BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
holloween or valintines day

Al right then time to begin. Halloween is superior to valentines day because: . It has more to offer gift wise than valentines day- Halloween is probably most enjoyed for the candy. It is a time where a wide variety of edible items are given away for free. Halloween is a time when people actually give out free things to people who appear randomly at the door, the gift process for valentines day is very selective and only certain people receive gifts, whereas on Halloween everyone is entitled to gifts regardless of form. .Referring to pros argument- Religion is not a factor here, we are debating whether Halloween or valentines day is better, sin does not come into the argument.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

Read your profile. "Quite frankly doing nothing at all". The reason I took longer than you to write something is because I work. Given what I've read in your profile, it's probably a fair bet you're going to grow up to be a leach on society and "doing nothing" will be considered your career. OK, fair. You won because in my haste to squeeze this debate into a working, meaningful life contributing to society I didn't get your round order nonsense right. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get some sleep so I can wake up tomorrow morning and work so that I can generate tax dollars for the government to pay for lazy liberal leaches like yourself so you can sit on your rear end and never have to contribute to society.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

That statement further shows that you did ignore the rules. My rules state that round two is opening statements/arguments. When you accept a debate on DDO when it is acceptance only you say "I accept" and greet your opponent. You clearly did not read any of my rules in round one. Which were clearly stated. I understand that Con. But, the rules clearly stated "No arguments in the first round". Thus, all seven points go to the opposition which would be me in this case. You can signal your defeat now by rule violation or the voters will handle it.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

I didn't post an argument; I posted an opening statement. What else was I supposed to write for Round 1 other than a response to your allegation? You as the pro made a statement, I as the con rebutted it. That is the way civil debate works. Now you have a chance to rebut any points I made. And you should have better defined qualification if in fact what you're asking for is a debate about whether Trump will be a successful President. If you'd like to have that debate that's fine; define your allegation better. Of course that would be a much more subjective debate rather than the legal one your original premise implied.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

Con has violated a rule that I outlined in round one all points go to the opposition. I clearly stated that there is to be no arguments in the first round. Then I said "If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to opposition." Since con accepted the debate he agreed to the rules thus meaning he agreed with my rules but refused to follow them. This is breaking the rules which I clearly stated. All points to Pro. By the way..... By qualified I mean "Fit to the president" and that he is presidential and would be suitable for office.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

The Constitutional requirements are very clear (except perhaps in the case of Ted Cruz, but that's a topic for another day and a moot point regardless since he's dropped out.) Donald Trump is a natural-born citizen, he is at least 35 years old, he has lived in the country for at least 14 years, he has not served two terms as President, he has never been an impeached President. Even the more common but still non-legally-binding arguments wouldn't prove him unqualified. He has no criminal record. Any claim that the President should have held public office before fails both in the fact that this is stated nowhere in the Constitution and on precedent; both Grant and Eisenhower's tenure as POTUS was their first public office. If you're asking whether or not Donald Trump's credentials imply that he will be a good President, that is a very different question. Also, while I fully realize it's not germane to this debate I feel obliged to make the point anyway since certain GOP candidates such as Marco Rubio and Trump himself have made a claim to the contrary, but Hillary Clinton is also legally qualified to be the POTUS.
Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States

Hello everyone! This will be one of my biggest debates ever! R1: Will be Con's acceptance and the introduction to the debate by Pro R2: Opening Arguments; NO REBUTTALS R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and Conclusions no new arguments No trolling No swearing No arguments in the first round If any of these rules are violated all seven points go to the opposition I will be arguing that Donald Trump is not qualified for president of the United States. Con will be arguing that Donald Trump is qualified for president of the US. This is a closed debate.
Jon Jones will defeat Rashad Evans at UFC 145

I can see what you are saying but if im perfectly honest i wasnt highlighting Dan severn as one form of unbeatable legend but instead as an experienced fighter, 125 fights can obviously highlight that he has come up against someone with Jones' skills before and seeing as he won 100 out of 125 would seem to imply he won. (could have lost but unlikely) Also 'The beast' also remarked how he showed Rashad Evans EVERYTHING. Also i saw an interview on UFC.com with Evans, he states that he is watching jon jones fights and has already picked ot several holes in his game he can exploit and hopefully come away with the win. (i cant find any myself though) Personally i cant argue with Jones' statistics and if im honest i dont want him to lose he is a very good fighter but i want rashad to win. Jones will get frustrated easy and wil start usin illegal moves and possibly another DQ? I think even is Evans wins this fight he should be calling it a day soon if he can beat jones he will have nothing less to prove and like i have stated in life before luck has a lot to do with fighting :)
Jon Jones will defeat Rashad Evans at UFC 145

While I do think training with such a legend and experienced fighter like Dan Severn can help a fighter, it can only help so much as Severn was never a striker. He was more of a wrestler, and submission type of guy. His record, while impressive in the standpoint of the amount wins isn't really that impressive when you see who he actually beat. I know he beat Forrest Griffin which is a good win but again that was Forrest Griffin's first pro fight, as compared to Severn's 58th. The point that I'm getting too with Severn is that he really hasn't beaten too many notables, and he is more of a one dimensional guy so him training with Rashad will obviously help but only so much. Jon Jones on the other hand has a solid camp under the tutelage of Greg Jackson. Rashad used to be in that camp but then for obvious reasons that we MMA fans know he left too the Blackzillans. Greg Jackson's camp includes: George St. Pierre (WW UFC Champion), Carlos Condit (interim UFC WW Champion), Tom Watson (MW BAMMA Champion), Clay Guida, Deigo Sanchez, Nate Marquardt, Donald Cerrone, Yoshihiro Akiyama, Tim Kennedy, Shane Carwin, etc.... So it's a solid camp that's filled with champions and former champions. Anyways, Jon Jones like I said before has yet to be outworked or presented a problem in which he was in danger of losing a fight. He also finishes most of his fights. His solid wrestling, unorthodox striking has presented problems for every opponent not to mention his huge reach advantage over every fighter (84.5) Jones has never been taken down, and has faced off pretty good wrestlers in Vladdy Matyushenko, Ryan Bader, Matt Hamill, and even Machida + Rua have strong backgrounds to get fighters to the ground. Not to mentioned he has also never been swept in the UFC Jones has avoided 67% of the strikes thrown at him which is staggering because it just shows he uses his range very effectively to avoid such strikes thrown at him. Rashad recently fought Phil Davis and while winning pretty easily he didn't really look good at all to tell you the truth. I've been watching UFC for awhile to know what Rashad Evans is capable but against a guy like Phil Davis I expected him to be better. His striking wasn't effective but he showed solid wrestling. Jon Jones is just so unpredictable and with his reach, range, wrestling. I just don't see Rashad being able to keep pace with Jones. source: http://www.ufc.com...
Jon Jones will defeat Rashad Evans at UFC 145

Ok well i can see that you are an avid MMA fan but this is why i think rashad will come away with the victory: Rashad evans spent years under the tutelage of Dan "the beast" Severn. who if you didnt know had 125 MMA fights in his career winning 100, Losing 18, and drawing 7. When you have been trained by a veteran such as the beast you are surely going to pick up certain ways to defeat every opponent tht you may come against. I do believe rashad has had 20 fights :S i think and has come away with the victory 18 times and only lost once.... That would appear to show that jon jones has a 15 wins to 1 loss record And Rashad evans has a 18 wins to 1 loss record, which is the better but only slightly. but let me take a moment to weigh up his chances.... Rashad evans uses Gaidojutsu, Gaidojutsu combines techniques from wrestling, kickboxing, judo, basic grappling, brazilian jiu-jitsu and kickboxing. As i am not aware of jon jones specific techniques i think you will agree that rashad evans commands a very broad repetoire and should be able to cope with anything Jones throws at him. Of course you cant argue with the results Jones has pulled out but i would personally give Evans the edge. Dont think im saying Evans will walk all over him because it will be a very close fought bout.... but it think evans just has the edge for me :) I hope to continue debating with you :)
Jon Jones will defeat Rashad Evans at UFC 145

I am truly sorry I missed out on the first debate. I am excited though, that you have challenged me. Let's start it up again, this time I will start out with a better opening argument. Good Luck! Argument: Jon Jones will defeat Rashad Evans at UFC 145 Let me first say, Rashad Evans is a worthy opponent and it should be a great fight for MMA fans. I think the fight will be interesting, and a very hyped fight. BUT, I do not see Rashad Evans walking away with the belt in this one. For one, Jon Jones as we all know has yet to be defeated or outworked by anyone. Yes, he has one loss but that was by DQ and that fight should of been called way before the illegal elbows did occur. The fact that no one has yet to really put it to him or put him in a dangerous spot where he could lose is alarming. He's always won outright or in dominant fashion. Experience: Because Rashad Evans is the older fighter one might think he is more experience but Jon Jones had 16 fights under his belt (10 of which were in the UFC), and Rashad Evans has 18 fights under his belt (14 of which were in the UFC). Given that Jones is 24, and Evans 32, one might think Rashad really has an edge in experience but he really doesn't. Yes, he's been around longer in terms of age but experience develops inside the octagon. Notables he's beaten: Lyoto Machida: Former champion who brutally knocked out Rashad Evans "Shogun" Rua: Former champion who beat Machida for the belt, and is a highly decorated fighter "Rampage" Jackson: Another former champion, who had beaten Machida as well. Ryan Bader: A rising star who beat up Rampage in Japan just recently Vladimir Matyushenko and Stephan Bonnar - 2 solid Vets of the sport I have more in store for the later rounds, awaiting your response. Good Luck!
mother theresa did Not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize

Wrong, Mother Teresa did deserve the Nobel Prize. When traveling she had an "oppifiney" that told her to help the poor. She went to help the poor by living with them, trying to better the world. It was not what she had discovered but what she had done to help the world that got her the Nobel Prize. I will display a longer argument when my opponent shows clear evidence of why she did not deserve it. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
mother theresa did Not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize

mother theresa was a delusional clown and in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize showed that humans error. Her name and any other names of people, places or things that claim religious lunacy Do Not deserve to be capitalized. Politically incorrect or Not, that pile of DNA devalues the words mother and prize. She encouraged suffering more than jerry sandusky encouraged 10 yr olds to get naked :) No Rules. Go Nuts
Gay And lesbian Marriage is right.

Hello there,Some of you may recognize me from my other account,(which is still on,but I'm not using so send me anything to this one instead. The other account is a similar Username. If you can't figure it out,don't message me.)but I've made another instead. But enough bout me,I'm here for a debate. I will be taking the Con side for Homosexuality,and in this argument there will be no specific way that we'll post,just say what you wanna and let the people decide who was better. Thank you.
The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games

The movie does not automatically assume the we will sympathize with the characters is just turns out that way. Katniss is far from perfect and that is why she is relatable. Yes she has strengths but she also has weaknesses as well. She would do anything for her family and can be stubborn when she has her mind made up. When each child is killed in the movie it is a tragedy because they are young and still had their whole lives ahead of them. The hunger games was a great movie with great plot and amazing characters.
The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games

The fact that the film assumes that the situation the kids are in is enough to automatically make us sympathize and connect deeply with them is one of the reasons why it doesn't work very well. This was something that Battle Royale (A film many have accused The Hunger Games of ripping off) did very well, putting people who's personalities we got to know in peril. I would argue that not many HG characters have that much personality. Cato is a one-dimensional bad guy (As is President Snow, probably more so), Rue only exists so we can cry when she dies, Foxface was useless. Even Katniss seems a little too much of a perfect Mary Sue to really relate too. I think somebody can relate to Anakin better than Katniss because he ISN'T perfect. He goes through horrible personal tragedies and fears, and sometimes fails, and many of those fears (Unrequited love, the death of loved ones, disapproval of father figure and issues with trust) are things we ALL go through. I can't say the same for entering an arena where kids kill each other. I respect your opinion, and see why somebody MIGHT like The Hunger Games, but I personally don't think they are very good. I don't think the characters are very well written, the villains are over the top and cartoony, and there seems to be a huge emphasis on trying to be emotional without letting us settle in and get to know the characters. In contrast, the Star Wars prequels feature well written and relatable characters on a wide spectrum of moral grayness, villains who are sometimes good people and other times VERY good at tricking people into thinking they are good, and the movies give us time to love the characters before tragedy strikes.
The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games

I think that fact that these kids are dying just for the entertainment of "the capital" is sympathy enough. In that five minutes of screen time that they get the audience is solely focused on them and not a million other things that are going on. Every kill in the Hunger Games does not need to be built up to some spectacular thing because these are kids being killed for no other reason than the other person wants to win. Every character in the Hunger Games has a different personality and are good at different things, which can make them more relatable to somebody. The audience does not need to relate to everybody in the movie. They can find that one character and follow them through because it will be just like them. Katniss is a much more relatable person than anybody in the Star Wars franchise because she is just a girl who is standing up for what she believes in no matter what anybody has to say about it.
The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games

The problem is that many of the characters in The Hunger Games exist purely so we feel "sorry" for them when they die. We never get a chance to know their personalities, or sympathize with them when they are killed. They'll get about 5 minutes of screentime, and that's it. I prefer huge build ups, with each scene getting darker than the previous one. In Revenge of the Sith, we start with Anakin's vision of Padme's death, then being confronted with Palpatine about an old fable concerning EXACTLY what he needs, Palpatine reveals he is a Sith and the fable was true, Anakin's loyalty for his wife and the Jedi are tested in a single moment of drama as Palpatine and Windu are locked in combat, Anakin let's Palpatine kill Windu, Anakin kills CHILDREN, and then we finally have Padme and Anakin's confrontation where he KILLS Padme! Every scene builds on the last one, and there is this great, depressing finality when Padme finally dies. Actually, Hayden Christensen won a Golden Globe for Life as a House, and Natalie Portman not only has a Golden Globe but an Oscar as well. Samuel L. Jackson has been nominated multiple times for Golden Globes and Oscars as well. Also, great actors can give bad performances. Look at Nicolas Cage; he's a great actor, and he was atrocious in Ghost Rider and The Wicker Man. That is true, but they really only relate to the audience on that one level. Many characters in the prequels offer relatable personalities for almost everybody. There are victims, bullies, parental figures, awkward nerds, people in moral crisis, mourners and way more real people in the prequels than what we see in The Hunger Games. Even the major villain is more real in the prequels than in The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games, President Snow is a cartoony bad guy with no charisma who constantly makes stupid decisions just to appear more evil. In the prequels, Palpatine acts as a father figure to Anakin and comes of as benevolent and kind until Episode III. He generally fools people into thinking he a kind, gentle, caring person until Episode III where he has everybody by the throat and shows how twisted and evil he truly is. President Snow could never exist in real life because he is so cartoonishly evil and uncharismatic. Chancellor Palpatine on the other hand is far more frightening as I could SEE somebody like this not only existing and not only convincing me he was a good guy, but actually taking a high position of power.
The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games

I think the fact that we don't really get to know the characters in the Hunger Games before they die is what makes the movie good. You know just enough and then they are ripped from the movie as fast as they came in. When we have huge build ups in movie often when the event hit that we have been waiting for does not seem so big anymore because half the movie has been about that one scene. You sit there looking at the screen and think "is that it?" The Hunger Games is full of tension, due to the fact that you have no idea who is going to die next. You are constantly waiting to see who it is going to be and how. I believe that acting in the Hunger Games is superb. Jennifer has won an Oscar (not for this movie, but that"s beside the point). None of the actors in Star Wars have ever won an Oscar. I think that this proves that acting in the Hunger Games was better. Many of the characters in the Hunger Games are bullies, and this can be related to almost everyone who has ever been bullied or maybe was even the one who did the bullying. The Hunger Games shows that you have to stick up for what you want and never let anybody tell you otherwise.
Limits for terms should be placed on Congress.

Pro argues that the people maintaining their sovereignty has one potential issue. “That issue being, after a while, new generations being born in, the congressmen will not have the ideals the newer generations will be starting to hold.” Not only is this not a potential issue, we already have a process in place that would provide solvency. It’s called elections. Even if you consider the Senate who has elections every six years, the newer generations will have the same right as any other generation to vote in or out of office whomever they so choose. Thus we see that the only contention pro brings up is a non-issue. I have demonstrated that it is right for the people of the United States to be sovereign. Furthermore, pro does not contend that this it is the people’s right. Term Limits on Congress threatens that sovereignty. To add insult to injury, this amendment keeps experience out of office. Term limits are in conflict with core principles and harms our society. Therefore, term limits should not be imposed on congress.
Limits for terms should be placed on Congress.

While I understand the deal with the soverignty we live in as a nation, and the fact that in order to be re-elected, a congressman must still maintain the support he had in the first place, I feel as though there is a potential issue with allowing these congressmen to continuolusly be re-elected. That issue being, after a while, new generations being born in, the congressmen will not have the ideals the newer generations will be starting to hold. While the people's views on certain topics are not always valid as compared to an experienced politician, the issue is that the congressman may bring up a resolution to an issue which may not work in the modern day, though it may have worked in the past. With that being said, certain processes may not be able to be completed as efficiently, and later on can lead to issues such as yet another government shutdown due to the inability to function. If we continue to let the older generations congressmen be re-elected, we must face the reality of the fact that their ideals are more likely to spark issues within the legislature.
Limits for terms should be placed on Congress.

Back when Congress passed the amendment which would limit the US President down to two terms at a maximum, they said that one man in office for too long can become dangerous and can ruin the nation and its liberties. While I am not saying congressmen are in an office with as much authority, I am saying that congressmen should be limited because of the fact that sooner or later, they are nowhere near as effective at their job on the national legislature. As such, we should end up having to replace them not by their own choice or us throwing them out at the midterm elections, I'm talking about replacing them because of an amendment to the Constitution which would limit the congressmen to x amount of terms. Should it be two terms like the President? No, I'm not saying it should be that limited, but it should be 3-5 terms maximum. Should they be restricted from taking office of the President? I'm not saying that either, they should be allowed to run for President, and of course if they haven't served their full terms in Congress after they lose office, they should be able to run for re-election.