BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The difference between a liberal attitude and a conservative attitude in modern society

During this debate I have attempted to point out the failings in my opponents arguments and to present my own arguments in favor of liberalism. I believe I have been successful. Here I will try to summarize what I have argued. I have shown that the "conservative" philosophy my opponent supports disregards the well-being of the majority by presenting a view that government, the most powerful tool of the people, should not provide any positive rights such as health care, education or economic regulation. I have shown the hypocrisy of my opponent's arguments that liberalism attempts to ban everything while conservatism is "tolerant". I even presented a long list of scapegoats some conservatives would like to ban or limit, from Mixed Martial Arts to birth control. I demonstrated why Universal Health care was a better system when it comes to the well being of Americans. I even used empirical statistics comparing the U. S. and Canada (A country my opponent first used as an example). My opponent's apparent view of laissez faire economics was also shown to be faulty. It is clear that an unregulated economy is bad for workers and for the country. It has been shown that safety regulations, minimum wages, progressive taxes, and tariffs are necessary. Thus liberalism is the greater good when compared to Bright's governmental formula. My opponent can either compare his conservative philosophy or conservative action in America recently. When compared to either the philosophy of liberalism or its practice my opponents arguments are found wanting. I have used conservative writer David Frum's own criticism of the Bush administration as evidence of this. It is clear that Liberalism is better in theory and in practice to conservatism I have shown Liberalism to be what it is and have distinguished it from what it is not. Liberalism is not totalitarianism and it is not anarchy. Liberalism is not about feeling good but about the best interests of the all. The great liberal philosopher T. H. Green wrote, "When we measure the progress of a society by its growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves. .. " Liberalism is a balance between self-interest and civic virtue. Liberalism embraces individual liberty and choice but also realizes the simple fact that we are all connected. People need both the negative liberties of freedom from government's unjust interferences and they also need the positive liberties of a freely elected government to provide security, education, health care, and provide for the blessings that freedom gives.
Is Frozen terrible...

"I am sorry I was looking for a reasonable debate about one of Disney's movies" - Master_Fallows"Objection your honor, if the brainless Pro was actually looking for a reasonable debate over Frozen then he would have actually shown up to the debate that he himself started, rather then forfeit the second round and just whine like a girl in the final round." - Imabench"Sustained" - The Judge"Whatever was the "Argument" presented by my opponent is not only offensive but is demented and not what this debate was about" - Master FallowsObjection your honor, the case against the intelligence of Master Fallows was to prove that he is not even mentally capable of being able to judge what is a good movie and what is a bad movie, as evidenced by how he was sodomized in the anus on several occasions" - Imabench"Sustained" - The Judge"This is not not a courtroom but a decent debate website...." - Master Fallows"Objection. Your honor I would actually like to submit this as evidence proving Pro's stupidity, as he claims that this is NOT a courtroom even though the voters are the jury, I am a lawyer for my client Frozen, and he is on the witness stand testifying in front of a judge." - Imabench"Yeah that does make him look pretty f*ckin stupid, your objection is sustained" - Judge=================================================================="Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Master_Fallows has failed to present any case against my client Frozen, meaning he has failed to fulfill his Burden of Proof that Frozen is not only bad, or even mediocre, but somehow 'terrible', despite grossing more money then all but 4 other movies in history, and despite being critically acclaimed by movie critics and fans alike. He has presented no argument for the topic he himself made, he has even failed to show up to his own debate and forfeited the round meant for the opening arguments, and the crazy thing is, he has not actually denied any of the charges I have made against him. This proves that he is indeed as brainless as I hypothesized and presented before you all, and that Frozen is by no means whatsoever a 'terrible' movie..................I rest my case" - Imabench(The jury and the courtroom stands up and applauds while Master_Fallows cries in a corner)
do u think girls can play football on a boys team

Its no about whether a girl can take a hit or two, its about skill and prowess. Can a girl stop a 200-300 pound lineman? thats muscle not fat and not every one can be a quarterback or a receiver. The topic of the debate was "do u think girls can play football on a boys team" not "should girls be allowed to play football on a boys team" it doesn't matter if a girl wants to be on a boys team but CAN she compete/play on a boys team. This isn't a friendly game in the park, this is high school football where your goal is to win. we will define" to play" in this context as "to compete against (another player or team) in an athletic match or contest" my opponent concedes "girls maybe be at a disadvantage..." therefore girl would not be able to adequately compete on a competitive boys team whos goal is to win Additionally, If i was a coach of a football team, why would i use a player who would be at a disadvantage to his/her counterpart. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
do u think girls can play football on a boys team

well that is all very true. but, "girls are not the delicate creatures we were once thought to be and many girls are no longer content to wave pompoms and perform acrobatics on the sidelines. They want to be in the game, with all that entails". (about.com) i know for a fact that girls do not like to be on the sidelines watching the game they want to be in it, and be involved with the boys. girls maybe be at a disadvantage but we can take a hit or two. yes some might not want to be in the game but most of us are athleta's like we call the boy's. if guys can have there known football and the girls want to play then they can play as long as they can throw the ball, tackle someone, and take a hit. so that why you should....for me (pro)
do u think girls can play football on a boys team

My opponent states first that "i think that girls can (play football on a boy's team).because girls can be what they want to be and do what they want to do" Its true girls could do anything hey want including playing football. But girls would be unable to compete with boys on football team for a few reasons. first off, Men are naturally more apt to play football. football is characterized as a collision sport with the need for strength and aggression. The male hormone testosterone helps create the necessary physical requirements to play football. "testosterone effects can be classified as virilizing and anabolic. Anabolic effects include growth of muscle mass and strength, increased bone density and strength" (wikipedia) Women would be at a disadvantage to a male player.
do u think girls can play football on a boys team

To wrap things up i would like to point out a few things. I have given facts as to why girls can not play on a boys football team.But my opponent has given no facts. She has given no research that girls could play as well as boys on a football team. She has given no examples of women breaking a "gender barrier". My opponents thought the debate has given her opinion on the matter, but in a debate facts count not opinions.
do u think girls can play football on a boys team

ok yes but, if the girl was trying out for place kicker and PAT kicker. and if she can if the kick the ball farther than the boys can then the coach should give her a chance on the team because she was the better kicker. ok i'm an expert on soccer and soccer players do have a better kicking ability than boys do. because we are always use our feet. but me i'm a goalie and i feel that if u can be a goalie on a soccer field and be able to take the falls and get trampted on be the other team, you would think that a girl could be able to stand up to the 200-300 pound guys. yes know i do admitt that it might take us a little time to get up but a girl who is just as agressive as the boys would get back up and do it again. girls want to win just the same as the guys do its not any different. girls arent any differen than guys well except two things and you can probably know what that is. if you dont know what i am talking about what do girls have different then boys. tells see what we dont have a penis like guys so it doesnt hurt as bad when we get kicked there. thus.
You can not prove that I'm not GOD

BOP is on my opponent. Definitions prove demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. "the concept is difficult to prove" synonyms:demonstrate, show, show beyond doubt, show to be true, manifest, produce/submit proof, produce/submit evidence, establish evidence, evince; not n;4;t/ adverb 1. used with an auxiliary verb or "be" to form the negative. "he would not say" I: Morganic God: God ɡ;4;d/ noun 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god" Good luck ;)
You can not prove that I'm not GOD

Sorry, rather predictable I know, but how do I really prove who I am anyway? Humanity has thought of so many different versions of me, some of them were better than others. I particularly liked Thor but he has gone out of fashion, as these characters always do. I can tell you now that they aren't all right though. Even I don't know what happened before the big bang. You'll have to ask MY creator...
You can not prove that I'm not GOD

I Knew you were going to say that! I clearly stated the burden of proof was on my opponent in my description. My definition left room for both monotheistic and non monotheist gods your existence does not disprove mine and we are not here to discuss the veracity of your claims we are here for you to attempt to prove I am not God. I can neither confirm or deny what was before the Big Bang as it would spoil the surprise and put a lot of scientists out of work. I move in mysterious ways!
Adam & Woman, the first humans, are innocent victims of a confidence trick.

Having been given the gift of existence, the first humans were found to be very good. To exist they had to be evolutionary, using their environment to express themselves - that is "to be". The information to enable them to do this, the "manual" if you prefer, was built in to the Gift, which since it was the gift of existence means that it was built in to the two of them, they being the "Gift". This "Gift" was "Absolute" and not "Contingent" upon good behaviour New information came their way, directed at their understanding of their gift, ie, their understanding of themselves. At that moment they had never encountered "good" or "evil" and could not assess this information without trying it. It was false, and in trying it they encountered the knowledge of "good" and "evil" and ruined their gift of existence. Being evolutionary, they could not go back. The confidence trick was aimed at their integrity as humans and not at their greed, arrogance, or obedience. Christian understanding and Salvation History needs to be based upon this and not upon a false idea of guilt and shame. The confidence trick works from generation to generation because all humans share the original gift of existence, being the Gift itself. The first three chapters of Genesis need very careful examination. Chapter 1, the making of the Gift. Chapter the content of the Gift. Chapter 3, what happened to the Gift. Humans are the Gift. Justice for all. Brendan.
Greatest Characters of Old Testament: 1

Samson was a playboy and he was wrong to fall for Delilah the whore. The debate is not about Samson. Quoting you from round 1, , this is what the debate is about: "The Pro position, (mine) is that Delilah was a person whom we should want to follow. Her goals were correct. As always the Bible will be my main source of information. The Title of the Debate is "Greatest Characters of the Old Testament, and your main premise holds Delilah the Whore to be one of the greatest. Showing that Samson was a playboy does not make Delilah the Whore a great character. It only proves that one sleazy character fell for another sleazy character. There are many heroic characters, male and female, with completely or nearly spotless records of the greatness of their character. Do you really think Delilah the Whore was one of the greatest characters of the Old Testament? Is that the kind of character you would want your wife or daughter to emulate? That seems to me like some very twisted reasoning to call a Whore admirable when she was no better than the playboy you are comparing her to.Delilah was not Sampson's wife, She was only a whore. Samson's wife was not much better than Delilah the whore because she sold Samson out in fear of men who threatened her in order to get her to find out the answer to Samson's riddle so the playboy would lose a bet. Samson made a very poor choice for a wife (his wife's name was never even mentioned) Samson had a bad habit of messing around with sleazy women who had no qualms about selling him out.Samson was no judge of character. Samson was a playboy and his poor judgement led him to fall for sleazy women.The fact that Samson did not choose women with good character as his companions does not make a whore into something good.The story of Samson's wife and how she sold out Samson is told in Judges chapter 14.To the Voters.If Deborah and Ruth were not great characters of the Old testament, and you are holding up terrible examples of sleazy character embodied in Samson and Delilah as "great", then you have to vote in favor of my opponent. If you have any sense of decency, you cannot possibly award any kind of a win to my opponent in this debate.To the voters who have a sense of decency, I'm sorry for taking this debate and being involved in leading people to read such a sick arguments from my opponent in favor of whoredom and whore mongering.
Greatest Characters of Old Testament: 1

Here is where the 'p' in sampson comes in- Chauvinist pig joke- "Women, you can't live with them...and they can't 'p' standing up." Here is the 'W'ebster definition of entice, (it ain't got nothing to do with 'W')- "To attract (someone) especially by offering or showing something that is appealing, interesting, etc." And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said to Samson's wife, Entice your husband, that he may declare to us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father's house with fire: have you called us to take that we have? is it not so? (Judges 14:15) sampson's wife enticed him. This verse right here proves that the word 'entice' does not mean 'W'. Now it is true that sampson liked the ladies. But sampson did not like the Israelite ladies. So sorry Con about all those others that you have tried to bring into this debate. sampson says those there women just don't measure up to someone like Delilah. And you know what Con? sampson is not the only one. The Gentile Church has been called the 'W' word. But our Lord and Husband says different. He gave His very life to save us here 'W's. Why He has even enticed us to 'come and dine'.
Greatest Characters of Old Testament: 1

Well Con- You have made an ugly accusation. Since you have provided us with no source material to prove your dribble then that must mean that you are an eye witness to the account of Sampson and his follies. The 'W' word has been brought up by my opponent so let me provide some source material- Con, when you sat in Sunday school or Saturday school, who did the teacher tell you was the legal authority during the time of Sampson? (This is a simple question. It is in keeping with your number #.)
Greatest Characters of Old Testament: 1

The Pro position, (mine) is that Delilah was a person whom we should want to follow. Her goals were correct. As always the Bible will be my main source of information. Con may use any source material of their choosing and good luck Con. Opening Argument: Delilah may just be the greatest woman in the entire Old Testament. Now a good question might be- Why would one of the best women all time Old Testament want to see someone like Sampson destroyed? Why would she want that?
Free Will

Of course free will exists. As defined by my opponent, free will is when someone is solely responsible for their actions. I propose that this is not only often, but ALWAYS the case. See, the thing with choices is that if a choice is really a choice, then there are multiple paths that can be taken. Yes, humans are often influenced greatly by outside interaction and information, but in the end, each individual is responsible for their own actions. Now, here's the fun part. While I believe that free will is always the case, in the context of this debate, the only thing I need to prove is that in one single little circumstance, free will is at play. Since my opponent has graciously let me go first, I'm gonna do the mean, awful thing and shove burden of proof upon him. This means that, in order to win by the standards he himself has set, he must prove that free will is NEVER at play. Perhaps he was going to do this anyway. Who knows? Regardless, on to my case: Instances where free will is obviously at play. 1.) Attitude. Life can give you the sourest lemons, but no matter the circumstance, you alone determine your attitude. Doesn't even have to be a good attitude. Even people with very similar lives react different ways to different situations. In fact, if what you propose is really the case, where does individuality come from? Outside sources effecting people in the same way, but resulting in different choices? Seems unlikely. 2.) Morality. Practically no one operates without any form of moral code. For example, pretty much every person on the planet agrees that utilitarianism is BAD. (Look it up, kids!) But why? Different people experience different happenings that should greatly impact their morality, yes? And yet pretty much EVERY RELIGION believes in simple truths, such as protecting the innocent and doing good. Now, obviously there are exceptions, but this isn't the point. If I must, I'll list vastly different religions that believe in similar morals, despite very different backgrounds. 3.) Actions. This is, in my opinion, one of the problems with the world today. No body takes responsibility for their own actions. Governments are always blaming each other for problems, not realizing that perhaps it was their actions that resulted in their consequence. Yes, decisions are greatly influenced, but when push comes to shove, it is the individual that presses that button, that pulls that trigger, that turns that corner. Influenced, yes, but mindless and completely pre-determined? No way. Finally, I come to where we stand if Con is in the right. We then live in a society where no one is truly responsible for their actions. Blame will be circulated constantly, and everyone will be at fault for both everything and nothing. If people refuse to realize that their own actions are their own fault, justice systems become useless. People will blame affluenza, ignorance, insanity, or just plain innocents. Society cannot run. Anyhoo, thanks for dealing with me chattiness. I tend to get a bit carried away. Con, your turn.
Free Will

Hello, you may call me JR. The matter at hand is one of great interest... Free Will. I of course, will be arguing against free will, and therefore I will assume the position of CON. My opponent, PRO, will argue for the existence of Free Will. Now, it is of utter importance that there be no confusion on what exactly free will is. We shall use this definition, one which I have created, as the official definition for this debate. No other definition of Free Will may be used, as they are often not concise and lack clarity. Free Will: "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination. Thus human beings are indeed fully responsible for their actions." This definition is to be fully understood and used in this debate. Free will is not to be confused as the ability to make choices in general. If that were the case, then clearly there would be no debate, for obvious reasons. Free will is to be regarded not as the ability to make choices, but instead as, well" the definition formerly stated. The rules of this debate are simple. We will be provided 72 generous hours to formulate an argument, and a generous 10,000 characters, to ensure that our arguments reach maximum potential. There will be five rounds. I ask that PRO commence the debate with the opening argument. This will be a respectful and insightful debate. May the best debater win. -JR