BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Situation Game

For those of you who don't know what is happening here, there was another debate NateTheFirst and I did, entitled the same thing. Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...My StoryI ran as far away from the robot as possible. "4." I ran some more. "3." I saw a rock. "2." I ducked behind it, trying to avoid the blast. "1." BOOM! Thhe heat was intense, and if I hadn't been hiding, I don't know if I would've survived. As the feeling of heat and pain subsided, The thought I'm alive briefly popped up in my mind before I passed out from the heat and the beating. Your StoryAs the door closes behind you, you hear the explosion. You sigh in relief. Suddenly, the rope, which you had tied to your arm when you had grabbed the shield, started tugging on your arm. You glance down at it and you see it's sticking upward, reaching toward the ceiling. Your wondering what's happened when you feel your feet leave the ground. This room defies gravity. You glance upward. On the ceiling, you see spikes. Frantically, you look around for something, anything, that you can use to stop yourself from floating. Next to you, on the wall, you see a small shelf. Could your rope wrap around it?
Resolved: I can freak out the NSA more then you

ELLOOOO! My name is Machkmood Alla-Balla-Bing-Bong Bin-Laden, I am from Pakistan and I do not like American infidels! I am currently in Florida learning how to fly planes and I also have a one way ticket for a plane trip from Boston to LA but thats part of something else that I'm not allowed to go into detail about. (hint though, crazy sh*t going down on 9/11 ;D) Anyways, I am looking to purchase some incendiary devices and this thing called 'weapons grade plutonium', I dont know much about it but what I have heard is very interesting to me and my plans that I receive from my courier who ferries plans between me and my former boss who died in Pakistan a while ago. I also used to work with these two Russian Chechnyan kids but they got into trouble for doing something in the Boston Marathon a couple months ago... Kids these days XD If 'plutonium' isnt something that I can easily find then I will happily purchase anything else that I can used to send infidels to hell in which they belong. I have financial connections with this group in the Middle East who will provide me funds for my purchases, I wont say their name but it rhymes with 'Al-Shmaeda', and they are very interested in anything that can be used to wage this thingy called 'Jihad' on Americans..... I dont know why but I do not ask questions, people who ask questions in my country get placed on the shortlist for people to become suicide bombers and attack targets in the Middle East. I am interested in anything along the lines of 'liquid nitrogen', 'assault rifles', 'destruction of the Zionist infidels in Israel and the removal of American forces from the holy land', you know all that good stuff..... If you have anything you are willing to sell to me, contact me at "Allah4eva@mujahadeen. IKILLYOU. net", all one word. I also can be reached at 954-Al-Qaeda, if I dont pick up try my cell phone at 675-Tal-iban. And ya, Allah Akbar!
Everything is Interconnected

I forgive my opponent for his mistake in round 2.For now, I will accept my opponent's definition of reality (although we could argue about every single term in the definition) because I do not wish to argue semantic. I would point out that reality is not necessarily absolute; if you play a video game, your character is inside a reality, although it is not the absolute one (and given the problem of hard solipsism, we may not be in it either).My opponent proceeds to describe interconnectedness. He says that "any one thing depends on everything else" and then gives an example:"one requirement for the universe to be in its present state is that I am here typing" I reject the assertion that this is an example of two things being "interconnected"; this is basically the mother of all tautologies, the universe is this way because the universe is made up of things that are this way. The universe is described as the sum of all things so of course it is representative of what happens inside it. The example also fails because the reverse simply does not work: The fact that my opponent is typing is in no way affected by the state of the Universe.I am not going to argue against the idea that all LIFE is interconnected, although I would point out that these connections are often VERY indirect. That being said, my opponent also says: "You can't have one without the other, they are interconnected". If this is his criteria for the interconnectedness of all life, then I will point out that 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct and yet life still exists."The claim "Everything is Interconnected" simply means that you can't have anything without everything.Because everything is possible, reality exists. At the same rate, everything is temporary, so nothing is "real" in the philosophical sense. The only thing that is real is reality itself, which could also be described as infinite possibility." There is quite literally nothing of substance in that paragraph. You absolutely CAN have a great number of things without having EVERTTHING; if I disappear today, the world will keep on existing. If ALL LIFE disappears today, our planet would keep on existing. I reject the assertion that everything is possible; you can not make A not equal A. I would like to see some evidence that everything is temporary AND a justification to link temporality to reality (or lack thereof)."Nothing is real, because everything is part of a configuration of possibility." This is starting to sound like Deepak Chopra. My opponent then dives into quantum theory (which is arguably the most complicated subject out there) and explains what matter is made of... I do not see the point of that.I am running out of time so I will leave at that for now. I will address the rest in my next round.
The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

I welcome my challenger and thank him for his response and opinions. First I would like to address a few of his points. 1.) You said in your first point that people who do not value human life do not deserve to live ( Not exact words ) Surely everyone should be given the opportunity to reflect on what ever crime they have committed, no matter how bad the crime they committed was. Sentencing someone to the death penalty is crushing any hope of that ever happening. I believe that the entire point of putting someone in prison is to 1.) House them to stop them from committing crime and 2.) To allow them to see the wrongs they have committed, reflect and rebuild. 2.) You made some points about price but in most cases the death penalty will always be the most expensive option. The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California"s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually. That is not including the cost of a trial or the length appeal process's. 3.) You talked about how modern science combats the likelihood of a innocent person being executed. However it still happens, any chance of an innocent person being killed surely contradicts any point of the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ( Some known cases that these men were MOST LIKELY innocent) There have also been around 127 people who have been released from death row since 1976, who had compelling evidence that they were innocent behind them. 4.) 8.5 Percent of prisoners who were let out on parole committed crimes again while out. ( America ) This is a very small majority. Most prisoners do not re offend after being let out. If their crime was serious enough they will be given life without parole. The people who commit the worst crimes are most likely to commit again. I believe that the death penalty is inhuman, it takes away a human being in vengeance of another. It is unnecessary, costly and evil. Prison should not be to evoke death on people who have made great mistakes in life. Instead it should be for treating how they SHOULD have treated their victims, with respect. They should be taught and rehabilitated. It is only through this way that real justice can be achieved. I look forward and welcome my opponents next reply and thank him for his own reply and opinions. My sources: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

In this debate, I will be Con. It is my burden to prove that the death penalty should not be abolished in all states in America. I have one contention and then some simple facts that explain why the death penalty should not be abolished. I encourage everyone to vote for the person that presents the best arguments. Not based on your own opinion. Thank you! Contention #1: Punishment fits the crime One of the main principles of punishment and the judicial system is that the penalty fits the crime. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death. It might not bring back the victim but it does stop the accused from killing again. A life sentence would be nice if we knew for sure it would stay that way and a lot of times it doesn't. If that victim can't be brought back what right does the judicial system have to lift a life sentence and let someone out who committed murder. With the death penalty we know that person can NEVER attempt to kill again and can't get off easy years later down the road. This seems to be a great deal more fair than how the life in prison can be. Here is just a small list of reasons why I believe the death penalty should not banished from all states in the United States. 1.) When a criminal violently kills another individual or many people, he does not value that humans life, therefore does not deserve to live himself. 2.) The added cost to society of keeping a person in prison for 20 years at a cost of more than $50,000 per year. The unnecessary and tragic death, financial and human loss, and heartache caused by each murder is a huge loss to society, and the $1 million public cost to provide that criminal with room, board and security for the rest of his life compounds the damage to society. So what we have to see is it will cost more to lock up a convicted felon than to comite him/her to the death sentence. 3.) Today, the accuracy of modern forensics and DNA testing makes it very unlikely for an innocent person to be put on death row. Furthering this point, it is argued that the number of innocent people that may be killed is equalised by the number of actual criminals that are set free. 4.) Putting people in prison, as opposed to executing them gives them a chance of parole (or the small chance of escape), meaning they can commit more crimes. Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime. 5.) When many prisoners are now being released early because our prisons are overcrowded, society is benefited by terminating inmates like Charles Manson, who has purposefully taken multiple lives, cannot be rehabilitated and has no right to public support. 6.) It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Where I got my info! http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.heraldextra.com... http://www.krqe.com... I look forward to my opponents next response.
The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

I believe that the death penalty should be abolished in every state of America. 1. The death penalty is morally wrong and it contradicts the entire point of putting someone in prison in the first place. ( To learn from their mistakes and become better people. 2. In States where the Death Penalty is in place, murder rates are actually higher than those where there is no Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. In some cases it is cheaper to sentence a person to life imprisonment, than to sentence them with death. (Court Costs) 4. More tax is needed to maintain the Death Penalty. 5. There is a chance that the lethal injection will be administered in the wrong order, or there will be something that goes wrong with during the process. This can cause the prisoner to feel the pain that comes with the lethal injection. 6. In a lot of cases that are sent to the supreme court, it depends more on the attorney that you have been appointed ( Most offenders do not have one so they are appointed one by the system ) than the actual crime you have committed. I look forward to this debate.
The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

I will just quickly point out some key reasons why we need the death penalty and give some voters. 1. The punishment should fit the crime. Especially if the crime that is committed is murder. 2. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death. 3.Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime. 4. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process. 5. A majority of the criminals that are put on the death penalty, have either had several offenses or committed murder in the first degree. This being the case, the criminal has had multiple chances to "change or reflect" and does not value the life of the individual or individuals that he/she has murdered. 6."If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."I believe I have successfully attacked my opponents case while upholding capital punishment. This was a fun and interesting debate and hopefully Edgyruse and I can have more debates like this some other time.With all this being said... I urge a con vote. Thanks :)
Abortion is Generally Immoral

Definitions:Abortion: The intentional termination of any embryo or fetus at any point from conception (i.e. male zygote "pairing" with female zygote to form the single-celled embryo. With the one exception of life-saving (of the mother) abortions of non-viable fetuses.Generally: All around, with the sole exception previously mentioned.Immoral: Not adhering to "A code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."- The opposite of this (#2): http://plato.stanford.edu...Rational: "Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense."I accept the challenge and conditions, and am looking forward to my opponent's initial arguments.
Abortion is Generally Immoral

Unfortunately, I no longer have the will or desire to defend my own case in this position. I have learned a lot, but I realize that this is an issue that won't be resolved by rational discourse anytime soon, as it appears to me now that both sides eventually, and necessarily, devolve their arguments into the self-sealing, tautological kind. For instance, humanity can be valued in terms of their rationality and morality, which is derived from their higher-consciousness. Conversely, higher-consciousness is valued generally because it is associated with rationality and morality, which are derived from humanity. Even Pro's last example demonstrates the futility of the subject, to me, when he says that people would say that God, angels, Vulcans, and Romulans would have inherent value. The problem there is that those are all humanoid constructs of the human imagination. So their value is defined by our own perceived self-value, and can't be used to define our value. All that aside, I simply don't wish to defend either position anymore, I'm sorry that I couldn't be competetive enough to close out this debate strongly, but I consider myself an intellectual first, debater second, and as such can't bring myself to defend a position I don't honestly, rationally believe in anymore.
Obese customers should pay more for flights.

With the rising price of gas and the growing costs of airfare, some airlines are starting to opt in programs that charge fees for passengers who are visibly over a certain weight. The reason for this is simple: 1) Obese customers cost more to insure. Those who are obese are more prone to high-altitudes medical situations, thus airline insurance for such scenarios go up. Since they currently don't charge insurance based on individual fliers, it seems unfair to charge everyone for the lifestyle choices of a select few. This is greatly different from those who are medically unsound by nature, such as seniors, since except in VERY rare instances, being overweight is a choice people make. 2) Obese customers take up more room. The current trend in flight engineering is to maximize the seating space to have as many people sit comfortably as possible. When a customer is obviously taking up more than his or her chair space and has in fact occupied half of other people's, it seems logical to require them to purchase extra space. 3) Obese customers weigh more. A study concluded that the 10 pounds Americans gained on average during the 1990s required an additional 350 million gallons of fuel a year. With the rising price of gas, there's no question that people should pay their own fair share. It's already common practice that those who want to bring heavier luggage or extra luggage must pay extra, it would only be common sense to charge for weight as well. With oil at an outrageous price-per-gallon as it is, does it seem just that you have to pay more because someone else chooses to not exercise? Of course, I'm talking only about those who are overweight based on their choices to overeat or not exercise. There are only a handful of people in the world who are actually obese genetically (less than 1%), and they can apply with proper documentation from trained doctors to have the extra fees waived. In this modern day and age it's quite easy to find resources that help people lose weight, and until they do it's unfair that the rest of society should pay to support their unfortunate habits.
chocolate is better then lollies

The reason is I did not have enough characters left to continue. First of all: what do you mean "better" eaten most? Healthier? It is very subjective and vague. I assumed you were talking about most consumed but obviously I was wrong. I agree chocolate has more calories and is more addictive so it is less healthy. You need to specify exactly what you are talking about in the introduction, or else the debate becomes pointless like it has right now because we are arguing about different things.
Hoverboards should not be banned/illegal in New York

I would like to start by quoting my favorite book, 50 shades of gray. "Oh my! "We"re spending the night here. I"ve already let my parents know not to expect us back. You don"t have to worry about Chris." Oh! The arrogance of his assumption doesn"t annoy me " instead it serves as proof of his thoughtfulness though, I worry about leaving with one man and coming home with another. I push the thought away, eager to indulge in a bit of Mr Grey. "Thank you." I fling my arms around his neck, beyond ecstatic and smile at him, cramming every bit of joy I feel into it. This suite that I could hardly bear to enter into an hour ago has now become the perfect place for our reunion." In the beginning of this passage, the narrator is clearly surprised, shown by their exclamation, "Oh my!" Now, what could surprise a thoughtful and godly narrator? It must be a hoverboard. So, hoverboards are probably pretty surprising. On to Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day. Now, did God create a hoverboard? NOOOOO. Believe it or not, hoverboards aren't mentioned once in all of Genesis. Accordingly, god hates hoverboards, and any good christian would. Don't get started with me on any of this sciency stuff because that stuff doesn't make any sense. Next thing I know, you'll probably say something ridiculous like climate change. Also, God is hovering. This shows that if God wants you to hover, you don't need a hoverboard. Finally, some infinities are bigger than other infinities. (John Green says so). So, we can't jump to any conclusions *drops mic*
Hoverboards should not be banned/illegal in New York

Um, well, thank you for stating your opinion. Although, not all hipsters where nose rings and nose rings aren't fairly new. Nose piercings have been around since the time of Abraham in the book of Genesis. Hoverboards ( The some-what new, "hipster", self-balancing electronic devices. *A link will be provided below) should not be banned or illegal in New York. Code- Section 19-176.2 states a. For purposes of this section, the term "motorized scooter" shall mean any wheeled device that has handlebars that is designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, is powered by an electric motor or by a gasoline motor that is capable of propelling the device without human power and is not capable of being registered with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. For the purposes of this section, the term motorized scooter shall not include wheelchairs or other mobility aids designed for use by disabled persons, electric powered devices not capable of exceeding fifteen miles per hour or "electric personal assistive mobility devices" defined as self-balancing, two non-tandem wheeled devices designed to transport one person by means of an electric propulsion system. b. No person shall operate a motorized scooter in the city of New York. c. Any person who violates subdivision b of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars.... - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com... This code states that "motorized scooters" as being "any two-wheeled device that has handlebars." It further explains "the term 'motorized scooter' shall not include electric powered devices not capable of exceeding fifteen miles per hour." If I am not mistaken, hoverboards does not meet the given criteria for it to now be banned/illegal. *https://i.ytimg.com... <--hoverboard. You should probably know what a hoverboard is before entering this debate anyways. :D
The state should not pass legislation regarding drugs.

Though I could have used "Drugs ought to be legal" or some such formulation, I structured the resolution this way for a couple of reasons:1. I wanted to indicate a total lack of involvement on the part of the state. Some may claim that we should "legalize" drugs by allowing their use, but also taxing and regulating. I want my position, which emphasizes zero state involvement, to be clear: no bans, no penalties, no taxes, no regulations. Zero involvement. Additionally, the debate will be structured for maximum conflict, as my opponent has advocated on his profile that he is in favor of taxing and regulating some drugs, decriminalizing others (which usually allows for penalization like fines and mandatory rehabilitation), and keeping legal bans on those which he regards as most dangerous. Though the burden of proof is very much on my opponent to justify legal action against drug use, this debate also requires me to defend the position of liberty. Should neither of us make compelling arguments, you obviously render the debate a tie in that category.2. The resolution doesn't imply a moral obligation on the part of the state. Though it's possible for either of us to make moral arguments, the debate uses "should" in the sense of "You should go to the doctor", rather than in the sense of "you shouldn't kill".