BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is better than romney and maybe better than this site

He has made plans to stop the war in iraq and has sent gaurds to kill osama bin laden. If you think he is not responding to the country deal with it. It aint easy to be president. There is alot of paper work you cannot just ask for something and espect it in a day. Also Mitt Romney would not even do the things he said he would today. Atleast people have a right to have a shelter. If you were poor and homeless I bet you Obama would come care to you. And replubicans go ahead and vote because I dont care what you say about me just because your republican. Go ahead replublican party because right now your making yourself look stupid. Is it that hard to give to a homeless man? Mitt Romney has also lied, Mitt Romney would only support the rich not the needy and our country is wealthy, we have lots of food, we have many artilliaries. We also have a democracy government. Do you hate Gay marridge?Do you hate poor?Do you like war?
Obama is better than romney and maybe better than this site

I never said any of that, so stop putting words in my mouth. Now back to the topic- Obama doesn't know how to run a country. And like I said before, the only people he cares about are the people who don't work hard. He wants the people who do work hard to pay for the lazy people! He needs to stop worrying about other countries, and start worrying about ours. Our country has been falling apart since Obama has been president.
Obama is better than romney and maybe better than this site

Your kidding right? Republicans re greeedy mitt romney lies and stuff and is racist he only supports the rich. You dont like giving to the needy. I meet you all the time. You hate Obama. You hate gay people. You hate black people, immigrants, Muslims, labor unions, women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies, you hate em all.You like war. You like torture. You like Jesus. I don't know how in the hell any of that is compatible, but no one ever accused you haters of being over-committed to ideological consistency. You like people who look like you or at least hate most of the things that you hate. You hate everything else.Now, I know you profess to love our country and the founding fathers (unless you are reminded that they believed in the separation of church and state), but I need to remind you that America is NOT what Fox News says it is. America is a melting pot, it always has been. We are a multi-cultural amalgamation of all kinds of people, and yet you still demonize everyone who is not a rich, white, heterosexual christian male or his submissive and obedient wife.You hate liberals, moderates, hell, anyone who disagrees with Conservative dogma as espoused by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. You hate em.Now that you have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at President Obama and it still hasn't worked you are panicking. Obama's approval ratings are still near 50% despite your best efforts to undermine the economy and America's recovery at every step you can. You tried to hold the American economy hostage to force America into default on its' debts, debts that YOU rang up under Bush, so you could blame it on Obama and it failed. You've used the filibuster more than any other Congress ever, going so far as to vote against providing health care access to 9/11 first responders. You remember 9/11, don't you, it's that thing you used to lie us into a war in Iraq, and then when Obama killed Bin Laden and ended the war in Iraq you told people that he hates America and wants the troops to fail. You monsters.I think you hate gays, Obama, black people, poor people, all of us, women, atheists and agnostics, Latinos, Muslims, Liberals, all of us, I think you hate every one who isn't exactly like you, and I think you hate us more than you love your country.I think you hate gay soldiers more than you want America to win its wars.Republicans can NOT win on the issues. They've got NOTHING. All they have is a divide and conquer class war that pits ignorant racist and bigoted people against the rest of us in a meaningless battle of wedge issues and the already proven to fail George W. Bush agenda again of tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, privatization and war profiteering and nothing else, so all they can do is blame black people, gays the government, anybody and everyone else for their own failings. The party of personal responsibility,
The Hole of Doughnut, also called a Doughnut Hole, should be called a doughnut, and vise versa.

yoo claim that ay donut hole shud be caled a donut and vice versa. Yoo haf explained why a donut hole desevres to be called a donut, but your point is not strong enuff to win this debate. A donut hole is made frum the hole uv a donut. That is why donuts haff wholes. They are made from donuts. You have not explained why a donut shud bee called a doughnut whole well enough. A donut HAS a whole. If it was called a donut hole, then it wuld just be a whole which you defined to bee nuthingness. You have a pint why a donuthole should be called a dougnut, but not the vice versa part. Yu have failed to prove your point entirely, which makes mee the winnner. Just to make shure everyone got my point. A a donut hole is made from the hole of a donut, makin it the whole of a doughnut. Just becuz a doughnut has a whole does not make it a dougnut hole.
The Hole of Doughnut, also called a Doughnut Hole, should be called a doughnut, and vise versa.

well here's how i see it: a doughnut hole-- heres the definition of a hole: a hollow place in a solid body or mass. why should the center of the doughnut that is removed, be called a doughnut hole? it is not hollow place at all, but a ball of dough. there is no HOLE to be found in a doughnut hole. therefore the name is truely deceiving. technically at least, if a doughnut is to be called a doughnut, then the absense of are in teh middle of the doughnut (giving it the ring-like shape) should be called the doughnut hole, because that as anyone can agree, is the hollow place in the sold body or mass (the doughnut). a doughnut-- i believe that the small ball of dough, that most americans call a 'doughnut hole', should be called a doughnut, because as I've said before, it contains no hole, and it, itself, is not a HOLE. also, the "doughnut" should be called the doghnut hole because it is the piece of this pastery that Iindeed HAS A HOLE. the ball of dough does not have an absense of are in any one part of it, as the "doughnut" does. "DOUGHNUT"= has absense of area; a hole. Hence why I think it should be called the doughnut hole. "DOUGHNUT HOLE"= has NO hole present; ball of dough. Hence why I think it should be called teh doughnut. *And with all due respect, please write with proper english.
The Hole of Doughnut, also called a Doughnut Hole, should be called a doughnut, and vise versa.

eye shall proov you wrong alloww mii to show yu teh definitins uv the too words: Teh Definitin of Doughnut: a small cake of sweetened or, sometimes, unsweetened dough fried in deep fat, typically shaped like a ring or, when prepared with a filling, a ball. Teh Definitin of Doughnut Hole: Doughnut holes are bite-sized doughnut balls, sold primarily in Canada and the United States. The name orginates from the fact that the product appears to be made from the part of a full doughnut that is "cut out" to make the hole in the centre of the doughnut. A Doughnut is teh ring, a donut hole iz the doe dat is cut out frum the midle uv a donut, simple as dat, i win dis debate
People should not try to make resolutions that make them out to be pro

I think, that when viewing open challenges on this site, I often see resolutions and would like to take a stance against the resolution. Often, since the first round is the only one that can be viewed, and people reference themselves in the third person, by stating that con must take a position and pro must take a position, you have to click into the debate to see if you will be taking con or pro if you accept. I find this very annoying, and people should strive to be the logical position and set themselves up to be pro whenever it is not awkward to do so.
People should not try to make resolutions that make them out to be pro

As Con, I argue, somewhat ironically, that if someone creates an open challenge on this site, that they should attempt, whenever possible, to set themselves up to be pro. Pro will argue that they should either set themselves up to be con, or not to consciously decide to be either. This debate is four rounds, all arguments must be in round two and three, no new arguments in round four, only re-statement of previous arguments and rebuttals. Good luck if someone takes this debate.
Abortion

Your point of marriage is moot. Your argument infers that marriage is not based on love, but the conception of a child? So, just because two people share a common child, they should be wed regardless of their will? This is a formula for unhappy, violent, and broken marriages that in no way constitute a healthy society. In the same manner your point on quality of life is also questionable. You would rather have a child subjected to abuse and an uncaring and unable environment, than to avoid the miserable life that the mother knows the child will have to face? I think not... I will end with this, I believe that the mother should be able to decide what is best in her particular situation. In the end, people will choose to do what they want, and that is an unalienable right in the United States of America, and for you to try and force that choice upon mothers-to-be based on such lame arguments is ridiculous.
Abortion

It is better to give as many children the opportunity to live as possible. Imagine if mothers applied the same ideas that you have just described and went along with an abortion- it's the killing of a life. Now imagine they do this when the child is three or four years old- they would be charged with a slew of murder-related crimes. 85% of mothers who abort there children are unmarried. Less abortion would result in more reliable marriages. "... we should let that child suffer from neglect or abuse?" you asked, and you went on to say "The child is not at fault for what happened here and should not be subjected into an environment where they will not be cared for properly." but that point you made can also be used against abortion. Even if the quality of life for the child was the horrible and they were subject to an uncaring environment it is still better than no life at all. Can't you see? You are taking away the voice of a living being. Why must human kind eradicate our own young?
Abortion

Your opinion is based on a moral standard that you personally uphold. In any case, you neglect to see that perhaps people are capable of making mistakes, and as you said it is not the child's fault. If the mother mistakenly became pregnant under any circumstance, and is not capable of raising a child properly, you are saying that we should let that child live and suffer through its life? You would rather do away with abortion and have the child possibly suffer from neglect or abuse? The child is not at fault for what happened here and should not be subjected into an environment where they will not be cared for properly.
Abortion

Why would a woman with a family and husband go to a bar alone and drink enough to become intoxicated to then inevitably be taken advantage of by some man at the bar? I won't focus to much of my energy on your flawed example. It would be the woman's negligence that would cause the pregnancy in that particular case. A woman who does not desire to do her duty as a mother, in the case of rape or any other situation, has alternatives to aborting the child. She could have a relative take the child or put the child up for adoption. It's not the child's fault that the mother was raped; the child has no say in the abortion. Just like a falsely accused, innocent person who is executed.
Abortion

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. There are those that take the side of pro-life, pro-choice, and those with no opinion/side. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion, as defined above, is the killing of a child. How could the mother determine the death of her child? This would mean that she holds the entire life of her child in her hands. Imagine if she suddenly changed her mind and did not follow through with the abortion, the child who would then be born would owe all of it's life to the mother- enslavement. I am against abortion for many reasons, but I believe under any circumstances (including rape) that abortion is a deliberate killing. Anyone who finds themselves pregnant and is seeking an abortion should remember that for the most part, it was their negligence that caused the pregnancy and it will be their negligence that results in the child's death.
Adam and Eve Theory Not Viable

Thanks for this debate. I did some rough math here. To answer the population question I took 2 and doubled it over and over again. This represents a population doubling: 1 2 4 .... 134217728 I did this until I got up to 134 million which was the population of the world around 0 AD. This is a rough estimates as are all population estimates back then. And takes 26 steps. This requires population doubling every 150 years. Also, insest will not kill babies only mutate them a little.
Adam and Eve Theory Not Viable

How did Adam and Eve's child reproduce if their was only the two humans on earth besides the child? Was their incest? How did we get the mass population of humans we have today from two people? The bible's theory does not seem viable. I would like someone to convince me how Adam and Eve's child reproduced. Did he/she reproduce with his/her father/mother? I want real evidence, with answers that would be viable in modern society. Thanks for debating with me!
Indian reservations having their own criminal justice system (cjs)

ClarificationAs the affirmative, I will be arguing that it is not racist for "Indian" reservations to have their own criminal justice system. Definitions rac·ismnoun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. [1] Refutations"Collages and other communities do not have their own cjs"Colleges are ethnically and culturally diverse communities, while Native American (NA) reservations are not. Reservations are intended to protect the culture of the NAs who had their people assimilated, land stolen, and religion stripped. Colleges are institutions of learning that house innumerable backgrounds and "races" (including NAs); it would be in no way racist if NA reservations were treated differently than colleges as they are inherently different. "they have other privileges such as year round hunting"I fail to see the connection between the rights of Native Americans to fish and hunt on their land and the presence of their own justice system. Please elaborate on this point Con. ArgumentCultural and Religious RevivalEver since the European settlements in North America, there has always been a driving force to repair the damages done to the NA way of life. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 included "actions that contributed to the reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of communal holdings of American Indian tribes and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. "[2] The American people know the wrongs that have been subjected to the NAs in the past and have ever since been working to return what had been taken and lost. Indian reservations having their own government (and consequently, a criminal justice system), harbors no aspect of racism as what was rightfully theirs would be returned. Allowing NA reservations to govern themselves does not promote the idea that they were inferior to Americans (or any other race), in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. If anything, Indians [b]not[/b] having a criminal justice system due to their being stripped of rights and sovereignty by the European settlers is racist. ______________Sources1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
anarchy is the best form of government

Government: a system by which a community of people (actively or passively) consent to be ruled. Anarchy: a system of rule that's primary goal is to eliminate hierarchy and protect individual liberty. It utilizes non-coercive consensus building as a means of making community decisions--essentially creating a system of rules they agree with. It is not just the absence of government as it is popularly used! Philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre have referred to themselves as anarchists (www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-p/). Anarchist philosophy holds that states and state institutions inevitably marginalize certain groups of people and because of this, almost every form of government fails to protect the natural rights of many of its citizens. Criminals can still be dealt with in anarchist societies, as we have seen anarchists clashing with sisa drug dealers and working to make life better in poverty-stricken Greece (https://www.nytimes.com...) As for being united, why is that a goal? The goal is supposed to be the protection of rights. Anarchists form their own republics by freely associating with whatever group they choose to. The United States government of course punishes criminals, but does very poorly at reintegrating these individuals back into society. The recidivism rate for federal prisons is 76% (www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/may/5/report-documents-us-recidivism-rates-federal-prisoners). It really doesn"t rehabilitate criminals, it just keeps them incarcerated between crimes. A restorative justice approach which anarchism is conducive to, would probably yield much better results. In conclusion, anarchy is a different type of government that though unproven, could be the best form of government because it leaves no one out. Thank you, Con, and I anticipate your response eagerly.
anarchy is the best form of government

I would ask Pro for definitions before I present a formal argument. In my knowledge of anarchism, it is contradictory to the idea of a government, as such, the resolution "Anarchy is the best form of government" seems to be self-contradictory. I want Pro to have the opportunity to explain what he means by the terms "Government" and "Anarchy." Otherwise, I will offer my definitions of these terms in R2 along with my formal constructive. With that out of the way, I'll give a brief opening statement with the definitions I am accustomed to. Anarchy does not bring people together, rather, it tears them apart. John Locke, a political philosopher, stated that the Government's only purpose ought to be to protect the natural rights of mankind. He states this knowing that there are criminals, those that would take advantage of others if they had the chance, and because of these people, a government is a necessity. For Pro to state that anarchy allows for people to "find or create a system of rules which they most agree with" is not anarchy, but is the exact definition of a government. A system of rules instated by those that the rules apply to. We have all agreed by participating in a government that we are subject to that government, and all protections and limitations that go with it. The purpose of government is to enforce these rules, but with anarchy, rules cannot be enforced because no government exists. Tyranny of power would overtake morality, ethics, and these rules Pro states would unite us in an anarchy. Yet with a government, we are truly united. While we may disagree with many things our government does, we must all agree that it protects our natural rights. Criminals are punished, and the law-abiding citizen is kept safe. Our rights are all protected because we all agreed we wanted them protected by a government, not because we wanted to rid ourselves of one. As such, the best form of government would be a government, not anarchy. This concludes my opening statement. I look forward to Pro's R2 constructive, as well as an explanation of his definitions.
anarchy is the best form of government

If purpose of government is to organize people for their collective good, and rule by consensus is the best method for doing so, then anarchy best fulfills the purpose of government. Because anarchy allows for free-association, it enables people to find or create a system of rules which they most agree with. Consensus is also an excellent way to hold others accountable and ensure everyone's needs are met. Anarchy is designed to eliminate hierarchies which lead to inequalities which go against the collective good.
There is a rational basis to deny fertile, young women employment

Topic: There is a rational basis to deny fertile, young women employmentWhat is up for debate here is relatively easy to understand and is motivated by a blog post I read recently. I intend to argue that employers have a strong, rational basis to deny women of childbearing age from employment.Definitions: Rational - Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.Fertile - Bearing or capable of bearing offspring.Young - Ages 20-29Rules:(1) First round is for acceptance.(2) No new arguments in the final round.Let me know in the comments if you are interested in debating this topic.
Charizard is Super Overrated!

Charizard is a classic. Like Pikachu, everyone loves him. he's brought together so many people and made them friends. He's something everyone loves. and he's super cool. I mean, look at his super awesome FLAMETHROWER! This guy has Nintendo heart and soul in him. He's clearly someone to praise. I don't see why anyone would call him overrated. I mean, whoever said that has a bone to pick with the Pokemon universe. He's so noticed he's one of the few Pokemon in Super Smash Bros! And of course, he's so big and burly you could even say he's underrated! Don't forget, everyone likes to see a monster that is a dragon that breathes fire. I know we all love him. In fact, 400 college students were rounded up and asked to pick a partner Pokemon, and guess what? 39.3% picked Charmander, which shows Charmander really is the most popular starter. You can go to the following site and see for yourself; https://soranews24.com... I am sorry if this argument seems a bit short, but I am quite busy and don't have much time. I will return for the next round.
Charizard is Super Overrated!

Charizard is a LOT of people's favorite Pokemon, he does NOT deserve his glory though. Charizard IS COOL, I have to admit. At the same time, he is every noobs fave. He's nowhere close to the best starter (stat-wise), he doesn't really look that cool base form (he's a fat dragon...), and, he would get absolutely creamed by a supreme Infernape.
Jesus never states he is God.

Hello. Let me just start by saying, Jesus absolutely said he was God. John 8:58 says,"Then Jesus said to them,"Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." As many and say, this can be interpreted in different ways. But, many times throughout the Bible, God is referred to as being or in his perspective, I AM. Jesus is saying that he is God. At John 10:30, Jesus says,"I and my father are one." I feel this verse is pretty self explanatory, but just in case. The majority of christians believe in the trinity. The Father, The son, And the Holy Spirit are all the same. This verse completely confirms that and it comes straight from the mouth of Jesus. Since him and the father are one, he is rightfully claiming he is God. In Revelation 1:8 God says,"I am the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the End" Revelation 22:13, Jesus says," I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the End...(22:16)I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these thing in the churches." Once again, Jesus is saying and confirming himself to be god. With these verse and not the streamline argument of,"interpretation," I'm not sure how your claim holds any feasible strength.