BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Programming competition

Welcome one and all to the programming competition between myself and ADreamOfLiberty! The rules are simple. ADreamOfLiberty shall make an AI capable of playing chess with the white pieces. I shall make an AI for the black pieces. Voters will play the AIs off against each other and vote for whoever's AI wins in their game. Games are played with 5-min per side time controls in an engine I wrote and ADreamOfLiberty checked, based on chess. js and chessboard. js. Both of us will write our AIs in ja vascript (with web workers) which will work with any modern browser. RULES1. This debate must be accepted within 1 hour of midnight GMT on the 22nd of February. Failure to accept within a 1 hour approximate leeway will mean con's instant disqualification.2. In the first round con must provide a link to his . js file. He may optionally describe his AI in this round. Please note that we only have 1 hour each side to post.3. In the second round pro must provide a link to a site where voters can test both his and his opponent's AI scripts against each other as described above. Con may do what he pleases in this round and it will not count against him if he forfeits that round.4. Both of us will begin programming our AIs on the 18th of February, again at midnight GMT. While there is no formal check for this, we can basically both be honest.5. Any plagiarisation of source code from other projects will mean an instant disqualification.6. All AIs should be written in ja vascript. No other languages will be permitted.7. In the event of a draw, voters should refresh the page to give both AIs a rematch until a winner can be found.8. If there are any rule issues or clarifications these must be bought up in the comments sufficiently before the 18th to allow time to resolve them before the competition begins.
Resolved: Sad commercials with sad music should be banned from TV completely

"the main point it to spread awareness"You can spread awareness though without gulit-tripping the living hell out of unsuspecting people though!"My beast friend adopted a dog from the humain society"Judging from your spelling I highly doubt that is true....."Many can even save a human life because of all of the commercials about the sad consequences of smoking."Now youre not even on topic. " theses commercials teach people thing"Again, you can teach people/raise awareness about something without making it as depressing as possible, and im arguing that these sad commercials are excessively sad to the point that they hurt their own cause, and therefore should be banned. "Why would you want to ban them if they benefit us so much?"Cause they DONT benefit us, they literally depress the living hell out of people and drive us to ignoring a key issue in humanity"How would you in force this ban?"Itll be pretty easy, the government managed to ban beer commercials from showing people actually drinking beer, if they can pull that off they should be able to ban sad ASPCA commercials. http://en.wikipedia.org..."what is considered sad music?"Are you really too stupid to know what qualifies as sad music or is this just a rhetorical question? I ask because It could honestly be either one judging from your arguments.
Resolved: Sad commercials with sad music should be banned from TV completely

I agree that in some cases people don't call the number and donate money, but that is not the only point of theses commercials the main point it to spread awareness. My beast friend adopted a dog from the humain society the other day because she knew that she was helping and animals because of all the sad and cute commercials she has seen. Many can even save a human life because of all of the commercials about the sad consequences of smoking. Normally people will not research the effect of things like smoking, animals being abused, and drunk driving, theses commercials teach people thing. That might save there lives. Why would you want to ban them if they benefit us so much? These commercials are the only commercials that should not be banned. How would you in force this ban? It would be impossible; what is considered sad music? Who will choose the adds that are allowed? What will be a sad commercial ? What will be the punishment for publishing such a commercial?
Resolved: Sad commercials with sad music should be banned from TV completely

I have had it up to HERE *Raises arm at full length above head with hand parallel to the ground) with these damn sad commercials by the ASPCA or those sad white people talking about starving children in Africa.... Is it tragic that it happens? Yeah, but you dont have to frick up MY good mood because of it! Im not saying that all commercials about bad things should be banned, im just saying that any of those commercials that try to guilt-trip you into doing something should be banned since 1) They CLEARLY dont work, and 2) Everyone who sees those commercials responds by muting the TV or changing the channel! I know that you all hate those damn commercials to, and that some of you are thinking that they shouldnt be banned because doing so in your mind means you are not a terrible person.... But wake up to the real world already. Each and every one of you who have seen those commercials have NEVER actually called the number and donated to them, and there is a chance that those commercials have STOPPED people from helping because the ads are depressing, and everyones reaction to those commercials is to change the channel. And that is why I believe sad commercials that play sad music and all that crap should be banned.... Because they help no one and can ruin a good vibe. For the record this is a troll debate... And im saying that for the idiots who didnt pick up on that before.
Religion should be debated

I fear I was sorely mistaken when making this debate, and that my views of this topic are horrendously outrageous. I see now thanks to Pros argument that religion is a HUGE provider in debates! Thanks to Pro my views have been changed and I would like to forfeit! Pro unknowingly crushed every argument of mine beforehand and therefore has quelled any repute to his case! I thank you for at least answering my debate and passionately giving me reason to change my views!
Religion should be debated

Resolved: Religion should be debated. I will be arguing the Con side of this debate meaning I don't want religion to be debated. My opponent will argue the Pro side meaning he wants religion to be debated. Now to set some ground rules: 1. Pro will argue in the first round whereas Con will not. Con will argue in the fourth round whereas Pro will not. 2. Do not bring up what religion you are, whether it be Christian, Catholic, Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, etc. as it will make you sound bias! Keep this in mind! 3. Be courteous and respectful to your opponent when addressing his/her previous argument, as we don't want things to get virtually bloody. 4. Spectators leave comments about different things you may have noticed that would have helped Pro/Con win the debate and when you vote keep in mind the different sides of the debate and what the debaters have said in all 4 rounds! Spectators also be courteous and respectful and don't criticize the debaters harshly if they missed something or brought up a point you strongly disagree with! As I said be respectful and courteous! Thank you contender for agreeing to debate such a topic as this as I'm sure this debate will be very frustrating for the both of us. Enjoy!
LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

First off, since the burden of proof is yours and my argument is fairly self-explanatory, I will just go ahead and begin with a rebuttal of your points. 1. The whole point of your argument is that freedom is binding, and thus cannot be taken away, but here you say "This freedom can only be taken away if your rights are taken away." This says that your freedom CAN be taken away, and specifies how it can be taken away, as well. This is a contradictory argument. 2. Laws don't really dictate what freedom you get. They dictate what freedom you DON'T get. You say that it is the laws of your country that determine this, but then proceed to say that laws prevent other individuals or companies undermining your freedoms. This is a free society, but today nobody lives in a free society. All modern governments make laws in areas that they should not. Also, if you live in a free society, but value equality over freedom, nothing stops you from getting together with other people and forming a communist community, as long as everyone, as you say, gives permission. The IDEAL laws do not force you to be free. They merely protect your freedoms. 3. The purpose of law in a free society is to punish those who take away freedoms. Thus, saying that the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is invalid. If nothing else could take away your freedoms, the law is unnecessary, since its sole purpose would be irrelevant. 4. You say that you cannot have freedom without order, but nowhere do I see any proof. While I may or may not agree with you on this point, you must elaborate for me to debate/concede the point. Moving on to the last sentence, you say that you have the freedom to exist because of the law. This makes no sense. You exist because of biology. Not the government. 5. You describe a world where people are consciousness alone. But if people take no physical form, they cannot be harmed by another human being. And while a government may form, it would still be unnecessary, and wouldn't be able to limit or protect freedoms as freedoms are now unlimited. 6. Your point here is that the limits of freedom are binding. But the point of your full argument is that freedom itself is binding. Not the limits put on it. Contradictory argument. Also, you say that freedom binds us to different ways of thinking or methods of living. But the whole point of freedom is that you can choose how you think and how you live. So saying that you can't escape freedom doesn't make sense, because if you think about it, freedom is its own escape.
LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

This is a logic only debate, no factual evidence to support claims please, no sources, no statistics, none of that stuff what-so-ever. Just cold hard logic to prove your case. Definitions are to be stated by Con in next round and may be subject to debate for all of round 2. No literal thinking here please, so don't go and make a claim that freedom of speech cannot put you in literal chains, this is supposed to be a metaphor. Semantics are allowed in moderation, although there isn't much to be semantic about here. Con will debate that freedom is not metaphorically binding, I will argue the reciprocal. Please provide thought provoking material and just realist thinking practical garbage. Also, I'd prefer if my opponent wasn't a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+). I find that debates with young teenagers or children are much more open-minded and insightful, if I do say so myself. If you don't agree with these conditions, then guess what debate you shouldn't accept? Other than that, I hope for a thrilling logic debate. Good luck to my opponent.
LeBron James is the most UNDERRATED star athlete,and is certainly not a crybaby

My opponent has successfully forfeited his middle and closing argument. Nothing much left to say here. But I will anyway. Your opening claim is quite a stretch, that LeBron is not only the most underrated basketball player, but the most underrated STAR ATHELETE. I named two players in the NBA that were more underrated then James, much less the entire sports spectrum. I think I'll go and name some more: MLB: Kevin Youkilis Michael Young Ichiro Chipper Jones Aramis Ramirez NFL Roy Williams Laurence Maroney Donovan McNabb Mario Williams Ben Roethlisberger NHL & MLS Virtually every player, considering the sports are underrated themselves. How can you claim LeBron is more underrated than these players? I watched Game 7 last night with intensity, and watched LeBron and Pierce put on a show for the fans and viewers watching. With all due respect to LeBron's 45 points, he couldn't carry his team to the Eastern Conference Finals, and the lack of his team's success is what draws reporters' attention away from his personal accomplishments. Therefore, he is not underrated. I have yet to address a portion of the argument in this debate; that LeBron is "certainly not a crybaby". I thoroughly watched Game 7, and at the end they focused on LeBron walking off, and, to the best of my vision, I saw not a strong, sturdy man, but-could it be-a puckered face and maybe a few tears? The King has been dethroned, and I proclaim victory in the name of the Celtics and Kenicks. I rest my case.
LeBron James is the most UNDERRATED star athlete,and is certainly not a crybaby

My opponent, the conservative, has forfeited his opening argument for the second round of his debate. Let's say this debate is a twinkie. While he can continue and conclude the debate with the top and bottom half of the twinky, it will lack the creamy fluff center that is the second round. Even more so, he was the one who began the debate, and the concept of starting a debate and abandoning it simply bewilders me. Such a pity when that happens. Nevertheless, I shall continue with my argument. I have been following the Celtics-Cavaliers series closely over the past five games, and witnessed ups and downs for LeBron, specifically the ups and downs of home vs. away. In the first two games of the series in Boston, LeBron went 8 for 42 from the field, a statistic not to be proud of whatsoever. However, on the trip back to Cleveland, in Games 3 and 4 Lebron shot 50% from behind the arc, speculated to be his weakest point in the game, and posterized Kevin Garnett in Game 4 with a windmill dunk. LeBron's play improved, along with point guard Delonte West's, and the Cavs tied the series at 2-2. The return trip to Boston for Game 5 featured LeBron scoring 23 points in the first half, and was the talk of the halftime show, talking of how he could explode in the second half. The analysts were forced to eat their words, however, when the C's held LeBron scoreless in the third quarter. He ended up finishing with 35, but his team lost by 7 in a 96-89 Celtics victory. The attention of the analysts was focused more so on the Celtics stellar play than LeBron's scoring. You may be thinking of the other side of the NBA playoffs right now, and Kobe Bryant's performance last night against Utah. "He only scored 26 points," you may be thinking, "9 less that LeBron's game five. LeBron should be rated higher than him!" Au contraire. In that Game 5, Kobe Bryant only shot the ball from the field 10 times, and still managed 26 points. King James shot the ball 25 times from the field, scraped up 36 points, and he missed 5 out of 5 three-pointers. Even more so, Kobe's team won the game, despite the fact he only shot ten times; LeBron shot the ball 2.5 times more than Kobe, and his team lost. What does this tell you? I'll let you be the judge. When LeBron does well, he gets the credit he deserves. When he doesn't, he doesn't. I await your rebuttal.
Imaginary Charcter Showdown 3: League of Legends

Meet Felinis, the Jungle Hunter. He is a lion that has a human body, and has Jaguar felt pants, with shoulder guards made out of Alligator skin. He is an expert archer, with capabilities equal to that of the legendary Robin Hood. His 4 abilities are on this list: 1. Hunter's instict: Felinis's speed and attack speed go up by 50% when near an enemy 2. Dem' Bones: Felinis hurls alligator teeth Kunais at the enemy. 3: The Hunt is on: Felinis can immediantly teleport to the nearest enemy and strike 4. Man's best friend: Felinis summons two crocodiles to help in the fight. Felinis is extremely dangerous, as he grew up in the jungle, fighting every single beast worth fighting, and won. He has a knack for rushing into batttle too quickly. He is cunning, and can blend into the brush with camo. He could be sitting right next to you, and you wouldn't even know it... I await my opponents character.
Imaginary Charcter Showdown 3: League of Legends

How Felinis could beat Sage: This is how the battle will go down: a 1v1 battle at Summoner's rift, with all abilities leveled up to their fullest. No items from the shop or minions can be used in this duel. And, just to let the viewers know, this is a contest not only based on the fight, but also on creatvity, abilities, and design. Here goes nothing: since this is 1v1fight, Sage's Dependancy and Subjection abilities can't be used. Even though Sage is a powerful sorceress(nice job on the backstory btw), Felinis's hunter instinct can let him have a suprise attack advantage. Felinis likes to creep around the opponent, without them knowing, learning their abilities/weaknesses. And, since you stated no keen sense of vision/hearing, even sage can't hear Felinis. He could easily snipe her with an arrow/kunai. Now here comes the 1v1 in case she does see him. Even though it is 1v1, Felinis's abilities don't depend on any other champions/minions, so he can use all of his abilities, including sending in two crocs. If he happened to fall into the Absolute Dominion spell, the two trusty crocs could attack sage while she is rooted, lifting the spell, and possibly killing Sage. Felinis can also use hs Hunter's Instinct ability, outmatching Sage in speed and attack speed. Although no animals he fought had magic abilities, he has fought other champions, such as Ryze, and Renekton, ending in victory, so he has some sense of magic users. Felinis is also an expert marksman, so missing a shot would be a 100,000 to one. Even if Sage was smart enough to use the Counterfire attack, you never stated how long it lasts, so in this fight, lets just say 10 seconds, so if she uses Absolute Dominion and Counterfire at the same time, well, 10 seconds isn't that long, and even if Felinis under Sage's control kills one of the crocs, the other will surely be ok when the Counterfire barrier wears off. So, in this case, Felinis vs. Sage, it will either end in a draw, or a win for Felinis. This was fun, and I will be making more Imaginary Character showoffs soon. Have a suggestion for one? Add it to my comments on my profile.
The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God.

I accept. I look forward to an interesting debate. I would like to inform readers that my acceptance of the con position is not an endorsement for atheism. I myself am a believer in the God of the Holy Trinity as described by Christian theology and a profound advocate of Christian apologetics. The Bible claims that, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 KJV). As such, I find it important that we test our beliefs by exploring the opposition, for how can we truly claim our faith to be reasonable if we are unable to understand the objections to it and thereby properly defend it? In the same vein I ask the voters to be unbiased in adjudicating this debate. A vote for myself is not an endorsement for atheism just as a vote for KeytarHero is not an endorsement of theism. Rather, a vote for either of us is an indication of the superiority of our respective arguments. With that said I will begin my case in the next round.
The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God.

I wish to challenge Mestari to a debate on the Teleological Argument. As two Theists, the purpose of this debate is not to show whether or not the existence of God is probably, but simply to show whether or not the Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design) is a sound argument for God's existence.The form of the argument I will be defending is as follows:1) The universe resulted either from design or from chance.2) It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.3) Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [1]Round one for acceptance.Round two for opening arguments/rebuttals.Round three for rebuttals.Round four for rebuttals/closing statements.I look forward to the debate.[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 718.
There shall be anti-gun laws in the State of Texas

There is not a lot I must say in order to win this. My opponent claims that there shall be anti-gun laws in the State of Texas. That is an absolute statement which can not be verified. The world could come to and end, The United States could fall, or the people of the United States may simply not vote for anti-gun law. My opponent is not 100% sure. The resolution is negated Sources: (1). . http://www.chompchomp.com...
Ostracism should be put to effect at high schools. (Given that 70% of votes are needed).

OK. You stated <<<"children are required to be in public school, or to be homeschooled. ">>> That is wrong because there are several other types of high school education that I do not feel like listing at the moment. I myself go to a Private school and that must not be an actual school according to you. You also statedn <<<"Thus, one cannot just vote someone out because you dont "like them"">>> I never said that a single person could 'bannish' someone else. As I explained before, it would take a total of 70% to vote a person out of your school. Your third statement was <<< "I think there is discipline problems in our public schools, becuase teachers are unable to properly dismiss behavorial problems in some cases. ">>> It is not the duty of the teachers to "dismiss" behavioral problems. If said problem was to come up, it is the teachers' job to create a just punishment (whether a verbal warning or a suspension) as to keep said distraction from distracting the class any further. If the situation goes out of hand, further authorities may intervine, but discipline is, in most cases, a daily for many teachers. I do believe you have called some teachers "bad actors", and that is true. Some people are bad actors while some are terrific ones, such as my friend. You later said: <<<"if everyone who had someone who didnt like them was thrown out- there would only be like 2 kids left out of a couple thousand">>> You infer that just because you dislike someone, they will get voted out. Again, to keep justice in the system I need to remind you that 70% IS NEEDED. I do not like a person by the name of Jud L------, but he would not get ostracized because of his number of friend (somehow). Now onto my own points. 1 It would be extremely difficult to vote someone out based on you plain dislike of them. * *There are four grades in most high schools, and sometimes there is someone who is hated by many of the grade. Even if all the grade where to vote for that person, they would not get voted out because a grade only makes up about 20% of a high school population. 2 People who are a great distraction and a great worry to the whole community would be dismissed. ^ ^ Some people are just too much of a distraction to keep in school. If this person was affecting a great majority of people learning experiances, then it is just that they should be voted and and they most likely would. 3 Ostracisms are a private way to dismiss someone. # # As many people know, it is very hard to go up to a dean/counciler/teacher to complain about someone's distracting ways. In an ostracism, the vote is private and you do not feel the least bit guilty about it. As you can see there are clear benefits to osracisms in high schools. Cheerio.
Ostracism should be put to effect at high schools. (Given that 70% of votes are needed).

Well, I think your point is interesting, and I will take the argument, even though that I tend to agree What I will say to argue first, is that children are required to be in public school, or to be homeschooled. Thus, one cannot just vote someone out because you dont "like them" That being said, I think there is discipline problems in our public schools, becuase teachers are unable to properly dismiss behavorial problems in some cases. Bad actors should not be allowed to take away the opportunity for other kids to learn. But again, in high school, if everyone who had someone who didnt like them was thrown out- there would only be like 2 kids left out of a couple thousand thus is the nature of high school kids