BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Big Bang Theory

My purpose wasn't to prove the existence of the Christian God. It was to open the door for other possibilities to have just as much credibility as BBT. The reason for this is because the evidence in religions is enough for them to believe, but is not enough for other religions, including atheism, to believe. While atheists hear a lot of convincing proof from their "religion" (I use religion to sum up the belief system relying on faith in word of others) which may not be proof enough for people of religion. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but I'm saying that each is just as possible as another. The majority of atheists believe in the BBT, and the majority of Christians (who take up 1/3 of the world population) believe in a God. I'm not saying Argumentum ad populum means that something is true, but I feel like that belief should not be shoved off as impossible, just because in an atheists mind there is no proof.
The Detroit Red Wings will win the Stanley Cup

GOD DAMN IT!!!! I wanted to have a god damn hockey debate. I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating this with you. I realize you are perfectly within your rights to pull this, but I wish people would respect the wishes of the person who creates the debate. What about my opening argument in any way suggested I wanted to debate realism and perception? If you want to debate hockey, I will rephrase the claim to: It is more likely than not that the Red Wings will win the Stanley Cup this year. If not, enjoy padding your win %
Resolved: It is wrong to use euthanasia

The main point from which this entire case shall evolve is that suffering and pain are neither legally nor medically verifiable.You can measure physical pain itself to some degree but there is no possible way to determine if the psychology of that person is too depressed, anxious or any other variety of clouded judgement to accurately verify if their will to live has truly gone.Another point to consider is that if we allow euthanasia for physical ailments that are incurable why don't we kill people suffering from asperger's, autism and down's syndrome? They suffer a lot with bullying, devleopmental issues and often grow up to have nightmares of their past. ADHD is treatable but also incurable. Just because it isn't physically killing them doesn't make it better.Depression and anxiety are actually referred to as mental illnesses [http://psychcentral.com...]. Anxiety can get as extreme as paranoid schizophrenia and the likes. In the same way a non-mental illness can also affec toen's judgement despite not directly being known for it.Quality of life is irrelevant in both law and medicine. This is purely subjective and cannot possible be determined. Are you saying tha if someone was terminally ill and no one consented to them dying they should stay alive while one less ill and hence greater quality of life lives? This is preposterous.Freedom of choice is also a nice joke. Anyone under the age of majority/consent of a nation has their parents decide if their machine is cut off and similar things. No one below this age, unless vegetated, can even be euthanized evne in nations where it is legal. This is ageism and thus is unfair prejudice that shouldn't exist in a civilized society's law.Mental pain/illnes sshould ne dealth with. the misison of anyone, psychologist or phycisian, shoul,d be to cure the person by any means necessary for as log as possible against any odds. The slightest deviation from this extremist attitude and you cross a line that you really do not want to cross. Who really is worth killing and isn't? A lot of things to consider.Spritiuality is nonexistent in medicine and legality. Please do not involve it, this is a secular debate about a law mad ein a secular state. Unles syou are specifically referring to shariah law states which al outlaw euthanasia absolutely.
Resolved: It is wrong to use euthanasia

A human life is a human life.Doctor, nurses, surgeons, gynecologists and all other people of medical professions are all supposed to extend human life for as long as possible.There is simply no rebuttal.Feel free to bring up any point sin Round 2, I'll happily expand my case far further and I am actually pro euthanasia personally just to let you know but, alas, this is the side I have found myself to take.
Donald Trump shouldn't be president!

Donald Trump is has a great spasm of intelligence. Much beyond the average small brain capacities of the American people. It's been said over and over again that Trump has played us this entire election race since the beginning. The amount of viewers who don't pickup on the cues of his cunningness surprised me. The whole point into his rants and controversy has made him receive hate, but has also made him win the primary election. Trump has saved billions of dollars in advertising for his campaign by using News outlet and channels to promote his agenda. That alone, is smart, and money productive. TO anyone that hates trump because of his personality, you're just playing yourself. As to his government policies, he is an awesome president in protecting our country and bringing back jobs. Trump has built a wall for a reason, and it's because scummy Mexicans cannot afford to buy plane tickets and stay overnight through Visa's so the next best thing is jumping over the borders. And jumping over the border IS, truly, the best way to remain anonymous from government tracking and becoming advocating crime or transporting drugs into our country without anyone ever knowing your identity. Jobs have also slowly coming back. Trump has signed Wisconsin to act on one of the central tenets of his administration so far -- keeping jobs inside the United States -- by signing a new executive order aimed at guarding domestic labor. Trump's plan to focus on traditional and physical labor side of things is a smart idea, as nearly 45% of all Americans do not own a laptop! Laptops are the holy principle to UNDERSTANDING and knowing HOW TO USE technology, creating programs, code and technology itself. Based of this alone I think Trump needs to stay focused on improving our agricultural and physical labor economies in these next couple years. Maybe in the next decade will someone come in with a intuitive plan to enterprise technology, but not in 2018.
Wesker is the best antagonist in the game.

The gift that Wesker has is not a super power it's a virus that Umbrella made to make bio-weapons and he got it by the Tyrant who impalled him with the virus in the first book and game. He doesnt talk too much like i said before he informs you your going to die. He gives his victims or enemies a chance try to kill him or run. How else do you think it takes so long to kill him the the series of of Resident Evil. This shows he is better because he is shown more and amps up his reputation and power.
Wesker is the best antagonist in the game.

"1. He has incredable speed so he can kill you faster." He really has such powers, but if hes that strong, why are the protagonists still alive then?? Certainly, the protagonist only had guns, no super powers. "2. He talks only to inform you that your going to die." Look at the part at 2:31 He had Chris at gunpoint and he could just blown his head off, yet he keeps rambling. In other words, he talks too much. http://www.youtube.com... "3. He is in all of the series or mentioned unlike Nemesis who is in the series once" This isnt true anyway, but even if Wesker did show up in every RE series while Nemesis only shows up once, that doesnt make a difference, they are both antagonists, no matter how you look at it. Being seen more often then once doesnt make it the best.
Wesker is the best antagonist in the game.

Reasons why he isnt the best: 1. He isnt a good antagonist. He doesnt even does his job as antagonist rightly. Wesker has all the superhuman powers like being able to sprint at extreme speed and even impaling someones chest with his hand. His victories against the protagonists? Nearly none. With all these advantages, his plan is constantly foiled by the STARS and BSAA members. 2. He talks too much. He really has the power to kill someone if he wants, yet he instead choses to talk about how much they suck and that they should bow towards their god. Because he talks too much, the protagonists had more chances to defeat Wesker everytime. Of course talking will make him sound badass, but thats no use if you're dead or defeated. 3. Nemesis is a better antagonist. I mean, he really does his job good. He stalks Jill the whole game and you constantly have to choose whether to fight him or to run for your life. Not only that, but he even manages to do things that real antagonists do, like killing a STARS member that belongs with Jill or shooting down a rescue helicopter that was supposed to rescue Jill. Your turn :P
Wesker is the best antagonist in the game.

This is a debate reserved only for against Macho. Anyone else that wanted to accept this, well too bad whahaha. Definition: Best: surpassing all others in excellence, quality, achievement Antagonist: One who contends against the another; an adversary This is an introduction round so no arguments are posted. My point is that Albert Wesker is NOT the best antagonist in the RE chronicles. Pro has to argue that Wesker is indeed the best antagonist in the RE chronicles. Waits for Pro to accept*
Wesker is the best antagonist in the game.

Of course knowing you, you're arguments makes no sense at all, by giving others chances to pwn the antagonist, how is he then the best antagonists? "The gift that Wesker has is not a super power it's a virus that Umbrella made to make bio-weapons and he got it by the Tyrant who impalled him with the virus in the first book and game." That changes NOTHING, he has such powers and if he doesnt use them to defeat his enemy, he sucks. (seeing him always being defeated) "He doesnt talk too much like i said before he informs you your going to die. He gives his victims or enemies a chance try to kill him or run. How else do you think it takes so long to kill him the the series of of Resident Evil." That makes no sense how matter u look at it. First of all, the protagonists had stopped weskers plans for nearly the entire RE chronicles, even after all that, do you even think he would just stand idly, trash talk them and give them the chance to defeat him AGAIN? (He really keeps giving them chances, he thinks himself too highly it seems) Secondly, he does gives his enemies chances because hes sure of himself. But in the end, he keeps getting defeated in battle, even with the abilities to sprint at sound speed, the ability to dodge bullets, superhuman powers and even the ability to catch a rocket that was fired on him and throw it back. These 2 points both point out that he is in fact NOT the best antagonist, hes just trying to be badass. Being badass doesnt make you the best antagonist. "This shows he is better because he is shown more and amps up his reputation and power." You just ignored my points, an antagonist being shown more does NOT make him the best. Also, yes he achieved total control because Umbrella Corps was taken down, but the one who took them down was Chris and Jill, not Wesker. Wesker was only taking over the power. Surely thats no achievement, he only took it over. Not to mention near the end of the chronicles, his reputation has suffered by alot. He betrayed everyone that worked for him and dismissed them as pawns. (Krauser, Tricell Corps, etc.) Even with all these sacrifices, he still failed his plans. SUMMARY: Wesker is being badass, we all know that. But he fails in most things and thats what makes him NOT the best antagonist. I mean, for a good antagonist, you have to be able to accomplish things. Nemesis is a good example like i said in previous round. Vote CON, but im not forcing you. Dont try to make biased votes though.
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

OKAY! Right off the bat, he calls me a pokemon. "(A pokemon buff like yourself should get this)" Some ad homonym here, but I'll let it slide for now. Rebuttals: "There are no lies" seems to be what your grasping at, since it's in bold, and there's no way it can't be your stance. But alas, the stance is futile, here's why: Bill Clinton said, and I quote what you quoted " ' I did not have sexual relations with that woman ' ". You say "Of course he did!". We seem to have contradicting thoughts. One of you two (I'd say Bill) is LYING! Anatole's quote sums up to "Ignorance keeps us in a peaceful state of mind" and most importantly, for my case, "self deception our felicity" are his ending thoughts. felicity means "1.intense happiness" and " 2.the ability to find appropriate expression for one's thoughts". Definition 1 suggests that lying (self-deception; lying to ourselves) is good. We can of course pretend to feel sorry for the neighbor who we don't know (gonna go into a literal sense here), whose friend died. And Steve, our own friend, killed him for his money. We don't know the person, so we wouldn't need to feel bad, only pretend! My conclusion: my opponent made a point, but messed up his argument with Bill Clinton. In favor of my own argument, he presented a quote from Anatole France, saying basically "lying to the self makes happy". In Round 3, just to make this clear, Con's job is to make a point, and actually support it. If his thoughts contradict any quotes from a person (like Bill Clinton having an affair with a woman), or he contradicts himself, I will point this out, and the contradictions are usually bad for your case. Of course I will refute his argument in Round 3, as well as sum up my own points. I wish thee luck.
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

I am now talking to a Pokemon, that's another off my 'bucket-list'You say: '(I don't really see any relevance with the quote you cited, or how it may help your case on the matter.)' Read up on this guy, Anatole France. He is like me, what you see is not necessariy what is. (A pokemon buff like yourself should get this) He is being 'dead pan' if you like.There are no liesListen to Ronald Reagan on the Iran-Contra deal.'"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.'Listen to another US President , Bill Clinton' I did not have sexual relations with that woman 'Of course he did!Here is my man again,''Ignorance is a necessary condition of human happiness, and it must be owned that in most cases we fulfill it well. We know almost nothing about ourselves; absolutely nothing about our neighbors. Ignorance constitutes our peace of mind; self- deception our felicity Anatole France:.' If we are to get anywhere, then we must eliminate falsehood and climb out of our letargy. What do you think??
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

I'll be taking the Pro stance for "Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom". I say that humanity would perish. Think about this: if everyone told the truth all the time, it would get kind of boring. There are also times where lying is the best action, as opposed to telling the truth. Let's say, for example, you lived in a society that requires religion, but you aren't religious. If they found out that you aren't religious, you'd be executed. So naturally you'd lie and say you are religious. Despair would befall on you and your family is you were to be executed. I await my opponent's argument. My Round 2 argument will be a rebuttal on your Round 2 argument. (I may also counter any rebuttals Con comes up with in my examples) (PS I don't really see any relevance with the quote you cited, or how it may help your case on the matter.)
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Con/Pro, it is a 50/50 call. Maybe Anatole is correct, maybe he is not. You can take your pick and I will set it up.I like this guy.'Wandering re-establishes the original harmony which once existed between man and the universe.It is by acts and not by ideas that people live.Nature has no principles. She makes no distinction between good and evil.'Anatole France
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Before I go into my argument, something need to be clarified. "Most zeromeansnothingof our religions contain these inbuilt fantastic salvations that show a hero riding into town to lead all to a better place." what do you mean by 'most of zeromeansnothingof'? I'm assuming this was an attempted pun? Or maybe you copy/pasted your name on accident? Anyways, on to my rebuttal. You state that humanity is perishing from lying. However, this is not true. You quoted Anatole France, remember? " Here is my man again,'Ignorance is a necessary condition of human happiness, and it must be owned that in most cases we fulfill it well. We know almost nothing about ourselves; absolutely nothing about our neighbors. Ignorance constitutes our peace of mind; self- deception our felicity Anatole France:.' " I don't see how that quote will get you anywhere as long as it stands. The resolution is "Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom." Your stating that lies are the cause of despair. However, I've already provided an example that lies are nessicary to life (my religious example). Boredom, well, Town of Salem! You've already conceded by saying, and I quote "Are we capable of living without falsehood, probably not". Yes, it should not become a hobby, but this is irrelevant, as the resolution is "Without lies, we'd perish" and not "With lies, we would perish". Either way, there is indeed a middle ground in both resolutions, and I stand by that middle ground. Good game, and may the voters choose the victor!
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Thank You PowerPickachu21,My position on this is simpleHumanity is already perishing on a junk diet of lies and falsehood and the symptoms of our demise are despair and boredom.We genuinely believe that our situation is hopeless and we invent strategies to deal with this subconscious acceptance. Most zeromeansnothingof our religions contain these inbuilt fantastic salvations that show a hero riding into town to lead all to a better place. Within a world of lethargy and lies real considerations become equivalent to the chore of cleaning our rooms. We will do it when our mother has complained enough. We will do it unwillingly and without care. (Check Global Carbon Agreements)Conniving cynical opportunists in the political, industrial and religious world manipulate our indifference towards their own ends and our lack of discernment and engagement leave us living off a conveyor belt of expensive rubbish. Rubbish films, rubbish theology, rubbish politics and rubbish...............Yawn! Sorry I nodded off there.Surely the elimination of these delusions would be a positive start. This is not a matter of 'whatever' but is rather a matter of life or death. All addictions require a realization and an epiphany that tells us that our habits are self destructive in their essence.Thank You for considering this subject
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Yes, my "rich friend" example was terrible. But you never said anything about Town of Salem being bad! It's a fun game where if you are an evil role, you must deceive the town into believing you're one of them. I hold my position. Also, I need to make something clear: my opponent has conceded that we cannot live without lies: " Are we capable of living without falsehood, probably not, but neither should it become a hobby." (<- round 4) In round 2, Anatole France states "Ignorance constitutes our peace of mind; self- deception our felicity", which is GOOD FOR MY CASE! Con also changed his stance numerous times. Round 2: "Lies don't exist". Round 3: "We need to go on a 'lie free' diet and thus become energized.". Round 4: Con concedes by saying "Are we capable of living without falsehood, probably not, but neither should it become a hobby." And why are we bringing up Anatole again? Are you agreeing with him, are you disagreeing, or is Anatole France just irrelevant to this debate in general? I await my opponent's final response. I propose that Con summarizes his argument, and I shall too. If Con has any objections for my arguments, feel free to point them out. Con must also make his position clear, as it seemed like he changed it throughout this debate. Is Con agreeing with me that humanity would perish without lies? I await your final response. [[ My stance in this debate is that without lies, humanity WOULD INDEED perish from despair and boredom ]]
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

PowerPickachu21 states: ' Suppose you have a friend that asks you if you have his house locked and secure, as he's a rich person and has lots of money. But, of course, you were unable to find the keys and lock everything at the time. Would you tell the truth, making the friend angry and upset at you? Or would you tell, what we would call, a 'white lie", and tell him that you did lock the house. Which would make him pleased. You could always go back and lock the door if you got the chance later.'Think about your question!You left your friends valuables 'open to the elements' and then you lied about it.What happens if the house is robbed? Will you tell another lie? Will he believe you?Practice after me. My good friend X , I Powerpickachu21 screwed up. Your house is unguarded and unlocked. Please do not worry as I am going to do this task immediately. The truth shall set you free. People who tell lies require good memories. Living under a lie is like digging your own grave. Think about the worst lie that haunts you. I am thinking about mine. I will not be revealing it to anyone soon. Are we capable of living without falsehood, probably not, but neither should it become a hobby. My friend is a compulsive liar and I know a girl who is one as well. She told us she was minding her own kid for a friend?? He told us that he had a photographic memory but he could not remember 5 items on a menu. Do you know anyone like this. I bet you do. I would be telling you a lie if I told you I knew who was winning here. I did say that it would be a 50/50 call.
Without lies humanity would perish of despair and boredom. Anatole France

Hang on, your arguments in Round 3 have contradicted Anatole France's quote from Round 2. You have said lying is boring, when Anatole said, and I quote, "Ignorance constitutes our peace of mind; self- deception our felicity". Are you for this person or not? Anyways, back on track. Of course lying makes happiness! Well, sometimes. Like when you're pranking someone. But This is only HALF of the resolution. Don't you/Anatole also have to prove that lying creates despair? "We need to go on a 'lie free' diet and thus become energized." This shows your stance; lying is outright immoral. (I believe so, anyways) But there are times when, like I said in round 1, lying is the most moral action. Like, for example, the game "Town of Salem". Basically, if your mafia, or any evil role, you must pretend to be a member of the town. This game, once you've started playing it, you'll get used to the deceiving tactics fort the game. And you'll be happy, most likely! (just hope that the town is smart if you are town.) As for the despair side of the resolution, I've stated the "not religious gets executed" example, but I'll provide another. Suppose you have a friend that asks you if you have his house locked and secure, as he's a rich person and has lots of money. But, of course, you were unable to find the keys and lock everything at the time. Would you tell the truth, making the friend angry and upset at you? Or would you tell, what we would call, a 'white lie", and tell him that you did lock the house. Which would make him pleased. You could always go back and lock the door if you got the chance later. I hope this clears up any confusion Con may have about my stance. (Next round, I'll be sure to quote Anatole, as it may [or if it doesn't help, I won't quote him] help me) Good luck with your next argument.