BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dinosaurs existed on the planet Earth.

Hell nah! They ain't no evidence any dinosaurs roamed the dammed earth. You gonna be talk'n bout them bones. Them bones aint no evidence for nothing. Them fossils are Fake azz shitt. Take a look.http://www.funathomewithkids.com... People tell'n crazy dammed lies.http://tumblehomelearning.com... You see that shameful cackerazz lies. Check out this shitt right here. https://www.pinterest.com... Fakeazz shitt. William Buckland made that shitt up in 1824. Look at that dum mutha fukka.https://www.google.com...(Claudet).JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Falchetron.com%2FWilliam-Buckland-1111779-W&docid=FVXlEXate5b8fM&tbnid=YyR8ANsbk9dW6M%3A&vet=1&w=1448&h=1718&client=tablet-android-alco&bih=976&biw=600&q=william%20buckland&ved=0ahUKEwjCuYq5offQAhUKsFQKHbr6A-8QMwgjKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8 He made up every bit that shitt bout them Godzillas.
Dinosaurs existed on the planet Earth.

Listen player, William Buckland made all this funny bizzness up in 1824. Them Chinese people started all this shitt. They made dragon bones to trick people into believing the Emperor had magical power. In 1676 Robert Plot made a bone and said it belonged to the Nephelim. Then in 1824 William Buckland made up this dinosaur lie. They were jive talk'n. http://wonderopolis.org...
Video Games are the new art form

Video Games can give deep insights My opponent mentioned within a fairly long paragraph that video games can go into several deeper subjects. Now, 1) The majority of players playing video games, correct me if I'm wrong, often do not look for a "deeper" meaning as they play their video games they just play it to have fun and I believe most creators of videogames do not intend so either. You mentioned a game called "The Mass Effect Series" where during your gameplay, you were thinking "How would I like it if they did that to me? " 1) It's a video game not real life. 2) If you take a video game like the "Grand Theft Auto Series" When players are just killing random civilians, running over pedestrians, stealing cars, etc. I don't think one person is saying "How would I like it if they did that to me? " so therefore I don't see insights in most video games. Video Games can be interpreted differentlySo can just about everything else. Video Games Are ArtNot a great idea to state that considering you are willing to debate about that. This is a complete opinion. Video Games Sound GreatAlso an opinion although I agree with you. As for art: Art provides expression, communication, exploration, imagination, cultural and historical understanding, the list goes on and on. What does videogames provide aside from entertainment. For many students, Art is their prime motivation for coming to school whereas kids do not complete their homework because they are too busy playing video games. Also, with video games there are hundreds of stories of people not getting a job because they are addicted to video games. Look at this . http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... Now, video games are fun with moderation. Good Luck!
Video Games are the new art form

Video Games are ArtThere's no solid definition for what an art is, but it mostly agreed that an art is a piece or work that people find enjoyable or appealing and that can give a deeper have a deeper insight into many different subjects. Art should also be able to be interpreted differently by every person. I assert that video games do just that. Video Games Look/Sound GreatWell this part is a no brainier. No one can deny that video games can be ascetically pleasing, with better and better looking games coming out every year with varying art styles. There's everything from ultra-realism to abstract art style in games today, both managing to impress players. The music in video games has never been better, with full symphonies recording soundtracks for games; if you haven't listen to some video game soundtracks I highly recommend it. With great graphics and soundtrack, video games can take someone's breath away and stare in wonder. Video Games can Give Deep InsightThrough the game play, story, and atmosphere, a game can give insights into deeper subjects. A prime example is the Mass Effect series, which makes the player make a plethora of moral choices throughout the game; I just want to focus on one. In this game there is a robotic alien race called the Geth, half of who want to kill you and half of who think your their savior. In one of the missions you are given the choice to either completely wipe out the Geth who are opposed to you or reprogram them so that they no longer hate you. This choice makes the player really think about this issue, put themselves in the place of the Geth. How would I like it if someone could just reprogram me, change how I fundamentally think, without me ever knowing. Would I rather die as the man I am, or become a completely different person but stay alive. These are the questions the player has to ask himself as he tries to decide the Geth's fate. I found out that I want to go down fighting, as I am. No one can deny the depth that this problem puts into the game. And this isn't the sole example of a video games exploring deep subjects; games like Bioshock and Persona 4 also explore deep subjects, like along with many others games. Video Games Can be Interpreted DifferentlySome people doubt that video games can mean more than one thing, that the same game can be seen differently by two people. There are a great numbers of games that show just that; games like Portal and Half-Life that hint at a deeper plot that is left up to the player to interpret, or games like Deus Ex which leaves it up to the player to decide if they're fighting on the right side. Video games have been able to caused debates for decades, there's no doubt that video games can be interpreted differently by people. Thanks for reading my argument and I look foward to your response.
Police Brutality

I accept. To observe, Pro has begun this debate with the resolution "Police Brutality", which pertains to the absolute. Pro isn't supposed to defend some instances of police brutality, but rather all. If I can successfully show at least one instance in which police brutality is wrong or unjust, then the resolution is negated.First, we must note that Pro states in the opening round that if a person breaks the law and then resists they might be injured or killed. Obviously yes, but this is a complete generalization of brutality cases. In some instances, police have shot citizens who were not resisting or were not deserving of being shot. We must also note that if a police shooting is justified, then the case isn't an example of brutality. "Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose." [http://www.encyclopedia.com...] For my opponent to defend brutality when it is defined as something that is unnecessary or unjust is an untenable position. This is contradictory to the nature of brutality and is an attempt to justify what is unjustifiable.Examples - Frank Jude and his friend Love Harris were assaulted by police officers in Milwaukee in 2004. The two were leaving a party when attacked by off-duty cops because they claimed the two had stolen one of their police badges. Harris' face was cut with a knife while Jude was repeatedly punched, kicked, stabbed in the head with a pen, and was stomped. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...]- Rodney King was chased in his car by the L.A.P.D. for 8 miles until being stopped and ordered to move out of his vehicle. He did so, resisted arrest, and was then tazed and beaten with a baton while being kicked repeatedly on the ground. This happened in 1992. [http://www.biography.com...]- Amadou Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, was shot in his apartment building by the N.Y.P.D. in 1999. They thought he had a gun, but was actually unarmed and had reached into his pocket for a wallet when he was killed. [http://www.nytimes.com...]Police brutality is, by definition, unnecessary and unjust. I find it shocking that Pro would support such a heinous thing. Nevertheless, the resolution is negated.
Lethal force against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters would be justified

Thanks Pro- I've managed to lose the text of my argument this evening & lack the time to recreate it. I don't think readers need to consider the worthiness of the NODAPL protests in order to reject the unnecessary overkill of a declaration of war. War ought to be a measure of last resort, necessary to secure the well-being of masses of US citizens, proportional in response to the lethality of the threat. Given that the Army Corp of Engineers has provided a rational means of de-escalation and that both parties are in the process of standing down for the winter, doesn't a declaration of war seem like expensive, hyper-provocative, Federal intrusion? Even if lethal force by police had been an appropriate response at the moment of maximum risk to Dakota Access property on Oct 3 (I don't think it would have been- neither, apparently did police), how would an escalation to formal war have improved the matter? Wouldn't such a disproportionate response have elicited far more ill will for the project now & in future? How would the US identify & enumerate the enemy and by what standard? I'd ask Pro to elucidate the value & necessity of war making in preference to ordinary civilian peacekeeping measures. I apologize for the lost counter arguments, but perhaps this briefer reply serves to strip away the clutter of the pipeline controversy so we can focus on whether warfare would be a just, proportional response. I'll do my best to present a condensed version of counters in the concluding round.
Socialized medicine is an abysmal failure

While socialized medicine is certainly not free and is paid for by taxes it is anything but an abysmal failure. In fact, most of the modern westernized countries the United States is the only one with a non-socialized program. http://www.kff.org... The United States pays upwards of $7,000 (the above chart is two years old) per person for heathcare. For this price of nearly $5,000 more per person we receive very little in the way of care not even making the chart for health received. We pay way more than other countries for way less. We pay triple what Canada does for far less care. http://www.consumeraffairs.com... Your only complaint thus far is that it isn't free which is obviously accurate. However the costs could be significantly reduced by going to a medical program controlled by the government. The average administration costs for private programs is about 30% whereas the administration costs for Medicare is 2%. If one wishes to advocate that such programs are not capitalistic they are free to do so. I don't think people should be getting rich screwing over sick people. It may not be free but it is cheaper, moreover it's better as we can judge by every reliable metric for health among the wealthy industrialized countries.
Socialized medicine is an abysmal failure

We've all heard it before -- socialized medicine is "free" healthcare! Common sense will prevail in this debate, and common sense tells us that nothing in this world is free, LEAST of all, socialized medicine. There are no free lunches. Somebody has to pay, somebody always pays. I will allow CON to make their claim why society should transition over to socialized medicine before I begin my excoriation.
flag burning

Ok, so this debate has become centered around whether or not flag burning is "speech" or not, which would have it protected or not by the 1st Amendment. You feel that it isn't technically speech, so it can;t be free speech and be protected under the Bill of Rights. However, I feel that it is an opinion that is shown through peaceful measure, which does, in fact entail speech by our laws, regardless of how it is expressed. In addition, I feel that if legislative measures would be taken against flag burning, it would just snowball into more and more laws harming our personal rights, more governmental control, and more violations of our inalienable rights. So, in conclusion, I feel that flag burning should be perfectly legal, regardless of how inflammatory it may be, as long as it does not infringe on others rights. Congratulations. That was fun, and you had some really good arguments. I wish I was as politically active as you are when I was 13.
flag burning

Yet again, I agree people should be able to say whatever they want. I just don't believe the freedom of speech includes burning the flag. The burning of a flag does not entail speech. If you disagree with the government or the U.S. I believe you should feel free to say it. Just don't take it out on the U.S. flag itself. The framers wanted the people to be able to say whatever they wished, and that is a great thing that is still in tact today. I personally believe it is unpatriotic to burn the U.S. flag.
flag burning

So, in essence, you're agreeing with me on most things, but just feel that burning the flag is not technically "speech", and is therefore not protected by the Constitution. However, I feel that is one of the things that the forefathers meant to protect. A problem commonly occurring in the colonies and in Mother England was the issue of treason. When people would say negative things against the leaders, they would be banished, best case scenario. Most were publicly humiliated, and the hung. The forefathers wanted to prevent this at all costs, and with the exception of maybe the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Patriot Act (which should be abolished, but is a different debate entirely), have succeeded. And while burning the flag is not technically "speech", I feel you are taking this out of context, and that the framers of the Constitution just wanted people to be able to say whatever they wished, as long as it didn't infringe on others lives and liberties. I feel that flag burning does entail speech in this case, as frustrated citizens are saying what they believe against the government in the form of burning a flag, solely a "symbol" as you put it. In addition, I feel that our citizens can do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on ther's "lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness." However, I recognize this may be a adical and libertarian argument, so I can stick with my previous one, which pretty much says that flag burning is a form of speech, and is therefore protected under the Constitution.
flag burning

i said pro for burning the flag. that would mean i was for it. next, if you disagree with the nation, that is your opinion. however, you should not burn our nations symbol. the right to free speech is garunteed by the constitution. however, burning a flag has nothing to do with speech. like i said, freedom of speech would be disagreeing with our nation and our current and past presidents. i agree with you that the frameres worked long and hard on the constitution, and it should be strongly believed in. i still believe that does not give people the right to burn the american flag.
flag burning

I quote Patrick Henry (A man I am sure who isn't "simply unpatriotic") when he says "I'd rather see someone wrapped in the constitution burning the flag, than someone wrapped in the flag burning the constitution." Our freedom of speech, along with many others guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is an inalienable and natural rights. This freedom allows us, as American citizens and human beings, to be against the leadership of our nation and the course it is going, which a vast amount of Americans agree with. You say a "loyal american" would protect our flag, not destroy it, but than would you call someone who feels, as I do, that George W. Bush was probably one of the most awful men to grace the Oval Office a disloyal american? Would you call someone who felt that Ronald Reagan, the darling of the Neocons, implemented some of the most awful domestic and foreign policies to date, a traitor? I feel that people who do this are mostly in fact the opposite, and that much more loyal to our great nation, as instead of blindly following the leadership, they wish to see our nation become better, and be that much greater in the eyes of other nations and her own citizens. Now, to bring this back to flag burning. Yes, I feel that the flag is a representation of our nation, and is a very patriotic symbol. However, I much more strongly believe in the Constitution, and how our forefathers fought long and hard for our rights, and to have flag burning be illegal would be, to quote Sylvester the Cat, "despicable". P.S. Next time, you may want to PRO "flag burning" if you are arguing for it. P.P.S. While Frank Gore is very talented, I feel that Walter Payton is "de best"
batman vs superman

I find it unfortunate that Pro has forfeited his second round. As for my arguments, in the Canon, Batman has never beaten Superman on a One on One fight without Superman holding back. Superman could also get to Bruce/Batman before Batman could even react (as Superman can move faster than the speed of light in some variations) Superman could also just out wait Batman as he has a long (if not infinite) lifespan. Also, if we are going with any variation, Superman Prime is immune to pretty much anything, and could beat Batman in the blink of an eye.
Abortion is immoral

1. Exclusions Yes, I do agree, in few circumstances, abortion can be permissible. If a woman has cancer, and needs to abort her child, it obviously makes sense for her to do it. The baby wouldn't survive if she died. Or if she's raped. I hate to say I see this as permissible, barely, only because she was forced into pregnancy. Otherwise, I am against it 100%. 2. Human RightsIt is agreed that the right to life is once of the most basic of human rights. Now, since science has proved that a fetus is, in fact, a human being, I see no reason why an abortion is permissible. Just because it cannot think properly, or that it can't reason properly, does not make it less human. And again, it has been scientifically proved that a fetus is both alive, and human. Does this not mean that is has a natural human right to life? In my opinion, it is more than enough. A fetus cannot reason, because it is still developing. That doesn't mean that it is less human, or that it doesn't deserve a right to life. A fetus cannot be aware of it's surroundings, because it is both developing, and it never changes. It is in the womb, submerged in water. All it's needs are met in the womb, so it doesn't have a need to take notice of it's surroundings. And even though the younger fetuses cannot take notice of it's surrounds, even if it wanted to, it is still both alive, and human, meaning that it has a right to life. ConclusionThere is no proving that a fetus is not human, because it very much is human. It is a living human being, and because of this, it should be guaranteed the most basic of human rights, the right to life. Abortion, except in very few cases, is morally wrong and selfish.
Objectivism is Flawed

It is the position of the Pro that Objectivism which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand is flawed and should be disregarded as an approachable outlet to philosophy. The goal of the Con is to prove otherwise. Rules:1. A single forfeit equals an automatic forfeit for this debate on the offending party.2. No semantic disputes. If the definition of a term is unclear please refer to the online Merriam Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. The Con will simply state acceptance for the first round. No dense introduction necessary.
Spongebob is the best show for children comedy(kids cartoons not adult ones)

Wikipedia is not a source? My information could be fake? Then, why is there the official movie website there? [1] Also, at least I use sources. You haven't shown what awards spongebob has won. SpongeBob is too funny--you have not justified why SpongeBob is so funny.Spongefanboys--yeah right, you just invented that on the spot. And this name does not have a documentary on it, therefore it is not as well known or as good as the name of bronies."MLP is for babies"Then why do I see loads of bronies everywhere? Spongebob is "successful", my opponent claims. My opponent also claims everyone loves it. Yet source [2] show people clearly complaining about the show getting old and the jokes getting rusty and not working. In conclusion my opponent has tried and tried in vain. But he has failed to show Spongebob better than MLP. VOTE PONIES. [1] http://www.imdb.com... [2] https://answers.yahoo.com...
Spongebob is the best show for children comedy(kids cartoons not adult ones)

wikipedias not a source so some of your info could be fake also spongebob has won many awards and expands. The character is too funny and some people dont think this have no sense of humor. Spongebob fans get a name Spongefanboys Also it is since it has more likes than most shows on CN AND NICK and it is succesful MLP is for babies and just has ponies. Ponies dont exist lol so it sucks
Spongebob is the best show for children comedy(kids cartoons not adult ones)

REBUTTALS"Spongebob is too funny"Yeah right. Spongebob has been running for such an insanely long time, the producers are running out of ideas, and the show is getting less and less funny."Best show on nick"It does not matter. It cannot defeat MLP.On CSM it is rated 3 stars. [1] MLP is 4 stars. [2] See the vast difference."Great animation and art"This is subjective. However, there remains much more fans of MLP. You see, MLP is so darn popular there is a name for the fans, "Bronies". There's even a documentary for that one word, seen in source [3]. There is no name for fans of Spongebob, and of course there is no documentary because none can be made. End of story."The character has no life"This is contradictory. If you watch a show about a character with no life, it is not good because the character has no life. Yeah, see? Things are only interesting if characters have life!(See video for super lively character)http://www.youtube.com...Your arguments are rebutted. Try again![1] https://www.commonsensemedia.org...[2] https://www.commonsensemedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homework should be banned.

Or she can retype the same thing again lol.Alright I will offer all my contentions and rebuttals in the first roundContention 1Practice Makes PerfectWithout homework, their would only be the work that was open in school. So they would get one shot to understand it and that would be it. Needless to say test scores would drop. Think how fast students go through a chapter. Homework is a way for them to take the knowledge they learn in class, and tone and strengthen it. By doing an exercise multiple times, they will have a higher probability of retaining what they are learning. Contention 2Limit homework but do not get rid of itAll the excess homework is irrelevant, because it does interfere with home-life and extra curricular hobbies and studies. So instead of offering 20-50 problems, reduce it to 5-10 or so. That way they can still practice the material but not have to spend an over needed amount of time on it.Contention 3It improves Test scoresRemember limited homework, is often better than a vast amount of homework. That does not mean get rid of it. A recent study shows this when teachers limited the amount of home works their students were doing"The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students’ scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic. Students assigned homework in second grade did better on the math tests; third and fourth graders did better on English skills and vocabulary tests; fifth graders on social studies tests; ninth through 12th graders on American history tests; and 12th graders on Shakespeare tests. "By completely getting rid of it, it will reduce academic achievement. In ClosingI think the best way to peek student performance, is to limit homework substantially. It allows the child to focus, have free time, while still helping them retain the knowledge that is taught in class. http://today.duke.edu...