BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

Excellent work. Debating is not a talent because anyone can do it. If you are very good at it, it wouldn't be worthwhile because it's so unnessessary. It shouldn't matter how you can prove your opinion to be better or correct over another's, but how you can win they themselves. When two people are done debating, they still think they're right. Sorry for this horrible round on my part, I had 8 minutes to enter this round, because of an unexpected absence. Thank You.
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

Debate - To consider something; deliberate. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.2. ) Worthwhile -To be enjoyableTo be Sufficiently valuable or important To be worth one's time, effort, or interest. Talent - Natural aptitude or skill All of these definitions should be considered synonymous they are not debatable the implications that they have in arguments are. Opening arguments: C1 - a debate consists of two people with opposing views or opinions and an audience of viewers, or even somebody going against an audience, or multiple people in a public arena. Those that debate well can articulate their points and maybe persuade the audience to either change their minds about a topic or reinforce their ideals/values. For example a Presidential debate is very important if you cannot debate well it is not likely that you will be commander and chief. C2 - in medicine they have things called morbid and moratality conferences/meeting usually to discuss avoidable outcomes and poor decisions. Doctors present cases that other doctors give their opinions on give feedback and alternatives the doctor that presented the case of course defends his decision they essentially have a debate. After the meeting of course doctors that attended might reconsider their decision to a better one or one that agrees withthe symptoms. C3 - A debate can create new ideas and lead to agreements between people with opposing views.
Evolution is proven fact... god (thankfully) no matter which language you speak is not proven fact

Here"s how I run things JR... if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t. Who knows? I may give you a strike 3 and you are out. We shall see. OK I will. "In this debate, backwardseden, takes the side of evolution, or materialism." Materialism 1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. (um nope) 2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. (um nope) Especially with definition 1, that"s strike 1. "I, as you can tell, take the opposite side which is theism. More specifically, I will provide evidence that shows a theistic god." That"ll be good because no one in human history has. So let"s see what you"ve made up to get past The Buggs Bunny and Road Runner hour. "This means, a space less, immaterial, powerful, personal, infinite, intelligent being. This does not necessary prove the god of the Bible," Well yes it does, because that"s what we are SPECIFICALLY talking about. Can"t you read? Do you know what "reading" is? You know. Words. Sentences. Now you go back and you READ the RULES because THE RULES SPECIFICALLY STATES the "god of the bible". So if you want to argue with the god of the bible, then fine, if not, then bye.
Evolution is proven fact... god (thankfully) no matter which language you speak is not proven fact

Evolution is proven fact... Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Superbug 1. a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. (has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now) http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics Dan Rather "Every year more than 90,000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, car accidents and prostate cancer combined." http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully and rightly so) is not proven fact No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate. Rules: 1. The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None. That's because there have been no tests to prove this understudy, nor have there been any demonstrations to prove this god of the bible, nor have there ---ever--- been any eye witness accounts of this god character in this century to prove this god. So until this god appears, the BOP of his existence is upon theists. 2. No creationists will be allowed as evidence. Why? They cannot stand behind their product, namely their god, not ever, when any truth comes into play. A perfect example is no creationist of merit would ever be stupid enough to put their god on trial again. Why? Because these dunderhead sloppy second joes 100% know that they will lose. That's because they know that all they have to go on is faith based oriented in which cannot be proved. And since they cannot stand behind their product at any crunch time, whatever evidence they present becomes chocked up and worthless. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Harry Potter books anti-Christian

I've read almost all the books 3 times. Here are 3 reasons why harry potter might be considered anti-christian. 1. It (However slyly) supports unequality. Even the good characters like Mr. Weasly seem to regard non magical people (Muggles) as lower then themselves because of their inabilities. Mr. Weasly seems to regard them as strange animals. 2. The way witchcraft and wizardry is presented in the books makes it seem like a cheery little-kiddish sort of thing that everyone should want. However, socery and things like that should not be presented in a good way, since things like that come from the devil, and since he is evil. 3. (Since your still on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood I'm not sure if I should tell you this point as it happens in the last book. I'll tell it to you in the next round though if you'd like:)
Harry Potter books anti-Christian

I accept! I love the harry potter books and movies, but I think it has some things in it which undeniably go against christian teachings. This is not to say that J.K Rowling is anti-christian nor that she meant her books to be so. I have a lot of friends who aren't allowed to read them till there older thoguhg luckily I am even thoguh I'm catholic. I would like to add that while harry potter has some things in it which do go against christianity, it also has some things that support it very much.
Same sex marriage should not be allowed by the government

The government has no compelling interest in legalizing, promote, or subsidize same sex marriage just because of two or more human beings are in love in which so subjective and personal. Only natural marriage shall be allowed since it produces the next generation and continues the existing of humanity and the government has the compelling interest in interfering with marriage of man and woman since they are raising the next generation and are entitled for support and subsidy since their characteristic and biological traits has the ability procreate. Unlike same sex marriage were the same sex has no benefit to be given with the society. And because of the this ideology that same sex marriage should be allowed many people who opposed this are being persecuted and tormented by radical activist. Should the government give you additional privileges just because the two of are in love. If the problem is the adoption or estate in case that one the partner face death, it must be in a form of special contracts and agreement. Same sex couples who wants to legally adopt can also file for a tax exemption and benefits of that is the case. It is not that we discriminate gay people or for who they are. It is only the behavior that damages society and its very fabric. If the government will legalize same sex marriage just because of love and equality, it will just open more waves of evil and immoral practices. Such as incest marriage, polygamy and more. There will never be an equality. According to Aristotle "The worst form of inequality is try to make things unequal, equal."
Can a nation continue to prosper and survive in which a nations people are divided.

America may be beginning to realize where we are and the final results of having allowed mass immigration into this country, but we as a people are overwhelmed with foreign immigrants which has been permitted by the countries politicians. The countries citizens apparently powerless to stop the government from carrying out its lax immigration policies have passively allowed politicians to take over and as a results a Trojan Horse, aliens, have slipped pass our countries walls and are inside our gates destroying the country from within.
Can a nation continue to prosper and survive in which a nations people are divided.

Can a nation continue to prosper and survive in which a nations people are divided. Can a nation continue to survive in which a nations people are divided as America is today, a nation which is composed of multitude of different nations peoples who's language, religious beliefs, and traditions and whose loyalties to their native countries separate them from each other. Diversity has been promoted as a noble idea which America should be proud of having achieved but apparently without a thought it seems, about what the consequences would eventually lead to by a nation of citizens who's only commonality with each other is that they exist together in the same country. Isn't it quite illogical and impossible for a nation composed of peoples accustomed to living under different forms of government and different traditions to ever be able to come together in a common bond of patriotic love of the country in which they resided or to unite in national unity. America is a country which has permitted immigrants to flood the country and the native born American people have been overwhelmed with immigrants which by their numbers have diluted the population to a point where more than just a foreign language separates them today. I believe that we are witnessing today a divided nation of people who because of their differences ,"Diversity ," cannot survive and dissolution is going to be America's fate if immigration isn't restricted or stopped until America's native citizens (not including anchor babies,) can once again comprise a majority of the citizens of the country with an commonality shared amongst the citizenry of America.
Graffiti is an artform

I am a graffiti artist/writer myself and i understand your views although i do not agree with them. I am going to argue from a graffiti artists point of view. I came from a fair neighborhood and lived an urban city lifestyle. Yes, graffiti can cause property damage, and cost money to remove graffiti, and can be a nuisance. However, graffiti is still an ART-FORM that represents itself THROUGH vandalism and defacement. It is a freedom of expression. It may be nice to have graffiti kept in a sketch book, or asking the owner permission first to paint on his/her's structure, but that seems too domesticated, Graffiti is meant to be illegal, its meant to run wild and free through the streets. Graffiti is a subculture of Hip-Hop, so is the DJ, MC, and the breakdancers.Drawing penises, or making inappropriate or hate comments on a wall is not what real graffiti artists/writers do. That is what mindless people do when their bored and they are one of the main reasons why they make us look bad to the rest of society. I write NOYER everywhere i get a chance because it gets me fame through the public even though it is hated. However, that is not all i do. I also have an artist state of mind when i do graffiti art. I could paint a picture that represents and gives off a message to the public such as all men are created equal, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, or something as simple as to paint something that will make you smile. Graffiti can send an unspoken message towards society and the public. Graffiti has always been somewhat political, but it has come a long way from simply tagging one's name to parodying world leaders to make a statement. You make a great point, there are not really that much benefits for graffiti. But the point is for the artist. He/She can put there art anywhere they want and know that someone somehere will see it, whether they love it or hate it, they are out there making a name for themselves.
Graffiti is an artform

Being located near railroad tracks frequently I wait at the train tracks. When these train cars pass I notice all of the 'art' that was performed on them. I find graffiti to be particularly disrespectful to the achievements of successful companies and small business owners. Although, I do believe this would be a much greater achievement if put on paper or the 'artist' has permission from the owner to create his/her works on the owner's structure. Unfortunately, this does not meet the requirements for a work to be considered graffiti. To be considered graffiti the work must meet the following requirements. -Scribbled, scratched or painted on a public surface or wall. -If it has been done illicitly without owner permission. So lets, begin. Graffiti is disrespectful towards homeowners, companies and small business owners. As my first example I will use boxcars. A new boxcar averages a cost of around $100,000. If you are not familiar with American currency this is in fact, a lot of money. All it takes to ruin the appearance of this new boxcar is a $2.00 can of spray paint. Vandalism is NOT culture. Although Graffiti is much more popular in urban areas, even in my current location, a rural area, graffiti is present. Even with a mere 500 people graffiti has made it's mark. I can quote various statements graffiti that has been made that meet the requirements. I do not comprehend how white spray paint strung along in a stairwell reading "m*th*rf*ck*rs . Is cultural. Graffiti is a nuisance. An owner may spend countless hours repainting their establishment due to the excessive scribbling. To not be noticeable you must paint graffiti over multiple times. Only to be a target for another crime. Quite possibly from the same individual. The benefits of graffiti are slim to none. It is a plague to property owners. All it takes to ruin thousands of dollars worth of property is two dollars. A ratio of 1:50,000 can render the appearance of a structure to, in simplest terms, complete rubbish.
Hillary Clinton

yeah, i guess i've never looked at your profile before. so you're a libertarian, eh? let me ask you this: WHY THE HECK DO YOU SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP? jeez, hold true to your own party, man! i mean, i know you guys never win and all, but why didn't you vote for, say, gary johnson or roger gary? and those are choices on the profile. maybe you should edit it. or could it be that republicans just PRETEND to be libertarians, because they're afraid to lose democrat friends? or maybe it's that republicans and libertarians are pretty similar. after all, gary johnson used to be a repub. anyway, getting back to my argument... defending him IS love! now hate, you see, hate would be dumping him and going away. but she stuck by him, through thick and through thin. bill offered her the presidency because he LOVED her too! don't you get it? they LOVE each other. do you republicans/libertarians/whatevers know what LOVE is? or has your excessive wealth made you blind to that concept? here's proof that she defended him for love. think about this. the sex scandal was revealed in 1998. that was eighteen years ago. back then, was bill offering her any special incentive to forgive him and deny the rapes? did he offer her the presidency? did she run against bush? no. and yet she didn't pack her bags. she didn't leave. she stayed right by him. that's love. caring for someone without a reward.
Hillary Clinton

well, anonymous, here we are again. three debates in and you're still the same old republican you always have been. you repubbos criticize hillary because her husband is a rapist. let me ask you this: is the marquis de sade's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson evil, just because he's related to him? NO! hillary isn't the rapist, okay? BILL is! she had nothing to do with all that! she's the VICTIM! let me give you another little fictional situation: a man stabs a woman in an alley. twelve minutes later the woman is barely breathing. the man is still there. a passerby comes up, strikes the woman in the face, and says, "YOU KILLED HIM!" ridiculous, right? she didn't deny that he did it for POWER! she denied it because she's a loving person, and decided to forgive him. let me ask you, anonymous, would you forgive your partner if they had a little mishap? if you wouldn't, i wonder if you're married at all. the only thing i hate bill for doing is giving you repubs a reason to run your mouths off like a contestant in the new york city marathon. and i suppose cheating is wrong, too. but don't hate hillary for it! also, i'm pretty sure monica lewinsky consented.
The Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than the iPhone 5S

Ill be honest you have not given me much to refute since those are mostly just specifications but i will do what i can. "It does not hurt your eyes to stare so much" - this is a ridiculous argument, yes the Lumia may have a bigger screen but that does not mean people are sitting and squinting at their iPhones because they cant make out text that is likely the same size as that of the Lumia depending on the application in use. one half inch is not significant enough to outweigh the lackluster microsoft store. the lumia does have more storage, but i for one have never used all 16 gigabytes on my iphone. With the OS preinstalled there is ample space for most of your needs. if youve seen picture taken with the 5s you will notice they look incredible. how else would all the instagram pictures of food look so enticing? just because the Lumias resolution is higher, again, doesnt mean that the Iphone is not an incredible phone with a powerful camera. The ios may be aging, but it is aging like fine wine. Since its induction it has been vastly superior and remains that way. windows may be easy to use but it is like reading binary compared to apples fluid and constant OS.
The Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than the iPhone 5S

I also forgot to add, first time around is for arguments, second for rebuttals, third for conclusions. Thank you for responding.Argument: There are many things that make the Lumia better than the iPhone. I shall list some of them, and let the stats speak for themselves. -The Lumia has a bigger screen, resulting in better viewing quality, and it does not hurt your eyes to stare so much. (Lumia: 5.13 x 2.81 x 0.41 inches, iPhone: 4.87 x 2.31 x 0.3 inches, or if you just want the screen size, Lumia: 4.5 in. iPhone: 4 in.)-The Lumia has much more total integrated storage, with 32GB for a $199 phone, while the iPhone only has 16 GB for a $199 phone (two-year contract), you will have to pay an extra $299 up front for that. -The iPhone has only 1136 x 640, while the Lumia has 1280 x 768 pixels, a small but definite gain.-The camera resolution is 41MP Rear; 2MP Front-Facing, while the iPhone only has 8 MP Rear; 1.2 MP Front-Facing.-The video camera resolution in both is 1080p, but the Lumia has a bigger screen, resulting in more awesomeness, and over all a better viewing experience.-Also: The Windows 8 operating system is much more customizable, and the live tile interface is fun and easy to use, while the iOS 7 system is just a make over of the aging OS system.Finally: The price for the Lumia and iPhone are the same, but the Lumia is MUCH better for that price range.Thank you! And just to make sure, you now rubute my statement. No arguments made.
The Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than the iPhone 5S

The iphone 5s is the best phone because it is very easy to use, has the best and most apps, and you are more apt to pull some fine hunneys with it. there are more aspects to the overall quality of a phone than its specs. the most important is how much easier and better does it make your life. going with this premise it is easy to conclude that the iphone 5s is better because it is by far easier to navigate than the lumia, its many options for applications such as mailbox, fantastical, and any alternative for those two as well as many more life improving applications are almost always optimized for the OS operating system before they are for the Microsoft store. this is giving more credit to the Microsoft store than it should because the majority of the apps on the app store have no alternative on the Microsoft store. Also the fact that more women have iphones leads to an easy icebreaker. "you have an iphone too? that's awesome!" this will nearly always lead to a passionate lovemaking session. as well as the fact that many women will not even reply to a green text message evidence:http://www.youtube.com... skip to 4:20 if you do not want to watch the video
The Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than the iPhone 5S

My argument: The Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than the iPhone 5S. Your argument: The iPhone 5S is better than the Lumia 1020 First round is NOT acceptance only, you may go crazy. You type "No argument in this round, as agreed upon" in the last round to ensure that we have the same number of rounds. Failure to abide by these rules will result in automatic forfeit. Good luck.
American Intervention in Syria

American Intervention in Syria. Hello and welcome to what will be an awesome debate. This debate will center around the United States foreign policy, and whether the United States should intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War. My position during this debate will be that the United States should not intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War. Clearly the burden of proof will be on the opponent, the opponent will advocate and present a case as to why the United States should intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War.Rules of Debate. First round is for acceptance only. If you have a question concerning the debate please ask in the comment section before accepting. Please remember that the burden of proof belongs to the opponent. Rounds 2 and 3 are to be used to present all the arguments that the opponent or I have, the last round will be for rebuttals only. Only accept the debate if you have the time for it. Please do not skip any rounds. That will be all for now. If the opponent wishes to add any other definitions or has any input please place them forward when you accept the debate. Thanks and good luck!