BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rock is better than country

I accept. Here's some country songs that, in my opinion are better then any song the Pro will throw out there. http://www.youtube.com... Toes by Zac Brown Band, http://www.youtube.com... 3 Wooden Crosses by Randy Travis, and http://www.youtube.com... Whiskey Lullaby by Brad Paisley. My opponet throws out a crude arguement that everyone who likes country is gay. Well here's something to disproove that. Brad Paisley a country singer is married to a women (Kimberly Williams) http://www.people.com... and they even have kids. So therefore people that like country aren't all gay.
Woman are equal to men

First and foremost you are taking the definition far far outside of the context of this debate. The context that we need to see here can be viewed within my first speech as men and women being metaphorically equal. You then try to prove that my context is wrong by citing a definition from dictionary.com as if it is the only source in the world and then end all of sources. This however is false. Dictionary.com itself has no fewer than 14 different definitions for exactly what equal is therefor I cite a new definition. Equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance. This definition uses two students of equal brilliance. The students are not literally 100% equal like you're are trying to portray. They are in fact simply equal in their capacity. Another definition if you will: Equal: Evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest. Once again this is not saying that the two or more things are equal but simply that they are balanced which is what I am arguing for. A third example perhaps. Look specifically to our constitution. It says, "all men are created equal" right? Does this mean that all men are created 100% the same? No not at all, it simply means they have equal rights which is what my resolution is in pertinence to. You attempt to take my resolution and blow it out of context. Under your logic you could win every debate by twisting my own words against me. This destroys the entire purpose of fair debate and takes away all of the ground I have in this round to debate on. You, and my voters, need to look at the context of this round. Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate. So onto my case, let me sight some examples from you. "I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth." My response? Yeah, exactly. You just conceded the entire debate and lost the round. Thank you for agreeing with me =)
Woman are equal to men

"Equal" is defined as "as great as; the same as" by dictionary.com. Men are clearly not equal to women and vice versa. Women have wider hips, women have larger breasts, women have different hypothalamuses, women have different brain composition, men have external genital protrusions, men have different hormones, men have more hair. All of the above is "generally speaking" btw. My opponent agrees: "They just don't do the same things. Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things." Women are clearly not equal to men. They are different. "Equal" does not allow for any sort of difference. If the topic was "Women should be treated the same way men are treated" I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth. However, when you're trying to say women are THE SAME AS men, I'll have to vehemently disagree. I agree though, when they say "I do not understand guys who think men are dominant." I do not believe men are dominant, nor deserve to be dominant, nor ARE dominant. But all those are a different story and a different debate, because here we are talking about if women and men are equal. And they're not. Thank god too, cause if men and women were equal then we'd have to not be human in order to reproduce.
The Modal Ontological Argument

Correction In “round 3” when I was referring to the premise “If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world”, I referred to it as “P4” when it was really “P3” in the syllogism of the Modal Ontological Argument I posted. In “round 4” I said “P2” when I meant “P3” as well. My apologies for any confusion; the only premises that should have been mentioned in my arguments with regards to the earlier rounds were “P3” and “P1”. I just wanted to clarify that, because parts of my rounds probably wouldn't make sense if I hadn't. Either way, my opponent gave up and forfeited.
Driving Age

11 teens die every day as a result of texting while driving. According to a AAA poll, 94% of teen drivers acknowledge the dangers of texting and driving, but 35% admitted to doing it anyway. 21% of teen drivers involved in fatal accidents were distracted by their cell phones. Teen drivers are 4x more likely than adults to get into car crashes or near-crashes when talking or texting on a cell phone. A teen driver with only one additional passenger doubles the risk of getting into a fatal car accident. With two or more passengers, they are 5x as likely.
tacos should be illegal

Tacos should be legal because A) They are generally not harmful. At worst, tacos can cause you to release horribly smelly and hot farts. But fats are not damaging in any way and cannot effect you in the tiniest of ways. Tacos may harm you if you eat too many of them, but that would only be through the fault of your own. And technically, any food can be eaten too many times to an extent where people get fat or obese. If you think that tacos should be illegal because they can make you (eventually) fat, then you might as well believe that all food should be illegal. Plus, (most) tacos have lots of meat in them, and meat contains protein. As you can see, protein can supress your hunger. If that's the case, then many people who eat a taco or two will refuse to eat more since the protein will make their hunger subside. If you think eating foods that can make you fat is bad, then banning french fries would be more beneficial. French fries have salt that can actually INCREASE your hunger. And even IF some tacos are unhealthy, you can choose healthier tacos to eat at other restaurants/stores. B) Why would we ban ALL tacos? Some tacos are healthy and can reduce your hunger. Even some of the unhealthy tacos can still prevent you from growing TOO hungry. There are plenty of unhealthy foods in the food industry that are considered "unhealthy". Tacos are not even widely known for being unhealthy, it's quite the contrary. Pizza, sandwiches, french fries, ice cream, and burgers are generally all more unhealthy than tacos. Does that mean we should ban all types of foods that range from somewhat healthy to very unhealthy? If we are talking about ALL tacos, then frankly, we are only causing a damage to the economy of food industries. Banning types of foods will cause a collapse for any restaurant that sells tacos. What if tons of poor people are starving to death and the first restaurant they see is one that sells unhealthy food? Should they just try to rush off to a healthier restaurant and possibly die during the process? Fat food is better than no food, since it can supply your body the energy it needs to function. There are circumstances in which some people would HAVE to eat a taco. So there you have it. The only thing that can be bad about a taco also gives benefits and prevents bigger issues. And as I have already asked, should we ban EVERY food that fits into the category of being generally decent in terms of health, and anything else that is below this category? If yes, then economy and death rates will rise. If no, then why would tacos be banned? What is it about tacos that are worse than any of the aforementioned foods that I listed? Sources: 1]https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2]http://altmedangel.com...
i think being gramaticaly correct is the most impotant thing

It seems as if the purpose of this debate is inquire what the most important facet of debate is; my opponent believes it is grammar. Strangely, my opponent's grammar is less than satisfactory, making him a hypocrite [1]. Nonetheless, I look forward to my opponent's argument, who has the burden of proof. [1] . http://www.nataliedee.com...
Women should not have rights

Not really. Obviously someone thought hey women should have rights. We are not just people who breed and push out kids; we are intelligent and strong. Women should have rights because we are also human; why should you feel comfortable while someone else is suffering? Because your the president and you were put on this earth to push people around? No. It's wrong for you to single out women because we are different. If i didn't know better it sounds like your intimidated by women and you have to over compensate and pump yourself up to feel better about your choices.
Women should not have rights

You can go on and on about what people have stated in the past. This right here: "19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote. Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives." I do not care if men are stronger and women are suppose to be the weaker sex however this amendment allows women to have the right to vote! So no matter how you look at it or say it women have rights weather you like it or not. Apparently you didn't get the memo that women are equal to men.
Women should not have rights

The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized. It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. Darwin taught that human sex differences were due partly to sexual selection, specifically because men must prove themselves physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women, whereas women must be superior primarily in sexual attraction. Darwin used examples of cultures that require the men to fight competitors to retain their wives to support this conclusion. Because "the strongest party always carries off the prize" being the wife. Obviously, Darwin totally ignored the influence of culture, the environment, social roles, and the relatively few opportunities that existed in his day, as well as historically, for both men and women. Which I will explain in the next debate.
Women should not have rights

So I was right you are of faith that believes women are below you. I also believe there is a god and have read the bible a bit. You are right in the bible it states that women are below men, I do not doubt that. However I am going to stay on this debate just to piss you off. Since you got your facts from the bible I bet you can't find anywhere else that states that women are below men. You know why? Because this is the 21st century and weather you like it or not women have a place in society and we are lucky to have the same rights as men.
Women should not have rights

Why the hell did someone sell a women internet in the first place? This argument was meant to be argued by a man as women are naturally less intelligent. I wanted to have a civil debate with a civil white man, but instead I got a women.. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5:22-23 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) The following bible verses should prove that women are nothing but sex dolls
Women should not have rights

Why should women have rights? We are women too; I am going to guess you are either from a "traditional family" who has taught you that women are beneath you and should always do as you say OR your of some faith who thinks that women are beneath you. Either way that's not how society is THANK GOD and you know what? No way in hell would I be treated like I am a breeding machine and neither would other women. I am sorry for the women that are in your life that has to put up with your ego. You better watch how big your head gets, we don't want it to get so big it explodes!
Greece must leave the EU for its own benefit

Greece must not leave Eurozone, no matter how painful it is for them. At present Greece has pursued an orderly default on its privately held debt, but it remains in the euro area. Default and departure are thus not necessarily connected. I have argued elsewhere that Greece needs to default also on its official debt to reduce its total public debt to a sustainable level. But here I argue that it must not leave the euro area because the result would incur immense harm to Greece, other countries in the European Union, and to the world at large. It would not be merely a devaluation for Greece but a serious, possibly mortal, disruption of the European Monetary Union (EMU). John Normand and Arindam Sandilya of JP Morgan(1) issued a paper in December 2011, concluding that the damage would be enormous. This comment agrees with that analysis, but tries to take it further. The EMU would not be the first multi-country currency zone to break up. Europe has seen at least five breakups of such monetary unions in the last century, but they have been completely different in nature. Two breakups occurred under the gold standard and with separate central banks and payment systems, and they were benign. The Latin Monetary Union, first with France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, and later including Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Venezuela, lasted from 1865 to 1927. It failed because of misaligned exchange rates, the abandonment of the gold standard and the debasement by some central banks of the currency. The similar Scandinavian Monetary Union among Sweden, Denmark, and Norway existed from 1873 until 1914. It was easily dissolved when Sweden abandoned the gold standard. The outstanding feature of these currency unions was that fixed exchange rates were guaranteed by the gold standard, and that central banks and thus payment systems remained separate. Sources: (1) http://www.businessinsider.com...
Music programs in schools should receive more funding

Of course it is unreasonable to focus all resources of the School District on the Music program, however it is beneficial to the students if perhaps more money was focused on the music programs. These music programs promote and develop language and reasoning. Music training at an early age develops and grows the left side of the brain which is responsible for language development and also reasoning. Music programs also promote the idea of working as a team and unifying to create something that is beyond any individual. Playing an instrument in a band is a great way to create friendships but also teaches how work with other people. As a musician I understand that in order to make music, it is required to work, listen, and communicate with piers. The significance is that these are all skills that are helpful in the professional world.
Show Choir Competition judges are/can be picked with a bias against some choirs.

But all you are doing is complaining, there is no solution to what you are bringing forth. Have you thought out what to do? The time slots for contestants is completely random! There cant be a bias based on time slot as you stated because the school isn't put in a specific spot. What your saying (or as it comes across to me) is that the only solution is to not have judges, but without judges there is no competition. The argument that is most dominant is that it's unfair. How are they unfairly judging if these judges have such high credntials? (Seeing as thats why they were picked to judge in the first place) You argument (or attmept at)about judges being chosen based on their credentials alone cant really be used. When trying to find a judge for my debate tournaments I look at credentials and past history in debate, not what school they go to. It is also very normal for a judge to rank their school lower to escape bias and to let the best choir go forward. This is mainly just a case of opinions.
Show Choir Competition judges are/can be picked with a bias against some choirs.

Basically you make the argument that judges are biased against certain groups because they're able to be biased. However, this doesn't make the action itself just. Therefore, this argument can be thrown out on the basis that it doesn't exactly apply to negating the topic. Also, against your statement on the resolution of "live with it," you aren't really showing that show choir judges AREN'T biased, as the topic says. You're merely saying "yeah, it happens, live with it." So basically, my argument is that all my points are valid based on the fact that she didn't really refute them at all.
Show Choir Competition judges are/can be picked with a bias against some choirs.

Being in many choir over the years I have noticed yes, judges can have a bias. But that's because they can. Its their prerogative to judge how they want to. If they have the experience and the credentials to judge then they should judge. Do to the fact that there is a high demand for judges, they get what they can find. Many of them may be from the same school, but if they are qualified judges then they should be professional enough to choose based on talent and the overall appearance of the group. Not on time slot and what school they belong to. Everyone has an opinion and people make it to finals who sometimes shouldn't but unfortunately, that is the world we live in. Coming from a very small town, my choir group has many hardships in competition. That mainly pushes us forward to do better and be more prepared for next year. There are always risks with judging, you must give in to them and get on with it or there is no competition at all.
Show Choir Competition judges are/can be picked with a bias against some choirs.

First off, let me say that this shouldn't turn into a very personal debate. I'm just trying to see both sides of this story. Also, my main source for my statements is this fall's Central Crossing HS Show Choir Competition in Grove City, OH. In favor of the topic, I bring forth 3 contentions: 1. Time slot placement of choirs "blinds" the judges of equally judging groups. Let's say we have a good,large and loud group performing at 1:00 PM, and we have a smaller yet equally good group at 1:30 PM. Based on random placement alone, the judges will have a higher standard of volume, vocal quality, execution of choreography, etc. In turn, these choirs suffer when they could get a better rating by merely randomly getting a better time. Therefore, all groups compete in "class slots," where (i.e.) all class C groups perform, then all class B, and then class A. 2. Judges can be picked from ANYWHERE so long as they have the credentials. When a panel/board looks at who to invite as a judge for their competition, they only look at that person's credentials as a choral/dance educator, and not at, say, which school that person is from, or how high of ratings that they give at other competitions they've judged at. This gives the possibility of bias against certain groups based on past rivalries as well as their degree of judging against different-sized groups, also adding to point #1. 3. Choirs suffer from their picks. As a result of points #1 and #2, some choirs get unfairly judged and unaccurately rated. In turn, some good yet small group could not make it to finals whereas some other group with mediocre choreography could make it based on time placement and the personalities of the judges.
The U.S.A should be replaced with a giant carnival

As for the money problem, we can just print more money, although I doubt it'll come to that with the power of the free market!My granny says that when you print more money to pay for hospital (parking lot) stays, you cause tire-inflation. This IS good. You Socailist/Communist/Fascist/Atheist/Muslim(Terrificist!I concede that we can make Rhode Island a parking lot ON THE STIPULATION THAT WE AGREE TO ALSO ENCAPSOLATE THE PARKING LOT WITH A GIANT WOODEN CHICKEN!_______________________________________________________________________it is going to be a hundred stories tall as well.Why not? I agree, but I would suggest we hire Muslims ("Obama Supporters") to fly airplanes into the taller/skyscrapers.____________________________________________________________________________________You forget that it's a southern style home, so there will be African slaves and Mexican servants!What is wrong with you? The Mexicans'll steal something! As for the African servants, if we kidnap Africans, that stupid Russia'll come and attack. Russia values Africans. Idiots.About the hats: Japanese have money that would pay for the giant wooden chicken. Also, knowing the Japanese, they would be overjoyed by their comboy hats. They'ld create robot-cowboy-hats! These hats would also be flotation devices in event of a flood.__________________________________________________________________________________________________crime will die out because of the angelic DNAWhy do they get the angelic DNA? Why can't good people get it? Charlie Sheen has Adonis DNA. What about me? Why can't we all live in a place where every guy has a Taylor Lautner body? Before you ask, I'm NOT gay. God hates gay people. Love thy enemy except for gay people? I WANNA LIVE IN HOTEL CALIFORNIA! He's black.Y0U EVIL, RACIALIST JERK! UV AFFENDED MEH! MAH BRUTHER WUZ BLAK! HE WAS A MIRAKLE SNT BI G0D! AN D0'NZ SAY IT WUZ SIENC3, CUZ MAH PAR3NTS R WHITE! CL3ARLY A WORK 0F G0D! UR G0NA BURN! I WL CHEER! U DESERRVE TA DIE! U EV1L PRSON! I KILL U! I KILL U T0 DEATH! IPH U THNK THT Y0U W1LL G3T AWAY WIT D1S, U G0T AN0TH3R TH1NG C0M1N'! N0T EV3N CARL SAGAN W1LL SAVE YUO! YOU ARE GAY, AND MAH GRANNY SAY THST GAY PEOPLE ARE BAD! GAY PEOPLE DIE AND BURN! DONZ BE GAY! BE CHR1ST1AN, L1K3 MEH! I LOVE U CUZ G0D SAYD TO! CANT U SEE HOW MUCH I <3 U! BE LIKE MEH! ORE U DIE! I W1LL LAF WHEN U DIE! I WILL DANCE! H0PE U DIE PAINZFULLY! U DEZERV IT U EVIL RACAIST! RAICIST BURN! IM N0T RACAIST! I LUV EVERYBODY EXCEPT DOZ MUSLIMS, GAYZ, ATHEISTS, MIXICANS, RUSSIAN, DEMOCRATS, CHILDREN NEW YORKEZ, AND W0MEN! SEE U. DIS ROUND IS FINISH! IMMA GO TO YO HOUSE AND STAR TA FIRIN MAH LAZAR! IMMA GUNNA BE DA ONE WHO GONNA BRN UR HOUSE D0WN! WIT DAH L3MMONS! HAVE A NICE DAY!