BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT

While it may be true that some people are capable of doing this, a relatively few number would have the willpower to go through with it. Consider the following statement: "I can eat the contents of an entire jar of mayonnaise in a timespan of 30 minutes." While this is true for some people, I know I personally could never do such a thing. Perhaps I _could_ if my life was in danger and that was all I could do to save myself, but the word used is _can_. Under the current circumstances, I _cannot_ eat an entire jar worth of mayo in 30 minutes, simply because I would not have the willpower necessary. In the same way, I doubt that you would be capable of shoving a whole chicken up your butt, in a way that, as you yourself admitted, could cause extreme physical harm. I know _I_ couldn't, and neither I nor the voters have a good enough reason to believe that you can. Thanks for the debate.
I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT

ALL RIGHT THEN. SINCE I OBVIOUSLY CANNOT SHOW VISUAL PROOF THEN I WILL HAVE TO USE ANOTHER EXAMPLE. ANY PERSON COULD HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH THEIR BUTT IF IF WAS JAMMED UP THERE FAR ENOUGH. YOU COULD USE A LEG BUT IF THAT DIDNT WORK YOU MAY HAVE TO MANIPULATE THE CHICKEN INTO A MORE FAVORABLE SHAPE. GRANTED THAT THIS MAY CAUSE EXTREME PHYSICAL HARM, ANY PERSON COULD STILL DO IT - THUS PROVING THAT I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT.
I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT

Perhaps I was too quick to call your statement remarkable. However, an unremarkable statement still does require some level of evidence to back it up. If I made a debate entitled "I am a 50 year old black woman," I would have to prove that I in fact was. Anyone reading the debate would know that it's quite possible that I am in fact a 50 year old black woman, but that doesn't mean I am. I would have to verify in some way that I was, else I would not have met my burden of proof. Also, hilding it with your butt AND another object is not holding it with your butt. You would have to grasp the chicken with only your cheeks to be holding a whole chicken with your butt. By using the wall, your butt would not be holding the WHOLE chicken. Just as "I can fly" would not be proven with me riding in a plane, since it's the plane flying, not me. Regardless, the fact remains: not everyone has the cheek strength required to hold a whole chicken. You must give us some reason to believe that you have this capability. Simply stating it does not make it true, nor does coming up with hypothetical statements when we don't know if you can apply them in reality. You have simply stated something. Something that for all we know, could be possible. This does not meet your burden of proof.
I CAN HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT

HOW REMARKABLE IS IT REALLY TO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM? IF A PERSON WERE TO TAKE A WHOLE DEAD CHICKEN RELATIVELY SMALL IN SIZE, AND POSITION ANY PART OF IT SO THAT IT COULD BE PINCHED BETWEEN EACH CHEEK, IT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A MINIMAL DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY. I COULD PIN THE CHICKEN BETWEEN MY BUTT AND AN UNMOVING OBJECT, SUCH AS A WALL, VEHICLE, ETC, AND HOLD IT AGAINST THAT OBJECT. ALSO, IT COULD BE POSITIONED ON TOP OF MY BUTT SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE WEIGHT OF THE CHICKEN WAS RESTED ABOVE WHERE IT WAS PINCHED BETWEEN THE CHEEKS. YOU COMPARE MY STATEMENT TO THE CLAIM THAT SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU CAN FLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN, BUT WHAT I'M CLAIMING IS NOT ONLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT IS RELATIVELY EASY TO DO. OBVIOUSLY, I CANT SIMPLY CRAM A CHICKEN IN MY BUM AND SEND YOU A PICTURE OF IT, BUT IF YOU HAVE A MINIMAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THAT HOLDING A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH YOUR BUTT REALLY ISNT THAT REMARKABLE. I'M SIMPLY ARGUING THAT I COULD DO HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT. SINCE IT IS WELL WITHIN THE POSSIBILITIES OF HUMAN CAPABILITY, AND I AM A FULLY FUNCTIONING HUMAN, IT IS THEREFORE IN NO WAY UNLIKELY THAT I COULD NOT HOLD A WHOLE CHICKEN WITH MY BUTT.
The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

"But it would be terrible for Putin, because he wants to decrease smoking. " I disagree with this point, but there's no purpose in arguing it because neither of us have any evidence. ". .. terrible for Putin. .. " seems like a huge exaggeration. It might be bad for the nation as a whole, in the long run, but not for Putin necessarily. "Now, Nabisco is an enormous company. It's not unrealistic that it could have provided funding to Russia, especially if it was essentially an investment for Nabisco" My opponent provides no statistics or information to support this claim. Nabisco would have to donate massive sums of money to the Russian government in order to make any significant impact on the Russian military budget of $46 billion. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... "My opponent commented that evidence has not been shown for Putin advertising Nabisco's other products. The concept of him advertising Nabisco's products is the theory here. I'm trying to prove it. " My opponent's entire theory pretty much relies on this single point. He has not shown any evidence for Putin's advertising of Nabisco's products other than the picture shown in Round 1, which seems to be weak proof. "I have definitely shown that the increase in Russian military funding and the increase in price of Nabisco's stocks are related. " Not at all. My opponent has only managed to show that the two occurred at roughly the same time. My opponent then goes to describe essentially how product placements works and while I understand that the image could technically be considered product placement, my opponent hasn't really shown it to be effective, nor has he provided any other examples. Overall, I'd say that there is a serious lack of evidence to this theory as my opponent has not managed to show any connection between the increase in Russian military funding and increase in Nabisco's stocks besides the fact that they occur at roughly the same.
The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

"This is a positive relationship for both parties: Putin can decrease smoking in Russia (which would normally hurt Nabisco), but by helping advertise Nabisco's other products they can counteract that lost revenue. In exchange, they are providing him with funding." But what is Putin or Nabisco gaining through Putin's anti-smoking campaign? If he wants to support Nabisco, there's no point in trying to eradicate smoking. That's like -1 for Nabisco, and then +1 for him advertising Nabisco's other products (evidence of which has not been shown). Wouldn't it be better to be neutral on smoking (+1 for Nabisco) AND advertise the other products? (another +1). By putting up an anti-smoking campaign, Putin is hitting on a huge section of Nabisco's revenue (as my opponent showed in Round 1). "Also, Putin would not be advertising tobacco for the reasons I cited in the previous paragraph." But there is no reason. Neither party is gaining anything by Putin campaigning against smoking. My opponent has yet to show that the increase in Russian military spending and increase in price of Nabisco's stocks have anything to do with each other. So far, it seems that it's nothing more than coincidence, as there is little evidence of cooperation between the Russian government and Nabisco.
The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

I agree that only I have burden of proof for this debate. Let's take a look at my opponent's counter-claims, and explain what he is misunderstanding in each one: - "Does this not go against your own claim? If Putin was collaborating with Nabisco, why would so much emphasis be put on stopping smoking? It seems that my opponent's second paragraph shows the exact opposite of what he/she is trying to prove in this debate." Vledemir Putin does want to stop smoking in Russia. To help achieve this goal, he is working with Nabisco to promote their other products and decrease tobacco sales in Russia. This is a positive relationship for both parties: Putin can decrease smoking in Russia (which would normally hurt Nabisco), but by helping advertise Nabisco's other products they can counteract that lost revenue. In exchange, they are providing him with funding. - "I request a source for this claim. And even if this is so, why not advertise tobacco as well?" This is the conspiracy theory. If someone was attempting to prove, for example, that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks (for the record, I am not arguing for or against this notion, just citing the theory as an example), they just have proof of that. They would use evidence that supports the theory itself. Also, Putin would not be advertising tobacco for the reasons I cited in the previous paragraph. - "I request a source for this claim as well. Also, what product are you referring to here?" This statement refers to the final image. That product is the Ritz cracker. This is where the idea seems absurd, which has allowed it to fly under the radar. The popularity of this "meme" has been used to associate Putin with the crackers in Russia and bring awareness to them. - "What exact problems are you referring to?" The problem is the lack of funding I cited in my original argument.
The Nabisco-Russia Conspiracy is True

It's not every day that my username brings such interesting topics to the table. I would like to note that for this debate, my opponent has sole BoP. There are several comments my opponent makes in regards to the Russian military with which I disagree, but that is a debate for another day. ". .. tobacco sales in Russia are a major source of revenue for Nabisco. As a result, Putin's recent efforts to dramatically decrease smoking in Russia should present a major issue for them. " Does this not go against your own claim? If Putin was collaborating with Nabisco, why would so much emphasis be put on stopping smoking? It seems that my opponent's second paragraph shows the exact opposite of what he/she is trying to prove in this debate. ". .. Putin used his control over the Russian media to advertise Nabisco products (other than tobacco, of course). " I request a source for this claim. And even if this is so, why not advertise tobacco as well? "Vledimir Putin is using his image to promote arguably the most popular Nabisco product in America, Nabisco's home nation. " I request a source for this claim as well. Also, what product are you referring to here? "So Russia's military problems have been inexplicably solved" What exact problems are you referring to? Overall, the only real evidence I see in my opponent's argument that suggest that this conspiracy is true is that: 1. The Russian military has been growing actively in recent times. 2. Nabisco stocks have also increased. I feel that my opponent is going to have to present much more information to get anywhere close to proving that the two are related in any way. Russian increase in military size and quality is simply due to increased spending as a result of the international tensions, primarily between Russia and the US. I curiously await my opponent's response.
It is possible to shape the universe with your wants

Is this the real life,Is this just fantasy,Forfeit another time, (no,)Points taken away from me,Open your eyes,Look at his lies and see. .. He's just a poor boy,No conduct, just apathy,It was easy come, easy go,Two forfeits, in a row,Whether I was right or no,All the points will go. .. to me,Mama,I just won again,He was too busy to make a case,Another moment to pretend I'm great,Mama,The debate had just begun,And Sir Jack's gone and thrown it all away.
It is possible to shape the universe with your wants

9/11. Hurricane Katrina. Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo. I didn't want any of these things to happen. And yet, they still did. I will be arguing that one can not shape the entire universe simply with his wants. Allow me to go further in-depth: "Why It's Impossible To Shape the Universe With Our Wants"1. Definition of "Universe"Universe- The totality of known or supposed objects throughout space [Random House Dictionary 2013]. Also, "the" universe refers to there being only one. I could easily change "my" universe, but we are not debating about my universe. We are debating about "the" universe. My opponent violates this definition because he states that one can change simply what they perceive, and therefore change the universe. Furthermore, you should vote based on my definition of "universe" because it is from an expert source, not just a mere person. And furthermore, definition should be a major part of your vote because it is basically my opponent's entire case.2. Changing Perception Does Not Change Physical ShapeAn optimist pictures the glass half full. A pessimist pictures the glass half empty. I picture the glass to be completely broken beyond repair. Considering half full and half empty add up to the same measure, either they are right about the glass being halfway filled, or I am right about shards of glass being all over the floor. But in reality, only one of these possibilities is true. Therefore, one of our perceptions had no effect on the shape of the glass. Thus, shaping the universe with our wants can not always happen. Thus, we cannot shape the universe with our perception.3. We Don't Always Achieve Our GoalsAs pointed out in my introduction, not everything in the universe conforms to what we want. If it did, the United States would likely have ten million presidents. However, simply wanting to be president does not automatically make you president. Sure, one could always perceive themselves as president, and in their own little universe they would be president. However, as established in my first argument, we are debating about "the" universe, not one's own universe. Therefore, you cannot achieve any goal simply by perceiving that you achieved it. Conclusion:My opponent is violating the definition of "the universe". One cannot change the universe's physical shape with his wants. One cannot achieve any goal simply by wanting to achieve it. The resolution has been negated.
Gun rights

Not to be rude, but facts are facts. First let's show gun control does not work: Western Europe, in fact, has always had very low homicide rates as compared to the U.S. This is not something caused by strict anti-gun laws, because this low homicide rate existed before such laws were adopted, and the low rate occurs also in Switzerland and Austria which have no such strict anti-gun laws. [1] directly from source. Basically saying that the anti-gun laws there are regional, not law related. Nor, finally, have these anti-gun laws stopped suicide [1] So basically relating to the point that gun laws wouldn't stop suicide as there are many ways to do it. It wasn't supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: "Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy." [2] C/P from source. So a country with severe gun laws still has guns, this proves guns ARE available even with these laws. Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. [2] This really made me say "whoa!!!" all of their multiple homicide shootings happened after the gun ban. Also above c/p from source. "Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. " [3] putting quotes is easier then saying c/p every time. "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly." [3] an example of more guns crime. I see no need to keep going, with little effort I have proven my point. Vote pro. more guns less crime, gun control dos not work, it is my right to own a gun etc. Remember vote for me/ sources: http://www.nraila.org... [1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] http://www.kc3.com... [3]
Gun rights

"We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon"So are knifes, you wanna ban knives? Cars cna be used as weapns an kill people all of the time, do you wanna ban cars? This arguemnt is a fallacy. "it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns."Let's use more guns less crime stats: The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. [1]This is funny. After these gun control laws ended crime dropped. So this proves gun control doesn't lower crime, it proves more guns less crime. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. [2]gun sales rose, crime stopped. More guns less crime. "Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms."That is true, but banning/controling guns usually increases gun crimes:Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. [3]LOL these laws raised gun violence. So basically the problems you say guns lave are cured with guns. C1: it is my consitutional rightsThe Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. [4]directly from source. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.I needed exact wording from [5]However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. [6]c/p from source. C2: more guns less crimePoint in refutations. Well I have no reason to continue. Vote prohttp://www.nraila.org... [1]http://www.nraila.org... [2]http://www.justfacts.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.law.cornell.edu... [5]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [6]
Gun rights

We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon: A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... As it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns. Having no to little gun laws is illogical. This will be copied from a source: The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.) http://www.asahi-net.or.jp... I have won.
WWIII what will happen

All right to go with the comment for the start of the war, it would seem hard to pinpoint one but if I had to go with one is that since the Americans have already fought Iraq a few times before the fighting escalatedThis weaken Iraq. Iraq HAS to get help from Russia. ...Germany had already lost to the U.S. and Russia so they picked a side in case the fighting went to themRussia has three fronts they have to deal with.The Germanic front (Front A)The Japan-South Korea Front(Front B)AndThe Iraqi Front(Front C)since Russia is closer they went with them. With France right next to Germany and Russian troops going in to support Germany(since the jets and boats will be used in the fight against Japan and S. Korea) France joins in with themIf you look at a map of Russia, you know that the Ural Mountains are blocking most of Russia from the west side of the Ural. Thus, they cant sent every aging gun they have in there. Russia also has a aging Navy and Air force. Japan and South Korea should have no problem.Now it would be true that Russia would only attack by air and sea with China being in the way(probably would be neutral and have no troops go through). Russia would most likely be in a tie with Japan and S. Korea in that battleLets face it, they would sent the Airforce to Front A, not Front B. Front B would most likely be sea battles, again America is here to save the Asians. USA will sent the Navy and sent the Ground and airforce to deal with Mexico to give them a deadly blow. ..and with France and Germany working together they would hold of the U.K.(until the U.S. would send reinforcements). Until Russia broke through Poland(or if Ukraine allowed troops to go through) then they couldn't support to the fullest. Russia I say would send at least 30,000 foot soldiers to support Iraq right away along with a few hundred jets and tanks. When Russia would brake through Poland(and come on they would) but not necessarily defeat them they would send maybe 2 times as much troops to support France and Germany dependent on the number of U.S. support troops.Said ground troops and Airforce will push the Russians to the Ural trapping them with the Russian Navy and Air force in Japanic area. Poland is only to hold the Russians back until The battle of Europe is finished.I ask Con to delay his next debate a day later so I can have the time to shape my debate. Im busy.