BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I think little brothers are easier on parents than big brothers in general

Ok Koopin little brothers are easier on parents for the most part. Big brothers have to learn everything from who? His parents of course. Although little brothers don't. For example little brothers have not only their parents to learn from, but also their older brother. Now Koopin do you have any evidence at all that what I'm saying is not true. If you do then I will be very surprised. I would also like to ask you if Asia exists? If you have any proof I would like to hear it. If you say because many people have been there well couldn't they be lying? You have no proof. For all you know Asia doesn't even exist.
I think little brothers are easier on parents than big brothers in general

===================== Definitions Brother: A male offspring having both parents in common with another offspring. Parents: A father or a mother. To Think: To have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts. ===================== Argument: The resolution is "I (Pro) think little brothers are easier on parents than older brothers in general. " While this may be true, my opponent must prove the resolution. Although he says that he thinks little brothers are easier on parents than older brothers in general, he may be lying about thinking that. I could also say I think the sky is purple, but I can prove to you that I really think that. You have the burden of proof, how do we know you really "think" that? I look forward to my opponent's next argument. Sources: (1). . http://tinyurl.com... (2). . http://tinyurl.com... (3). . http://tinyurl.com...
I think little brothers are easier on parents than big brothers in general

========================= Argument: You say that if a younger brother has older sisters, then he can just learn from them too. While this is true, the point is that the older brother can also learn from them to the same extent. You even admit that a little brother has to learn things from his parents, and then you go on to say that he can also learn from his older brother. I believe you are confused about the idea of "Burden. " Just because a child does not have to learn a few things from the parents does not mean it is easier. There are other things to consider other than knowledge, such as: 1. The ability to take care of oneself. If the age difference is wide, an older brother can take care of himself much better than the younger. He can fix his food, get dressed, do school, and go to bed all by himself. The younger brother must rely on his parents for most of these things. Although the older brother could help, a parent will still realize that it is not their older son's job to always take care of the little one. Also, a parent does not have to worry about a babysitter for the older brother, but with a younger child, they do. 2. The ability to think for oneself. Many people are always trying to get into children's heads. They try to fill it up with all the things they believe. The reason for this is that they know children are more susceptible than adults. With older brothers, parent do not have to worry about what they are watching on T. V or who they are talking to. With younger brothers, parent must always be on the lookout for people trying fill their little head's with nonsense. Studies show that what a child learns between the ages of 0-12 is what he or she usually believes for the rest of his or her life. 3. Dangers. There are many dangers for a child, especially a young one. While Parents sometimes have to watch the older brother, they have to be extremely watchful for the younger ones. A younger child is less aware of the dangers of life, so he does not pay attention to what he is doing. Thousands of young children die a year just by slipping into a pool. You use an example you use of teaching a child how to throw and catch a baseball. Just because a child does not have to learn something from their parent, does not mean that it is easier on the parent. Parents like to teach their children things, whether it be how to shoot a basketball, or how to fish. If a child never wanted to learn from their parents, it would actually be hard on the parent. A parent wants to teach their kids how to take care of themselves, it gives them pleasure. You still have not proven (or shown significant evidence) that little brothers are less of a pain then older brothers. You have also failed t address my points about twins and age differences. I extend all arguments on those matters. I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate; I would also like to thank the audience for reading. Vote Con. ========================
I think little brothers are easier on parents than big brothers in general

Well to address what you said about older sisters if you have two older sisters then good for you the little brother can learn from the older brother and the older sisters. And to address what you said about little brothers having to learn from their parents, your right they do have to learn from their parents, but some things older brothers or sisters teach little brothers help the parents out. Now the parent or parents don't have to teach the little brother the thing that the older sibling taught them. For example my brother (tjordan) taught me how to throw and catch a baseball. Since he taught me this my Dad didn't have to teach me how to throw and catch a baseball, because my brother taught me how to already. Although my Dad has taught me more about baseball than my brother he didn't have to teach me to throw and catch which makes me the little brother easier on my Dad. And about what you said about older brothers being able to take care of themselves better, of course they can. But who taught them to take care of themselves? His parent or his older sibling of course. And Kevin you can't say that you didn't teach your little brother Donovan something about how to take care of himself. It may have been from him watching you tie your shoe. But this means he doesn't have to be walking along the streets and have to ask some stranger to tie his shoe for him. This means you have taught him something about how to take care of himself. Which means this is one less thing that your parents have to teach Donovan. To address what you said about having to prove that little brothers are less of a pain then older brothers. There is no way you can really prove anything, but you can come to a conclusion that something must be true. For example a atheist has no way of proving without a shadow of doubt that there is no God, but he thinks there is no way it can't be true. And neither can a Creationist prove that there is a God, but the same goes for him he might believe that there is no way it can be true that there is no God. But clearly one must be true there has to be either no God, or there has to be a God. I also look forward to your responce old Kevin.
Nuts ruin ice-cream.

As you can tell this isn't as formal as the normal philosophical or political debate. This debate is more of a quick fun one just to take a break from hard core politics. I want to keep the argument length fairly low so the Max. is at 5,000 characters. Point 1. Nuts ruin the consistency- Ice-Cream has a soft smooth texture. Often if one has a sore or inflamed throat instead of those nasty little cough pills ice-cream can be used to soothe the throat. If nuts are in the ice-cream their crunchy-ness ruins the soft smooth consistency and ice-cream can no longer be used to soothe the throat. Point 2. Nuts are a random topping- Common toppings for ice cream consist of things like sprinkles, chocolate sauce, warm fudge, and occasionally even marshmallows. All of the above for the most part soft a dissolve in your mouth. In addition they all have a sweet flavor to offer. # 1 If you are trying to dissolve a nut in your mouth your going to be waiting for a very long time and # 2 nuts have no sweet flavor to offer, nuts are just bland hunks of mass that are not needed in ice-cream. Point 3. Some Evidence! (Why not?)- According to community.tasteofhome.com a recent survey shows that only 4.5% of people being surveyed said they liked nuts as a topping. To enforce what I said earlier about chocolate sauce being a superior topping 67.2% said that chocolate sauce or hot fudge was there favorite topping.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

I love the personal attacks. They hold so much relevance. If it angers you that I beat you last time using your own evidence, don't hold it over into all of our debates. All of this 'armchair' quarterback stuff i just you venting about the times I turn your own support against you. Here, I'll show you. "unlike clinton, obama was a civil rights attorney for a longer period of time. he actually worked with teh people" Who cares? I asked you two rounds ago to point out how this is relevant to being president and you have failed to do so. There are people that have been civil rights attorneys for half a century, do all of them get to be prez? Also, your argument here is one of years. I thought you didn't like counting years and judging the amount of time spent. It doesn't cut both ways. Either you think more years is better or irrelevant. "he spearheaded laws that were enacted" The only bill he has initiated is the Ethics bill that passed 96-2. Not exactly pushing through tough legislation is he? I would hardly call one of 96 senators the lone voice. That bill hasn't done anything to clean up Washington, as we can see. He gets credit for spearheading things because he comes out and speaks about how glad he is this bill passed. Just another commentary on how he uses oratory as a crutch. "it's a reasonable debate and merely different to be obama" No, its not. As I pointed out, Clinton had much more valuable experience. He lead a state (gov IS better), he was attorney general, and despite the fact he was younger was more experienced and qualified. "it seems your only ocnclusion is that age is teh sole factor" You just keep repeating this in the hopes it will come true. Quite the opposite though. I value experience and qualification. Would you hire someone without proper training? If the fact that having little to no experience is a consequence of being young, then yes, being young is a problem. I think that those who have the experience, accomplishment, and merit for the job are more apt rather than someone who can speak eloquently. You can't look at Obama's record objectively and I'm the media puppet? They spoonfeed you facts like "he lectured on con law, he was an advocate for civil rights" and you're like "Ooo!! Ahh!!". You should look at the things he has done objectively instead of buying everything he TELLS you he did. Look at the congressional record sometime and try finding Obama's name under anything but yea or nay. I too wish all voters were objective and critical, thanks. You have continually failed to produce ANYTHIHG Obama has done that would make him a viable presidential candidate. You duck my arguments and kick sand at me in the hopes of detracting from the argument. Still, you haven't provided me any reason Obama is qualified. You just want us to give him a handicap because he "hasn't had the opportunity yet". Come back when you can find something that sets him apart and makes him worthy of leading the nation.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

one thing i notice in debating you. you never actually present new info. all you do is work with the facts i give you. you could have very well shown what clinton did... but instead assert that he raised the state, and that obama didn't do anything during his prerun for the presiency. any facts you cite, were first cited by me. your arm chair debates are amusing. unlike clinton, obama was a civil rights attorney for a longer period of time. he actually worked with teh people. and being a little older, he's had more time to do wht he did. he spearheaded laws that were enacted in: health care changes, criminal investigation reform, death penalty reform, racial profiling reform, ethics reform (reminsienct of his lone voice in campaign finance reform), to name a few thigns he did. i'm not going to make the case for clinton. if you think there's a difference, that's your's to study. while i think gov is better btw, it's a reasonable debate and merely different to be obama... cause he's had state experience and federal perspective. they both have good qualities to them. and, by your reasoning, you'd about have to be a governor in order to accompanish much by their age. again, it seems your only ocnclusion is that age is teh sole factor as there's not mucm ore they could have done. the media is up obama's @$$ in good. but, those in the media who detract from him all talk about his supposed lack of experience. it's okay, i won't fault you too much for not beng able to think for yourself, and being a media puppet. if that makes you feel better that you're rationalizing voting for someone simply because they're older, then more power to you. that someone like you can vote is what makes this country great.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

Even if I give you that Bill was qualified, which is debatable, its not an age issue. Who cares that Clinton was three years younger, thats irrelevant. You have to look at qualifications. Its more than legislator vs governor. Clinton had positive results running a state and Obama raises his hand. He hasn't instigated any significant legislation. The only thing he can say is that he gave a sweet speech against the war 7 years ago. Clinton had infinitely more political experience. How does Obama practicing civil rights law for a couple more years relate to presidential qualifications? Clinton was Attorney General. Obama was a law professor. Clinton raised up a state, Obama raises his hand. So, even if I give you that Clinton was qualified, that in no way means Obama is. Personally, I don't think Bill was qualified. The only reason he won in 92 is because Bush I messed up so badly. Notice you fail to mention anything Obama has done of substance. You just list the same law practice record that has no relevance to presidential qualification. Is this because Obama lacks substance and merit? It would appear so. How am I the one getting played by the media? The media is SO FAR up Obama's rear its ridiculous. The debates are even becoming slanted his way, while all of the negatives get swept under the rug. Notice I'm the one backing my opinion with numerous solid arguments while you spoonfeed me the same old same old irrelevant biography. He lacks substance and merit. This is obvious because you can't name anything he has done post-Harvard. Its ok though, he sounds pretty, and apparently thats what counts.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

bill clinton most agree was qualified. people didn't diss him though for his age even though he was in fact three years younger than obama. clinton was the attorney general for twelve years, and governor of arkansas for two years. he was a con law professor too at a less prestiguous law school for a year or two. clinton got his hands dirty too practicing law with a short stint. surely, out of all the things done, i'd agree that beng governor is best. but, people get in debates all the time about whether senator or governor is better. obama was in either a state or federal legislature for twelve years, similar very much to clinton's. in fact, the only real difference is that obama is older than clinton was, and practiced law and civl rights for mroe time. the debate about experenice if you accept clinton comes down only to whether govenror or legislor is better. it's the same difference. something tells me you're only debating this, if you continue to debate this that is, because the media is telling you that you're suppose to.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

His record has some blotches too, eventhough they might not be listed on his website. He worked for a lawfirm who dealt with a Chicago slumlord and there were also some disputes in his community outreach organizations. Thats not the big problem with your argument though. The argument isn't that Obama is to young, or that we should have an eldery president. Its simply that Obama doesn't have anything that makes him presidential or worthy to lead the country. Age is not the problem, its his merit and credentials. Your argument is like a buff 14 year old girl applying to be a pro wrestler. She has great qualifications for her age, but something tells me she just doesn't have the chops. You say Obama has quality years. How so? He was a great law student, I will give you that. What else has he done? He was a state senator in one of the worst state senates in the country. During that time he was marginal at best. Then, as a US Senator, he hasn't done anything of significance. How are his years quality years, especially politically? I'm not saying age is what matters, but credentials do. Simply saying he has done the best he could is irrelevant, he still needs to be compared to other politicians and their aptitude. Voting on age is definately not the only possible conclusion. You want to give Obama a handicap because he is young. We should ignore the fact that he hasn't achieved anything and simply vote on faith. I don't support McCain, but at least the other candidates have something to lean on. You can tell in the debates, barack is just not as well versed on the obscure or delicate issues.
for his age, one couldn't realistically expect better (only different) experience from obama

he graduated in international relations, which is vital today, then worked at a business organization regarding that topic. he then became a community organizer for the disenfranchised. he then became editor of harvard law review and graduated at the top of his class... which is more than just any law school's editor and class but harvard. he then practiced civil rights law. he taught constutional law at university of chicago, one of the most prestiguous school in the country. he was a state legislator for many years. he then became a US senator for a few years. he seems pretty qualified to me. just because he's not be around as long doesn't mean he can't be president. voting for someone because they're old is not an argument. hte constituion allows president at 35, he's 46... if anyone were to be elected at his age, you couldn't get a better qualifed president. the only conclusion you could possibly come to is that you're going to vote based on number of years only... in which case mccain automatically wins. he's got quality years, not quantity.
Resolved: Pope Francis should be put in charge of the NSA

Last minute argument time! I am going to be short, as I am dead tired.Response: Pope Francis is liked by conservatives and liberals alike. Well, George Washington is the same way, Both cons and libbys like him. Does that mean we should bring him back from the dead to run the NSA? No. (Well, that's another debate.) The fact is that just because some parts from both sides like something doesn't make it the best option. It merely means it is the compromise option. Response: Pope Francis will be able to make the NSA mega-efficient due to his conversations with an all-knowing God.I'm sorry, but this is a bit outside the parameters. You could easily substitute Pope Francis in this one with any other religious leader that is liked by both sides and get the same argument. The fact of the matter is there is so much burden of proof on the issue that it would create a black hole if it had mass. Even if he did talk to God, the Bible shows he is pretty much a douche bag. I mean, he killed more people than Satan did, way more. It seems like most of your argument boils down to Pope Francis being Pope Francis. Just because he is indeed Pope Francis doesn't mean he will be the best leader for the job. Your argument can apply to anyone, just for the sake of being them.That's what I came up with on four hours of sleep, thanks for the debate. See you around, and maybe next time we can get really serious.
Resolved: Pope Francis should be put in charge of the NSA

1. Pope Francis still "clings onto bigotry.""While Pope Francis certainly has brought the Caltholic Church into better light, church doctrine has not changed while Francis is in charge. Yes, Pope Francis has opened his arms to both the LGBT community and atheists, he still vehemently believes that both group are destined for hell."Actually thats completely false... The Catholic Church no longer believes in a literal belief of hell on the grounds that 'The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God'http://www.spyghana.com...So your claim that Pope Francis is a bigot is completely false and rather idiotic. 2. Pope Francis would "disenfranchise millions of Americans.""As you can see, over 75% of Americans woud disagree with Pope Francis on belief alone, and his policies could alienate that same ~75%"Again thats pretty idiotic logic.... We've had Catholic PRESIDENTS in the past (Kennedy) and he did not disenfranchise 75% of Americans, and there have also been a ton of Jews appointed to high positions which by your claim meant that 99% of Americans would be 'disenfranchised' since only about 1% of Americans are Jewish. Also: Disenfranchise means to deny people the ability to vote, and there is literally no evidence at all that Pope Francis would or even COULD take away 75% of the people's right to vote. 3) Pope Francis still hides records of child abuse."While Francis has done a great deal to bring justice to child-abusing priests, there are still thousands of incidents that have gone uninvestigated and thousands of offenders that have gone unpunished"First off - Thats not all you can put on Pope Francis, there are thousands of other people who are likely working to keep it a secret from Pope Francis himselfSecond - He actually acknowledges that the scandal exists and he is trying to fix it, not deny it and cover it upThird - Have you even SEEN what other politicians try to hide? Theres plenty of way worse stuff then a sex scandal that everybody has known about for the past 15 years being covered up in DC right now.....4. Pope Francis has an easy cop-out."If anyone questioned his motives for a certain act while head of the NSA, he could easily say that God told him to do it"This is POPE FRANCIS we are talking about here, not some dumb republican senator from some god-crazy hell state in the Midwest.... If Pope Francis did something wrong it is likely he would admit to it and try to fix it rather then just say God told him to do it, because again, Hes POPE FRANCIS==================================================================================Extend all arguments about being liked by Conservatives and Liberals alike, being able to fix organizations riddled with controversy, being more qualified then anyone else, and being able to make the NSA mega-efficient due to his connections with an all-knowing God.