BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Beatles are best band ever

Opening arguments: Point A: Justin Bieber has incredible hair. Have you ever felt Justin Bieber's hair? While I have not, the look of it leads one to believe that his hair is like silk. Although I have felt it in my dreams, hair that perfect necessitates a divine presence. Point B: Justin Bieber is really popular. Just look on youtube. Point C: Justin Bieber has his own movie. And his movie is not an old movie, it's a new one appealing to the younger generation with an encouraging message (Never say never.) Point D: Justin Bieber's career is just beginning. Justin Bieber has 33.6 million fans on facebook while the Beatles have around 20 million. Since Justin Bieber is only 17, and his career started in 2008 (3 years ago) this implies he is adding 11.2 million fans each year. Therefore, by the time he is 60, he should have around 481.6 billion, or half a billion fans. Moreover, if Justin Bieber - through advances in modern medicine lives to be 120 he should have around 1 billion fans which makes him the most powerful and loved musician to ever exist on this planet, ever.
Beatles are best band ever

You should feel my hair. I will be better tahn Justin Beiber and the Beatles are way better. The Beatles are more popular prove Justin Beiber is more popular "The Beatles' influence on rock music and popular culture was—and remains—immense. Their commercial success started an almost immediate wave of changes—including a shift from US global dominance of rock and roll to UK acts, from soloists to groups, from professional songwriters to self-penned songs, and to changes in fashion. They were a rock and roll group made up of four men from Liverpool, England. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Are we heading towards World War III

CON is being completely Irrational, he is just reading the title of the link I provided and not what I wanted him to. I have told him to read the first few lines of the pages. . http://www.firstpost.com... The title of this page is " Why Obama must shut out the war cries and talk to Iran. MUST is the key word. Now CON said that I am defying myself by giving him this source, but it says that Obama must shut out the war cries, it does not say that he will do it. CON is cutting my statements into half and acquiring the wrong meaning out of them so that he can use them against me. One such example- WHAT I SAID- "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face. " [ Typing error, I meant fact} WHAT CON USED- "Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof"" If CON does not want to believe this then let me give him another source with days the same thing but in not related to Nuclear Weapons . http://beforeitsnews.com... CON is saying that the weak bonds between the countries that were damaged in the past have been healed. it is a well knows fact that revenge dies hard. Once in the past, the Russian Prime Minister mad an offer to the American President to disarm all their nuclear weapons. America Refused. [A little while after the cold War] CON says- "Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons. " This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task. CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument. CON demands that I explain how the events that I mentioned may lead to the Third World War. The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War. Did you know how World War I happen ? Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, the capital Bosnia. This was organised by an illegal union of extreme Serbian nationalists who called themselves, "The Black Hand" or "Union of Death". And con may have not noticed that these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers. They are all interlinked Dear Voters, CON's argument is very weak and he is deviating from the topic, stating facts that are not in any manner relevant to the topic and just refuting.
Are we heading towards World War III

This round will be short and concise. PRO drops my argument about peace and how in the 21st century, diplomats would rather talk about the issues instead of fighting each other. In fact, the source he provided: . http://www.firstpost.com...clearly proves my stance. In fact, the title of that article is "Why Obama must shut out the warcries and TALK to Iran. " This clearly shows that leaders would rather talk than go to war with each other. Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof"Furthermore, PRO seems to be caught up with the past. I agree that there were bad relations in the past, which was the reason for the previous world wars. However, since then, the world has been able to mature and talk things out. PRO continues to leave this point unrefuted. Also, PRO fails to recognize that relations with other countries have improved greatly, reducing the likihood of a third world war. Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons. Therefore, the likihood of us heading into world war 3 is unlikely as both the USA and EU are trying to prevent this war from occuring in the first place. REFUTATIONCON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in. Not deviating, simply providing examples to support my claims. PRO leaves these examples unrefuted. These examples prove that in the 21st century, we do not fight with each other as much. We would rather talk. Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other. This is not true. In the 21st century, relations have become much better, proving the unlikihood of a World War 3. . http://rt.com...If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University. Key word, if. As there is no war, China would not back Iran. PRO has not proved his stance on this. I have proven that there will be no World War 3. ConclusionAs a result of PRO dropping several arguments, I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO is unable to logically prove his stance. He jumps to conclusions. For example, he has provided several events around the world. However, he does not explain why these events would lead to a war. He simply assumes this to be so.
Are we heading towards World War III

Please list the statements of whose source you want. The one you demanded for in the previous round is here http://www.firstpost.com... CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in. "None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore." This is what CON said. Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other. Israel either way does not trade with any of the Countries who might be it's Enemies. The UK and The EU are self-sufficient, hence they trade very less and even if they do, it is with the countries that might become it's allies. China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face. China has a lot of trade with Iran https://images.angelpub.com... If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University. Here are a few of my Sources - Essential for you to read the first few lines http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Are we heading towards World War III

First, let me point out that PRO has made several claims and assumptions with nothing to back them up. Therefore, these claims may or may not be accurate. PRO must provide a source. I will refute these claims once a source has been provided."USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so."I find this hard to believe, as Obama just pulled out of the Iraq war. Please provide a source.Secondly, moving on to my arguments. There will not be a World War 3.We live in the 21st century, a time where everyone wants peace. We have seen this several times in the world.We see this when Obama withdrew all US soldiers from Iraq, essentially ending the Iraq War, because he stands for peace. http://content.usatoday.com...We see this again with North Korea. By not attacking North Korea, it shows that we stand for peace. Fifty years ago, we might have invaded North Korea because they are communists, but not in the 21st century. In the 21st century, no one wants war anymore. Things are solved through diplomats and peacekeepers in this new time. We saw evidence of this new form of "warfare" emerging from the suez canal crisis, with Lester Pearson. http://www.suezcrisis.ca...This entire crisis was resolved through talks and working out each others differences. Therefore, in the 21st century, we stand for peace and we solve issues like mature people, talking them out.Let's look at the Libya crisis. War erupted between the rebels and Gadhafi. What did NATO and the UN do? They stepped in to try to resolve this issue, not take sides. Therefore, it is obvious, that in the 21st century, we strive to resolve issues and make peace.Let's look at the groups you pointed out."So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russiaand : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK"None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore.Therefore, no one wants to anger each other, because these countries are interdependent for trade. Therefore, no one would want to start a war with each other.
Are we heading towards World War III

First of all let me explain to you how World War II might happen. Iran as we all know is on the verge of discovering nuclear technology with the help of Russia and Pakistan. When the USA and the UK were briefed on this they made a decision of not by oil from Iran as soon as their contracts ended even though Iran had said that it will use Nuclear Technology only for generating electricity. They did this because Iran and Israel are ancient enemies and Iran has vowed has vowed to destroy Israel and calls it nothing. Iran reacted to this by warning USA and UK that it would close the Strait of Hormuz from which one-fifth of the world's oil comes from. This could lead to oil prices rising highly and the market's rising, and along with this if the Euro zone broke up because of Greece, many commodities including Gold and Silver could go Hay-Wire. USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so. It has said that it should change it's decision before the contracts end otherwise war would follow. An Iranian politician reacted by saying that their decision was final, and if they want to resolve the situation peacefully, they should change their terms. The USA,UK and The EU send ships into the strait of Hormuz in reaction to this China and Russia reacted to this by saying that they would not watch the show, but they would join the war by defending Iran. It is likely that Israel will also join the war on America's side and if it does not, it will support America unofficially. Pakistan has remained Neutral till now but is likely to join the war because all Muslim countries especially Iran, Pakistan and Egypt want to wipe out Israel. Iran and Egypt attacked Israel in the past and suffered major losses. They have been hell bent on revenge ever since. So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK
Are we heading towards World War III

CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive" In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to. There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U. S. A, E. U, and the U. K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow. I agree that my argument was refuted, but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments. Now that the U. S. a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U. S. A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss. The U. S. a and the E. U sanctioned trade with Iran to convince it to drop Nuclear Technology, but Iran does not seem to be listening to them. We may be more inclined to peace in the 21st century, but superpowers like U. S. a do not take any crap from a country. CON is becoming over confident towards the end of the Debate. I request you all voters not to be partial and vote for the one who YOU think is better.
Should Human cloning be allowed in the United States of Americe

Thank you for inviting me to this debate. I hope we can have a clean and productive debate, while exchanging our views on this stance. First, here is a reason why I believe we should not clone humans. It is completely unnecessary. The USA is not in need of making clones of other humans. Even if we did need to clone someone, it would be incredibly expensive, even if we nailed it on the first try. Back in 1996, The Roslin Institute in the UK cloned Dolly, a sheep. Everyone was ecstatic, but it also took 277 tries. That means there were 276 deformed or imperfect sheep that were cloned, which were eventually killed. Cloning a human is not only harder than cloning a sheep, but it is also more dangerous. There would be WAY more casualties in attempting to clone a human than a sheep. There could have been more easier techniques used, or different ones for humans, but ultimately it would not be worth it. There is no highly beneficial reason to clone someone. http://www.animalresearch.info... So here are some counter arguments to your reasons. 1) If you clone a sick (or infected) child, most likely the clone will have that same disease. Cloning someone who has a deformity or disease will most likely pass it on to the clone. It is not worth it to clone someone who is sick. 2) I believe the technique you believe will be used is sort of like a cloning machine, make a copy of that person, at that age, in that time (and help correct me if this is wrong). If this is your belief, we just do not have the technology for that kind of cloning. This kind of cloning may never be available. The type of cloning that The Roslin Institute conducted was injecting a female egg with male white sheep embryonic cells. They then ejected the fertilized egg into the female sheep, the real Dolly, and it gave birth to the clone. 3) Although you have a valid point here, I do not believe people should do this. Let us say you are dating someone. You have been together for a long time. All of a sudden, she breaks up with you. You are heartbroken, so the only way to fill the gap is to get another girlfriend. Then eventual she breaks up with you, and you get a new girlfriend, and the cycle continues. Eventually, you will get your heart broken, but that does not mean you should go out and do the exact same thing. That is not fixing anything. If anything, it is breaking you more. Plus, death is inevitable. We should not try to fill in our sadness with the past memories, although we should not completely block it out. That person who died wants the best of you, they want you to be happy. They do not want you to continue to think of them, because you get sad. The whole point of it is that you should move on. It will happen eventually. And while you move on, you should never forget the good times. Cloning the person will just make them mad. Now there is two of them. You are almost lowering their value by creating more and more of that person. The point from this counter argument is, do not clone a dead relative.
Should Human cloning be allowed in the United States of Americe

I think human cloning should be allowed because of many ( four ) reasons. My first reason is that, If a mother ends up not having a child because of some infection, she can get a cloned child and this does not hurt the original child. The mother of the original child may not be happy though. My second reason is that, it can help our army ( although their lives will not be a grown man so rhey can fight lter or be cloned when they are young ) . Lets just say the United States of America waged war against another country ( or the other way around where another country waged war on us, and that is very possible by North Korea ). My third and last reason is that, If a person dies their family members may grieve a lot. To stop that cloning the man/woman who died will stop them from doing so, and will leave everyone happy ( well, maybe except for the man/woman who died ). Although the family members will think he/she is still alive he/she is not. Only another version of the body is still alive not the brain, and as a result he/she will restart their lives
The story of Jesus Christ is immoral and unjust in its core.

When I say, "in its core," I'm referring to Jesus Christ of Nazareth living a life resisting sin and dying for our sins in order for us to be able to enter those pearly gates of Heaven. I am not a believer, I am an atheist. I would expect my opponent to be a believer, though they obviously don't have to be. This round will be for acceptance, only. This is not to be a debate over semantics. This debate is primarily aimed to debate the reason for the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (As depicted by the Christian faith). Dropped arguments are to be counted as concessions if they are presented to be drops and are ignored again. My opponent is to expect a thoroughly explained warrant for my claim and I would appreciate a lengthy and well thought-out reply from my opponent.Any other specifics can be cleared up in the comment section!
Gun Control

As my opponent has forfeited this round by not responding within 30 minutes, I'd like to summarize the points I've made during this debate. 1. Simple weapons should be legal for last-resort self-defence, while assault weapons should not. 2. Hunting weapons may remain legal. 3. Chicago may or may not have higher murder rates solely because of strict gun laws. 4. Enforcement of gun laws should be very strict, with several additional policies to prevent illegal ownership or usage. 5. Banning assault weapons will reduce the number of people who own dangerous weapons, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Gun Control

Although it is impossible for the government to completely eliminate the ownership of assault weapons, that is very different from claiming that banning them will produce no effect at all. For example, it is much more difficult to get ahold of cocaine than cigarettes, because cocaine is not legal while cigarettes are. You can walk into a convenience store and buy a cigarette, but you can't buy a bag of cocaine. Yes, people still obtain and use cocaine, but it takes more effort than just walking into a store and purchasing it, and users have to take the risk that they'll get caught. The same can be said about assault weapons. The government can't eliminate all assault weapons, but they can reduce the number of assault weapons by strictly enforcing the law. If banning something had no effect on how many people obtain it, then street signs wouldn't exist because not everybody follows them. Laws are made knowing that they will be imperfect, but they are created anyways because some effect is better than none. If a person wants an assault weapon, but knows that they'll be punished if they get caught with it, then they'll be less likely to illegally purchase one. Not everybody will follow that logic, but some people will. In summary, the goal of banning assault weapons isn't to eliminate them, but to reduce the number of people who have them.