BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Katniss is a better role model than Bella Swan

You are putting arguments related with the films, and theyre personas. So the guilt of Bella Swan, be a vampire and "she just willing goes with whatever her extremely old and weird vampire boyfriend wants" is on Stephenie Meyer (the author of twilligth), and those arguments doesnt' have nothing to do with her modeling. We can say that katniss (jennifer lawrence) is a good role model? Yes, because she takes good pictures and has Kristen stewart, she expresse her self, at the pictures. You're turn
Katniss is a better role model than Bella Swan

That is true, conceptions of beauty are relative but I think it's pretty clear who is the better role model. A role model teaches people what to strive for and what to be like. I'm just going to come out and say it: Bella Swan is boring. She has the personality of a rock. That only that but she doesn't seem that bright either. She just willing goes with whatever her extremely old and weird vampire boyfriend wants. She never seems to question him nor does she ever really think for herself. That and her whole motivation seems to be centered around a man. That concept of thinking is dry, outdated and in a way somewhat sexist. The reason Katniss is a better choice is because she is real. Okay, not everyone has great fighting skills but she is more real because she shows real emotion and goes through real loss. She has to suffer constantly and not only that but she also is constantly thinking of others. She has her selfish moments sure but she mostly thinks about her family, Peeta, Gale and others. A true hero and role model is someone who puts their needs before the needs of other. Honestly, I can't think of one time that Bella gave up anything or did something worthy of mention. Well, she got her uterus ripped open. I guess that is worth a mention but you see what I mean. Your turn.
"T" and "I" should be taken out of the LGBTQI acronym

Con's argument actually illuminates my point about the widespread misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding transgender and intersex issues. Civil union and marriage rights are not a big concern for trans* and intersex folks at all. In fact, although gay and lesbians are still fighting for the right to marry, this right has been extended to most transgender and intersex people for a long time already. The legal issues that transgender and intersex people face are much more varied and are too often cast aside due to the misconception that we are fighting for the same rights as the rest of the rainbow community. Struggles we face include: access to regular and urgent medical care, exclusion from organized sports, identification and legal documentation that do not reflect our true gender, and even the real possibility of being arrested for using a public washroom in certain states and countries. Transgender and intersex people can be gay, straight, or somewhere in between, just as cisgender people can (cisgender being used as a descriptor for people who are in alignment with the sex they were assigned at birth). However, the types of discrimination that they face are very different. Acknowledging, understanding, and correcting these issues is made even more difficult by the fact that people assume that gender non-conforming folks are in the same boat as LGB individuals with regards to their goals and their struggles, which simply isn't true. I believe that to resolve this, the best thing to do would be to eliminate the T and I from the LGB spectrum and create a new acronym that better reflects our community. Thanks so much for your response, Con. Cheers! Sources: Human Rights Commission article, explains that in most cases, transgender can get married even in countries and states where gay marriage is not recognized - http://www.hrc.org... American Civil Liberties Union article, detailing the discrimination trans* people face - https://www.aclu.org...
"T" and "I" should be taken out of the LGBTQI acronym

I think it is important that transgender and intersex peoples should be included in the LGBTQI grouping because the main purpose of this grouping is for rights to marriage or civil unions. Transgender and intersex partners need to be included to this grouping because they need the same rights as people with different sexual orientations. Transgender people may or may not want to have relationships with people who have the same sex as themselves although these transgender people identify with the opposite gender. Intersex people need the same rights as the LGBQTI grouping with any partner they have because these people are in a shady area of homosexuality and whether or not these intersex people should be considered homosexual. Transgender and intersex partners may be in a shady area for homosexuality, but they deserve the same grouping as the LGBTQI family to preserve the hopes of their rights.
"T" and "I" should be taken out of the LGBTQI acronym

My position is that Transgender and Intersex should be removed from the LGBTQI(. .. ) sexuality spectrum, as they are not sexual orientations, but rather expressions of gender and sexual identity. For those who are not familiar with the definitions of transgender and intersex. .. transgender: a descriptive term for a person whose gender is out of alignment with the sex they were assigned at birth. intersex: a descriptive term for a person who has reproductive organs and/or secondary physical characteristics of both sexes. Because these two expressions are listed among the list of sexual orientations, there is a lot of confusion around the separation between gender and sexuality. Much of this confusion could be eliminated by removing the two words from the acronym and creating a separate acronym for gender non-conforming folks.
The typical American ‘date' is simply a social work around for prostitution being illegal.

Anyway, dating is composed of more elements than sexuality. As I said, sexual attraction is a pretext. But, the distinction is in the exclusive involvement of sexual attraction in whoring versus the other elements of both involved in dating. Despite your cynical lens, you have to have at least some deeper connections with someone to have even a single date with them. Having conversation, getting along, etc. All of this is a subsequent step from sexuality. While is does play a critical role in dating, it is not the sole player, as in whoring. I realize that some people enjoy sexual proffesions, but this doesn't mean that compensation plays a role. Your to assume that the sex act in whoring would take place strictly on the grounds that the women enjoys it. If this is the case, whats the need for the compensation. The man wouldn't have to pay if she was going to do stuff anyway. Direct compensation is what causes the sex act in whoring, this is by its very definition. This isn't the case in dating. There is no correlation between money and sex in dating. you complained about me using stereotypes earlier, whos the hypocrite? While money does play a factor in extreme examples, the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility. This isn't a correlation to money itself, but a reflection of the type of guy you are dating. I agree that companies encourage you to spend, but this isn't a reflection of dating. Usually the poor hero makes some grand romantic gesture that has little or nothing to do with money. i. e. standing in the rain with a jukebox. Dating has no direct correlation with money, you have provided me with no proof to think otherwise. You have done nothing but prove that people who date are sexually attracted to each other and spend money. I don't disagree. The distinguishing factor is that in whoring money is mandated and sexual attraction is the lone object. Even if whores can choose who they associate with, the compensation is still mandatory by definition. In dating, money is spent, but it doesn't have a correlation to sex. Some dates, believe it or not, don't end in sex, no matter how much you spend. All whoring sessions end in some kind of exchange, otherwise they weren't whores. So, the lack of correlation between sex and money spent on dates and the deeper level of attraction are the clear differences.
The typical American ‘date' is simply a social work around for prostitution being illegal.

I'm not going to address your disclaimers. That said, I think you miss some critical aspects of the dating process, which are HUGE distinctions from whoring. First, potential. While I agree that the first thing men base their 'choices' on is sexual chemistry or attraction, in whoring that is the sole reason. In dating, other aspects of the woman come into play. I guess the main distinction that you miss is that whoring is strictly for this sexual attraction, whereas attraction only plays the most initial of roles in dating. Another difference is compensation. A whore would not have sex with a guy if it weren't for the compensation (money) he provides. Sex in dating isn't correlative to money at all. A girl having sex with you isn't dependent on you spending any money. If she likes you and you like her, birds and the bees, etc. While the compensation plays a pivotal role in whoring, it has no relation to dating. Perhaps the biggest difference is desire of the woman. In dating, women choose to have sex with their guy based on personal desire. In whoring, women are virtually forced to have sex with pretty much any guy who has enough money. You might argue that the money creates this desire. But, that is the fundamental difference on this point. There is no basis for the sex act until money is involved, this is not the case in dating. Also, dating requires a degree of romantic connection, no matter how small. Even if people are dating strictly for sex, their has no be a level of personal desire involved in order for the sex act to occur because the direct exchange of money is absent. Whoring is void of this. While jewelry and flowers may have had certain connotations in the past, the gifts now are meant to have a romantic meaning, rather than serving as an indirect prostitution system as you claim. The intent is a clear distinction between whoring and dating. I guess there are some fundamental differences that you miss in your assessment. The romantic intent, potential, and process, as well as the absence of payment and presence of female desire are critical distinctions that you overlook. These distinctions are what seperate dating from whoring.
Our economy is carp thanks to the fed

On a debate, I said that the Fed destroyed our economy, my opponent said that "our GDP is better than ever, if that is economic hardship, we should have more of it", I'm sorry to tell you this, but I don't measure how good an economy by how high it's GDP is, I judge it by the following factors: Education: we are 36th in the world, our spending per student is 7,500$, in Finland it is 5,500$, and yet Finland has better grades, the problem isn't money. National debt: 18,000,000,000,000$ Wealth distribution, based on money in currency: The common man earns 1,600$ per month, accounting for upper middle class people, let's say that the average dude gets 2,000$ per month, this is 600,000,000,000$, this is a 3 1/3% wealth distribution. Wealth distribution, based on GDP: 600,000,000,000$ is 4 3/10% wealth distribution, Overall wealth distribution: 3 3/10 average with 4 3/10%, is 3.8%, our wealth distribution is a pathetic 3.8%, Let's consider wealth distribution in 1968, the population is 200 million, wages are the same for inflation (actually it is higher than the federal minimum wage today, but the same as the state minimum wage today), that is 400 billion distributed amongst the common man, the GDP is 950 billion, our GDP in 42%. This doesn't sound like we should have any of what the Fed calls "economic progress".
Germany was responsible for WW1

Germany was not responsible for WW1 they just happened to cause it.The Nazi's planned to defeat most of Europe not the whole world therefore they did not plan to have the whole world join the battle. Also, Germany and the Nazi's are different things. Many people in that time wanted no war in the first place like, for instance, the Jews. Yes on most areas I'd agree that the Nazis did potentially cause WW1 but Germany? No.
Germany was responsible for WW1

Germany was responsible for WW1 because of its actions leading to actions of other countries. 1 Russia's mobilization was a result of German pressure and German leaders wanted the Russians to mobilize so that they could blame Russia for the war. Czar Nicholas II mobilized his troops to protect the country from its border with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Russia had supported Serbia's claims for independence and so needed to defend herself against Austria and her allies. However, the Germans pressured the Russians into mobilizing as well by using certain military and political actions. France saw through this ruse and tried to warn Russia before she mobilized to stop an all-out war. But, the message came too late. Therefore, Germany cannot blame Russia othe war because the actions of Germany forced Russia to mobilize to secure some form of pece.2. The Anglo-German Naval Race was on because of stubborn german pride and the war monger in Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Kaiser wanted to have the largest navy in the world to challenge Britain's navy. The Kaiser thought that if Britain had to challenge Germany it would losesupport from its colonies because it wouldn't have enough ships to supply the colonies with supplies or to get supplies from the colonies. This naval race led to extreme militarism and the war monger wanted to use the weapons that e had amassed.
Viola's the best instrument of the orchestra,

A viola is like a horse without a saddle, a boat without a paddle. If you just have a viola standing out in a band, it won't play well at all. The bass and cello can go to super low notes. Violas can't do that. And why do you think there are more known violinists out there. It is because it is better then viola. I used to play viola. I switched to the bass because the viola makes an annoying sound and you don't have to work hard to be good at it. The viola is the easy less sound quality way out. I rest my case...
Viola's the best instrument of the orchestra,

Hello, My name is the argumenter, and i'd like to propose a statement that would better and make the Viola's bullying and riduculing to stop. I am a violist myself and here's what i'd like to show. 1. Viola is as good as Violin/Cello2. Viola can be BETTER than Violin/Cell03. The Viola is needed in the orchestra 4. The Viola needs more solo appearances, to backup one of my statements, I'd like to start off with the sound of the Viola. the viola has a wonderful earth sound, and is a alternate to the violin. Many people like to joke about the viola and it's sound but I'd like to oppose that thought. The viola has the same strings as the violin, G, D, A. Although I believe the sound is much more earthy and deep. The viola is the middle of the strings instruments, having both strings as Cello and Violin, and can be played as both repretoire. Thanks, I rest my case.
"The Game" Causes an equal loss in both the "Loser(s)" and the "Instigator(s)"

Once more, Duco has forfeited his round. My source (my brother) has indicated that it would not be wise to look at the first round until this debate has ended. I guess that because I have not once acknowledged whatever there is in the first round, I win this debate (I think). So yeah, vote for me.
"The Game" Causes an equal loss in both the "Loser(s)" and the "Instigator(s)"

I'm sorry to hear that my opponent has forfeited his last round. I really hope it isn't because I didn't look at anything he typed in his first round. I'm not trying to be rude, but my brother has told me that it would not be wise to read anything yet. I am dying in anticipation. and that's all I got to say right now.
"The Game" Causes an equal loss in both the "Loser(s)" and the "Instigator(s)"

Hello, I am Logical-Master's older brother, Mark, and I have been instructed to read no more than what I am typing on this page, until instructed otherwise. I've also been instructed to inform you that the only words I've seen is "your, argument, new, debating tips, and help." I hope we can have a fun debate. Good luck, Duco.
"The Game" Causes an equal loss in both the "Loser(s)" and the "Instigator(s)"

WHEN the following conditions are met "The Game" follows these three rules. 1. Everybody in the world who knows about the Game, is playing the Game. 2. Whenever you think about The Game, you lose. 3. Loss must be announced. WHEN ALSO The "Instigator" is defined as "The person who causes any other person to lose the game, intentionally or unintentionally" AND WHEN the "Loser" is defined as somebody who has met the first condition of rule 1 (that they know that they are playing the game), and also the condition in rule 2 (That they are thinking of the game) GIVEN THAT It is possible to be both the Instigator and a Loser at the same time, in some circumstances FOR CLARITY- ALSO ASSUME THAT One loss of game is equal to minus one "Game Points", So that losing the game one time would net -1 "Game Points". END OF RULES, NO MORE RULES MAY BE SET I let my opponent begin.
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

My opponent continues to assert without a shred of evidence that the universe and matter are eternal. He/she denies the theory of The Big Bang without any sort of reasoning. My opponent also failed to address the point I made in the opening round which is that even if both of the premises of my opponent's argument are true (including the premise that matter is eternal) the conclusion does not follow. My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion that God is impossible.
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

My opponent continues to assert without a shred of evidence that the universe and matter are eternal. He/she denies the theory of The Big Bang without any sort of reasoning. My opponent also failed to address the point I made in the opening round which is that even if both of the premises of my opponent's argument are true (including the premise that matter is eternal) the conclusion does not follow.My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion that God is impossible.
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

m8, what no beginning and no end means if it is here, is that it didn't begin, and it wont end, as it can only transform, at no point can it be destroyed(from something to nothing) infinity has a beginning.. eternal means no beginning, and no end matter is not a concept, you cant destroy matter. make an apple nothing existence is not necessarily true, stories exist, lies exist, and if god is not true god exist as a lie, and lies are false, not real the evidence is... it can never be created and destroyed, it cant have a beginning, its absolute, as there is no other option
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

1. Rebuttal"there can be no new matter.. that would be creation"This is exactly my point. There can by no new matter, but there has to be an explanation for all matter that is currently in existence."eternal is not infinite in the past, it has no beginning"If you bring the concept of eternity into the physical universe, you also bring in the necessity of an infinite number of past events (an infinite regress due to the lack of a first event."god is false, but god exist"My opponent again blatantly contradicts him/herself by stating that God exists directly after stating that God is false.2. Summary My opponent continues to assert without a shred of evidence that the universe and matter are eternal. He/she denies the theory of The Big Bang without any sort of reasoning. My opponent also failed to address the point I made in the opening round which is that even if both of the premises of my opponent's argument are true (including the premise that matter is eternal) the conclusion does not follow.My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion that God is impossible.
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

there can be no new matter.. that would be creation infinite=beginning without end eternal=no beginning and no end eternal is not infinite in the past, it has no beginning no the big bang model never states anything about something from nothing, only a beginning of the universe as it exists god is false, but god exist, lies exist, stories in my mind exist the evidence is it cant be created and destroyed, it cant have a beginning and an end, so its eternal..
anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal, thefore god is impossible

1. Rebuttal"matter can never be created and destroyed, only transform"New matter can not be created, and the matter that exists can not be destroyed, but this begs the question of where all matter came from. "im saying matter is eternal not infinite"In order to hold the view that matter is eternal, you must hold the view that the universe is eternal. In order for the universe to be eternal, there must exist an infinite number of past events. As infinity does not exist in reality, the idea of an eternal universe (or eternal matter) is absurd, as demonstrated in the argument I presented in the opening round."the big bang model dosnt include something from nothing, only a beginning of the universe as it exists, scientists admit they don't know what was before if it even happened"The Big Bang model does, in fact, propose that something (the universe) came from nothing. You admit in your statement that the universe (and therefore matter) began. This contradicts your previous statement that the universe and matter are eternal (no beginning). "the big bang model as it stands is false"I'd like to not the blatant disregard and dismissal of the relatively undisputed scientific theory that is The Big Bang. "god exist, god is a story in my mind, or else we couldn't have this conversation, think about this, we just talked about infinity, and you said yourself it cant exist in reality, so how can we talk about it and have and understanding of it when we can never reach it with our physical bodies?"I really have no idea what you're getting at here. Although I will say that you again contradict yourself by saying "God exist". The very resolution in which you're defending is that God is impossible, so it seems to me that you ought to drop that belief.2. SummaryMy opponent continues to assert without a shred of evidence that the universe and matter are eternal. He/she denies the theory of The Big Bang without any sort of reasoning. My opponent also failed to address the point I made in the opening round which is that even if both of the premises of my opponent's argument are true (including the premise that matter is eternal) the conclusion does not follow.My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion that God is impossible.