BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should go to the park together

We should go to the park together. Why? 1)According to studies, women like men who make them laugh. http://www.independent.co.uk... I am good at making people laugh on debate.org and in real life. The response I get more than any response on here is "lol". I get a lot of lol's in real life as well. I come on this site to get my goofy side stimulated and challenge people in good fun. 2)Women tend to like strong, passionate men. http://www.lovepanky.com... I am very passionate in music, my pets, fishing, and kayaking. 3)Women tend to be attracted to muscular guys. I am a muscular guy. I work out routinely, do kayaking, jogging, play basketball, and walk and play with my dogs. 4)Women tend to want a caring man. https://www.psychologytoday.com... I care very deeply for people and wish the best for everyone. 5)Women tend to like open minded men. http://www.meetmindful.com... I am open minded and very self reflective. I have observed you guys and apply things to make me a good communicator with the opposite sex. I know we are different and have learned to embrace those differences and find commonality. Example? I am open minded to the Libertarian view of the world and politics. I see good things about Liberal and Conservative ideas. 6)It's okay to be adventurous sometimes. Trying new things and listening to new ideas is good and interesting. 7)I'm a great cook. Nuff said... 8)I am a good, strong, safe place to snuggle. ----- At the Park- 1)We could feed the ducks bread and crackers and fingers... :( 2)The park would be on the lake, so we could find a cliff, spread out a blanket, and eat a meal that fits our food likes, and have a little wine perhaps. 3)You could tell me what you see in the shapes of the clouds as we look up. 4)We could walk my 2 dogs and play frisbee with them. 5)You could tell me about your life, hopes and dreams. 6)You could tell me all about why Hillary and Trump creep you out. I'd tell you why far left progressives and far right religious wackos creep me out. You'd laugh and probably try to distract me to get to the wine. I'd know what you were up to. 7)I'd only go with you if I had your Libertarian consent. I can't go to the park with an unconsenting gal. It's just not right or decent. It's funner with consent and much more humane. 8)You'd most likely want to go to the park with me again just to make sure I'm everything I seem to be. Your show Con.
We should go to the park together

Per the agreed upon terms of the debate, my opponent has completely broken the rules. This is not only a loss of conduct point, but perhaps loss of arguments as well for he has utilized an entire extra round for discussion which is not permitted. I will not be reading or responding to his last round. This round (4) is where he and I are supposed to post something that makes me sad. Pro failed to name something that makes him sad, and it's too late to follow up in the next round (which is reserved for a different topic). Alzheimer's Disease makes me sad.
Fat kids should be required to diet

No, if kids want to be fat they should be fat, if parents only feed their children McDonalds then theres a problem, that's different. But don't force fat kids to do exercise, why can't i force you to paint your own house? Because I cant force you to do anything because it's wrong so don't make fat kids do exercise if they dont want to. Motivate them instead. But they should get mandatory vaccines, that is for the good of all of us, being fat isn't bad for anybody except the fat person. (& the person next to them on the bus lol)
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

somebody just got out the bread! How come your wearing a bra or a pantie? that's true, hamlet's reacting by his tragedy This Mother****** can't say Polonius and Osric you can say that same s*** like Notorious Vagina and Dick I'm a greatest poetry of the year even the cashier You steal my baseball base, that's a mother****** error have you write stories before, rap before, smoke before You destroy my relationship with my girl, your a f***** h*** If you don't do that sh**, just say oh well That means priceless 29, goes to hell! Show me your genitals, Show me your genitals Watch out, there's the atheist gay having sex with your a**hole! What you gonna do? What you gonna do? East Side 16 Mile Police Department might arrest you Peace.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

Unfortunately Pro does not understand the art of subtlety (I use this term loosely) and as much as I have tried to ignore this it adds to his fail levels immensely. Very well done. Anyway, Pro's argument looks legit so I don't really have a rebuttal. I'm sort of in the middle of a Jerry Springer episode called 'Transsexuals Attack' and it's really of stupid how Springer accuses all the male guests who are into trannies of being "gay" even though "bi" would be the more appropriate term if he's going to make that accusation at all. I don't think "bi" is right though, and I'm against using labels in this sense because in reality trannies can be really attractive as women and ARE beautiful women except for one feature. Then Springer, of course, backtracks at the end of the show and says like "We should respect gay rights blah, blah" after basically lynching these poor men in front of an audience. In conclusion, I don't want my argument to be tl;dr so I have conceded to Pro that animal rights are okay and stuff, but I still have one more question. Where does it stop? If we give animals rights today, then animal rights activists like yourself will soon be demanding animal voting rights. Where does it stop? Do you want a cow working in a cubicle next to you? I'm just worried for the future, because although animal rights may be a "novel" or "enlightened" concept here and now, who knows what lies ahead? I do, and society will be worse.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

Where is the fail in this? R1: Elephants aren't built to talk! This is only by human standards! They talk too! R2: I would like to point it to my audience that no one gives a sh!t about your unrelated degrees. R3: God exists. After all, here is some logic: God created the universe God is above the universe THUS GOD MUST HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

C1: Even if that is true, elephants still can't talk. What use is memory if you can't speak? Regardless, this argument is iffy because there's like a 99% chance that Con is NOT an elephant, and therefore unable to comment authoritatively on the matter. Anyway, my argument is very simple: P1: Elephants can't think critically. P2: Humans can think critically. P3: Most humans are intelligent ----- C: Most elephants are not intelligent. C2: I would like to point out to the audience that I hold a M.A. in theology from the prestigious academic institution NO U and based on my research this interpretation is dubious in terms of accuracy. C3: Ok, lets be honest. It's not even clear that God exists so logically speaking the audience should just guess as to whether our arguments are even valid or not. Maybe they should flip a coin or something. Back to Pro.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

R1. NONONONONO! Has it ever crossed your mind that elephants never forget! Well lemme tell you something, I have forgotten things before so animals must be smarter than us! And this: http://animalsarebetter.wordpress.com...R2. God said he loves sparrows in one of the four or something gospel books! We may be worth more than many sparrows but no number is specified so we may be equal to 2.0000000000001 sparrows!!! I am a vegan and animals are disgusting to eat! Their meat looks like pvssy! This is because God tries to remind us of our evil desires!R3. Just like evolution and an old earth, ALL THIS EVIDENCE WAS PUT HERE TO TEST OUR FAITH! God left us this a challenge to test our faith!I await the response from the villain known as con.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

Pro's argument is frivolous. I offer scientific arguments. 1. Animal's brains are much stupider than human's. Science has proven that animals brains are stupider than ours, and they can't talk. Would you feel bad after killing an ant? Would you eat ants if they tasted like chicken? Is killing ants wrong? Since animals don't have the capacity to think very much it's okay to eat them because they benefit the human population and stop overpopulation. 2. God put animals on this Earth for humans to eat. Humans have been eating animals for thousands, if not millions, of years. In the Bible God basically says that humans can use animals as resources to eat as much as we want, as the animals will reproduce and there will be more. Additionally, evolution states that the animal populations will rarely go extinct because animals adapt and get genetic mutations which make them stronger. 3. Animals contain important substances like electrolytes. When you eat or drink animals your body gets good nutrition like proteins and electrolytes. If my opponent makes it illegal to hunt animals the human body will suffer greatly as our current stock of proteins and vitamins will be excreted out and there will be no replenishment, and everyone will lose. In conclusion, Pro needs to step up his game here and address my arguments using facts and logic instead of just name calling which is stupid and unintelligent. I wish Pro good luck in the next round.
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

My opponent is an evil animal hating tyrant. Is this the kind of attitude you want on a fmily site like DDO? This is evil! EVIL!God himself speaks out against animal haters (In the bible, which is, as we all know, true) and damns them to a fiery hell with Colonel Sanders! See, you are fvcking up the lives of innocent animals! This is RACISM! GAAAH! You racist! Animals are precious things from god, RACIST, SPECIEST DIPSH!T! BE DAMNED TO A HELL WITH COLONEL SANDERS!P.s. the game.
All opinions ought to be heard and understood, no matter how much you dislike them.

Before I go into my arguments, I want to make it clear that I do not view this debate as being about freedom of speech in the legal sense. NEITHER side in this debate will argue that people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, or that Neo-Nazi groups should be prohibited from holding demonstrations in a legal manner. In this debate, I will argue that while people should strive to be open minded, there should be limits as to what opinions should be heard at the individual and institutional level. This is become giving them a platform gives them legitimacy which can be extremely dangerous. In an academic context, opinions which contradict facts or have been previously discredited, should not be heard as they do not yield any benefit to the academic community or undermine the academic debate and discussion. Holocaust Deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat earth proponents are not given credence in the academic community as their claims are not based son evidence. Only when they present evidence to support their claims, are people taken seriously in the academic community. Outside the academic field, granting groups like neo-nazis a platform and subsequently legitimacy, which history shows can lead to disasterous consequences.
All opinions ought to be heard and understood, no matter how much you dislike them.

Three rounds. First is for making your argument, no rebuttals. Second is for rebuttals. Third is for conclusions. I will be arguing for the giving credit to all opinions, no matter how disgusting, prejudiced, or fallacious you may think they are. My opponent will be arguing that some opinions do not deserve credence. I am of the personal belief that even an argument you find morally or logically atrocious deserves credence. Even opinions that are threatening to other parties deserve to be listened to: how can one argue against Nazism without first understanding the argument it makes? If, for example, one is homosexual and someone else posts something homophobic, the natural response would be to discredit or ignore that opinion. I am arguing to the contrary: the only way one can change these kinds of opinions is by understanding them. Even if you are a neonazi or something of that ilk, I think it is paramount that I understand your perspective, so that we may argue.
This House believes that violence in video games directly leads to real-world violence

Greetings and salutations, everybody.Today, I want to instigate a debate on a topic which has apparently gained some momentum, although I was only introduced to it relatively recently. I'm aware that not many people hold to the Pro position, but if there is only one person who does on DDO, then we have the potential for an excellent and mind-blowing debate. The resolution in the title is the full resolution. I am Con; my opponent shall be Pro. The burden of proof will be shared equally, and both debaters should provide multiple points and sufficient rebuttals in order to have fulfilled their burden of proof.The first round is not solely for acceptance only. Pro will make his/her opening case in the first round and, by accepting, agrees to the rules set out in round one by myself.Also, please note that there is a single requirement for accepting: You must have completed at least three separate debates in order accept.Pro may introduce new contentions in round one only; Con may introduce new contentions in round two only.Otherwise, I believe that is it for me. Please read, watch, or debate with me - and enjoy!J
God vs athiesm

My opponent has forfeited the fifth round. Since he has forfeited, I can only assume he had no rebuttals or new arguments. I ask the voters to keep in mind that he has forfeited this round when voting, while I have put something in each round. Good job to pro. I feel I had very good points. However, that is just my opinion, just like my opinion on God is different than Pro's. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I feel both sides did a good job presenting information. Which side you think is better is not up to us, but you the voters.
God vs athiesm

Numbers are abstract concepts that we give value to. Supernatural is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe" Observable. If you tell me to write four, I would write the symbol 4. We can obverse that. Physics, cosmology,algebra, geometry, trig,calculus, all of these are forms of mathematics that show us how to observe numbers. We can't observe God. http://i.word.com... We can't test it, but it's a question. We can ask questions about supernatural beings. We can't put it in the test, but we can question it. Where do you go after you enter a blackhole? Is there life in space? Is there a species of animals that we have yet to discover? All these questions, yet we can't test them. Yet, we form theories about what the answer would be. So once again I ask: Can God, an omnipotent being, create a boulder couldn't even he can't lift? If he can, he is not omnipotent as he can't create a boulder that he can't lift. If he can't, he is not omnipotent as he can't lift the boulder. God shows total control by predetermination. He already knows what we are going to do before we are going to do it as he is omniscient. Therefore, he would know when terrorists would crash towers, he would know when Japanese naval and air forces would bomb a base, and he would know when a dictator would commit genocide against races he felt were inferior to him and would make them go through cruel concentration camps. You can't disprove God(until the day we find all scientific evidence proving their isn't one). However the information I have presented shows how the existence of God is very unlikely. You can't disprove my viewpoint saying the universe came to be by the Big Bang is wrong. Also, we can't disprove God because we can't test God, just like we can't Zeus or leprechauns or unicorns or big foot, ect.
God vs athiesm

"I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid." -Numbers can also not be tested and are immaterial too! Unless Con disproves numbers then, his supernatural argument is invalid. "The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big." -You began your arguments by stating that God is supernatural. Science and Human logic can only test natural things and not supernatural things. I see fault in your argument as you tried to contradict God using science and human logic in your Omnipotent argument. Your argument against God's Omnipotence has already been countered by your supernatural argument. "The second one is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition." -God allowed evil in to the world (therefore "creating") because he gave humanity the right to choose instead of controlling Adam and Eve like puppets. Unless Con can justify the act of total control over someone then, dictatorships are justified but, until then, the Omni-Benevolence argument is invalid. "The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it." -Most parents already know what their children want so why do children still tell them what they want. How is telling God something that he already knows called a contradiction. Unless Con can prove that telling your parents (that already know what you want) is contradiction then, your omniscient argument remains invalid. -As confusing as God is, you can't "disprove" God using your confusion.
God vs athiesm

I accept. However, I will also throw in a few new arguments, as you'll suspect you'll do the same. Let it be known that our previous debate we discussed the christian God, and that is what I plan to debate. Good luck Since you want me to use the same argument from our first debate, here it is word for word: It's hard for me to believe in something that has so many contradictions. Did you know that's Gods own definition contradicts itself? The definition of God in the Christian Bible is that he is 1.Super natural 2.Omnibenevolent 3.OmniPotent 4.Omniscient I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid. The second one is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition. The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big. The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

You are ending by saying that the contract is unconscionable but still you are not giving me a valid reason as to why? The claim you gave me was subjective. Overall the reason why this case should go in the favor of the Furniture Company because William"s signed the various contracts for the furniture company agreeing to the terms of the contract. You can"t really blame the furniture company for taking the money since they are a business. The whole point of a business is to make money. The furniture company should not be responsible for her decisions as an individual. Williams knowing the situation she was in still chose to sign those contracts. The fact that she has been in business with the furniture company for about 5 years now really raises a red flag. All of sudden now she views the contracts that she has been signing as unconscionable. It just does not make sense. If Williams felt that the contract was unconscionable she would of stop doing business with them a long time ago, but instead she waits 5 years later to say that the contracts that contracts given to her were unconscionable. So I am not buying what Williams is saying. If she really did not comprehend what the contract was trying to illustrate to her she could of seek assistance, but once you sign your name to a contract you are legally responsible for holding up your end of the bargain. So in closing I think that the case should go in the favor of the furniture Company.