BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
chickens are cannibals because they eat chicken when you feed them chicken

The chickens weren't starving, they were well fed. They seem to like eating the chicken. Of course these chickens had become cannibals. If a human eats human flesh just once, has he not engaged in cannibalism and thus become a cannibal? You wouldn't dismiss a human flesh eating human as not a cannibal. And so a chicken eating chicken is a cannibal.
chickens are cannibals because they eat chicken when you feed them chicken

I understand that you have experimented with feeding chickens meat, which they ate. You ,however, have not done this to all chickens and so it does not prove your claim. For all that I know, you might have starved your chickens to the point of death, and then at that point when they were so desperate for food that they cannot resist anything you gave them some meat, which they have no choice but to eat if they wish to survive which is why they did. The matter is, a cannibal desperately desires to eat meat of its own species and hence would be seen if your chickens went and killed each other to eat their meat. So, since they do not do that for the fun of it but desperate need, they are not cannibals.Plus, in case you did not know, chickens are omnivores as they eat plants as well as worms. They will also eat meat if provided it, but since they are usually unable to acquire such mean in the wild, it is not part of their particular diet. What chickens really do is drink wine, and since wine is not made of chickens, they are not cannibals. s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" /> (I apologize because the picture doesnt seem to load, but please do look at it for proof as to a chicken drinking wine)
Shroom bones are bitter than trump hats

i good arguement my opponent but i have my ultimate weapon, EJFHWIUWHBHDVGSIYTUFEGWKHYCSUNKCYUGRWYCBUJHBSDCKYUSGVFKYHCBKDV WYTVGCUBYDC WCVYREVGBSDCHKVYUBWSVYSRBVZWCFYDHWBCSYDVBFRYZUFGBSZKYEWGFEWCUYBScdScyvgbcYedcVCYUEGFEBYUDBWYUFGEWECYUBWEDWFCGYVBFDBWEUDCYVWEYCBEDECVEYJDWYDKUCHBWDUCBHCYWECBYUECBYUWVYEWYVCWUCYWVEBCXWYBEXWHELPMEYUEGCIYFWEBCEYCGUEYWFCGEwbcwrycvbGECYEBWcvybWEBCUCYWBCEYcbEWYvbeBbucBCYvwbeveyvbuwvebvbBBVWEUCVEBVbuubcvninetendo
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

In any such conflict, It has almost always been the case that at least as large a percentage of the population has been in favor of the tyrants as against. You are ensuring that THEY will also be armed, And in a better position to put down your posited fight against the tyrants. Guns have not proven to be an effective method of protection- they are by nature offensive. The idea that, Faced with an armed intruder who is ready to shoot, You will get you gun, Ensure it is loaded and then overpower the intruder, When all he will have to do is aim and shoot shows it's limitations. It is just a statistical fact that guns are much more likely to be used to kill yourself or a member of you family than an intruder- ACCIDENTAL deaths by gunshot are more prevalent than defensive, In-home shootings. Passive protection like bars on windows and re-enforced doors are much more effective deterrents. The fact that you have encouraged a gun society now means the chance of an intruder being armed are much higher, And the chance of being shot by police are MANY times higher than in countries with strict gun control.
People do change

Thank you for posting your next argument. My argument will be short, seeing I have already made my point. My opponent has admitted that babies bones, flesh, ect, do get bigger. This is obviously a change. If you would have read my definition you would have clearly seen that that growing is changing. I will again state what the definition of change is. Change: To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone If you notice it says "form". In no way does my argument support yours, I have no idea how you got that. Audience, my opponent has failed to prove that people change. Her argument was based on some "spirit" that has no scientific evidence of existing. I have clearly shown that people do change. Please vote pro, Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
People do change

Saying that I have 39 minutes to come up with my debate argument, ill do the best I can. "I will first state the obvious. When a baby is born it is smaller than an adult. When the baby grows older, it changes. " People don't necessarily change. They may change in bodily shape, but on the inside, they stay the same. When a baby is born, they have a smaller portion of everything in their bodies than adult humans do. As they grow, their brains, ect. will get larger. But in reality, they will not change, they will just grow bigger. "Looking at it from the other point, have you ever stolen a piece of candy? Based off of your last argument, that means that you are and always will be a thief. You will always have that "spirit" inside of you. There have been thousands of murders who are sorry for what they did and will not kill again" This argument actually supports my side of the case, stating that if you kill, you will always have the killing spirit. Or if you steal, you will always have that killing spirit.
People do change

Thank you for posting your argument. My opponent believes that people never change. There are two ways of proving this wrong. Change: To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone. I will first state the obvious. When a baby is born it is smaller than an adult. When the baby grows older, it changes. That is enough to prove that people do change, but now I will show another way of changing. Looking at it from the other point, have you ever stolen a piece of candy? Based off of your last argument, that means that you are and always will be a thief. You will always have that "spirit" inside of you. There have been thousands of murders who are sorry for what they did and will not kill again. I will end my argument here seeing that I have made my point. People do change. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://www.disabled-world.com...
People do change

This is a debate saying whether people change, and I am for Con. (just so you know) My argument is that people never change. If you are a cursing person, it is going to take a lot more time to stop cursing because it is second nature. It won't be easy for you, and you are probably going to quit trying. Which makes you a cursing person. You won't change. If you kill someone, say murder them. You go to jail. Once you get out of jail, most people would say "you have changed." You may even say "I have changed." This is totally wrong. If you go to jail for killing, ultimately you still have the killing spirit within you. You may try to turn your life around and say hey, I'm done killing, time to turn my path around, but you are still going to have to live with the haunting of that day you decided to kill. Which means you sinned, and you aren't going to change. Good luck Kevin! :]
The Clintons are vile and manipulative liars.

How can you say you dislike them if everything that you've heard is B.S? "I was once a supporter of Bill Clinton (I never liked Hillary) but with all the B.S. that has been going on in the last few weeks, I now have a strong dislike for both of them." "the reason Hillay won New Hampshire was because of women. Women turned out in strong numbers and voted for Hillary. How come no one was saying, "Oh who cares, that just means she got the women vote, her win means nothing."?" Isn't it folly on you then for saying that Hillary got the "women vote" and it doesn't mean anything? "With the Clintons trying to say the black vote means nothing, they are basically saying that black people don't matter to America." You are saying that the women votes in New Hampshire is nothing. Does that mean that you are saying that women mean nothing to the United States. That is also "reverse the progress we have made in the U.S." Aren't you doing the same things that you say the Clintons are doing to Barack Obama saying that Hillary's women votes count for nothing?
The Clintons are vile and manipulative liars.

I was once a supporter of Bill Clinton (I never liked Hillary) but with all the B.S. that has been going on in the last few weeks, I now have a strong dislike for both of them. The first thing I want to talk about is this nonsense over race in South Carolina. The Clintons are trying to make Barak Obama "the black candidate" and make his (most likely) win in South Carolina seem meaningless. I can't believe that they are doing this and people are actual buying into this idea. It is folly on thier part because the reason Hillay won New Hampshire was because of women. Women turned out in strong numbers and voted for Hillary. How come no one was saying, "Oh who cares, that just means she got the women vote, her win means nothing."? With the Clintons trying to say the black vote means nothing, they are basically saying that black people don't matter to America. This disgusts me that they are doing this and it should disgust everyone really. Using the race card is the stupidest thing anyone can ever do because all it does is reverse the progress we have made in the U.S. We really need to stop living like it's 1950 and start living like it is 2008. Shame on the Clintons.
The Clintons are vile and manipulative liars.

Do you believe that the war authorization was a mistake? Everybody can be mislead and yet you hold Hillary Clinton for that one little mistake. "The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress," Clinton said to loud applause." Don't you agree that Bush mislead us all when he started the authorization? "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying." Mr. Tilton wanted Clinton to admit her mistake and she did. What more can you ask of her. Everybody makes mistakes and there is no use thinking about the past. What's done is done and you can't really change it. Clinton admitted her mistake and that is that. She can't go back in time and take back her vote. We are just human and mistakes help us learn.
The Clintons are vile and manipulative liars.

The B.S. was fed to people from the Clintons and I have no idea why you think I think that the womens vote for Hillary in New Hampshire isnn't important. You obviously didn't even read what I wrote. Anyway, the next thing I would like to talk about is Hillary and the war. Clinton acknowledged "a great deal of frustration and anger and outrage" over the war, and said she was working hard in the Senate to pass legislation capping troop levels in Iraq. She also vowed to try to bring to a vote a resolution disapproving of President Bush's planned troop increase. "I'm still in the arena," she said — an apparent riposte to a Democratic rival, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Like Clinton, Edwards voted to authorize the invasion, but he has become a staunch war critic since leaving the Senate in 2004. "It's very easy to go around and say, 'Let's end the war,'" Clinton added. "If we had a Democratic president we would end the war." Her toughest question came in Berlin, a struggling mill town in northern New Hampshire. Roger Tilton, 46, a financial adviser from Nashua, N.H., told Clinton that unless she recanted her vote, he was not in the mood to listen to her other policy ideas. "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying." In response, Clinton repeated her assertion that "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," and said voters would have to decide for themselves whether her position was acceptable. "The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress," Clinton said to loud applause. Does she really expect us to believe that she was misled by the Bush/Cheney administration, and she actually thought Iraq was a danger to us, with its supposed WMDs?
Gay people have a right

Sigh..A copied first and second argument. First off they DO have all the same rights for themselves. 2. They are not "born with it" Darwin's theory of evolution stands in contradiction to that. 3. the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. 4. Laws and definitions should not be changed against the will of the people. 5. My opponents argument also suggests that pedophilia, necrophilia and polygamy should be allowed, which it clearly shouldn't. Please put some time into your next round.
Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. (USA)

This debate should be solely in this format: Round 1: Pro: Agreement to rules and to topic and discussion of rules. Con: Agreement to rule and to topic Round 2 : Pro: Case, probably only points and questions if necessary. Neg: Case, answer questions/ask questions, and attack first case. Round 3: Pro: Answer questions, defend attacks, attack neg case Neg: Final say (No new points) Why did you win? Defend if necessary. Final round: Pro: Final say (no new points) Why did you win? Defense if necessary. Neg: Give a cool quote! (: The full resolution is: In the united states justice system jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. Forfeits do not change voting but voters may loose valuable information in order to see one's point when there are forfeits. Evidence is not too necessary unless a point is outrageous. You may have a value that your debate is centered around (If my opponent is an LD style debater I would love to see value crash)] Finally, I accept to my rules. (:
R.T.I is not necessary.

Official Secrets Act 1923 is the father of RTI act 2005 , According to Official Secrets Act 1923, RTI can only provide certain amount of information to the people. Well about RTI , RTI needs a long term procedure, and the officials controlling this are the same officials working for that suspected Officer once or some maybe continuing to work, their is a series of chain, if the suspect is found guilty , the whole chain becomes guilty according to the law, RTI is good to get the information out , like to know how the system works in our high level of understanding but RTI is still not the best remedy to decide the Resignation. Filling an RTI is very easy , anyone can file it , but the complexity during RTI is again just a MIND GAME played by higher officials. Do you know why there is no RTI in Jammu and Kashmir ?? And according to me RTI act doesn't promote transparency and but provides a little amount of accountability, how we can expect transparency if father of RTI , i.e, Official Secrets Act 1923 , is already present at the first place. A new bunch of unscrupulous people start misusing the RTI act. Some even threaten the government employee and now in extreme cases the bribe is going on the other side (from government employee to the so-called RTI activist.) Also, in few departments, the officer in charge of information, is overloaded with these indiscriminate and impractical demands which actually not allowing the officer to perform his duty properly.
should little kids watch TV. yes or no. its heath

So your argument is that kids should not watch TV because it will make them lazy? Well whats to stop them from watching TV as adults or teenagers? Technology will for forever progress and will forever make people lazy. The best we can do is try not to do these activities excessively. Everyone should be healthy and active. So my argument is, TV itself doesn't make children or anyone lazy its the idea of something "better" or "easier" that makes people lazy.
chroeo vs freestyle

As the instigator, you were supposed to make the opening arguments first, rather than waiting for the contender to post theirs.I will be giving you a chance considering you just started in this site. I welcome you.---[1] Choreography is the art or practice of designing sequences of movements of physical bodies (or their depictions) in which motion, form, or both are specified. Choreography may also refer to the design itself.[2]Routine dancers tend to be those who began dancing at studios and took professional classes. They learn how to dance by the 8-count rule and depend on it to stay on beat. Routine dances are very structured and take time to put together. They are usually prepared months before the actual performance, as opposed to freestyling which is prepared on the spot. Therefore, the benefit of developing a routine before hand is that it relieves pressure on the dancer. In freestyle, the dancer can suddenly freeze up or run out moves (this has happened to me a number of times, and is quite embarrassing). There is a lot of pressure on the dancer not to be repetitive and to think of creative moves to impress the crowd, on the spot. Fixed routines take that pressure away. Basically, as long as the dancer practices the choreography, there is no need to worry. Freestyle requires dancers who already have experience or proffesionalism in order to establish great sequence of moves. In choreographed dances, the choreographers teach their dancers how to move or what to do which makes the performance perfect and mastered. It's just like reviewing for a test. If you haven't reviewed your past lessons and just relied on your stocked knowledge, you're doomed. We can apply this to dances. If it's not practiced correctly, it isn't good nor pleasing to the eye at all. Sources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://hip-hop-passion.blogspot.tw...
Gangnam Style is More Than Just a One Hit Wonder

Interesting. wrichcirw, it's taking me a while to figure out what your argument is. You are arguing that Psy will have positive, substantial influence on the US (round 1). And your evidence is that they're satirizing the life of the rich and famous in a good way? I'm not sure I can see the connection, really.Um, you have burden of proof, don't forget.
Gangnam Style is More Than Just a One Hit Wonder

THE FUN PARTAsia's a funny place to Americans. There's a lot there that simply gets lost in translation. Instead of Sesame Street, they have 뿡뿡이, which just also happens to be onomatopoeic for passing gas, and where the titular character spends much of the show looking for where he put his lost feces (hint, don't comb your hair!) - vid #1, just the first 30 seconds:http://www.youtube.com...Instead of Barbie dolls, they have 콩순이 방귀대장, a doll that happens to go 뿡뿡이 too! - vid #2http://www.youtube.com...That's what makes PSY so special. For once, we're not looking at strange images of women's lap pillows [1], or the male equivalent [2], but actually something we can understand, and even emulate (warning, some coarse language in this one): - vid #3http://www.youtube.com... The satire is right on - Gangnam Style is all about satirizing the lives of the rich and famous, and it fully translated into English. And it was funny, too! In a good way! Honest!Believe it or not PSY's English isn't bad either, so there's some potential here for crossover: - vid #4: http://www.youtube.com...To say that Korea is nationalistic is the same as saying that Donald Trump has a small bed and breakfast on the East Coast; during the 2002 World Cup soccer games co-hosted by Korea and Japan, 22 million Koreans flooded the streets to cheer their Red Devils over the course of the games...that's over 40% of South Korea's population. And what did they do afterward? They cleaned up after themselves, of course. [3] Gotta make a name for yourself somehow.You can bet that PSY's newfound fame as the world's most successful one-hit-wonder will ingrain itself in the Korean mindset, more than likely permanently. Exactly what lies in the future for PSY is, however, anything but certain.[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://www.koreatimes.co.kr...
Gangnam Style is More Than Just a One Hit Wonder

http://www.youtube.com...First of all, I truly believe Gangnam Style will be a one hit wonder in the US. I sincerely doubt that PSY will ever have another single list in the US, regardless of his popularity in Korea. Nevertheless, despite my personal beliefs, I will argue the PRO case in this debate. This ridiculous K-POP sensation has 883 MILLION hits on youtube right now and will probably be the first video to break the one billion mark. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon (who is guess what...Korean) has been very public of his endorsement of PSY. Therefore, there is some potential for something "more" here.Exactly what "more" is will be the subject of the debate, and voters will decide whether or not PRO can make the case that PSY will have any more POSITIVE impact on the US. (i.e., Paris Hilton style antics will not count, negative publicity is not enough, even if it is substantial). What the debate will be about is whether or not PSY can turn this one hit into something substantial that will influence the US in one way or another besides desperate publicity stunts. The degree of influence is also important, and I will leave it to the voters to determine whether or not what PRO argues is enough to be substantial.Rules are simple:Round 1 acceptance, 2/3 argument, 4 closing (no new arguments or citations).Terms:One hit wonder -http://www.urbandictionary.com...Examples of negative publicity:http://www.theregister.co.uk...http://www.theregister.co.uk...Ban Ki Moon and PSY's mancrush:http://enewsworld.mnet.com...http://ibnlive.in.com...
There is no such things as a biological viruses.

Lied about my age? I never even stated my age. I made coherent and fair points and I provided images of viruses. Are you saying that you can't rebuttal my arguments? Saying that only educated people should apply is not a debate rule. You have no way of knowing how educated I am and if you can't even respond to my points, Then you're the one who is presenting themselves as uneducated. What you're really saying is that I'm not educated because I don't agree with, Since this is a debate, It is kind of my job to disagree with you, Wouldn't you agree? If you want to run away because I don't agree with you, That's your prerogative, But if you ACTUALLY want to prove to me that viruses don't exist, Then I suggest you rebut my point. I'm just curious, You keep saying your opponents are smart enough. In your opinion, What would a smart opponent say? I'm just curious, If you were on my side of the floor, How would you rebuttal your own argument? I don't think you have an answer to that because you only want me to agree with you. You're not here to debate at all. At any rate, Since you made no attempt to counter my arguments, I guess they stand.