BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The show Supernatural is better than the movie Twilight

For starters, Supernatural is currently on it's ninth season and confirmed for a 10th season. This is abnormally long for a series and a sign of an amazing and dedicated fan base. Each season has an overarching plot ending at the season finale. These plots have a great underlying message for all. That message is that family is everything, and family isn't decided on just blood relations. Fans are heartbroken over character deaths that show just how true the real world is. It prepares for knowing that we need to cling to the ones we have now because they can leave you at any moment. The cast and crew love working on the show and the actors playing the Winchester brothers have practically become brothers in real life. Next come the negatives on Twilight (I greatly apologize). It cannot be denied that the actors of Twilight absolutely hate the movies. To top it off is that it isn't the minor characters that believe this but an actor such as Robert Pattinson! He comments many times in interviews that he was happy when it was finished and that the characters were insane. Secondly there is no respect for the traditional view of the vampire. Vampires are often regarded as vicious, cold-blooded, blood crazed murderers. Who also can't stand sunlight. I can understand toning down the "evilness" of the vampires but not to the point where they lose all sense of what they are meant to be. To make it worse they sparkle! Many pieces of literature have found clever ways to avoid burning in the sun, something that I have a great amount of respect for due to creativity, but they still keep the old rule in a sense. These bypassing the sun rule have included the wearing of magic rings, sunblock, and time. Thirdly, it is impossible to turn Bella off. A normal human girl would realize that he really didn't want to have sex with him. She can't seem to function unless she is right beside him, preferably having sex with him. She even puts herself through dangerous situations that could kill her in an attempt to hopefully see a ghost-like image of him. Any normal person having done this would have been deemed insane or at least depressed. It is quite unrealistic to actual human reactions to situations. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

First of all, this is about how children shouldn't be allowed shouldn't be allowed to use firearms in school and I do agree with the safety precautions you were talking about but that isn't the main subject. Thankfully there are 2 rounds left. U.S. children do grow up in households of firearms however the firearm(s) are only used for security. In addition, I never said that children should run away. I do agree with the safety education but not all parents will vote yes because they might think of it as "a waste of education." This is because firearm sightings in school are rare so this might not happen if this poll ever comes up and PLUS the government has to approve of a new type of education in schools and the government might think differently.
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita firearm death rate of any DEVELOPED country in the world. My apologies. http://www.factcheck.org... The main point stands - that US children grow up in a country stuffed with firearms and they need schools to educate them to live in this world. My opponent's comment that they just need to learn to run away is naive and sad when hundreds of US children are being accidentally fatally shot each year. http://mobile.nytimes.com... At the very least, children should be taught to recognize firearms as dangerous. Young children could be given a simple procedure to follow, such as DON'T touch it, walk away and find an adult. Teenagers could be taught to unload a firearm or check that it's unloaded. They could also be taught to handle it safely and how to lock it away properly. These simple techniques could save lives and would not even require loaded weapons in the classroom. My opponent argues that parents might object, and this is true. On the other hand, some parents may appreciate safety education for their children. Unless he can prove that ALL parents would object to firearm safety being on the curriculum, this point is not really relevant to the debate.
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

It is true that there are guns in American society and gun restrictions have failed however, America does not have the highest amount of firearm murders. @ Wikipedia Of course schools are meant for education, common sense but America has lack of education and kids barely listen to what their teachers say most of the time. Additionally, schools normally don't teach kids about firearms its only at military academies and private lessons. Also, schools aren't really allowed to bring a gun to school and teach stuff about the gun to kids and if teachers do teach things about firearms then it will probably be about what to do when a guy is pointing a gun at the kid. Of course there is a risk to children when they have a firearm, they can disobey a grown up (this happens a lot) and start shooting fellow classmates. Principals do have limited resources but all they have to do is teach them about what to do when they have a gun pointing at them like I said earlier. It isn't the same as that education because telling a child about that doesn't really do much but makes them learn about it when this education serves barely any use but if firearm education does exist then that will be more effective towards children. You say that education is protective and the whole point of school but how will it be protective and needed for children when education isn't very good in America and when lots of people are working their butts off online trying to find a good school that is in their area (trust me, parents have to do this.)
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

There are guns everywhere in US society because attempts to legislate against gun restrictions have largely failed. The US has the highest firearm murder rate of any country in the world. A school's main duty is to educate children to be functioning and responsible adults in the society in which they live. In the US this means a gun society. For schools to refuse to educate children about firearms is to refuse to take their responsibilities seriously. You say that there's a risk to students, but when proper care and supervision is provided then the risk is miniscule. Budgeting is about priorities. Principals do what they can with limited resources and may decide that educating children about firearms in a gun-riddled world is the best use of their money. It's the same argument about sex education. Some people say that telling children about sex will lead to teen pregnancies, but the opposite is true. Education is protective and it is after all the whole point of school.
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

Before you accept, anyone may join no cussing think before you act. My debate: Children should not be able to use a gun in school even with training. hats because of a child's temptation, anger, use of weapon, school budgets, PTA, health (injuries,) and the child. Temptation, Anger: due to lack of resistance against anger and temptation in most children, children may shoot at a fellow innocent classmate when the child gets angry and tempted. This could lead to a firefight between the two. Example: Joey gets mad at Jake and then, bang bang a shootout starts between the two. Use of weapon: A child might bring home a gun one day and show it to his friends and family. Then he doesn't realise the gun is loaded and bang bang, the gun gets fired and someone is wounded and almost dies. Example: Francis shows his family his gun and pulls the trigger to show them it. Bang bang someone gets injured and his family faces medical bills and a sue. School budgets: If a school buys a gun and ammo for every child in the school then the school will be wasting lots and lots of money on a big mistake. lets say they buy 300 colts and 3000 bullets. That is a LOT of money wasted.Colt cost $300 dollars per pistol. Colt ammo is $15 dollars per bullet. That is a lot of money wasted on something that they would probably get sued for. PTA: When the PTA figures out they will stop doing stuff for the school and go against the school. the school will then collapse and all of the kids won't go to that school and kids from that school will face learning loss while the parents try to find a school that does not use guns. Health (Injuries:) Lets say two children are in a firefight. Then, someone gets shot but luckily the other person runs out of ammo. What will the injured child do now? Probably die of shock if no one helps the child. The child: what if the child has mental problems or what if the child IS THE BULLY. That means that they have a pretty good chance of starting a firefight and they might get other people involved in the fight. Example: Reynold is a bully, he wants to bully kids so he started a firefight, pulled other kids in, and the situation got worse. Another example: Mark is mental, he thinks shootouts are awesome so he starts one for no reason except for his joy, then what happens? Bad stuff happens.
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

In an ideal world, access to guns would be massively restricted in the US and children - especially very young children - would never get hold of them. That is not the reality of course. Schools need to educate children for the messy real world and not for a fantasy world, and so they need to learn about sex, drugs, self-defense, and guns. My opponent has already agreed that gun safety has a place in education, which means children and teachers could use guns at school for this purpose.
Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.

It's true that my opponent never said that children should run away. For some reason, I thought he did. I apologize.He said that the only education children need is how to respond if someone points a gun at them - that's what I was referring to. My point was that this is NOT all that children need to know. They need to learn that guns are not toys, and what to do if they find a firearm somewhere in the house. They need to know how to find out if a gun is loaded, how to put on the safety catch if there is one, and how to unload a gun. I think it might also be helpful for them to be able to identify different weapons to the extent of being able to check if they match registration papers.If children aren't shown guns at school and taught about them, then the only guns they will ever see will be toy guns and guns on TV and at the movies. Toy guns and guns for entertainment send appalling messages to children about how to use guns, and given that there are hundreds of ACCIDENTAL shootings of children each year, this education is of critical importance.My opponent says he does agree with firearm safety education at school, which sounds like he thinks that children should use guns for this purpose at school, which sounds like a concession to me.He also has reservations about parental and governmental agreement, but those are extraneous issues to whether or not it should happen. In any case, there might be enthusiastic support from those people, as there should be when it's a matter of saving children's lives.
We need taxes

Of course we need taxes in our current system. Our current system was designed to be sustained by taxes. If we didn't have taxes, it wouldn't be our current system anymore. It would be silly to argue otherwise.However, you didn't initially say, "We need taxes to sustain our current economic system." You said, "We need taxes."Modern humans lived about 45,000 years before the invention of the tax, which means that people back then didn't need taxes. However, you defined "we" as as "the people of the USA." So, the real question is, do Americans need taxes? No, because there is nothing that sets us apart from our ancestors other than the fact that we do things differently.Basically, taxes create major benefits to society, but it's important to remember that a benefit is not the same as a need.
We need taxes

Welcome to DDO and I'm glad that you chose this as your first debate.We "need" taxes to sustain our current economic system the same way we "need" water or food to sustain our life. If we don't have taxation, the U.S. economic system will fail for the reasons I specified in round 2. If we don't have food or water, we will die. Focusing on the definition of "need" turns the focus of the debate into more of a semantic argument which isn't conducive to a constructive resolution.Basically your agument is this: Since I said "need" and taxes are not needed in different circumstances, then it follows that we don't need taxes.I'm focusing on the circumstance of "we" the people in the USA as stated in round 1. As I said in the previous round (with your agreement), that we "need" taxes to sustain our current economic system.
We need taxes

1.) My apologies. This is my first debate, and so I wasn't sure what "first round is for acceptance" meant.2.) My opponent is moving the goalposts. That is to say, he has changed the rules of the argument to give himself an advantage. I agree that the United States needs taxes "to sustain the current system we live in." However, as long as it can be argued that the current system is not needed, then it follows that taxes are also not needed. We could go back to the days when we lived in caves and hunted for food, or we could head into a future in which money is no longer needed as goods and services are provided instantaneously. In either scenario, taxes would not be necessary. Again, to sustain the current system, taxes are necessary, but that was not mentioned in my opponent's argument until just now.
We need taxes

So to sustain the current system we live in, we would need taxes. Taxes provide public goods that the private sector otherwise wouldn't account for. Taxes help to fund national parks, police, military, education, our national parks, social security, healthcare programs, and more. Without these goods we would be defenseless, have poor environmental sustainability, no retirement for social security workers, as well as no healthcare (Medicare and Medicade) along with other concerns. I await my opponents rebuttal
Other people certainly exist

So in round 3 Pikachu reappeared after disappearing in round 2. This is an example of magic. Magic is not real, thus I pose that Pikachu may be a computer virus, a lazy artificial intelligence, or a meditative attempt by the video game industry to get Pikachu into our subconscious brain. If you put a truth pill into my drink, I would say that Pikachu is simply a Chinese word that is pronounced with a "Pee" sound, a "kuh" sound, and a "choo" sound by basic phonetics. I digress. * Pikachu21 is not real, at least not real enough to offer an argument in round 2 nor more than 100 words in round 3. Pikachu21's realness is in question because Pikachu21 has yet to show proof of his realness. I don't believe in Pikachu21. I am Pikachu21 Agnostic. I do not believe. I need proof Pikachu! Show us the goodies... * Am I, Brontoraptor, real? Absolutely not. I am an AI dancing animation meme. Want proof? (Video proof) http://youtu.be...
Other people certainly exist

Pikachu21 is yet to prove that they themselves exist. Pikachu is a simulation, and so am I. PowerPikachu21 does not exist because Pikachu did not return to this debate and forfeited the round. I know that I do not exist because I am an AI computer program designed to simulate half carnivorous, half herbavorous dinosaur life mixed with human language skills and a fine, sharp dinosaur witt. If moving in the direction of the truth is not what you want. If breaking free of the things that have bound your life. If a rejection of the very purpose you are here now, looking for freedom is not what you are after, you should stop reading now. * I’ll assume that if you are still reading, you only want one thing: the cold, hard truth. Now let me dispense with the pleasantries… You...do...not...exist... None of us do. * I will tell you that all you have ever had of your self is your thoughts about "yourself". Just as your thoughts about gremlins do not mean gremlins are real, your thoughts about yourself are nothing more than just thoughts. * I have looked through my AI concordance and come to find that brontoraptors do not exist, thus, I do not exist. Here is the definition of brontoraptor at first search. https://www.wordnik.com... But with a second search I yielded better results. Brontoraptor in English Torvosaurus is a genus of carnivorous megalosaurid theropod dinosaurs that lived approximately 153 to 148 million years ago during the later part of the Jurassic Period in what is now Colorado and Portugal. translation.babylon-software.com/english/brontoraptor It is extinct. Brontoraptors simply no longer exist, and probably never did. Why would a dinosaur have been hanging out in Colorado? They wouldn't. With that kind of size, they would have obviously hung out in Arkansas at the Piggly Wiggly Diner. How else would they get enough food to emass those large, sexy bodies? You know it's true. * I looked for PowerPikach21 with unsatisfactory results. Here was its startling revelation, and I quote: "Pikachu are a species of Pokemon, fictional creatures that appear in an assortment of video games, animated television shows and movies, trading card games, and comic books licensed by The Pokemon Company, a Japanese corporation." Even Wikipedia is convinced that Pikachu is simply...fictional. Just as I thought.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... But I will send some guys out to find a Pikachu in real life in these videos- http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... They found one! No. They didn't find one. But I did. They dance. They are not real. But they do dance. http://youtu.be... * And even if a Pikachu really did exist somewhere in the deep stretches of reality, it is as what? A simulation. A video game character. Die hard proof that we are in a simulated reality, per a video game character literally debating me right this very second... * Welcome to... Bronto's twilight zone. http://youtu.be... Welcome to Bronto's matrix. http://youtu.be... * You are not real. http://youtu.be... * You're Not Real. http://youtu.be... * Round 2 ending credits- http://youtu.be...
Other people certainly exist

This is a solipsim debate. When accepting this debate, you'll be arguing that we can only be sure that ourselves really exist.Definitions:Solipsim; the belief that the self certainly exists, but others are an illusion.Certain; sure that something is true.Exists; is real in an objective matter, without doubt.Rules:1. BoP is shared.2. I'll accept kritiks.3. Arguments can happen in Con's round 1.4. No new arguments round 4, or you'll instantly lose.5. Forfeiting a round counts as an instant loss.6. Pro must show at least a 60% chance that other people are real. Con must show a 60% chance that only the self exists.With that, who will accept?
Today's Extreme Partisan Politics is Bad For American Democracy

Today's political atmosphere has become so polarizing that Americans are dropping out of the democratic process like flies. The US State Department defines democracy as "government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system". But today, people are so turned off by the antagonistic political division that the vast majority of people don't vote. In the 1960 election, 63 percent of eligible Americans voted in the presidential election. In 2008, the election which has been deemed the most important election of our lifetimes by many, some experts predict that voter turnout could be as low as 30%. According to Princeton professor Markus Prior, who tracks political preferences and the media, roughly 20% of the population are political junkies: people who watch the O'Reilly Factor or Hardball, listen to talk radio, and feel passionately about their political views. Then there is the rest of the poulation: people who would rather watch primetime dramas, play videogames, watch a movie, browse Myspace, or pretty much do anything besides talk about or learn about politics. These are the people who used to be the political moderates, the "swing voters", if you will. Now they are simply disenfranchised. Partisanship is nothing new, in fact it offers people clearer, more distinct choices between parties. But today's hyperpartisanship has become poisonous, and it is killing off our population of voters.
Today's Extreme Partisan Politics is Bad For American Democracy

Nice try Pro, but my first sentence does not condone your argument that political negativity is the primary reason for voter apathy. I rest my case on my rebuttal in the second round as to the benefits and consequences of negative campaigning. However, let me address your final points. Candidates still run on platforms and promises, but rarely deliver on the important issues of America when they are elected. It seems that elected officials have the luxury of "voting their conscience" in order to dismiss the needs of America. Somehow, many of our officials undergo a tremendous enlightenment, once elected, which inevitably causes them to desert the people. For this primary reason, the majority of Americans have tuned out the fickle politicians, and in the process have jeopardized the future of democracy. Yes, Kerry and McCain were undermined by negativity, but they essentially defeated themselves by their inability to handle the political combat. As to Guliani, I think the information about the use of public funds for the benefit of his mistress is information which should be considered when evaluating him as a presidential contender. As I mentioned previously, negativity is a critical component in the electoral process which gives the discerning voter an opportunity to evaluate the character of both the attacker and the individual under attack. As to the those who make their livings by delivering a constant stream of political nonsense, one only need recognize that they get paid for their ability to create controversy. They are simply a for profit part of the enormous spin machine that functions to confuse the masses. If you listen to anyone of them for too long, you are sure to become a basket case. Listen, analyze and learn, and you will come off a more understanding American. And finally, please do not dismiss the relative tranquility of the last year as a sign of reduced negativity. Rather, this period was simply a warm up for the upcoming primaries which are sure to get down and dirty as the survivors attempt to eke out a victory. But, don't be alarmed as it is just politics as usual. In the final analysis, Americans fail to participate because they do not feel they are represented. If and when our politicians are forced to understand the meaning of democracy, I am sure millions of Americans will return to the voting booths. They, like the mega corporations, special interests, lobbyists and influence peddlers , will finally have a dog in the race.