BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic Party.

Sara Palin was bestowed Queenship of the Republican Kingdom ( Figure of speech ). Harry Truman once was asked what did he feel being VP under FDR? He said being VP compared to tits on a boar hog. From that moment onward Sara Palin remained entwined as a voice within the American political landscape. Besides her unwed daughter getting pregnant and a few appearances on Faux Noise her influence, Well her looks aint what they were when she won a beauty contest! A nuisance Does not compare to Power. Bitch Clinton had power, She does not any more -- this makes her a nuisance -- b/c nobody has an interest in what she has to say. On this score, They share the same theater. Piss poor actors.
Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic Party.

In the theater of Politics the actors must be able and available to roll with the scrip of the ever changing ideological themes of the times. Within the context of Political achievement it is no secret that Hillary's legacy surpasses that of Palin. But for a period of time ( 2007 Presidential electoral campaign ) and a little longer there after. Sara Palin was bestowed Queenship of the Republican Kingdom ( Figure of speech ). After the results of the November 2007 Election the waters of political optimism or pessimism ( depending on who's side you rooted for ) receded. From that moment onward Sara Palin remained entwined as a voice within the American political landscape. It reached a point that the mention of her name became a nuisance a feeling still shared by millions to this day. It is in this content that Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic party. A nuisance who should pack her brooms and go back to Arkansas. Time for new actors to play the leading roles in the American Political theater. . .
Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic Party.

Palin in no wise compares to the witch Clinton. Clinton has ruled and corrupted Washington with her Power. Palin has never dominated the political establishment as have the Clinton's. A failed Vice Presidential run for office totally contrasts with the 2 decades or more Clinton domination of the Democratic Party. It pleases me not end that that whore witch Ms Clinton could not win a bought and paid for election!
human population growth

Hello my esteemed opponent. Thanks much for posting this most engaging topic. I look forward to the discourse we are about to have. I will use this round to accept and bring some direction to the debate. I assume my opponent meant that we will be discussing: If we cannot reduce the population. It will be highly unlikely to solve the worlds problems. If my colleague meant: Being unable to reduce population growth. Global challenges won't be able to be resolved. I invite my opponent to both clariffy his topic and his position on the topic. I also suggest he define terms he deems relevant. I look forward to whatever my opponent decides.
Old Music Has a Better Message than New Music Towards Children

This is off subject. This debate is about arguing about the message in Old and New music. The lyrics you have shown me is highly inappropriate in regards to its remarks about having sexual intercourse. How does this bring a good message towards young children. This is what is wrong with society. Allow me to ask my opponent a few questions. First of all, What positive message does this song bring towards young children? Second of all, How does this influence children to do good deeds? Third of all, Why do you think that this song is appealing to children and that they should do what this song is mentioning?
Old Music Has a Better Message than New Music Towards Children

Good evening, All members are invited to join in this debate between Old and New Music messages. You will the Con(against) in this debate. I want to first say that the new music that you hear on the radio such as Kevin Gates or Fetty Wap is bringing the wrong message towards future generations. It influences them to do the things that the songs talk about such as doing drugs such as marijuana and cocaine or having sexual intercourse at such a young age where they do not need to be hearing those kinds of messages or foing those kinds of harsh actions. Secondly, the main problems the newer songs have is explicit vulgarity. The vulgarity can become brainwashed into the child's brain which causes the child to repeat the unnecessary language towards their peers or possibly their parents. The older music from the 70's, 80's, and part of 90's brought and still brings great messages towards children such as treating women rightly and have fun while following some guidelines such as curfews and parent rules.
What were the hardest decisions of your childhood

Easy decision if you're a kid. Give the gun to a trusted adult. I was once riding on the back of a bike and saw a car headed right to me and my friend. I'm good at calculating odds from very little clues. I estimated a 90% chance of not being hit by the car if I jumped off the back, but my friend would have like a 90% chance of getting hit because of the extra push it would give from me jumping off the back. My other option of just staying on made me estimate the odds at 50% we both didn't get hit. I decided to risk my life and stay on. We both just barely missed getting hit by the car.
President Bush is a joke.

Jokes are funny. With how much President Bush has screwed up this country and various other countries; I'm not laughing. I don't think anybody should. Sure, it's worth a chuckle when he tries to open a decorative door to run away from reporters or says something completely confused. But, he's been such a complete disaster that he as a president isn't a joke. A joke would have been if in late 2000 we were told "The Supreme Court just elected Bush president... psych! They decided to actually count the votes." -- This is a disaster. Hardly a laughing matter. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA Look at all the dead Iraqi children. Not so much.
President Bush is a joke.

Whether you like it or not, whether you like HIM or not, President Bush has repeatedly proven that he is a joke! I know that Bush supporters will now vote against me, but those who disapprove of the President will actually have a laugh. For starters, I will give a list of many videos and how they prove my point. A respected comedian, David Letterman, making fun of Bush. http://youtube.com... (its in 1:25) Stephen Colbert, at the WHITE HOUSE, making fun of the President TO HIS FACE while others laugh along with him. http://video.google.com... M.S.N.B.C., A SERIOUS TV CHANNEL! Asking if Bush is an "idiot"! Not incompetent, but IDIOT! http://youtube.com... And my personal favorite. George Bush making fun of himself! Believe it. http://youtube.com...
Should women be allowed to play in the NFL.

Let's get this straight, which country in the world do you live in?! Most women these days already play NFL, so why are we debating about something that is already being changed right this moment. Yeah sure, back in the olden days women couldn't even play sport and you have to admit it is much better now-a-days. Little girls that live in modern days know that they can play whatever they want, weather it be Cricket or NFL. Women's sport is so popular around the world, and although some countries are quite restricted on what women can and can't do that is their way of life and culture and has probably been practiced for years. If they though it was bad they would of changed their law long back. Politicians, Prime Ministers, King's and Queen's are all trying to promote women sport and they can do anything they want to. This topic is no longer a serious issue in the world, and it's improving everyday. So why have you brought this up "mayagaines" when the issue is resolved?
Should women be allowed to play in the NFL.

So what!!! Why does it matter if a women plays in the NFL. If she is just as good as the men then I am all for it. I LOVE football and I think it would be really cool to see a women play in it. If you say no then I guess you don't think women are as athletic as men. Just saying. Did you know there is a women trying to get into the NFL now as we speak!! I think she is making the right choice.
The Crap hits the fan and groups have to form alliances

With the end of school near I have way to much homework to do and my competitive swim team just started up, I am saddened to say I don't have much time for debate.org anymore during this time. Iv'e enjoyed this debate up to this point and i'm glad my opponent has picked it up, but unfortunately I will have to re-sign this debate making my opponent the default winner(plus I like his debate) anyway. Thanks for debating, hope to start a new debate mid-summer have a nice day. X_mitchell
The Crap hits the fan and groups have to form alliances

You chose six people or characteristics so I will also choose six people I want in my group. Here is my group:1. Professional MechanicMy mechanic will be able to salvage parts from old machinery, cars and other things make them work and keep them in good working order so my group always has decent transportation.2. Bow Hunter Bow hunters are people who like to hunt with bows, use simple knives etc when hunting. I want a bow hunter in my group because bows and arrows are easier to manage, to create and to use. A bow hunter will know how to skin and clean animals in the field for food. 3. Gunsmith I will have a gunsmith, someone who knows to work, repair and identify guns of all kinds. This will keep my group well armed and well prepared to fight and to trade a valuable skill. 4. Habitat For Humanity LeaderThis person will be an amateur carpenter who will be able to do simple repair jobs to existing buildings and will know where and how to use tools to build a strong and stable shelter. 5. A Woman I want a woman on my team because women can usually help keep men in line, they can offer up rational solutions to certain problems, potentially mother new children for the group and engage in diplomacy that some men might not be able to do. Women can also usually cook and clean better than guys and have different instincts. 6. A Farmer Lastly, I want a farmer. Farmers will know how to irrigate, use well and ground water and be able to identify, grow and prepare all sorts of plants for eating and other uses. This is my group. Next round we will debate who has the better group for survival.
The Crap hits the fan and groups have to form alliances

Just to clear some things up Crap hitting the fan: Something that leaves the united states citizens without a government in any circumstances, they would have to start from scratch government wise. I would also like to throw in some factors that should be taken into consideration: 1. Medical ability 2. Ability to get food 3. Ability to get water 4. Shelter 5. Defense against people looking for supplies (not willing to bargain, I think you know what i'm talking about) 6. Ability to gain resources (ex. oil, wood, farming) Feel free to add any type of factor that you would like because I know that there are many factors that would be taken into account int his type of situation. So to begin I would like to pick a group which I would like to name the Midwest Huntsmen (just making stuff up) These would be your middle of country farmers who are big game hunters. So know I would like to explain were they fit in some "factors". 1. Medical Ability They are a kind of person who doesn't know much about medical practice but they do know how to cook a good meal. :) 2. Ability to get food They are a type of person who has many guns because they hunt big game in the mid-west. This would help them gain some protein and get enough calories from the meat that they would be able to obtain. Not to mention that there aren't that many people who live in the mid-west so all of the game wouldn't be gone. But if there was a drop in how many animals they would be able to hunt, they are also farmers, so they could get nutrients from crop. They also live in the lower mid-west so they would be able to grow food almost year round. 3. Ability to get water People who live out in the middle of nowhere usually get water from a well so that's what I assume they would continue to do. 4. Shelter They would have their ranch estates that they would continue to live in maybe group up in clusters of 10-20 people. 5.Defense They hunt big game and people like this typically have lot of guns. I don't think defense against city slickers would be a problem. 6. Ability to gain resources These people may gain an alliance with oil farmers out in the mid-west(but I have no idea how a refinery works to make it into oil). They are farmers so they can gain food. Farming wouldn't be to big of a problem because once again not that many people live in this type of area and trees are probably in abundance. I would like to put some images of what a portrayed image of this kind of person would be: http://www.firstflightfinishers.com... http://www.theposselist.com... http://img.ehowcdn.com... Well I hope that the top information will make this debate a little smother once you post your Alliance we can dispute strengths and weaknesses. Once again feel free to add and "factors" and any other part to the crap hitting the fan story.
There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

Yes, I have demanded proof, because otherwise, half of Pro's arguments would be opinion. Yes, definitions in the starting round would have been appropriate considering it is a courtesy done by most instigators and eliminates confusion. When it comes to forums, that's just how you see it. I see it as a debate with the ability to express yourself in a manner more sophisticated than just pro/con. Merriam Webster's definition for "Forum" is below. Definition of FORUM 1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas. Nowhere does it say anything about sharing knowledge. You asked for a forum of a debate. http://www.debate.org.... That's just one. Putting your self-esteem at stake, I'm afraid, is something I don't think anyone but you does. If the debate is kept civil, which is is more times than not, your self esteem wouldn't even be a factor. If that newbie wants a chance at a debate, all he has to do is go over to the debates tab, click the arrow, and click "challenge period". There's plenty of debates to be accepted by newbies. Having one debater block you isn't the end of the world. No, we wouldn't be in anarchy, just slightly annoyed. After all, we still vote. Your personal experience is just that, a personal experience.
There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

1.You claim that a newcomer to DDO can learn from an experienced debater. While that may be true in some cases, in other cases, having the more skilled opponent win can damage the self-esteem of the new debater. There are also cases in which newcomers may be very incompetent or oblivious to how a debate works. I'm not saying this happens every time with a newcomer, but they're still possibilities. You also have to remember that the instigator has the right according to DDO to set these restrictions if he feels there may be a problem with the aforementioned problems, or he just simply wants a skilled opponent. You have no way of knowing how skilled a "freshman" is on DDO. You don't know how mature they are, you don't know how well they can put together an articulate argument which will challenge your own. True, an instigator can challenge another debater directly, but then he/she has to go about finding the opponent they think will challenge their skill best. It's so much simpler to set the criteria you wish your opponent to have. Also, just because it happened in Moneyball, which is a movie subject to the opinion of the director, doesn't mean it can happen in real life here on DDO. Again, you give no examples of how underdog teams in real life sports have overcome a seemingly superior team, so until sources are cited, it's an opinion. 2. Why would you assume he/she wouldn't want to debate? Just because they set the bar above you and me, doesn't mean they don't want to debate. Is it probable that no debater will accept? You tell me. How many members of DDO are there? I don't know, but there are 11,153 debaters on the Leader boards(as of June 15 9:46) (1.), so odds are at least one of them will fit the criteria, if not more. And not all debates have these criteria you mention. You can search debates that don't have the criteria. And how does an instigator make an argument for his case if he set's restrictions on another debater? How can you tell if they're honest people just by the restrictions? Please cite something to back up this claim. To your claim about the unchallenged debate, if no one accepts, no one can vote on it, therefore, it cannot be won. The challenge will simply expire and no points for winning will be given, therefore DDO loses no creditibility as a debating site. You're confusing me. You just agree with me in saying that a debate is a challenge, but then you say it should be open for contention. Kind of defeats the purpose. "This is an open community. A forum, opinion portal is for knowledge sharing." Opinion until proven with cited fact. "Not for arguments. So it is improper to even compare those with debate portal." And I'm sorry, but what is a debate, but a civil and sophisticated argument? 1.http://www.debate.org...
There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

Broadly speaking there are two things that Con's argument boils down to and let me address them. 1. Firstly Con contends that, if an instigator does impose some rules for acceptance of challenge it is not the end of road for the contender and the contender is free to, either invite the instigator to a debate or check out an alternative debater. Alternatives for a contender is not the point of my arguments at all. I am objecting to imposing of conditions by instigator. A newbie contender may - and can - learn a lot from an experienced debater and, I fail to understand why an instigator should block him? If the instigator wants to really debate a topic with experienced debaters then, as Con said, the instigator himself can challenge a particular experienced debater to a challenge. Why expose a topic in open and pose restrictions on acceptance? I simply don't understand that. The example is the movie Moneyball, where a team - which seemingly was an underdog - defeated the best ones! It happens in the world of games all the time. Debating is no different. Just because someone is experienced, it does not mean they get the prerogative of not getting challenged. 2. This trend or phenomenon reduces the trust among debating community in an indirect way. If an instigator puts quite a few conditions and prerequisites to debate, How can I be sure that the instigator wants to debate at all? It is probable that no debater might be able to meet those conditions at all! A few such unacceptable challenges, and as a new user I will loose interest in the debate.org altogether. It increases my suspicion about debating topics and debaters. Does the instigator really wants to debate honestly? or is this just another way of getting your thoughts ac cross by using these conditions? After all, the creator of the debate can always post the opening arguments! The website has no negative points or a down-vote equivalent for unaccepted challenges. So an unchallenged debate might well be considered as a won debate. The website with such debates looses credibility. I agree DDO debate is a challenge. In fact every debate is. But the point is any challenge should be open for contention. These are issues that we discussing. Important ones that impact each one of us. This is an open community. A forum, opinion portal is for knowledge sharing. Not for arguments. So it is improper to even compare those with debate portal.
There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

I'll just go off your points one by one. 1. That is an opinion that you can't prove. Debating is just like any other activity, the more you practice and participate, the better you will be. What if someone wants to debate a fairly sophisticated topic against a skilled debater so they can push themselves to be better? Odds are, a more experienced and higher ranking debater will challenge you more and help you become better yourself. 2. Again, this is an opinion. The odds are, if someone bars you from a debate because of rank, there's probably 10 other people you could debate the same subject with. It's like the saying "don't hate the sport because of the player". Or however that goes. Just because one person bars you, it doesn't deprive you of your chance to learn, he's probably just seeking a more experienced/skilled opponent because there's more satisfaction of winning if you're opponent is just as skilled as you are are, if not better. 3. Like I said in my second statement, it doesn't become private because one guy doesn't want to debate you. Everybody would have to set this criteria in order for it to become "private" as you say. 4. Another opinion. I would like to ask, how does that work? I'm afraid that's not really how the debate section of DDO really works. It's a challenge. And the instigator does have the right to choose (to an extent) who he/she wishes to debate. Maybe you should challenge the person to a debate if that's how you feel, or maybe try the Opinion/Forum section of DDO. Those seem to work more like how you think a debate should operate.
There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

On debate.org, I found certain debates which I could not contend because I did not satisfy the ranking of the instigator or because I have participated in less number of debates. This is not fair. New comers obviously have a lower ranking and would have participated in less number of debates. However, instigator should not enforce these criteria for a contender to accept a debate. Arguments: 1. It is wrong to assume that ranking and number of debates indicate the quality of arguments that a contender can make. 2. It discourages an open environment where anyone can challenge anyone's thoughts and thus limits points from where learning can happen. 3. Too many restrictions, such as above ones, allow certain people to change debate.org from public debate site to a place of personal discourse. 4. It diminishes trust among st the debating community. A debate must be a fair and open exchange of thoughts, views and ideas that are credible in their substance and meaningful in reason. If such a requirement is enforced by instigators then it would dictate superiority. This is not acceptable.
Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf

Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.
Tennessee will defeat Florida in football this upcoming year (2015)

I accept. ObservationThe resolution is a fact-claim, and, as such, the burden of proof lies upon the Affirmative side *only*. To win, I need *only* refute Pro's arguments or present stronger arguments of my own. If Pro fails to fulfill their burden, presume Con. This is illustrated in Russell's teapot analogy [1] and to prevent committing the fallacy of negative proof [2]. Now, I pass the debate on to Pro. References [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://rationalwiki.org...