BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would be much easier to have just one utensil instead of forks, spoons and knives

bla bla bla is rite, my big man. now lose gracyfulie and pst dis 2pac agin. Somone will actuly aceept it and u will lus!!!!! I leeeve u wit an inspratiunal songg: Yeah... Uh huh So seductive [Chorus: 50 Cent & Olivia] [50 Cent] I take you to the candy shop I'll let you lick the lollypop Go 'head girl, don't you stop Keep going 'til you hit the spot (woah) [Olivia] I'll take you to the candy shop Boy one taste of what I got I'll have you spending all you got Keep going 'til you hit the spot (woah) [Verse 1: 50 Cent] You can have it your way, how do you want it You gon' back that thing up or should i push up on it Temperature rising, okay lets go to the next level Dance floor jam packed, hot as a teakettle I'll break it down for you now, baby it's simple If you be a nympho, I'll be a nympho In the hotel or in the back of the rental On the beach or in the park, it's whatever you into Got the magic stick, I'm the love doctor Have your friends teasin you 'bout how sprung I gotcha Wanna show me how you work it baby, no problem Get on top then get to bouncing round like a low rider I'm a seasons vet when it come to this sheett After you work up a sweat you can play with the stick I'm tryin to explain baby the best way I can I melt in your mouth girl, not in your hands (ha ha) [Chorus] [Bridge: 50 Cent & Olivia] Girl what we do (what we do) And where we do (and where we do) The things we do (things we do) Are just between me and you (oh yeah) [Verse 2: 50 Cent] Give it to me baby, nice and slow Climb on top, ride like you in the rodeo You ain't never heard a sound like this before Cause I ain't never put it down like this Soon as I come through the door she get to pullin on my zipper It's like it's a race who can get undressed quicker Isn't it ironic how erotic it is to watch em in thongs Had me thinking 'bout that as$ after I'm gone I touch the right spot at the right time Lights on or lights off, she like it from behind So seductive, you should see the way she wind Her hips in slow-mo on the floor when we grind As Long as she ain't stoppin, homie I aint stoppin Drippin wet with sweat man its on and popping All my champagne campaign, bottle after bottle its on And we gon' sip til every bubble in the bottle is gone
It would be much easier to have just one utensil instead of forks, spoons and knives

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
It would be much easier to have just one utensil instead of forks, spoons and knives

eye haff dafeetid mi opponint en juzt mii opining argyoument, 4 eye ham 1 uv teh bist debatour en dis sight. Wach out mynameisjonas, eye'm cuming 4 yu, an whin eye du, yur goin doun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be much easier to have just one utensil instead of forks, spoons and knives

Hello, my not very gooded typing friend, and i will debate the side of the fork, knife, and spoon. it is very handee already and as the fork knife and spoon are better than any combo becuase they have differnt useses. Actually, I want you to post this again cuz i dont want to debate this. Sorry. let some1 who knows how to debate this debate this to do it. Thank you.
Cannibalism

No problem bud. Well, were we all to decide that we should all live our lives with a sole interest of preserving the human race I think that Cannibalism would be the most logical approach for the following reasons. 1. Its good to recycle. 2. If everyone was to agree that this was what was best for the human race and did not care if they had to die then we would easily be able to pick out and eat all of those who would be least beneficial to the human race first. Which would leave only the most intelligent of our race to reproduce. 3. We would be able to temporarily stop worrying about farming as our food would be farming itself. 4. We would be giving the planet a break from the methanes clouds that are cows which would be help preserve our planets atmosphere at the same time. 5. I read somewhere that humans taste like pork. I might be able to come up with a few more in the next round.
Cannibalism

My opponent's opening argument contained little else besides a short introduction. Thus, I will take what he said as the resolution. "If by tomorrow morning the entire human race somehow came to believe that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity and decided that overpopulation was the first big issue, Cannibalism would be the most logical approach. " I believe that even in this regard, Cannibalism would *not* be the most logical approach. However, as I am the contender, I will allow the instigator to give an argument before going in depth, as the instigator has the heavier burden of proof. I have a plan in mind that is far superior to cannibalism but before I reveal it, I wuld like my opponent to give a fully framed argument so that I am sure that my proposal would be relevant to the scope that my opponent has in mind. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Cannibalism

My opponent's proposition is that we take the most useless members of society and eat them, for the various reasons he has outlined. However, I have found an alternative method that deals with his most important points. The useless members of society will be used to fuel electric energy by turning a massive turbine. When they die of exhaustion, their bodies will be used as fertilizer and fodder for farming, instead of being eaten. This proposition is better in the following ways: 1. We bypass any sort of moral discomfort in consuming a fellow human being 2. Useless members of society are used to produce a resource that the intelligent members can use. 3. Simply eating them provides little resources compared to using them to generate energy and then using their remains to fuel farming. To respond to my opponent's five points: 1. Yes, it is good to recycle, but the recycling should be as productive as possible. Farming from the fertilized soil of human remains would be much more productive than eating humans outright, as the nutrients would allow for bountiful crop harvest after harvest. 2. Working the useless humans to death would have the same result, except that we use them to provide much needed electrical energy. We can eat many things besides humans, why waste a resource like that? Even the msot useless people can be used to push a wheel or crank a gear 3. As said above, my proposition would have the exact same effects except on a greater scale. Less mouths to feed, more food, plus a whole lot more. 4. The energy sources we obtain from working the useless humans to death will reduce our need for fossil fuels and help the atmosphere much more than it would to reduce the number of cows. 5. Pigs also taste like pork. We can use the extra yield of crop to raise pigs, which produce more meat in a given maturity cycle than humans do. More meat for less food. I too will have more supporting reasons in the next round. I look forward to my opponent's response.
This site is a craphole.

Umm, what? You have the affirmative position. It is not my job to prove this site is not a "Craphole" as the default postion is that the site is not awful. You have to prove the site sucks, not me having to prove it doesn't. I'm posting the same argument as it still applies. Now for my "arguments." What was that? You provided no evidence to support your claim. How am I supposed to disprove a negative? Or in other words, how am I supposed to show you this site is not a "Craphole" when no evidence to the contrary exists? Time for some semantics. The definition of moron is a very stupid person. I know that on this site, people have graduated from college, so they certainly are not stupid. Personally, I scored a 24 on my ACT in 7th grade, which puts me in the 99th percentile of all 7th graders. So I am not a moron either. There. All of you claims debunked. Please post some kind of argument, otherwise I will win.
Euthanasia

As far as the pain the terminally ill suffer I don't believe it is up to anyone but the patient to say what is manageable or if they should have to live with it. As I said I am not advocating widespread legal suicide, only in the case of mentally competent, terminally ill patience. And they should not be forced to live out there days doped up on drugs just because its the only way to get through the day. There is also the risk of opioid dependency. Suicide attempters should not be lumped in with the terminally ill who are asking for the right to die on there own terms after a long life. In chapter 7 of Deviant Behavior Alex Thio quotes statistics that say that the majority of suicide attempters do not actually want to die. (Thio, 2013) My point is that the suicide attempts are generally attention seeking behavior. Legal euthanasia would only apply to the mentally competent and terminally ill. I agree that pain can impair decision making. So can narcotics. Why is that acceptable but the right to die is not? Im not saying that patients should be coerced into the decision for profit or cost cutting. But if this is there decision and lower medical costs are an added benefit than that is a good thing. There are laws and safeguards to protect from the collusion you mentioned. Like the rest of the legal and medical system it is not perfect. This lack of perfection should not be an excuse to keep patients from there rights.
Euthanasia

The pain experienced by terminally ill patients varies. There are ups and downs. In some cases, pain that initially seems unbearable, becomes manageable. And if all else fails, there are boatloads of drugs that can be taken to help deal with the pain. People rarely know when they have had enough. Look at all the attempted suicides that take place. The majority of those failed attempts, go on to live full lives. Do you think they wish they had succeeded in their suicide attempts? Change is always hard. People go through a state of depression when confined to a hospital bed, when they lose the use of their legs, when they receive the news that they only have a few months to live. It's easy to give up and end it, but to do so can often be a mistake because a single moment of beautiful life makes the pain worthwhile. People who think they want to end their lives end up changing their mind. It happens all the time. If it didn't, there would be no need for suicide hot lines. I see that you would like to limit euthanasia to only those that are in pain, and only those that have a terminal illness. Well, life is a terminal illness that is full of pain. We're all going to die eventually, and we're all going to experience unimaginable physical and emotional pain. That does not mean that we give up. But the real problem is the slippery slope. Once you open the Pandora's Box of euthanasia for only those suffering and terminally ill, it is only a matter of time before the criteria changes. In fact, in the Netherlands, there is already a group pushing to allow anyone over 75 that is tired of life, to kill themselves. Is this the society that we want? Old people feeling worthless and being encouraged to end their lives and stop being a burden? In your response, you state that: "I don't think that cutting costs especially in the medical field is a bad thing" in response to the suggestion of the terminally ill being encouraged to die. This is exactly the slippery slope that I fear. Cost should not be a consideration when deciding whether or not to end someone's life. A nation that makes its citizens feel guilty for the 'selfishness of continuing to live' is not a nation to be proud of. It is a nation that has lost its way. And while there may be various safeguards in place, it takes only a collusion of two people to falsely state that someone claimed they wanted to die before killing them and stripping their organs., saving medical costs, and allocating their estate.
Euthanasia

In the case of most terminally ill patients the pain does not just go away. And I do believe that people would do anything to stop that terrible physical and emotional pain. I do not believe that is wrong. I don't believe that people should spend their last precious moments in pain and suffering. Death is inevitable. I believe that people who suffer from terminal illnesses and are mentally competent to do so should have the right to say when they have had enough. I am glad you brought up medical costs and organ transplantation. That leads me to my second argument. Before the physician or third party can "pull the plug" on someone they must have consent or be given the legal right to do so if the patient cannot physically give consent. I don't think that cutting costs especially in the medical field is a bad thing. It would lower costs for others and put more towards care. If someone who is terminally ill has only weeks or months left to live, and they have the ability to save someone who could have years or decades to live by an organ translate I say go for it. If the dying patient is a registered organ donor and have given consent for euthanasia then they are a hero in my book by saving another life. I am not advocating the widespread euthanasia of anyone over the age of 75. I am simply saying that if someone is terminally ill they should have the right to die in order to end their own pain and suffering, the pain and suffering of their loved ones, and potentially cutting medical costs and saving lives with organ transplantation
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is generally defined as: "the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering." On the surface, letting someone die who is suffering and has a terminal illness seems like a no-brainer? Why wouldn't we let them die to end their pain? But there is a reason this is illegal in most countries, and it is not for the 'religious nonsense' that you might think. Firstly, there are always times when a person is in pain or is suffering and will do anything to have that pain end. Often that pain diminishes, or the person learns to live with it. Pain is always relative. By giving into momentary weakness, it deprives the person of the few precious moments they have left. Death takes away everything a person ever was and ever will be. Secondly, there's a real concern as to who makes the end-of-life decision. In many countries, relatives are given the right to make that decision on behalf of the patient. This creates a dangerous scenario, particularly if the relative stands to inherit money from the patient. In some countries, doctors have been known to encourage euthanasia in order to save on medical costs, or to retrieve a healthy organ. Do we want the elderly pressured into euthanasia, because they are a burden on society? Should they be made to feel guilty for choosing to live past seventy-five, when they have some painful conditions? If that doesn't frighten you, it should.
Euthanasia

I would like to have a healthy debate with someone who opposes euthanasia. The following is just my opening argument and I encourage a logical opposing argument. Euthanasia is defined by Merriman-Webster as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." Since most people trust the Webster definition to be accurate, I believe this definition makes the argument for legalizing Euthanasia. I will however do my best to expand.
Resolved; quantum mechanics do not refute the first premise of Kalam

Resolved; quantum physics does not require us to abandon the principle that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Rounds; 1) acceptance 2) opening arguments 3) rebuttal's 4) second rebuttal's and closing remarks. In this debate my opponent and I both share the burden of proof. I must show that one can hold to quantum mechanics and the 1st premise of Kalam without contradiction. My opponent must show that holding to both is logically incoherent. If I fail to uphold my burden I lose the debate, same thing goes for my opponent.
Capitalism

My arguments that I used for my Round 2 argument are extended into Round 4. VOTERS: I have given Rick ample opportunity, and he refuses. I now ask for the conduct point. Just for some free source points also: "Capitalism demands the very best of every person and rewards him or her according to his efforts and skills, accordingly. It allows anyone the freedom to choose the work or business of their skill and interest, and to trade that labor or product for either the equivalent monetary value, or an equally desirable product or service in trade (which the IRS would now still tax!). The value of a person's work is determined by the free market where there is a 100% correlation between the value added to society and the compensation earned in return. In true capitalism, it is the consumer is king.": http://www.myfreedompost.com.... "There are a limited number of resources in the world. Therefore, a system is needed that rations out these resources in a manner that benefits all the stakeholders. As we discussed in Gas Shortages previously, prices determined through supply and demand allow resources to be allocated to those who need them most. In the case of a crisis, the person with an empty tank of gas can buy what he currently needs most (because the price will be high enough to deter people who don't really need it).": http://conservativeeconomics.blogspot.com.... "[More] government spending is [not] a way to improve economic performance. [It] did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s [,nor] solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s [,nor] will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.": http://www.takeonit.com....
Carbon dating proves dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago

It's quite simple, what I'm saying here. The half life of C-14 is 5730 years, and therefore, no traces of C-14 should be found after 100,000 years, or 17 half lives. This is confirmed by accelerator mass spectrometry, which is the most accurate method used to carbon date.www.newgeology.us presentation 48 (http://newgeology.us...) presents numerous results of dinosaur bones being carbon dated, in various laboratories, independently, and even signed by a leading carbon dating expert.
Carbon dating proves dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago

I agree with Pro that definitive proof is exclusive to mathematics. I was not the one who chose to use the word proof, nor do I intend to hold Pro's use of the word to that kind of standard. In fact, I'm willing to throw Pro a huge bone and ignore that the resolution contains the word "proof" at all. And I'll take it even further and throw Pro another huge bone and pretend that they never used the word "definitely" in round 2. Even with all that, my point still stands. Pro is right to say that no C14 should be present in bones older than 100,000 years. But neither should bones younger than 100,000 years be found in rocks dated into the millions. Like, for example, in the Mygatt-Moore Quarry in the Brushy Basin Member of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation where various sauropods have been found and which has been uranium-lead dated at 152 million years old [1]. Unless Pro's claim that the radiocarbon results are likely correct is inescapably also a claim that dating of rocks into the millions are likely wrong. As such, they need to justify what they believe tips the balance in favour of the radiocarbon dates. Do they think it's possible that young bones can exist in old rock? If so, how? Do they think it's possible that the dating techniques used on rocks that are supposedly millions of years old are flawed in some way? If so, why? Do they believe that other dating techniques are valid but radiocarbon dating is slightly superior in some way? If so, why? Unless Pro is willing to address this issue, their entire case is a non-starter. Pro claims that unless a reasonable explanation for the detection of C14 is put forth, the conclusion is that dinosaurs likely lived less than 100,000 years ago, but this is not a luxury that they are afforded. Only if a justification is made for favouring radiocarbon dates of dinosaur bones over other radiometric dates of old rocks will it become necessary for me to demonstrate a reasonable explanation for C14 in order to make the case that the radiocarbon dates are the lesser likely dates to go with to resolve the conflict. But without such a justification, Pro's case is an automatic fail and there's no need for me to go any further. So it's not so much that I'm basing my position on the conflict of dates. It's that I don't yet find Pro's case threatening enough to need to go beyond pointing the conflict out and calling Pro out on their lack of justification for picking a side in the conflict. If Pro is willing to provide such a justification, we can start to get into the meat of the topic. But as for now, I'm content at leaving it at that. [1] http://www.academia.edu...
Carbon dating proves dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago

I would like to clarify that definitive proof can never be achieved, as I sense that the opponent is going to base his position on the fact that other methods seem to indicate different ages and that the age of the dinosaurs is therefore not conclusive. Of course, there will always be a conflict of data - but based upon scientific methods, we can determine what is likely to be the case. No one can ever present definitive proof, unless in mathematics. I am attempting to show that C-14 provides a very heavy case for young dinosaurs.When multiple, non-affiliated, independent laboratories across the United States arrive at similar results for the age of certain bone samples, that carries significant weight - but even that is not the point - the point is, that nothing at all should be found in those bones when they exceed a hundred thousand years of age, and even standard methods that are not state-of-the-art managed to detect significant amounts of C-14 in those bones, repeatedly, without exception.Unless a reasonable alternative explanation for the presence of C-14 is put forth, from a carbon dating perspective (which is a legitimate scientific method for dating bones), the conclusion is that dinosaurs likely lived tens of thousands of years ago, and definitely less than a hundred thousand years ago. And yes, the results presented have been cross-examined using multiple methods on several occasions, as written in the presentation. The names of the researchers are clearly written for verification purposes, and even the signature of a renowned carbon dating expert is to be seen in the presentation, as additional verification that the results are legitimate.