BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If not for her husband, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a prime contender for the Democratic nomination.

Ahh, Hillary. Either you love her or you hate her. That's pretty much how it is, whether you be Democrat or Republican. Really, though, would she be so popular if it wasn't for the fact that she married Bill Clinton early on in life, and he happened to get elected as president twice? I routinely hear her saying how she spent eight years in the White House with Bill, so she knows exactly how Washington runs. This may be true, but would that experience qualify Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush to run for president? As for her senate seat in New York - even if she DID win that seat on her own merit (I argue, too, that she won that seat because of Bill), is she really qualified to run for president? This point also plays into the Obama factor, who only has 2 and a half years Senator experience, as opposed to Hillary's seven and half. To me, it seems as if the democrats this time around have chosen very inexperienced, unqualified candidates to be their front-runners. My argument, though, is about Hillary. If it wasn't for her husband, no one (except for her family and friends) would even know who Hillary Rodham Clinton is today. I mean, has she really done anything noteworthy to distinguish her from her other fellow Senators? Or is it the NAME that counts for the Democrats?
If not for her husband, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a prime contender for the Democratic nomination.

First off, you have taken this debate away from what you started it is. You state that Hillary isn't qualified for this office but in your opening speech you just talk about how she wouldn't be so popular without Bill. Next, Hillary will (if she becomes president) make a much better one than the one that we currently have and equal if not better than the other candidates now. This whole set of arguments though are off topic. Second, Hillary Clinton is one of those special women who has been able to do for herself what few women have done before. My argument on how Bill needed Hillary (which went virtually irrefuted) is stating that Hillary IS the backbone behind the Clinton family and is the engine that drove Bill to his presidency. Because of this, she is more than qualified to propell herself to the top and no, she does not necessarily NEED Bill for what she is doing ajd would be just as popular without him. And, Hillary's successes in highschool and college are not so unique as the initiative that she took with the opportunities that she left herself open to. Human beings have a natural tendency to be drawn towards things that they want to do and Hillary's interal drive has brought her to where she is today. I am sorry if you are disappointed with what you are doing with your life and I do hope that what you are doing is something that you do enjoy. If your occupation works for you then that is where you found your niche and Hillary found her own niche as well. On the other hand, we have had presidents in the past who didn't even have a college degree and they were well qualified. I believe that the position of president is one that doesn't come from knowledge which is obtained from school, but rather it comes from wisdom which one can get through experience and common sense. Third, Hillary has proven with the books she has written and the things she has done that she can independently take the initiative to accomplish great things.
If not for her husband, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a prime contender for the Democratic nomination.

You start your argument claiming that Bill wouldn't have been in office if it weren't for Hillary. I don't quite know what you mean by this, as her husband was elected Governor of Arkansas for many years before the general public really knew who she was, but I'll let you make your own arguments and I'll refute them later. You predicate your notion that Hillary would have still been famous without her husband Bill based on the fact that she has written books about her past and as her term as first lady. This argument relies on the fact that she was already famous. In short, people wouldn't have bought a book about Hillary Clinton's life if they didn't know who she already was. You speak of Bill's allegations hindering her political growth. I argue, forget Bill! Hillary has a whole set of allegations of her own. Peter Paul, Norman Hsu... the list goes on and on. Hillary is hindering her own political growth by participating in such a vile, perverted form of politics. And as for Slick Willie... I would argue that one of the only reasons people want Hillary in the White House is so Bill could have another term! Whenever Hillary is attacked, Bill comes to her rescue. If he really has been hindering her political growth, she certainly doesn't know about it. As for Yale and Wellesly, I can think of plenty of people I know who graduated from there, yet are not qualified to run the United States. As for her previous career before college... all I have to say is that I, too, was in Boy Scouts, Student Council, NHS, and debate. Plenty of people graduate from high school with these credentials. Never have I seen any of these factors play a role in a presidential debate. You argue that she's qualified because she took initiative in change during Bill's presidency. So did Nancy Reagan, with her "Just Say No" policy. I would argue that her approach was a bit more successful that Hillary's "universal healthcare express." However, proposing that Nancy Reagan run for president after Reagan left office would be preposterous. The fact is, Hillary has done some great things in her life, but not so great that they distinguish her from any other person in her position. She is not fit to be the president of the United States.
Resolved: Frozen 2 will likely be better than the original Frozen

F you!!!! I was busy anyways.... 1.) I don't think that frozen 2 will make more money , We all do not know if frozen 2 is going to be stupendous maybe its plot will become lame thus, the majority of the people will dislike the movie . 2.) "Sequels just make more money, and a sequel to FROZEN? They'll probably make $10 Million off of me seeing it alone. A sequel to Frozen would easily be the most anticipated sequel made in at least a decade, and it would be poised to break box-office records when it is released. " hmmmm..... What if another movie was released example: The hunger games: mocking jay ? Do you think frozen will make more money? I don't think so because many people are already excited to watch "The hunger games" 3.) What if in frozen 2 , olaf died and kristoff also died do you think people are still going to like the movie? What if in frozen 2 less singing and more crying do you think people will love it? 4.)There are still many more movies that are better than frozen .http://whatculture.com...
Resolved: Frozen 2 will likely be better than the original Frozen

1) By accepting, you agree that Frozen 2 is being produced. You cannot argue that it wont be better than Frozen 1 since its not going to be made. . http://screenrant.com... 2) Better is defined as "Will be better reviewed and/or will gross more money", meaning that con will argue that Frozen 2 will NOT be as critically acclaimed or gross as much money as Frozen 1 did. 3) Whoever accepts, beware. .. .. I know my sh*t when it comes to Frozen. 4) The 'Frozen' movie I am referring to is the mega-hit Disney movie that was released in 2013, not the horror movie Frozen released in 2010 that nobody knows about. Dont try to pull that on me.
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

My opponent says that to be healthy you must smell your feces. Weird smells can be healh problems. This is a BARE assertion from Pro, Pro has no sources. My opponent says that a healthy person will have good smell. This is wrong, as Poop is waste, no nutrients, and this is a bare assertion from Pro. My opponent says I should check the internet. First of all, I did, and there are no searches, and second, my opponent should give the evidence to me, not make me read his evidence. My opponent says that the society told us that poop stinks. This is wrong, as I already said in my second round. My opponent says that we are not taught to like our body odor. I don't get how this is possible. We don't learn this at class. With my opponent's logic, we aren't happy, only society tells us that we are happy. My opponent gives another bare assertion about sexuality, and all of this assertions are bare assertions.
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

Enjoying the smell of your waste is a necessity. In order to make sure you are healthy, you must smell your own feces/flatulence. Weird smells can be a sign of health problems. A person who is in good physical shape and eats right, can produce pleasant odors from their poop and farts. if my opponent wants evidence, I suggest he check the Internet. There are many people who proclaim their affinity for the smells they produce, and want to know if this behavior is normal. I have known several people who enjoy smelling their farts and poop. A friend of mine in junior high admitted to me that he enjoys his own poop smell. I will not say whether I enjoy it, because I do not feel that is relevant. Who decides which smells are good and which ones stink? I am originally from India, but was born and raised in America, and am indoctrinated by the American culture. One thing that always strikes me, is the American disgust for bodily processes and products. American society taught us that anything relating to the body, is gross, and smelly. We are taught that feces is a gross substance to be flushed down the toilet, and only to be spoken about in whispers. We learned not to like poop, the same way we are taught not to like our own body odor. Spend some time in Paris, they have no such prudishness about their natural body smell. Body odor used to advertise our sexuality. But society has relegated it to the level of the disgusting. if society can make us ashamed of our body odor, it can make us ashamed of our poop too.
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

In this round I will rebut my opponent's statements. I want my opponent to not post until I get to my hotel, as I am very busy. My opponent says that it is obvious that people don't agree that poop stinks. My opponent shows a bare assertion, and has no source for this, doesn't even give an example for this too. My opponent says that poop is a natural substance in our bodies, and says that it is like our skin, hair, etc. My opponent makes a bare assertion. Poop is waste, and the bad fat, and those parts of what you eat. The nutrients all go in your body, and make you better, and the waste goes to poop. So it is full of nutrients, as I rebutted this claim. My opponent gives two examples of India and Korea. First of all, I am Korean, and there is no medical drink that is from poop. It is called shik-hae, and it is made of rice. Also my opponent makes bare assertions that poop is helpful. And it doesn't help Pro's burden. Pro's burden is to show that poop doesn't stink, not that we use poop. My opponent doesn't give any source or example that people enjoy their poop smell, when I gave an example of my friends, me and my family. I hate cow feces also, they ruin the smell of nature, the tree smells. My opponent doesn't rebut ANY of my arguments.
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

My opponent is using personal opinion to say that poop stinks. However, it is obvious that many don"t agree with this. Poop is a natural substance that comes from our bodies. It is rich in many different nutrients and can be used for a variety of purposes. In India for instance, in some poor, rural areas, they use it for cooking fuel, or even to build huts. There is also an ancient medicinal drink made in Korea, that consists of rice wine, and fermented human poo. And we all know that it is used for fertilizer to grow vegetables in many countries. Many is the person who loves the odor of fresh cow feces, when driving past a farm in the country. For them, the smell has positive connotations of farm life, and is not hindered by society. Humans also naturally love the smell of their own poop. There is no reason they shouldn"t. It came from our bodies, so it is our own, just like our hair, skin, eyes etc. a healthy person"s poop has a nice rich, robust smell that is very pleasant.
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

First of all, the resolution is, "Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does. " My opponent is Pro. I have to say that then Poop does stink, and give examples. As my opponent needs to say that poop doesn't stink, and he has the burden, the only burden I have is that I have to give examples when poop does stink, and rebut my opponent's claims. So even if I say that one person thinks poop stinks, then I advance my burden. My opponent therefore has a bigger burden. Now, for me poop stinks. It smells like a mixture of rotten egg, which stinks. Try smelling a rotten egg. You're gonna barf. It stinks for me. My brother says it stinks too. Our whole family hates poop, as it stinks. Many other people will think also that poop stinks. My opponent says that society makes them think that poop stinks. No exactly. Me, poop stinks. I knew it when I was a baby. Society didn't change my mind. And, where did society get poop stinks? Because some person said poop stinks. So, some people must have thought poop stinks, therefore I advance my burden. That's all I will present this round. Next round I will make more arguments, and rebuttals. Good luck! ! !
Poop doesn't stink. We only think it does because society tells us it does.

When babies are little, they have no problem smelling, or even tasting their own poop (feces). It is only when our parents and society label our feces as nasty and stinky, that we grow to dislike it. If not for society, we would all be enjoying the odors of ours and other people's poop. In fact, many people secretly do enjoy the odor of poop, but are too ashamed to admit it, for fear of social disapproval. But secretly, we all enjoy our own feces/flatulence odors, and secretly like going into a public restroom and catching a whiff of a good dump someone just took.
Legalization of gay marriage

From R1, Pro appeals to morality with the words "should" "should not" "right[civil rights]" and "wrong." If the legalization of gay marriage is a moral decision, the determination of what is actually moral is pertinent and necessary. He acknowledges that subjective morality is flawed, but still maintains in the second paragraph that morality is subjective to popular opinion. "...we do not need a overall sense of right and wrong or a divine being to determine what is moral for us. Saying that would mean we are not capable of being good on our own." We would not be capable of being good if no one knew what good really was. We need an objective measure. We cannot say "this is a meter long" if the meter is subjective. The phrase would mean nothing, because a meter has no real value. "We have demonstrated as humans, a nation, and as a society that we can embrace change and acknowledge what is wrong. This is just making the next logical step in the process." An appeal to objective morality after appealing to subjective morality. If what is done by popular consent is always right, why would we ever need to acknowledge what IS wrong? What has been, and is going on is always right, or neither right nor wrong. There is no "should," and laws are morally unnecessary. Therefore, nothing needs to be legalized or outlawed. "If we as a country and as human being can acknowledge that slavery is wrong, we should also be able to infer that being bias because of ones sexual orientation is wrong." Slavery of blacks was based on a notion of racial superiority. Appearance and ancestry. Bias against sexual orientation is bias against behavior and acted upon desire of a person. They are apples and oranges. If desire and behavior are to be equally protected with race, there can be no logical moral objection to any other behavior that springs from desire. An ill-tempered man is entitled to his rage, maybe even violence. He was born that way, you know, easily riled. It's not slippery slope: When the principals on which your views stand are removed, no logic about morality can stand, and there are no logical steps in any moral process. My opponent has attempted to bypass my yes or no question from R3. He appealed to subjective morality (yes) but still insists rights somehow exist, and maintains gay marriage is a right. But he has also appealed to objective morality (no), that there IS wrong (and therefore right) that society can align itself with, without demonstrating where that determination of objective right and wrong comes from.
Legalization of gay marriage

I will try to keep this debate on topic instead of focusing on a argument for subjective morality. Con did a good job showing the flaw in this belief. Which is why a majority of people can accept that there is a overall sense of right and wrong. He stated that believing this could be considered a majority rule situation, which is and can be true in some regards. So a more viable question would be, is gay marriage morally correct within "our" society? Remember I stated we integrate and determine our own morality. In some parts of the world slavery may be acceptable, but it is widely accepted as wrong so we as humans can acknowledge the harm it can bring to us. Subjective morality also means we can act good, by hopes of advancing our society and that we do not need a overall sense of right and wrong or a divine being to determine what is moral for us. Saying that would mean we are not capable of being good on our own.As con stated one man started a revolution because he thought slavery was wrong. We as a society accepted this, and embraced it. I am merely using inductive reasoning in making the assumption skin color is not much different than sexual orientation. If we as a country and as human being can acknowledge that slavery is wrong, we should also be able to infer that being bias because of ones sexual orientation is wrong. Even without objective morality, our society is run with the popular trend wins. That is how we elect a president sadly. However that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is should gay marriage be legal. We have demonstrated as humans, a nation, and as a society that we can embrace change and acknowledge what is wrong. This is just making the next logical step in the process.
Legalization of gay marriage

My opponent stated in his argument that "So if an organization evolves beyond the principals upon which their laws are written, what are the laws worth? They are outdated. How do we decide what our new principals are that determine our new laws and rights? Different principals would mean different rights, so this must be determined." The foundations of anything can always change depending on the circumstance. Not just with the example of a company but with any fundamental principle. I can even say this is true with Christianity. Centuries ago when Galileo and other scholars determined that they world was spherical, they would be tried and killed by the church for opposing the principles on which the church and bible stated. i do not even want to think what would have happened if evolution was mentioned during that time period. As to date now since more evidence has come to support the came the catholic church backs both evolution as a fact, and that the earth is spherical. Both of these views are help by high up in the Catholic church including the Arch bishop of Canterbury. With what my opponent was hinting at that once something is founded, those core values and principals should always be upheld. This is a fallacy. Indeed our nation was founded on certain principles. As i stated earlier, some of those principles included having people as slaves. This is one belief that has changed and commonly accepted among everyone. There is a word that is used when studying the bible called Hermeneutics which is the art of text interpretation. This art should even be applied to common text. In an essence it is studying what the author intended for the text to mean and not what we want to perceive it as. When we look at the founding principles of our nation as a hole, they had a specific meaning on which the wrote those principles. That i do agree on. Where i differ is the fact that you are saying those beliefs should not change, ever. What was morally acceptable 100 years ago will change irregardless of what we want. Morality is subjective and very dependent on how we integrate it into society. Meaning what was moral will change whether we want it to or not. Sex is commonplace in America now, slaves are free, drugs are being legalized. America is changing and some outdated policies need to be replaced. The same way we changed and provided freedom for slaves, we should offer equal opportunity for sexual orientation other wise it is bias. The church is the only thing stopping legalization. Where as we were found on Christian principles, we already saw fit to separate church and state. Christians views should be help within the church. The viable argument would be not to make marriage a matter of the state. Howbeit this is impossible. It being a matter of the state, the church should have no influence over this.