BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US military should intervene in Syria

P1: The risk of thousands of American lives is not worth intervention. We could possibly have the same outcome as the situation in Somalia. We wouldn't want to risk a repeat of Somalia. http://www.pbs.org... P2: The deadline is in June. And they are speeding up the process in order to meet the deadline. Diplomacy has a much stronger appearance then force. http://www.pbs.org... P3: They are not using people to fight the war. There are several groups with in the rebellion. We would be intervening blindly without know which group we are aiding. As you stated, "The people that are leading the attacks have done heinous crimes that affected their own people and possibly one day do something that will affects us like having chemical weapons that could be used against us". how can we these people who do heinous crimes side by side with American soldiers? We can't.
The US military should intervene in Syria

P1. If there were a couple of innocent bystanders being killed then maybe it would not be worth going to war but this has been a conflict that has led to the death of more than 250,00 people as stated in the last report from the Human Right Council in 2013. http://www.ohchr.org... P2.Thus far, Syria has not meet with the agreed deadlines that were set. If this were to continue then war against Syria would be permissible. http://www.washingtonpost.com... P3. This is why we need to go to war. As mentioned in your source for premise three, they are using people to fight during the war and do not take into consideration the actions of the government to stop their actions. So, they still believe that they will be able to join jihad even if there is intervention by the government. The people that are leading the attacks have done heinous crimes that affected their own people and possibly one day do something that will affects us like having chemical weapons that could be used against us (P2). Conclusion: The United States should go to war with Syria.
The US military should intervene in Syria

P1. Innocent bystanders die everyday in many countries and killed from inhumane methods, doesn't mean we have to risk American lives for every bad thing that happens in the world. P2- Instead of going in with military actions to seize these chemical weapons, the President gave a safer alternative to allow Assad to give up its chemical weapons. http://www.examiner.com... P3- Intervening can have consequences because we don't know who is leading the rebels, there are al-qaeda, hezbolah, and extremists who eat hearts of dead Syrian soldiers. http://www.israelnationalnews.com... C- The United States shouldn't get involved in Syria.
The US military should intervene in Syria

1) Innocent bystanders have been attacked and killed from inhumane methods of warfare like using barrel bombing attacks like in January 2014. http://www.bbc.com... 2) The August 2013 chemical attack on Damascus showed that the Syrian government had chemical weapons that contained the nerve agent which killed 1,429 people. http://www.whitehouse.gov... C) The United States should go to war with Syria.
Masterpiece cakeshop v. CCRC

I will be arguing for the baker where I show how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) violated his first amendment rights. My opponent will be arguing for the other side where he shows how the baker discriminated against the same sex couple's identity. Both sides have the BOP. First round: Acceptance onlySecond round: ArgumentsThird round: RebuttalsFourth round: Rebuttals and ConclusionsLastly, I expect my opponent to stay consistent with these facts while he makes his case because they are UNDISPUTED by the parties involved. This was included in the Joint Appendix delivered to the US Supreme Court in connection with this case (see page 168): https://www.aclu.org... 70. On or about July 19, 2012, two men and a woman came to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. 71. They did not have an appointment, nor do we offer appointments. 72. We sat down at the cake consulting table. 73. The woman was not at the table at any time. 74. She was elsewhere in the store during the interaction. 75. I greeted the two men and introduced myself. 76. The men introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie.” 77. The men said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.” 78. I told them that I do not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. 79. I told them 'I'll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.' 80. Charlie Craig and David Mullins each immediately got up and left the store.If anyone who steers away from these established facts, it will be a point loss.
Donald Trump Shall Lose the National Presidential Electrion

Trump will most likely set his gaze on the Rust Belt and Midwest Michigan with a large share of blue-collar, middle income households whose Primary exit polls has shown that there is a well of support for Donald Trump's anti-NAFTA and free trade stance. Michigan, for instance, with a strong base of blue-collar, union workers, has traditionally been a democratic stronghold since the 1990. 69% said they were dissatisfied with the government and 55% believe free trade kill American businesses. The sentiment were equally shared by the other Midwest states as the exit polls indicated the shared sentiment of trade deals being a raw deal for American workers. This is a state that was won by Bernie Sanders, mainly because Clinton is viewed as free trade and NAFTA promoter. Most of Trump's Midwestern campaign was based on berating trade deals like NAFTA and the politicians who've put them in place. Brabender, a former strategist of Rick Sanatorium's campaign, who also set their sights on the Midwest, said there's a high chance of Donald winning over Bernie Sanders supporters, i.e. not the young faction but the populist segment that allowed him to win the primary. Owing to the overlap between the two Trump has managed to snatch 40% of Bernie supporters. I've touched upon the charisma of Trump and the GOP voter turnout was proof of that With a staggering 700,000 higher turnout in Virginia than 2012. Hillary does not garner that type of excitement that is going to be very important in the upcoming mano a mano political debates between them. Clinton has a unfavourably rating of 55% and Trump is already on drawing even with Romney with Hispanics despite his rethoric. Trump has a lot to work with, especially with Hilary's terrible record as it is http://www.breitbart.com... http://thefederalist.com...
Donald Trump Shall Lose the National Presidential Electrion

Trump can win over w huge chunk of the blue-collar votes. Whites with college degrees have overall a slightly negative view of him but at the same rate they view Hillary as untrustworthy. Trump will work tirelessly to brand her as unelectable and then effectively win 70% of the white votes. If he does so, he can win and make America great again" In the last election, Barack Obama won with only 40% of the white vote. Last election, it was proved that Barack Obama requires only 30% of the white vote to win. According to the Washington Post, the white voting population has been decreasing every 4 years. This does not bode well for the GOP. The GOP requires 30% of non-white votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com... Given the racial overtones, of casino and strip club owner, Mr. Donald Trump, this is an impossibility. Presently, recent polls averages his percentages of 0% of blacks and 10% support of Latinos. Also, expect a surge in minority votes due to his rhetoric.
Donald Trump Shall Lose the National Presidential Electrion

Trump will work very hard to demolish her reputation as a trustworthy and capable candidate. The way the Clinton foundation has taken money from all kinds of shady directions and the way she managed her emails, the Paul's Johnson scandal and all the rest of her shady and corrupt dealings will come to light and there's no doubt Trump, as proficient a debater he is, he will slash her apart in the national debate, just you wait and see. Clinton has simply too much baggage to make her electable. The way he became the nominee with no political experience, that's unprecedented, and the turnout in the republican race shows he has the momentum going for him. Trump knows psychology very well and knows how to talk succinctly and right to the point that people resonate with. He won the republican race with a landslide, there was no contest. Now he'll work on broadening his appeal not only to whites but Latinos for sure. Trump can come unscathed and more popular than before out of every mistaken turn or phrase or practically just every mistake he does, he is a master at untangling himself from political scandals just like trying to catch someone naked covered in oil, he effectively talks his way out of circumstances that would have gotten any other candidate branded as unelectable and thus unavoidably cut off from the rest of the race. Trump can adeptly capitalise on his skills as a salesperson to market himself the way he does. Trump can win over w huge chunk of the blue-collar votes. Whites with college degrees have overall a slightly negative view of him but at the same rate they view Hillary as untrustworthy. Trump will work tirelessly to brand her as unelectable and then effectively win 70% of the white votes. If he does so, he can win and make America great again. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.politico.com...
Donald Trump Shall Lose the National Presidential Electrion

Donald Trump shall lose the Presidential Election in a historic landslide. Donald Trump and the GOP requires 40% of the Hispanic votes to make it competitive. This is why Barack Obama won the election in 2004 and 2008: the changing demographics of the USA. With Blacks and Hispanics and non-whites voting overwhelmingly against Trump, Hilary Clinton is the next President of the United States of America. Demographics is the reason why the GOP will lose the Presidential Election and will lose seats in Congress.
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

An example for philosophy forums I wrote: "When discussing your ideas, we insist that you express your emotions (happy or angry) so that we can work with these ideas on a personal level. However, it is important that we discuss ideas over identities; embracing identities while discussing ideas. Think with your mind; color your words with your heart. The people here understand that we all need to express these emotions... it's a natural side of humanity. We would never want to prevent anyone from being themselves, because a few bad eggs don't want to behave either way. It is okay to describe people how you see them (if they act like a child, go ahead and describe it; we do not see tautology in expression). This is what you feel emotionally; as a forum of philosophy & people, we are well aware that all ideas are shaped by our identities, and so, we would never impede on expression of any kind. We are not going to pretend we know you through our rules (whether you recently lost your children, or never faced a hardship in your life) so we are here to respect those of you that aren't as settled as others... we understand that some of you may have recently served our country and may not be chemically balanced, yet possess great ideas behind that yet to be controlled passion people should not fear, but embrace. All we ask of you, is to be honest with yourself and others. We are here to strengthen minds, whether it be by idea, or identity. Philosophy is the heart of each person, and with each heart, we see a rose that is beautiful, and bloody. Here, we recognize that your ideas are created by you and your monster. Like the ocean, there is a surface and a dark side - flow, and so will our forums follow - fear, and these forums will go nowhere. We shape these forums; we shape our ideas; we shape this Universe. Speak harshly; speak honestly. Do not speak harmlessly; do not speak dishonestly. We show our great thinking potential by becoming more than the forums - by being free, and expressing who we are as Man!" -- Now, let's apply this to every robotic contract and rule system in human history. Which is better? I say down with psychopathy - let personality rise!
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

Oh, I know what a joke is - what you wrote was not a joke... at least you're extremely terrible at being funny. First of all, if you're going to make a joke, don't make stupid statements like "I hate arrogant people", secondly refrain from anthropomorphizing your humor to that of a hateful and deluded individual, as you have said "reported", without any hint of sarcasm or lighthearted jolly. Then you proceed to somewhat try to be funny by role-playing the monkey, but you really were just throwing lighters in one hands and gasoline another the whole time. That said, are you really going to make up excuses about why "political" writing should trump personality? We are people, we have personalities; we have ideas, ideas can either stay an idea with no reformation towards human capacity, or it can be nurtured and taken care of by its advocate. As a child, we dreamed when we were always being either upset or happy in our life, we did not compress our emotions and cause ourselves to become numb and falsely convinced that we are doing life right by denying our feelings after they started to get to the point they hurt us and ate away at us in a society that does not want you to be "you", but some simulation of their cold policies based on machine-like manners that have no regard for the very reason why we exist with a heart and mind; have a brain that can produce endless possibilities, just so all of this can be wasted by our pride and arrogance. You can argue me all you want, friend. But you will lose more than an argument by doing so. There's a reason why business people are not trusted and hated throughout eternity, while the greatest of our men stood against all odds, all blind men, to change things for the better; for the sheer sense that they never - NEVER - denied their feelings no matter how big they got... They faced those feelings and they built an entire future after a prologue of sheer darkness, pain and obstruction from everyone else that did not face their consequences like they did.
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

I will keep this short. That was meant as a joke, since you called me a primate with a monocle I acted as if I was one, and I asked you to stop calling the primates lesser evolved. For a person who likes expression so much, you surely are humorously constipated. I will however remind my voters this. The onus was upon the Proposition, and other than a few misguided insults and obnoxious comments he has provided no argument. In fact he has also not tackled my arguments about how ambiguity in a clause can cause great distress, and a great many legal issues. Pace Aerogant, Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

Your intimidation only makes a fool out of yourself, as I never used race as an argument. I was solely calling you a monkey strictly based entirely on how they are a stage below human based on your actions and your thought patterns, not this foolish idea that somehow your culture or skin has any significant relation to what you are capable and incapable of. That's absolutely absurd for you to assume of me. Clearly you were already ready to pull that card when you would lose the debate anyways. Your "I'm better than you because I can puff up like a puffer fish" attitude is not the same as my "I have worked very hard to get where I am" attitude. So go ahead an threaten me, because I walk the talk - you threatening me is missing the point entirely. You do know that wall wars and violence are the cause of stupidity and envy, yes? Why don't you start acting like you do, instead of trying to sound like you're some gang member that has inside sources to get me, as if I really cared and as if you getting to me would have any relevance to my ideas. If you couldn't change me before, let alone understand anything I have said thus far, then threatening me is just your way of saying "I'm angry I was out-spoken by another man that clearly knows more than I do about life, which is why I am the one that sent threats, while I just accused him of making threats; why am I such a hypocrite - oh yeah, because I'm confused and deranged as is." It's very simple. It's all regression. You do not understand regression or progression because you're a psychopath. You don't feel - you assess information like a machine because you probably had a father or mother that treated you like coal instead of a beautiful gem with great potential. So no matter what you argue, you will continue to not use your heart to understand this argument. Arguing emotion with a psychopath is like arguing religion with a scientist. They do not care - no matter how important it is on top of precision and information. It's best to speak with our minds; and color our words with our hearts - something you don't do, since you sound like a binary monkey wearing a monocle that looks down on anyone because their ego can feed third world countries. You should let loose, instead of always bottling up all that anger inside you from living in a tough life. At least I can understand your life and why you may not be the best of people right now. I don't look down on people, I have hope for even the darkest of individuals, as I know that all fear and monsters within us are simply misunderstood friends. So again, I will repeat it: "He who wants power, does not have any; he who does not seek power, has it all." But do know that in spite of our differences in how we feel this world we stand in, there is always room for difference in our hearts.
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

You know what? I am going to report you, you are racist. There is enough bigotry against my species, and we do not need any more from you. We are a proud species, and I would appreciate you not making fun of my family like that. You truly are disgusting. The first half of your argument, Mr. Heidegger/Hegel is simply a rally of insults against me and my kind. What do I care? I have opposobale thumbs too you know. Would it not have been nice if you could use your brain to actually write down this imaginary argument that you gave. Now I also did not happen to see your imaginary counter-rebuttals and therefore my argument stands. I mentioned an extremely famous case where I informed you that ambiguity may cause great legal, and practical loss. I talked about how you must give an argument to show that humans necessarily need to express themselves everywhere, you did not answer this. Which reminds me, do humans not have a neo-cortex? I believe they do, then why is it that I am more rational than you are? I mean that means to be rational is a fundamental part of human nature, and that when humans express themselves, they should also express themselves in rational forms. No answer. I believe that answers everything other than the psychopathic accusations. You caught me, take care because I will come and do nasty stuff to you. I don't like arrogant people. 'Para bellum'Faithfully Yours,
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

Oh, I did make an argument: "Which is better?". It's far smaller than the rest of the passage, so I don't blame you for not having a trained brain to pick out the pin from the haystack. Wait, on second thought... You not only missed what was severed from the huge passage that had a "?" right next to it, you also failed to provide an argument regardless, as you are excusing your failures as someone who tries to debate, but comes off as someone who is merely a primate wearing a monocle. I would make fun of you more by saying "I do say", but you haven't said anything to begin with, so that joke wouldn't get by - along with everything else. I am quite disheartened that you really think you can condescend me with your cheeky psychopathy, friend. I can speak as if I love you and care about you, like "I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend you, but you are a waste of space." See? It's easy. Why is it easy? It's because it's what children do, when they are too scared to get in their enemy's face to say what they really want to say. Do you need a pacifier? It wouldn't make a difference, since all you do is suck it up. Here's my argument: Immutable laws are the work of cowards who don't understand how to live life, as this planet is not for us to make our homes in it, hence storms do not care about our homes or us. This world is forever changing - psychopathy never changes. It creates its own Utopia based entirely on a sick disease that plagues our minds, taking away our emotions and feelings towards ourselves and others. Humans are not gears or machines, just because they can be, doesn't mean that this stage of humanity is an advanced stage - it's a regressed stage, as in humanity become machine when it loses its humanity, thus saying that all psychopaths that treat anything like a machine for power and control, are coward because of what I wrote: "He who wants power, does not have any; he who does not seek power, has it all."
This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

I would much rather not tell someone to use paragraphs, as I have learned from reading the works of many geniuses that the human mind struggles to break itself into pieces (it's why geniuses are well known for either writing a very small statement to writing a long-winded statement), when so many ideas come in which seem irrelevant to the untrained mind. I'd rather tell someone to write an actual argument so I know what to argue for my turn in the debate, as you have provided nothing for me to argue against which is far more troublesome than accepting someone's "body" of thoughts.
The Existence of The Christian God

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.
Beauty pageants

Since Con failed to provide any arguments, I will provide mine. Because of lack of effort by the instigator, I also will not put much time and effort into my arguments. People who have strong self-esteem and consider themselves beautiful should be allowed to enter beauty pageants. Beauty pageant is a form of appreciation of human beauty. People should be allowed to present their beauty and to view and appreciate human beauty. This appreciation will fill everyone with delight, joy, and love for humanity and will thus prevent future wars.