BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I love you more

I love my opponent because Well Imabench is my squishy. You are my squishy and forever will be my squishy.(nemo reference)1. Every time I think bout you my heart misses a beat.2. Whenever I'm around imabench for some reason he makes me shy. I'm not a shy person but because I love imabench he makes me shy.3. I stalk his debates( he doesn't know this but now he knows.). I love him so much that I want to stalk every aspect of his life. I will profess that I masturbate to every debate he has and every comment he posts. After reading his acceptance I grabbed the ky and went to work. Because I love him so much I will profess my weirdness to the world just to prove that I love him.4. Whenever I realize that I'm dreaming about imabench I wake up with a sticky spot in my bed.5. Even though imabench doesn't love me I still love him. Even though he never called me back after we had sex I still await for the day to see his face . I believe I love imabench more because I stalk him more than he stalks me.6. I typically don't pre-ejaculate but every time I see a bench I jizz in my pants.What I would do for imabench. you refers to imabench.1. I would kill my entire family and unborn child for you.2. I would rape my mother for you.3. I would bathe in a tub of spiders though I'm terribly afraid of them for you. 4. I would torture women and cut of their nipples or clitoris or I would castrate anyone just to prove my love for you. I also will now take steroids to shrink my penis because the last time we had sex you said my penis was too big. So to make you happy I will shrink my penis to whatever size you want.5. I asked imabench to be my love but he rejected and I am hurt by it. To prove my love I wrote a poem for you.I could stop the tearsI could hide the painbut whatever's hidden in the scarswill always remainI could change my whole imageI could fine someone newbut the love I could have for himwill still pour out to youand the worst thing about itis that you don't even careI could scream out for you foreverbut you'll never be therewhen you know how I feelit still won't damage your mindthat you hurt me sowith one big word:goodbyeI would love to just say goodbye to imabench but I cant because to me he is like the water. I love the water because it is seemingly simple but so beautiful and complex in its abilities. Water quenches my thirst. though imabench doesn't want to be my lover my thirst is quenched by him just talking to me. SO I believe that I love you more....... The difference between being in-love and being enslaved is nothing. I am your slave. Though imabench wanted to hit it and quit it i want to continue but he seems to reject me. Thus i love him more.
I love you more

I will prove I love you more. the point of this debate is for each side to prove that they love their opponent more. The person who is more convincing and proves their love more should win. This is just for fun. I don't care if your a dude, woman, cat, dog, or an egg. I will debate with you.1-acceptance2-3.....is whatever we want it to be.4- summaries....no new arguments. love - 1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2.a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
Homosexual Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the creation and education of children and continuing of humanity.. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. If everything went their way, then Humanity would end in a few generations. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage. To have children, raise them and continue humanity. Same sex marriage is not the way humans are supposed to get married, as dictated by God. God says that a man marries a woman. Just because monkeys do it does not mean we should. We are intellectually superior to animals. We have more complex minds than animals, which think "eat,drink,sleep". The best interests of a child is that he or she has a both mother and a father. He will be raised by someone with no blood relation with him. Same Sex Marriage is against the best interests of a child. Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for equality in all races. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these makes it so they cannot marry, but same sex marriage goes against human nature. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex. It would never work out biologically for a man to have a baby with another one. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All of Society. People might not think that it is a good idea, as most of the USA does. However, it is becoming a requirement to teach that it should be accepted, and if you are against it, you get punished. This is a kind of mental oppression, as the secularists are taking control of our education system, and are trying to force us to believe everything that they say. Same Sex marriage is an objective moral; it will always be wrong, whether it is a thousand years in the future, or a thousand years in the past. It offends God, and therefore it must be wrong.
Homosexual Marriage

In this argument, my challenger will argue that same sex marriage should not be legal. ho"mo"sex"u"al G6;h!3;məG2;sekSH(oV2;o)əl/ adjective 1.(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. noun 1.a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex mar"riage G2;merij/ noun 1.the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman). "a happy marriage" synonyms:wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union "the marriage took place at St. Margaret's" 2.a combination or mixture of two or more elements. "a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel" First round is definitions/acceptance Second round is reason(s) you think same sex marriage should not be legal (worldwide) Third round is addressing the opponents reasons Fourth is freestyle You have 3 days to submit your completed argument, If you fail to do so within 72 hours the argument will cease. Goodluck
You have to escape the scenarios

That is correct, to most of these scenarios there will be more then one answer, that was number one, number two was moving the body to then find a trap door, but to do something such as that would be hard to do on a site like this where its one post at a time, aswell as having a 'cap' on the number of rounds. Number two; You are in a hallway, one way leads to death one way leads to life, Down the left path, you see trees animals and water, to the right you see people dieing, fire and monster, your goal is to live, which path do you chose?
You have to escape the scenarios

Why hello and thank you for challenging me, I am glad this debate caught you eye, it saddens me that the other guy forfeit the debate. Scenario one; You are in a dark room, a slight hint of light comes from a crack in the ceiling to illuminate a man, of which seems to be dead, you can see a slight shinning object under the man, which looks like it seems to be a key, but the strange thing was there seems to be no key hole, how do you get out? (If you need a hint post in the comments)
You have to escape the scenarios

I enjoyed your answer, and it was smart but the point of this test is to play on your mind, with a challenger like this most people would levitate towards the evil looking place of death because of what you could call 'revers physiology' in other words they'd think that it was to trick you when the answer is simple( a trick such as head to the opposite place to be safe in hopes they're being tricked), when the real answer is you go to where you think you are the safest being the 'Down the left path, you see trees animals and water' the hole point of this is to make you second guess your choices which it did. The main point of this was to say sometimes the obvious answer is the one you should take, try to not make it more complicated this it is. Number Three; You're in a room with six sides each side is a different color, wall 1;Green 2; Blue Three; Orange 4;Pink Five;Yellow Six; Grey, the ceiling is Pink the floor is Orange, you see no obvious ways out such as a door or windows.
Gun Control

Cons says, 'People have done this on their own for at least a couple hundred of years.' According to this statement, my opponent posits that convicts have been bearing lead-plated bullets for a few hundred years into the past, which is an egregious statement. More technically advanced bullets were introduced in the 1800s and at that time, iron was much to sparse and commercially impractical to produce or meld on a large scale. [1] Lead cores for bullets were logically introduced long after guns and bullets were globally commercialized, ergo rendering Con's arguments baseless and illogical. Note to voters: I was dismissing Con's arguments because I had declared previously that the pricing of bullets at a higher price point was merely an analogy used to burgeon my argument. I'd also like to point out that some of my opponent's sources actually backfire on the premise he is trying to defend. For instance, my opponent sourced the following link to support his claim of reduced crime after gun control laws were enacted in Wisconscin, reducing crime rates. This is absurd! He is trying to disprove the effectiveness of concealed weapons laws and yet he sources a citation that establishes a correlation between gun control laws and reduced crime! Once again, I'd like to say that I disregarded a segment of my opponent's points because I had previously established that my argument was for analogous purposes and that it should not be taken in a literal sense. Other than that, I choose to extend. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

I didn't disregard them, I simply argued against the things you stated. This is a debate. Anything you say can be argued against since you are using it to support gun control. Con obviously is trying to persuade people to skip the arguments in which I have debated against merely for votes. Not only do they refuse to try to accept and try to argue against what I disagreed with, they seem to dismiss their own arguments. How are they not official documents? Both were by heavily credible places. The NRA one had dozens of links that they used, governmental records to back them up, along with sidenote. The Harvard one may be a different site, but the article and study is still on the page with it being quoted in the website. The concealed carry one was a newspaper. It may not have links, but a quick search would have confirmed them. Actually, you really don't. If you keep your shells, you can easily get a block of lead, trim the round down, and create the gunpowder. You do not need a highly skilled blacksmith to do so. People have done this on their own for at least a couple hundred of years. Now if you choose to continue the argument, don't try to persuade viewers to ignore statements that I commented on and actually argue when I prove it wrong.
Gun Control

My opponent completely disregarded my remarks in the previous rounds, even doubting the analogous nature of the inflation of bullet prices. The citations he enlisted were not official documents are do not come from reliable and trustworthy sources. Since much of his remarks revolve around the analogy that I proposed in Round 1, they are all not be acknowledged. Nonetheless I will in fact address a prompt that he brought up in Round 3. My opponent stated that people can make bullets or armaments without consulting a gun/bullet manufacturer. Only highly skilled blacksmiths who have access to jacketed lead and lead core plated with gilded metals can construct a viable metal bullet. Criminals rarely ever have served for their nation or have been part of an imperials or national army. Thus they don't have the ingredients and constituents to make a 'good' bullet, nor do they have the experience or expertise to do so. Otherwise, I choose to extend my arguments for time's sake.
Gun Control

Actually yes there is. Raising prices of the ammunition to be raised, without having the company say so, would make it only that people with a high income would be able to afford ammunition. With people of lower income, the price would be to high. A normal box of .45 can cost $20.00 for twenty-five rounds. Already this is an expensive thing in the firearm industry consumers agree. If you were to raise the price that high, that would mean buying twenty-five rounds might be your only ammunition for the year. And another that would be disarmament would be that law-abiding citizens constantly train to make sure they are ready for a situation that might endanger their lives. Which makes it hard to have ammunition available in those situations. I disagree. If you were to raise prices that high, a lot of the population would not be able to afford it. If they are not able to afford, why carry around a handgun that costs nearly a box of ammunition? This means criminals (Who don't care about the law anyways) would be able to prey upon more people since they have no fear of possibly being harmed by a person who might defend themselves. It may have said that, but you forget we are debating an actual world. The civilians would be able to since the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms. If people can't buy them, they can make them. You saying they can't means creating a fantasy setting. You have and they occur in gun-free zones where people can't defend themselves: Columbine, Virginia Tech, a kid that went to my school brought a gun to the school he transferred, assassination of JFK, etc. They do ask for money. It is just not in public since they know it would be easier for cops to spot them. Really? Then explain to me if they want to commit crimes, these ones didn't get away: Boston Marathon, Arroua Movie Shooting, and recently the Seattle one. Well, if you could make that work, you would rewrite history. But since criminals already break laws that say those are illegal such as drunk driving, stabbings, bombings, rape, than what makes restricting guns so special to stop crimes, but not these? Here is one of the hundreds of citations, this one coming from Harvard:http://theacru.org... For reduced crime:http://marquettewire.org... http://www.nraila.org...= Abraham Lincoln's assassination was caught by as many witnesses as it was in daylight, since Booth jumped onto the stage and JFK's assassination was in daylight, the only reason for hard evidence was Oswald was sniping in a building.
Gun Control

Well, that is whetevyou are wrong. Raising prices of ammunition won't work since it only makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to be disarmed, making them easy victims for a criminal to attack. And is that people make their owb ammunition which would make the stores not profiting since it can be easily done in one's home. And crimes wouldn't be reduced since criminals don't care about the law. If they want to kill, they will find a way to get the weapon whether they steal it or get it illegally. Gun control hasn't been taken on a global scale since the governments of other countries don't follow the same political theories.Crime has majorly diminished. Every time a state has lowered the restrictions on guns, crime is lowered. When states enacted concealed and open carry, crime rates dropped at least 15% the first year in almost every state. And criminals won't care about the consequences. If they are going to do something, they will. It is why the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Because they won't care as long as they carry out their crime.
Gun Control

There has always existed a resolution to all crimes, that, although simplistic, is ingeniously effective. If we priced bullets at 500$ and could only be obtained in one manner, buying them directly from a store manager with full identification and qualifications, then crimes would be reduced by a large marker. But this is unfortunately not the case, crime rates are soaring because we have not implemented gun control to a global scale. Only recently have we begun implementing constraints on regional levels and with minimal supervision and at great costs. Crime and conviction has not been diminished because we are still too optimistic and too lenient. If we actually put gun control into practical usage and play it out in theory, then crime rates would stabilize and then decline until nil. We are certain that gun control will take effect because once these shooters are aware that they are being watched, that penalties will be administered for wrongdoings and that they will gain a permanent criminal record as a repercussion will act as a great deterrent for committing heinous crimes.
Mitt Romney would have made a better president than Obama

My opponent forfieted the last round, obviously because he can see I made an airtight case from History as opposed to political opinions. Every President that has been like a Mormon or a Buesnessman has spelled disaster for the U.S.A. in the past, and there is no reason to think Mitt Romney would not continue the trend as 100% of the presdients like him in the past have done.Vote for Con, if only because I did not forfiet but finished this debate.Also do not allow that mormon political influence again, in 2016 we cannot let the moderates get away with making him the GOP canidate again. Band together conservatives, and vote for Rand Paul, or Ken Cuccinelli, assuming with hope that we will have at least one of them running in the GOP primary in 2016.
Mitt Romney would have made a better president than Obama

1. Obama has proved to be an inadequate leader This first reason is very simple, Obama has simply failed as a leader in a president. While the unemployment rate may have made a slight improvement from 8.2% to 7.6% under Obama this is solely because there are half a million fewer people in the work force, this means half a million people have given up on looking for work in the Obama economy. Obama has doubled the national debt, and along with this more people have been added to food stamp rolls under Obama than any previous president, and if this wasn't enough Obama has risen Federal spending to unprecedented levels. Along with all these other losing traits the recent eruption of scandals, including one in which the IRS has admitted to targeting conservative groups only further show Obama can't be trusted. When groups opposed to the president are targeted by a government agency along with disgusting expansions of infringements on the people's privacy one should realize it's hard to get worse than Obama and his 1984-esque administration. Obama has failed with our economy and his administration has proven itself to be corrupt, his policies of throwing billions of dollars at the economy with failed stimulus and regulations have proved to be failures. 2. Mitt Romney knows how to fix things Mitt Romney has a knowledge of buisness, he knows what creates jobs, he knows how to balance a budget. Mitt Romney was at one point in charge of a company known as Bain Capital, they were a company that helped start businesses and created jobs, and it was something they were highly successful at, Romney helped create success with businesses like Domino's Pizza which currently employs around 100,000 people, and the office supply store giant Staples. Outside of government Obama was a community organizer, and a professor, which does not stack up nearly as well to Romney's resume. Mitt Romney also has a history of successfully cleaning up economic messes, the prime example being the 2002 Winter Olympic games, when Romney came in they were around 300 million dollars in debt, he turned that around into a multimillion dollar surplus, a far cry from what Obama's done with our economy. Mitt Romney has also proved successful in government, during his tenure as Massachusetts governor he helped create 50,000 jobs and by the end of his term had successfully balanced the budget to the point where it was producing surpluses. Mitt Romney has proved time and time again successful, and would have made a much much better president than Obama. http://money.cnn.com... http://factcheck.org... http://www.politico.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://usconservatives.about.com... http://www.csmonitor.com...
Mitt Romney would have made a better president than Obama

The specific position you will see me debate however will not that Obama in any way can be called a good president, as I am not an Obama fan or supporter but very Conservative as most people know I am. and several months ago you might have caught me engaging in rhetoric that would suggest I actually agree with the resolution, but it was an election year then. .. .. .that election is over, we are no longer stuck wit Mitt and its time to stop cutting the Mormon so much slack. I look foward to my opponents opening round of arguments.
Mitt Romney would have made a better president than Obama

I would like to argue that former president elect Mitt Romney would have made a better president than current president Barrack Obama. There will be four rounds, the first for acceptance, the second for opening arguments, the third for rebuttals and the fourth for concluding arguments. The burden of proof is shared, this is my second debate so my skills may not be to sharp, good luck to whomever my opponent may be!
The Reign of Terror is Unjustified

Round one acceptanceDefinitions:The Reign of Terror Unjustified: "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.", lacking fairness, NOT justified (from google and dictionary.com)Fair: Free from bias, dishonest, prejudiceJustified: Having more benefits than harms (because if it has more harms than benefits, then it's really not justified at all)
It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that there is security in the country

I think I totally disagree with you. You are actually not 'FORCED' to carry out these responsibilities. It is that when you wish to become a citizen of a country, these are some of the 'terms and conditions' that you should make note of before you apply to become one And if you are a citizen at birth my argument still doesn't change, then it is your duty towards your motherland. When you protect your country you are securing your own house. The main issue with citizens is reporting and lack of alertness. Picture this, if you ignore a suspicious neighbour to fend for your family and later on you find out that that neighbour actually blew up your whole house. Won't you be repenting for not reporting. If you say you paid for the pizza and you want it full cooked then would u give the pizza man the instructions! !!!!!!!