BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president

To avoid any confusion, I will separate Sanders' 'rating' system into a dichotomy of Horrible and Not Horrible. Sanders would plan on putting policies into place that ring similar to policies of some of whom are considered to be some of the best (Not Horrible) presidents ever, mainly Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, Roosevelt had an average approval rating of 64%, and Eisenhower had an average approval rating of 65%. Eisenhower instated a marginal tax rate of 91% in office, which is going to be higher than what Sanders would be proposing. In recent comments, Sanders has said it would be lower than 90%, but hasn't specified how low. Sanders also plans on instating social policies similar to that of Roosevelt. Roosevelt instated several Acts under his New Deals, such as social security, low income housing, and the Works Progress Administration. These find similarity with Sanders' proposals, especially his plan to fix infrastructure across America, giving countless individuals jobs in the process. Roosevelt also instated the GI Bill, which gave veterans tuition for universities, and is often accredited with creating the middle class, which Sanders points to its gradual disappearance of. This is similar to Sanders' plan to give tuition for public universities. These plans were and are successful, and Sanders' plans would be and are successful, making him Not Horrible. On foreign policy, Sanders also resonates with Roosevelt on the basis of how he would unite with allies to defeat a common evil. Roosevelt was able to ally with Stalin and Churchill in order to defeat the Axis in World War II, which was successful in terms of the war. This could be compared to the Islamic State of today, seeing as they are the common enemy of the entire world. Sanders is also not quick to jump the gun straight to military action, as he know it would put hundreds of thousands of young lives in destruction. Sanders is more likely to use tariffs and embargoes, which have been shown to be frighteningly effective against America in the past, and are frighteningly effective against Iran and Russia to date. Making him a Not Horrible contender in terms of foreign policy. In terms of the environment, Sanders seems to be the only candidate interested in protecting the Earth. Sanders opposes the Keystone Pipeline, which would be destructive to the planet in the long term and destructive to job creation in the long term. Sanders is more focused on creating renewable sources of energy, which would not only make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil, but protect the environment for posterity's sake. In terms of honesty, Sanders is the only clear candidate to operate on the same principles his whole career. Sanders refuses the donations of large corporations and is funded nearly entirely be We The People and labor unions. Sanders would be the most trustworthy candidate in office, making him Not Horrible in that regard. History says that policies similar to Sanders have been effective, and as we all know, history repeats itself.
The American Super-race

This is a spam debate. I will not be treating it seriously. Just so that I can get the formality out of the way here's a link to a non-white article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... And the Landover Baptist Church is a fictional parody of churches like Westboro. They are not Nazis. http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally, my opponent has done nothing to substantiate his big argument that there is an American Super-Race.
The American Super-race

The American Super-race is composed of Native Americans, and peanuts. Oh, and white and black and asians. But we must preserve this American Superrace. This means no gay people, as they are bad for this Christian Nation. Just look at Landover Baptist Church. They are Nazi's with morale, such as myself. They are the leaders of the American Superrace. My source: WIKIPEDIA,, HICH HAS OVER 9000 ARTICALES. BETCHA YOU CANT FIND A NONWHITE SORUCE OF INFO. WIKIPEDIAISANAMERICANSUPERRACE. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kony 2012

I have three main points as to why the Kony 2012 Campaign is not worth supporting. First, It was shown in recent news that the "leader" of the invisible children foundation was found in public, touching himself and disturbing the peace. This is not act that would be committed by a sane man, and therefore, why should we invest money, resources and trust into an organization spearheaded by someone who is clearly not in the right frame of mind. Second, The Kony 2012 campaign is misleading, and uses that tactic to pull in gullible supporters. In the Kony 2012 video, it shows Uganda as a barren, war torn wasteland, with an army of 11 year olds abused to the point that they can commit sadistic crimes without a second thought. This is not the case. The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) was formed to combat the "ethnic cleansing" of countess minority tribes, an act put into play by the Ugandan President. And, the LRA is not completely composed of young boys, and the majority are not forced into the war, either. Third, who can recount what took place between the years 1939-1945? In order to ensure that the U.S. Military had enough servicemen, they put the draft into action. Penalty for disobeying a draft order was imprisonment. See the similarity in this?
Kony 2012

Kony 2012 is a viral sensation that is meant to spur public support from primarily younger people in society to advocate the US to continue its limited intervention in Central Africa to end the reign of Joseph Kony. Joseph Kony is a man who for 30 years now has built an army by kidnapping children (a combined 30,000 over the entire span) and forcing them to fight for him. For years now nobody knew who Joseph Kony was, what he did, why no one was stopping him, etc etc. This campaign though went viral in a matter of days and has proved to be very successful in raising awareness about the evil acts of Joseph Kony and is designed to rally public support to bring Kony to justice The charity that launched and supports this video is a charity that collects and donates money to Central African programs meant to halt the spread of Kony's campaign into other countries, coordinate countries to fight against Kony by using advanced technology provided by US advisers in those countries, and over time put a choke hold around Kony's territory until he is finally killed or captured and brought to justice for a variety of war crimes and human rights violations over the course of the last 20 years. Ill end here for now and will invite the Con to explain why this is a bad thing
It is better to be a pirate than a non-pirate (Resolved)

WONDERFUL! Opining argument be as follows. Pirates have a few good qualities. First of all pirate are bound to no laws they are truly free people living by their own accord and by their own rules. Picture a large elegant ship with an paradise island back drop and crystal clear oceanic water. As a pirate that is your scenery instead of concrete jungles and over weight sweaty people everywhere. Pirates have large cannons. Bitches. love. cannons. Pirates take whatever they want. They steal and kill posh pompous pvssies and take all their money. How WONDERFUL is that? Who doesn't love free monies. You can kidnap people. Then you can enact your wildest sexual desires on your kidnapped victims. SO on and So forth. More lube is needed. You get the idea. These are some reasons why being a pirate beats being your average person. I am inclined to go into statistical detail regarding the rate of depression within normal people, but I don't think that's needed yet. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR ARGUMENT! MAY THE FORCE BE WITH ME. WHAT?
It is better to be a pirate than a non-pirate (Resolved)

Con will be argue that it ain't preferable t' be a pirate, 'n that th' preferred form o' existence be simply that o' bein' a normal human bein'. Definitions: 1.) Better a.) more worthy than anotherb.) more desirable 2.) Piratea.) a sea sailin' human who lives on a galleon 'n loots thin's 'n likes loot.b.) in popular folklore, a pirate who sails and steals.Note: Pirates are criminalDebate Structure: -First round acceptance, second round opening arguments, third round rebuttals and closing arguments.Debate rules: -No forfeits.-No claiming that pirates are not real, if you do, you lose by default.-Trolls will be forced to walk the plank.ARRRGHHH me arties......No...help!.... my FVCKING ARTERIES ARE CLOGGED.....by all this EXCITMENT! WOOOHOOO!******************************************************************************
It is better to be a pirate than a non-pirate (Resolved)

Your argument seems to be built around an argument regarding what is and what is not legal. Pirates give no fvcks as to what is legal and what is not. They are criminals. Stealing: Does it matter to a pirate if stealing is legal? No because as a pirate I'd be making a lot of money, stealing is benefiting me and allowing me to live a free life style, it's hurting whoever is stolen from that's not my problem. No one is arguing that stealing is good in a normal society. Because Pirates are not apart of normal society. Murder: To say murdering is wrong and then bring up the U.S constitution, is not a good move considering the U.S has been at war 222 OUT OF 239 YEARS. They are very clearly a war nation and do not abide by their own constitution, not when they're murdering as many people in war as they are. Pirates are unattractive: To say pirates are unattractive is committing a stereo type. Not all pirates are the same. That would be like saying all Chinese know Kung-Fu. If you suddenly turned into a pirate you wouldn't suddenly become unattractive, that would be a prejudicial logical fallacy on your part. -Beards are totally IN right now. -Captain Jack sparrow is an example of how pirates can be attractive. -I can get real kinky in my pirate outfit. So much so that I can't post pictures on here or I might get banned. Pirates are unhealthy: Americans are some of the fattest people on Earth! How often do you hear tales of a fat pirate? You don't really because all pirates maintain their physical well being by working hard maintaining their ship. Some pirates might get scurvy, but that's their own fault for not bringing fruit with them, or even dem multi-vits. Again, not all pirates were unhealthy. People of that time would have been unhealthy in general and were not even aware of germs. I thusly conclude my rebuttal and extent a few of my previous arguments that I would like my opponent to tackle. 1) Pirates are free and bound by no laws. Slave to your McDonald's job and obesity inducing life style, isn't true freedom. Pirate-hood is something that would make YOU more healthy and something that would make YOU happier. Sure you'd have to shoot a few people, but such is life. 2) It would be a true adventure and a chance to gain some life experience, interesting stories and in turn, become a more interesting human being. 3) One woman one boat. You're at sea with many hung men who want nothing more than to please and impress you. Would they rape you? Not if you commanded respect and gained favor with the largest and most badass pirate aboard. Your crew would be raping common folk anyway. It would be you who would be raping whoever you and your crew kidnapped. Stealing is illegal yes, but easy money too. Murdering is illegal yes, but a necessary deed. Rape is illegal yes, but certainly fun. (You wouldn't have to rape as a pirate but it would make your time at sea easier) America at war - http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org...
The United States should abolish the Death Penalty.

Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.
The United States should abolish the Death Penalty.

Hello everyone! I welcome anyone to accept this challenge. Some rules: -First round is acceptance only. -No semantics or ad hominem attacks. -Have fun. A couple other things about my speeches: -If anyone doesn't know, a contention is another word for point or assertion, I will be using this word in my speeches. Also, c means contention as well (like if I say C1 it means Contention 1. -Also, a criterion (also called standard) is something which the judge chooses who wins the debate by, it is part of framework. For example, if the criterion is health (and both sides accept this criterion), then all arguments that don't involve health are invalid, because the judge, or in this case the voters, are only focusing on health. -Lastly, if, at any time, I say "we", "our", or similar words in my speech, it means my team, which in this case is just myself (sorry, used to typing out cases for a team of multiple people). I look forward to this debate!
Books are better than movies

Books can have a plot twist in the end that no one sees coming. In books the author may give small clues to the plot twist, that are not noticeable. However, when you see these hints in the movie, the plot twist becomes obvious. Movies rush through details. Movies are confined to a short time to include the whole book. Movies rush through details, and tend to leave things out from books as they are not believed to be important, meaning the viewer does not get the same feel from a movie as a book. Books are not rushed, as there is no maximum length that they can be. This allows books to be more descriptive and include more details and ideas. These ideas may be irrelevant to the overall idea; however they often satisfy the reader in a way a movie cannot when this idea is left out. Books are easy to relive. They don't need any kind of electricity or anything else to enjoy the story. You can easily bring out a book, and enjoy it, without having to set up electrical appliances to get a movie ready to watch. Books are more engaging. In books there does not always have to be action or talking taking place, whereas in a movie the story-line easily becomes boring from the viewer when nothing physical is happening. In books you can enjoy the description of scenery or even thoughts, which are often immediately lost in a movie. Lastly, movies over dramatize things. They make insignificant ideas turn into big deals which no one really cares about and ruins the story. Books have specific ideas kept quiet and not mentioned again when they don't make a big impact. People often find this better as then this idea is not repeated. In movies, it is not necessary, and often makes the movie less engaging, when small details become major ideas. Sometimes, as in books, simpler is better. Overall books are better than movies as they can hide clues in the text, include all detail, are portable, are more engaging and do not over dramatize ideas. For all these reasons people often prefer books. Simpler is better, and because books are simple, they are clearly better.
Books are better than movies

Imagine walking into the cinema after a long exhausting day at school or work, you can't wait to enjoy your Friday night by hanging out with your best friends watching a movie. You can't read a book with your friends, you only read a book alone, however when watching a movie the experience is a lot different. You can plan out a movie day with your family and friends, order great food and watch. Have you ever heard of a book day? Movies already put an image into the viewers mind, making the story more realistic. Movies are a great way to relax when you are tired, whereas books are hard to follow along and you have to be fully focused to enjoy a book. Wouldn't you rather watching a movie after a long day of school?
Books are better than movies

Books are better than movies as they are informative. In fiction books you can tell what the character is thinking. It is easy to know what they are thinking as it is said in the book. In movies you don't know what they character is thinking, and it is harder to let the viewer understand the characters thoughts. In fiction books you visual each individual character based on your opinion of them. You can picture a character however you want, and let your imagination run wild. In movies, there is a set character and you can't change the way they are based in your personal opinion. In fact books you often learn new ideas. You can learn new words and new ideas about space, the environment and basically everything. It is important that people learn new ideas and learn about new topics. Therefore books are better than movies.
The bite of 87 was it done by mangle or fredbear.

Finally, fazbear is red in part of the game series. But as you know Mangle did the bite the child.In conclusion, Mangle bites the kid. They tried to remake Foxy, ya know? Uh, they thought the first one was too scary, so they redesigned him to be more kid-friendly and put him in Kid's Cove. To keep the toddlers entertained, you know... But kids these days just can't keep their hands to themselves. The staff literally had to put Foxy back together after every shift. Eventually, they stopped trying and left him as some 'take apart and put back together' attraction. Now, he's just a mess of parts. I think the employees refer to him as just... "The Mangle."By WIKI
Profiling is a normal part of everyday life and helps keep people safe

Hmmm....interesting. I didn't mention anything about a particular type of career or race, but there you go. Let me ask you this....you are walking down a residential street one evening...you see, up ahead, a group of young men loitering on the corner...hoods up over their heads and pants hovering about 2 inches below their hips. As a group, they all turn and look at you. Now I know, that as an enlightened person, you will say you will continue walking and not worry about anything because we are all together...but in reality you will either turn around and walk away...or cross to the other side of the street (if you are really dumb). It is the 70's...you have your hair grown down to your shoulders. You are sitting in a restaurant (actually a Truck Stop) when a group of 'Cowboys" come in...what do you do? These are examples of profiling. Do I agree with profiling? Bet your *** I do. I see a guy wearing a coat in August in the Deep South, I will definitely profile that mofo and ask someone to check him out if I don't it myself. I see a guy talking to a kid I'm going to watch until I'm satisfied that they know each other...I see a guy carrying a hunting knife or gun, I'm going to watch them carefully (and, yes, I have a gun and carry with me sometimes) It is called, being aware and careful..to hell with PC and someone getting their feelings huts.
Profiling is a normal part of everyday life and helps keep people safe

Profiling is not a normal part of everyday life. It doesn't keep people safe. When people are arrested based on suspicious behavior instead than race, police get more suspects. When using profiling, officers are going to waste their time on innocent people. People are suppose to feel safe with their policemen, and when the police decide to profile against one group of people, that creates an us verses them feel in that community. The people don't feel safe, and in turn don't contact police to come and investigate possible crimes in the area. They are suppose to be protecting the people who abide by the laws from criminals. If they decide that one race is law-abiding and another race isn't, that creates a huge problem in attaining justice. Besides profiling being morally wrong, it makes officers treat said profiled groups worse because they don't think they'll need as much evidence and believe they will be justified in using excessive force. It violates the 14th amendment. Looking forward to what you have to say in Round 2.
The House would License Parents

Licensing parents would reduce childhood trauma, promote parenting standards, and is cheaper than allowing incompetent adults to have guardianship of children.It is vital for the future that our children are given the best home life we can give them. This way they can grow into strong, functional, free thinkers, that will shape our future.I welcome Emily77 to take the last round as an opportunity to add whatever argumentation she would like. This topic is 'cursed'. I have yet to receive any clash on it, which is why I hope you'll check back in to DDO in time.
The House would License Parents

It seems this topic is cursed. This is the second time my opponent has forfeited to me on this exact same resolution and parameters. One of these days I'll get some clash. As I have nothing to rebut and nothing to defend against, I will move on to point III. III. MoneyLicensing Parents and regulating those licenses poses a question of cost. "According to the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy every $1 spent on home visiting yields a $5.70 return" [1]. In addition, child abuse and neglect directly costs the US $124 billion a year [1].1. https://www.childwelfare.gov... If Emily77 is still active on DDO, I welcome them to rebut my points in the final round.
The House would License Parents

Parents should be licensed based on the principle of the greater good. 'Parent' is an adult seeking to become the legal guardian of a minor. Licensing would be controlled by the state. The adoption process is precedent that the resolution is feasible. Licensing parents would reduce traumatic childhoods. Four children die daily in the US due to child abuse [1]. 30% of abused and neglected children go on to abuse their own children [1]. We can end this cycle by licensing parents. Preparation for licensing would promote parenting standards. Now parents who would have been mediocre, will have learned the skills to guide their child through growing up. Reducing traumatic childhoods and promoting parenting standards would create better childhoods, would lead to better functioning adults, would lead to a better future. While questions may arise to rights and feasibility, the principle of the greater good trumps worries of stepping on a few toes. 1. http://www.childhelp.org...
The House would License Parents

Resolution: This House would License Parents.License: Distributed and Monitored by the StateParents: Adults seeking to become legal guardians of a minor. 1st Round Acceptance2nd Round Standard3rd Round Standard4th Round NO NEW ARGUMENTSI recognize this is a 'silly' topic. Arguments such as 'ridiculous' will be ignored.24 hour timer. 1000 character limit. Footnotes (a number and a URL) may be provided in the comment section to conserve characters. Be sure to specify which speech your footnotes are for.