BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

Rebuttal"Ah yes, a b*tch CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN refer to a female dog, however there are many definitions for the word b*tch that must also be taken into account."Yes, I was sure to mention that in my definition."B*tch is also a word commonly used to describe someone who is prone to whining excessively over stupid sh*t, such as GWL, or me whenever some f*cking idiot takes a troll debate seriously."Au contraire. I rarely do troll debates. Often times, I make a silly resolution, but I take it quite seriously. This debate is no exception."Now for Whoopi to look like a b*tch she must satisfy ALL of the conditions of looking like a b*tch. Since there are multiple definitions of a b*tch though, several of which Whoopi does not fulfill, she is not a b*tch."Um, nope. In order to have Whoopi look like a b!tch, she needs to look like A b!tch, not ALL b!tches.Of course, it is my fault for not defining A.Regardless, my opponent's lone contention has fallen if it even stood up at all, and the resolutions still stands:Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a B!tch.
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

"A. We are debating the one and only Whoopi Goldberg, the comedienne, the star of Sister Act, and one of the hosts of the hit talk show, The View."Ah yes The View, the show that makes my penis want to shrivel up and die..... Just like watching any Twilight movie. "C. A "b!tch" can mean a female dog, a female canine in general, a malicious and unpleasant woman, a person who performs demeaning tasks for another, or a prison sex slave, as accoring to Random House Dictionary in 2013. "Ah yes, a b*tch CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN refer to a female dog, however there are many definitions for the word b*tch that must also be taken into account.B*tch is also a word commonly used to describe someone who is prone to whining excessively over stupid sh*t, such as GWL, or me whenever some f*cking idiot takes a troll debate seriously. A b*tch is also a person who performs demeaning tasks for another person which is degrading in status (Like anyone who campaigned for Romney) Now for Whoopi to look like a b*tch she must satisfy ALL of the conditions of looking like a b*tch. Since there are multiple definitions of a b*tch though, several of which Whoopi does not fulfill, she is not a b*tch since she doesnt look like someone who worked for Mitt Romney, or like GWL
Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

YES.Thank God that of all the people who could have accepted this debate, it was imabench. This debate will truly be a grand ol' time.So let's start by establishing some definitions.A. We are debating the one and only Whoopi Goldberg, the comedienne, the star of Sister Act, and one of the hosts of the hit talk show, The View.B. "looks like" will mean "bears some physical resemblence to," as according to Princeton University in 2006.C. A "b!tch" can mean a female dog, a female canine in general, a malicious and unpleasant woman, a person who performs demeaning tasks for another, or a prison sex slave, as accoring to Random House Dictionary in 2013. And Now...The Big PictureAs you can see in the photograph below, Whoopi Goldberg does in fact bear some physical resemblence to that of a b!tch. The "some physical resemblance being, obviously, the curly black locks.Establishing That the Dog is Female This goes without saying, but the breed of dog shown, unlike some breeds of cat, comes in both male and female variations. Since the dog shown has both male and female varieties, whether the dog shown is female or not, there is a female dog like that, that indeed looks like Whoopi Goldberg.Therefore, Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch.
"God exists" is true

Axioms within this debate: 1. "God" within this debate is defined as "Yahweh as described in the Christian bible". 2. "exists" within this debate is defined as "has an effect on reality". 3. "is true" within this debate is defined as "has more predictive merit when compared with any mutually exclusive statement" (A pragmatic theory of truth) Opening statement: As I am taking the position of Con/Against, there is little that I can give in the form of an opening statement as the burden of proof lies with the person making the truth claim.
supernatural cause

I think Pro would have been better off posting queries in a forum thread. However, we are now into this. Pro has given no arguments or evidence in support of his claim that there must be something beyond nature. I have made three contentions: (1) Unexplained things need not be explained; (2) supernatural explanations are really not explanations; and (3) natural explanations are always possible, even if unknown. Pro has not addressed, let alone attempted to refute, any of my contentions. Therefore at this point Pro has made no case and my case stands unchallenged. Pro asks why I think the Big Bang Theory is plausible, and asserts "There is no way anyone can demonstrate this happened." Perhaps, not "demonstrate" in the sense of causing a similar event, but there is good evidence that it did happen. "The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[46] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory" http://en.wikipedia.org... The reference provides a full explanation. Before all the evidence was collected supporting the Big Bang Theory, a majority of scientists favored the Steady State Theory. Now the Big Bang Theory is, as far as I know, universally accepted. It;s all about the evidence. Scientists acknowledge the Big Bang Theory does not explain everything, see my third contention in Round 1. Even though everything is not explained, it is reasonable to believe that natural explanations can be found. I cited Hawking as an authoritative opinion. If it turns out that natural explanations cannot be found, we are better off leaving things unexplained that assuming supernatural causes. I suggest Pro give reasons for his beliefs, and that he go through my points on-by-one and either agree or disagree with each. If he disagrees, he should say why.
supernatural cause

First of all, thanks for excepting the challenge, I am new to this site and wanted to get started in some kind of debate about the supernatural. If I am correct I think you stated there are no supernatural explanations needed to explain the Universe. There has been plenty of theory's trying to explain the origin of our Universe over the years, as science advanced the "Big Bang" theory become the most plausible theory. There is no way anybody can demonstrate this happened, why do you personally think its plausible?? because any things possible??. The "Big Bang" is a great claim, and great claims require great evidence.
The 22nd Amendment needs to be abolished.

If you abolish the amendment then you could find yourself being governed by the same person term after term which is not good for progress or democracy, The US is already almost split 50/50 as it is which means a lot of people being disenfranchised , to give you an example of why not to change the 22nd Amendment you only need to look across the pond at the UK, who where Governed by the the same Prime minister for 3 terms and she did a lot of damage to the country during that time, We had the highest unemployment for many years and she destroyed the coal and steal industry and sold of publicly owned assets a a fraction of the price they where worth. If your president was allowed to run for office as many times as he/she liked your country could end up with all sorts of problems. Personally I wish we had a system in place where the ruling prime mister could only have a maximum of 2 terms in office at least that would limit the problems faced, it would be more democratic and at least you could guarantee that you would have a new president regularly which gives the chance for more ideas on how to improve things for the citizens of the US. You mention Bill Clinton, but remember that if you abolish the 22nd amendment who's to say Obama wouldn't win again, which si something you may not want.
The 22nd Amendment needs to be abolished.

This is a one-round debate. There will be only one round during which to present an argument. After that, the community will vote.---There are many reasons the 22nd Amendment should be abolished. However, as this is a one-round debate, only one reason will be used.The 22nd Amendment should be abolished so Bill Clinton can run for president in 2016. Of all living Presidents, Clinton has the highest approval rating and would easily win both the popular and electoral vote. Bill Clinton has two-terms of experience, and since leaving office, he has maintained an educated public image.
Stoning

So a child shall perhaps have a mental disorder when a parent has committed adultery. What do you think will happen if they must watch their loved parent stoned to death? Will that not be a more traumatizing event? I would think so. But what you say about committing adultery is true, it should not happen but that is not the point I am arguing. I am arguing that stoning should not be used as a punishment. In Iran it is a capital punishment used for sex crimes and adultery. It is a form of torture a horrid way to die. I would not even wish that upon my worst enemy.
Stoning

Stoning is not a punishment that is supposed to cleanse a society from crimes. Rather, it is well-suited as a method of punishment for something horrid, and that is adultery within marriage. Adultery is the term used to describe cheating on a spouse. Another known term of is 'infidelity.' This crime - a horrible one - not only harms a relationship between two people who have promised to be faithful to each other, but also brings depression, stress, anxiety, etc., into the lives of two spouses. That being said, the children who deal with parents who go through phases of troubles as results of adultery tend to grow up with mental issues, educational problems, societal absence, and so forth. Is stoning suitable in some cases of adultery? Yes. If my opponent remains disagreeing, I will elaborate on the matter.
Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children

I have proven that Cons statements, " Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child. " That this is not true. I have shown that Video Games are Directly influencing kids, and not the parents buying them. This Refutes Cons 1st Contention "Parents are Disregarding the Game" Also I have shown proven evidence that kids who have played video games with violence have shown a increase in violence and aggression in real life. This Refutes, Cons 3rd contention "No Sufficient Studies" . http://videogames.procon.org... I have shown that we can directly relate events to other events. Adam Lanza had previously played game where he controls a character that enters a school and shoots everyone. --- We can directly relate this to the Sandyhook shooting. (Video Games to Violence) Just as Con said in his opening argument " It just doesn't relate" --- BUT IT DOES. I said the following Quote to Con in my last argument. "Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime. " He has failed to do so. So his statement " That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. " is actually Fasle. I have given proof that Video Games are Relating to Violence amongst kids. Cons Statement - "Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention. " Is ENTIRELY FALSE. I have attacked his 3rd contention via --- . http://videogames.procon.org... , and how can I Refute a Philosophy, that is the most proven and undoubtedly true Philosophy ever! That is like trying to debate that Water isn't a Liquid! I will not try and dispute Common sense, but my opponent is. Voters, please, make your own decisions, but please keep in mind that Con has showed no evidence to attack my studies, that DO SAY that violence has increased amongst students because of video games, and realize that we as Humans can make relations from events to other events, via the evidence I HAVE SHOWN. In this case, Video Games to Violence. So, Vote Con. I would like to personally thanking con for bringing up a good debate.
Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children

I will go over my opponents case and rebuttal. 1. My opponent has failed to address my second and third contention, therefore due to that , we are going to keep these flowing through as correlation does not prove causation is the truth, and nothing but the truth, therefor since my opponent has failed to do so, all of his/her studies are false. And since my 3rd contention was not attacked we are going to keep them all together. That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. And my opponents evidence from procon. org actually benefits me as well as his evidence directly contradicts his statements, and until he provides another piece of evidence we are just going to flow that over to my side. And my opponent addressed my first contention throughout his rebuttal and in his closing statement, he said "If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game. " Actually this is false, as seeing he said that the child is being influenced, the parent is buying that game and placing that influence on the child. He even agreed that parents are teaching them right from wrong and he expects someone not to blame them. It is the parents fault as they are implementing the influence on the child to commit small acts of violence or bullying. If a parent would just say something, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also my opponent brought up call of duty and how a kid would just go up and hit a kid because they did it in a game, I ask for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that DIRECTLY LINKS that kids feel that way because of violent video games or video games in general. And then my opponent brought up the Sandy Hook Shooter had impaired mental disability, as this is completely true, I wish for my opponent to provide another piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS that due to the shooters lack of judgement, seperating from the real world from the virtual world, caused the atrocity that day. Voters, my case so far flows through and stands strong as my opponent is contradicting himself and has left my case basically untouched except for my first contention. Therefor I negate.
God cannot be proven with science

You're right. I've set my own parameters up here when I shouldn't have. I'm going to drop out of this for now so that hopefully somebody else can jump in or you can possibly post your argument. I do apologize for having done what I did. However, if you want to have this debate and another time I'll be happy to do so. Again my apologies. Also, please forgive my grammar. as I'm driving and doing this by voice text so things aren't going to read proper.
Puppy mills should be illegalized

The purpose of laws is the protection of rights from violation by other parties. Politics, the field in which rights are discussed, begins when one realizes the impact other rational creatures tend to have on one's life. Any discussion of "rights," the proper relations between rational creatures, must begin with the goal of one's own life. We start simply, with A is A- with life as the goal of rights, the first right and the source of all others is the right to life, that is, one defends one's life from others, and since they are rational, that means they will defend theirs from you if you attempt to encroach. They will do so by eliminating the threat, i.e. you. Thus you do not deny them their right to life, so as to facilitate their denying you yours. This changes when they deny yours first, as they prove themselves irrational by doing so, and remove any future causality between your attacks on them and theirs on you. Indeed they reverse it, because you now have to kill them or otherwise interfere with their life in order to preserve your right to your own. The rights of liberty and property are derived from this, because with the requirement of the conforming of one's actions to the use of a reasoning mind to live, one's actions cannot be conformed to the dictates of force instead in order to live; and with the requirement to produce things necessary to one's existence, one's production must be reliably available in order to live. In summary rights require two things: Rationality, i.e. they are a code of action that applies to other rational beings, and Reciprocity, for treating beings in a manner consistent with rights that they do not treat you with is not only not helpful to your life, it's harmful to it. Now, where do puppies fit into this framework? No puppy has ever demonstrated rationality nor reciprocity, as such, none can have the protection of the term "rights." And so, it cannot justly have the protection of the law.
Puppy mills should be illegalized

Hello and welcome :) ---DEFINITIONS----- Puppy mills: large scale commercial dog breeding facility that operates under substandard conditions regarding the well-being of dogs in their care. http://en.wikipedia.org... illegalized: to make illegal http://dictionary.reference.com... ----- I will say my arguments in each round. I am PRO. You are CON. I must prove to you why they should be illegal, and you must attack my points. You may also, prove to me why we need them. Thank you to whomever accepts this :)
Puppy mills should be illegalized

" I was trying to say that if there are so many laws for dogs, why are puppy mills legal?" Dunno. Not really relevant to the resolution though, since that's a question of interest groups, not what should be. " This would be going backwards" Let's say Obama outlaws having ears, and mandates that anyone who has them be chopped off. Reversing this policy would be "going backwards." Does that mean the policy shouldn't be reversed? "and every law against animal abuse would be lowered." Wonderful. "This would make things worse." How so? " They deserve protection because many of the puppies either end up in pet stores, although some are sold directly to the public. This means anyone just looking to get a cute puppy may see the puppy in the store window, not knowing it came from a puppy mill." Sugar plants deserve protection from being made into candy, because many end up in candy stores, and the public won't know what kind of sugar plantation it comes from. As you can see your warrant does not warrant your claim :). "Then, when they take it home, they find out it has all sorts of problems." Which would justify, at best, puppies raised in better conditions being labelled for those conditions, and false advertising being illegal. Not puppy mills as such being illegal. "Puppies that come from puppy mills can have diseases/pain problems in the foot, gross deformities from birth that goes untreated, and many more. Dogs also need love and attention, and puppy mills do not give this affection to their dogs." Need is not a rightful claim. " S0m31john will not die or be malnutritioned because of that. " Irrelevant until it is shown that puppy death or puppy malnutrition warrant legal protections against them as such. "Plus, he will find that special girl one day ;)" Not demonstrable unless you're making an offer, in which case I suggest you go comment on his profile again. " They should be illegal because they: -false advertise--They give false AKC registered papers to the pet stores and to the buyers, claiming the puppy is 100% of that breed, when it usually is not fully one breed." Not usually? This means some of them do and some of them don't. False advertising is extrinsic to the practice, and therefore a separate issue from the mill itself. " -sell puppies under the age requirements-- 8 weeks is the minimum age to sell a puppy. They do not follow the "rules"....and everyone knows, if you break a rule, you have to suffer the consequences." By what right can such a rule be established? "This should be illegal. They are like sex slaves" All dogs are like slaves, except the ones in the wild. Otherwise they would not have collars. Adding sex to the issue does not change the morality of the matter, either they are yours to do with as you wish, or they are theirs to do with as they wish. I uphold the former by reference to their nature.
Puppy mills should be illegalized

Since school is ending that means finals are coming up. I will have to make this shorter than usual, since I should be studying. Thank you :) "The law is not inherently right by virtue of being the law." I was trying to say that if there are so many laws for dogs, why are puppy mills legal? It is considered animal abuse. "The answer I offer is legalizing "you keeping your dog in these situations." This would be going backwards, and every law against animal abuse would be lowered. This would make things worse. "Irrelevant until it can be shown WHY they merit protection." They deserve protection because many of the puppies either end up in pet stores, although some are sold directly to the public. This means anyone just looking to get a cute puppy may see the puppy in the store window, not knowing it came from a puppy mill. Then, when they take it home, they find out it has all sorts of problems. Puppies that come from puppy mills can have diseases/pain problems in the foot, gross deformities from birth that goes untreated, and many more. Dogs also need love and attention, and puppy mills do not give this affection to their dogs. http://www.puppymillprotest.org... http://www.paloaltohumane.org... "It is very sad that S0m31john constantly gets rejected by females. This does not justify outlawing female rejection of S0m31john." S0m31john will not die or be malnutritioned because of that. Puppies in puppy mills can die because of these conditions. Plus, he will find that special girl one day ;) But these puppies may not find that special home. "Certainly, puppy mills are not humane treatment of dogs. Lovely. But show why inhumane treatment should be-- not is, should be-- illegal" They should be illegal because they: -false advertise--They give false AKC registered papers to the pet stores and to the buyers, claiming the puppy is 100% of that breed, when it usually is not fully one breed. -sell puppies under the age requirements-- 8 weeks is the minimum age to sell a puppy. They do not follow the "rules"....and everyone knows, if you break a rule, you have to suffer the consequences. http://www.animallaw.info... http://www.barkrescue.net... ---Arguments--- 1. Sex, Lies, and Unlicensed.---Breeding dogs suffer continuously, breeding litter after litter till they can no longer reproduce. (sex). Dogs at puppy mills are often not actually purebred, and the breeders sometimes lie about lineage records. (lies). Unlicensed puppy mills often sell puppies at six weeks of age even though federal laws prohibit licensed mills from selling puppies under eight weeks of age. (unlicensed) This should be illegal. They are like sex slaves. They also are liars and many don't know what they are doing. {they are committing all seven deadly sins!!} They shouldn't just be illegal, they should also burn for what they did! http://www.dosomething.org... I am sorry I will not be able to post anymore, as I have stated previously. Thank you.