BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Natural Selection' should be an acceptable excuse for murdering stupid people

"OK as i see it you are putting up a statement that seems to be a joke in my eyes and as though i find it somewhat childish also i admire Ur humor and enjoy a good debate but i find i would like to know if we could get on topics i would also like to say i still think that if the person is dumb it wont mater in any case i thing that you or any one should ever be killed for stupidity in any form or way"......................................................................................... I have no idea what youre arguing. "i still think that if the person is dumb it wont mater in any case i thing that you or any one should ever be killed for stupidity in any form or way""Give me a REASON for that though, not just your opinion!.....Ive argued that a person should be allowed to kill a stupid person if its clear that that stupid person wont live to a long age anyways due to natural selection. If someone says any of the following, then other people should be allowed to kill them since they clearly wont last much longer in society:"Yolo""Swag""Dragonball Z is overrated""The Earth is only 2013 years old""The Earth is only 6000 years old""The Bible is fact/truth/true""Newsflash, even if you dont believe in the devil, you do" "The sun isnt a star moron.... Its a sun!""I got Bieber Fever""Obama 2016!"You get the idea.
'Natural Selection' should be an acceptable excuse for murdering stupid people

OK as i see it you are putting up a statement that seems to be a joke in my eyes and as though i find it somewhat childish also i admire Ur humor and enjoy a good debate but i find i would like to know if we could get on topics i would also like to say i still think that if the person is dumb it wont mater in any case i thing that you or any one should ever be killed for stupidity in any form or way
'Natural Selection' should be an acceptable excuse for murdering stupid people

Its a little hard for me to understand the argument con is giving, so ill go through it line by line"As well I see that you should never and I mean never kill for the persons sake of stupidity "Opinion..... "think about it if they had ADHD of they where mentally challenged would you kill them off?"Depends on whether or not I have enough bullets..... Also though, if the person with ADHD and the mentally challenged person dont say anything stupid, then theres no reason to conclude that they really are stupid. Ive never seen someone someone who is mentally retarded say something stupid like "the Earth is 2013 years old" or "swag" which means that they arent actually stupid and therefore wouldnt be killed. " I feel that people should make there own chooses on there facts or problems. "............. What?"Plus there are some people who are not as smart as other people but I could see this as a fact some people are smarter in ways but dumber in other hehe did you see what i did OK now back on topic i feel that some stupid people are smarter in ways that we don't under stand".................................... What?"and in duss i feel this is Morley wrong in many ways."................................................. Extend all arguments.
'Natural Selection' should be an acceptable excuse for murdering stupid people

As I see it people may agree with you in many topics but I find that there is a reason this happens in terms I could see your point of prospective. As well I see that you should never and I mean never kill for the persons sake of stupidity thing about it if they had ADHD of they where mentally challenged would you kill them off ... they have a life as well as the rest of us plus I feel that people should make there own chooses on there facts or problems. Plus there are some people who are not as smart as other people but I could see this as a fact some people are smarter in ways but dumber in other hehe did you see what i did OK now back on topic i feel that some stupid people are smarter in ways that we don't under stand and in duss i feel this is Morley wrong in many ways.
'Natural Selection' should be an acceptable excuse for murdering stupid people

I believe that that natural selection, the course where nature eliminates the weaker/stupider members of a population so that the stronger and smarter ones live on, should be an acceptable reason for one human being killing another human if the one being killed is horrendously stupid. For example, if one of your friends comes up to you and says something like "OMG im never gonna try to commit suicide again cause last time I almost died!' Then it is morally permissible to shoot and or stab them in the face repeatedly since its clear that natural selection was going to kill them later on anyways. (you may post arguments in round 1)
catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

It's a shame that the round was forfeited, this would of been a very good debate, i was enjoying it....oh well. I guess i'll make a few more points before i conclude... once again in regards to the bishop of rome..... St. Cyprian of Carthage: "To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4) does this quote call upon interpretation? What other interpretation can this quote have? This quote said directly that the disciple peter had no more authority then the other disciples.... St. Isidore of Seville: "The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power."[De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782].......Any other interpretations? I doubt it..... There are other issues that slightly separate the Catholic church from the eastern orthodox church but once again i'm goign to save the info for someone who is actually willing to finish a debate.... God Bless all who reads.....
Certain People at Debate.org are Bringing this Site Down (as a figure of speech).

RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------- starting off, lets break down the resolution. when my opponent uses the term "certain people" within the resolution, evidently (given the implications made by his case) he is clearly discussing debaters tylerp and jojoluvsyew. since no other implications throughout his case were made we must limit the debate to these debaters and these debaters only as the "certain people". next lets take a look at the phrase "bringing the site down" within my opponents case he has clearly labeled the intentions of this phrase to mean "making the site worse" to understand this phrase we must look to the definition of the word worse. according to dictionary. com the word worse comes "in as bad or ill in a greater or higher degree; inferior in excellence, quality, or character. " since there is no labeled basis of comparison we must imply that my opponent is using the status quo of debate. org as that basis. in other words, in order for the pro to win this debate, they must prove to the debate. org community that debaters tylerp and jojoluvsyew at the moment are hacking into the debate. org server and altering the site making it " inferior in excellence, quality, or character. " or worse, as he puts it. if he cannot prove this within this debate it is your obligation to vote for the con, ------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTION 1- Intelligence level of the "certain people" ------------------------------------------------------- given by the statements made throughout much of tylerp and jojoluvsyew's debates it is quite easy to conclude that neither of them are in anyway capable to perform a task such as hacking into the debate. org website, let alone speaking in words longer than three syllables. i am in no way insinuating that these debaters are still in the babbling stage of speech, however given the statements: "tianey is my mom" "i like random NE ONE LIKE RED BULL I DOO! !" "wah! " and "IM A VERY SMART INDIVIDUIAIL" no one can be absolutely sure what stage of speech development these two actually are in. this alone is tangible evidence that these two are in no way capable of performing such a task as hacking into the server at this very moment. my opponent and i see eye to eye in this fact whereas he endorses the people commenting on their page. comments like: "You two are idiots. "-slayer54321 "CANCER CANCER CANCER CANCER"-s0m31john and even the debater jojoluvsyew's own comment- "Well i cant think of anything thing" these comments ensure the fact that neither of these debaters would have the amount of brain cells feasible to perform such an act as hacking into the debate. org website within the allotted time frame of this debate.
Certain People at Debate.org are Bringing this Site Down (as a figure of speech).

By "Bringing this Site Down", I mean it as a figure of speech, not literally. My first reason supporting this is that some debaters are getting very frustrated with these people ("Certain People"). Let me give you an example. Take this debate--- . http://www.debate.org... If you look at the second, third, and fifth, comments (going down), you will see that those three people are clearly frustrated with the two debaters. The second person is frustrated because he clearly wants these two debaters to talk nonsense somewhere else. The fifth feels the same, and the third feels that these debaters are "killing debate. org". Take this debate too---. http://www.debate.org... Notice comments two-six and the last one (going down). These 6 people (who are all different than the first example) are also frustrated with these debaters. From how I explained the comments above, I don't fell I have to explain these (unless my opponent wants me to). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My second reason would be that these two debaters (Certain People) have confusing topics that are left unexplained. In that first debate, the voter/reader isn't even told who "christian" is, and since he is cited in the topic, should probably be explained. If he wasn't explained (which is the case in this debate), then the debate gets pretty confusing to the people who don't know the two debaters as friends. You can tell people are left confused by comment four (going down) in that debate. As far as the readers/voters are concerned, these kind of debates are a waste of space. In the second debate, it's pretty obvious that people reading this who aren't acquainted with these two debaters can get pretty confused. It isn't even a debate, it's just random babbling that should be left to their friends in chatrooms. These kind of debates are an even bigger waste of space. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E X P L A N A T I O N I'll explain why all of these examples are "Bringing this Site Down". For the one about debaters getting frustrated with "Certain People", these debaters will report or already have reported these two debaters to an admin of debate. org. Or, they might choose the alternative, to be fed up with "Certain People" and quit debate. org. This will bring about less debaters, meaning less debates, therefore making the site worse or "Bringing this Site Down". The same will result for the debates that are wastes of space. I hope someone actually accepts this debate.
fdr new deal

these didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. The New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the south, the poorest region in the United States. Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. FDR harm millions of poor people.
fdr new deal

w.e skinny black the new deal did work to fix this problem Roosevelt the Economy act, which got rid of $500 million from the federal budge and enforced the beer wine Revenue Act, which legalized the sale of weak beers and wines, heavily taxed them, and therefore made money for the government. Then to solve the unemployment crisis, Roosevelt started the Civilian conservation corps, which gave much of the nation's unemployed population job opportunities. Roosevelt also created FERA , the Federal Emergency Relief Agency, which increased unemployment assistance to the states and put the government in control of welfare. Roosevelt put into place to reach the new deal goal of relief , he improved the country greatly and therefore the goal was a huge success even if it didn't completely eliminate unemplyment from the US, because that would be and will always be impossible.
The Contender won't get these questions correct.

Thank you so much for the challenge. I believe I recognize most of these from Brain Games and GSN's Idiotest. Picture one Answer: The ATM. The reason: The picture states that this is the Mall of London. Pounds is the currency that is used in London, England. Thus the ATM is where you can gain 100 pounds in just a few minutes. Picture 2: Where's the Finnish line? Answer: The second person going right to left. The person who is saying Olet idiootti.Reason: This is the person who is speaking the Finnish language. Picture 3: What letter comes next in this sequence? WLCNIT_Answer: S. The reason: The sequence above is the same as the question. Thus in that sequence, S would be next. Question 4: Who's eating a burger without a bun? Answer: The middle person.Reason: To answer this question, much like in the first picture, we have to understand the meaning of the word "bun." A bun can also be a hair style (see, for example, here http://www.latest-hairstyles.com...; ). The middle person is the only person who is not wearing a bun, and thus, is not eating a burger with a bun. Question 5: Which way is this U.S. bus going, left or right?https://tse3.mm.bing.net...Note that I had a difficult time downloading this particular picture, so I posted it as a link instead. Answer: Left.Reason: The picture clearly states that this bus is a U.S. bus. In the United States, the passanger door is always on the right and the wheel is on the left. The door is clearly on the side facing the curb, thus when the bus moves, it will be headed left. Thank you for a fun debate. The resolution is negated as I got all 5 questions correct.
The Contender won't get these questions correct.

I thank ThinkBig for accepting my challenge. I'm wondering whether or not he recognizes the whole "picture test" thing from some where.Anyways, let's get to this. And remember that the answer is always somewhere in the picture. With that, here we go!Question 1:http://mentalfloss.com...Question 2:https://tse4.mm.bing.net...Question 3:https://tse3.mm.bing.net...Question 4: https://tse1.mm.bing.net...Question 5:https://tse3.mm.bing.net...As said before, ThinkBig must get at least 3 questions correct. He has 24 hours to do so.
The Contender won't get these questions correct.

I will present the contender 5 pictures, and ask them to find something in the picture. To win, they must get 3 out of 5 correct. If they miss 3, I will win.The Contender will have 24 hours to find the correct answers.I will post the pictures in Round 2, where the Contender will guess which object is correct. Forfeiting a round counts as an instant loss.The Contender can't just say "I found the right answer!". They must point out what the answer is.
The Contender won't get these questions correct.

The contender got 5/5 questions correct. I've got more questions downloaded on my computer, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to get them into DDO. So, the winner is ThinkBig.Fun Fact: This debate was inspired by a gameshow on GSN called "Idiotest", where you bascally do this, but there's only a few seconds to get it right.
Immigration

Your claim that "Immigration to escape awful conditions at home can be done legally," simply because the United States will accept people fleeing war or genocide, is false and ignorant; there are plenty of viable for which an immigrant may have to leave a home country that the United States denies are true reasons. The lifestyle in the United States" is superior to that of many other countries, influencing individuals to migrate to America. Does the United States really have the right to deny them the right to enter the country because they are deemed unworthy of the American label? For the majority of Americans, our ancestors were given the opportunity to immigrate to America without having complete strangers judge your usefulness to society. Estimations for the percentages of prison populations that are illegally in the country range wildly, yet even if the immigrants did appear to be more likely to commit a crime, an entire group of people cannot be targeted for the actions of a few. The reason to deny illegal immigrants entry to the country based on individuals" actions would be synonymous to passing bills about the personal actions of individuals aged 18 to 21 because they are more likely to commit a crime. In the scientific paper, "Fear vs. Facts: Examining the Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S." published by the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, it is concluded that although undocumented workers may cost the government some money, in the end, their economic impact is positive on both the state and federal levels. There is no solid evidence or citations that show the cost or benefit of undocumented workers on the United States, yet the economic benefit of their work is great enough that it guarantees the individuals" necessity in America. Even if the United States cracked down on illegal immigrants, deporting or securing the borders, the extreme cost of these actions would far exceed current expenses. http://www.teachablemoment.org... http://immigration.procon.org... http://www.bjs.gov...
Immigration

Americans and the American government choose to limit immigration to the United States strictly out of greed and racism. Individuals in other countries face horrible conditions and only enter the United States with the wish to help their families. The extreme courage and bravery needed for immigrants to illegally enter the United States shows their heart is in improving their lives. Research across the country indicates that there is very little connection between immigrant labor and unemployment rates of American citizens. On the contrary, immigrants actually help the United States" economy; they provide a cheap source of labor and take American jobs that many native-born Americans would not even want. The cheap labor of immigrants allows products to be sold cheaper, helping the economy. The American economy today is far stronger than in the past, yet the population of foreign-born Americans is far higher than in the past. If immigrants hurt the economy, how could this be so? Research shows that when immigrant labor increases by 10%, native-born Americans face a wage reduction of only 1%, a very insignificant amount; this does not drive down the net pay of employees. Also, since undocumented immigrants currently do not receive federal benefits, immigrants" families actually add $88,000 in tax revenue per household and a total of $463 billion in social security taxes that they cannot use. While most families in the United States receive more from the government than they pay in taxes, undocumented workers are actually the opposite. The immigrants may not be the reason for the strong economy, but they should not be targeted as the scapegoats for any and all problems in the country"s economy. The idea that immigrants bring crime to the country is also false. Most illegal immigrants are law-abiding workers who just wish to live their lives. As a whole, they actually take fewer risks than native-born Americans because they have more to lose. The rate of immigrants incarcerated in the United States is actually far lower than the rate of native-born Americans in jails. Estimates of gang members and homicide warrants are skewed by those who wish to target the immigrants. William F. McDonald, a PhD of Sociology and Anthropology, noted that, "[...] The criminality of the first generation of immigrants (those who migrated as opposed to their children) is less than that of the native-born. There have been many studies in the United States and abroad that have addressed the question of the criminality of immigrants. [...] there is little reason to believe that the findings would be substantially different for illegal immigrants assuming data were available that would allow us to make the necessary statistical controls for age, sex, economic status and immigrant status. Public fears about immigrant criminality have usually not been born out by research." With these points being made and the arguments against illegal immigration proven false, there is no reason to deny immigrants citizenship besides prejudice and greed. http://www.heritage.org... http://www.tolerance.org... http://immigration.procon.org...
Immigration

America should work to control its borders and halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. America should have no problem with those granted entrance to live in the nature, but there should be no room for illegals. There are more than ten million illegal immigrants in America and that number is growing by over seven hundred thousand a year. One of the main issues with illegal immigration is national security. The presence of millions of illegals distorts law, creates a cover for terrorism, and distracts resources. In Los Angeles, 95% of outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens. More than 60% of gang members in Southern California are illegal immigrants. Another major issue comes with the economy. In a 2002 survey, illegal immigrant households cost the government $26 billion dollars while they only took in $16 billion in taxes. Big corporations exploit undocumented workers while taxpayers pay for the infrastructure. These undocumented workers are taking low level jobs from Americans and drive down the net pay of low level employees. George Borjas PhD and Robert Scrivner, professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University have stated in an essay that "Economic theory predicts that increasing the supply of labor... will reduce earnings for natives in competition with immigrants... Statistical analysis shows that when immigration increases the supply of workers in a skill category, the earnings of native-born workers in that same category fall. The negative effect will occur regardless of whether the immigrant workers are legal or illegal, temporary or permanent. Any sizable increase in the number of immigrants will inevitably lower wages for some American workers. Conversely, reducing the supply of labor by strict immigration enforcement and reduced legal immigration would increase the earnings of native workers." Illegal immigration is a problem in America and legislators should work to control immigration. http://www.heritage.org... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... http://immigration.procon.org...