BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is this a very scary poem

con says "Firstly, I think that this is a ridiculous debate topic because it's a question. Try Yahoo Answers next time, or at least the opinions section of this site. Secondly, it's pretty damn obvious that this is an erotic poem, now I have to delete my search history again because I must return to the The-Voluptuary-erotic-poetry page. Goddammit. It's in the name that it's an erotic poem. It's all about people who are addicted to sensation and sex, and your favorite part is about the arrival of the prostitute. Please give a reason as to why this is scary next time, kay? Awaiting your response, Duncan" point 1 con says "secondly, it's pretty damn obvious that this is an erotic poem...It's all about people who are addicted to sensation and sex, and your favorite part is about the arrival of the prostitute." con does seems to have some hang ups and issues up around erotica and sex which bias his opinion now back to the issue point 2 con does not tells why the poems is not scary he gives no argument only letting us see his sexual hang ups all he says is "Secondly, it's pretty damn obvious that this is an erotic poem..." but that does not tell us why he disagrees that the poem is scary thus con does not refute the post "Is this a very scary poem"
Is this a very scary poem

Firstly, I think that this is a ridiculous debate topic because it's a question. Try Yahoo Answers next time, or at least the opinions section of this site. Secondly, it's pretty damn obvious that this is an erotic poem, now I have to delete my search history again because I must return to the The-Voluptuary-erotic-poetry page. Goddammit. It's in the name that it's an erotic poem. It's all about people who are addicted to sensation and sex, and your favorite part is about the arrival of the prostitute. Please give a reason as to why this is scary next time, kay? Awaiting your response, Duncan
Is this a very scary poem

you say "My curiosity has been piqued by the bizarre nature of this question. No, you have submitted an erotic poem about a man using a prostitute to relieve his "tensions", with the prostitute using the fake name of niece. Why is this a debate again?" First "Why is this a debate again?" do you find this poem scary and frightening Second how do you arrive at this conclusion "a man using a prostitute to relieve his "tensions", with the prostitute using the fake name of niece" to me you are missing the poem due to some hung ups or issues you may have
1 extended question that destroys science

Straw men Yes, virtually every response to nonsense must seem to build a straw man. I’ve encouraged you to clarify, provide definitions or even attempt to connect your vague questions to the destruction of science but you haven’t. Responding to vague nonsensical questions is difficult to do without making some basic assumptions. Questions: true or false apply to statements not objects So far Pro has asked seven vague questions along the same lines and made a few assertions while providing nothing that even resembles an argument to connect them to the resolution. The most recent question, like all the others, doesn’t make any sense. “if you grab a rock and its in your hand is the rock true or false? [sic]” The best answer to this question is, “that does not make sense.” Pro is simply avoiding and obfuscating while indicating some deeper truth. Propositions or statements are true or false not objects. At the same time Pro avoids making any proposition such as the rock exists. That statement is either true or false but those are not the only answers to the question. When I give pro some line and try to interpret what he means by using true and false in an unconventional way he asserts that I am building straw men (misrepresenting his arguments). What else could you mean when applying true and false to an object other than questions of existence that he explicitly denies. Google defines false as, “not according with truth or fact; incorrect.,” or, “appearing to be the thing denoted; deliberately made or meant to deceive [5].” Again true and false don’t really apply to objects but to assertions or statements. At the same time they do indicate some condition of knowledge about existence in context. “if you grab a rock and its in your hand is the rock true or false? [sic]” I’ll try to answer this as honestly as possible even though it has nothing to do with the resolution. Pick your favorite they’re all sensible answers to a nonsensical question: That question doesn’t make sense. It depends on your definition of true and false excluding the reality of their existence as an interpretation. I don’t know for certain that the rock exists but I have sufficient evidence to believe it exists. I don’t see how that relates to the destruction of science. Rocks are not true or false. Those words apply to statements not objects. - Once again Pro brings nothing to the table except a vague question refusing to provide his non standard definitions or clarify. When I try to interpret what he is saying he simply asserts that I don’t understand or am misrepresenting him but will not provide a rebuttal. Pro has still provided not arguments to support his resolution or responded to mine. [5] https://www.google.com...
1 extended question that destroys science

Absolute Certainty Well, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth but the lack of certainty is a common objection to science and it looked like your argument was headed that way. In fact it still sounds like this is part of your objection since you are trying to draw a distinction between what we believe and what is literally true. This still sounds like you are drawing a distinction between what we believe and what we claim to know for certain which you are calling truth. Pro is Using Non-standard Definitions or not Making any Sense If this is not what you’re talking about then what your saying is not making any sense and a question about aliens does not destroy science. It may help if you define true as you are using it. Google defines true as, “In accordance with fact or reality,” or, “accurate or exact [4].” This is still along the lines of certainty so I would have to say I don’t know. I have no positive belief that aliens are true (in accordance with fact or reality) but they may be. I don’t know. When you say you are not talking about existence but, “what they are,” I don’t see the distinction you are trying to draw or any connection with science. Using the word true is not helping. You are going to have to elaborate because you still have not made your point. Your question is not making sense and it’s not a simple question. If using standard dictionary definitions your question cannot be interpreted correctly then you are just not making sense. This is not an attempt to communicate clearly. If there were a solid point to be made then it would be better to just state it directly. - Once again, Pro has not been able to build a connection between some obscure questions and the destruction of science. He has not responded to my abbreviated, straightforward argument that science works as intended so it clearly cannot be destroyed by a question. Pro has presented no arguments to support his resolution. [4] https://www.google.com...
1 extended question that destroys science

Pro"s argument does not support the resolution. He suggested that we can never really be absolutely certain of anything but this has nothing to do with science. Google defines science as, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment [1]." From this perspective, since systematic study has not provided proof for aliens, a "science believer" does not believe aliens exist. This does not mean that they believe that aliens do not exist which is a separate claim that we would need evidence to establish. Since it is impossible to know everything you cannot prove a universal negative so it is impossible to prove that aliens do not exist. The way Pro presented the question is a false dichotomy. You do not need to believe that aliens are true or false. The intellectually honest position is to have a lack of belief that aliens exist and not to claim that they do not exist. Absolute Certainty Science does not claim absolute certainty and all successful models of reality are still called "theories" such as the germ theory of disease [2] or the theory of gravity. These models describe reality based on the observable evidence. The moment new evidence is discovered the theories will change to adjust to new discoveries. This is how the model of the atom went from a solid sphere to a sphere with electrons in specific orbits to the modern model of protons and neutrons at the center with electrons revolving at specific energy states [3]. So you see that absolute certainty is incompatible with science. Science works Every day you see evidence that science is an effective method for understanding the structure and behavior of the physical world. Every time an airplane flies in the sky, a cell phone is used or you turn on the lights you prove that hundreds of scientific theories are an accurate description of reality. We will know if the, "unknown is true," when we discover and research it. The "known" may be discovered to be false after more research but this really does nothing to destroy science. - To sum up, the questions Pro has mentioned have nothing to do with the resolution. If absolute certainty cannot exist science still works. The fact that science cannot prove a universal negative (like aliens do not exist) does nothing to establish that science is false. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://atomictimeline.net...
parents should monitor the electronic communications of the children by installing spyware

we all know a lot of the negative things from the internet that can make the children do the bad things. But the solution isn't by monitoring them too much till u must to install the spyware to find about their password or others. I believe that it can't solve the problem. Because if the children know that their parents so over protecting them till installing spyware, it just make the relationship between the children and the parents worse. If they don't have a good relationship it can cause a lot of the problems. Children won't tell to their parents if they have a problem, their parents just like a stranger. And u can imagine if the relationship is bad, children don't have a good communication to their parents and hide their problems from their parents it can make them do the negative things, like watching something bad from internet. The second thing is the children will lost their confidence to do something for their self because the parents always monitoring too much about them. Lost their confidence and also their responsibility to manage and protect their self from the bad thing. Because the parents never give them the responsibility to manage it. I believe that the best solution is not by monitoring them too much till u must to install something like spyware. Having a good conversation with the children is enough. Tell them clearly what is the negative thing and the effects from the internet. Tell them that is not good. Make sure that the children being comfort to tell their problems to you. Don't be angry, be a parents that can make the children feel comfort and save. Second solution is the parents should make the children do the positive things is their free time. like taking some course based on their hobby or talent and a lot the other positive things that can they do than open the internet to make an useless thing so i believe that monitoring too much isn't the best way cause it can cause more negative effects than the positive one, and having a good conversation & be a good parents is the best way.
parents should monitor the electronic communications of the children by installing spyware

First of all it is valid that people need their own privacy, but not when they are to abuse it for obscene things. Furthermore while watching this content their brain releases an excess of dopamine which encourages watching this content over and over again which can reduce cognitive function. This is therefore in their bests interests as the same drug when watching porn is released in your brain as when you are doing drugs, which can get them addicted to it. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the amount of things that young children can face on the Internet. Lastly they are violating laws in certain countries by watching this content, which again may not be for them. Also the argument that you make is effectively moot as if the children are unaware of such a software being in their system, they would have no reason to feel any different than they usually do, and responsibility is something that needs to be earned not given without thought.
parents should monitor the electronic communications of the children by installing spyware

Your points have been well noted, but the very premise that you base your argument on is flawed. You say responsibility should be given to the children, and the internet should be placed in their hands but there is no control over what they will do with that power. There have been several incidences where a child has gone online to interact with friends, but a stranger contacts him/her and the start an intimate conversation with each other. Soon enough they are"BFFs" and decide to meet each other, can you guess what happens next? Hint: the child gets kidnapped. and there are several parents who do have the talk about cyber safety with their children, yet this talk is flouted in the search for some "fun". This is may be a violation of law, as children may not be able to view explicit material before a certain age which can lead to fines by the government, or the children may even be taken away on the verdict of bad parenting. This is not the only thing, torrents are common in today's world, and they can be used for the transfer of illicit and copyrighted data which may cause the parents to be fined quite heftily. There should be monitoring of a child's internet, and my main argument is that the spyware should be placed without the jurisdiction of the child and without him or her knowing, and after a certain period of time where the child has displayed that she/he can be trusted then the spyware be removed. Also if the spyware only tracks the browsing data and not the keystrokes the child's passwords should be safe. If the spyware is placed on the computer without the person knowing then there is no fear of the child being brought up in an environment where he does not feel safe and secure. Finally the internet is a tool that can be wielded for good or for bad, it is the parent's responsibility to make sure a child does not pursue the detrimental way.
America should be Anarchy

:) 1. They say no dictators - can you think of anywhere on the earth where people oppose the government and there is no government? That's right, you can't. Think of Cuba. Some countries in Africa. Dictators. Someone WILL step up to power to try to lead the nation. 2. He says you wouldn't have to listen to them anyways - Sure, don't listen to them, then they execute you. Try ignoring Kim Jong Il's orders. Or Castro's. Or Mr. Bumbai of Africa. 3. He says no one lives forever, but Chuck norris does. (1) 4. He says that " Modern democracies are divided into classes that continually fight each other; states have created barriers between men that cause hatred and misery." I would like for you to imagine this: no government. Instead, just lots of people on one continent. If I don't like you, there's nothing to stop me from killing you (other than morals, which normally aren't very effective). Also, if China wants to expand their territories, what's to prevent them from attacking us and taking our land? Then we'd be in a communist government. 5. He says "Anarchism is a viable and fair way of life, that allows humans to live and interact naturally, without a government, dictator, etc... controlling us." With this quote, I'm going to sum up what I've said. A. Anarchism still will lead to others taking over. B. This will be even worse and if you don't obey they'll kill you C. Chuck Norris has infinite lives D. Man will fight man for territory E. There are no laws F. No social services G. No jails (Criminals - coming to a neighborhood near you!) H. No more highways I. You were just shot. You don't have much money. You can't pay your medical bills. You get kicked out of your house because you're in debt. You starve. That happens under anarchy, but with a government, they can help. J. No more government jobs, killing the economy, putting millions jobless, K. Totalitarianism is bad L. If its just free land, he's assuming that no one wants to take it. YEAH, RIGHT! China, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Zimbabwae, the democratic republic of Congo, the East-Asian Siberian tiger monkey, would all want to take us over. Killing us all. M. Anarchy is bad. Vote con. VOTE CON! Now, I am going to sing a song about voting Con. Voting Con It's like Voting for peace Voting Con Means we all get to live Voting con Now, I am going to sing a song about voting Pro. Vo-----ting pro Is like suicide Vo-----ting pro Means that we all die (sing to the tune of Row-row-row your anarchist) I also wonder what economic system would replace capitalism once the US is gone. Maybe communism? Hmm. That'll be fun. Vote con. Now. Or Chuck Norris will murder you in your sleep. :) Good debate. (1) www.chucknorrisfacts.com
America should be Anarchy

It took you a while to respond to the arguement lol. "Just no to anarchy. That means no government. That means no social security. No laws. No enforcement of laws. No social services. Anarchy opens up and allows dictators etc. etc. to take over. We would become totalitarian very quickly. No president. No security. What's to prevent China from attacking all of us? No highways. No public services. No more parks. No more government jobs. That's the last thing we need right now - more unemployment." There wouldn't be any dictators and if there was, you wouldn't even have to listen to them because you would be free to do whatever you wanted. Why would you need employment if you could do whatever you wanted. You wouldn't need money, you could just steal. No one lives forever anyways. We might as well live life to the fullest! Anarchists believe in a classless society. Modern democracies are divided into classes that continually fight each other; states have created barriers between men that cause hatred and misery. Anarchy removes these barriers, by removing the apparatus that makes economic subjection of others possible. Anarchism is a viable and fair way of life, that allows humans to live and interact naturally, without a government, dictator, etc... controlling us.
America should be Anarchy

*I had to do this quickly* Just no to anarchy. That means no government. That means no social security. No laws. No enforcement of laws. No social services. Anarchy opens up and allows dictators etc. etc. to take over. We would become totalitarian very quickly. No president. No security. What's to prevent China from attacking all of us? No highways. No public services. No more parks. No more government jobs. That's the last thing we need right now - more unemployment.
America should be Anarchy

Anarchy is very misunderstood! As most people would have you believe the opposite, Anarchy does not mean chaos, nihilism, or any other term of the sort. It is in fact quite the contrary, Anarchism implies a society that is governed neither by rules or rulers, but rather by humans themselves who freely dictate their own living. Anarchy is an ideology fashioned upon the values of truth and solidarity. It is a doctrine centered on the community, where the individual gives what they can in return for what he needs. It is commonly believed by Anarchists that humans are at their very best when living free of authority, or more specifically, free of hierarchy. The current system we go by is built on the exact opposite. We are conditioned to alienate ourselves from the world and to serve our leaders blindly so that they may pursue their own conquest for wealth and power. It is time that the people wake up and fight back against the controlling elite, to organize and resist! Freedom really would come free!
jam and jelly are the same thing

How have I not proven my point? Lets look at the definitions again: Jelly: Fruit. .. boiled down with sugar and used as a sweet spread for bread and toast, as a filling for cakes or doughnuts, etc. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Jam: A preserve of. .. fruit, boiled with sugar: strawberry jam. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Notice that each definition says the exact same thing! So I have proven that my opponents definition of jam is not correct, and I have just proven that jam and jelly are identical. Thank you con, and I eagerly await your response.
jam and jelly are the same thing

Any person with decent grammar schooling would know that I was referring to the noun Jam. This is because it is impossible to compare a noun with a verb. You can't say: Water and flow are the same things. Because water is a noun, and flow is a verb. You can say: Horse and stallion are the same things. Because horse is a noun, as well as stallion. --------------------------------------------------------- Dictionary.com defines the NOUN jam as: A preserve of whole fruit, slightly crushed, boiled with sugar: strawberry jam. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) So I have used Dictionary.com instead of Wikipedia.org as you have wished, and I have still proven my point. I eagerly await your response, con.
jam and jelly are the same thing

Excuse me, but when I said jam, I did not say TO jam (as a verb), I said jam, as in the noun Jam. The NOUN jam is defined by Wikipedia. org as: Properly, the term jam refers to a product made with whole fruit, cut into pieces or crushed. The fruit is heated with water and sugar to activate the pectin in the fruit. The mixture is then put into containers. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Jam is defined by Wikipedia. org as: In North America, jelly is a clear fruit spread consisting of set, sweetened fruit (or vegetable) juice. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)
jam and jelly are the same thing

Definitions: JAM: To press, squeeze, or wedge tightly between bodies or surfaces, so that motion or extrication is made difficult or impossible. [1] Jelly: A food preparation of a soft, elastic consistency due to the presence of gelatin [2] ======================== Argument: It is obvious that the two are not the same. Jelly is a food and jam is when you wedge tightly. The resolution has been negated. Thank you. Source: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should homework be banned

Though homework is a pain it does have use. Like if you have math homework, it's just practice. If homework was banned then you would just be learning at school and then going home and getting on a phone, game console, computer, etc. the reason we are given homework is not to annoy us but to help us. "Practice makes perfect". How are we to pass our classes or know what's being taught in class if we do not get homework? It's just extra practice