BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, was more depressed than Edgar Allan Poe.

When he was quite young his father ran off. Then his mother died. He grew up literally across the street from his mother's grave. Since she was an actress she wasn't allowed to be buried inside the church yard so she was buried outside the iron fence. He would start off okay but could never finish. He got himself kicked out of school, racked up a ton of debt, his first love ran off and married another man, begged to get out of the army, begged to get kicked out of West Point. Kept loosing job after job for getting drunk, fighting, not showing up, etc. On his masterpiece, The Raven, he made a grand total of $9.00. He married his 14 yr old cousin, not exactly a fulfilling reationship for a 26 yr old man. His brother died of alcoholism. His wife got sick with tuberculocous and died. He began drinking heavily and acting crazy. He was found on the street in bad shape waering someone else's clothes and died shortly thereafter. Even though his life was quite interesting, from the theater, to Europe, the military, West Point, several leading newspapers, sucess in writing .... he could never seem to get out of the funk. It seemed that alcoholism, clinical depression, and extreme restlessness ran in the family. He could never see the good of things and allowed the bad things to bring him bad. Though given many chances to excel, he lived in a rut his entire life. Depression is an illness, it will do that to you.now lets see tiberius. Tiberius Caesar Augustus, born Tiberius Claudius Nero (November 16, 42 BC"March 16 AD 37), was the second Roman Emperor, from the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 until his own death in 37. Tiberius was by birth a Claudian"son of Tiberius Nero and Livia, but through his adoption by Augustus"who was both his stepfather and father-in-law"he became a Julian. The subsequent emperors after Tiberius would continue this blended dynasty of both families for the next forty years; historians have named it the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Tiberius is remembered as a dark, reclusive, and depressed ruler who never truly desired the right to rule. His reign is marked by terror and mayhem in which the Emperor exiled himself from Rome and left administration in the hands of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, who used his influence over Tiberius and his position in the Praetorian Guard to push his own political agenda and personal revenges. Eventually, Tiberius died, and his grandson by adoption Caligula followed him as the next Roman Emperor now people who do you think had a rougher time ?
Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, was more depressed than Edgar Allan Poe.

This is a one-round debate. There will be only one round during which to present an argument. After that, the community will vote. --- I am of the position that Emperor Tiberius of the Roman Empire was more depressed than Edgar Allan Poe, an American Romantic poet.Reason 1: Tiberius was forced to become emperor against his will. Poe, by contrast, was never thrust into any occupation. His work, such as joining the military and becoming a writer, was voluntary.Reason 2: Furthermore, being an emperor is more stressful than being a writer. Unlike Poe, Tiberius was constantly threatened with assassinations and revolts, and he had to manage one of the largest empires in history. Poe just sat at a desk all day.Reason 3: Tiberius was forced divorce his wife and then marry a literal whore. When he tried to get his true love back, she ignored him. Poe repeatedly tapped underage girls.Reason 4: Tiberius was so depressed that he effectively stepped down from his position as the most powerful man in the world and then locked himself up on an island. Poe was never so depressed as to give up his place.References: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assisted Suicide.

First I will go over my opponent"s rebuttal and then explain why his point falls and my points still stand. My opponent said, and I quote, "It isn"t helping someone kill themselves. It is like asking doctors to put you to sleep because of how much pain you are in if you have this disease that will kill you." closed quote. This point falls because the resolution itself is that assisted SUICIDE should be made legal. If it wasn"t helping someone kill themselves, it wouldn"t be called assisted suicide. My other two points (Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us; Assisted suicide doesn"t solve anything.) still stand because the opponent failed to attack them. I still stand in strong negation to the following resolution that assisted suicide should be made legal. Thank you.
Assisted Suicide.

I stand in strong negation to the following resolution that assisted suicide should become legal. Contention 1: Assisted suicide is immoral. Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. Contention 3: Suicide doesn"t solve anything. Contention 1: Assisted Suicide is immoral. Would you help someone kill another person? No. So why is it any different if you"re helping someone kill themselves instead of helping them? Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. God put us on this earth to learn. Helping someone kill themselves ends their opportunity to learn. Contention 3: Assisted suicide doesn't solve anything. We can"t just kill ourselves every time life gets hard.
0.999999999.... is equal to 1

There is a simple test to decide if two numbers are equal. If A=B then A-B=0 1 - 0.9999999.... = 0.00000000... The ... means repeating In other words if there is no difference between two numbers, they are the same number. Here is a second proof: 1/3 = 0.333333333... 0.3333333333... X 3 = 0.999999999... And 1/3 X 3 = 1 Therefore 0.9999999999... = 1
Black People Should be Injected with AIDS

Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, Especially in downtown and big metropolises, Are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, There have been many incidents where white people were attacked, Targeted, And assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, It is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, Or at least to minimize it as much as we can, Is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, What can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, Because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, Isn't that what Hitler would do? ) Instead, The best solution is to throw them in prison, And then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, If we put black families to prison, We will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too. ) No offense and not at all being racist, Their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, Reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, Throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, Because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, But it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, But we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, The best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, We are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
Black People Should be Injected with AIDS

Since definitions weren't stated in my opponent's opening round, I'll state them now. with - In the company of; accompanying (. https://www. Thefreedictionary. Com/with) My opponent does not state who specifically would be injected with the AIDS and the black people. In order to actually have a resolution, There should be a statement of *who* is being injected by AIDS. Therefore, His arguments presented in R1 are irrelevant. Secondly, It is implausible to inject all of black people along with AIDS. How would my opponent propose we put all black people into a syringe along with the AIDS? It's impractical as well as immoral to round of all the black people and put them into a syringe with AIDS. Furthermore, Even if we were to do this, The amount of energy expended to put black people into a vial along with AIDS would expend CO2 emissions into the atmosphere which would be harmful to the environment. The resolution stands negated.
Black People Should be Injected with AIDS

Hello. I'm pro, And I believe that black people should be required to be injected with AIDS. This way, They will get cancer, Get autism, And develop type-2 diabetes. This way, Their IQ will drop even more and they will be incapable of committing crime. You see, The average black IQ is 52 and the average Indian IQ is 67. If black people get increasingly stupid, Their average IQ will drop by another 5-10 points. This way, They will get autism, ADHD, Cerebral palsy, And look ugly. Your turn now. . .
Thank the libs for high gas prices.

1) The republicans/conservatives gained a majority (a switch of 55 seats) in Congress in 1994. They held an advantage all the way up to 2006. 2) As I mentioned in a previous argument, even major oil companies are not supporting this drilling. Considering that these companies' primary bias is towards profit, why would they choose not to support it? Because it WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE. It would take at least 10 years to start distributing this gas. The groups supporting this drilling are smaller refiners, biased lobby groups, and a group of politicians looking for something which will gain them support. 3) "They are set for life" is utter superbole. 4) My opponent has used no facts or hard logic, aside from saying that if we drilled in these areas, we would make/save billions. Is there any real economic basis for his arguments? There are three points my opponent needed to address: 1) Is lack of drilling the major reason oil prices are high? 2) Would drilling in these areas actually provide economic benefit (meaning do the benefits outweigh the costs? )? 3) Are the democrats/liberals actually at fault for preventing (2)? My opponent has failed on all three front. He failed to address the fact that although more oil could translate into slightly lower prices, that there are other items that played a much bigger role in the current price environment. He failed to address the fact that drilling in these areas is not profitable. He failed to prove that the liberals were the only groups in opposition to drilling, and that opposition prevented drilling.
Thank the libs for high gas prices.

If our Congress allowed us to drill in ANWAR, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Northern Plains,we would not see such skyrocketing prices of oil. Brazil just found 3 of the largest oil reserves in the world in the Atlantic Ocean. They are set for life. If we would build new refineries and drill on our own land, we would save billions of dollars, as opposed to having to buy oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and Canada. It's a simple issue of supply and demand.
Thank the libs for high gas prices.

1) In the last 25 years, the democrats have held a majority in senate less than 11 years and 7 months (and that's including the current 2 years, during which both parties actually have the same number of chairs, with lieberman as an independent). So assuming the liberals would have to power to constantly and consistently directly or indirectly affect the price of gasoline would be mistaken. 2) Assuming environmentalism is a major reason the democrats are blocking this refinery-building and production, this does not necessarily make the situation a fault of the democrats and environmentalists. .. It could simply be the fault of the environment for being unable to easily sustain such development. It could be the fault of refiners for not being convincing enough. Blaming one party is excessive and irrational. 3) Many gas companies are simply not promoting drilling in ANWR. Arctic Power is one of the main lobbyists for this drilling. ConocoPhillips, BP, and Chevron Texaco have all recently stopped supporting Arctic Power. ExxonMobil also supposedly has failed to support the group. 4) ANWR reserves would increase by less than a percent, and annual useability by less than 3%. And that would be over a decade from when drilling began. 5) It is not economically worth it. The average national refiner acquisition cost would have to be greater than $24 per barrel for it to be worthwhile. Currently, these costs are less than $20. 6) If liberals are at fault for high oil prices, then why is it that oil prices have risen at a slower rate than other commodities over the course of the last 20 years? Oil has just recently risen to what it's price should be, considering typical commodity inflation. This is totally ok. What is difficult for people to deal with is the high volatility of oil prices, which caused it to rise so quickly. 7) My opponent has not provided any hard evidence with regards to the value generated by these supposedly state of the art refineries. As a result, that statement should be void.
Thank the libs for high gas prices.

Thank you for your response. You obviously are very knowledgable on the subject. I understand the natural progression of the world and oil production, but I have to disagree and say that this whole issues of gas prices is a largely political. When liberals in the senate continue to block and deny oil companies the ability to build new refineries (we havent built a new refinery in about 25 years, thanks in large part to the environmentalists) and drill in places like ANWAR, the gulf coast of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes, and most recently the northern plains of Montana and North Dakota, it causes prices of oil to increase significantly because of the demand. If we increased the supply of oil, which we easily could, AND GET OUT OF FOREIGN INDEPENDENCE OF OIL WHICH FUNDS TERRORISM, oil prices would dramatically increase. It's pretty astonishing that our Congress (with a vast majority of support from liberal senators and a few fake conservatives like McCain) hasn't been able to understand this concept. I still tend to believe that the left-wing liberals put ideology over common sense, but that's for another time. "The only way to easily place downward pressure on this demand, and thus pricing, would be to produce new technologies, through innovation. These technologies would either produce greater productivity from currently available supplies of gasoline, or take advantage of alternative fuel sources." And I 100% completely agree. But the libs and fake conservatives in Congress have blocked the oil companies from creating new state-of-the-art refineries. Does that make sense to you? It sure doesnt to me.
Thank the libs for high gas prices.

Gas prices increased less than the prices of other commodities overall over the course of the last 20 years. In addition, oil prices tend to be more volatile than prices of other commodities. So it could simply be a natural function of economics and inflation that these gas prices have increased so dramatically over the last year. Gas is simply catching up. We as citizens are surprised by this because of the volatile nature of the increase. This also happens to be the most expensive time of the year for gas in general, further fueling the volatility. Drillers typically spend the late spring/ early summer repairing and maintaining their equipment, and they raise prices in order to account for this. Also relatively natural. Emerging nations, such as China and India (especially china, which is a heavily industrialized nation), are increasing demand for gas, and will continue to do so in the near future. Increase in demand also provides upward pressure on prices. The OPEC nations are producing at or above capacity for the time being, so supply is still relatively restricted. There is still a relatively limited supply of gas, and there is a reason OPEC isn't exceeding their planned capacity. This is because demand will continue to grow, and drilling beyond capacity could cause severe limitations with regards to future supply. Drilling in Alaska is also not preferred, since it requires a certain level of pricing before it becomes profitable (or break-even at the very least) to drill . All in all, the increase in gas prices is natural economic behavior. It is not the fault of the 'liberals' or the 'conservatives' (first of all, liberal and conservative are terms that do not relate to this situation AT ALL. I'm assuming my opponent is referring to Democrats). The only way to easily place downward pressure on this demand, and thus pricing, would be to produce new technologies, through innovation. These technologies would either produce greater productivity from currently available supplies of gasoline, or take advantage of alternative fuel sources.
Face masks for ugly people

I think that we should enforce a law that makes really ugly people (Like butt f**king ugly) wear masks. The reason for this debate, is because I'm sick and tired of walking round the mall eating a sausage roll or something and then I see an ugly fu**er which makes me feel sick inside. Also spanked face uglies scare the sheit out of me sometimes. Make them wear masks, I say! -If Vi_spex accepts this debate it's an automatic loss to him, because he can't debate for sheit. No rules other than that.
It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

You make a valid point con. In rebuttal of this, I would like to return to my main argument. As said this scenario is an example of consequential morality. I believe that the main difference in the 5 workers/1 worker scenario is that if you chose to veer the trolley onto the adjoining track to kill the 1 worker, you will be committing an act of murder. Murder is defined as the act of killing another human being under conditions specifically covered in law characterised by deliberation and premeditation. By deliberating the options on the track infront of you you make a concious choice to kill 1 person, resulting in a premeditated killing, murder. In the five workers scenario, you are not responsible for the deaths of the people who are killed by the trolley cart. You have made no decision that results in the death of those people. You are hurtling down a track that will almost certainly result in death however you have not chosen this, nor have you previously deliberated or premeditated the killing of five people. Thereby I believe that you could potentially classify the killing of the five workers as accidental death. Accidental death is defined as a death resulting from an unusual event that wasn't intended or premeditated. Morally therefore, the act of murdering someone is unjust, as I am sure everyone accepts. Being involved in a scenario that results in accidental death however leaves you morally exonerated as stated above. Perhaps the earlier point about passive bystanding was not best phrased however, I submit that by killing the five workers - although on a grandeur scale seems unjust, for the person involved it provides moral equilibrium within the person themself. To end my argument I would like to pose a question to Con. Could you live in a society that makes decisions for you based one what appears to be morally just? Leaving the trolley to run its course would, rather crudely put I am aware, be an act of destiny. This is at the hands of nature, however by changing the course of the trolley you are making a choice that results in an outcome. In a similar way, as a doctor in the other example I posed, by choosing to harvest the heart of the terminally ill patient to save an otherwise healthy man you are making a decision on the behalf of someone else in order to arrive to a solution. Killing the five at face value appears to promote the good of the many over the one as utalitariunism would suggest but it is a naive view and one without a true understanding of the consequences. The immediate benefits to the five are evident but the long term negative affects of sacraficing a man are many. A society which would allow or even condone the sacraficing of one life for many as a part of its culture would not survive for long. :)
It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

Your point is definitely thought provoking, and I see what you are trying to stay. Still, If you chose to stay on the track without any influences and kill the five workers, you had the opportunity to spare 4 lives but chose not to. Therefore, by making this decision, aren't you still making a conscious choice? You wouldn't be just a passive bystander in the cart if you chose to hit the five workers, considering you had the chance to save more lives but passed it up. Just as your choice would cause the death of the one worker, the same would happen if you did nothing since you chose to take the five worker's lives instead. Whatever choice you make you are killing someone, except in one case you kill more than the other. The example you gave is a bit different, since the choice you make is not up to you because the terminally ill patient didn't give his consent. Unless there is another donor, there really isn't anything anyone would be able to do, since you can't just take the heart from the terminally ill patient. So, I come back to my first argument. I think looking at this from a pure logical standpoint, you would be saving lives if you made the decision to hit the one worker. Also, you are still making a choice to stay on the track, therefore you wouldn't just be a passive observer to the situation if you chose to hit the five workers.