BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quotes! (reopened)

Hello! I had fun with our last debate, so I decided to make another one. Don't feel like you have to accept, though. Totally up to you. If tennis47 does not join, this debate is free to anyone else. Good luck! "Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood." - William Shakespeare "It has always seemed strange to me... the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second." - John Steinbeck "Elmo loves everybody doesn't matter if your red, green, blue or even if you have hair or fur!" - Elmo "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice." - Bill Cosby "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
Quotes! (reopened)

(had to read this one over a few times to get it myself) "To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." - Nicolaus Copernicus "I never believed in Santa Claus because I knew no white dude would come into my neighborhood after dark." - Dick Gregory "I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph." - Shirley Temple "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." - George Carlin "I run six-to-eight miles a day, plus weights and aerobics in the lunch hour. I also lie a lot, which keeps me thin." - Hugh Laurie "It only takes a room of Americans for the English and Australians to realise how much we have in common." - Steven Fry "I remember the first time I heard a teenager say 'LOL.' Just what? But it means 'laugh.' Why don't you just laugh? What are you doing?" - J.K. Rowling "If there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers." - Charles Dickens I think I'll leave it at that. This was fun! Thanks for joining the debate. Good luck!
Quotes! (reopened)

"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."-Michelangelo "Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!"-Audrey Hepburn "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor."-Sholom Aleichem "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."-Confucius " Everything in life is luck."-Donald Trump ;)
Quotes! (reopened)

I see your Steve Martin quote, and I raise you a: "We are two wild and crazy guys!" - Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd (SNL) "Writing for adults often means just increasing the swearing - but find an alternative to swearing and you've probably got a better line." - Steven Moffat I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong." - John Lennon "I was in the bath at the time, and my dad came running in and said, 'Guess who they want to play Harry Potter!?' and I started to cry. It was probably the best moment of my life." - Daniel Radcliffe "I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets, even though they may be utterly uninhabited." - Patrick Stewart
Quotes! (reopened)

;) "A day without sunshine is like, you know, night."-Steve Martin "Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes."-Jim Carrey "Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive."-Elbert Hubbard "Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry."-Bill Cosby "A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths."-Steven Wright Happy Easter!
White People Should Eat Black People

There are many reasons black people are messed up. By now, they are already useless in the world, so why not just get rid of them once and for all? I honestly think it's better for the world that we destroy the black race, because they are the most violence race, they are too ugly & stupid, and they absorb too much damn sunlight. So why should we get white people to eat black people? Because this way, white people will have enough food to eat for ages to come.
White People Should Eat Black People

I accept, let's go for it. Twentieth debate, and you're still losing awfully bad. I like these debates, because I always win them. Let's see what nonsense you're preaching this time. Your topic today is a very morbid one, and insane to boot. We are not going to engage in large scale cannibalism just because you think we ought to. White people are not "automatically" supreme to black people- you have to provide some evidence as to why they're superior, or you're committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Eating all the black people on Earth will not solve overpopulation, it would be considered mass genocide. Their dark skin does not absorb too much sunlight, you don't know how global warming works. And you say there won't be any violence if we eat all the black people. I'd call cannibalism pretty violent. You sick pig.
White People Should Eat Black People

There are no reasons why black people are, as you put it, "messed up". They are NOT messed up, sir. They are not useless in the world- they comprise much of our workforce- and we are not going to eat them. You are insane. Please, go to your local psychiatrist and lie down and talk to him. Black people are not the "most violent" race, they have no instinctual tendency towards violence. They are not ugly or stupid, and they do not "absorb" sunlight, as you put it. Their skin is more reflective to sunlight. WHITE PEOPLE absorb sunlight- that's why we get hot. Nonetheless, their skin color does not pose any environmental problems whatsoever. I'm not sure why you don't consider mass cannibalism violent. If we ate all black people on the basis that they're violent, we'd be the biggest hypocrites in history. You're so ignorant, sir. So, SO ignorant. We are not going to kill black people for food. We have enough food. People might object to eating their own species. You imbecile.
Walrus101 Does Not Enjoy Cats.

I would like to recognize that I am NOT allergic to the felines. I also happen to support cats in all of their programs, such as tuna research, catnip cures, and space travel. Cats are one of the most productive animals to date, and I also enjoy their company. As a matter of fact, they can be categorized as my favorite animal. I am currently in research for a cure to catnip addiction. If you ask the cats if we are quote "Tight" they would respond that we are indeed tight, dawg.
A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence.

To conclude:My opponent is asserting that intelligence is a hinderance when deciding good policy by suggesting that inteligent people lack common sense presenting single article that mentions specifically a prepensity to believe psuedoscience rather than not searching for an explanation at all. I do not find this article persusaive when talking about intelligent people and decision-making as a whole and therefore have not addressed the phenomenon in detail. On the other hand, I have followed the definition of intelligence presented by my opponent that intelligent people are, in general, moe likely to make good and rational decisions. I also stated that an IQ of under 50 is where to draw the line. No one that has an IQ of under 50 should be allowed to vote.I am not going to address the new points my opponent has raised as it would be unfair as I forfeited a round.
A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence.

Thank you.Clever people and othersWhilst the less intelligent may generally have a harder time distinguishing good policies from bad policies, as I've said before, the intelligent have their hidnerances too. They tend to believe stupid things, just because they are better at rationalizing such absurdities, whilst their "lacking in the old noggin" counterparts wouldn't fall for it. [http://www.michaelshermer.com...;]So with each group of people having their advantages and disadvantages in this area, there's no reason why one should be singled out when it comes to voting.I feel that pro missed out on that when forming his argument.Democracy There's no reason why one regular citizen's vote should count more or less than another person's vote. It is their country as much as yours, so they should have equal say in how the country is run.Furthermore, you have the problem of drawing the line as to what IQ (or whatever system you'll use) is enough to be able to make a good enough decision.[http://www.un.org...]
A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence.

I will be arguing that votes of people that lack intelligence to make rational decisions should be discounted. I will be defining this as anyone with an IQ of less than 70: i.e. those that suffer from a general learning disability.Firstly, I apologise for forfeiting the last round. I was waiting for a moment when I had enough time to sit down and give this he thought that it deserves - that moment never came!Intelligence as the best predictor of ability to make a rational decisionMy opponent states that knowledge of the subject is more important than intelligence. It is inclear what subject he is referring to. What subject is important when deciding on a president? Perhaps economics, sociology, international relation - the list goes on. The fact is that there is no single subject that a person must have knowledge on to be able to identify a good candiate for presidency and the best indicator we have for whether someone will make a rational decision on who to vote for is intelligence.A high intelligence is linked to high academic achievement (1). With the definition my opponent has given we can clearly see that intelligent people are more likely to have to ability to aquire the knowledge they need to evaluate to make an informed decision on who to elect. Once they have gathered this knowledge they are then more able to form a rational conclusion based on it; they have an 'aptitude in grasping truths'.According to David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University voters generally lack the intelligence to distinquish good policies from bad(2). I argue that we resolve this by prohibiting voting of people that profoundly lack intelligence.Examples of the purposal in the USIn the states of Kentucky(3), Mississippi,(4) Ohio(5) and New Mexico(6) people with an extremely low IQ are already excluded from voting. Do not be fooled in to thinking that excluding such people is an extreme narzi-eque policy. It makes absolute sense to disallow the votes of people without the capacity to recognise good ideas. 1. http://psych.ut.ee...2. http://www.livescience.com...3. Kentucky Section 1454. Mississippi Constitution of the State of Mississippi article 12, section 241.5. New Mexico Constitution, Article VII, section 16. Ohio Constitution, Article V, Section 6
A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence.

Executing the plan Trying to actually to this would be a humungous obstacle. First, you need a test that you can be sure will show an accurate measure of intelligence. Second, you need every single person who is old enough to vote to take that test and make sure that they aren't cheating in away. Third, you need to create a fair system that figures out how much a person's vote would count, based on their intelligence. The massive hassle should make you question whether the whole idea is worth it anyway. But is it? Why Intelligence? Why should a person's vote count more or less based on intelligence? Intelligence certainly doesn't correlate with make better or worse decisions, what matters is knowledge on the subject, and that is not the same as intelligence, defined by an online dictionary as "capacity for learning, reasoning, undertsanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings etc. " [. http://goo.gl...]Furthermore, intelligent people tend to believe weird things just because they can defend them, which is further explained by Michael Shermer [. http://goo.gl...].Pro may argue now that the less intelligent's votes should count more, but the obvious flaw in that is that we won't get a better society because they, as defined by an online dictionary, less "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding. .. " and we certainly don't want that kind of voter. I thank you.
Universal Health care

The counter-argument that you'll hear to that is that the government will ration health care. Therefore, whether it has the money to spend is irrelevant, because the quality won't be nearly as good as it would have been in the private sector. Unlike the government which would have a monopoly, the private sector depends on competition and must respond to the demands of consumers.Also, raising taxes and cutting the military is a whole other thing that we shouldn't get into, but I'll briefly comment on anyway. Raising taxes would destroy jobs, and cutting the military would harm military readiness.
Universal Health care

You should define "universal healthcare." The implicaiton is that you're referring to the Affordable Care Act, or a Canadian/European-style single-payer healthcare system.Here's the problem with a universal, government-run system: rationing, long breadlines, and high costs. If you want high quality care, you need competition, and the only place to get competition is the free market. The reason health care is so expensive today is because of the heavy hand of government intervention.
The United States should go on the "attack" against ISIS

Hello! I would like to debate a current "hot topic" in our political military world, ISIS! I believed that the United States should actively persue ISIS members and territory both with military force and with foreign influence. When I say persue I mean actively start advancing an attacking style front on ISIS. I believe and will argue the current state of ISIS is not one that should be taken defensively, but on the attack. My opponent will argue to opposite, that the US should take a defensive style approach to means of dealing with ISIS. First round is for acceptance. PS - Offensive style / defensive style are battle terms relating to combating an enemy and approaches as to which is strategically better based on opinion. Both terms are opinion and cannot be easily defined, therefor the best I can say is use common sense. We are all smart here, let's stay away from semantics on what is an offensive approach and what is a defensive approach, don't be that guy/girl.
In In Defense of Evil part 2 of 3: A Wide Scale Eugenics program would be beneficial to the U.S.A

Conclusion:As we can see, a Eugenics program would not be benefical to the United States because it's immoral, costly, and unecessary to use. With breakthroughs in medical technology, and with research and medicine. . New diseases are being cured and or treated. With our national debt, we wouldn't be able to afford this program. Also, it is immoral to determine how a child should be born. We are not God, and we can't make decisions how a child should live or die.
In In Defense of Evil part 2 of 3: A Wide Scale Eugenics program would be beneficial to the U.S.A

This is part 2 of 3, in my defending evil series.Here is part 1 http://www.debate.org...The title of the series is different then the resolution. As pro I will be arguing that a large scale eugenics program would be beneficial to the United States.I've limited the debate to people who have completed 5 debates. This is to avoid forfeits in a debate, I put a lot of effort into. If you have less then 5 debates and you message me explaining that you will see this through and provide a competent argument then I will adjust the settings so you can join.Round 1-acceptanceRound 2/3- Arguments and rebuttalsRound 4- no new arguments. Rebuttals and closing statements. Also, if I need to amend this debate to make it more fair then let me know.
Love Does Not Exist

I argue that many forms of love do not exist, but there is one which is defined according to Wiki as "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another" The fact that it can be brought to science does not deny it's existence, but confirms it. Abstractly, you admit that love exists. It's the particular past experiences and lifestyles that bring people together. Only true love can do that. I've seen it happen though it's very rare because people are caught up in self. People will focus more on pain, grudges, insecurities, trust issues, etc. (including some of my friends) rather than on love, so they never find it, but love still exists. The media and society paints an unrealistic picture of love. Romantic love does not exist. Love is in a small place, hidden from many. Love is the reality when you can completely appreciate the good and bad even if it is repulsive to society. Love is not about affection, sex, kissing, any of that, it's about simple communication and compromise. It's based on compassion and loyalty.
Love Does Not Exist

No, this is what I am saying, there is not love as well as lust/infatuation, as you state. Just because you have "feelings" for another person, it does not mean that it is either love or lust. I am saying that there is not true love, but I am not saying that therefore it must be lust. It is still possible to feel a connection with another person, a bond, without being lustful after them. It's about something deep inside, simply a static feeling, nothing more. I agree that relationships fail because of a lack of effort, as well as the attributes you mentioned. But these are not all a part of "love". They are simply qualities some people possess, while others do not. Your sister, as you mention, feels a connection to this man, however this feeling can simply be brought back to science, and how her particular mind works. The way you feel towards someone else may be because of certain similarities in both of your pasts, or your general lifestyles. This explains couples and the relationship they share.
Love Does Not Exist

That kind of love exists in the world. Many relationships fail because of the lack of love. Trust, confidence, honesty, loyalty, commitment, effective communication, courage, love, boundaries, forgiveness, reconciliation, you name it are all part of love. The reason why relationships fail is because people lack these things. Feelings because of gender, creed, religion, family, nationality, appearance are all superficial and will eventually fade in time, but that is not love, that is lust/infatuation. Love is complete acceptance of another person's flaws and strengths. My sister is very confident, considered to be very attractive by many guys, very straight-forward, honest, trust-worthy, loyal and committed, an effective communicator, loving, has boundaries, etc. while her boyfriend is considered to be very unattractive and lacks alot of confidence, has a brain disorder, always plays games, seems very unsociable, etc. but they love each other and have been together for more than 2 years. I've also met people who been together for over 30-40 years.
Love Does Not Exist

What I am stating is that there are certain feelings that one person can have for someone else. It is a feeling that may, in certain cases, surpass gender, creed and class, relations, nationality, race etc. It is one of the strongest feelings that man may possibly hold. However, this is not what people describe as "love". Love is commonly defined as an unbreakable bond that say, a couple with a marital status share. But almost all emotions are inconstant, variable, and are always in a state of flux. What I believe people say "love" is, is simply a feeling that does not fade, and relies on constant hard work and effort. But this is not the same as "love" what people commonly say is something that may strike you, something that you can not shake no matter what you do. Something that is "meant to be".
Barack Obama was recently pwnt by Rio de Janeiro

:It's quite clear that there's a lot of people who really do NOT like Obama. Mostly not in our country, because we just eat him up like apple pie, because he's black and trying so hard. http://pewglobal.org... This means that the world hearts Obama, especially compared to Bush. Those are VERY high approval numbers. And, indeed, most of his strong dislikers happen to be conservatives and libertarians, both of which are largely American phenomena ("conservatives" overseas are a whole different thing, and "libertarians" overseas are almost nonexistent except in a few isolated places in New Zealand. :Anyways, there are people that don't like him, and, well, some might have voted against Chicago in spite of him. You seriously think that countries concentrate their anti-Obama types on the "committee for socialized sports," AKA Olympics committees? :I mean, last time I checked, Obama didn't do too much to help out Brazil or Denmark. http://online.wsj.com... Eh? As for Denmark, they don't really need direct help except for Obama to continue fighting in the Middle East so Europe doesn't have to and thus Denmark can keep its gargantuan welfare state on the money they save off defense. My earlier source showed Brazil's approval numbers for Obama. These aren't recent but Denmark had him at 70% when the elections were going on http://www.huffingtonpost.com....
Barack Obama was recently pwnt by Rio de Janeiro

I underestimated you, Ragnar_Rahl, but I don't think I ever should have or did in the first place. It's quite clear that there's a lot of people who really do NOT like Obama. Mostly not in our country, because we just eat him up like apple pie, because he's black and trying so hard. And he promised Change, so that must be coming soon to a theater near you. Anyways, there are people that don't like him, and, well, some might have voted against Chicago in spite of him. I mean, last time I checked, Obama didn't do too much to help out Brazil or Denmark. Because they aren't the issue. They're like The Netherlands; no one really cares what's going on there, so we don't focus on it, we focus on the stuff that makes our country seem like we're doing something in Afghanistan or something (but we're not! Oh ho ho!). It is pretty obvious that it doesn't take a world to vote. And I know that, but it also doesn't take a lot of people to rig an election with their own opinions. I look back at what I just said, and its a little hard to comprehend, but since I don't like to go back and edit, I don't care. Your move Ragnar
Barack Obama was recently pwnt by Rio de Janeiro

Oh ho ho, in comes Mr. Serious Business. I guess you're taking this debate in that way. It wasn't to be... Anyways, so, its a conspiracy? I knew it; Obama is calling the shots for the entire world, mostly Denmark. I mean, that's who voted, right? He IS in control of the whole world. I knew it. HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, he doesn't control the world and their votes; the entire world isn't Iran, is it?
Barack Obama was recently pwnt by Rio de Janeiro

Barack isn't THAT stupid. He knows how much money the Olympics would cost, how much his health care proposal would cost, and how much the government's funding model is strained right now. He probably arranged it himself behind the scenes, and made his "public support" just so he could have plausible deniability. That way he can declare, when it comes time for federal grants to states to go around again, "You guys ain't in need, you had all these plans for the Olympics, grab the revenue you wanted to use for that."