because EVERYONE would be happy and no one would be forced into anything UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If this country were to try things out this way, then all the articles about Christians being persecuted for practicing what we have always practiced would be non-existent. Are you really comparing this to segregation? Segregation was what African Americans went through for years because of the color of our skin.... How can you be so ignorant? Secondly, it was a hypothetical situation, but to be honest, it isn't like it wouldn't be the case if it were to happen. This is really simple, people get married, have sex, have kids, the kids grow up, and then follow the same steps as their parents did. This is an elementary version of the birds and the bees. Do you understand? Or are you blind to these simple facts with your ignorance too? There are straight couples that do not want children. I understand that. But why throw gasoline into a blazing fire? Why add gay couples in the mix of single couples that can't/won't contribute to society through childbirth? It not the main point of having kids, but it's pretty important when it comes to marriage. Most married couples talk about it before they get married. I also never stated that all kids from gay homes come out gay, however, I know some of them will. Those are the people that I am talking about. Thirdly, as far as all of the scripture you listed.... Well... What you are using to support your cause I can squash it with two words. Are you ready for them? They are the words "New Testament". A lot of what you mentioned were ceremonial practices used to repent for their sins. This was before Jesus..in the Old Testament. When the new covenant was made, the New Testament, a lot of those went out of the window. Jesus was a game changer for all of that. Some of was was mentioned in all of those passages was for moral values. Not actual commandments. If you have a stroke of common sense, you should be able to decipher the two. Lastly, how is this evolution? Gay freedom of expression at the expense of the Christian community? That doesn't sound like freedom to me. America is the land of the free...or so I thought. The church and state need to stay separate for this reason. Had they just stayed separate, then we probably wouldn't be debating right now. But that's not the case. You say evolution it is evolution because of the passing of the bill...but look at what it is costing. Re-evaluate what you define as progress.
Gay marriage

Gay marriage is wrong and should never have been legalized. This "progress" that people like you claim that America has made is only proving to be a step back. Real progress would be a way to achieve this without restricting the liberties of those within the Christian community. What is progress when there is a group of people who are being forced to commit actions that go against what they believe in? I do not believe in this at all, but if it must be done then why can't gay couples go somewhere else that accepts this behavior? That is the common sense solution here. There are plenty of other places that gay couples can go, but instead, they choose a Christian church or a Christian owned business to go to. It is like they are asking a question that they should already know the answer to. Also, by the constitution, it is a right for us to practice what we believe in. What helps keep societies thriving is the presence of people. A growing population full of minds that can come together and create great things. For this to happen, there has to be people that can reproduce these people with these great minds. Tell me, with a society of gay people who only adopt kids.. how would it ever grow? Gay parents will most likely end up with gay children who also will not be able to reproduce. Then when there are no more kids to adopt, when every couple is homosexual, when that generation of gay people dies off, who carries the torch and keeps that society going? No one will because no one was able to reproduce kids to grow up and keep things going. This is not a step forward.. this is more so of America shooting itself in the foot. Our founding fathers started this country from the ground up based upon Christian beliefs. This is an abomination in the bible (Leviticus 18:22) and I do not see how gay people are using the bible to defend this rather huge endorsement of sin. There is nothing in the bible to justify gay marriage. God designed this to be between a man and a woman. This grotesque new definition of marriage is sinful under the eyes of the Lord and needs to be corrected. Just as other sin needs to be corrected, not endorsed.
Tic Tac Toe

I disagree with your "it was fun" for the following reason. I was not having "fun" as you say I was. I believe that you have just forfeited this debate because of your ignorant statement. Maybe you were happy about the "fun" of tying a game with me, but I have a spirit of a lion and I DON'T TIE. Your incorrect assumption of the "fun" in this game was unjust and again incorrect.
Cutting off funds to Palestine after Hamas took over was a mistake.

It is unfortunate that you did not respond to my last three points, b/c I would have liked to hear your point of view. for someone who "loves debating and spreading some knowledge and reason with those who seem to lack both" it is a shame that you could not find an answer to my points that I posed. And this argument really is open and shut. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has shown no signs of moderating since they took power. If a country would like international aid, then they have to obey international policies and that includes renunciation of violence as a means of negotiating. No country can reasonably be expected to contribute to a group who openly states their joy at the murder of innocent civilians and who continues to perform and support these attacks. Even Fatah would "wink and nod" at these attacks while stating in English how they objected to them, shrugging their shoulders asking "what can we do to stop them?" (Meanwhile, in Ashkelon a local citizen built a rocket to shoot back into Gaza and was quickly stopped by the Israeli army.) Hamas openly supports these actions and as such can never be allowed to receive international aid.
Cutting off funds to Palestine after Hamas took over was a mistake.

Even if you want to say that Fatah became more "moderate" by being in power for 30 years, they did NOT receive international aid UNTIL they had renounced violence and recognized the State of Israel. If Hamas would like to enter into a similar pact, this would be welcomed by Israel and international aid would immediately start flowing into Gaza. I would argue that gaining political power has made Hamas more extreme, rather than less. Instead of suicide bombings, they launch rockets directly into civilian population centers with the sole intent of murdering as many civilians as possible, and they now are able to provide greater financial support to other terrorist organizations from government revenues. Is this statement from the new Hamas or the old one? "We bless the operation. It will not be the last." One would have to take an extreme leap of faith to assume that Hamas has any desire to "control splinter groups that truly do want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth." Hamas has openly stated it's desire to destroy Israel, and any country giving them money would have to do so knowing that their will be blood on their hands. To assume that aid alone would increase moderation is to ignore history. The Palestinians have been one of the largest recipients of international aid in history. One would be blind to assume that this aid (despite almost half of it coming from the United States alone) has had any effect on moderating the Palestinian leadership. There was a nine month gap from the time Israel pulled out until Hamas took over Gaza. Nine months of funding. While Fatah corruption may be viewed as a cause for the takeover, their corruption has always been known, and Hamas had not taken power. Hamas declared victory after the Israeli pullout, and this apparently resonates with the Palestinian people more than compromise. The Palestinians voted for Hamas, knowing what they represent, and knowing that aid would be cut off as a result. The consequences are their own. Finally, your last comment about the "Bible" was foolish. Bible is simply the english translation for Torah. Jews read the same book as the Christians, just Jews do not believe in the New Testament. And honestly, I think people would be more outraged by the murder itself, rather than what the people were doing while being murdered. I must say that it is odd how that seems to makes you angrier than "We bless the operation. It will not be the last." Hope that doesn't spark any "reactionary emotionalism." TO RECAP - (please try to address these points) a) Fatah received international aid only once they renounced violence and accepted the State of Israel. Hamas has yet to do that. b) Any aid to Hamas would be given knowing quite certainly (from their own words) that it would be used to kill Israeli civilians. Can you ask any country to contribute to that regardless of whatever other uses their aid may go to? c) Aid has not been shown to increase more moderate behavior in the Palestinian people.
Cutting off funds to Palestine after Hamas took over was a mistake.

The assumption that violence has increased due to the cutting off of international aid is simply ignoring the facts. High levels of violence (even rocket attacks) existed well before aid was cut off. If Hamas had been given funding a large percentage of it would have undoubtedly gone to attacking Israel and aimed at killing more Israeli civilians. Until the world community can be assured that no money would be used by the Hamas government to attack Israel, then no country should have a share in the blood of Israeli civilians by financing further terrorist activities. While it is tragic that there are poor people, clearly ensuring that lives are not lost to these terrorist activities must be the top priority. Being democratically elected should not give any government more benefits. the hope of a democracy is that there is enough of a moderate center to elect a reasonable leadership. Perhaps this moderate center does not exist in the Palestinian Territories If the people choose to elect an extreme leadership or a violent leadership, than one could argue that the people are more responsible and therefore more deserving of whatever consequences other nations deem to impose on them. Hitler was democratically elected, yet clearly that fact alone should not condone his actions. In terms of equating Hamas with Fatah, Fatah took two major steps that Hamas has not. 1) The official renunciation of violence 2) recognition of the State of Israel. Until these two basic elements are fulfilled, there is no "moderating" Hamas. The most clear cause of the current situation was Israel's decision to pull itself out of Gaza. I was initially in favor of this position for a whole host of reasons all of which have been summarily dismissed. I hoped this would lead to goodwill on the part of the Palestinians and encourage moderation, both for the land, the autonomy, and for the various industries left over by the Israelis that should have helped the Gaza economy. Clearly there has been no goodwill, as Hamas immediately claimed "victory" for chasing out the Israelis, and all of those factories now lie in ruin. Even the "moderate" Fatah has now been chased out. I had argued with friends that the Israeli border would now be more secure. 2000 rockets have quickly dispelled that notion. I even argued that if all else fails and Gaza does become violent, now when Hamas attacks Israel, Israel can fight back as if it is fighting another country that attacked it, and clearly there would be no international condemnation of Israel's right to self defense. The UN "Human Rights" commission quickly erased even that argument with it's condemnation of Israel today while quaintly rebuking the "crude rockets" causing "some wounded" that have been affected on the Israeli side. Pulling out of Gaza has only emboldened the opponents of Israel into believing that resistance is a desirable option. That is the more direct cause of the current situation, that has allowed Hamas to seize control of Gaza and has placed Israeli citizens in greater danger.