BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sean Penn is an idiot.

Hugo Chavez? JANE FREAKING FONDA? there is something seriously wrong with your perception of the world. As I like to keep closing arguments short and to the point, that is what this will be. I will refute: "Could you debate me instead of making lists? This debate is not just about Sean Penn being an actor. My case is that he is an idiot, and a violent one at that. You cant change the debate to your liking. His violent outbursts are not just designated to Madonna. He has had several violent outbursts against the press, including one incident where he beat up a photographer and was arrested. Another point I want to make in my closing argument is that his politics do matter. And if he is really a liberal, he does a terrible job supporting the cause. Hes close friends with super corrupt Hugo Chavez, Jane Fonda, and he has said "Lets put this president in fucking jail". Who remembers back at the Oscars when Chris Rock made a harmless joke about Jude Law. Sean Penn came out and said, "Jude Law is one of our finest actors". The whole world laughed in his face. He is a joke of a man. Its a pretty unfortunate man that we are discussing. As a close I want you to remember that if you vote for the "list" guy you are making a vote for a violent idiot who beats his wife and hangs out with dictators. " No more lists, I assure you. He is not an Idiot. here is the definition: Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25. As far as I know, Sean Penn is older than 3 and has an IQ higher than 25. Moving on. Liberals would want this "fucking" president gone. anyways... I think jude Law is a fine actor, and the ridicule was unnecesary. There are so many violent celebrities out there it is common knowledge and commonly accepted when someone lashes out. Thank you and please vote for the "list guy", becuase you are voting for the better debater. Thank you.
Sean Penn is an idiot.

Could you debate me instead of making lists? This debate is not just about Sean Penn being an actor. My case is that he is an idiot, and a violent one at that. You cant change the debate to your liking. His violent outbursts are not just designated to Madonna. He has had several violent outbursts against the press, including one incident where he beat up a photographer and was arrested. Another point I want to make in my closing argument is that his politics do matter. And if he is really a liberal, he does a terrible job supporting the cause. Hes close friends with super corrupt Hugo Chavez, Jane Fonda, and he has said "Lets put this president in fucking jail". Who remembers back at the Oscars when Chris Rock made a harmless joke about Jude Law. Sean Penn came out and said, "Jude Law is one of our finest actors". The whole world laughed in his face. He is a joke of a man. Its a pretty unfortunate man that we are discussing. As a close I want you to remember that if you vote for the "list" guy you are making a vote for a violent idiot who beats his wife and hangs out with dictators. Sean Penn is an idiot. Thanks for listening
Sean Penn is an idiot.

Sean Penn is an idiot. I think we all can agree that he is very pretentious and takes himself way too seriously. Also is it just me or does he overact in ever movie he is in? Penn also gives a really bad name to liberal politics and in my opinion only hurts the cause. He is good friends with Hugo Chavez. I saw him speak once with Jane Fonda and it was pathetic and totally unimpressive. I could go on but id like to hear what others have to say about this massive idiot. PS. His ONLY good role was that of Spicolli, since then hes taken himself way to seriously
walrus need tusk protectors

Your last reason isn't even a valid one and is completely ridiculous. It should be completely ignored. And still leaves the question, "Why do walruses need tusk protectors? " "Walruses certainly do get on just fine without babysitting. .. " So if they're fine, then we don't need to babysit and give them tusk protectors, correct? My opponent has said that walruses use theirs tusks to compete for a mate. But putting a tusk protector on a tusk could totally change the way a female views a male. A NATURAL tusk encourages mating, not an artificial one. And even if the walrus population was going extinct because of broken tusks, it is not because of mating but because of hunters and they need to be stopped. Pro has made very weak arguments and for these reasons, walruses do not need tusk protectors.
walrus need tusk protectors

No we can't domesticate all walruses, but it is easy and painless to tranqualize the ones that are in a bad mood because their neoghbors dog keeps deficating on it's lawn. There are thousands of "wild animals treated for injury all over the world, every year by lisenced vetranarians who donate their time and skill simply because they love animals. Walruses certainly do get on just cine without babysitting, but protectors could help prevent painful and embarrasing tusk breakage. Walruses use their tusks mainly when competing for a mate. Not to hunt seals or... Wait.... Yes I read it correctly, clams. Um... Clams, I'll have to double check but I don't think walruses spend much time piercing clams. And finally the question of why. The reason for these protectors is to stop walruses from impregnating our helpless neighborhood giraffes. This is horrible and simply must stop! Theese mischiefous heathens will have to find their fun elsewhere.
walrus need tusk protectors

First of all, the idea of putting a protector on a walrus tusk is extremely ridiculous. Uh, the walrus shown in your video is a domesticated one. .. And we certainly can't domesticate all walruses now can we? About natural selection. .. Yes, we have been "interfering" with natural selection with veterinary care, but this rebuttal is mute. We have veterinarians for cats and dogs, domesticated animals, not wild ones like lions or wolves. We should not be baby-sitters for these walruses and if they are to ruin their tusks, we should nothing to them and see what lies in their fate. By protecting too many walruses, there can be extinction between animals like clams and some like seals. To end, let me just ask you, why do walruses need tusk protectors? Is it to save them? Because they're not really endangered. Those that are endangered are because of hunters, not lack of food.
walrus need tusk protectors

View video when prompted. Warning: do not ignore the first part of my arguement! 1) Obviously there is no such thing as tusk protectors or we wouldn't need to have this debate. 2) "No walrus will let you near it" ( please view video now before reading further ) http://www.youtube.com... Need I say more? 3) "survival of the fittest". You are refering to natural selection I asume. Humans have been interfering with that for centuries with the introduction of vetrinary care. Point is mute. 4) A tusk is not very sharp, and they only dull further with age. A tusk protector could be made from titanium,this would be very light and strong. And the tip could be shaped like a natural tusk. Or sharpened to a point, made very blunt, or even serraded for that matter. A female walrus ( cow ) averages 900-1100 pounds, a male ( bull ) 1600-1800 pounds, even if the protectors were made from lead ( or depleted uranium ) a creature of this mass would not have a problem with their weight.
walrus need tusk protectors

Um, I think the audience should ignore that first part of your argument. I'll start with my own points, seeing as there is nothing to currently refute. I am for the opposition saying that "Walrus do not need tusk protectors." Contentions 1. There is no such thing as a tusk protector. So walruses can't have them if they don't exist, right? 2. No walrus will let you get near it, even if a tusk protector existed. And how would you suggest how to place a tusk protector on a walrus tusk in the first place? 3. Ruins the idea of "survival of the fittest." If a walrus is somehow helped by us and given a tusk protector, won't that just mean he wasn't meant to survive in the first place? On nature shows, you can sometimes see an animal suffer and starve. But we don't interfere because it is the law of nature. 4. A tusk protector would ruin the sharpness of a walrus tusk. If it was made of metal, it would be too heavy for the walrus. If it was made of plastic, the sharpness would not be retained and the tusk could only be used to lightly poke something. And if it was wood, then all you would get are splinters. For these reasons, walruses do not need tusk protectors.
Animal Cruelty should not be ok for entertainment or gaming

Um... okay, then. Well to summarize my part in this debate, I showed that pets can be put under the category of human entertainment as we do not them to survive. Therefore any cruelty imposed by humans towards pets will mean that pets are not okay according to the resolution. As Con, I argued that animal cruelty towards pets rarely occur and are often accidental when they do occur. Weighing this small possibility against all the benefits that pets provide such as companionship leads to the conclusion that it is worth it to keep pets around. It would be unfair to impose such a ridiculous law for the few cases of animal cruelty onto those who did nothing wrong. Pro may have brought up the fact that the resolution states that animal cruelty SHOULD NOT be okay. However as in the case of pets, we cannot know beforehand if animal cruelty is going to occur, therefore we cannot take any actions to prevent it from happening. Also, as I previously mentioned, some cases of animal cruelty occur by accident. In such cases, the person should be forgiven and animal cruelty here is okay and should be forgiven. My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments so the resolution is negated.
Animal Cruelty should not be ok for entertainment or gaming

Before I start, I'd like to make definition of animal cruelty more clear, so everyone knows what I have to prove. The one I will be using is "the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival [1]. Contention People have pets for their own entertainment. They get pets for many reasons such as companionship, stress relief, etc. [2]. However people in general are just as capable of surviving without pets as with. I'd like to point out that yes sometimes animals are essential to a person's life such as seeing eye dogs, but there is still a large majority of people that take in animals for their own entertainment. Therefore, any animal cruelty to pets means that there should be no pets according to the resolution. My contention will then be that even though there is animal cruelty directed towards pets, we should not get rid of pets in general. As humans, we don't know what an animal thinks, in other words we don't know when an animal is suffering. Even if a dog is yelping, we do not know for sure that the dog is in pain. The way we determine whether an animal is suffering or not is based on what we think is painful and the dog's physical response. For example, if you kick a dog, we assume that the dog's yelp is of pain not of joy. When the dog is not making a physical noise and when they are not in a situation that we think of as painful, we believe that the dog is not in pain. This however may not be the case. Heat stroke provides a good example of this idea. The symptoms of heat stroke do not show themselves until it is too late, so pet owners who leave their dog in a car for 30 minutes could find their dog dead when they return[3]. In cases like these the pet owner has inflicted harm upon the animal, which is therefore a form of animal cruelty, but the harm was not intentional. In Atlanta, Georgia such a case took place as a dog was locked inside a police cruiser and died of heat stroke[4]. Although in this case the dog was a police dog and not a pet, the concept is the same. By proposing that animal cruelty is an incentive to stop the use of animals as entertainment, the resolution says that people should not have pets, because accidents such as leaving dogs in a car lead to animal cruelty. I would also like to note that is unfair to punish all pet owners for the faults of a small percentage. Rebuttal I agree with Pro's argument that there are some sports such as bullfighting which are clear examples of animal cruelty that aren't exactly moral. However just because there are sports like these does not mean people should not have pets where animal cruelty is only a slim possibility, and the resolution needs to show that all entertainment with animal cruelty is not okay. I would also like to mention that some of the effects Pro mentions in the beginning need to be explained. How exactly does animal cruelty lead to extinction? What sport does not allow the animals to get any rest? 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://shibashake.com... 3. http://healthypets.mercola.com... 4.http://www.cnn.com...
Animal Cruelty should not be ok for entertainment or gaming

This is as well my first debate. Anyways, i think that people should stop using animals for entertainment unless the animal will be safe. I don't think it would be fair for animals to suffer or even death just for our entertainment! Imagine if you were the animal. If you have seen the rodeo where there is a guy doing the bull thing they usually stab the bull with spears and sometimes they even die! And its all for entertainment. Who agrees??
Animal Cruelty should not be ok for entertainment or gaming

Animals are used for entertainment or gaming but people dont know that the animals suffer, might die, injuries, may cause extinction, animals dont get to rest, and can make an animal reckless. I saw that hobbit (the movie) had an unprotected farm and from that they had 3 horses dead, a dozen chickens dead, and 3 sheeps. I dont think its fair! Yes or no?
NBA Lockout

As a sports fan I must start with this. The NBA lockout is a terrible thing for the sport in America, and will most definitely have a lasting affect on the teams and their fans. Now with that out of the way I will get to my points. Contention I: The lockout is bad for American basketball, but with players leaving to go play on teams in Turkey, Spain, and China, basketball will be a more popular sport worldwide, and basketball players in other countries will have the same opportunity you have taken for granted here. I would rather have my sport shared worldwide, so other people could enjoy it rather than keep it to myself. This globalization of basketball due to the lockout could spark new world basketball events like national all-star tourneys, or maybe mixing of leagues. Maybe one day we will the Chicago Bulls matchup against Beksitas for the World Championship. Who knows? Contention II: Globalization of Basketball due to the lockout will improve the amount of talent eventually being filtered into the NBA when they resume. Look at baseball for example, one of the most popular sports in the world. Baseball has players playing in the majors from Taiwan, Japan, and China; to the Domincan Republic, Cuba, and Mexico; even to the land down under, Australia. Basketball has already shown it's potential for producing top international talent with players like Yi Jianlian, Ricky Rubbio, Dirk Nowitzski (I cant spell), and Yao, but wouldn't it be awesome to see more European, Asian, and Latinos filter into the league? That is what this lockout will promote. Contention III: Hockey Ehnyone? With the absence of the popular NBA, the NHL will finally rebound from its 2005 lockout. As a hockey player I have to throw this argument in here. Hockey is one of the most difficult sports out there, first you have to learn how to skate, then you have to learn how to shoot, then stick handle, then learn strategy. Did I mention they fight, and hit? It's a very exciting game and it has been overshadowed by the NBA for a long time. Maybe with this lockout hockey will comeback to sports relevance, and sport in general will improve in the United States To sum it all up, the lockout is good for sports because it will promote the NBA brand and players in different countries, and in response to this promotion more people in those countries will start to play basketball therefore widening the field of talent making competition more stiff, and making the NBA talent wise still tops in the world. With the lockout of the NBA, the NHL will resurge and there will once again be an appreciation for that sport which improves sports as a whole in the US. I hope you can at least understand my points, again I am sorry for your loss, a lockout is something no fan should go through.
Obama isn't the first African American president in the world born from USA

Very well. As facts can't easily be refuted, I will have to give the victory to my opponent.(Aren't debates about opinions? Just an honest question.)I would like to thank my opponent for letting me debate with him (particularly to vote). It was nice, even though it was about a fact. Thank you, and voters, choose wisely.(I will forfeit next round if no other statements are brought up.)-Richardfrost
Obama isn't the first African American president in the world born from USA

Hello. I am refuting the side stated as the one in the title of this debate. I will define the word "president" in this question as being the President of the United States of America (will be used as the United States, US, or the USA), as found in the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II.(1) My argument is that he is the first African American president of the United States born in the USA in the world, as there have been no other African American presidents that have ever been in the world. (2) This is currently my only argument. I would like to thank Pro for letting me have the chance to debate with him, and wish him good luck in the upcoming arguments. 1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
The BOP lies on atheists

In a way theists are merely sceptics of atheism/nihilism.Let me justify this statement.Sceptic: a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Now, whilst it's true to say that not all atheists are nihilists, it is true to say that all theists are not nihilists. The fundamental motivation behind theism is the search for a meaning. This is in fact far more logical that merely assuming that everything we are comes to no reasoning at all (logical meaning what one cold rationally draw from the given information reality has supplied with them in their life). To think that all your personality, all your actions in life and all that you are and ever will be is worth zilch in the end is actually a rather pointless concept to accept. This urge to not think pointlesly or meanginglessly on an endless circle of scepticism is what drives religion.The theists are essentially the band of humans whom live to seek meaning, a guidance to be as good a person as they can in the society in which they exist by whatever means they can (usually holy scripture of some sort combined with preachings of a holy man). They largely are not at all gnostic theists whom claim that undoubtedly their god is the true one and all others are idiots for believing otherwise (but I actually think there are many gnostic atheists in this day and age too). Ultimately gnostic theists and atheists are merely disillusioned individuals who thinkt hat because something feels true it is true with 100% certainty. tThis is not at all what we are debating.While you combat my arguments saying that "If I claimed that elephants lived on Mars, i would have to provide the proof, not the skeptic. " you forget that what most theists are saying is that "god is definite and without doubt" it is actually "Without a god, I would have no reason for living, I would probably kill myslef or mutilate other humans i the process." complete chaos would exist if no one had morals. Luckily even atheists do due to, by pure chance, most human beings having a string of DNa which wires the brain to feel empathy. However if, by chance, on batch of humans happened to be majority psychopath (those who psychologically cannot feel guilt or empathy) I'm pretty sure that without religion or the concept of go dof some kind they would fall into an eternity of mindless slaughter pain and torture (which is exactly what civilisation has sought to oppose through hard work and religious perseverance, what I mena is that even scientists work 'religiously' basing theories and the hope to find something amazing on only 99.99999% certainty since nothing is known to 100% certainty. To say you know, to a degree of certainty, that ther eis no god whatsoever is a far larger and more significant claim... is it not?
The BOP lies on atheists

Since I was a baby boy and was first introduced to the idea of God I walways wondered if there was anyway to prove it wrong. Proving God is impossible because God, by definition is an all-knowing, all-powerful being beyond the scopes of human proof. However, to claim there to be no God and to deny such an awe-inspiring power requires proof since the theists themselves state their belief, and faith in it, are independent of physical evidence. Atheists however say that because there is no physical evidence for a non-physical all-powerful entity that it is therefore valid to deny its existence yet offer no alternative explanation as to where energy comes from and deny the possibility of God!Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.Agnosticism: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God.Please convert today.FUN DEBATES FOR FUN PEOPLE :DMy name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist. :).Just Kidding...I am agnostic and my name is not for you to know.http://www.youtube.com...;
The BOP lies on atheists

In pro's closing argument, and throughout the whole debate, he made the ever so common Argument from ignorance. He says that somehow, just because no one knows the origins of the universe, god somehow is the only possible answer. One of the many issues with this blunder is that it does not solve the paradox. Something must have created god, and something must have created the creator of god, and so on. Basic logic shows that pro's argument does not hold up.In closing, in this debate, as well as refuting pro's points, I raised the following points:Claiming god exists, is a positive assertion. Positive assertions require proof. (R. 1-5)Claiming god does not exist, is a negative assertion. Negative assertions do not require proof. (R. 1-5)Morals evolved naturally, not through any deity. (R. 2)And finally that religion is argument from ignorance. (R. 5)For these reasons, the resolution must fall.Thank you.
The BOP lies on atheists

I totally disagree.Unless the 'negative' claimer can provide any more convincing explanation for how the universe originated (other than OH in one SINGULARITY, ALL ENERGY, ALL MASS, and EVERYTHING, was created from NOTHING, for NO REASON, by NO GREATER POWER) then sorry dude... The 'negative claim' is a 'negative' one indeed...The supposed 'positive claimants' actually just offer theories. Unless you refer purely to Gnostic theists, which I never discussed ever. I said that to suggest there is a god of some kind, which our physical means of science can't explain, is responsible for everything existing, for our consciousness (for which there is no scientific explanation, since the brain is purely physical why is there some supernatural 'person' inside the head so to say? The feelings and sh*t)In the end... There is no negative here. Not the way you describe it.The atheists assert that they 'know' a way the universe came but without a god of any kind?!!! Impossible?!!Anyways. Good debate.