BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the worzils

Justin Boober may be a self-obssessed [1] prick who should have his driving license taken away [2], but at least he isn't your typical hay-sucking duck-milking illiterate country folk!There are four wurzels, but luckily only one self-obsessed prick Justin Baby [3].There have also been other wurzels [3]. Oh, the country folk! Make them stop, mother! Meanwhile, there is only one Dustbin Boober.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.nydailynews.com...[3] http://cdn.arwrath.com...[4] http://www.thewurzels.com...
Should People Become Vegetarian

While it may be true that raising beef is more efficient way to produce food, it is not an environmentally friendly choice. Overgrazing livestock is extremely destructive to the surrounding environment. Overgrazing causes soil erosion and harm to native plant and animals. Also, grazing has been listed as a factor of endangerment in the Endangered species act. By refusing to participate in an industry that abuses the earth, one could effectively help in the restoration of U.S. land now being used for beef productions. In my opinion, it is more important to have responsibly produced food than it is to have cheap and fast food.
Should People Become Vegetarian

While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.
Should People Become Vegetarian

Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.
Should People Become Vegetarian

Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.
Adolf Hitler was a good Artist

As Pro, I will be arguing that Adolf Hitler (chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945) was a good artist. Definitions: 1.) good a.) pleasant or enjoyableb.) high quality, standard, or level***********************************Due to Adolf Hitler going on to become leader of the Nazi Party and subsequently the Chancellor of Germany, we only have a limited set of art samples to judge. However, I will do my best to showcase their superiority. Con, will have to argue that Hitler's art is not good. He may argue that it is average/below par, or that it is simply awful. Debate Structure: -First round acceptance, second round opening arguments, third round rebuttals and closing arguments. Debate Rules: -No forfeits.-Trolling is permitted. My opponent for this debate will be levi_smiles, good luck to him.
Border Fence is totally useless against illegal immigration

i actually disagree because i'm anti open border if we didn't have a fence then immigrants would just come right thru flooding our country open borders is a failed policy while i do agree that the fence needs some reform and in some ways is very useless. I do believe that having no fence would be disastrous and as for the expense yes it can be expensive but only because the fence is not working the way it should and if we were to stop using it then the cost of all the immigrants pouring in would be even more costly.
Border Fence is totally useless against illegal immigration

I will argue that the idea of a border fence between the US and Mexico is absolutely useless against illegal immigration, in addition to be extremeley costly. . Ineffective : According to the Pure Research Center, almost 40% of undocumented immigrants from Mexico come by plane, and with a visa . They simply overstay their visas. Furthermore, if this fence is done in order to prevent immigration, in 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal, 125,000 Mexicans came to the US. That same year, 140,000 immigrants came from China. So Mexicans are not the largest group of immigrants, but the Chinese are, and we can't build a wall. So it doesn't make sense to build a war between the US and Mexico. . Costly : The border is 1,954 Miles long, and there is already a fence of 670 M. So building the border fence would mean that we have to build a wall of 1,284 Miles. According to the NYT, each mile would cost about 16 million dollar, so they would have to pay $20 Bns to build the wall. . Border Fences are most symbolic than something else, they create sorts of grey areas with a high level of criminality and corruption and smugglers. Mexican druglords fool poor people in order to make them think that they can help them crossing the borders. If it doesn't work they just kill them.
Abortion: The Most Controversial Issue Since Slavery

First, this has nothing to do with citing sources so that is irrelevant. This is a debate website and thus anything at the topic is referred to as the resolution or debating topic. The goal is to base arguments around that resolution and arguments that are not resolutional are refered to as untopical and not looked to in the round. Thus with that said, you have still not argued the topic but are rather trying to argue the fact that the resolution is the main basis of the round. If it was not then I could have a resolution saying Ponies are blue and then argue in round that George Bush is a bad president. I have won this round because you have failed to argue the resolution which states that abortion is the most contereversial issue since slavery. Nothing was refuted. Thus we assume its true. Disregard Vietnam because it was brought up too late in the round.
Abortion: The Most Controversial Issue Since Slavery

First, this has nothing to do with citing sources so that is irrelevant. This is a debate website and thus anything at the topic is referred to as the resolution or debating topic. The goal is to base arguments around that resolution and arguments that are not resolutional are refered to as untopical and not looked to in the round. Thus with that said, you have still not argued the topic but are rather trying to argue the fact that the resolution is the main basis of the round. If it was not then I could have a resolution saying Ponies are blue and then argue in round that George Bush is a bad president. I have won this round because you have failed to argue the resolution which states that abortion is the most contereversial issue since slavery.
Voters following proper voting protocol can take into account comments made after the debate.

http://www.debate.org... Don't waste time debating these "twins." As far as comments, the whole debate.org system is so flawed it would take Here's my canned rant: Currently serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason. Online debaters do not understand even the simplest concepts, such as both sides having "burden of proof." The notion that only one side has "burden of proof" is, just from a fairness standpoint, entirely erroneous. Neither side has any more "burden of proof" than the other. Plagiarism such as http://www.debate.org... , plagiarized from http://www.fiu.edu... and http://www.debate.org... , plagiarized from http://www.finitesite.com... is not being addressed. Multiple accounts: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... all from Spring, Texas. We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators. We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating. The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly. Cell phones must not be used to verify identity. There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate. There should be voting after each round. More statistics should be available. It should be possible to display debates by category. More participation, and proper debating technique learned by all should be encouraged. Educators need to look more to the Internet for the delivery of "open courseware" utilizing "distance technology." Debating has moved from the courts into the auditorium. Its next move is the big one. So yes there should be commenting and voting and more commenting and more voting and in fact a whole discussion group to discuss the debate. The comments should be used more but the whole argument should appear in the argument box. No "see comments." Not only the comments don't have a date on them. You have to post your whole argument in the time alloted and space alloted.
Voters following proper voting protocol can take into account comments made after the debate.

Mongeese claimed that voting properly, a person should be allowed to take into account comments made by a debater in comments after a debate. In the comments of http://www.debate.org... He contends that: http://www.debate.org... He supports himself by saying: "Actually, the voting was only said to exclude comments made by members not in the debate. You are part of the debate, so your comments count." The site says: Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: * Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters. * Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round. * Comments made by other members of the site. I contend that Mongeese is wrong and is trying to backpedal and justify his clearly hypocritical opinion of taking comments made after a debate into account in a debate where he contends that *all* such voting is an abuse. As he turned down this debate, I'm opening it up to the floor. Can you take comments made after the debate into account in the voting, if you're voting according to regulations?
Voters following proper voting protocol can take into account comments made after the debate.

I concede there are flaws. Many flaws that run deep in the voting of the site. Some have seen my ideas as to how to fix and repair these errors. However, that isn't the standarding by which this debate is to be judged. The current letter of the law clearly says such actions are not permitted, nor would any proposed reparations to the law make one able to take into account comments made after the fact. Even in a perfect system, such comments should be excluded from consideration. I'm happy to concede massive flaws, but this debate is on the letter of the law and not what the law should be. Although, on both counts you do not succeed. Though flawed, this is not one of the flaws, when voting aptly the comments should not sway a person as to the quality of the debate.
just type symbols ok

History It is not known precisely who created the Disarming Charm. Some wizarding historians claim that it may have been invented by Merlin himself, [5] others claim that its first widespread use was in Madagascar in the 11th century. Even if any of this is true, The fact remains that it was not very popular until 1379, When Elizabeth Smudgling " the most likely inventor, In the opinion of Miranda Goshawk " used it in a duelling contest in Dartmoor. [6] It became Harry Potter's signature spell, And it notably caused the death of Lord Voldemort during the Battle of Hogwarts by rebounding his Killing Curse because the Elder Wand recognised Harry as its master through the spell connection, And thus strengthened the Disarming Charm to the point that Voldemort's curse backfired on himself. Effects Tumblr n4pfx79HAy1qzv627o1 250 Harry casting a powerful disarming charm indicated by the scarlet jet of light The Disarming Charm causes whatever an opponent is holding at the time " usually a wand " to fly high out of their reach. It can also be used to intercept or rebound an opponents' spell while duelling, Hence the life-saving effects of the charm. The Disarming Charm appears as a jet of red light; indeed, This is one of the things that makes it recognisable before the effects of the charm are seen. Another notable effect of the charm is that if multiple charms are used on the same target, The target will be disarmed, But at the same time will be blasted backwards, As seen when Harry, Ron and Hermione all used the Disarming Spell at once on Severus Snape in the Shrieking Shack. Severus Snape himself used it more offensively during the only meeting of the Duelling Club against Gilderoy Lockhart, Blasting him backwards with it.
just type symbols ok

:":<>? >:":":{}{}! @@#$%^&%$&^&*(%(>__{)}_)>+_>)+_-==. [;;. ' ';' ;/; /;;. [];, ;[;[. ==-. /, ;'l;';, /. , . , ';;';. '@#$%^&*()&^%&*&$&####((##(#%*$%^\\||
Gay marriage should be legalized

But, none the less, I have found some flaws in his response. Also, I will most likely leave stuff out due to the length of my opponent's response. 16kadams, please point out what I miss. By the way, I'm not a girl. :/ -------------------------- Don't try to assert things. I support marriages that are within reason. (I'm not talking about bestiality am I? No. The debate title is called "Gay marriage should be legalized" not "Bestiality should be legal! ") And no, the debate is gay MARRIAGE. Not about girlfriends, friends, etc. Going on: Marriage, defined by Google, is "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. " There is a difference between flings and marriage. Marriage means you and your partner are willing to make a legal and personal commitment to the other. It is basically made official the two are married. Flings, basic relationships, etc, are not because it is not approved officially. I have never seen middle school Girlfriends/Boyfriends claim they are married just because there is love involved. -------------------------- I think with 7 billion people in the world, reproduction is not an issue in the slightest. Legalizing gay marriage will not destroy man/woman relationships. And, just a random fact, determination of Homo/Hetero is determined by the amount of testosterone received while in the womb. Also, children with Gay parents most likely do worse due to the abuse or exclusion due to their parents being gay, because it is not considered "normal" by society. If you are Gay, in a world like this, would you like to announce that your gay? Probably not. The public would most likely hate you for being different. Legalization of Gay Marriage won't reduce marriage to "just a piece of paper" that seems more like a fear tactic to me than an actual argument. I have a friend with gay parents, and he is not messed up, or harmed, in any way. He is doing just fine. I probably left a lot of stuff out, but please. Continue.
Gay marriage should be legalized

I think gay marriage should be legalized- Here are my arguments: "It is wrong because it's not natural!" I find this argument very hypocritical due to people, every single day, using some sort of unnatural item or device everyday. Also, over 1000 animals in nature have been shown to be Gay or have Gay relations. "It's not what God wants!" Due to the separation of church and state, this argument is 100% useless. And other points I can bring up when you respond.
Gay marriage should be legalized

lol due to the fact my opponent conceded, I really don't see a point in refuting her arguments. I will respond to her criticism of DW Allen's study, though. My opponent cites a blog in order to "refute" Allen's study, claiming the disparity between children raised in homosexual homes (often married) versus those in heterosexual households are due to differences in age. However, the study did have a section adjusting for age gaps, and the differences still exist. They also claim he is not a social scientist, saying he is an economist. That is a terrible argument: economists study human behavior through statistics and other means. They have to understand human nature in order to accurately conduct their research: how humans react to this, how the react to that, etc. So that argument doesn't even make sense. Further, research showing "no difference" are extremely flawed [1. http://www.sciencedirect.com...]. k vote for me
Gay marriage should be legalized

My, my. I am asking for Gay/Lesbian rights to marry. I really hate it when you Con tries to say I must support bestiality too, or other marriages. I don't. Don't twist my words around, it's really childish. You claim the government must support procreation for marriage, yet how come it is already legalized in 35 states, if their main goal is procreation. Please post a link of the government saying their sole purpose was procreation for marriage. And check [1] for my rebuttal to your "Children adopted by Gays are less likely to graduate High School" claim. You also seem too dense to realize you are defeating your own point. "Say two people pledge to talk their hearts out. They talk about their life, philosophy, and what occurs around them. Are they married? No." That's true. Why? Because they are not seeking marriage. You basically answered your own question right there. Now, you seem to be saying the whole point of marriage is for procreation. What about infertile couples? I guess they shouldn't marry because it's not "in the best interests of the government". After all, the government "only wants" hetero couples for reproduction. Additionally, you seem to be jumping around a little bit. First, you seem to be talking about the government (US). Then, you begin using Canadian statistics. Keep in mind I'm arguing for US legalization of Gay marriage. However, let's just keep Canada in for a moment. Has the sanctity of marriage been "severed" there? No! The country hasn't collapsed, heterosexuals are still there to reproduce, and gay's adopted kids aren't doing bad. See [1]. Please note that legalizing Gay marriage wouldn't affect the world's birth rates. The gays will still be there, and since they don't want to mate with the opposite gender, the population would stay relatively the same. It wouldn't drop dramatically, because they wouldn't mate with the opposite gender in the first place! In your first debate posting, you said "Although historically this was the case, as a free society we must strive to be better.", you go against this by denying rights to other humans. Striving to be better, but unable to accept that the definition of marriage may be changed? Strange. Also, that article you posted makes me think that you think that legalization of Gay marriage will drop the world population. Legalizing won't change a thing with population, as I said, and the country won't turn gay because of this. When we made blacks equal, the white people didn't turn all black. ----------- Again, I know I left stuff out. However, about that link you posted "newsfeed.time", that website doesn't seem particularly reliable. It shows up almost no where in my search results, and also posted articles about Bigfoot. 0_o 1. http://www.skepticink.com...
Conversion Therapy

I appreciate you coming to debate me, even after admitting to be quite a charlatan at this subject. I'm glad that you at least attempted to try debating this new topic.Firstly, I apologize to my opponent, GoOrDin, because after viewing some of his argument, I was confused. He marks homosexuals as being "bigoted fools" for not submitting to their "obligations as a participant of conversation or as members of society when their impudence is addressed TO use the application(s*) of logic and acknowledgment." All I can say is that I'm confused, nothing less.In fact, my opponent's argument is littered with this odd rhetoric. He seems to drone on, and on, about nonexistent things. His entire argument is composed of slander, homophobic slurs, and ridiculous hypotheticals. He accuses homosexuals of "endorsing a culture which is: structurally reinforcing the endablemnet of womanizers, criminals, capitalist wh***mongers, strangers, abusive boyfriends, drug addicts and perverts ~ to the children!"I was left baffled, and a wee bit amused. This is clearly some sort of joke or troll. I could imagine that, because my opponent posted his argument on a Facebook post, he could certainly change the post into something more serious and presentable and call me outright ludicrous. For any spectator that wishes to look at my opponent's argument, I will be posting either the entire text or a series of screenshots of it. But in all seriousness, to refute my opponent's argument, he doesn't provide any credible evidence, leaving only homophobic slurs and describes an unrealistic situation about homosexuals. Nothing in his argument even mentions the benefits or success of conversion therapy, nor is even relative to the topic.
Conversion Therapy

My Sincerest Apologies: I was unable to detect the profanity which eluded me, so I was forced to post my argument elsewhere. https://www.facebook.com... It is the comment, submitted after, I shared Joshua Olorunfunmi's Post. And it is currently at the top of my wall, and will remain there for at least 24 hours. at which post it will just shift down my facebook wall. It IS technically, my Round 2 Argument, not my Acceptance Round, as it is that CosmoJarvis and Me are continuing a pre-existing debate. Thank you for formally accepting this link as my Round 2 Debate Argument.
goerge bush was a good president

Let me just address the economy first for the first seven years of his presidentiay unemployment was low in may of 2007 unemployment was 4.4 percent and when he came into to office the econmy was in recession he got us out of it and he left the defcit at 455 billion obama has grown it to 1.5 trillion bush increased the national dept by five trillion in right years obama has increased it by 4 trillion in three years and bush has the lowest dept to GDP in history. then he also passed the most significant education reform in 40 years no child left behind he make education better for all
goerge bush was a good president

George Bush was one of america greatest leaders in American History he did many things 1. He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy 2. He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader 3. He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban 4. He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe 5. he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it 6. he reformed immigration with more security at the border 7. he made america more safe 8. the econmy was booming under him 9. he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air 10. he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors