BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This debate is very difficult

Oh wow. You made it seem so hard at first by using very big words and all that. I actually laughed at your pitiful debate. Of course, I think you have very little idea of what you are talking about. You cited Wiki, which is so unreliable that I didn't think anyone would waste their time by using it for something important. It shows that you probably didn't have that much time, or else you would have found something better to say. Secondly, I would recommend putting a coma between "hand" and "have" and capitalizing all the I's. Oh, and you capitalized easy. Really, it looks like you didn't even review it. Third, anyone who looks through your profile can see that you are kind of immature (no offense) Fourth, I am only 13 years old, and you are 15 years old. I have been accepted into one of the best high schools in Chicago. This is the easiest thing ever. What you said about the neurology science stuff is so NOT complicated. It simply means that we usually have the same parts in our brain and that our brain can change depending on what is going on. I just summarized it without even looking it up. Really, you could have written something harder. Besides, our brains may be similar in build, meaning that they will usually have the same parts, but the size of each part may vary. If the brains of each species were the same then natural selection wouldn't even exist because there would be nothing to actually select. Furthermore, "intelligence" is a very unclear term. If by intelligence you mean knowledge, then different people have different levels of knowledge. I think it would be safe to assume that I have more knowledge than you, considering the childish books and movies in your profile. Therefore your statement that I cannot be smarter than you is completely incorrect. In fact, it barely makes sense! I am sure that people will vote for me, as I don't even need to go copy someone else's word to prove you wrong. I am sorry if I used complicated words. I can't help myself.
This debate is very difficult

Hello there. Are you ready for a great challenge? This debate is for experts only, or hardcore debaters. While it might seem easy, the first round is acceptance, leaving you with only one round to post. I, on the other hand have experience, vocabulary, and lots of time to prepare before I even posted this. You might argue you could be smarter than me, but i rebut back with the fact that human brains are similar, most healthy ones including the Cerebral cortex, the Four lobes, and Major sulci and gyri, which is now evoluted to the point that it can fluctuate depending on the situation. This is from http://en.wikipedia.org.... As you can see, this is merely round ONE and I have already posted information concerning complex neurology sciences, making it incredibly difficult for you to rebut back and state your opening in one round. You mission is to make this debate seem only average difficulty for you, or even Easy. But it's not going to be easy at all. You only have 2000 characters, so fully use them. I warn you now, round two I will have a twist to my first argument in fields of topics far more deep and incomprehensible than neuroscience. Or will I? Good luck to you, con.
Terrible Pickup Lines: Videogames

Fallout 4 Reference:"Hey, baby, are you a super mutant suicider? 'Cause when I hear you coming, you get my heart runnin'." Extra Comments: Super Mutant Suiciders are super mutants in Fallout Four; those big green guys that give you night terrors. A super mutant suicider holds a god damn nuclear bomb in its mitt of a hand and attempts to detonate the bomb whenever close to you, killing both himself and you. These monsters always get my heart running. In fact, I've had three heart attacks because of this.
Should the U.S be involved with foreign conflicts

As for your argument on the government level, I do agree as well and you make a very valid argument we are in very much trouble while fighting ourselves. I think however if maybe we had allies that they could help us since we almost always assist them. In America we think of ourselves as good people, but in other places (I lived in Malaysia) they think that we are cowards which was very much a shock to me since we usually are a major power in wars. I also very much agree that we cannot fully unite, I wish we could and we could accomplish so much if we weren't so wrapped up in our own beliefs. I think that uniting on small things like foreign conflicts is a smart idea we could benefit from small foreign conflicts however. Good Argument!
Should the U.S be involved with foreign conflicts

In most cases, you're right. We should be involved in foreign conflicts MORE than we already are. That doesn't mean we should get involved in every single one that starts. That would not be good for our status or what we are known for. I do agree with you on a personal level, but on a government level, I disagree with you entirely. Our economy is already busy fighting OURSELVES because we can't ever fully unite and become one. We will always disagree. We will always fight each other. Will won't prevail from this. Before we can get involved in any more foreign conflicts, we have to solve our own first.
Should the U.S be involved with foreign conflicts

I think that the U.S should be involved with foreign conflicts, we have seen in the past that if we do not provoke first and have the first move then others will not hesitate to attack. I am referring to Pearl Harbor mostly. What about allies if we help other countries then maybe if we need it we can get assistance back from them in our own time of need. WWII was a bloody war, but if we never joined then maybe it could have lasted longer and been even more bloody than it was.
Government should subsidize my poetic life

I believe the government should subsidize me with a monthly stipend so I can write poems all day. My poems are benefitting the nation. Art is important to culture. Without art --- and the poetic arts in particular --- the nation has no hope. Why did we defeat the Russians? Because of our poetry and culture. I should get at least $2,000 a month, tax free, along with food-stamps, free medical care, and help with the electric bill, so long as I can crank out five to ten poems a month. Here is a poem I wrote about my cat: Oh fuzzy faced one, thou art worthy of canned chicken this day and I shall open it with can opener plop it out into your bowl and leave you to eat it while I go watch more anime.
Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

If my opponent wants to play the dating game, a more recent poll from 4 days ago showed that 74% of Americans oppose this plan [1]. The same poll finds that 62% of voters believe that it is a National Security risk. As a result, with my poll being the most recent, we can see that many Americans oppose Pro's case. My opponent is simply cherry picking from the source as we can still see that these Middle Easterners are still the majority and even if they are petty crimes, crime is still crime. As a result, my opponent's argument negates itself. My opponent fails to show how the UN cannot help and concedes that the UN plan is better even in the long run, which should be direct grounds of a vote in Negation. We have to acknowledge that Europe and the US are not the only nations in the UN, so we know other nations across the world can help take them in and my opponent drops the impact that I have brought up in this debate in that many nations can recieve financial compensation and this can really help some struggling nations. This drop should be considered prima facia when voting as it is the most important key aspect of this debate so far. My opponent's assumption of the US adoption isn't the complete truth. Under this plan, they can chose to reject or let them in. This was a point that was uncontended by my opponent in this debate. With that I thank you and urge you a vote in Negation. Sources1. ( . http://tinyurl.com...)
Acceptance of Middle Eastern Refugees into the United States

Obligation to Foreign NationsYou and I both know that Europe has a migrant crisis. Because the United States is not offering to help, migrants have flooded the European continent, often into countries such as Greece that currently do not have the capacity to handle them, be it economic, spatial, or other reasons. We can't just sit idly by while our European allies are being overwhelmed by the sheer number of people entering their countries. Germany most of all has been especially kind in accepting more refugees than it can handle, but this can't go on forever. Their quota is about 27,000 refugees, a huge amount for a country of its size. [1] In addition, economically struggling countries like Greece are not able to handle the influx of refugees traveling across the Bosporus and the Mediterranean. Added to our duty to help and support our European allies is our duty to help the migrants themselves. These are people who are fleeing horrific violence and suffering in search of safety. As the strongest country in the world, and arguably the one that could support the most, we have a moral duty to grant safety to these refugees.2. Vetting SystemI am aware that ISIL said they would attempt to get into the United States by taking advantage of the United States' acceptance of refugees. Here's why that won't work. The United States has an excellent vetting process. Refugees are the most vetted of any group entering the country, and the screening is extremely extensive. Please read before continuing on: . https://www.whitehouse.gov...;The screening process has an excellent record. Of the 785,000 refugees admitted into the US since 9/11, only 3 have ever been arrested on terrorism-related charges. [3] That's 0.0003821% (assuming I did my math right). So this potential concern has been negated. Furthermore, if terrorists wished to infiltrate the country, they would most likely use tourist, student, or business visas to do it, considering that these categories are vetted considerably less and take much less time. For example, all 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 got into the country on one of the aforesaid visas. [3]ConclusionAmerica is seen as a beacon of kindness across the world--a country that is willing to reach out a helping hand to those in need. Are we willing to forsake that reputation? We have the money and space to accept these refugees who have endured such terrible hardship. We have a responsibility to help our allies in Europe who have been overwhelmed with the number of people, and we can help thousands of people reach a better life. Our safety has been ensured by the quality of the screening process, and there is no risk of becoming overwhelmed with people, as in Germany and other European countries. Over to Con for his arguments. I wish you luck. Sources1. . http://www.bbc.com...2. . http://www.nytimes.com...3. . http://www.factcheck.org...
God does exist. And it's Allah

Obviously being MUSLIM and being scientific aren't related and that's not what I was trying to say. What I said is that these complicated scientific aspects which modern science has only now discovered, was revealed to man by none other than God years ago when discovery and research level was close to none. That's the thing that's supposed to make you MUSLIM. The fact that God knows the things man couldn't have known at time. And the fact that these things were stated, when there was no actual source to find them out, proves that God revealed those things. So yeah... The motive to is to make believe the existence of God, not science by any means
God does exist. And it's Allah

Now, "Quran" Is the book that says God exist. And Con says that Qur'an is a book of claims and not of proofs. And that's where you are wrong. You can find thousands of true "miracles" of the book. That book is not all about claims, it's about solid evidence and I'll show you a few examples of many. Example 1:- Water Life in the universe is water based. More than half your body weight is water. Animals and plants on Earth are mostly water. All life in our universe also needs water. When scientists search for life on exoplanets they only look for planets with water; No water no life. However Moslems knew about this 1400 years before it was discovered. [Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe? In the Quran all life, on Earth and in the heavens, depends on water. How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that all life in the universe also needs water? The water cover about 71% of the Earth's surface. This is also the same ratio the word "Water" and word "Land" appear in the Quran. "Water" 32 times and "Land" 13 times. The ratio of "Water" to the total (Water + Land) = 32/(32+13) = 71%. Example 2:- Sex of Baby The father determines the sex of the baby. Females have XX chromosomes, that is, they can only give one X chromosome. But since males have XY chromosomes then men can either give the X or the Y chromosome. This means that it is actually the males who determine the sex of the baby (by giving either the X or the Y chromosome). [Quran 53:45-46] And He (Allah) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted. The Quran says that it is the semen that determines whether the baby is male or female. But since semen only comes from males then this means that it is the males who determine the sex of the baby. How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that it is the males who determine the sex of the baby? (While today's scientists have confirmed that animals inherit their colors and stripes from their parents (through DNA), the Christian Bible says something else: In Genesis 30:37-42, the Bible explains how baby goats get their streaked colors: If their parents were mating AND LOOKING at upright rods then the baby goats will have stripes; while if their parents were mating BUT NOT LOOKING at upright rods then the baby goats will not have stripes!) If these are not proof, then what Is?
God does exist. And it's Allah

Is There Evidence God Exists? Yes. Allah has sent down miracles, revelations and messengers to give clear proofs He exists and more important, what we should do once we come to this realization. Allah has sent prophets and messengers with many proofs throughout the ages for people to be able to clearly see with their own eyes and to be able to use their own senses the miracles and proofs pointing to the fact, Allah does in fact, exist. Miracles of prophets and messengers of Allah have come to people through the ages. Moses (peace be upon him) showed many miracles to pharaoh and to the children of Israel. Plagues, locusts, water turning to blood, his stick becoming a snake, the voice in the burning bush and the parting of the Red Sea are clear miracles for the people of Moses time. Again, Allah sent Jesus, the son of Mary (peace be upon him) with clear miracles for the people of his time. Speaking from the cradle while still a new born infant, creating birds from clay, curing the sick, giving sight to the blind and even bringing a dead man back to life, were all clear signs to the people to know Jesus (peace be upon him) was a messenger of Allah as was Moses before him. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last and final messenger of Allah, and he was sent to all of mankind. Allah sent him with a number of miracles, not the least of which was the Quran. The predictions and prophecies of Muhammad (peace be upon him) have come true even in this century and the Quran has been used to convince even scientists of the existence of Allah. [Please visit "Science Proves Allah": Watch video of famous scientists admit Quran is from Allah and even accept Islam] The Quran is the best of proofs for the existence of Allah and today over one and half billion people memorize and recite from the exact text, in the exact same language it was revealed in; Arabic. More than 10 million Muslims have completely memorized the entire Quran from cover to cover, and can recite it from memory without looking at it. No one sees or hears Allah, not even the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize this entire universe could not possibly come into existence on its own. Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. This is beyond our ability to do, yet it is something we can understand. We know from the teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the proofs for the existence of God (Allah) are most obvious to us in our everyday surroundings. Anyone with understanding would quickly acknowledge His existence provided they are not so stubborn as to ignore the obvious evidences right in front of us. We don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, correct? So, if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, in the same way, we can believe Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.).
Puerto Virgo Should Become A State

Before I start, I would like to note my opponent has not responded to any of my rebuttals to him, and has instead ignored them. These ignored points include the requirement for minority-majority districts, and the fact that both islands don't pay income tax. He has also not ever given a reason why the Virgin Islands should give up all their political power to join a state with a different culture aside from basically "Because they should". But I'll go ahead and respond to my opponent's final points. *My opponent argues race should not affect politics. I already went over this in round 3, but race does affect politics and the fact the islands are culturally dissimilar is a big problem. *My opponent argues the Virgin Islands would get federal representation. I have already established they would not (unless you consider being outnumbered 20,000 to 720,000 to be 'represented') and would in fact lose what little real representation they have. *My opponent introduces a new argument, income tax. I don't disagree here, but why bring it up now? *My opponent introduces no taxation without representation, which I would agree with but does not answer why the Virgin Islands should give up their autonomy and what little representation they have. *My opponent changes his argument to 'a majority of citizens want statehood as opposed to the status quo'. I have already established this as false so I do not need to go over it again. *My opponent argues both parties support statehood. This is true. .. for Puerto Rico. None support forcing the Virgin Islands in on it. *My opponent argues they have little representation at the national level. This is true. It is also true Virgin Islanders would lose that representation if they became a state*Finally, my opponent argues that this would allow the government to better control 4,000,000 people. I simply don't get this argument. .. if that logic is correct, why not merge every state and territory with California? That ought to be easy to control. In conclusion, I have firmly established that the state of Puerto Virgo would destroy the representation of the US Virgin Islands at both the federal and state (territorial) level, goes against the wishes of the Puerto Rican people, and circumvents political tradition - I have also debunked all of my opponent's arguments.
Puerto Virgo Should Become A State

This was a good debate. Here is my summary.- Race should not affect politics, and the governments of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are already simmilar.- Virgin Islanders should get recognition on a national level, even if that recognition is little. - The US would benefit from the federal income tax.- People that are considered US citizens , should be represented. - No taxation without representation. - A majority of citizens want statehood as opposed to the status quo ( That was the question on the refendrum)- Both political parties are in support of statehood.- The platform of the ruling party is not just anti-statehood. They have a much larger platform. Many people in the party support statehood too.- Puerto Ricans and Virgin Islanders (even less) have nearly no representation on a national level. - It allows the government to have a better hold over 4,000,000 citizens.Thank you for debating this with me, and good luck.
Automatic Voter Registration

Throughout this debate, my opponent has failed to provide any real argument against the concept of automatic voter registration, and has instead chosen to focus on the completely irrelevant topic of whether or not democracy should be the main system of governing a society. The question of automatic voter registration assumes that democracy remains the principle form of governing a society that adopts such a measure. As such, the question of whether or not democracy should be upheld or not has no place in a debate where maintaining democracy is already the presumed outcome of both sides.
Automatic Voter Registration

Now, as of November 2014, there are approximately 219 million citizens of the United States that are eligible to vote, however, out of those people eligible to vote, approximately 142 million of those people are officially registered to vote, constituting roughly fifty-nine percent of the total US voting-age population, leaving roughly seventy-eight million Americans unregistered to vote. [1] What I would like to argue is for a system that makes it easier for any of these unregistered voters to register, and I believe that automatic voter registration would solve this problem. Automatic voter registration, also known as universal voter registration, is a system in which the central government automatically registers any and all citizens once they reach the age at which they can vote. This would be accomplished by utilizing existing government databases to keep track of which citizens have become eligible to vote, and then automatically register those citizens to vote. Meanwhile, any citizens who do not want to register to vote would have the option to opt out of the voting registration process. [2] Right now, the state of Oregon has adopted an automatic voter registration measure that would automatically register anyone in the state who is eligible to vote, and who currently has a driver's license in the state,[3] and, California is considering adopting a similar measure. [4] I believe that having the United State as a whole adopt automatic voter registration, then not only will more citizens be eligible to vote, but more citizens will turn out to vote simply based on the fact that they are registered to vote. Sources: [1]: . http://www.census.gov...... [2]: . http://www.fairvote.org...... [3]: . http://www.latimes.com...... [4]: . http://www.msnbc.com......
Automatic Voter Registration

Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.