BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I love licking 4 year-old girls

I love licking 4 year-old girls, They feel so good. In my mind, I see a little child waiting to be licked. When I was a little kid, I wanted to lick so many things. I wanted to lick adults and other children. And yet I didn't lick them. Now the things are different, Now I am licking children, Whether they want it or not. If they want it, It becomes cute. If they don't want it, It becomes hot. Tongue will make a way, Where there seems to be no way, I will lick little girls, And express my love towards them. They will know I want them, They will know I like them, And my deeds will remain in their hearts. Maybe one day, They will grow up, And lick children as well. They will be like me, I will be like them. One lick on the cheek has a lot of power, But what has even more is dozen licks on the cheeks of dozen different children.
Pro and Con in Trump's Wall

Well this is my first debate ever, let's see how it goes. For starter, I think I will debunk the article [https://thehornnews.com...] you provided. First, the news outlet appears to be skewed entirely to the political-right. On top of that, the three reasons they listed are not even relevant to our safety except for the first one -- provided the information was true, which I highly doubt. Sorry, but if you click on the link provided by the article it redirects you to a Breitbart article, which also redirects you to a main FBI page. However no factual statistics or analysis for terrorist illegals can be found. I'm calling it, bad journalism... Can't fact-check it... Onto the next reason listed by the article, hmmm ICE seems to support this policy? You mean there's no self-interest involved? Of course creating the wall would mean more job openings for immigration control and thus more job security. Not to mention that current ICE employees will have seniority over the incoming employees. Why would they turn down a promotion? Second reason from article = dead. The last reason by the article states that Mexico will pay for the wall. Not sure if we even need to debate this part? Its going to be funded by American tax-dollars. http://www.npr.org... -from DT himself [https://twitter.com...] ---------------------------- You stated that: "People live in constant fear knowing that there is no barrier protecting them from the southern border." I'm not sure how to address this reasoning either since I find the line of argument to be irrational. Have we been living in this constant fear since we drew up our borders with Mexico? What about our Northern borders -- Canada? Shouldn't we build a wall there too by this rational? Its even less secured than our Southern borders at the moment. More to the point, how will a wall protect us exactly? It might just be me, but there are things called airplanes in the fantasy world that I live in. There are boats that can go around the walls... Not sure, but I don't think there has been any wall in history that has prevented a *determined enemy* from infiltrating. What it will do, is isolate us from our allies and potential allies as we show the world how narrow-minded we are. ---------------------------- Your last argument points that illegals are actually serving sentences unrelated to any violent crimes let alone for terrorism. Another reason to *Not* build the wall. I found this article from CATO.org [https://www.cato.org...] that refutes the exaggerated claims of foreign terrorism in the US. Most terrorism in the US is homegrown, perhaps we should wall off these suspects homes instead? [https://archives.fbi.gov...
Pro and Con in Trump's Wall

The Mexican border wall is an issue of controversy; on one side stands people who believe the wall will benefit the country and on the other side people that claim it will bring consequences to the nation. The reason behind building the wall is to bring safety and overall security to the United States. Take into consideration what the horn editorial team published in their article "Three reasons we need Trump's wall" regarding terrorists encounters, "It was revealed that there were 7,712 terrorists encounters in the U.S. in the past year between July 2015 and July 2016." And it reveals how the majority of "terrorists are making their way into our country through Mexico, and the current administration isn"t doing anything about it! A Trump presidency would mean stricter enforcement of immigration laws and a secure wall at the border that"s currently welcoming in terrorists." People live in constant fear knowing that there is no barrier protecting them from the southern border. It is as if terrorists are given the opportunity to freely enter the states with no risk of being caught. However, are illegal immigrants the cause behind the chaos? Terrorism is defined by the following: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. An illegal immigrant will not pursue the attention from the government. They are less likely to commit any crime for they know that it will only jeopardize their stance in the United States. However, there are illegal immigrants that do commit crimes, but these crimes are in no way any form of terrorism. Kurt Eichenwald in his article Illegal Immigration" stated the following: " Multiple studies by government and academic groups have found that the vast majority of the rest of immigrants without documentation involved immigration charges."""In fact, 90% of illegal immigrants found in the federal prison are serving sentence" due to immigration charges or drug violation. They are far from being charged"due to violence against civilians in pursuit of a political aim. Thus, building a wall will not decrease the number of terrorist encounters for it is not illegal immigrants that cause them. As we can see, Trump's border wall has pros and cons"to it, it is only a matter of how you see it.
chimpanzees will always win against a human in a hand fight

If If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don"t deal in lies, Or being hated, don"t give way to hating, And yet don"t look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream"and not make dreams your master; If you can think"and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you"ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build "em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!" If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings"nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds" worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that"s in it, And"which is more"you"ll be a Man, my son! By Rudyard Kipling
chimpanzees will always win against a human in a hand fight

My opponent makes a very weak argument and although most chimpanzees are certainly stronger than humans, he doesn't take into account that the definition of a fully grown Chimpanzee and a baby Chimpanzee have no distinction, Therefore it is highly possible that A human is able to beat a Chimpanzee in a hand fight if it is not yet reached adulthood, and on the other side of the spectrum the Chimpanzee could very well be to old and aged where it is unable to fight and beat a fully grown human weighing 400lbs and is expertly trained is mixed martial arts and is able to offer a Chimpanzee an extremely difficult hand to hand combat fight. Therefore my opponents resolution has been negated and he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Extend all arguments
The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!

So okay: The rules section is not flawed. It then becomes a case of "Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god". I don't know why the god of the bible would need to communicate in any form to god, so that rule to follow suit with your video which premise is "God is 'amazingly stupid' because he uses text (the bible) to communicate with no definitive proof of his existence." I'll proceed with my argument to address this prompt. Nowhere in this debate does it say prove the existence of God. It's different strokes really. There is no way to convince you there is a god, because I admit I don't believe in any "true" evidence God exists. There's no non-anecdotal miracle I can cite to that can't be explained via science, and I wouldn't accept this debate if that had been the premise. However, I did accept the debate because the premise is wrong in that you assume God only communicated through text. God, in the book you condemn, is explicitly known to send messages through his own voice in people's ears through sending what essentially was a translator (Jesus Christ) to send his message. So to address the parts about evidence, let's discuss that many historians do believe in the existence of Jesus. Historians have also agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus happened. And some scholars of that group also believe that the reasoning behind his Crucifixion is from the messages he spread from God and being a "false prophet". So, what it boils down to is your faith, I guess. The Crucifixion of Jesus based on what he was told by God happened. So, to me, this proves that historians have proven that God communicated with the earth via Jesus. We know he was and why he was crucified, so that is definitive proof we had God communicate via Jesus. I would like to point out this does answer your prompt whether you choose to fully accept it or not. Jesus has been accepted historically and so has his crucifixion. I would however, again ask the purpose of this debate? Are you actually seeking for civil debate or is this a way to look down on people and attempt to hold superiority over people you deem as lesser due to their belief system. I, in no way, have attempted to insult you or your belief system. If you think I have, I would like to apologize, as it was not my intention. I think civility is an important component to a debate like this and I hope you can pass on the same courtesy I've passed to you in your next response. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!

Th Rules section is not flawed. You are just an idiot teeny bopper with the cabbage batbrain of an imp who should have not accepted this debate who cannot understand simpleton instructions. Oh really?The god of the bible has communicated in other ways other than text? That's a good one. Please invent better excuses other than foaming at the drawers. You cannot even prove that this god of yours even exists. So how can you prove that this god of yours communicates in other forms other than text in which is the only form of communication you have thus far of this god to begin with? No miracles of this god, no inflicting of these plagues, no sneeze rag christ has ever been proved. These are all stories OF TEXT in your bible and nothing more in which you cannot prove has ever happened. Here's how religions are formed - to explain the unexplained. Then through that most religions, and christianity is no exception, at the top is power, then is instilled fear and then control. "he teaches that inspires the authors to write from their viewpoint" Oh yeah. You just described that perfectly. Which is why this god of yours would never use text so these authors WOULD GET IT WRONG. Did that ever occur to you? And then you have serious problems of translations after translations after translations after copies after copies after dead languages after dead languages to be passed down through the generations with countless interpreters and who gives these interpreters the right to change one god damned word of god"s written word that is supposed to be "perfect" in the first place with a 0% chance of being able to trace it back to the original? Oh but wait, even better is when the very words of god are changed, yes those very verses as to what god said. So again this god of YOURS is amazingly STUPID to have chosen text for communication. Don't you think for a single second that this god of YOURS if omnipotent and knows everything and is all knowing and is all powerful would have foreseen all these glaring errors (and there's plenty more) and NOT have chosen text, not for any reason, not ever? Or can't you see that far to say "duh". And you have in no way NOT proved that this god of YOURS would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.
The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!

I would like to start off by saying that the "RULES" section is flawed. God, throughout much of the bible has communicated in ways other than just text. In ways such as bellowing from heaven, inflicting plagues, and sending his Son to teach his ways. God doesn't just communicate through text in the bible, it is the miracles he does and morals he teaches that inspires the authors to write from their viewpoint and interpret what they believe God is telling them through his actions. This debate in no way is trying to prove the existence of God, making your 1st and 4th video essentially worthless. The God of Christians is not "amazingly stupid" because people authored his work they way they interpreted it. While do I understand the skepticism of being worried about translation and copies and the work may be overall tainted or things lost in translation, that is not because a God is "amazingly stupid". I don't know what this debate is trying to prove, because it seems, at least from my point of view, that you aren't interested in changing your viewpoints from the harshness of your challenge.
The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!

The god of the bible would not be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication to god. Here are some do or die videos to prove this. The videos do not cover even half of the reasons why this shoddy unproved god character would not use text as a form of communication. If you do not view the videos, it means that you clearly do not know your subject matter all that well. - Video 1. Christians don't understand the character of God -Video 2. The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!" - Video 3. Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris zand Don Baker (Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 ) - Video 4. The Bible is not Evidence of god RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
The United States is not a Christian nation.

Pretty simple. .. .my opponent forfeited his round, so obviously all of my points are extended. The main voters here are clear: they are, 1) The US was founded on principles that are Christian; the idea that we are a nation "Under God" is clear evidence for that. Even if you don't buy that argument and claim that the US was founded upon Deist principles, I've already proven they are extremely similar so you're voting con here. Extend my argument against his Tripoli example in that I show you that the treaty was talking about avoiding a theocratic government, not avoiding Christian principles, which is the whole point of this debate. 2) Insofar as he cannot uphold my weighing mechanism of transcendental morality, you're voting con as well. I've clearly proven that when he uses value judgments like "good," "ridiculous," etc, he's operating under my case's worldview; thus he is directly turning his contention against himself. Even if you don't buy my first voter which says the US was founded upon Christian principles, and you're believing his argument that the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with divine principles (which I've already disproven) you're looking to my argument that proves that because the US upholds things like transcendental justice and morality, those are inherently Christian. Whether it wants to be or not, the US was founded and is operating under Christian maxims.
Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

PrefaceThis debate is for Lee001’s July Beginner’s Tournament Round 2. I as Pro will be arguing that Capital Punishment should be abolished. My opponent, Toviyah as Con will be arguing that Capital Punishment should not be abolished. Full TopicThe law of Capital Punishment should be abolished from the United States. Round StructureR1 AcceptanceR2 Opening ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend ArgumentsTermsCapital Punishment- Also referred to as ‘The Death Penalty’, is the legal authorization by the government to execute someone as a punishment for a crime they committed. Execute- to formally carry out a sentence of death. Death-Row- a prison block for prisoners that are sentenced to death. Criminal- a person who has committed a crime. Abolish- to formally put an end to something. RulesA forfeiture is an automatic loss. No new arguments in any rounds except R2. Maintain a respectful manner throughout entire debate. No “kritiks” BoP is shared. Breaking these rules will result in a loss.
Florida statute 316.305. Gives emergency responders authority to text/call/email while driving.

I assume this is for opening arguments. The Florida Statue 316.305 [1] is a statue that is implemented for public safety to restrict drives to use distracting electronic devices. This statue does have only in certain instances have certain exceptions for law enforcement and other emergency services. This is implemented, because emergency services need constant information updates and needed devices to keep their duty and to get to the emergency as fast as possible. As stated in the stature " does not apply to a motor vehicle operator who is: 1.Performing official duties as an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in s. 322.01, a law enforcement or fire service professional, or an emergency medical services professional." This only grants them access to mobile devices or electronics for a professional manner. They are not permitted to use the phone for personal use. The same statue goes on to list the specifics of what they can use their devices for however I will not past it here for the fear of plagiarism (it's in my links). The point is the permissions that the statue gives to emergency services is necessary for those services to operate more efficiently. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us...
Florida statute 316.305. Gives emergency responders authority to text/call/email while driving.

I came across Florida statute 316.305 which allows emergency vehicles to use hand held devices while driving. I've been seeing law enforcement abuse this statute (loophole) for far too long. Law enforcement are not super humans and science has shown that it is not safe to use a hand held device while driving so why can law enforcement endanger my wife or your kids while they are driving looking at there phones or computers while driving. This has got to stop. Emergency personal should have hands free capabilities built into there emergency vehicle.
"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

If you look at my profile you will see that I say that I am always open to the other side of my opinions. I have never previously been in the face of evidence. Since you have given me the evidence, I have no choice but to accept the other side of this debate. Only an idiot denies something in the face of evidence. I appreciate that you took the time to write this in the short amount of time you had
"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

Thank you for respecting my argument and seeing things in a different perspective. Of course, I don't advocate for a ban on alcohol. Rather than banning alcohol, we should look for alternative solutions just as we should look for alternative solutions to prevent mass shootings. I'm only being brief now because I don't have time but I would love to tell you some interesting trends and something that we can do to virtually stop all mass shootings. (it's not the "gun free zone" argument you may have heard in the past) Now if a juvenile committed a crime a long time ago, and is now 35 and living a normal life and has stayed away from crime, I see no reason to prohibit he/she from owning a gun. I believe if a gun owner commits a crime (and it is very rarely since .01% of firearm violations are committed by law abiding gun owners) like say an armed robbery, his/her firearms should be taken away forever and should be paid back for half of what they are worth. I appreciate unconditionally that really listened to my argument. A lot of people, even with the facts an arguments that I have presented them, will still go on and say "assault weapons should be banned because no one should have them." Should we have to live in a world where we must ban everything "not necessary"? That is why I bring in the alcohol argument. Most people drink alcohol so I try to put them in their shoes. So thank you for putting yourself in our shoes.
"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

Like I said, I would use my opponent's definition for the rest of this debate. I will also point out that my opponent was indeed right in pointing out my error. I understand that this may hurt my credibility, but no less, the debate shall continue. I would like to point out how my opponent has really gotten me thinking and that the argument is well thought out. The comparison made with alcohol was also spot on, although there are people who debate that alcohol should be banned but, nonetheless, my opponent has really gotten me in to a pickle. I would like a clearer definition of law abiding citizen. Should a juvenile delinquent be denied an assault weapon at the age of 35? And what is to happen to a mentally sane law abiding citizen if they end up being criminals? Do you take their gun away? To be honest, I am on the verge of forfeiting this debate. My opponent has simply convinced me that current position is wrong. My position as noted on this website has just changed from undecided to pro.