BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump is an idiot.

I want to quote you on a sentence you wrote earlier on debate.org. " Unemployment is at the lowest rate ever. Obama did that. Trump has only been here for a year and he has lost us two allies for the united states, made a tax bill so that the rich pay less while the poor and middle class pay for it. This is a disgusting bill that trump had to change the laws to get done, while threatening all the other senators. This man is a white nationalist. He called black counties "s*** holes" . He conspired with Russia to change the votes. This man is horrible. He souldn't be president, and he is a disgrace to this country.
Donald Trump is an idiot.

To start, I've never said a thing about Bernie. I don't think he's toxic because I don't know much about him to say this, but I don't want to have him as president because he's socialist and I believe Socialism sucks. As for Clinton, I don't hate her for her views, I hate her because she takes billions of money from countries like Iran, uses blackmail to silence rape accusations and has the guts to say she's a feminist. When she loses the elections, she blames it on "married women". She's not just toxic, she's a sociopath. Crime rates do go up because of illegals. Besides, if they don't respect the law enough to respect borders and get citizenship, why should I trust them? Besides, DACA doesn't work. Trump wants to shut it down because it doesn't provide legal status, he wants to give the status to the current recipients. What he's doing is for the greater good of these children, because DACA does them no good. Now picture an anti-Trump protest. Now, imagine that, in the middle of this protest, someone pulled out a gun and shot five Trump supporters. Does that mean every anti-Trump is bad? Not all the alt-rights in that protest grabbed the car and ran over people, one of them did that, you can't say an entire group of people is a terrible person. You can't say someone is toxic just for their views, no matter how toxic those views are. Trump's tax cut benefits everyone. Having the same amount of taxes for everyone, no matter their income, is beneficial for everyone. Taxing the rich more in order to give it to the poor keeps them poor. Keeping them the same for everyone benefits the poor because it encourages them to work, which is the one and only way out of poverty. Besides, if "only a small amount of people" voted for him, he wouldn't be president.
Donald Trump is an idiot.

Ridiculous. Really. Having more people do benefit us. Crime rate does not go up because of them. It has always been a really high crime rate in America. They do help. Have you not seen the Mexicans working just like any other people in this country and not getting citizenship? He does not have a problem with the people born here? DACA. Shut down. He is, no has been kicking them out of the country. Border wall. That stupid hate symbol separates families. Look at these sites and videos, tell me it isn't heartbreaking. Tell me! http://time.com... This is okay with you? Did you agree with him on that?? And what is this BS about Clinton and Bernie being toxic? Don't tell me I building straw men please. That part was not isolated. It was part of the Nazi protest. That car was on the Nazi side. And he said there were fine people on both sides. Why is this happening more recently? When did this start? When Donald Trump got elected. He represents these people. He represents the Nazis, the rich repulicans, the gun right people. This happened because of him. I agree that some people might not have been racist, but there is no point in pretending that it hasn't happened. If people with toxic views can be good, then Hillary and Bernie are good. Simple as that. Trump is despicable. Then he goes and tells people that he has been doing a bunch of good stuff, when his tax cut only benefits a small amount of people who voted for him. An even smaller part of America. I don't know how some idiot on a tv show with horrible values came to be the president and biggest embarrassment of America, but we should get rid of him.
Donald Trump is an idiot.

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying it wasn't driven out of pure hate towards one race, besides not even close to being all that relevant to his characters. I like Trump because I agree with most of his views, he is a good person and it was him or Hillary Clinton and I'd rather be gang raped than having Clinton in government. Ok, ok, so "immigrants can be white too"="racism". Ok. Got it. He wants the wall to stop illegal immigrants. When will people understand that? Trump is NOT against immigration in general, he's against ILLEGAL immigration. I doubt he has any problem with Mexican born American citizens, who, by the way, are also harmed by illegal immigration, seeing as they are also losing their jobs for people who don't benefit the country in any way. Having more people doesn't benefit Americans if those people are undocumented, because they help with nothing. They break the law by coming, have an extremely high crime rate don't pay taxes but still get the benefit, refuse to speak English, promote toxic candidates like Hillary Clinton (even though they can't vote, they can influence people) and, if you dare to question them in anything, they throw up the victim narrative. And now you ask me if the guy looks like a criminal? How does a criminal should look? Let me guess, he has to be white to be a criminal? People don't even know what actually happened! So, now black people are those angels who never do anything wrong and every police confrontation they have is driven out of pure hatred by the cops? What if the man is actually a criminal? This is a pretty valid possibility. The nazis were also peaceful protesters. They were waving torches in the air. That's it. That was the protest. President Trump was right about his claim, people can hold toxic views and still be good people. Take us as an example: I think your views are completely idiotic, but I'm not assuming you're a bad person. And yes, there was the thing with the car, but this was an isolated part of it. Trump never said that the person in the car was decent, he was talking about the others. The others who he doesn't necessarily agree with, but won't judge based on that. You could learn a thing or two from him. And yes, I don't know about the taxes. But at least I admit it, instead of blabbing about something I know nothing about (and actually believing what I'm saying) and citing frickin' YouTube videos as source. The things you say are all about taking things out of context, lies and straw men. Debunking your arguments is easy because I know more about America than you. Should I mention that I'm a frickin' teenager who just started High School and who also happens to not even be American?
The TSA does more harm than good.

So The TSA wastes a bit of time when you through their lines. I think that the TSA rather plays it safe than sorry. They will check innocents because they want to check to make sure there are no break ins. Bombers or terrorists always go under cover they are always looking like innocent old ladies or whatever looks most innocent. The TSA is wasting a bit of time searching every one. The TSA makes me feel like Im safe in my eyes its just a way at looking at it. The TSA shows many people how protective they are. I haven't seen any harm done to me or anyone else at the airport except that we have to wait a couple min in line. Thank You for this Lovely Debate opportunity. I had a great time debating you.
The TSA does more harm than good.

Proving it does more harm than good is easy. The TSA's budget was $7.55 billion in 2015. It is more difficult to calculate the economic ramifications of all of the passenger's time lost waiting in a security line, however it is clear that it must have a negative impact. The TSA in itself has, in fact been a sort of terrorist organization, racially profiling people and doing fruitless cavity searches on innocents. Researchers at Cornell University conducted a study which found that because of doubts concerning the ability of the TSA to keep people safe, more travelers are driving instead of flying, leading to as many as 500 more fatal motor vehicle accidents a year (4). In fact polls have shown that most passengers do not feel the TSA makes flying any safer. In a poll done by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service of Cleveland, 85% of respondents said "TSA security measures [do not] make [me] feel safer when [I] fly?"(5). (4) http://papers.ssrn.com... (5) http://www.cleveland.com...
The TSA does more harm than good.

Technically my opponent isnt proving that the TSA does more harm all he/she has stated is that the TSA is bad. This doesn't go with the resolution. The TSA has prevented many attacks. My opponent stated that 67 out of 70 times TSA has prevented an attack. That is better than 70 out of 70 times. To add to that this doesn't prove that the TSA does harm. It just proves that it has some flaws.
The TSA does more harm than good.

You acknowledge that the TSA has made air travel more inefficient. You provide no evidence when you claim that they "[have] been doing a good job [preventing bombings and terrorist attacks]." Imagining how "bad" it would be without it is easy, because, if you read my second source, you would see that undercover DHS agents were able to sneak weapons and explosives through security at major airports 67 out of 70 times. That is an unacceptable failure rate. The TSA has not made travelers any safer. The terrorists have succeeded at slowing down airports and scaring travelers. Air marshals are a much more effective and efficient method of preventing such attacks. Indeed, the passengers themselves stopped a potential attack in 2009 when a man smuggled explosives past TSA security and onto a plane (3). So obviously, passengers still do have to worry, as they are the last line of defense. The TSA doesn't dissuade extremists from trying to smuggle weapons and bombs onto airplanes, as the DHS agents proved, where there is a will, there is a way. (3) http://www.ynetnews.com...
The TSA does more harm than good.

The Transportation Security Administration was created in response to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA. Its stated mission "to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement." Has in fact had the opposite effect, slowing down air travel(1) and not making it any more secure(2). Institutions that fail and, in fact do the opposite of what they are intended to do should be shut down. The TSA does the opposite of what it is intended to do, therefore it should be dissolved. 1 http://www.cnn.com... 2 http://www.nbcnews.com...
Cam Newton is better than Odell Beckam Jr.

First of all, Cam Newton did NOT invent the dab. It was introduced by the rap group "Migos." It was introduced into the NFL by Jeremy Hill. (RB: BENGALS) So, my opponent has made a false argument. Secondly, since my opponent has made no claim as to the skill of Cam Newton in comparison to OBJ, besides dabbing, I will note that OBJ has made MANY touchdown catches with one hand, a feat that would be considered incomplete by any other receiver. Pro should lose conduct/grammar for 1st round.
Cam Newton is better than Odell Beckam Jr.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h h j hjhjh jkhjlhkjl hjkh kjlth gjthgjl hgjlhgjkgehgkjehjkghjgehrjkgherjkgherjkg herjkgh jkrghjklghjrhglerhjgkrejgerhjhgkjergherjkgherkjlgreglkjerjkergerjkgheelherghelghrjegherjrgfheghrghjervfhjegfhjegfhjekfgfhjegfhejwgfhjewg whjghj3bhjfhjgr
Friends is the greatest TV show ever

Due to the forfeiture in round two, Con will keep this brief. Pro has yet to develop to state how “Greatest” is measureable. The closest thus far comes from the assertion that Friends registered as the fifth most watched television series. Where does this “fact” come from? It is unclear. Pro has 100% BOP. Pro so far has relied on personal taste and preference. Pro cannot answer why The Sopranos or The Wire or any show is better or worse than any other is. Apart this failure, Pro’s personal standard and reason for elevating Friends (see numbered rebuttal by Con in Round Two) above other shows with under any scrutiny. Therefore, until Pro tries to develop some system there is little to add. Con has thoroughly rebutted the arguments, including those of personal taste.
Friends is the greatest TV show ever

For my opponent to win he must present a clear methodology to establish “Greatest Television of All-Time,” otherwise, it is just a statement of personal preference. However, I do believe we can move behind subjective tastes and enter a realm of some objectivity by looking at critical reviews of series through aggregate numbers of reviews from established critics. For example, in this round I will attempt to establish a coherent counterargument extracted from reviews. Let me introduce my first piece against Pro Here is an article of the “Best Written Television Series of All-Time.” If Friends is the Greatest Television Show of All-Time, then it would follow that it should be first on this list.[1] But no, it does not. Friends does not even crack the top ten. We find friends where? Number 24. Second Piece of Evidence: TV Guide Magazine’s list of the 60 Best Television Series also acknowledges Friends but at position 28.[2] Already we see a pattern: Friends while acknowledged as a good television show fails to compete in the top ten. What makes Friends better than say The Sopranos? If my opponent is going to win, he must address why voters should not believe The Sopranos, The Wire, or Seinfeld are the “Greatest Television Shows of All-Time. Rebuttals to Opponent’s points:1. Argument of Genre: Not only does my opponent not differentiate why Friends is better than The Simpsons or Arrested Development or other comedies but he fails to provide a credible method for determining “Greatest.” Moreover, can we really say Friends is a comedy since it relies on Canned Laughter and Laugh Tracks dubbed over the writing? There videos of Friends after the laugh track is removed, not only does it reveal the bad writing but also makes scenes unbearable to watch. 2. Argument of Quantity of Characters: This is an arbitrary number and fails to explain why character quantity matters. Plus, if quantity of relatable characters matters than The Sopranos, Mad Men, The Wire, The Walking Dead are the better than Friends based on the standard here. 3. Argument it showed Real Life: How is canned laughter realistic? How many gay characters were on Friends? How often did Friends address deep psychological issues? It was realistic for white, upper-class audiences. The lesson of friends is everything turns out in the end. If it was realistic of everyone, shouldn’t we see poverty, drug-addiction, and sex depicted honesty instead white middle class character sipping coffee? 4. Argument of Timelessness: Seinfeld is quoted continues as a cult-classic. Seinfeld has produced quotes and shorthand for a variety of situations. Nevertheless, let me emphasize this is simple conjecture on my opponent’s part, it overlooks the issue of “greatest,” a standard my opponent has not established. 5. Argument of Audience: I am not obligated to send time on this argument since it is undermined by its status as the 5th most watched television show. This might have more credibility if it was 1st—and please provide a link to any quantitative claims in the future to check. [1] http://www.wga.org... [2] http://www.tvguide.com...
Friends is the greatest TV show ever

Thank you for accepting. 1. Friends is a comedy. Comedy shows are the best TV shows because television was made for entertainment. The easiest way to entertain is to make the audience laugh. Laughter makes you happier, thus people like comedies more. 2. Friends is unique in the fact that it is one of the only shows with 6 main characters. With a higher amount of main characters, it allows for a show to be much more relatable. Each of the 6 characters are very easily related to someone everyone knows. From the idiot-handsome Joey, to the awkward-weird Chandler. Being relatable is good because it allows for each and every joke or issue to become funnier imagining it was that person you know. 3. Friends touched on many "real life" issues, and stayed consistently realistic. Where most shows attempt to place their characters in impossible situations, Friends made the everyday occurrences hilarious. Whether it was the realistic constant job switches, the relationships the characters have, or even the holidays that they celebrate, everything stayed realistic. 4. Could this show BE anymore timeless? (Friends pun) It has already been 20 years since the first episode aired. Even though it has been so long, Friends is still talked about in the discussion of best TV show. Why? Because there are so many one liners, and quotable lines that no one will let it go away. The show will remain popular forever because the fan base is constantly expanding, and each one line and quote is said. 5. Friends is one of the most popular shows of all time. Over 55 million people tuned in to watch the series finale, the 5th most watched of all time. What sets Friends apart in terms of popularity is that Friends consistently had 50 million people for their shows. In fact, the most watched episode was in 1996, which got more viewers than even the season finale.
It is acceptable for the Polish government to house its current criminals in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Anyway, I accept but would like to make the following clarification: As far as I can see the only island that belongs to Poland in the Baltic Sea is (appropriately named for the purposes of this debate) Hel (1), but this is connected to the mainland by a causeway (thus negating the need for convicts to walk on water to reach it. Could we use Hel as the location of the offshore penal colony? (1) . http://maps.google.co.uk...
It is acceptable for the Polish government to house its current criminals in Auschwitz-Birkenau

This debate must strictly adhere to the following hypothetical situation to ensure clairity and good quality. Poland has been having a current wave of violent crime. All of its jails are full and it has no money to make more institutions for criminals and every viable building to keep them has been used. Despite that there are still 1000 violent criminals that have no place to be put; Poland can get no internal or external help on the matter and is on the verge of having to release these convicted violent criminals back into society. Should Poland use its existing ex-Extermanation/Concentration camps to house these violent criminals? The only other viable option is for the prisoners to be sent to a island controled by Poland on the Baltic Sea, but they would have to walk and the journey would be extremely hazourdous, and most likely fatal to many of them, but that's not guaranteed So there are three options in this debate: 1. Reopen ex-Nazi Extermination Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau and other former concentration camps as places of confinement and prisons 2. Releast 1000 violent criminals into society 3.
It is acceptable for the Polish government to house its current criminals in Auschwitz-Birkenau

It is, perhaps, true that housing convicted prisonersi in Auschwitz may attract some critism but let us remind ourselves of the only two possible alternatives my opponent set: to relaese the prisoners: and thus allow them to run amock accross Continental Europe committing crime with impunity; or to make them swim to an offshore island. with all the loss of lives that will certainly entail. Of the three options, I believe I have shown that the Auschwitz option is the least worst. Thank you.
It is acceptable for the Polish government to house its current criminals in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Firstly, I would like to compliment on his fine command of the English language, which is all the more impressive when you consider that English is not his native tongue. With reference to my opponent's most recent arguments, it is true that housing convicts in Auschwitz-Birkenau would be not entirely authentic, especially because the inmates during the Second World War were innocent of any crime. I suppose that the Polish government could round-up all the Jews, Gypsies, ethnic Russians and political dissidents in Poland and imprison them without trial in Auschwitz-Birkenau and use their vacated homes to keep convicts under house arrest, but I believe this would be immoral and, although I haven't checked, I am pretty sure it would be illegal under international law as well. With regard to the current exhibition at Auschwitz-Birkenau, it is also true that more enlightened, cultured and sophisticated people (such as my opponent and our fellow members off Debate.org) would not require any artificial stimuli to help them appreciate the magnitude of what happened there under the Nazis but, sadly perhaps, most young people today are desensitised to violence, suffering and death. That's because they are exposed to highly realistic simulated violence on video games whereby players are invited to kill their enemies on a wholesale basis, with these massacres being depicted in advanced computer-generated animations which show all the blood and gore in graphic detail. Similarly, films featuring extreme violence are routinely piped into teenagers' bedrooms and viewed on HD, 3-D plasma TVs to enhance the seeming reality. This instant gratification of wanton violence requires no need for the use of the imagination, no need to wade through dull black and white television documentaries, no need to research academic books or websites: all the drama and action any teenager could ever want is right there on demand via their computers, games consoles, TVs and even their mobile (cell-) phones. How many young people are going to sacrifice sun, sea and sex to go on holiday (vacation) to Auschwitz-Birkenau just to look at displays of old suitcases, piles of human hair and some blood stains: the attraction must be made more appealing to them. Now, imagine the haunting cries of a new inmate who has been cornered in the showers by a group of homosexual nonces drifting across the courtyards: the visitors would know they weren't the tormented screams of prisoners being tortured by the Nazis, but the sound would be the same – and they would know that, unlike on video games and films, someone was suffering right there and then, live, not an act or a sound-effect - and that would add the extra dimension to the Auschwitz-Birkenau exhibition that would broaden its appeal enough to attract more younger visitors. Thank you.
Goats are better than donkeys

When you lose a donkey then you lose nothing. That is why donkeys guard. Nothing will be lost when a donkey dies. As we learned from the example set by Walmart, donkey meat needs fox meat to be marketable. If a goat were to be killed by a wolf or a fox, they would not be able to produce cheese. That would be a tragedy. Also, the meat would no longer be good. If all I had was a goat and a donkey and I lived on a farm all alone I would still be able to survive with just a goat. I could walk places so I would not need the donkey for transportation. If I just had a donkey I would only survive as long as the donkey's meat would last me. With a goat, I could use its milk for food until I want to kill it and eat its meat which would be longer than I could live with just a donkey. www.mtcapra.com/benefits-of-goat-milk-vs-cow-milk
Goats are better than donkeys

Donkeys are much better than goats because there is no reason that you would kill it. They can actually be used to guard goats from wolves and other predatory animals. See. Look at this link. http://www.bing.com... Here, a donkey is protecting goats because they are stronger, bigger, and obviously the superior animal. Goats are weak and easily hurt or killed by bigger or larger animals. Not only this, but donkeys have biblical influence. Goats are never talked about in the bible. http://www.ehow.com... http://www.biblegateway.com... Goats are weaker and have a shorter lifespan than donkeys. http://en.wikipedia.org...