BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kurt Cobain was Murdered, it was not suicide

If you know what you are doing you can make almost any murder look like a suicide The police did not evaluate all of the evidence thoroughly enough for them to realize it was murder. They went with the most logical answer at that time without thinking about possible alternatives enough. There is more evidence to prove he was murdered than that he committed suicide. Here's another thing that doesnt make sense. Kurt owned a MasterCard credit card that he made many of his purchases with that. That credit card was missing when the police found his body and they looked up the history of any transactions and it showed that someone attempted to use that same credit card for 3 days for items that costed thousands of dollars. All these transactions occurred after Kurt would have died. There are so many reasons why it wasnt suicide!! A man who is going to kill himself if not going to wipe away his fingerprints off of everything he touched. EVEN if for some crazy reason he wanted to, he would not have had time since he would have been knocked unconscious, in a como-state, or died within seconds of taking the drugs in the amount he did. There were NO finger prints on the pen he allegedly used to write his 'suicide note'. NO legible finger prints on the shotgun it's self. There were though 4 latent prints too faint and smudged to be of any use and the cops on the case even said that it seemed as if someone tried to wipe the prints away. Surely a man who shot his head off could possibly wipe prints away, can he? Why was Courtney Love the only one telling reporters that Kurt was suicidal during the time he went missing, maybe it was to make it look like she had nothing to do with his death? The police reports said that there was a stool "wedged" under the door of the green house, preventing anyone from entering.. That is total BS. According to Tom Grant, that private investigator he stated that there was a 3-legged foot stool toward the center of the door but it was WAY too short to reach the handle and was light enough to have been easily scooted out of the way as the door was pushed open. The coroner who pronounced Kurt's death a suicide and who had the final say in the medical aspects of the investigation was an old friend of Courtney's and used to party with her, Rumors said, he still was... All logical, reasonable, and non-biased people with the information I have given cannot in their right mind say that Kurt Cobain was not murdered. There are many more evidences to prove my case, as well as other anomalies. Vote for me.
Kurt Cobain was Murdered, it was not suicide

On April 5th, 1994 the world lost one of the most influential singers in music. That day Kurt Cobain committed suicide, or so people thought. I and other people believe that he was murdered. I am going to prove the Kurt Cobain was murdered because of evidence found at the death scene, anomalies in his 'suicide' note, and because there were motives to have him killed.
TTC fares should not be increased

Refutation:1. CON provides no sources to back up her arguments. "11/15 use the TTC? ". 2. I'm not quite sure what CON is trying to say with her second point. "As you mentioned price of almost everything has raised but I think the increase of bus fares again might face some approvals". CON seems to agree here that fare increases is necessary. Conclusion:In conclusion, CON does not provide any reasons why the TTC fare increase is a bad thing. She first says that alot of people rely on the TTC for transportation, then agrees with me when I say there are alternate methods of transportation, and that the TTC is not a required means of transportation. Then she goes on to say that the public will use the TTC anyways, regardless of fare hikes. This contradicts her previous point. CON provides no reasons why the TTC fare hike is a bad thing. I have stated that it is necessary to combat inflation, as the cost of living has increased. This This argument remains unrefuted.
TTC fares should not be increased

just to clarify to all the viewers that this debate has started for a civics presentation and the results of voting will be used towards it and this is just MY personal opinion and thanks to @Hardcore.Pwnography for all the information provided. side note: It has been mentioned on some reliable sources that the prices might increase Again and that is why I chose this as my civics presentation topic. Arguments: As I mentioned MANY students use TTC and yes they are many other ways for students to get around but as results of an interview 11/15 use TTC as their only transportation. As you mentioned price of almost everything has raised but I think the increase of bus fares again might face some approvals... not that those will matter to TTC anyways. The public will use TTC even if it increases more. And thanks again for sharing your opinion and proving great information.
TTC fares should not be increased

Just to clarify to viewers who do not live in the Toronto area. The TTC stands for Toronto Transit Commision and is a public transit company that provides bussing to people in the Toronto area.They have recently increased the fares of their tickets.Refutation/Arguments:Con provides a weak case. She says that students rely on public transport to get around. While I agree that is the case, we must also keep in mind of the bus driver.The reason TTC increased their prices is due to inflation, due to the fact that the cost of living has increased. TTC must increase the wages of TTC workers to accomodate this. As such, they need to get their money from else where, and that comes from increases in the TTC fare. This is the same reason the minimum wage in Canada has increased from $8 to $10 in the past few years. Now we must realize that many things increase in price. Gas prices for example. Food. Housing. This is due to inflation. The natural incerase of prices over time. Usually, people see a pay raise to accomodate for this.There are many ways Students can get around - car pool, walking, biking, and it is not only the TTC. We see that CON's argument does not stand.In conclusion, TTC has to increase the fares of their tickets, because the cost of living has increased. If they do not, they will go out of business, as they have increased expenses (due to wage increase).
Xbox 360 vs. Playstation

It really doesn't matter if the graphics are better it depends on how you the game is when playing like: lag is a big problem. Or if the company has been hacked. Let me define 'Hack'. Hack- use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system. Games are the most important aspect when choosing a system, and the Xbox 360 has a wide range of great games representing every genre you can think of. Shooters, racing, RPGs, sports, family games, music, strategy, action, fighting - you name it, the Xbox 360 has you covered. If exclusive titles such as Halo 3, Halo Wars, Gears of War 2, Tales of Vesperia, Viva Pi"ata, Fable II, Lost Odyssey, or Left 4 Dead aren't enough, multi platform games tend to play better on Xbox 360 has the most games of the best quality in the most genres Period.
Transgender is a mental illness.

How you worded your argument is confusing, to say the least. Are you saying that people, who are already transgender, are mentally ill? Are you referring to people imagining they were the opposite gender, but really weren't? You make it sound like being transgender (as a whole) is a mental sickness, like how people thought being homosexual was mental sickness back then. It makes it seem like you're someone against people being transgender, just from your argument and title, alone.
Transgender is a mental illness.

500 characters max. Want to keep this common sense based and simple. When a person hallucinates, and see's things that do not exist in reality, they get prescribed by a doctor and diagnosed with a mental illness. When someone thinks they are the opposite gender, they are perceiving something that is not there/doesn't exist. Doctors should be diagnosing these people. They clearly can't think right. Good luck arguing with this fact.
Clothes

I don't believe that stores should not be able to sell anything that doesn't offend people. If that happened, then they wouldn't be able to sell anything! Think about it: everything offends one type of person or another except for plain t-shirts and jeans, and who the heck wants to wear just that all the time? People should be able to express themselves however they want to, without fear of offending somebody. It's not anybody else's business what people wear except their own!
ultimate team battle

Well there have been a few of these going around and I wanted to try my my hand at it. here's how it works. each of us chose 5 characters from culture (comics, movies, books etc.) for our team. They are equipped as they would normally be. I will reveal 2 of them so my opponent can not chose units that will have an advantage. The next turn I will shoe the rest. There will be five classes, and each creature you chose must fit in one of the classes, but you still chose the creature. The battle will take place in a grassy plain, with short grass and shrubs. There are no other people. No unit may go higher than 3000 meters, lower than 1000 meters, or leave the battle field, witch is 1000 by 2000 meters. class 1-scout scouts will be you weakest unit in terms of physical strength. They must have fast and/ or agile (super) powers . They may also be a character whose main ability is brains. class 2- support this unit will have an ability that buffs you other units, or provides cover. This unit should also fill the role of helping where ever needed (example= a red dragon) class 3- tank this unit has extreme stamina. he/she also has limited long range (example= the hulk) class 4- fighter this class is all around balanced and good. This unit also is better in close combat (example=batman ) class 5- long range. this class takes out enemies from afar, of at a distance, preferring to stay out of combat. (example= sniper from team fortress) A few rules 1. No insanely powerful charaters with no aperant weakness, sutch as goku, or super man. 2. No character may have an unlimited abilty, like limetless regeneration. 3. each charater must have a varifyable scorce 4. No giant charates (over 15 meters tall) sutch as gundams, but units that can grow are O.K. as long as they don't leave the boundrys 5. if there are multiple versions of a character, you must chose 1 version 6. no mind control or shape shifting round 1 i give the rules and two of my creatures round 2 my oponent gives all of his, and exlpains how he will win round 3 I give the rest of my creatures and explain how i will win round 4 and 5. we argue about our ideas now my 2 creatures suport class - the Wendigo (native american version) tank class- warhammer 40k leman russ primarch
ultimate team battle

Ok well you have not said youre creatures, but i will say the rest if my creatures and my general stratagy scout- shadowcat (xmen) fighter- venom (spiderman) long range- deadshot (batman) leman russ will head my attack. He will charge in bolter ablaze, with venom. deadshot will snipe enemies from afar. The wendigo will sumon a hail for cover, and some wolves to aid him. shadowcat will pull under ground anything that is not deastroyed allready. you go...
God exist because everything needs an intelligent designer (Creator)

1. God is not necessarily out of space and time. 2. Souls are a source of energy, and God is a soul (in a way), he is the most powerful source of energy there is. 3. If God needs a creator then so does the Universe, and the cells, and everything else. How i look at it is God is the most powerful soul there is, before there was anything there was energy and that energy is God. Everything can not create its self, everything needs a creator, except for God. 4. Life has to adapt to our planet because it is constantly changing. Especially with how humans are treating it. The planet is young it is still changing and so will life. If there is no God, then we do not make sense So in the begging there was nothing? Then it exploded? Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe? Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn"t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe? Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes"such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind"that does not mean it doesn"t exist? Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe? Of the two possible kinds of agnostic, which kind are you: 1) Strong agnostic who says we can"t know anything for sure? or 2) Weak agnostic who says we don"t know anything for sure (but we could if we had enough evidence)? If you are the strong kind, then how do you know for sure that you can"t know anything for sure? If you are the weak kind of agnostic, then is it not possible that we could know for sure that God exists (if we had enough evidence)? Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God"s existence?
God exist because everything needs an intelligent designer (Creator)

If one says that intelligence can only come from prior intelligence, then "god" must have came from something. It is absurd that one could argue that a TV needs an intelligent creator, but the most intelligent being conceivable does not. This view is incoherent. And my opponent furthermore asserts god created us, can he demonstrate such a being exists? This is a prerequisite, because a being that doesn't exist can't create anything. He's kind of putting the cart before the horse. The argument also assumes that design is an apparent trait that every one would derive from a complex object. Its pretty much the watch maker argument. If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there. How could it be that the earth was designed for life, but life has to adapt to it, or die? Finally, how can a being exist outside of space time? Given that space and time came into existence when the universe did, and a being created the universe, that being would have to exist before space and time, but this is not even a comprehensible notion. If something exists in no physical space, it isn't a real thing. It can be an abstract concept, but an abstract concept can't design anything. In regards to time, a being that exists for no unit of time, doesn't have any existence, in regards to the common usage of the word. In conclusion: 1.I would like my opponent to demonstrate that a god exists, before he asserts a god created everything. 2. Explain how a the earth can be designed for life, yet life has to adapt to it. 3. How a being can exist outside of space and time.
Gun Control will not make a meaningful difference in the US

“I think gun violence should become significant before we try and correct it, for now all we are doing is fighting back and forth on something that is so clearly insignificant.” Your entire argument is set on the premise that you believe the numbers are too low to pay attention to. Since it’s impossible for me to win a debate where the premise is your opinion, the best way for me to win is to prove that your numbers are flawed. With confidence, I make the following rebuttal: you greatly underestimate the impact of guns in America due to your iggnorant math. In your calculations you fail to account in 2010, 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. Guns were the cause of death for more than twice the amount of people you counted. Guns they should not have had access to. “Cut it however you want: In places where exposure to guns is higher, more people die of suicide. Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center” A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women. Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S. and you can’t ignore that—in half of these cases—they used firearms to end their lives. You also can’t say they would be killing themselves without access to guns because it’s simply not true as made evident by the following statistic: Sources: http://www.bostonglobe.com... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Gun Control will not make a meaningful difference in the US

Greetings TheNobleCasserole, I look forward to our debate. Firstly, let me establish your premise. You claim that gun violence does not matter because, Americans shouldn"t be devoting their money, and politicians to reforming gun control. The result would have a negligible effect on the total deaths of Americans. You state that news outlets keep the real issues out of the press and print shootings to sell more copies. Furthermore, you state the following: gun-law advocates who claim their goal is to save lives are liars. They are liars because they aren"t focusing on bigger problems. You put forward that Americans should instead be pouring resources into more prominent issues, such as, medical malpractice. Can you confirm my inferences, and correct me if I missed anything? I also ask that you answer two of my following questions: Theoretically, how high would the numbers have to be for you to recognize gun control as a system worth reforming? Finally, are we debating the problems with the current gun laws in American, or rather focusing on whether it"s even worth debating? I ask, considering your opening statement makes you an apparent proponent of doing something more productive than talking about gun laws, "gun issues in America are talked about a lot, but that doesn't mean they are important."
Death Penalty

Thanks for the clarification on crystallisation, and for a great debate. Costs. I'm not claiming that the DP has an immense cost for all states, or that it will have an immense cost for all of them if it was entirely legalised. But in general, and shown by evidence, there is a much higher cost for the DP in states where it exists. Tejretics admits that a case in Washington that seeks the death penalty has higher cost. Tejretics says that studies tend to underestimate the cost of LWOP, and I actually agree. However, the cost of the death penalty is also underestimated. My opponent cites a study in Texas, where it costs $2.3 million to execute someone. This is in a book so I do not have complete access to, but because of the name Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas During the Modern Era, I assume that this study talks about up-front costs of the death penalty; things such as the drugs themselves, the court costs, all of that good stuff. However (due to assumptions based on book titling and a bit of research about that book), they do not take into account the cost of housing a prisoner within Texas. In the graph below, we see the average amount of time between being sentenced and being executed throughout the US is actually huge. In 2012, the average time length from sentence to execution was at 190 months, or just under *16 years* on death row [1]. Tejretics graciously accepts our figure of ~$47,000 anually to house an inmate, and some math (47,000 * 15) gives us a grand total of $705,000 in total, just for housing an inmate. He says through his source that the death penalty costs $350,000 less than LWOP, but when we look at more than just up-front costs, we find that it costs *more* than $350,000 than LWOP. Next, Tejretics brings up a point about plea bargaining and its effect on the cost of the DP. He cites a study by Scheidegger, but Scheidegger doesn't actually really help Tejretic's refutations when you do the math of what he is saying. There are a few key things that we know from this argument, from Tejretics and his sources: About half of all murders in states with the DP end with a plea Thaxton says that there is $400,000 less cost for pleas Tejretics offers no alternatives to this $400,000 lower cost for pleas, just says it might be higher, thus we can dismiss it Tejretics' source claims that the DP costs $500,000 more than non-DP (trials). If about half of the population receives a plea bargain and gets X savings, we can say that everyone gets 1/2*X savings. For example, if half of all people make $20 a year, then the average for everyone is $10 a year. The same can be applied to the general death penalty population - if half of all people have an extra burden of $400,000, then the average burden is only $200,000. And earlier we actually showed that LWOP costs $350,000 less without this in account. In the end, LWOP still saves $150,000. [1]. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...I am sorry but I can't finish this round, some real life issues were brought forward.
Death Penalty

PrefaceThis is a debate between Lexus and myself on the death penalty. There are 72 hours to post each argument, with a maximum of 10,000 characters per argument. I request that Lexus accept this debate as soon as possible. A minimum Elo of 2,000 is required to vote on this debate. Full TopicThe United States should retain a death penalty.TermsAll definitions influenced by Wikipedia, the Google Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary of English.United States - the United States of America, a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the extreme Northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.Should - is correct to do (in the sense that "it is best that the United States retain the death penalty"). Death Penalty - execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense.Rules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary definition that best fits the context. 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to Lexus for what I hope will be a stellar discourse, and to voters and readers.
Feed your children with cum

Feed your children with cum For me, There is no better feeling Than getting a blowjob from a child I cum inside her mouth and all over her face With the cummy lips, She looks at me Then we make out, We kiss Feed your children with cum Children love to be fed with cum They will suck it out of your penis You just have to let them, You have to allow them Feed your children with cum It is slippery, It is tasty Give them your cum The part of you is now part of them It is not dangerous, It is not harmful It is a lot of fun Consider it like breastfeeding Feed your children with cum Just instead of a breast, There is a dick Feed your children with cum Think of it as the deed Commanded by our Lord Jesus loved to feed children with his cum So let us feed our children Let us give our children a treat Feed your children with cum