BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Utopia Contest

Play this song in the background while reading: it will show you how frikin' Insane Insane-Vill is:http://www.youtube.com...Ok everyone. I think we all see the problem here. I have listed six freaking amazing things, and said that there is sooo sooo much more! My opponent however has listed......2.Can I just say sir, if you ever mover to Insane-Vill, you would probably be shot in the FACE BY A ZOMBIE HOLDING A CAT LAUNCHING GUN, ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY AN EXPLODING ALIEN DINOSUAR! ..............and cowboys...... Anyhow.........What god despising filth the world has become. Hold on a sec, Ima go shove my index fingers into my eye's, as instructed by this song.0.0'.;':'.'.;'.;'<<<<<<<bloodOther things that make Insane-Vill more frickin' isane than everything:1. It doesn't even make sense broHoly sh!t!! Why would you NOT move to Insane-Vill. We literally have everything! Dog's-got 'emDog poop-got that Dead Dong's-keep em frozen for ya Opp's I mean dog's, but we do have frozen dongs as well. Bags-why not? earphones-Hells ya! Paper-You bet 'cha! Chips-Lots of 'em! Book-Their gay, but yes Dildoes-sure thing 2. ViagraIn your Utopia, you have women, and Viagra. That one will work out just like Charie Sheen saying he's sober, and a feminist. You see, what will happen, is that you will inevitably overdose on viagra, and have an infinite erection. Hence, this will scare the living sh!t out of the women, and they will all leave you. Now, you are alone with an insanely erect d!ck. We all now what has to be done at this point............C: My Opponent has given me littel to rebute,(probbably because he's a puzzy) however, I have rebuted, and given more INSANE reasons why my utopia is better.VOTEPRO ...................__............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( Bro Fist :D
Best Utopia Contest

My experiment did not work out well. I mistakenly ate my notes because they looked like pizza. Oh well. In any event, I will scramble up my own pictorial that will make you want to PAY to live in my utopia. For the guys out there, I give you... There better be 72 of them! It was a package deal. For the ladies?... FREE lifetime supply for your man! Nuff said... Next round...
Best Utopia Contest

I have no fvcking idea what that means.....but if your getting acid, hit me up bro!Ok lets start the debate.*Hardcore Metal Guitar and Drums in Background* All right audience! Everyone just hold the fvck up!! It's time for Insane-Vill!*Fire Shoots out of ground*As you can probaly imagine, it's insane! WE HAVEAliens! Cowboys!! Explosions!!! ZOMBIES! so sexySUPER CUTE CATS! Dino's!!!!!!!!! And SOOO SOOO MUCH MORE!!!c: Don't be a puzzy, move to INSANE-VILL!!!!!
Best Utopia Contest

Thanks jdog2016 for inviting me to participate in this (my first real) debate. I"m not used to debating such a structured format, so it will be interesting to see how well I do. In thinking about how to create my Utopia, I look to someone with great wisdom on the matter" No not Barack Obama! I will seek the wisdom of Todd Rundgren. My opponent probably never heard of Rundren (I should get points for that) Rundren is an American multi-instrumentalist, songwriter and record producer. Hailed in the early stage of his career as a new pop star, supported by the certified gold solo double LP Something/Anything? in 1972,[1] his career has produced a diverse range of recordings as solo artist, and during the seventies and eighties with the band >>>>Utopia. <<<< This guy has the chops on all things >>>>Utopia<<<< So, after consulting with Mr. >>>>Utopia<<<<, my >>>>Utopia<<<< is rather a simple >>>>Utopia<<<<. After all, isn"t that what >>>>Utopia<<< is supposed to be all about? (Simple) What I plan on doing is a human experiment of sorts. I will drive to my drug dealer"s street corner and pick up a sack of ganja, and perhaps a few hits of acid. Once home, I will partake in my purchased goodies. After I"m off to another world, I"ll be taking serious notes and preparing my mind to actually lay out my vision of >>>>Utopia<<<<. Thank you,
Best Utopia Contest

Hello, I have been on this site for a few months now. I noticed you have only been on for a day, and thought we could have a fun debate.Round 1 is for acceptance. No arguments at this time.In this debate, Pro and Con will each create a utopia, and explain why their utopia is better than their opponents.<>Profanity is allowed<>Telling the truth is not required<>Good GrammarAUDIENCE:This debate is to be judged completely on who's arguments were the most entertaining. When voting, give all 7 points to one side.
did Hitler have it right

The debate title seems to be in favor of Hitler, but your argument is much more for eugenics in general. In fact, you even point out that Hitler did not have it right, in that apparently Jews aren't the right people we need to kill. You seem to ignore the fact that not only were Jews murdered, but Romanians, Homosexuals, and any political opponent. Hitler's mass murder wasn't for the betterment of mankind, especially if his vison of mankind is only a select few racial, ethnic, sexual, and political groups, which are further narrowed down in that a person must meet all of these characteristics to be deemed worthy. I would say that Hitler was doing his murder for the good of his German motherland, but the same objection above still applies. I have to wander why genetic defects, disease, and crime are all listed as if they are equal. How would eugenics stop crime? If anything, the very existence of a wide spread mass holocaust would be the worst example of a crime ever done by the human race. Crime is influenced by social factors and economic factors, which I don't think would go away, even if the number of humans were drastically reduced. And disease? If anything, this would hurt our ability to deal with disease. It is our genetic diversity that allows us to adapt to changes, and, just as a reference, breeding the golden retriever lost 35% of their original genetic diversity. "i'm not bias to who I cleanse from the planets surface."Right, you may be a mass murder approving, neo nazi scum f*ck, but you aren't biased on who you disgustingly murder.(Something of a side note, I'm not allowed to say f*ck on this website, but we can say murder the unwanted?)Lastly you talk about the Purge, but I find this pretty ironic. You seem to think that 1. the purge is eugenics (the Purge is class warfare), and that 2. the writers were remotely in favor of it. You... do know what a dystopia is, right? 1984 was a story about a tyrannical, totalitarian government, but Orwell wasn't giving it a thumbs up. The Purge is clearly a horrific human rights violation, and this point is made even clearer in the second movie. Can you propose any actual arguments for this horrendous trash? Oh, and please make it more readible than Mein Kampf next time.
did Hitler have it right

Humanity these days are plagued by genetic defects disease and crime. Hitler seems to be the only man who had the stomach to do what must be done. We should re instigate Auschwitz and have holocaust 2.0, but this time instead of Jews it will be any and everyone who does not fit our ideal future, i'm not bias to who I cleanse from the planets surface. The writers of the purge had the right idea, in this glorious future we will all be a lot happier and safer in our day today lives.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

Okay so what you are saying is Alex would beat Cole. No way. First of all I have to say I have not really played Prototype, because I did not like the game. Two infamous is a lot better and Cole will tear him up especially on the evil side. Cole gets his strength and power from electric currents like power lines and things of that nature. he can slide on rail road tracks. So you telling me a guy that can slide on rail road tracks and power lines will lose to one that has to get close to you to hit you. Cole can hit from a distance. Alex is a shape shifter and he has some pretty sick moves, but i think that Cole has him beat.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

NOTE: The Alex and Cole in this debate are both from the chronological ends of their games, and the theoretical "Cole" in this debate took the "good karma" path during his story. Alex Mercer would defeat Cole MacGrath because he is faster, stronger, more durable, and more powerful overall. I would like to begin by defining Alex Mercer as the Blacklight virus from the chronological end of the video game [Prototype]. His abilities are to consume other living beings (composed of animal cells), enhanced strength, enhanced speed, and shapeshifting. When he consumes another living being, he absorbs all of that being's memories and is able to shapeshift into a completely accurate replica of that person. Theoretically, Alex should be able to shapeshift into somebody without consuming them, but he cannot be certain of completely accurate mimicry unless he consumes them. When Alex consumes somebody, he compacts their cells into his body, increasing his mass, weight, and density. When Alex is injured, he is able to use the cells he has "stored" to regenerate. For the purposes of this debate, the theoretical battle will take place in New York City as the city currently exists. My first argument is that Alex Mercer is more durable than Cole and can outlast him. Cole MacGrath must absorb electricity from other sources to use his abilities; however, Alex is capable of using his strength and shapeshifting abilities without storing cells. Cole's regeneration is limited to the amount of electricity he has stored, and he possesses all of the physical weaknesses and limits of a normal human being. Alex possesses no such weaknesses, as the Blacklight virus' biological functions do not require the presence of a human's internal organs. Alex can also consume the human citizens of New York to replenish his cells if he is damaged. My second argument is that Cole is not fast enough to hit Alex with damaging enough attacks to cause him serious injury. Alex is capable of outrunning a helicopter, is able to "wallrun", can glide and boost himself through the air, and is proficient in basic Parkour. Cole possesses no such mobility abilities, nor does he possess enhanced reflexes. He possesses limited range that Alex could escape, and is also incapable of accurately hitting moving objects that he cannot see. Given the number of buildings in New York City, Alex need only run to the other side of a skyscraper and hide temporarily if he suffers any damage. If Alex catches Cole in any of his attacks, Cole is effectively doomed, as Alex can consume him if he makes physical contact. I look forward to the rest of this debate. Good luck to whoever accepts this challenge. May the best man (or virus) win. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong about Cole's powers; I'm not quite the inFamous expert I wish I were.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

I would like to being by refuting my opponent's arguments. He argued that Cole could evade Alex's melee attacks, but Alex is too fast in close range for Cole to evade his attacks. Also, Alex does not possess "limited health generation" relative to Cole; Alex can store far more cells than Cole can energy, accounting for energy expended in attacks. Given that the Alex I'm arguing for is from the chronological end of the game, it can be reasoned that he possesses a prodigious amount of stored cells with which to regenerate. Also, my opponent's "no people around" statement is invalid; this fight is in New York, one of the most populated cities in America. Alex could easily find some people to consume in an emergency, assuming one somehow emerges. However, Alex could deprive Cole of power by destroying power lines with Whipfist and keeping him away from other power sources with his attacks. Cole lacks the speed to evade Alex's attacks and is limited by the biological weaknesses of a human who heals very quickly; if Alex shatters Cole's spine, crushes his skull/torso, or inflicts any other number of damage types that the human body is incapable of healing from, Cole will be easily consumed. Since I have no new arguments that wouldn't merely be restatements of my previous arguments, I would now like to weigh the debate. While I have present seven clear arguments and shown a good understanding of the topic, my opponent's arguments are short, confusing, and do not show a strong understanding of the debate. I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments (as best as I can distinguish them), whereas my opponent has not refuted most, if not all, of mine. For these reasons, the PRO has won this debate.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

What a great argument I have to say that my opponent says that Alex can beat Cole with all these attacks, but one question is are they far range or mï¿½lï¿½e? If these are mï¿½lï¿½e attacks Cole has a greater chance of moving out the way before the attack is prepared or better yet finished. Another thing i have to say is this is true they are evenly matched with some of their attack powers. here are some pros and cons Cole Pro Can recharge with using anything like power lines Glides no need to use transportation No need to buy batteries Alex Pro Can transform into anyone Can glide 3 city blocks can run up side buildings with speed Cole Con Climbs buildings Can't step on foot in water Just throws electricity in different shapes Alex Con Has to eat people to recharge Limited health generation These are my arguments.Yes close call, but I think Cole has a better advantage. With Alex if no people are around how will he recharge himself as with Cole if there are no power lines.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

I would like to begin by refuting my opponents' arguments. 4) His fourth argument is that Cole's attacks cover too large an area for Alex to escape them; however, Cole's "area attacks", such as the lightning grenade, are mostly either ground-based or must make contact with an object to "explode". Alex could easily escape these attacks. 5) His fifth argument was that Cole could use Lightning Storm to kill Alex; however, this attack, aside from requiring use of an impractical amount of power for Cole to expend on one attack, would provide both that Cole has clear access to the sky and is planted firmly on solid ground. Also, as long as Alex dodges the Lightning Storm once, he has clear access to Cole, as Cole is incapable of "pulling" the lightning back towards him when he is redirecting it. Also, the lightning storm is not even a one-hit kill on Cole's more powerful Conduit enemies; someone with regenerative abilities like Alex could definitely survive the Storm. 6) His sixth argument was that Cole could use the "Thunder Drop" to kill Alex; however, Cole cannot "fly", only glide, and he would have to both reach a great height without being injured/killed and hit Alex with the less-than-precise Thunder Drop. 7) His seventh argument was that Cole could "shock Alex to death with his shock wave", but Alex has too many cells stored for Cole to kill him in one burst, even with a full "battery". He would have to recharge, at which point Alex could kill him. I would now like to move on to my own arguments. 5) My fifth argument is that Alex could kill Cole with a Claw Groundspike (. http://www.youtube.com... see video; warning: graphic violence). These groundspikes do not require line of sight (. http://prototype.wikia.com...) and are capable of wreaking havoc on the human body, such that Cole would be unable to regenerate from the wounds the spikes would inflict. 6) My sixth argument is that Alex could easily close the distance to Cole and pummel him with Musclemass (. http://prototype.wikia.com...). Musclemass augments Alex' midair kick, a homing attack that is capable of almost completely destroying Apache Helicopters in one hit and hits a humanoid with enough force to allow Alex to "surf" on their body for roughly three-quarters of a city block. This allows Alex to mount a powerful attack from roughly the edge of Cole's effective range. 7) My seventh and final argument is that Alex can defeat Cole with the Critical Pain devastator, a concentrated blast of Biomass powerful enough to punch through tanks (. http://prototype.wikia.com...). This attack can be successfully used in midair, allowing Alex to drop from the top of a building and maintain downward motion to make himself more difficult to hit while preparing the attack. If Cole were to be hit by this attack, he would suffer an extreme amount of damage, effectively winning the fight for Alex. Thank you for your time.
If Alex Mercer of [Prototype] were to fight Cole MacGrath of inFamous, Alex Mercer would win.

Well either way good or evil Cole is more powerful. One Cole can throw bombs that blow up so Alex has no chance. Cole also can call thunder from the sky and strike. TO be honest he has more powers then Alex does and he is more powerful. You just looking at what all Alex can do in his diversion of the game. You have to look at if he comes in contact with Cole. Like i said before far distance is the best way. Alex can jump high while Cole can fly and make a huge drop to the ground that actually can injure Alex. plus Alex can be shocked to death by Cole's shock wave.
Life has value

I challenged Throwback to a debate in response to his comment saying that I cannot justify the idea that life lacks value. I would like to say that this is not an attack on the person at all , just a good clash of intellect which is what this site is for - should he choose to accept. I quite simply believe that life does not have value. Quick Oxford Definitions Value : 1. The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something: 2.
Mormonism is a Rationally Untenable Belief

The very definition of faith is a belief that is not based on evidence. And in some cases it may be a rational choice for a person to believe in something like Mormonism. Both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason and therefore the choice of adopting a belief depends on its direct consequences rather than its sources. A kind of Pascal"s wager situation. I assume Mormons are comfortable with their church"s position on social issues. Sexuality, gay rights or religious freedom. Whether or not you agree with them, their stands on social issues can not be considered unrational. In fact their beliefs, actions and opinions are conform to their perception of reality. Example: some people may have personal reasons to believe that sex before marriage is a bad thing. You and me probably strongly disagree with their arguments. But if they give concrete arguments to support their claim : (more time to think about it, less risk of disease, not sharing partners with others). The fact that they also add as an additional argument that "Gods orders it" (unrational) is not enough to discredit their position. Religion always had two dimensions : one is ideological and abstract (divine), the other one is materialistic and rational. When in the middle ages, the Catholic Pope called for Crusades against Islam was it really because "God" wanted it"? No, it was mainly about the benefit conquering new lands and seizing wealth. We can see how the sum of an unrational belief and a rational fact does"t not change the benefit of the consequences (conquering land and seizing wealth) I do agree Joseph Smith was not a Saint, neither was Mao Zedong (responsible for millions of death) and yet their religion/ideology backed with the promise of material and spiritual benefits attracted millions of people. What motivated these people to follow them was the perspective of obtaining something in return. Accept the book of Mormon or the "Little red book", it doesn"t really matter as long as you feel you"ll be better off. Finally I would like to point out that this is statement is a value judgement. "while Religion is not the only source of finding fulfillment community in life. Their are better ways to do so".
Mormonism is a Rationally Untenable Belief

To begin with there is no real proof that any universal truth exists. Even Philosophy, Science and even Mathematics have some paradigms that you must "blindly" accept in order for the rest to make sense. The same applies to Mormonism and any religion on earth. Once you accept some basic paradigms (thought patterns, ways to see the world), you can construct from it a logical flow of thought. For Christian religions for example, before going further you have to accept that "Jesus is Resurrected" (literally or metaphorically) If you do not accept it, of course the whole thing becomes untenable. I'm going to make an analogy with culture : In tribal African villages, shamans are still in charge of healing people. Their methods may seem dubious to us because of our Western-centric point of view but seem logical to them. And of course facts indicate that they are not really effective in healing most diseases... however they sometimes perform better than Western medicine in ensuring patients or family psychological well being. Having said that, let's play the game. Let's assume rationality and truth are one way only and Mormon religious doctrine is to be categorically rejected. There are still rational reason to be part of a religious community : If It makes people feel better (who are we to question their choice ?) , gives them opportunity for more social interaction or just helps establishing a life objective.... N.B.: I'm am sorry if you expected a religious zealot (I'm atheist).