BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Its better not to live in the matrix

My opponent argues that it is better to live in a matrix than in the real world. Two main reasons are offered: first, that ignorance is bliss, and second, that the real world offers danger and tragedy. This is an interesting debate, as it really seems to come down to one of the ultimate existential questions: what is the point of our lives? I believe that for my opponent to argue that ignorance is bliss, they must also take the position that the only point to life is enjoyment. My position is that the main point to our lives is to better ourselves as a species, and thus, ignorance is most detrimental. Now, to directly respond to my opponent's arguments: "Ignorance is bliss. What we do not know cannot hurt us." Untrue. What we don't know can and does hurt us. If we do not know we have a disease, we cannot treat it. If we do not know how to properly use something, we may injure ourselves with it. Even within a matix, we still have physical bodies that can be harmed if we do not know what is going on with them. Furthermore, intentional ignorance prevents us from gaining knowledge, which is detrimental to our intellects and to our descendants. "Living in an altered, dream-like world that is hiding us from the harmful truth can be benificial to us then suffering and living in reality." Beneficial, how? One may have more general fun in the matrix, but one will not learn how to live in reality or grow as a species.
The Media and Bernie Sanders

Con states in his conclusion that "The media does not need to treat Bernie Sanders fairly or take him more seriously as a Presidential Candidate because 1. News is opinion based 2. Big money invested in Hillary is depending on her win to secure $ for the future in the Big 6 Media Oligarchy.3. Polling facts are the strongest data submitted which is neither empirical nor relevant to the media's agenda. Most of your sources come from Hillary's contributors. " Counter Argument Let me first state, I am using the word need to stress that I feel this is an obligation to treat Bernie Sanders as a legitimate candidate. The reason? Because, America is choosing a leader, and regardless if they are "a good guy with bad ideas" they have an obligation to treat every legitimate candidate seriously. Now Con argues that they have no obligation, because they are opinion based, depending on Hillary Clinton's win to secure cash for the future of the Big 6 media oligarchy, and polling data is irrelevant to the media's agenda. My opponent makes a good point. However I am not arguing that they have an obligation to there contributors, they have an obligation to there viewers. Though news is opinion based, as my opponent cites that there is a media oligarchy, therefore unfortunately for my opponent that strengthens my argument therefore making the obligation they have even larger. Lastly my opponent argues that polling factors are irrelevant, but my the point that I am trying to make is: The media has a need to provide fair and balanced (no pun intended) information to there audience. So the poll numbers were relevant, because it shows that he is a legitimate candidate (more so than a lot currently running in both the Democratic and Republican party). Conclusion: The media as a necessity to treat Bernie Sanders fairly or take him more seriously because: 1. He has strong support (even coming from biased sources as my opponent points out) and therefore is a legitimate candidate. 2. The news has no business infusing their opinion into information that is important to the viewer. I await my opponent's response.
The Media and Bernie Sanders

Instigator states "The media "needs" to take Bernie Sanders more seriously as a Presidential Candidate.Argument 1:The media can report however they would like. The majority of news reports are op-eds ("opinion" editorials). http://www.businessinsider.com...Study I linked focuses on GE, Newscorp & Timewarner. Which covers more than half of the news.Argument 2:The Instigator may think there are many news outlets reporting unfairly but I would be surprised to know if the "instigator" knows this: http://www.therealstrategy.com... 6 companies control 90% of what we all read, watch and listen to.Hillary Clinton has received massive contributions from at least half of those companies, Here is the list of her largest contributors: https://www.opensecrets.org...You will notice on that list, there is "Time Warner", "Cablevision Systems", "21st Century Fox". Those 3 companies control massive amounts of media. Also Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup and JPMorgan probably own more than half of General Electric who owns Comcast and NBC. These companies don't donate to Sanders or report for Sanders. They are essentially the same companies with the SAME AGENDA.Argument 3: Your sources that show Bernie supposedly being unfairly treated are biased sources. Politico is a sister company of RealClearPolitics. Both of which are owned by who? http://www.breitbart.com... The Chinese who are contributing to Hillary's Campaign. http://www.cbsnews.com...;Also, the Huff Post you cited twice is owned by "TIME WARNER".I think the only 2 media outlets Hillary is not in bed with are Disney and CBS. Your only source that isn't biased is the washingtonpost which is owned by Amazon.Conclusion:The media does not need to treat Bernie Sanders fairly or take him more seriously as a Presidential Candidate because 1. News is opinion based 2. Big money invested in Hillary is depending on her win to secure $ for the future in the Big 6 Media Oligarchy.3. Polling facts are the strongest data submitted which is neither empirical nor relevant to the media's agenda. Most of your sources come from Hillary's contributors. By the way, Bernie is a good guy with bad ideas. Increasing taxes for the rich demotivates people to advance in their careers. This will stall growth and increase the divide between elites and everyone else. There is no such thing as trickle down or "redistribution of wealth". Socialism makes more people poor. Look at history. "YOU ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING" - Frank Underwood
The Media and Bernie Sanders

My position inn the debate is that the media needs to take Bernie Sanders more seriously as a candidate for the president of The United States of America. Con will argue that he is deserving the treatment given by the media, or that he isn't being treated poorly by the media as a candidate. I encourage anyone to debate me on this subject, but I would prefer members of the democratic party. Opening remarks: In my belief Bernie Sanders is being treated poorly as a candidate for the nomination of the president of The United States of America. The media tends to either scrutinize him or ignore him, even though he is polling at 17% nationally and growing rapidly in important states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. (Eg: from 14% to 32% in New Hampshire, 41% in the Wisconsin Democratic party straw poll, and a jump from 12% to 24% in Iowa) Then there are the crowds he draws 11,000 people in Arizona, the most of any candidate. However, the media doesn't treat him as (in my opinion) he should be. Where is the argument for that? Well, let's take Ben Carson for example. He is polling at around 6.4%, which is okay, but however the media, when bringing him up, doesn't attack him/ his supporters, because he most likely won't win, they just interview him, give the news on him, or bring him up in a poll. Now for Bernie Sanders, (even though he Is polling much better than Ben Carson) will aggressively attack him as shown in the video below. That is what I am trying to point out in this debate. I await my opponent's response, whoever that may be. Sources 1. #t=295 2. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.politico.com... 4. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 6. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
Riddle

Gross and no she shot a photo of him with a camera!Next Riddle:A man and a woman were driving in their car when it broke down. The man decided to go for help at a gas station a few miles back. He made sure nobody was in the car, rolled all the windows up, and locked all of the sedan's doors. He went off, but when he came back, his wife was dead, and there was a stranger in the car. No physical damage was done to the car, so how did the stranger get in?
It is better to use an email than to use the post office.

It is NOT better to use email than to use the post office. 3 points. 1. Not everyone knows how to/able to use email. One cannot send messages to/ receive messages from people who are not able to use email, which includes those that do not feel they can afford an internet subscription, suffer from epilepsy, are unsure of how to use a computer, have health difficulties such as arthritis which make using a computer painful, have religious beliefs that make using a computer sinful, or for any other reason, don't want an email account. It is not right for this part of society to be cut off of the rest, because they do not use email. 2. The postal service is good for America. The United States Postal Service is the second biggest employer in the United States, and is an organization whose revenues go towards pushing down the federal budget defecit. The usage of email has rapidly eroded the amount of letters being sent first class, which has resulted in reductions in the amount of people employed. Less people employed means that the economy will be in worse shape, because China and other hostile nations will own even more federal debt that was formerly paid off by the USPS, and more money will be in the hands of bourgeoisie elitists who run the telecoms that people pay for access to the internet. 3. You can't send anything other than information through emails. Text, audio, video, pictures, chain letters that call Barack Obama a Muslim, all things that are frequently sent by email. The only problem is that all of these things are simply pieces of information, and are non-tangible, in the sense that they can not be touched or utilized outside of a computer, or a device that can read the information. You can't email a pound of swiss cheese. You can't email a record player. You can't email a coffee mug, and you definitely can't email a paper clip. The list goes on and on. The only way that one can transmit any of these items out of the options that the resolution provides, is through the post office. Post office wins, because you can mail anything through there, not just representations of information. Also, the post office provides jobs to hardworking Americans, and does not care if you address someone as John Doe, john doe, John doe, or john Doe, as an email provider would. To refute, mailing a letter first class costs 42ï¿½ an ounce, which is not all that much money at all, when you consider that you can fit much more than just representations of information through the mail at that rate. You could send a pencil, or a gazillion other things that would be useful immediately at opening. I'm sorry, but email just sucks. Post office is the way to go.
Rap battle

Listen to me man, try to understand the best you can. I never was dropped on my head, and Dr. Seuss sure aint dead. I made it far without my car, but in the end i'm still not a star. No matter the things we do we can't hide the nature behind our true intentions. I mean who wants all the cars, money, fame, attention, bars honeys, games, affection? Now what about you, spittin your raps at me like you someone. Well let me tell you son, you ain't no one. I know i aint. Now your gonna sit there and tell me that you kill? When in reality that serves us no skill. I want you to get off my jock, or you the one to get rocked. Stop cussin man, this is a clean place. No need for petty violence here, of you get no love from your fans. Thanks, i'm out.
Rap battle

Bro, you rhymed far and car, did you get dropped on your HEAD? And you rhymed hear and clear, but I thought dr Seuss was DEAD. I mean ya, you had more rhymes then me, but its quality over QUANTITY. You think you can rap? Your just a washed up fu@@in WANNABE. And guess what? Im thinking of you, when I'm shooting hoes on the BLOCK. Call me a " hating little man " bitc@ get off my jock
Rap battle

I'm not gonna tell you why i'm here, i just got to make my point clear. Don't be hassling me all over that little petty sh1t, or else you just might be the one to get hit. Rocking you back where you stand, you aint nothing but a hating little man. Wallowing in his own world, trying to fight through. But you can't, you done gave up that fight long ago. ^I guess i'll tell you why i'm here now, i got to ask myself why am i here, how? Okay, it's not easy for me to push through life how it is so far. Especially when your too broke to get a car.^ Not so hard you say? Well i'd like you to say that again, i didn't hear you through all of this sin, i'll say it again just one more time. ^I guess i'll tell you why i'm here now, i got to ask myself why am i here, how? Okay, it's not easy for me to push through life how it is so far. Especially when your too broke to get a car.^ Round one, ding ding. Lets start this fight, reach our new heights. The ones of lowlifes, scrapping for nothing and everything. You think you gonna win, think again here i come again watch your back. ^I guess i'll tell you why i'm here now, i got to ask myself why am i here, how? Okay, it's not easy for me to push through life how it is so far. Especially when your too broke to get a car.^ About time my story ends, retiring my old self back to my home. You better get out of here, or else you'll have to see me come back, you better not. Peace.
Rap battle

See I'm a grown man, I go to work wondering if my boss is gonna FIRE ME. WHILE THIS BI@@@ sits on his bed, writing in his DIARY. Your fake dawg, see, I grew up in the GHETTO. While I'm shootin nigg@@ down, your shopping for STILLETOS. Know matter what he does this punk gets REJECTION, the mirror breaks in half, when he tries to look at his REFLECTION. He's been kicked in the nuts so many times, his balls are YELLOW. I bet his big fat man boobs, look exactly like JELLO.
Gay Marriage.

Let me just come out and say that my opponent's last response sickens me. He must fear these points if the most he can do is degrade them on a social level (IE, they're false, they're homophobic, they're unfair, all of which are lies by the way). Ever hear of Class Warfare? Happens when one class is denied something due to pre-existing conditions that the other doesn't have. If you take marriage away from heterosexuals, there will be GLOBAL -Moral- Class Warfare. There are some issues people do not care what a government has to say on, and there are some issues people fight and die for. A sacred heterosexual (and make NO mistake, it IS a heterosexual institution!) institution since the beginning of time is one! This will cause the downfall of civilization. The amount of rage that would be felt by straights essentially being told to "Shut the **** up and deal with it." would be infinitesimal. And due to the fact weapons are purchasable, this could very well be WW3 as outlandish as you may believe. "Separate but Equal", what a joke! This is not segregation or discrimination! Since we cannot prove that you are born gay, there is no discrimination, besides the fact it is a straight service created by straights reserved for straight people! Gays don't like being told no on this, ladies and gentleman, it's an infuriating spit in the face to label straights as being unfair when we don't let you pull Eminent Domain on us! The Hatfields and McCoy's killed each other off over a stolen pig. You really want to chance Gays and Straights doing the same over marriage? Let me just tell you, my opponent is a liar with the statement "Civil Unions do not grant the same benefits". They most definitely do, and the majority of straights are fine with this. But it's not enough because gays are prideful creatures and what they want they will attempt to get. The only injustice is the stealing under the guise of Civil Rights of our marriage from us! If gays had any case for this they wouldn't be constantly interfering in our schools and court systems commanding everyone to believe their way is the "One True Way" sounds very zealot like, doesn't it? Gays don't care about the consequences and they don't care about straights. If they did, they'd cut corners like us and accept Civil Unions. My opponent is a die hard, try hard LGBT supporter just due to the way he advocates. If not by word, by action. We will never see eye to eye, I'm sure. But the readers of this may. Straights world wide are begging not to let this happen. It is a gross injustice, forget if it's morally wrong based on biblical reasons, it is morally wrong because you can't just take something for nothing and just because you want it. Ladies and gentleman, I plead you to examine my points and change your point of view to see what we feel regarding this. Thank you.
Gay Marriage.

Separation of Church and StatePro is laboring under the impression that government recognition and acceptance of gay marriage would represent interference with religions. This is false. There mere acceptance of gay marriage from a legal perspective does not confer any restrictions on how religions recognize marriage from their perspective. As stated, where gay marriage is accepted, explicit mention is made that this does not prevent religious institutions from discriminating as they see fit. Religious marriage and legal marriage have always been separate and distinct concepts. You can be married in the eyes of the government, but not any religion, and vice versa.Finally, the Episcopalian Church recognizes gay marriages[1].Patent "theory."While McDonald's has a monopoly on McDonald's, he doesn't have a monopoly on burgers, fries, or fast food in general. The point is still invalid.ThreatsPro fails to elaborate the mechanism by which gay marriage will result in these enumerated threats.Civil UnionsCivil unions aren't the same as marriage and don't confer the same benefits or effects[2]. This is another failed example of "Separate but Equal."Remaining PointsPro's remaining points seem to be a thinly veiled homophobic attack on that which Pro fears or does not understand and do not have anything to do with whether or not Gays should be allowed to get married.[1]http://www.cnn.com...[2]http://www.debatepolitics.com...
Gay Marriage.

My opponent is quite fond of dodging bullets. Separation of Church and State and essentially another form of Checks and Balances. It prevents the government from creating an "entanglement" either religiously or legally. Given marriage was created by religious straights, it most definitely is an interference into the Church, the Synagogue, and the Mosque. No religion on this planet endorses same-sex marriage. My opponent has you believe that marriage is a "legal status". How cold and calculating is that, not to mention being completely false as evidenced by history. Just because a judge, who is a mortal man not a God, says "Marriage is a legal status", does not mean it is. Marriage was only regulated by the religious institutions until government became more prominent. My opponent believes that my marriage/patent theory is invalid when it couldn't be more true. To quote him from an opinion thread on this site: "Nobody has the monopoly on marriage." Really. So how is it there is more straight marriages than gay? The creator of McDonald's, does this individual have the monopoly? Of course, he created it. My opponent has stated numerous times that despite the fact straights made marriage? Gays can and will, take it. This is the attitude that is extraordinarily dangerous. It's fascism and bias. My remaining points are as follows. Gays speak about emotional trauma, what bigger emotional trauma than straights having to realize they've won, their children who would have been straight have now been stamped to believe by lesbian and gay teachers that it's normal (yet science can't prove this). So tolerance and sensitivity is dead here. Gays already have a superiority complex. I have experienced it constantly and logic dictates this is a little thing called a pattern. They believe (they campaign on it) that they are entitled to things that they are denied, and such a trivial thing. They want it, so they think they'll get it. Spoiled. Gays persecute anyone who disagrees with them via peer pressure. Anyone. This is not equality so it can only get worse if this "Gay Marriage" is legal. They cannot have children, and on the most basic of levels, this is an existential threat the more they grow in population. Until extinction. Doesn't matter how long it takes, it will happen as children are manipulated. Gays cannot compromise. They could have Civil Unions with every single benefit of marriage. But no. They want the one thing we have made it exceedingly clear they have been told "No" on. So they bitch and moan and mark it down as a Civil Rights issue when marriage is a privilege for one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. These are how civilization will fall.
Gay Marriage.

(Using my same standpoints as all are valid and relevant.) Separation of Church and State works both ways, therefore on legal grounds? This issue should be locked away indefinitely. Gays bring up the "fact" that it is a "Civil Rights" issue. First off, marriage was created by straights. As a patent owner, do you not have rights to said patent? As the creators of marriage, do we not have the right to reserve it? Do you have any idea how many issues this causes? So if I had a birthday party, and I only invited Joe, John, and Susie, should I be vilified and legally punished/rendered irrelevant because somebody whined a little too loud? The action of allowing Gay Marriage has the cataclysmic effect of giving a spoiled child a toy. It will cause reverse discrimination, and destroy traditional marriage. The argument is "Well, they should be able to be with who they love, no one is forcing you to do it, so it doesn't cause any harm." Oh, so if being discriminated against for being gay and living with that everyday isn't okay, straights having to know for the rest of eternity that someone essentially stole our children's free will is? Gays are like caged animals. Aggressive because they are cornered with no way out regarding explanations. Every explanation (AKA it's biological) was made by a straight. Give a mouse a cookie? This is give a brat an excuse and he'll use it. I can't even think of a word for how spoiled an individual would be to have to think they deserve something automatically that is so clearly a choice. Blacks were born black, and this is undeniable. So if I'm white, and I say I deserve your black skin because I have a right to want it... what kind of argument is this! I'll tell you: it's "The I want it so Give Me" argument. Civil Unions with all the same benefits? Fine, stop spending money and time when we have existential threats going on, on this ridiculous matter. Not gonna do much good if you're dead. But this compromise isn't enough and it shows the sheer arrogance of the LGBT. Gay Marriage is a falsity. The fact the word "Gay" is before the word "Marriage" makes it a separate entity (therefore by Separation of Church and State it must be referred to differently) and a perversion of it. Straights cannot co-exist in a world where "Gay Marriage" is legal. There is an existential threat in showing kids pictures of women on women and man on man. It's literally brainwashing. How ludicrous is this argument, honestly? They're born this way, but they use their minds, their free will! To tell you about it. To "come out". To actively live the life. They have the choice not to be (and I have heard MANY gays tell me they tried not to be) so obviously the choice was there to become gay if they can choose not to be. Gays aren't kicked to the curb here, straights are. This is a tyrannical move. There is no gay gene. It's only their word, and of course they'll never tell the truth. This can only bring death, destruction, and the extinction of humanity.