BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Death Wish

The best death plans involve revenge against those that have wronged you. Thus, my death plan is as follows: Wake bright and early- today is the day you die! The preparation has been a long time coming, and it is all coming to a close, so put a smile on your face and enjoy the physical sensations of the day. You've successfully rented a helicopter, and your friend the pilot has agreed to fly. Your bomb is a thing of beauty, and you have a stockpile of morphine to make the trip a relaxing one. Now, get on the helicopter on this fine Saturday morning. You fly over to the local Methodist church where a crowd of people that look like ants has gathered below. It is a wedding, and here comes the bride and groom. It is not just any bride and groom, but (insert arch nemesis- perhaps she left you for him. Perhaps she is the daughter of your old business partner). Now is your chance (I hope you have remembered to take that morphine because you won't want to be too aware of this). Jump out of the hovering helicopter with your finger on the bomb detonator. As the faces of the crowd turn towards your plummeting body, hit the button. Now you are a chunky pink shower for the brides special day. Congratulations. You are dead and revenge is accomplished.
Best Death Wish

This is the game in which you state what you imagine the greatest way to die would be and why. I, will then take it upon myself to explain how my Death-Wish is in every way superior. Said death should be explained in such pitiful detail that anyone reading commits suicide. (Hint: Their suicide would suck in comparison to mine.) Another reason for the dreaded 'splain, is how you must leave absolutely nothing to the readers imagination. Also, even though this would ruin nearly any mystically beautiful (but still inferior to my own) death, you should strive to include a horribly annoying and useless character than completely destroys anyone's faith in the series. (Curse you Jar-Jar!) But if you do include such a character you will only make it apparently obvious that you should be dead.
God is not real

The reason I believe is because it is the truth and nothing else the scientist were saying made sense I mean how did monkeys get turned into people and how if there was one did a big bang create the earth. some of the most famous people believed in god. Martin Luther king, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, etc. are you telling me they believed in a bunch of baloney. and you want proof here it is. the belief in god has been around for about 10,000 generations. are you telling me they were just stupid. and if you read the bible it talks about everything that is happaning today
God is not real

I dont think you are trying to support the debate that god is real it lookes like you are just asking me questions. Any way no one made me belive god is not real because I do belive in god a bit and don't a bit. I also used to have a crazy bealive about god. I don't mean don't belive everything but belive in things that are true not like the things there is god or not because you are not sure what is right. I think a bit there is god and a bit not so I have more reasons that there is no god than there is god. All your questions (monkeys, evolution..... Babyes.....) they all are maybe not real if you play video games in some video games people are beating controlled like that maybe we are also beating controled by our brain and something else is controlling the brian. If there is god why would he make us suffer and punish and why does he need to hide from us. We won't do anything to him if he stays with us. I agree you can't answer everything with science but you can answer some things that you can't answer normaly. What makes you think there is god any way. Do you mind sharing with me I won't force you to, tell me if you want. And if you want to ask me any question you can I will try to answer them. I use to belive in god and I never got a doubt that if there is god or not but one night my mum told me and I felt so sad wishing there was god and there was proof and I still wish that. I would love it if god was real and I get the proof.
God is not real

I love how you say you can't believe everything others say yet I am pretty sure someone got you to believe god was not real. and someone got you to believe in evolution. so you can say don't believe every thing you here . and if you think we got here by evolution your crazy. if we did why aren't monkeys changing right as we speak and why don't baby's come out looking like monkeys. and how do you explain the universe and the animals and plants. you cant answer everything with science
Debate.org is an awful website

Con immediatley starts off their rebuttal with a trivial and meaningless statement about their gender which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.Con also utterly fails at rebuttal claiming that since they dont have trouble with the search engine neither should I.Con ends their so called rebuttal by claiming that am somehow being defensive because im afraid of losing.Neither of which are true.Con once again fails at a response.Which awards me yet another round.
Debate.org is an awful website

OK, I can see you want to do this the hard way. Well, first of all, I found the use of the pronoun 'He' to be offensive considering you just made an assumption. Well, guess what, your debating with a girl. Second of all, the whole McDonalds thing is a little out of left field considering we are talking about a website. People come back to McDonald's knowing it is unhealthy because they like it. So, you can't really use that as an argument because you're on the affirmative side. You don't like this website. If we use your exact words, 'Debate.org is an awful website.' Therefore, your argument is incorrect and not useful to your side of this debate. Also, I never stated that I liked the website. I do, but I never said that. You just threw out another assumption. I only said that I didn't have a problem with the features of the website. In my Round 1 argument, I said 'I actively use the website and I have never found this a real problem.' Meaning that I didn't see why not having a search engine was such a problem. If I can manage without one, then you most likely can too. Especially considering that you have been on this website much longer than I have. Also, if I'm so immature, why am I the only one who has provided solid evidence for my side of the argument. I never insulted you. Maybe your just becoming defensive because you're afraid of losing to me. Thank you.
Debate.org is an awful website

To start off, your arguing that it is a bad website and yet on your profile, it says that you have been on it for a year. After looking at your profile I see that you are currently in more than one debate. This means that you actively use the website. If someone doesn't like a website usually they would stop using it, and yet you keep coming back. If you didn't like the website so much then we wouldn't even be having this debate. So, this leads me to believe that it is a good website. It seems foolish to state something that completely contradicts your own actions. In fact, by doing this, you have just proved my side of the debate to be the correct side. You say that it doesn't have its own search engine, but I actively use the website and I have never found this a real problem. As for people not being active, maybe your just not looking in the right places. When I was looking at your profile, I saw that all but one of your debates were in the debating period. This means that even though you say not enough people are active, you still have enough to do more than one debate. If you truly did believe that this is such a bad website than you would not be debating with me. Instead, you would be looking for a new website to debate on. That or you would just not debate. I still have over 6,000 characters to use, but I do not feel the need to. I feel as though everything that had to be said, was said. Thank you.
Death penalty

Concerning Pro's recommendation regarding paedophiles (I'll switch to his definition for simplicity), he holds that the best course is simply to kill them. Consider for a moment that paedophiles, like others, are capable of contributing and willing to do so, and assume that wherever a person can and is willing to contribute positively to society it is beneficial for them to remain alive. Now consider that blanket execution of paedophiles may end up depriving society of willing workers. All that is actually necessary here is to remove those with paedophilic tendencies from environments where children are present. They can still serve society, and the streets are safer, but nobody has died. Why do I care for these criminals? Because they are the most unlucky people in the world, to inhabit bodies that demand they perform acts that they themselves likely condemn. I have argued in support of this theory (hard determinism) before, and I find it objectionable that we consider terminating someone's existence for an action that they had no say in whatsoever. Scientific studies show that our brains decide what we are going to do three hundred milliseconds before our conscious selves do. Intent is ascribed afterwards. I cannot imagine the horror of not only being witness to your body sexually abusing a child, but also being convinced by your brain that it was your idea. And you want to kill them for it. Regarding murders, once again I argue that the accused had no control over their actions. Their brain decided to kill, and they were forced to go along with it, and then were tricked into thinking they intended it. Once again, I advocate segregation rather than death, because they can still contribute to society. All we must do is put them in a position where it will be physically impossible for them to kill others. Regarding Pro's last point, the judiciary (at least in England) is dominated by white, middle-aged, middle-to-upper class men, which prejudices the justice system from the start, even ignoring each judges' individual biases, which they likely form before even hearing the evidence. This is because in a society where there is a minority, the majority inevitably end up repressing or discriminating against them in one form or another. Hence, if you are working class and black you will be sentenced to death more easily than a white middle class person, because the judge identifies with the latter. For evidence, look to America's racial profiling statistics for death row inmates. The white and black populations on death row are roughly equal, but in the wider population, whites outnumber blacks by more than five times (see http://quickfacts.census.gov...). And some still say that racism is dead. I look forward to Pro's final arguments in the next round, and hand the debate over to him.
Death penalty

May I first clarify my assumption of paedophile, anyone who has sexually assaulted or groomed or has photos of children, without consent. I also don't like the idea of this act with consent i.e. A 15 year old girl with a 19 year old boy friend but if consent is there you can't act. I propose that instead of keeping these criminals alive we simply end their lives. We have to show the working classes of our nations that their children our save and our streets our save. If we kill all of the "paedophiles" that we find our streets will become safer, and people will feel saver. Now let me come to the part were con referred to a sexual orientation of paedophiles. This is a "natural feeling" if we must, that cannot be changed. So putting them in prison is a waste of time as our current system aims to rehabilitate our criminals. Therefore after they have served their sentence they return to the streets with a new identity. No one knows who they are or what they have done. With the death penalty we offer closure to the victims they know that no one else will have to suffer the same cruelty that they endured as innocent human beings. Now I ask you con why wouldn't you want saver streets? Why do you care from these criminals? Do you think they spared a thought for their victims? Now lets go over the murders. May I first say that someone taking a life of someone who wants to die is assisted suicide and has similar jail time to manslaughter. If someone has committed premeditated murder than they only answer is death. I know some people say teaching them murder is wrong by murdering them is a stupid idea, but the lesson isn't for them. The lesson is one for a few future murders who may fear committing the crime. As for cons point about deciding who should face death, we should give judges the option of giving the very worst cases (like the lee Rigby killers) death straight away. If they a completely sure if they are guilty. If the judge is unsure we could have a second case to determine if death is a suitable option. I leave Con to defend his position
Death penalty

Everything that Pro has just said is true. Killing criminals would be more cost-effective than keeping them alive, but (and this is a quite large but) unless you advocate the mass slaughter of everyone who has broken the law ever, you need some objective way to decide which crimes should be worthy of death and which crimes shouldn't. I will start by challenging his two suggestions for execution. Pro has offered two suggestions - murderers and paedophiles. Note that he says 'paedophiles' and not 'child sex abusers'. This is an important distinction. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. A child sex abuser is someone who has undertaken behaviour consistent with that desire. Consider that along with homosexuality and heterosexuality, paedophilia is a sexual orientation. Furthermore, the word paedophilia does not suggest that any action has taken place - indeed, most paedophiles are ashamed of their sexual desires but cannot seek help due to social pressures. Thus, Pro advocates the death penalty for people with a given sexual orientation, but of those, only the ones who haven't acted on it. Pro doesn't even mention child sex abusers. Now, let's talk murderers. Pro also states that these should be killed. There are different kinds of murder, but I will argue with the one that I'm most familiar with. In English law, the person who kills to end the suffering of another is just as guilty of murder as the person who kills for fun. Pro implies that both should die. I disagree. The person's right to control exactly what happens to their body while they are alive should be supreme - and yet the person who kills with the consent of the victim is just as guilty as he who does not (and according to Pro just as worthy of death). He also says that the death penalty would put fear into criminals. Because of course, that is exactly what we want. People scared to report crimes because they believe that if they do, they are responsible for the death of the person they blame. People who kill to end needless suffering being killed themselves for their trouble. If we allow the state/justice system to kill people, we will have allowed them to establish in principle that the state/justice system's word is superior in value to the life of a human. Such a loss would open the way to a myriad of state-sanctioned executions, and the state/justice system's wishes would be supreme. Consider America, which has the death penalty. It also has the longest death row in the world, is effectively a police state and the Supreme Court has final say in the legitimacy of any democratically enacted federal legislation. I invite my opposite to defend his position.
Death penalty

Now perhaps we should start with cost, we could save millions each year by simply not wasting money on murders and paedophiles. This would lower tax for the working classes. I don't want to use lethal injection but even if we did its cheaper than keeping them in a cell for life. Furthermore if we killed our criminals it would not only give closure to victims but perhaps inspire fear into our criminals, so much so that they don't dare make moves on children (paedophiles).
Deepest Quote #3

This is not a debate that should be taken seriously. It is just a light-hearted competition to see who can come up with the deepest quote, so do not join expecting a fight or a heated argument. This will be my third installment of this debate since the previous two opponents have either quit early or failed to meet the expectations of the debate (following rules, etc.) What I mean by "deepest quote" is a quote that makes you think or makes you feel a strong emotion to a particular subject. My profile picture is a example of what I call a "deep quote". Do not accept the debate if you have any questions. Ask the question in the comment section and I will answer. If you understand what the rules are and you have no further questions please accept. I hope we have fun. First round is acceptance. Rest of rounds are quotes we shall put up attempting to beat our opponent. You must include the quote, the quote speaker, and why this quote is a deep quote.
Deepest Quote #3

This is my quote: "I gave you $10. He gave you $20. You felt that he was better just because he gave you more. But he had $200, and all I had was $10." -Anonymous This quote, to me, shows how the human nature is to go for the one who gives more or has more to offer, despite having someone who has always helped you and has always been by your side with you. This has happened alot to me. I give someone all I have, then they leave.
Deepest Quote #3

Here is a deep quote; "It's funny how day by day, nothing changes. But when you look back, everything's different." - C.S. Lewis Coming from someone who has had trouble dealing with change, and feelings of nostalgia; this quote is very impactful on my life, and possibly several others. It has a point, you know. Time goes on and on, and change happens every day; in the grand scheme of things...What was a year ago, is no longer what it was.
was hitler a good guy after all

Obviously Pro has never debated before and his arguments makes no sense however u look at it. I could waste 6 hours on thinking a story, but that doesn't make it true without proof. However, i've shown you Hitler's numbers of crimes that proves hes not a good guy. 1. Obviously you ignored my whole point, or you didnt understood it. The point is that he sended people into concentration camp is what the crime is all about. Send people into concentration and gas them = not good guy. 2. Obviously, you dont even know what totalitarianism means. Do you see obama forcing us to wave the american flag at his birthday? NO Do you see him mentioning what we have to eat on which day? NO Do you see him limiting our gas usage? NO Well, thats what Hitler has done, but with YES in the end. 3. The fact that you're killing is what it turns you into a bad guy. You know how immoral killing is and especially against ones who are defenseless. 4. I dont care, but it seems you accepted this point. You just had agreed with me now that Hitler isnt a good guy. 5. You are dumb enough to realize that he isnt sending them to a hole to dig. Hes sending them into war with guns flying everywhere. It brings children into danger and of course no one will see him as a great leader this way. This debate is biased as Pro is just another Neo-Nazi who refuses to see hitler as a bad guy.
was hitler a good guy after all

k bro if its comon knowledge you dont need sites i dont make rash claims so disreguard this arguement its a waste of time to say this cause guess what to make this claim you used no evidence its sad to run this steaming pile of debate disreguard this because there is no proven abuse and if there is he failed to pull it out of my arguement also these are self made arguements if he took the time to answer them he would be winning right now also if you spent the time to read my arguement you would realize i've prempted alot of your arguements I gave twenty five reasons why he is good and the con dropped them so at this point you have no choice but to vote pro but ill answer his arguements ok so arguement 1 on his side; he states that hitler locked people up but he never specifies who was thrown into camps he said and i quote "The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc. ) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do. " does he say hitler locked up the asians,jews,gays,slaves,communists or did he say throw them all in camps what he said could be anyone thrown in camps including whites you see he never excludes so turn arguement he wasn't segerating 2; why would citizens go along with what he was doing look to egypt they aint happy so they revolt why didnt they could that mean the biggest group was happy and before he says that not all were happy look to the us gov. i personally hate it but does that make obama a bad guy 3; cross apply my first arguement by killing them he lowered the pop.
was hitler a good guy after all

You made all those statements, but none of them are backed up with sources. I could say Hitler was a god that fires nukes with his finger, but that doesnt make it true. Arguments without sources are automatically regarded as false. Now lets talk about why Hitler is NOT a good guy by looking at his propaganda. 1. First of all, his idea of Ubermensch and Untermensch. The white race is regarded as pure and the black people are mediocre. The other people (asians, jews, gays, slaves, communists etc.) are all considered Untermensch. Now we all know that we all are people, no matter how we may look. But hes willing to go so far by throwing them all in the concentration camps. Thats crime #1, and not something a good guy will do. 2. Next is the idea of totalitarianism. He rules whole Germany under fear and controls every citizens private life. In other words, the citizens had no power over their own private life and are instead being told how they must life. This is another form of dictatorship. 3. The murdering of all handicapped people. He saw no use of handicapped ones since they only could eat and sleep so he also decides to eliminate them. Now we look at Hitler's own crimes. 1. The burning of Reichstag is of course the most noticeable one. The plan was to set Reichstag on fire and put a communist that was drugged inside it to make it look like the communists were rebelling against Germany. The plan worked and all communists were sent to concentration camps. 2. The hate of childrens. Don't be fooled by how nice he acts towards childrens on the newspapers. In reality, he hates childrens and is even going so far as to send them into war as child soldiers. I think i've brought enough points as to why hes not a good guy, so vote Con. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://wiki.answers.com...