BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A caveman would beat an astronaut in an unarmed fight to the death

The battles of history all have been won not by man, but by astronauts. When ape tamed man, who won the battle? Not the cave man, but the terrifying astronauts. They traveled beneath the planet of the apes and detonated the bomb killing all caveman in existence! But this is not hand to hand, mono e mono, cage match style combat? Forgetting how in the original planet of the apes, they fought countless caveman on their way. Lets talk about pure history. Do you remember a time when the moon was full of life? That all changed when astronauts landed on the moon. They slaughtered the mooniens, every man, woman, and child. They show no remorse, or even empathy as they blast lasers of pure hatred towards their foe. When they run out of ammunition they use such barbaric tactics, that when first seen on television, Kennedy had to apologize(after his months of therapy) . Some choose to forget the Nazi base on the moon, or the battle for it. I, as well as man others, recall when the astronauts started their approach. They had no weapons but pure brutality. They launched them into orbit with jump kicks the force of the big bang. They beat the Nazi's, each punch death with the pain of the holocaust. The astronauts cared not for human life. They cared about how much carnage they could create before they ran out of human life to destroy. The battle was over so quick only one journalist was able to report the horror before taking off his space helmet............for "fresh air".
A caveman would beat an astronaut in an unarmed fight to the death

What was it that nearly ended two of the greatest cities of all time, London and San Francisco? What was it that brought the people of the White House to their knees? What was it that enforced the heretics' demise throughout Medieval Europe? You guessed it, fire. The caveman tamed the bellowing beast known to mortals as fire, with nothing but his bare hands and razor sharp wit. The terrifying grunting of the paleolithic human is enough to cause many to beat themselves to death with a rock in a desperate attempt to end their lives before the brutality of the cave man could.And where would this turd-toting tard in tinfoil be without the incredible ingenuity of the caveman? But, I digress. The question wasn't which is a greater individual, because that is clearly the caveman. We are to discuss which would win in throwing of the hands. The mighty caveman has felled beasts such as the mighty Styracosaurus, with one mighty blow to the thigh. While the astronaut may be literate, the caveman has got the brains where it counts. The caveman would see the pathetic excuse for an adventurer charge at him, and laugh as he delivers a deadly kick with his fist into the astronaut's throat. The caveman would then proceed to pull the astronauts appendix out and make it into a nice omelette, thus deceiving the foolish spaceman into a false trust. After he lets his guard down, the caveman would let out a mighty bellow to his ancestors, the four other humans who have come into existence before him, and tear out the astronaut's spine, and begin relentlessly using it as a bludgeoning tool of the astronauts destruction to en his pathetic life. So, you who call yourself BrandonRoe, I am curious as to how the pitiful pansy wearing a space diaper would ever recover from that.
A caveman would beat an astronaut in an unarmed fight to the death

Astronauts........the word alone makes grown men cringe, children run in fear, and Jesus pray, to himself. When you first lay eyes on its helmet, the only thing you can see is your own fear. You watch as it unleashed a unrelenting barrage learned from their survival in the frontier we like to call space. You watch as it pulls your organs from your body. This barbaric being has had years of training and wont stop now. If a lowly caveman attacks, they will soon know the truth about astronauts. They do NAUGHT lose. Ever. We must all know who defeated the moon, an astronaut. One astronaut, armed with a flag, took on the Goliath and tamed the mighty beast. Turning it from a lion, a king of the tundra, to a household cat. Children used to cower when the moon was neigh and now they think, "Oh, I wish to some day step foot there!". All thanks to fear of whats lurking in the shadows. An Astronaut.
A caveman would beat an astronaut in an unarmed fight to the death

Here we gather to discuss the age old question. No, I am not talking about, "Why are we here" or "Does God exist?" I am speaking of the legendary debate of who would win in a fight, an astronaut, or a caveman? I will fight to my last dying breath that a cavemen would destroy an astronaut in a bare-fisted brawl to the bony below. Anyone who dares challenge me, I encourage you to try.
Methamphetamine should be legalized

Hello there. Thank you for responding. I would like to start by saying that I expect a rich and factual debate from you, and I will to my best to provide the same. Methamphetamine in the United States would provide three main benefits for lower and middle class Americans that are unparalleled by any other product I have come across: A.) Methamphetamine is relatively easy to make, and would provide an easy startup business for lower class Americans. Small business fuels the American economy, and if an entirely new industry were to be created on a scale as large as methamphetamine, the economy would skyrocket. Companies would start up with professional grade labs, producing pure, safe batches of the product. These companies would sponsor athletes, make donations to charity, like any other large company. B.) The product itself would allow people to work long, hard hours to support their families without tiring or feeling boredom. C.) Methamphetamine would give us an edge in the global market, giving us a highly addictive and lucrative export that would create sustained international trade with the United States.
Libertarians have it right on health care-not Barack, Hillary or Johnny.

Libertarians are considered heartless people who would let the poor suffer but this is untrue. We have a heath care plan that is simply the bee's knees. - Libertarians know that the only health care reforms that will make a real difference are those that draw on the strength of the free market. We propose to establish medical savings accounts to allow tax-free contributions in a medical savings program or 100% tax deductibility for all health care costs. - We propose to deregulate the health care industry by repealing all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of health services. - We propose to remove the barriers to safe, affordable medications by replacing the harmful FDA with a more agile free-market alternative. This last measure alone could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year by providing medications without a 10-year testing delay imposed by the FDA. - In Sweden and Canda, people wait for years for surgeries that will save their lives and they die because they were in the waiting line. If you force or even encourage people to choose a limited number of health care plans, then those people will wait in line and potentialy die in that line like in Canada and Sweden.
video games

First off, thank you for starting this debate. I enjoy having thoughtful discussions about this topic. However, both of the points you have made range from incredibly misleading to just flat out false. While some games do reward "killing" it's not to reward slaughter, rather, it's to reward following the rules of the game, an important part of game design. As for the "video games cause violence" argument, it has been debunked my most reputable researchers. Sources below in the comments. Thank you
The use of laptops at school

I believe that the suitable age for the laptops to be used is at the start of high school. During the primary years, a child practices his/her handwriting and most of the work that needs to be done is done by hand except for few research projects. I strongly think that six to seven years of writing by hand is enough for the students. Using laptops will allow students to be more organised. Take OneNote for an example, OneNote is one of the Microsoft's software where it allows you to create pages for different uses. I, being a student myself and also an user of OneNote, found this extremely useful as you can create pages for your subjects such as English, Biology, Geography etc. This prevents students from carrying sheets of paper. Laptops also allows you to prevent you from carrying heavy textbooks. Textbooks in . pdf files (e-textbooks) are now widely available all around the globe and all you need is an usb to store it. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Technology is growing day by day, and we should try to adapt to it ourselves. I look forward to your argument.
The use of laptops at school

Although using laptops in school is not a bad idea and a lot of schools do it, I do not agree that it should be practiced as much because doing most of the work on the laptops will mean that school age children will not practice writing by hand as much and therefore their grammar will become poor as they never have to check their spelling and punctuation themselves as the laptop will do it for them. So when it is the time to do exam or a piece of work that needs to be done by hand many students will get low grades because their have bad spelling and punctuation skills.
Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%

Actually, I can prove they are low: by world standards. Today, US citizens are believing 30% is high. I tell you, go to France, and witness their 66% tax on millionaires, and 75% on corporations. I'm not saying that is a good amount to tax, just that we are actually already on the low end. And they don't just bribe for special breaks. They buy politicians for deregulation, public support, and many other things. They hold a lot over a politician's head when they threaten to take their funding away. Politicians are their puppets. Anyway, democracy wouldn't be back until super-PACs ended in general. Without them, then we have government by the people, for the people.
Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%

The top 1% does not need to pay 20% taxes. I see you mentioned Reagan brought prosperity. He began the spiral downwards that our economy is still in. Barack Obama actually kept 97% of the Bush Tax Cuts, and I don't see the debt going down. Bush spent 4-6 trillion on the wars, and since Obama's administration ended it, we are moving towards a balanced budget. Obamacare is not relevant. You are not fighting for the actual topic, you are simply bashing Obama. I do not like Obama, but I give credit where it is due. Bush deserves none and Obama deserves some for helping poorer people out with the Affordable Healthcare Act, and ending a decade of war. By the way: to further destroy your Bush argument, his administration had the worst deficits in American history. Guess who is lowering the budget deficit, even with "Obamacare"? "They pay about half of their income." Funny, the high for corporations is 35%, and the high for individuals is about 39.5%. I'm sorry, they don't need 1 billion dollars per year. No sources due to time constraints.
Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%

This article from the Atlantic says that in 2012 the top 1 percent will pay their highest total tax rate since 1979 (http://www.theatlantic.com...). In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and we had prosperity. Jack Kennedy cut taxes and we had prosperity. Obama raised taxes and the economy stagnated. The unemployment rate under Bush averaged 5.2% and deficits were much smaller, not to mention he had to pay for two wars. Obama raised taxes and shrunk revenue because the government policies kill jobs as do burdensome regulations such as ObamaCare.
Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%

My belief is that the corporate tax should not be cut to 0%. However, this does not mean that it should not be lowered at all. Corporations are by definition: "a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes." [1] Corporations can hold huge amounts of money, and they are expected to make money (from shareholders), and they often engage in illegal activities with leftover money, so they can make money, thus being able to increase stock prices and therefore revenue. [2] Also, corporations may move entire parts of the company overseas to not be taxed. This is a problem because it worsens the economy. The same effect would be felt with no corporate tax rate. This is my political opinion, as well, that most corporations legally bribe politicians, and buy their support through Super-PACs. This is why major politicians are able to fund their campaigns, and why corporations get what they want. Corporations funded most of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney"s campaigns, with about $489,660,089; and $366,336,696; respectively. Top two contributors were the University of California/Microsoft Corporation, and Goldman Sachs/Bank of America, respectively [3]. So my idea is "the less they have, the better." [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://phys.org... [3] http://www.opensecrets.org...
Morality is not Relative

Yes, i see where you are coming from, however They are the "standards" of religion not the standards of societies. The United States as in all societies remove religion from that "standards" they hold. Religious "standards have been held seperate from the :"standards" of the society. one Beliefs can cause society to not progress i agree, and you have also that more moral beliefds shows progression by this statement. Therefore there are many different moral beliefs that help societies progress. if a soceity only had one they would not grow. i take your claim "you "think" its right doesnt make it right' and apply it to your arguement.
Morality is not Relative

You say that there is no evidence to support one moral rule, but I would have to dissagree. We have the bible and within the bible we can trace back evidence to where there is a moral standard. If we didnt have such things like the bible we wouldnt know what was right from wrong. So I think that is a subjective claim becuase you can find evidence from societies like countries as Japan that are thriving countries. I beleieve there are individuals that don't agree with the bible or Koran or whatever document their country believes in and forms thier own rougue way of thinking. As in the kidnappings they are illegal but because a few individuals want to follow a tradition that has been used centuries ago it makes that whole counrty look like they lack any standards and progression. I believe that people's belief is what slows down progression becuase belief is what you think making it subjective. Becuase you "think" its right doesnt make it right for a whole nation. Standards can be set into stone what a majority is comfortable with not the minority making it easier for progression.
Morality is not Relative

Morality holds some relativity, as I stated before. There is not one moral rule that all societies follow that is known by anyone. Yes, there are similarities in morals but I stand that that supports my claim that different "moral beliefs" not standards are a sign of progression, and with that these society were able to survive. Survival is the key to the progression of societies, and that is why societies differ in their moral beliefs, because they were able to adapt to their environment and progress. They were able to find what was suitable for their geographical location and apply that to their laws, now standards, and morals. I disagree with with you claim that "United states is on of the few countries that have progressed thoughout the years" however will not adress it due to lack of time. I take your claim "marrage kidnapping, if they had a standard they wouldnt think twice about doing that. Thos countries may have too many standards. The women did not seem to be ok with being kidnapped, even though they accepted it it is clear that they need a standard in place to give women rights" And dispute it by saying marriage kidnapping is acceptable by few people in that society. it is against the law in that society as well. Anything that infringes upon individauls personl rights each society has their laws on that. i do however belief that that society lacks outside information in order for them to progresss. The have not taken "standards" as you have put it from other socities in oder for them to progress. And even ifi went against myself and said even if they have to many standards, they have progressed, because based new laws old ones have been changed. Wife kidnapping is illlegal in that society and if they were caught by the authorities they would have face the punishments in place for that action for that society.
Morality is not Relative

I belive the United states is on of the few countries that have progressed thoughout the years becuase of havinbg a moral standard to live by. If we didn't slavery would not have been abloished becuase we would have to question ourselves before we thought it was wrong. In countries like in the documentary that we watched with marrage kidnapping, if they had a standard they wouldnt think twice about doing that. Thos countries may have too many standards. The women did not seem to be ok with being kidnapped, even though they accepted it it is clear that they need a standard in place to give women rights.
Morality is not Relative

Morality is not subjective as you have claim "morality is not relative becuase it is subjective." Subjective simple means that an individual based their position for or against something based on feeling. In this I argue that any different society due based there moral beliefs on feeling. Different societies follow different beliefs on what is right or wrong based on how that is perceived oby that society. Therefore if a society feels that rape is illegal or against there moral rules thatn that action is now against what that society holds. you argue "many standards can lead to slow progression in a society" i don't agree what that claim. Based on the progression of so many different societies. i state the point that in fact many differnt standards have helped societies grow, especially when we take a look at a diverse nation such as the United States, they have taken the standards of other society and used them to better their own. when a society is oposed to the experiences and standards of other societies we can see in history where they have all fallen. the mogool empire is for one, and even the great roman empire fell. standards is not the word you want to use here. it would better suit your argument if you used the moral beliefs of these societies. Because we can find in many nation where there standards differ somewhat from their moral beliefs.
Morality is not Relative

I argue that it is not the case that all societies follow one rule. I conclude the claim morality is not relative is false. Morality is solely based on the interpretations of that society and their incorporations of right and wrong. 1.Not all societies follow one rule 2.Two different geographical locations can have the same behavior but differ in the right or wrong of that action. 3.There is no set rule that is known to man that everyone follows. 4.There is no evidence to support one moral rule. 5.Morality differs from society to society 6.Therefore, morality is contingent upon the society 7.Every society base there morals upon the nature of their principles. 8.Thus, morality holds some relativity.
Law making should be made part-time business

You should've clarified that for me. You just said law making should be made a part-time business. Your resolution should've been something like "People should not be allowed to be career politicians" or something more polished. I totally didn't understand what you mean. Since you didn't set a premise for the resolution, we are arguing under my premise since we can't change it half way through. Have fun figuring out some arguments.
Law making should be made part-time business

Ok..you don't even understand the motion before you start arguing..you have succeeded in exposing your own weaknesses by explaining what does not relate to the motion at hand and with this, I think think am ahead of this argument..now ponder on the motion, when I said law-making should be made a part time business, I meant that our legislatures should work as part-time workers not on full time basis because of the amount of money been paid to this legislature..my major reason is this, that law- making should be made part time and the legislatures should be paid based on the number of sitting and debate they debated in passing of bills in house of assembly and senate..so instead of the permanent nature, we should adopt the part-time law..atleast 46 states in u.s.a are using part-time legislatures. Source:CNN, THE PUNCH and google
Law making should be made part-time business

First of all, it already is a public business, as in the career politicians do this for a living. Second of all, if we privatized law making, our country would fall into shambles. Can you imagine what would happen if someone like Lady Gaga got into that business? Everyone would be required to be born in egg casings on stage, and anyone who didn't comply would be executed. The US population would go on a steady decline. There are so many opposing views in this country that if laws just started being made, you could do something totally legal and receive the death penalty from a different law. We would fall into chaos.
Alien may exist.

My opponent violated the rule.Round 1 should only be for acceptance. I thank my opponent(Mr.Controverter) for such thoughts :) ~~Actually you are wrong,even us can prove to ourselves that alien may exist or not.Scientist can prove its existence through experiment,Philosophy can prove it to rational logic reasoning.Since this is an argument we can prove it by reasoning or facts. *Six frontiers for alien life 1)With so many stars, alien life is probable-Shostak estimates there are 1 trillion planets in the Milky Way alone. "Surely some of them have undergone what Earth has undergone and developed life, and eventually what we call sentient life," he says. 2)Water worlds abound in our solar system-Water is a key ingredient for life as we know it. And liquid water, it turns out, is fairly common in our local solar system. 3)Life evolved 'quickly' on Earth-Since even bacteria are biologically complex, scientists think they arose from life forms that got a foothold on Earth even earlier. 4)Life thrives in extreme environments-"Life can adapt to really tough conditions and, of course, most of the universe is going to be filled with habitats that are tough,Shostak say. 5)E.T. might be calling from afar 6)Some see evidence that 'aliens' have visited ~~No.1-5 are logical information,No.6 are evidence(facts).So it is possible that alien may exist because of these facts and logical reasoning. Maybe this will satisfy you that alien may exist.Even religions doesn't say an alien may not exist. **If you are saying that alien may not exist,you are violating the rules of scientist because they believe that other lifeforms upon the universe exist.Therefore,You should give major evidence and reasoning to prove that alien doesn't have the possibility to exist.You should give scientific and mathematical calculations that supports your argument that alien doesn't have the possibility to exist. I'm hoping for your good argument Mr.Controverter :) Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com...