BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cRAP BATTLE

Yo yo yo Here we f***ing go I gots one thing to ask you WTF was that All that random typing was so lazy Like my lazy fat cat All you did was type letters that make no sense You deserve no credit not even 1 pence That wasn't even a rap it was just random gibberish It sounded just like this do oudhoud duo hod hod shish Now hang your head in shame Because you gonna lose Last night I met a lady Her name was Suusss an Now if you please I just sneezed So I feel a little bit at unease This is why You gonna die Try and you'll fry I'm the kinda guy Who is the rye feeling high I wont lie I'm a spy dont cry Why? Because I sigh Nigh when you try This is why Its time foe the mutha f***** BYE BYE BYE
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

This debate has gone nowhere due to my opponents rude, and unprogressive style of debating. This debate should really be a debate, not a married couple yelling spree. When your are voting in todays round there are a few things you need to consider. 1) Actual points: All my opponents attacks ands defenses of his own points are in short, that my points are dumb. Besides being completely unethical you are going to have to favor my own points in which I have defended well. Even if you believe my opponent, you are going to have no choice but to vote Pro or else you are supporting unethical debating. On top of that, when it comes down to the actual debate, I am the only one with any progress. 2) You are voting on a debate. Treat it like such. You are shaming this sight, and the intent of the debate. The intent of debate is to have thoughtful discussion and get to the bottom of important issues. My opponent has disgraced this intent so you can not vote for them in today's debate. 3) He says his points are obvious. Vote for my opponent if this is enough justification for you. Or look to every thing I have written and realize that if my points really are as offensive, outrageous as my opponent says, at least I have debated them. Since my opponent doesn't retaliate with any real logic to anything I've said this shows he can't really say anything to them. Saying i need to "get real" doesn't really reflect badly on my points but shows that my opponent can't protect his own with real justification. Finally, the fact that my opponent can only insult me means there is not actual debate behind his side today. Ultimately, in today's debate you only have one opting and that is to vote PRO. Thanks,
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

lol youre trying to tell me im the one that doesnt have an argument kid? i already said my part and you clearly dont know much , and dont know too well how the world works if you think that taking this form of government and putting it into play in a different country can be a recipe for disaster.. as i said i stated why i think this way ... in my opinion i shouldn't even have to go in depth because it is that obvious.. but you can keep thinking youre smarter for keeping your cool or for writing out long responses but someone with intelligence would realize that that is simply not true. I am done with your childishness... you clearly can not even handle my attitude towards you when you put up a ridiculous argument and you think people are going to be able to control the backlash that comes from trying to step on someone's toes in their territory? get real... America has no right whatsoever to push their ideas on people its all they do these days, not to mention they don't have their sh*t together so they have some nerve telling another country how to run itself... the elites in America will be the ones that profit from this system ..and only the elites really.. and yet you think we have a good system. This is why i can not have a rational debate with you, you have shown you are clearly not even near capable of having one. So this is my last rebuttal to you, you can go ahead and try to debunk my argument or say i have no point to make, the people with sense will realize youre wrong, like the ones in the comment section already have in some cases
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Okay, we can look to what my opponent has already posted. I would just like to say that fact that my opponent has already resorted to personal attacks on my intelligence and saying I make no sense is a fair sign that they are having difficulty supporting their actual arguments. It looks like my opponents debate revolves around rude statements against me. This is completely unnecessary to the topic (lol). Now I would like to address all of my opponents points: In response to my opponents point that democracy is failing in our own Society I would just like to point out that our country is far better off than countries in the Middle East. Obviously a perfect system is impossible but If I can still retain that democracy promotion would help the region more that we ought to look to that. Also, even if you do believe that our society is not well off, the fact remains that in the Middle East they don't even have basic human rights and they are constantly being treated less than human. If you are actually concerned about economy and such like my opponent talks about, than you will be voting PRO today because there is no way for that to happen without human rights. Even if democracy doesn't work, our very promoting signals that someone cares about their region and shows that someone is treating them like actual humans. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE SOCIETY. If you vote for my side today you are voting for a far better system and an operatunity for improvement. On the CON they are only showing you the minute downsides that are already present in those societies too so they aren't really major voting issues. My opponents second point is saying that we ought not promote democracy because we have no right to. However, when people are being treated like they are in the Middle East that is something that goes beyond borders. It's not like we are imperialistic freaks trying to force an opinion on them. We are just trying to promote basic human goodness and allow them a say in their government so they are treated like actual people. On top of that, Iraq's favorite example of a new government is actually the USA. Democracy isn't really foreign to the people. If you don't buy that, then look to the Arab springs, Tunisia (where democracy is working), or the Green Rebellion in Iran. They are all displays that democracy can work. Finally, don't let my opponent get away with rude remarks. This is so unethical and ruins the quality of this overall debate. For all these reasons I see that Aff is the only way to vote in this debate. Thanks,
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Democracy isn't even really working for our own society, our economy is crashing in places and we are facing recessions . Not to mention America has no right to try and advertise itself to others especially considering how much they fight with the middle east, how can they expect the people there to listen to anything they have to say about peace or working things out and building a good economy or stability in their country when America doesn't have it's sh*t together?
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

After that the structure is as follows. Round 2: Constructive cases Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final statements. Any new ideas should not be voted on. Anything not previously mentioned in the debate is not allowed. I am typically and LD debater so if my opponent is let me know and we can have even more fun. Otherwise, accept and we will still have a great debate! (:
Liberals' DDO Tournament R1: Poverty and the Enviroment

This is a Round One debate in the Liberals' DDO Tournament between myself and Lordgrae. Rules and information are below. Topic: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. Rules: 1. Round One is just for acceptance 2. Round Five cannot be used to make new arguments 3. Both contestants may offer their own definitions and/or counterdefinitions for the resolution Thanks to Lordgrae in advance! I look forward to a great round!
Hunting (pro or con)

This debate has taken an interesting turn. My opponent has stated that there are other ways besides hunting to control population. One of his suggestions does not commonly take place, and would only take place if hunting was banned. This debate is not about whether or not hunting should be banned. The resolution is that hunting, in general, is a good thing. Since hunting is the only effective way commonly used to control animal population, my opponents attack on my first claim is nullified. To attack my second contention, my opponent stated that it doesn't matter that there are regulations to ensure that hunting is done safely because hunting should not be done. I am well aware that my opponent does not want hunting to be done. However, my opponent did not use that argument specific to my second contention, so that argument is false because they literally have not argued against the hunting safety regulations currently in place. My opponent attacked my third contention by saying that dragging a dead animal through a forest is not the best source of exercise. I never said it was. I said that it was a good source of exercise provided by the great outdoors rather than a sweaty gym that costs money for a membership. My opponent also stated that you don't need to kill animals to have a knowledge of nature. That's very true, but you do need to go outside to have an understanding of nature. And hunting is a great opportunity to be in the great outdoors. Personally, when I hunt, I always feel like I'm on God's front porch. My opponent's first brief contention stated that deer kills do not keep the deer population down. They stated that female deer will respond to being hunted by having more offspring. My opponent must provide a source for this, which they have failed to do. Since they have not provided a source in this debate like I said was required, all source points should go to me. To respond to this, I would strongly urge my opponent to click the link below to read an article by the University of Illinois. This article strongly negates and nullifies my opponent's first contention. http://web.extension.illinois.edu... My opponent's second claim was that it is immoral to kill animals. No it isn't. It's human and animal nature to hunt for a secure food source. Whenever I hunt, the meat never goes to waste. Specifically I'm referring to goose hunting. We either eat the goose meat the night we kill it, or we give it to a local raptor center filled with injured birds of prey that need the meat. I for one always thank the animal for its sacrifice and understand that it's life is going to the nourishment of another. I agree with my opponent that it is immoral to kill an animal and just leave it there, because its life means more than that, but I strongly disagree that it is immoral for an animal to go to something that needs it. http://articles.mcall.com... For all of these reasons and more, I can see no other option than a strong pro ballot today.
Hunting (pro or con)

Rebuttals: Contention 1 - The pro had said that hunting will keep the wildlife population controlled, but there are other ways. You can capture and spay and neuter or other form of birth control to control populations. They do this with elephants and other animals in Africa. Population even themselves out. Let nature fix itself like it has before we tried to destroy everything for personal gain. Disease, predation, and competition are natural ways the populations are sustained it been like this since the first microbiotic life started 4 billion years ago. Contention 2 - It doesn't matter how safe and proper you are at hunting, that's not really what I'm trying to say. Hunting should not be done. Contention 3 - I don't understand how dragging a corpse through a forest is the best source of exercise. I'm pretty sure there are millions of other ways to exercise than that? You don't need to kill animals to having knowledge of nature. Points - 1. Deer kills do not keep deer numbers down Deer are highly prolific, and their high reproductive rate can quickly compensate for declines in their population. When deer numbers are reduced after killing programs, the remaining female deer will often respond to greater food abundance by giving birth to twins or triplets. Fawns also have higher survival rates and earlier onset of sexual maturity. The end result is a quick "bounce-back" in numbers. 2. Immoral It's immoral to kill animals in the wild when you can easily drive to the store and pick other foods up. That's all I have to say for my points at the moment, thank you.
Hunting (pro or con)

I am in firm affirmation of the resolved: Hunting, in general is a good thing. Contention 1: Hunting is one of the few things controlling wildlife population. Anti-hunters around the country have begun spreading the idea that hunting has a negative impact on wildlife population. It"s hard to notice because especially in urban areas where the anti-hunter population is high, there aren"t very many animals that are legal to hunt. And for some reason, people in those regions feel an ethical obligation to protect something that is so rare to them. Well, if nobody in the country hunted, animal populations would be running rampant and there would be a huge clash for land to live on between humans and animals. Also, anti-hunters wouldn"t be protecting the animals because overpopulation is just as bad for animals as it is for humans. . http://www.hudson.edu... Contention 2: Strict Laws and Regulations have been put in place to prevent the dangers of hunting. It would be foolishness of course, to let individuals hunt without the strict regulations that we have today. The regulations vary from state to state, so I have selected some regulations of big game hunting from the state that I am currently living in, and one of the most popular hunting states in America, Colorado. In most states including Colorado, people have to purchase tags not only for specific animals and specific genders, but specific unit or region. For instance, this year I had an either sex deer tag in units 214 and 4 for public land. The Colorado Division of Wildlife takes sections of state and federal public land and sells tags for specific animals. This ensures that people cannot hunt wherever they please. Also, before an individual can hunt, every state in America requires people to pass a hunter safety test. It includes an online course, an eight hour classroom session, an exam needing an eighty percent to pass, and fourteen shots at a local shooting range with a twenty two caliber rifle. I have done all of this and I am very safe with guns and ammunition. . http://cpw.state.co.us... . http://cpw.state.co.us... Contention 3: Hunting can provide both exercise and an increased knowledge of the outdoors. Surprisingly, many environmentalists are against hunting mainly because they think that hunting can negatively affect biodiversity. Like I explained earlier, they are wrong about that. Most hunters are very responsible when it comes to respecting the outdoors. I"ve hunted with about twenty four people, and the vast majority of them are very responsible about not leaving brass, shotgun shells, and other litter in the forest. Also, outside is a great place to be. It gets you closer to God, it gets you out of the house, and it gets you exercise. Hiking up and down mountains all day is hard work that is good for everyone. Not to mention, if you shoot an animal, you have to spend hours hiking back and forth from the animal to the truck to get the meat to the freezer. . http://debate.yukozimo.com... To recapitulate, I am in firm affirmation that hunting, in general, is a good thing. I look forward to my opponent"s arguments.
Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk
Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D
Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.
Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life
Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

"One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures," Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the "milk mustache", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. "But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones." (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)
Evolution V. Creationism

Concerning Genetic Entropy, "Recent reports on the human genome provide powerful support for the biblical history of Creation and Fall. We are unable to reproduce ourselves without making multiple genome copying errors every generation. As a result our genomes are decaying towards extinction from copy errors alone. However, they make up only 0.1% of the total mutation burden, so 99.9% of that burden must have come from other causes. When decay in copy fidelity is projected backwards in time it reaches perfection around 4,000"BC, and when projected forwards, extinction from copy errors alone occurs in thousands, not millions, of years. Naturalistic models of copy fidelity decay cannot explain the data because they rapidly collapse into "error catastrophe" (mutation meltdown). Only an Intelligent Design (ID) model with perfect original copy fidelity, plus ongoing maintenance and repair, can persist for thousands of years to fit the data. The ID model produced no copy errors at all for the early human generations, few until the time of Abraham, and a total today of only ~4,000 compared with our total burden of ~3 million. Darwinian scenarios requiring an extremely remote origin of life with a low primordial copy fidelity are absolutely excluded by this data! (http://creation.com...) I wish I could have defended my claims against thoughtful rebuttals, oh well. To any prospective reader, thank you for your time and consideration of my arguments. :)
Evolution V. Creationism

Your beginning is fair enough, and I agree wholly with your definitions. They both appear to be correct to me. In response to your question that you asked to be answered before my refutation of your other three points, I do agree that they could be proven true. However, I do not agree that they would support the creation model, for reasons that I will address individually. Firstly, your first point about DNA containing a sort of "Universal information" is just as much evidence that we all had a common ancestor. In fact, I fail to see how all creatures containing DNA that is similar or even the same as all the others points to an intelligent creator at all.Why wouldn't an omnipotent creator make every animal unique? Second, your point about "Junk DNA", seems a little backwards to me. If there was an intelligent creator, why would they make junk DNA? It seems far more logical to me that an intelligent creator would have no "Junk DNA". Why would anyone waste time making extra,useless parts? Thirdly and finally, why could life not have existed for the ~3.5 billion years suggested by evolution? Also, the thing about evolution is that creatures with detrimental mutations usually do not survive long enough to reproduce. To my knowledge, actually, the only species in which creatures with such mutations consistently survive long enough to reproduce is humanity. That is a result of our knowledge of medicine.
Evolution V. Creationism

You said that you would defend your position, so let's have this debate. I am of the opinion that evolution is the only viable explanation for life on earth. You say that creation is the only viable option and is the only option supported by observable evidence. How so? We have observed evidence of evolution already, such as the peppered moth changing from a very light color to a very dark one after the industrial revolution to have better camoflauge, the Italian wall lizards that were introduced to the island of Pod Mrcaru shifting diets, and the of course (You knew I would say it)Darwin's finches. What evidence do you have? Source:http://listverse.com...