BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site.

6,239. This number, as I write these words, represents the total member count of debate.org. I humbly request that you envision the utter catastrophe that would ensue if, disregarding any basic, fundamental considerations, the entire community invited every single person they believed to be a friend. Let us not be fooled, my opponent is clearly urging us to invite ALL of our friends in his opening argument, as absolutely nowhere does he say to invite only those who you believe would become quality members. Furthermore, one quick look at the title of this debate, which he himself penned, immediately makes clear his motives and wishes. Please, do not let my opponent lull you into a false sense of safety with proclamations of site security features. At best, these things can only somewhat curb malicious computer programs. However, I speak of a much more monumental and serious threat - the inappropriately invited friend, here for nothing but trouble, trickery and third-rate, illegible posts. My rival would love to pull the wool over your eyes, having you think that rattling off invitations en masse is alright because hey, debate.org is a prominent name, people will come anyway. Well I say that there is absolutely NO reason for us to *invite* these types. Let us step off the 1967 VW bus, toss aside our rose-colored glasses, and take a good look at reality. Instead, allow me to quickly propose a different course of action - we should invite only the people we think would come to this site, join, and flourish as community members. What's more, it should be irrelevent whether these people are co-workers, friends, family or whoever, and hey, if you don't want to invite anyone at all for whatever reason, that's ok too. My dear opponent would also love to swindle you, saying yours truly is playing "tricks" - but alas, it is indeed my rival who has the extra card up his sleeve. Let us take a some of the things he made quite clear in his earlier post - "Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site." "...send an invitation to all of your friends..." "Invite All Of Your Friends." Ah, it becomes quite clear what he means, especially after that 3rd time around. Site growth is great, but quickly turns sour when we sacrifice quality for quantity. Let us not be swayed by my opponent's well-meaning but ultimately destructive notions. If you can read these words, I ask you this - are you prepared to invite every single person you call a friend, disregarding any basic consideration process, and have them all come read your debates and view the personal ideologies on your profile? And are you prepared to put your trust in the other 6,238 members, that all of *their* friends will be good members as well? What of the members who right now are what we are trying to prevent, would you have them invite *their* entire network of friends over as well, all due to my opponent's starry-eyed argument? Didn't think so.
Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site.

Oh ye of little faith. I'm surprised to find so much cynicism from a (fellow) Republican...it's not in your nature. Not only is my opponent cynical about other people he knows, but he is also cynical about the technology at hand. I on the other hand have faith. I have faith in people. I have faith the new version of Debate.org, with all of its new security features and customer support team, will be able to keep spammers and scammers at a minimum. Just look at the voting method, whereby they've made it such that only members who confirm their identity with a cell phone can vote on a debate. That's genius if I say so myself. Furthermore, a website like Debate.org, with its prominent name, floating out there on the web, is more likely to be found by spammers and scammers on the world wide web, not from the friends of Debate.org members. Last, but not least, my opponent is attempting a cheap parlor trick of parsing my words, "Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site," instead of trying to argue the real point of this debate. It is obvious that when I say "invite all of their friends," I mean just that, not all of the people you have met and know, and happen to have an email address for them. I mean, invite your "friends", the people you know (and trust), the people you interact with, the people you would like to see on Debate.org. The quality of the person we as members should invite to Debate.org was implied in my opening argument. Thanks for the fun debate 'attatae', and best of luck in the voting. Oh yeah, don't forget to... Invite All Of Your Friends http://www.debate.org... Cheers
Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site.

Hey dudes! Whazzup! My buddy Freddy G told me 'bout this place! I was checkin' out the "People" area, and I can't wait to find some minors to trick into illegal sex! Haha, cool! I think I'll also prank debaters, curse in my posts, and send out lots of emails for Viagra rip-offs (I sell them, contact me for info)! Hey, anyone wanna help me spam for my new porn site too? Greetings. I wrote the above to illustrate a very simple, but important point - debate.org members should do their best to only invite people they are think would enjoy the site and have something to offer the community. My dear opponent would have you believe that it's a good idea to tell ALL your friends about this site - well, this is a big mistake. Think about this - do you really know all your friends equally? The ones you know just a little about, they could easily end up being someone with the mentality of the paragraph above. Furthermore, you may even have a close friend who happens to be quite a carefree prankster, who you know would do nothing but goof off here, but alas, Phil would have you invite them anyway! Just rattle off emails to everyone you can say is some type of friend, who cares about screening them, we just need massive numbers! Come one, come all! What's that, they enjoy spamming racism and sexism and adult site links? Who cares, bring 'em over! Keep in mind Phil is advising EVERYONE to bring ALL of their friends. Even if all your friends were debaters (which would be extremely rare), think about all the other current members who would have to skip any basic consideration process just because my opponent would have you think that sheer numbers are all that count. Debate.org looks to be a great site with lots of potential. Let's try our best to keep it this way by inviting only people we think will enhance and enjoy the community, not just adding numbers for numbers sake.
Every Debate.org member should invite all of their friends to join the site.

If you love this website (www.Debate.org) like I do, and you are a registered member, then you should use the 'Invite My Friends' feature to send an invitation to all of your friends to join the website. Debate.org is now a social networking website, built around and driven by debate. I would argue that based on my 33-years of experience on this planet that 1 out of 3 people love a good argument in at least one of the categories listed on the website. Arts Education Entertainment Health Miscellaneous News Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology Furthermore, Debate.org is a great place to debate a wide array of topics. Therefore, I would argue that enough of your friends would benefit from the invitations, that you would be doing them a disservice to not invite them. Choosing not to invite your friends would also be a disservice to the existing Debate.org community, since we're all looking for more content and site growth. 'Invite My Friends' http://www.debate.org...
Should brazil be given more credit for ther work in World war2 than most us and world history gives

I believe that Brazil is given all of the credit that it deserves. I also would like to say how a country receives credit for its role in WWII. A country receives credit for playing an important role in WWII by standing out more than others. In Brazil, I'm sure they talk about Brazil's role. In other countries it is different. I believe that the USSR and China do not receive enough credit for their role in WWII even though they were important. Anyway, I await Pro's arguments.
to be pupil better rather than student

I did not understand what is your point. I think you do not have credible arguments with evidences which show that to be student good rather than pupil. Actually I understood only your point of to be students. In contrast I think to entertain whole day destroys our life. You know that student should learn by hard way rather than entertain. So there is a big minus of such kind of students, because pupils afraid to go such places , for example clubs, bars. Instead of these they can learn useful tasks and they know how to manage their significant times. So there is your point that difficulties can motivate people to study, for example even you ,do you want to take a subject of strict instructor, who failed 70% of students and other 30 % of students got D+ses, I think your answer will be NEVER, because you afraid of difficulties of subject. So according to this, I hope that I had relevant ideas for this. So this is also minus of students because they think that hard tasks will motivate them, however majority of them avoid meeting any difficult. Please can you give controversial arguments rather than to write anything you want, because it makes our debate poorly.
to be pupil better rather than student

Let's start. I want to agree with you that students' life is the hardest than pupils'. But there some arguments which I will Present. First is that when study life become difficult it can motivate people for study, for doing something, when study is easy like in schools logically that pupils would not study at all. Second is that we are become independent, adult people could not be like kids and university life make us be prepared to it. And the last that when you are student you have amount of entertainment, and law could not bear you=) because when you are a pupil you just can walk or have fun in your garden but when you are a student you can have fun everywhere : clubs, beach parties, all days all night so I think that it is better to be a student=)
to be pupil better rather than student

Today all people know that after schools pupils should enrol on a course of university, there is a doubt that some of the children want to stay in schools. So there is a question what is better to be pupil or student? From my point of view, to be pupil better rather than student. You know that when we became student we have a lot of problems, but these problems we should solve by ourselves. And we have a big responsibility on everything. And it makes our life difficult. In contrast to be pupil more easier, because we always with parents, if we have some problems we will ask our parents to help. And for this, we do not have a lot of responsibilities as students. Also, all people know that majority of young people cannot study at university, because they do not know how they can carry out hard tasks. We recognized that tasks in university difficult rather than in schools. So the another reason is that today there are a lot of entertainments, for example bars, clubs, pubs and etc. And these entertainments have a bad impact on student's life; it makes them to be lazy and gives way only to entertain. However, we know that to study at school gives a lot of opportunities and ways to accomplish all of the tasks. And nothing cannot disturb to study, because there is a law that young pupils cannot entertainments such as clubs, bars and places where people drink alcohols. That is why I think that to be pupil good rather than student.
to be pupil better rather than student

Thanks a lot Bex, you are wonderful opponent, I will be happy to debate with you again=) I disagree with you about universities' instructors because each university offer a choose in which language do you want to study. It is first and second, in each universities there are groups with different numbers and instructors, you can choose any. About, actually I agree with you but in universities students focus only on that stuff will be necessary. It is helping us to get our skills on a highest level. To conclude I want to share with my point of view, I am very happy to be a student and I believe that to be a student is much better than a pupil Thanks.
to be pupil better rather than student

I am not sure that about your arguments, you mentioned that uniforms are useless for people, but did you think about people who have a poverty line, and they cannot allow for their children to buy whatever their children want. And these uniforms are very helpful for them. So the another point of your view is that students able to choose teachers rather than pupils, however I think that you were mistaken. Only our university gives such kind of opportunity in Kazakhstan, but did you take view about other universities. For example, the nearest university is Agrarian for us. There you cannot choose instructors the same as in schools. And I think this is your fault that you forgot about other universities. So the third point is after schools pupil should enrol on a course of university. I think that every pupil wants to enrol on a course of university, because they want to know everything profoundly what they got from schools. It indicates that firstly they got useful information from schools, then they can consolidate it in university. However, everything starts from schools. For example, when we built some buildings, evidently you will start from fundament. And school is the same like fundamental for our future, about university, it is wall of fundament. Realistically, I can say that school is our first step to our future. So, to sum up, I think I convinced you that to be pupil is better rather than students. There are some arguments for it, but you also gave good controversial arguments. So, it is thought that it depends on our friends, who will vote for our debate. I am glad to debate again with you , Thanks.
to be pupil better rather than student

Thanks for your arguments, but I do not think that it is my arguments very soft, I think that you have little fantasy to gate any idea how to answer for it! Let's compare schools and universities. In schools pupils wear uniforms, however it is not necessary, at Universities we do not have such problem. As we had already discussed you know that our that school uniform is useless. Let's go further, in schools pupils could not choose teachers or instructors, but in Our University we can. I believe that everybody had already heard about pupils' stories such like "I had a bad teacher who always make me be offended because once I did not prepared and during my whole school life she will be quarreling with me". I know that everything depends of person but Instructors are person too, so make some conclusion. More one thing that I want to discuss that have instructors who are very strict and exacting. As many persons so many methods of approach, our university and I suppose in all universities there are some students who like such kind of instructors because They are pushing on and they become working, learning and studying. Is a preparation for our further life, schools do not gives such quality of knowledge and diplomas which are a ticket for your future life. Why pupils after schools go to university? They understanding that it is much able and reliable to their future. Do not you think so?
Resolved: The constitutions of democratic governments ought to include procedures for secession

I have a few stipulations that must be agreed upon before the debate can commence. First, the resolution is an exercise in political philosophy, so the primary focus of the debate should be on philosophy rather than on practical examples. Although real-world instances can be used to bolster one's claims, it would be unfair for my opponent to win the round simply on the basis of the Civil War. Second, voters should agree to not vote on the debate based on their opinions about the American Civil War.
An atheist President would be okay

So you're not a militant atheist, I see. If a militant atheist was president many things would go wrong for our country, don't you think? Religions would be cast out, etc., (but I don't see how we'd even get as far as electing a militant atheist). Are you arguing that an atheist, in general, would be good president, or that one like you would suit? Please clarify as it is a waste of time to argue whether a militant atheist would be an OK president. Also, do you mind if I bring up other arguments besides the ones you listed in this debate? I understand if you do. Oh yes, I apologize for forfeiting. No internet at where I was staying over the weekend! 1. Morality Christians, if they believe what the Bible says, know that God is their Creator who is 1) omniscient, 2) all loving, 3) infinite. If God knows the future, he wants the best for us, and he will live/be forever, we should trust what He says in his Holy Book, the Bible. Inside this book there are moralities that make sense and some that do not make any sense from the perspective of our modern culture. But no matter what WE think, we follow the things God says in the Bible BECAUSE he is all-knowing and all-loving. In other words, is it better to trust ourselves or our Creator? This is the biggest reason an atheist president would make our country go down (in some ways--I'm not saying that the president would flunk all in all, but his moralities wouldn't be the smartest because he would lead the country his own way, not our Creator's way). Having an atheist president goes against America's Pledge of Allegiance, which says 'One nation, under God...' It would bring up a lot of conflicts and controversy between the people in America, offending all the different religious folk who believe their country should be 'under God' yet their very president doesn't agree. 2. Bad Example For Youth If I understand correctly, what you're saying is I should/can argue whether or not atheists would be a bad example for youth. Again, I'd need a definition or clarification of WHICH atheist as a president, because one who did not agree, promote, or tolerate any religions with a god/God would be a bad thing for the new generations. If kids were taught that all religions were wrong than kids would be forced to believe one thing: this world came about by the Big Bang/Evolution and all gods are myths. It would sort of become socialism, like China or North Korea where Christians aren't allowed and any theists are persecuted. 3. Obama being atheist Christianity is...https://www.google.com... so please don't say that the American President is Christian. That's the problem: we don't know WHAT he is. Many say he's Muslim, and Muslims hate Christians so which one is it? I definitely wouldn't go as far as to say ALL Presidents have been Christians in some way, but you could say they were all theists. https://www.google.com... Theism is not specifically Christianity, but Christianity is a form of theism.
An atheist President would be okay

The definition of atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.[1] This doesn't mean that as an atheist you have to be anti-religion. I'm an example; I don't believe religion should be banned because I think more good has come out of it than evil. I'm going to list arguments that my opponent may use.1. MoralityAtheists have no fear of a place of torture and eternal burning, so either they have no sense of morality or it comes from nowhere. Well, if you think either that or that your god is the source of morality, and Christianity is the right religion, you come acrosse Euthyphro's dilemma. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Basically, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"[2] When you believe that God commands X and forbids Y, especially with the promise of eternal punishment, so you follow what he commands, because it is moral (again, Euthyphro's dilemma). That's not moral behavior. That's save-your-behind-from-eternal-torture behavior.[3] My proof that atheists have a sense of morality is that we're not child abusing, stealing, wife beating, mass-murdering prostitutes. If you argue for Stalin and Mao, "Look! They were atheists! Look what atheists do!" They killed in the name of politics, not just for the heck of it.2. Bad Example For YouthI'm sure that's what people thought about MLK Jr. Just because an atheist has "no sense of morality" doesn't mean they're incapable of doing good.3. There Have Been No Bad Christian PresidentsIf you're a Republican, you may argue that Obama is an atheist. He's a Christian. I won't go more in-depth with Obama unless I have to, so that is up to con. Bill Clinton was impeached because he had an affair, you could say he was a bad President. Herbert Hoover was President during the Great Depression, and his attempts, if any, to fix it failed and left for FDR to fix. You could say he was a bad President. Also, all Presidents have been Christian in some way. You can't say all Presidents were good.Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish you good luck!Sources:[1]-https://www.google.com...[2]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]-http://www.provingthenegative.com...;
Why Ballet is Harder than Football

Football is an incredibly hard sport. It is not for Neanderthals, as you are implying. You are also insinuating that ballet has more injuries than football which is also ridiculous. Ballet injuries are more to do with joints and tenditinits which occurs over time. If you count a blister as an injury, then I feel bad for your terrible pain tolerance. Football teams have hundreds of plays, all with different routes, blocks, zones, man coverages. Everybody on the field has to be in sync, and know what every other player is doing. The fact that you said they "rarely" catch the football is also ridiculous, as most receivers have well over 50% catch percentages. Football takes weeks just to master one play. Ballet is difficult. However, football is insanely hard at a competitive level, as you need to have a very high football IQ, and extreme cardio. Many of professional football players do not do it for the money, people do not dedicate their whole life for something they do not like.