BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Three issues against North Korea.

This debate is on three issues: a.) The proposed peace treaty between North Korea and the United States should be rejected. b.) The ICC (International Criminal Court) should issue an arrest warrant for Kim Jong-Il (or the triumvirate of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Yong-Il and Kim Yong-nam) and pursue prosecution against him for crimes against humanity. c.) The UN should, if necessary, reject its procedures and violate North Korea's national sovereignty to take action against it (including arrest and prosecution of the leaders). As for definitions: the "proposed peace treaty " means the peace treaty suggested by North Korea to officially end the Korean War: http://www.nytimes.com... "North Korea" means the government of the country bordering South Korea to the North. "ICC" Means the International Criminal Court, the criminal judicial branch of the United Nations currently headquartered in the Hague, Netherlands. The "UN" means the United Nations, the international organisation of countries formed in 1945 with currently 192 members. The "United States" means the United States of America. "Kim Jong-Il" means the current leader of North Korea. "Triumvirate" means the three men who lead North Korea - Kim Jong-Il, Premier Kim Yong-Il, and parliamentary chairman Kim Yong-nam. "National Sovereignty" means the rights and powers of a state to govern itself in any way it feels necessary. Here I'll be brief: My contentions are that the proposed peace treaty should be rejected by the United States because it would mean acceptance of North Korea as a state, and end official outrage at its policies. The problem is that the West, e.g. the United States, is too concerned with its own protection from North Korea than it is for the human rights of North Korean citizens. North Korea, put simply, is nothing more than a crime gang which has violated almost every human right imaginable. Which brings us to another contention: the UN, and other countries, should not recognise the national sovereignty of North Korea for the land it claims. This allows us to take strong action against them and is a symbolic gesture of our outrage. Lastly, the ICC should pursue a prosecution to end the atrocities committed domestically by North Korea against their own citizens, to be so attested to by a significant number of North Korean defectors who have managed to escape the country, who have declared that they would like to testify against North Korea. More to come.
Gays

I would like to point out to the audience that my opponent is missing the point. He is giving a philosophical standpoint. Philosophy (where talking about morals) is merely theories. Nobody can decide whether it is morally right or wrong, and this is not the argument. The argument is that gays harm society. Also I would like to point out, just because he says I need to provide evidence, this is not true. My opponent believes that I am taking a negative standpoint. This is not fact, however, because I am taking the standpoint that gays are harming the society and that it needs to be stopped. If I am arguing that something harmful to society needs to be stopped, then I believe that is positive (preventing harm). His argument for gays harming society shows that he is taking a negative standpoint, thus he should provide the "evidence".
Indian People are Stinky

Ah, Ice bear. You never fail to amuse me. Indian people are not weird. We are just as weird to them as they are to us. God did not create them, they migrated to the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago, and, like all humans, they started from the African rift valley. Why do you bring religion into this? It's unnecessary. They are different from gay people and black people. For one, they're Indian. There might be some Indian gay people. I'm sure there are. For another, they're not black, they're Asian. They are not disgusting or low life. Many Indian people are highly successful. Aziz Ansari is a millionaire. Curry is not a drug. It is an herb. Calling curry a drug is like calling paprika a drug. Curry is used to season food. Marijuana is a drug, but it's the most harmless drug there is. Your neighbor probably grows some. Most curry is not imported from India, it's grown right here and given to restaurants who make Indian food, or incense companies. Most marijuana isn't imported from India. It's a booming American industry. Most American pot growers are really raking it in. You're a cad, sir. You can't associate an entire race with an herb. Indian people are not curry. That's like saying white people are salt. You're weird, sir. Here's the official Wikipedia page for the curry plant. As you can see, it was not created by people, it is not a drug, God probably didn't create it, it's related to all the other plants in the world, it is not only used in India, and it is not a major factor in climate change. Most of climate change is caused by AMERICANS burning fossil fuel and creating CO2, which traps in sunlight. https://en.wikipedia.org... I can hardly bear to read your ignorant hate speech. Were you the guy at Charlottesville who ran over the lady with your car? That would make a lot of sense. You seem that way. I have a better way to set up the United States. Here it is: 50 states for everybody That's how it's been for a long time, and it seems to work pretty well, because if certain races aren't allowed to go where they want to, or do what they want to, then they'll throw riots and protest and throw over the government and install a new government where the dirty white people have to drink from pig troughs. Do you want to live in a world like that? I don't want to. See, your plan kind of violates civil rights, which are guaranteed in the Constitution. It says: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's not how it used to be, but we've finally gotten to that point, and we're not going to revert backwards to being cavemen. People can live where they want to, do what they want to, and say what they want to. And if we make America unappealing to Indians, they'll go back to India. And I don't want that. I like Indian food. You're a sick cookie. I get most of those pictures from Google Images. Here's another one: http://s3.crackedcdn.com... I await your next argument.
Indian People are Stinky

Indian people are plain weird. I can't believe God even created them. They are no different from gay people or black people; disgusting and low life. Also, Indian people stink because they eat too much curry and burn too much curry. Curry should be banned from being exported from India, just like marijuana and all those other drugs. God never intended for Indian people to create curry. It's like marijuana, except people invented it, not God created it to be a part of nature. Now that they burn and eat too much curry, the world is stinky to death. We have to kill them so the world won't be stinky and that the world won't be overpopulated. A better way to deal with all these weird Indians is to send them back to India. Or we can make a limit of one Indian person per neighborhood. Or we can segregate the American states like this: (I assume you live in the United States.) One small isolated state (like Hawaii) for Indians 20 states for Caucasians 15 states for blacks 10 states for East/Southeast Asians, Maoris, Native Americans, and Hispanics 4 states where all races live in harmony, but they must pay extra taxes to be allowed to live in those integrated states Before I let you post your argument, I want to ask of you: Where do you get all those polar bear pictures? You probably just photoshopped them yourself.
Indian People are Stinky

Go to an Indian restaurant, and it stinks like hell there. Go to an office, and it's very stinky due to the fact that about 90% of their employees are of Indian descent. Go to an Indian house, and the house smells like curry in and out. Curry was originally invented as incense to give to their one-million armed god, but some retarded Indian with an IQ of 40 decided to eat curry because HE thought it smelled so good. If it wasn't for him, Indians wouldn't be so stinky. Indian people never bathe because India is an underdeveloped country. Because their rivers and lakes are so dirty and infested with bugs and whatnot, they don't bathe at all. Do you hate Indian people now?
Indian People are Stinky

On that Wikipedia list you provided, Switzerland is right there, number 176, very good for a failed state, but a failed state nonetheless. Finland is a failed state too. And Australia. And Germany. And Japan. And Britain. And US. Every country sucks in some way or another. India just has bad things going on a little more than we do. We should fix those problems, not kill everyone who lives in a country with those problems. Indians are human, just like us, and we should help them improve their government, their schools, their water systems, their traffic. They have many flaws. But they do have things to offer the world. They are as much a culture as we are and denying them the right to express their culture is a grave injustice and a mass atrocity. Indians are not drug addicts, nor are Mexicans. You should really research things before you look into them. Mexicans, like Indians, and white people, are not drug addicts by nature, or simply because of the color of their skin, but because drugs are sold too often and drug control is not enforced heavily enough. People choose to become drug addicts, and it's a very stupid choice, but your race does not affect how likely you are to become a drug addict. I suppose you can't teach an idiot... Below are quite a few similarities between white supremacists like yourself and Nazis: 1. You're both big a-holes. 2. You don't know beans about anything. 3. You refuse to accept that people of different races are all separate individuals, instead choosing to believe in usually unreliable stereotypes. 4. You think life is a joke. 5. You think you're going to win. 6. You're insane. Neither race is inherently stinky. We are the same species, so we have the same anatomy, and we have the same amount of sweat glands. In my opinion, curry is a wonderful smell, it's fresh and aromatic, and captures brilliantly a culture who has contributed immensely to the Eastern world. They are a valuable asset to us all, and to engage in mass genocide simply for their aroma would be an unforgivable sin and It would mean the end of all that is holy. You have completed this debate. But you have not won. You will never win. I will tear into you until you stop. Just so long as your new year resolution is to go into 100 debates with me, let's quit the race for a moment. I'd like to have a debate which I tried a while ago, which I think is worth bringing up again, and if you're committed, you could succeed. Challenge me to the following debate: E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons. Just a fun little ditty. Until then, I'll be waiting. Judges, please vote wisely, and fairly. If you vote unjustly, a ghost may come to haunt you. Farewell.
Indian People are Stinky

Finally. Now we are at our last argument round for this debate. You say that "Switzerland is a failed nation too". Switzerland is not at a failed state. I wonder if you might be blind. And also, Indian people, as I said, are drug addicts, like Mexicans. While Mexicans are addicted to stuff like marijuana, Indians are addicted to curry. Below are quite a lot of similarities between Mexico and India: 1. Both nations are known for their food. 2. Both nations are underdeveloped, densely populated, and poor nations. 3. Both nations produce a lot of drug addicts. 4. Both nations have large amounts of people pouring into the United States. 5. Both Mexicans and Indians love to party a lot. 6. They both have brown skin, while I have superior white skin. 7. They both were called "Indians" by Columbus and those 15th and 16th century European explorers. With that in mind, we can prove that Mexican people are just as stinky. But our topic is that Indian people are stinky. They stink because they smoke too much curry, yet never bathe. Because you sent me so many pictures of me, I will return the favor appropriately, and (you guessed it) send a picture of you. https://www.dailydot.com... Right before we leave, what do you think our NEXT debate topic should be? In case you didn't know, my New Year's Resolution is to complete 100 debates with you in 2018. So far, I have achieved 2: 1) Blacks, Indians, etc. should be killed; 2) Indian people are stinky. I think our NEXT debate topic should be that depression should be illegal.
Indian People are Stinky

I said I want 50 states for everybody because segregation is as atrocious a crime as those inflicted on Jews during the days of Nazi Germany. Black people target non blacks, and whites target blacks. Black people hate us because for 100 years we owned them as property. They have a right to be angry. We were unholy monsters for quite a while, and even after they gained freedom, there was still injustice committed upon them and many atrocities. We have finally reached a point of desegregation. We should be pals with all other races. Indian people are not stinky. They are perfectly normal people and they deserve to live wherever they want to. You're a racist piece of garbage. True, the list says India is a failed nation, but it's only number 72 on the list, which ain't half bad. It says Switzerland is a failed nation too, but go there and you wouldn't know that. Failed states come in different levels of failure. India is at a point where it can be saved. It should be saved. We should give them free condoms and educate them, maybe see things from their point of view, study more Hindu texts, open our minds, instead of being ignorant bigots like you. If we implement segregation here in America, we will become a failed state. Immigrants come here because we are a land of equality. Incense is not a drug. It smells good. It doesn't alter the brain in any way. Here's my answers to your two questions: 1. Because you're an idiot. 2. Reassure myself that I'm going to win. Winning against you doesn't take too much effort.
Indian People are Stinky

You said you want 50 states for everybody. That is a terrible idea. Although America is a highly diverse and integrated country all throughout nearly 250 years it has been a country, problems have arose due to integration. For one, black people target non-blacks. Secondly, Indian people are so stinky. Let's just move all of the people living in America who are of Indian heritage to their own isolated state (most preferably Hawaii), so they won't stinky up the world. Also, go to this website to see the list of failed states. Do ctrl-F to search for India, and you will see how India is a failed nation. https://en.wikipedia.org... Compared to places like New Zealand, Norway, or Iceland, India is a terrible place to live in. Because India is such a bad place to live, the Indian people invent curry to smoke. Let me insert the fact that curry is used as a burnt incense offering to their million-armed god and a drug they use, similar to marijuana or steroids in the United States. Now that India is so stinky, overpopulated, and poor, the best thing to do is to cull all off them. frankfurter50, I'd like to ask you two things: 1. Why do you enjoy debating against me so much? 2. Before beginning a debate, how do you prepare for a debate?
We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese'

Brian falls for a simple hypocrisy trap, he claims the word "fat" is not to be used in an insult under these circumstances (and yet the minister's assertion is that use of one word is somehow more effective than the use of another in motivating people, which raises questions all of it's own) and yet then goes on to answer the suffix point with words like "disgustingly" and "appallingly" and yet use of these words as prefixes implies personal judgement and thus arbitrary labelling which is just another form of insult, calling anyone "disgustingly" anything is generally an insult unless you're being ironic or you happen to be from some 50's films about airmen that are all "disgustingly charming" or something. Additionally, Brian states, and I quote, "these descriptions have the added advantage of reminding the fat that being grossly overweight is not acceptable and that they should do something about it." Unacceptable to whom? To Brian? Why should arbitrary judgement affect the actions of another? Is it not basic human right to eat what we like? Additionally, how would Brian then suggest that someone who is fat for reasons other than high food consumption do? Kill themselves? Have surgery? Both are extreme options and I doubt very many would be willing to do the first or able to do the second. Brian's counterpoint in general makes it look like he has a simple vanity problem, he continues to talk about the so-called "shortage" of women that presumably aren't overweight and has generalised on the topic of how many women with curves are considered attractive by men of any kind, he's also misquoted, I didn't say all fat guys love fat girls, I asked if he'd considered the possibility that they'd be ok with it, because physical appearance only counts for so much in a relationship, if you want proof of that then check out the marital history of Britney Spears. And yes, Brian, I am overweight, that was my point, idle gluttony is one thing but if you're going to accuse every single overweight person of that then you're going to become rather unpopular with anyone that weighs more than, say, eighty pounds. I personally quite like a woman with curves, and especially a woman with pride in herself, if all you want is a lay then by all means go purely on appearances but just because she has the tools doesn't necessarily mean she knows how to get the job done (a phrase which also applies to men, and since this entire debate, in my opinion, makes Brian reek of sexual uncertainty I find myself unable to avoid putting two and two together.) Also, Brian, I'm single and at the moment I'm not really looking, my circumstances are such that I wouldn't make a very good boyfriend, but I digress. Ultimately you didn't show how changing the wording would change, well, anything, a rose by any other name but when people think of roses they seldom think of thorns.
We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese'

With many thanks to Veridas for his prompt reply, I should like to respond to the points he made as follows: There is no need for the word obese, except for communications between health professionals. The word "fat" is malleable enough to replace it. For example, if you say somebody is fat, you might think of a bloke with a beer belly or some bird with a big toilet on her. However, if you describe someone as: incredibly fat; morbidly fat; appallingly fat; hideously fat; disgustingly fat; etc. you form the impression that they have a serious weight problem. Furthermore, these descriptions have the added advantage of reminding the fat that being grossly overweight is not acceptable and that they should do something about it. Regarding my opponent's weight it would appear that he is technically overweight but his frame can carry the extra bulk. It also seems as though he gets plenty of exercise. I don't think he is the sort of person most people would describe as a "dirty fat bastard" – in other words, he is not one of the idle gluttons the Minister was referring to. My opponent underestimates the acute shortage of decent tottie around these days. Perhaps the situation is less dire down in Sevenoaks than it is here in London but I've resorted to shopping on foreign high streets for my fluff these days (get yourselves down to the Cï¿½te d'Azur, lads, there's more top quality gash there than you can poke a stick at). But my opponent raised a good point when he reminded us that there are also fat men. This is true, but what is not true is that they prefer fat women – they are still men which means they are likely to prefer nice, slim attractive girls. And slim girls aren't always grossed out by fat blokes, particularly if he is built like a rugby player or if he happens to be rich. In conclusion, the whole point of the Minister's assertion was not that we should insult grossly overweight people by calling them fat, as my opponent suggested, rather that we should help them to understand that being seriously overweight is unhealthy and it is not a disease, it is something they can actually do something about themselves. Thank you.
We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese'

Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like "obesity" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like "dangerously" "morbidly" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.