BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prom

Let's face it prom has become embedded in our culture and t many people it's sadly the culmination to the best four years to their lives. Many people d this idealized view of what prom is and it's importance, but I'm here to make sure everyone is able to see the problems associated with going to one's prom. Firstly, almost anyone who has gone to prom will tell you it's home to heavy drug use including teen drinking, and sex. Too many teens prom is the first time they're exposed to alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol leads to teens making poor choices including drinking and driving and saying things that they regret. Many proms have had problems with heavier drugs including ecstasy and LSD. This can lead to medical problems and other concerns and it's the first time many teen have used heavy drugs. As I have mentioned earlier a lot of teen drink more than they can handle at prom and this lead them becoming more likely to engage in sex. The drinking has a direct connection to poor decisions including having unprotected sex. Secondly, prom is an agent of consumerism. A 2004 survey in the United States found that 50 percent of high school females who attended prom spent more than $400 on it. When your factor in the price of the ticket, dresses and suits, shoes, hair and make up and the fact than many people take limos and rented luxury SUVs to prom I bet you'll find than at least 20 percent spent more than $600 dollars on prom. In fact many economist claim that prom is second only to Christmas in regard to the amount of money spent for one day in regards to high school seniors. it's odd that everyone is so willing to be against the consumerist feeling of Christmas but very few people are willing to go against the consumerist feeling of prom. The fact is that prom is used by corporations and the capitalist economy to combat the downturn is sales during the annual May/June downturn in the economy. Thirdly, those who choose not to go to prom are often labeled to be looser or social outlasts while in reality they are the ones smart enough o not engage in irresponsible drinking or blind consumerism. teachers, students and parents all pressure teens to go to prom because they consider it to be a part of the the high school experience and as a result teens feel if they don't go to prom their high school experience will pass them by and that's just not the case.
Book of MORMONS is the correct plurilization for the Book of Mormon

"This debate is merely on the pluralization of the term 'Book of Mormon'. This really aplies to any book entitled 'Book of *name*'" "When pluralizing a proper noun, such as the title of a book one should use the format that follows: *name of book*'s." No. There is nothing possessive about "Mormon" to warrant a 's in this context. Book of Mormon is in essence a linguistic entity in itself, it is a prepositional phrase and in English at least modifiers can't be pluralised. [1] The plural, as in, multiple books of, becomes either: "Books of Mormon" Here book becomes pluralised to denote the multiplicity. Mormon > Mormons pluralises the incorrect component and renders the sentence meaning incorrectly and ungrammatical. It does however rely upon the reader to recognise what 'Book of Mormon' is to be correctly identified. Granted in America an unlikely issue, maybe more of one in other countries. No idea. So while Books of Mormon is accurate and appropriate it may not in all cases be sufficient to impart the desired meaning. So the alternative and lengthier pluralisation requires something similar to "copies of" as in copies of the Book of Mormon wherein ambiguity is dispelled due unambiguous phrasing. It's easy to see if you apply it elsewhere. Book of Daniel. Pro: Book of Daniels - pluralisation of Daniel is incorrect. Books of Daniel. Again similar requirement of needing a reader familiar with "Book of Daniel" as an phrase to receive the meaning, not incorrect but not the best in all cases. Copies of the Book of Daniel. Correct plurality in meaning and no ambiguity. [1] http://www.chompchomp.com...
Book of MORMONS is the correct plurilization for the Book of Mormon

This debate is merely on the pluralization of the term 'Book of Mormon'. This really aplies to any book entitled 'Book of *name*' I have chosed Book of Mormon as my example because this is the example i hear most. I do not look for in any way a debate on the validity of the B.O.M (book of Mormon), religion, or religious beliefs. ..My first debate. :] ~~~~~~~~ When pluralizing a proper noun, such as the title of a book one should use the format that follows: *name of book*'s. This should be used regardless of any apparet grammatic error. The con may say, 'Well there is more than one book yet there is only one Mormon.' Be that as it may the title 'Book of Mormon' is a proper title and should be left unchanged when pluralizing. ~~~~~~ Just a fun litte debate. Anyone wanting to debate may do so. No need for anger at any point during debate.
President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

Awfully sorry for the generalization about republicans being the only ones who dislike Obama. I wasn't saying that, it just seems like it's the majority. You, just to turn your own gun on you, cannot just say that because he is starting to take an interventionist stance doesn't mean he will continue to move in that direction. I think that because he is somewhat unwilling to take the firm stance, he will probably not be able to make a very big difference before his presidency ends. I don't think that you can back up an opinionated argument with a possibly if not probably biased opinion about how your arguments are more reasoned than mine. Your arguments admittedly are more substantial than mine, but that doesn't mean you win. The chicken who lays the most eggs doesn't neccasarily have the most chicks. (I just made that one up, sorry.
President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

Just to lighten the mood, I'll say that I was eating chocolate chips while I read your argument. (Don't expect my argument to be very good, the chocolate chips were more interesting than your argument.) Anyways, I am probably not the prime candidate for a debate. Let's open with my response to MDW's argument. Maybe the reason he finally starts sending military forces is to, in essence, cool down the rage of republicans and be able to say something the next time somebody asks him about his rather soft military stance, not because it is right. I also think that you don't have a lot of conclusive evidence, you do have info, but I think that instead of having a real conclusive argument, you have a opinion.Not that opinions don't count, but they're not wholly valid in a debate. On to my argument! Honestly, I don't have much here, but I think that since he has done very little in the past, that is quite possibly a sign of what he will do in the future. Unless he has a complete change of his viewpoints, or get REALLY pressured from other people, he will probably not take too big actions in his military stance. Thanks, and over to you!
President Obama Will Take a More Internationally Interventionist Stance During His Last Tenure

During most of the time that President Obama has held office, we've seen him fairly unwilling to interact with other countries militarily, and soft power has often taken too long or been totally ineffective. All that being said, there has been a bit of debate over whether or not he will take a more interventionist stance. I would like to bring this debate to this site, if any are willing to accept. The format for debate will be as follows: Round 1: Acceptance, stating why you would like this debate. I don't wish to sound condescending or anything of the sort, but please provide something more substantial than "Yes," or "This sounds good." I am looking for a reasonable debate. Round 2: Affirmative and Negative constructive, no rebuttals, just first arguments and their support. All further rounds will be refutations until the final round, which will be a final focus of the debate and conclusion. I'm looking forward to a good debate!
In Lala land...

"My first point is this. How do you know what is inside MY Lala land? " You stated as such. "My second point is that everyone in Lala land knows that monkeys are evil. The black monkeys cannot possible exist because that would give away the whole secretive thing. " That is a contradiction in terms, but as I already stated above the black monkeys can still exist and not give away any secretive stance of the rest of the monkeys. My opponent then goes on about the properties of monkey fur, and how it relates into this but. Unfortunately though, she has failed to address any of my contentions, nor has she proven that black monkeys - as non-magical as they may be - are not indeed a ploy in order to distract us and send us after the wrong monkeys, while the other evil monkeys secretly move close and kill us. "My third point is that the monkeys are all dead because my friend shot them with a wind gun and this whole debate doesn't matter anyway. " Unfortunately the debate still matters, as it is a discussion of historical or imaginative merits. Your friend may have shot the monkeys, but it does not mean that we cannot debate about their culture and properties as it would have been if they were alive. If what my opponent stated as true, then any anthropological or historical discussion would be void - they're all dead, so what does it matter? " That totally misses the reasons behind knowledge and debate Once again, my opponent failed to address any contentions and let my argument go unanswered. Clearly this proves that I am right, and black monkeys do not give away the secretive, mystical nature of the multi-coloured monkeys in Lala Land.
In Lala land...

My first point is this. How do you know what is inside MY Lala land? My second point is that everyone in Lala land knows that monkeys are evil. The black monkeys cannot possible exist because that would give away the whole secretive thing. My definition of mystical is magical which means that these monkeys have powers that will kill anyone that comes to close to them. Besides, if there were black monkeys they would not be smart enough to use magical skills because the pink, orange, blue, and green monkeys get their magic from their fur. (The shade of fur produces a certain type of magical...glitter? and that is where their magical powers is derived from). The shade black won't produce any glittery magic because the fur can't collect the magic from the sun (that's where the monkeys get their magic from besides the glitter but that is also where the glitter comes from). My third point is that the monkeys are all dead because my friend shot them with a wind gun and this whole debate doesn't matter anyway.
In Lala land...

My opponent states that in Lala Land, all monkeys are of different colours ranging from pink to black, and that all are evil. But because you can tell the black monkeys are evil, it therefore takes away from the secretive, mystical nature of the evil monkies. I disagree, because the black monkeys may just be a decoy to fool any of us who dream about Lala Land, so we automatically suspect the black monkeys and not the pink, blue and orange monkies. By fooling us into this stereotypical assumption driven trap, we do not suspect the other monkies, only the black ones - making them all the more dangerous and secretive, therefore negating my opponent's argument. I would also like to point out two definitions: mystical: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Lala Land: a euphoric dreamlike mental state detached from the harsher realities of life (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) The two definitions I have provided show that "mystical" is not apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence, which coincides with the dreamlike mental state of Lala Land. Therefore, no matter what, Lala Land and all its inhabitants, including the evil mystical monkeys, are mystical, no matter what the status of their colour or personality. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
In Lala land...

In Lala Land there is a secret group of mystical monkeys that are evil. There are pink, blue, and orange ones. They seem innocent because of these colors. My friend believes that this secret society of monkeys also contain black monkeys that you can definitely tell are evil. I do not think this is so because the secret of the mystical monkeys that are evil is that they do not seem evil because they are pink, blue, and orange. If there were also black, evil monkeys we would know that were evil and therefore not be secretly evil, and mystical anymore.
Bowtie is sexier than a tie

Ties are sexier than bowties because they are much more trendy and frequently worn, more formal in our everyday lives, and also have a larger variety of patterns, making them look fancier and nicer than bowties. Bowties make me think of an old man or professor and is not attractive at all. Ties are more classic, suave, and every man looks great in one! First of all, ties are worn more often than bowties. Nearly every single time I go to a party or a meeting, I see that most people wear ties, rather than bowties. Everywhere I go, from my neighborhood to vacations in faraway lands, ties seem more popular than bowties. Therefore, the majority of people obviously agree that ties are sexier than bowties, since they would rather wear a tie than a bowtie. In formal outfit shops, I very rarely see bowties for sale; on the other hand, ties are a dime a dozen. This shows that bowties have less sales and, therefore, most salesmen do not wish to sell bowties. Ties are the neccesary accesory to any outfit, while bowties are more of a silly, ugly clothing accesory. Even your profile picture is a man wearing a tie which contradicts your argument!Ties are also more formal; they can be worn in workplaces without anyone noticing anything out of the ordinary. Bowties, however, are treated with more strange looks because of the way they are unique and also because they are so extremely and oddly different from ties. Bowties are usually for extremely casual or clown-related childish parties and can not relate to the mature and formal parties or meetings. Children wearing bowties look adorable on young children, but putting them on a grown man seems very eccentric and unusual.Ties are a lot more versatile ways to wear ties than bowties. Ties are longer than bowties, which gives them more room to put different patterns and colors. On ties, people could have polka dots, stripes, different colors, and even octopuses or penguin decorations. Bowties can only have different colors and have no room to fit interesting designs. Bowties are the worst possible thing anyone could ever wear. The only people I know who wear bowties are clowns and dorks. Clowns wear bowties because they are forced to wear them and I can only cringe at the horror of wearing a bowtie. Dorks also wear bowties because they have no sense of style and have no idea to wear anything else. Bowties are the absolutely terrible compared to the wondrous tie.
Shouldn't kids get as much respect as adults expect from kids.

Though the adults take care of children they should show respect to everyone not just because they give them care because some of them who are supposed to give them care still abuse them plus some adults don't even respect some people who are higher in the social hierarchy. My point is that adults are speaking of equality but what of equality among ages as well as gender race and homosexuality things likes these have been splitting up the world and starting unneeded situations if not for this we may have a happy world where no matter what your age!!!!!
Shouldn't kids get as much respect as adults expect from kids.

"Nowadays adults think that because they've been living longer they deserve respect from children because we are younger"My opponent can probably more or less agree with this: most kids are stupid. Most kids do stupid things. I encourage whoever's reading this to consider how many douchebags there were in your classes back in Elementary and Middle School. Kids shouldn't have as much respect because, let's face it, kids don't make quite as respectable decisions.Also consider the following:Do you feed, clothe, and wipe the butts of your parents? No. But I'll bet that they did the same for you, and if they didn't, then you probably smell Godawful.Adults are legally obligated to provide for their children until they reach the age of eighteen. The bare minimum a child could do in return is pay them a little respect. "I think that is a whole load of crap and that adults can suck my as s hole" "I'm surprised that they're surprised that when we stand up and make there lives hell when we want some equality."Oh, it's always about equality with you Communists.Personally, I'm surprised that my opponent's surpised that they're surprised by an obvious surprise of a surprising event.Wait- why is my opponent making their lives Hell again? For equality? By the Golden Rule, wouldn't that dictate that my opponent is showing them that he wants them to make his life Hell?Le ConclusionI used to feel the same way. And admittedly, some adults are serious dumbasses. But when you look at it, aren't there just as many if not more dumbass children? And with adults providing care for the children by law, is there not just a little call for respect out there?Kellog's Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Part of a complete breakfast.
Shouldn't kids get as much respect as adults expect from kids.

Nowadays adults think that because they've been living longer they deserve respect from children because we are younger well I think that is a [Edited by moderator] and that adults can [Edited by moderator] if they think they can get respect from me when they think they can treat me like s h i t. When we ask for a little bit of respect they say that we are young and we shouldn't give respect to anyone except adults when adults them selves don't even care about giving it. I'm surprised that they're surprised that when we stand up and make there lives hell when we want some equality. So tell me what you think and I'll check up on you guys
Shouldn't kids get as much respect as adults expect from kids.

Please don't take the following as poor conduct as I am using it as analogy to explain the non-inherency of this case: I assume that my opponent made this debate because his mom told him to load the dishwasher and he threw a hissyfit. That said, it was the child who first showed the disrespect, causing the parent to get a little tense. The main problem with my opponent's case is that adults are not inherently disrespectful to their children. But children should still show more respect to adults because it is the adult that is teaching them how to survive in the real world, and not vice versa, hence why you know how to properly use a toilet."...some of them who are supposed to give them care still abuse them..." But on balance, most parents are not abusive. Compliant with Paul's teachings, children typically honor their parents equal to how much the parents care for the children. But I don't think a dude's momma needs to honor someone whom she shot out of her own--eh nevermind."...plus some adults don't even respect some people who are higher in the social hierarchy."And thanks to our First Amendment, they can. But should they? The people higher up than the ones my opponent is mentioning likely pay that person, or provide some public service or protection. Don't you think those people deserve more respect, whether they get it or not?"My point is that adults are speaking of equality but what of equality among ages as well as gender race and homosexuality things likes these have been splitting up the world and starting unneeded situations..."This is an apple: This is an orange: Please do not compare the two. "...if not for this we may have a happy world where no matter what your age!!!!!" Statutory rape becoming legalized? Drunk high-schoolers not being frowned upon? A baby piloting my flight to Cleveland? Nah thanks.And with that, the resolution has been negated :D
My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined.

With that said, let us proceed: In today's round, the Contender will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that "Logical-Master" is not as good as a debater as Yraelz. Since this is going to be 4 rounds and since my opponent has not provided any evidence in this first round, I think I will use this round for a brief cross examination. C/X Question #1: Yraelz, were you on a debate team during highschool? Question #2: If so, what kind of debate did you do? Question #3: How long did you do it? Question #4: What is your definition of debate? I have one, but would like to know what yours is (in case it differs from mine)? Question #5: What do you consider to be the purpose of debate? Questions #6: What do you suppose "with all factors combined" means? These are my only questions. I'll post my case in round 2. Till then.
My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined.

CX is fine by me. I would like to ask you answer all the same questions to me including what mock trial you have done. #1>> Yes #2>> Policy Debate, known as speed reading cards to the rest of the debate community. #3>> I'd say one year but this would inaccurate as I missed the first 2 tournaments, was kicked from one, and didn't compete in one. So perhaps 5/9 of a year. #4>> Debate includes a lot of things. I consider it, on its simplest level, to be a game but it includes so much more. Its the ability to persuade, to argue reasonably, to come up with arguments. You can present your own definition if you want, if its disagreeable I will most likely debate accordingly. #5>> Self improvement. Words are weapons. Debate in itself is simply a game to me, but it can be used for real life application. #6>> All factors that could possibly contribute to you or myself being a debater in any way. High school debate could be a factor. Your profile picture could be a factor. Anything that potentially influences our debating skills. I stand open for your case. Luck.
God Does Exist

I hope my opponent knows that an answer to this question is obviously not absolute at this moment, as there are currently many differing schools of thought. If that is understood, we can begin. Since this is a 5 round debate, I will begin my first round with a similar introduction. My opponent has supplied no definitions, so I will present our argument with the following: Creation: to cause to come into existence Deity: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful Cosmos: An ordered, harmonious whole And now to answer my opponents questions -- 1) I could use my opponent's own assertive statement and say "What methods it used [to be; to create itself] is irrelevant in this debate. " To make this debate fair, however (or a debate at all), I will supply a reason (much like my opponent will have to do now): The Big Bang could have created itself, for instance, been a white hole from another dimension (that could have always been or created itself). Yet another reason could be that the universe had always been (if non-existence was unable to logically occur). My opponent is asking me "how" the big bang could have done this, but at this moment I couldn't know how for sure. However, because science is progressive, we might learn this answer in the future. I'd like to ask my opponent: How did God create the universe? And who created God? 2) "What methods it used [to be; to create itself] is irrelevant in this debate. " ; ) Kidding. Try: The laws could have always been; The laws could be the only logical existence for motion of energy. Basically, my opponent's statement is unfalsifiable. Additionally, I have supplied other ways the universe could have happened, and thus supported my role as Con. It is Pro's burden of proof. Prove that God exists and created the universe.