BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roasts #2

Thomas Yong, You do enhancement biology as well as Physical education about the body, And yet you believe that my legs are attached to my head. You veggie motherf****r I accept the debate and will address the following things (or should I say issues) about Tom. - His lack of friends - His social media insecurity - His squinty eyes and tiny. . . . - Having to get in 12vies due to having no social life. Good luck
Roasts #2

"Alqwayda crashed into 9/11" - Matthew Girolami First off, Matthew you are built like a f*cking phosphilipid. You're twig a** legs are attached to your f*cked up head. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, In this debate i will talk about the following points: - your munted head - your sister and your family - your nonexistent social life - the fact that no one likes you and you should commit - youre a vegetable and possibly the most retarded kid i know - how you are not good at anything and a waste of oxygen and food :) In essence, You are a depressed ugly af aids inducing pile of crap that no one appreciates.
Roasts #2

Tell me if you understand anything that. Don't even f*****g know what you where on about in the last argument, Nothing was true, And to think that you have to involve my family, Dirty play. Anyway, I will go after your family as well. "Matt probably gives good t** jobs" - Thomas Yong. You probably want to smash your two older brothers and Patrick probably has a better chance of getting with a girl than you do getting with a girl. You whole live will be living in the shadows of your brothers and not having anything to do with your life. Your best friend is probably Scott Carruthers. I am surprised that your family is not on anti-depressants seeing as you are one of their kids, You could easily hook it up to them seeing as you try and chat up chicks from Brentwood. Ask them to hook you up with some anti depressants as everyone in your life needs them. "Get what you get and don't get upset" Yeah, That's what the mid wife said to your parents when they saw your f*****g head. You know what, To say that I only have 6 friends is a complete and utter f*****g joke. You always accuse others of having no friends, But the only time you are allowed out of your room is when you have to go and fetch the new batch of anti-depressants.
Roasts #2

"Ebola is a protist" - Matthew Girolami Rebuttal: Matthew, You are not original and cannot think for yourself. You have no backbone just like you dont have a collar bone. I dont have pressure to succeed, And no i dont get whipped. Just becasue you can barely scrape by for a pass doesnt give u a reason to be jealous. Scholarships have no input on this argument as we both know that that word isnt even in your vocabulary. We both know that when someone starts criticising your f*cking sentence structure theyve lost the debate. I love how you make fun of me asking for 6 people to comment and like my posts. Thats 6 more friends than you have you D*ck. "When you need to ask your friends in a group chat to ask everyone to go and like your posts shows you lack of friends and your want for a social status that is greater than it is possible shows signs of depression and the want to have more friends. " You illiterate f*ck, Do u even English! Youre only argument against me is the false perception that i suck people off and pay them to like me, Coming from the desperate one whos only friends treat him like sh*t. But you "get what you get and dont get upset" right? ! ? ! ? ! Arguments: Now on to your family and sister. I love how you say i hit on your 12 year old sister. Shes turning 14 and it perfectly legal for me to be clapping them petite cheeks. Your just scared that im gonna be your brother in law and become the "son" that your parents never got. You know, The one who isnt r*tarded and an embarassment. Jenny Girolami, Shes the most compassionate mum you can find. Im honestly surprised she managed to put up with your bullsh*t and hasnt commited yet. Like if i was living with you youd have to pay me if im gonna listen to you talk. Matthew, I really feel sorry for you, But especially your family. Like i no wonder you have a sister. THE FIRST CHILD WAS A MISTAKE. Im sure your parents hoped for a less autistic child, Which they got luckily. All in all, Your a mistake and no one loves you. Hold my pocket. . . B*TCH
Roasts #2

"People who have no education turn to art" - Thomas Yong Well done Tom, To rebutt, You seem to highlight my sporting failures and other 'achievements' however, I have no pressure on my academic results and will not be whipped by my parents for getting less than 90%. He accuses others including me for being try hards and yet your the one who s***s himself as he isn't getting a scholarship. Then attacks Francis for getting a scholarship trying to protect his own insecurity. You also say that you have superior knowledge and how that you are in many different enhancements, But cannot use simple sentence structure to convey your points. Now for the arguments, You like to show off that you have a great social life, I meant 600 followers on Instagram is a great amount, But for f**k sakes, When you need to ask your friends in a group chat to ask everyone to go and like your posts shows you lack of friends and your want for a social status that is greater than it is possible shows signs of depression and the want to have more friends. To conclude, Your points against me, Well you called me dumb, Unco and a p***y. Whatever, You need to have more friends, And make sure that you don't have to f*****g pay them and suck them off to make sure that you make them your friend.
Roasts #2

"Give Ms Rutledge Cardiac Arrest" - Matthew Girolami Rebuttal: - When I referred to your legs being attached to your head, It was a reference to the structure of a phopholipid which you seem to be oblivious about due to your lack of knowledge in all aspects of life. - Its funny how you call me a veggie motherf*cker when your the one who is an underachiever and doesnt do any enhancements other than math, Which anyone can make it into. Arguments: Now to my substantive material, Firstly i will address the profound flaws in you as a person. Your head is so munted i now understand why Alexa didnt want to speak to you. Youre scratchy a** beard is an embarrassment and i fail to see how you bear to look at yourself in the mirror. As for your twig arms and legs im surprised you can support your own weight, Youre the biggest p*ssy i know. How the f*ck breaks the collar bone whilst sitting down. To my next point, Youre the most unco person ive ever met. You are a disgrace to the sport of tennis. Your loss on the 28th of July against Max Getley (6-2)), On the 23rd of July against Miranda Wang (6-4), And on the 15tyh of Jun against Nelson Lu (6-3) is a testament to how sh*t you are at everything. You can even beat girls who are 5 years younger than you.
Raising social services for people living in poverty

People living in poverty should not be assisted by social services because when determining the poverty line there are many aspects that are not looked at. P1: Poverty has declined steadily from an estimated 50 percent of the population in 1964 to 19 percent in 1992. P2: For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. For example, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. 92 percent of poor households have a microwave. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks. Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers. More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. 43 percent have Internet access. One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo. http://www.heritage.org...
Raising social services for people living in poverty

People living in poverty should be assisted more thoroughly by social services because when determining the poverty line there are many aspects that are not looked . P1: such as the way the poverty line is calculated does not keep up to date with the cost of living in specific areas. P2: the calculation process was also established in 1963 and has not changed since then, a lot has evolved since then and family necessities have broadened http://blogs.kqed.org...
Raising social services for people living in poverty

Whether these people struggle to make make the bills every month, or not but still pay the bill, then they are not considered poor. The luxuries they bought could be a gift or purchased, however it still takes money to use them. By working, these people can afford to pay for them. 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food. 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat. 82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food. 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes. The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair. http://www.heritage.org... These appliances cost money and if the bill is being paid for its use, then it does not matter about the person receiving a check for a social service since they are taking care of their house and family. These people are not poor, and if they are, a person would not have these amenities to use for fun. These aspects are not looked at because people assume without research. The statistics prove that even though they are called poor, they are doing well for themselves and family. A poor person would not have these appliances, but these people do and are doing well. These aspects need to be looked at when determining the poverty line.
Raising social services for people living in poverty

They need those things as much as they need food and water and shelter those are not luxuries they are requirements now to get to where they want to be, there maybe census on how many houses have those appliances but they did not measure whether those appliances were gift from families, or bought before they became into the financial crisis they are in now. Just because they have things in there home that are convinently helpful or even entertaining does not mean they struggle with paying bills or finding child care or providing food. There are thorough investigations where they see how much money they have in their account or even how much rent is payed but even then what should the government do make them sell their things to be financially well? The people need to be helped with constant bills buying these things are once in a while but bills are every month.
Raising social services for people living in poverty

Needing a job and looking up information to build a resume online are two things that majority of America can do at any given time. The media however, helps people obtain any information and present it in a way that others can use to build on or learn from. Needing a job is beneficial to every family. The internet and social networking can help those two together. However, poor people have access to these luxuries as I stated before. If they are struggling, it is not as bad as people make it seem. "The broad array of modern conveniences in the homes of the poor is the result of decades of steady progress in the living standards of the poor. Year by year, the poor tend to be better off. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households" "More than half of poor households had at least five of the following 10 conveniences: a computer, cable or satellite TV, air conditioning, Internet service, a large-screen TV, non-portable stereo, computer printer, separate freezer or second refrigerator, microwave, and at least one color TV. One-fourth of the poor had seven or more of these 10 items in their homes." If these people are on the "poverty line" and can afford these items, it is evident that they are doing well for themselves and family. People need to take into account that these luxuries cost money and are expensive. If these people are poor and do not have a job, there is no way they can obtain such amenities. People living in poverty should not be assisted by social services because when determining the poverty line there are many aspects that are not looked at.
Raising social services for people living in poverty

The truth of the matter is yes all you need to live is water food shelter and clothing, but to be success ful now you need a job and in order to do that you need to know what the norms to society are, and that is through media and communication where we learn what is new and how we should act based on what is happening now that way we don't fall behind and seen as "slow" and not capable of keeping up which is a good quality in life to have to be motivated to stay on track. Mass media has evolved to the point where we could miss out on life chances like maybe a job opportunity because we can't look on the internet how to create a resume and we can't know what a good resume is because each job choice requires different standards, so yes it should be included in the poverty line.
State welfare is not an effective way to allieviate reletive poverty in society

First Round is reserved for acceptance of the debate 2nd Round is for opening arguments 3rd Round is rebuttal for the initial arguments and last new points 4th Round is for the Conclusion to the argument By accepting the argument you must accept the following definitions: Welfare state : A social system in which a government is responsible for the economic and social welfare of its citizens and has policies to provide free health care, money for people without jobs : Source Merriam-Webster Reletive poverty: resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities : Source Joseph Rowntree Foundation Good Luck!
Gay Marriage (U.S.A)

Gay Marriage should not be legal for 1 reason: Marriage is an unnatural institution and should be abolished as a whole. It serves a primarily negative role and we should not subject our gay friends to this Kafkaesque institution.1st, Marriage has an extremely high failure rate.Around half of all marriages end in divorce. If anything else had such a high failure rate, it would surely be outlawed. If half of a specific design of bridge support strut failed, the public would clamor for it to be removed from public service and outlawed. If half of all tacos caused dysentery, they would be made illegal by the FDA. Yet this little disaster we call divorce is allowed to happen again and again. 2nd, Marriage is a fundamentally sexist and anti-democratic institutionMarriage historically represents the subordination of the woman to the man, or in the case of a gay marriage, the "bottom" to the"top". Everything from the white dress to the minister telling the husband "you may now kiss the bride" symbolizes the woman surrendering her self-hood to the man. It cannot be accepted in the 21st century. 3rd, marriage is complicit in domestic violenceThe very institution of marriage is based on the idea that the man is the absolute despot of the household, with the right ot demand sex without the possibility of the woman's refusal. Lack of economic opportunity means that wives have to choice but to allow for their bodies to be controlled in order to secure subsistence. Marriage forces women and "bottoms" into a position of virtual prostitution. Claudia Card, professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes that: "The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other’s persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem." Do you really want to sell the gays into sex slavery? For the sake of the entire LGBTQIA+ community, we must say NO to gay marriage and marriage in general.
Gay Marriage (U.S.A)

While a good amount of states already legalized Gay/Lesbian marriage, most of the United States has not done so. Why? What legal grounds are against gay marriage? Many argue that it's immoral because the Bible/Koran/(Insert Religious book here) says so, but America has established a separation of Church & State. "Moral" reasons have no say in a topic that touches legality. Also, me, myself I don't see homosexual couples or homosexual people as bad. Also, with the stigma of homosexuals being more promiscuous is a horrible lie. I can go out to a university, and find as many promiscuous heterosexual males as well as that many homosexual and promiscuous males. Gay and promiscuous are not the same word.
Book Banning in schools and libraries

I find it funny that the con is so quick to support Hitlers Autobiography even though three seconds later even he denounces why "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" Should certainly not be in libraries. .. .. There are two sides to every story, but any side that is detailed in a book that is focused almost ENTIRELY on murder, rape, hatred, or discrimination should be banned. Some books do not deserve to be banned, but there is a great many books that should not be on the shelves of school libraries at all, and even the Con agrees. Book banning may be going over the line at times, but their intentions are good and fair.
Book Banning in schools and libraries

Literature reflects life, so since there is hatred, racism, and swearing in life, then of course those things are going to be in books. People do no favor to young adults by trying to shelter them from it, because those things are always going to be apart of life. "Mein Kampf" shows readers that there are two sides to every story, even if one side is immoral and wrong. As to "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure," librarians and teacher's wouldn't need to ban the book if they had never bought it for their library in the first place! (Besides, what idiotic teacher or librarian would even think about putting it in their library or classroom in the first place?)
Book Banning in schools and libraries

There are certain books that should not be banned, but there are a great many books that should indeed be banned from because of their material. Certain books that should be banned contain a large amount of nudity, swearing, racism, and hatred towards certain types of people or even entire institutions. One example of such a book is "Mein Kampf" (Hitlers Autobiography) goes into extensive detail about the two hatreds of the world (Jews and Communism). Another includes ""The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" which from the title alone suggests why this should be banned from schools. Parents cant control everything their kids read but schools and libraries can. Books can exist to promote hatred when they should only promote knowledge
Book Banning in schools and libraries

Book banning violates the author's right of freedom of speech. Librarians and teachers should not control what a child reads; the parent should. Book banning also has a counter effect, as kids are more enticed to read the 'forbidden fruit.' Famous titles such as the Twilight series, To Kill a Mocking Bird, the Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games, and the Scarlet Letter, are all very popular books that everyone has heard of, and many have read. Moreover, all of these books are being banned in schools and libraries across the nation. http://www.mamapop.com... http://classiclit.about.com...
Schools should ban animal dissection

My opponent forfeited again. This is unfortunate, because I was really looking forward to this debate. As a medical student, I really understand the educational value behind dissection (whether of human cadavers or animal ones), and was looking forward to the opportunity to defend the practice. I will say this: the educational value far outweighs any negative points my opponent would have brought up. Animal dissection offers a way to translate the 2d imagery students study in models into a 3d, real-world model. Thus, it enhance the depth and understanding of animals for students, as well as teaching the basic spatial relationships, and allows students to compare anatomies. Also, animal dissection uses animals that are already dead, so any ethical issues are already irrelevant. Most importantly, animal dissection serves a big role in demistifying death. Animal dissection is a students first and only chance in school to encounter the body, even if it is only of an animal, in a scientific way, removed from life. How do students study death? Animal dissection. The significance of death, of what it is, is lost on students who never actually deal with it through animal dissection. I guess my argument would have touched on some of these issues, probably in more depth. If anyone reading this wants to debate the topic, I'd be glad to do it. Maybe my opponent will offer some arguments in the next round, but I doubt it at this point.
Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote

I ask you read the following in either JFK's or Morgan Freeman's voice.Lladies and Llamas of the Tribunal:We have, on this site, erected a generic political debate. On this day, political affiliations do call us so strongly. They call us to arms to support our friends of the same party, whether that means to step to Defeat the Demon Democrats' iDeas, or to Repel the wRetched Republicans' Reigns.I ask that we repel these instincts, so that we may, unbiasedly, find the answer to the question posed above: "Should those on benifits be allowed to vote?", using the arguments provided above.I believe that I have effectively proven that those on benefits do indeed have the right to vote, with my opponent failing to show the following:1) Why other groups, who often vote at the expense of the others, should still be alloud to vote.2) Why those on benefits directly take the money.3) That Congress, at 6% approval rating, still are doing what 51% of people want.4) Why the majority should be ignored.5) How those relying on benefits would survive if they are immediately removed.6) How will, if only those without benefits are voting, people keep benefits.7) Why, if benefits are unfair, revoking voting rights make them fair.As you can see, my opponent's idea raises too many questions, questions that he is yet to answer.
Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote

Argument: Any U. S. citizen recieving government benefits like medicaid, medicare, S. S. , government housing, welfare, W. I. C etc. who are not disabled or retired should not have the ability to vote. Notes:wikipedia may not be used as a source. I ask that those who are voting please do not award points based on spelling and grammar. I realize that english isn't always someone's first language and they should not be penalized for making minor mistakes.