BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People participate in reality shows to become famous? yes or no

Okay, I kind of knew this would happen. Anyway, I'd lay my case. Pro claimed that people participate in 'reality shows' *Just* to become famous. Notice that all the reality shows are included in the premise, and the use of the word 'just' indicates that there is no other reason. I simply need to show that their might be many other reasons other than being famous, that propel a person to take part in a reality show. 1. Money: People take in shows like 'who wants to be a millionaire' and 'Fear factor' for the large amount of money they'd receive. Reality shows are a source of easy money. 2. Showcase their talent: Reality shows like American Idol and Dancing shows serve as a platform for contestants to showcase their talent. They also receive large benefits that can launch them into the 'industry' and help them stabilize their profession, which is another main reason for contestants in these reality shows. I hope Pro provides his arguments in the next round.
Poop is better than pee

You were argument galloping (AKA Gish Gallop). I find it highly unethical behavior when done intentionally. If you want your opponent to respond to your arguments either use lesser arguments or expand the text limit. You’re supposed to leave room for the other debater to respond and develop his own arguments because he has to do double work. It’s rude, and bad debate practice. No fool! Hatred leads towards a miserable life, love leads to good welfare. I want to love people so that people can love me too, then we can have a better life. I don’t want to live in a world where people don’t care about each other, that’s hell. Objective morality is irrelevant. What’s more important, you or the fertilizer? YOU! Your health has the highest value, it is better than crapping up the lawn or getting doped. It tromps all your arguments because of that. Quantity of arguments don’t matter, this reason alone does, because you matter. “Pee is better than poop because of medical reasons.
Poop is better than pee

Pro dumps all of my argments."Better" is desirable or useful. I showed many uses.We should only favor love against thy neighbor if objective morality is real otherwise that's just an opinion with an impossible burden of proof.Since this debate is about what's better in terms of desirability OR usefulness, con's contention is irrelevent. Poop could also be desirable if mischief or malice is desired. Plus fertilizer or jenkum is definitiely useful. Pee has its uses too (like urotherapy) but I've listed more uses for poop than you've listed for pee.VOTE PRO!!!
Poop is better than pee

Sry guys, can't respond to every last argument because of the character limitAnyway, a lot pf examples of pro was geared for malice against ones neighbor. Granted, this can be desirable when you’re wishing to inflict nasal calamity against your advasiry. But one should favor love among thy neighbor instead of hatred over ones neighbor. Pee does have some medical uses (google “urotherapy”) I don’t think one should judge this debate based on quantity of capabilities (Like whoever can come up with the most uses of poop or pee)… For example money like say dollar bills may be able to be shoved up someone’s nostrils for blockage… however this isn’t what makes it more desirable at all, it’s desirable because of its fiscal value, like all the things you can buy with it and that jazz. If you couldn’t block someone’s nose with it doesn’t change the desirable nature of money. But anyway my basic argument is this “Pee is better than poop because of medical reasons.”
Poop is better than pee

I'll begin by talking crap. Here's why it's more desirable or useful: [1] you can poison the end of an arrow with it. Your enemies will get E-coli. [2] you can roll it up into a ball and play with it like playdough. Except it's sh*dough. [3] you can fertilize the lawns of gravesites with it. [4] you can let it ferment in a bottle and huff it. It's called jenkum and it'll get you high. [5] stink bomb for the classroom vent. [6] put it in a lunch bag and set it on fire on some losers door step [7] you can use it as face paint [8] save money on corn by eating it a second time [9] bake it in a pie for the Sunday church picnic [10] bring it with you to a fancy restaurant, sneak it in the food, then sue [11] flush it down the toilet [12] dress it up with some rags and a disguise and pretend it's your friend [13] turn it into fuel by letting it sit a couple thousand years [14] make the worlds boldest perfume with it [15] be a more authentic panhandler with the smell
Abraham Lincoln or George Washington? (Lincoln is pro, Washington is con)

"My opponent thinks that suffering does not achieve anything. Lincoln accomplished so much..."Pro has still failed to show that the suffering Lincoln endured was actually essential to the achievement of his feats."Without Lincoln, I would be living in the Union, not the great United States of America."I showed that Lincoln really didn't play a huge role in reuniting the Union. The generals who served in the Civil War and the presidents who served after him during the Reconstruction era played a much bigger role than Lincoln in "saving America".Conclusions1) Pro has not fulfilled his Burden of Proof at all. All his arguments for the superiority of Abraham Lincoln over George Washington are non-conclusive, and/or factually inaccurate. 2) I have clearly shown that George Washington was one of the greatest if not THE greatest figure in history. Vote Con.P.S. Apologies to Abraham Lincoln if I have accidentally offended him during the course of this debate <3
Abraham Lincoln or George Washington? (Lincoln is pro, Washington is con)

" I will assert that suffering does not equate to greatness, especially when that suffering does not directly achieve anything productive" My opponent thinks that suffering does not achieve anything. Lincoln accomplished so much, such saving this country from seccesion, aboloshing slavery, won a war with help, and restorated the South. This is man who saved us. Without Lincoln, I would be living in the Union, not the great United States of America. When you look at a picture of Lincoln, you think of a man who pereservered through everything to save America. Thank you for this debate.
Abraham Lincoln or George Washington? (Lincoln is pro, Washington is con)

Pro seems to be basing his entire case off of nothing but sympathy for Lincoln over the suffering he had to endure (e.g. nervous breakdowns, being hated by some, lots of causalities in the Civil War) .Again, I will assert that suffering does not equate to greatness, especially when that suffering does not directly achieve anything productive. There are millions of people throughout history who have endured brutal torture and have had their entire families murdered, yet the majority of these people are nameless and faceless to us. Just because Lincoln suffered a lot more than Washington does not in any way mean that he is greater than him. Also, Pro seems to have conceded all of my arguments that objectively pointed out George Washington's virtues and accomplishments...
Abraham Lincoln or George Washington? (Lincoln is pro, Washington is con)

Im not saying Washington is bad, heck I even think he was a great president.Secession of AmericaWashington created this country, and he should thank Lincoln for saving it. I am not saying Lincoln did this single handedly (Because he had the help og U.S. Grant and McClellan), but he did a main role. No one has to go through the split of a country, and he showed great courage under pressure, even going through clinical depression.Emancipation ProclamationA man has guts to say something is illegal countrywide. He was constantley bashed for freeing the slaves because that was slave owners only way to make money. Slavery was a brutal time in our history, and I am happy he abloshied it. Imagine you being hated by half the country. Did Washington have to endure that? I don't think so.The Civil WarNow, Washington did have an important role in American history. He gained our independence from Britain and even fought a war to get it. But did he suffer 620,000 deaths on both sides? Lincoln overcame this hurdle to win the Civil War, and in the end, he didn't leave the South in ruins, he began the Reconstruction Era, which in my opnion, is what a great president does.
Should Cell Phones Be Allowed To Be Used during School Hours

Hi drakie.bro, I will be debating with you.As a student too, I myself have impulses to use my phone during school hours. However, I know the appropriate time to use them. Using phones as calculators is fine, but like you said-students sneak their phones behind their teacher's back. It won't be useful if students keep using it for entertainment. Students like to fool around with their phones. Encouraging the use of phones isn't going to help keep students on task and focused.
Should Cell Phones Be Allowed To Be Used during School Hours

I think us students should be allowed to use cell phones during school hours. One fact why I think we should because the school could save money on supplies like calculators or/and computers. The student could have fun on their phones during recces break and during class they could be monitored if they are staying on track with their work or fooling around and if they were to fool around they would get are phone taken away and have their parents called. To be honest kids in school already sneak their phones during class I've seen it myself and sometime I even do it but teachers don't see it so might as well just let them use their cell phones then just keep sneaking it behind their teachers back.
Employers hiring facebook users

It seems like we have an identity crisis going on over here:" 1. I did " Let's clarify this.Con asked " How can we be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer?"I responded " Who says that we can?"Con responded "I did".So in essence he is saying that we can be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer. "2. because they want the job"The subject of your opening sentence was the employer, thus when I responded "Why would they?" It refers to the employer (i.e. why would the employer change or add stuff?) Thus your reply, "because they want the job", really doesn't make sense."3. The employer asked for permission"I'm not sure what your trying to do with this. This would be a reason why there is no problem.Let me remind you that you took the con position. "4. Its for the protection of the companies information." Same as before. This would be why there is no problem."5. background checks are used to determine the eligibility of the people your going to hire, you wouldn't wanna hireany body that you don't know" Same. "6. Companies want to ensure that find employers that has good skills for the company, Its called the business life my friend, this things happn because there are monopolies going every time and companies want the right employee for the job" For the 1st sentance - Same. As for the rest, I have no idea what it's trying to say.As I said there seems to be an identity crisis here.It seems that my opponent thinks that he is pro, that is clearly not the case. Further more if you look at the title - which is the only thing he wrote which could be considered a resolution - it reads, "Employers hiring facebook users". If he is con, that means he holds the position that Employers should not be hiring facebook users, or that it is somehow bad that/if employers hire facebook users. Or something to that effect.A resolution that is untenable.
Employers hiring facebook users

1. I did 2. because they want the job 3. The employer asked for permission 4. Its for the protection of the companies information. 5. background checks are used to determine the eligibility of the people your going to hire, you wouldn't wanna hire any body that you don't know 6. Companies want to ensure that find employers that has good skills for the company, Its called the business life my friend, this things happn because there are monopolies going every time and companies want the right employee for the job
Legalizing Abortion Decreases the Crime Rate

1.) Less repercussion on the female means more incentive to commit the crime Although certain crimes may drop other crimes like rape will become more appealing as there are/ will be fewer problems caused by the act of rape itself, 2.) Abortion has its expenses Obama care has put funding towards abortion too make it cheaper, but the process of getting the insurance is complex and someone of a lower class background may be less informed and assume the insurance to be paid of by the taxpayer. 3.)Abortion can have a affect on the person and the people around them unfortunately not every family is warm hearted and accepting of situations. Abortion can lead to disownage or a family breakdown. This can cause the person to resort to other means of crime, either because they have been forced to fend for themselves, or the emotional stress can lead them to taking drugs. (which on it's own can escalate into more crime) In both situations the likely hood of being in the situation of needing an abortion rises, but because of previous experience will leave them traumatised into keeping it. This can apply to males as well. 4.) Men are often ignored on what should happen Because of the view: 'it's the womans body she should have the choice.' Most men are ignored on what they want too happen. The life of the father can be put at risk, this can lead to them being violent or withdrawn. If the mother chooses to keep the child and the father doesn't want it this can lead to them being violent or neglecting the child, however if neither parent had a choice and was forced too keep it although the burden would be spread equally on both parents making the situations less tense and dangerous 5.)Legal abortion scares people I'm not entirely sure why, but people can result to inpropper rebellion. Violence and arson are usually the two main forms of protest against such a decision. People who are uneducated or highly religious will stick to more extreme forms of protest to stop abortion being legal. 6.)There are no statistics- 'pizza does not cause ice cream profits' This is harder to explain. Proving that abortion reduces crime rats is easy, however many laws and regulations are passed. In theory because of the law that disabled discrimination was passed there was a crime drop. More disabled people had jobs therefore they weren't in danger of getting attacked. Through this caused mass acceptance of handicapped people reducing crime rates further still. Any and every statistic you used is applicable here. The numbers say crime dropped they do not say what caused it. http://webaim.org...(example of a law released at the same time) - section 504 http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Legalizing Abortion Decreases the Crime Rate

You have asked to debate this, so here is the challenge. Please read everything below. Full Resolution: The legalization of abortion will most likely reduce the crime rate 16-21 years after its passing. Also, evidence that the prohibiton of abortion increases the crime rate is also relevant to this debate. Definitions: Legalizing: "...the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal."[1] Abortion: "Any of various procedures that result in such a termination of pregnancy."[2] Decreases: "To diminish or lessen in extent, quantity, strength, power, etc..."[3] Crime Rate: "The ratio of crimes in an area to the population of that area; expressed per 1000 population per year."[4] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules,and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [4]: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= (enter "Crime Rate Definition" into Google)
Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist

REBUTTAL/ARGUMENTHitler claimed to be a socialist in order to compete with the communists, Who held a majority of the vote in Germany at the time. Bernie has no competition (among left wing parties at least), And voluntarily calls himself a socialist. My opponent then goes on about people claiming stuff they aren't, But Bernie's view on policies line up with socialist ideals [1]:- Demanding corporations pay a higher tax rate, As well as fighting for pay equity, Which is a largely socialist idea. [2]- Making tuition free, A largely democratic socialist idea. [3] - Expanding social programs, A largely democratic socialist idea. [4]And countless others (can't post cause of character limit), Use [1] to see them. As for Denmark, Bernie was referring to the socialist elements of Denmark in place. For example, free tuition, high income tax, Etc. Yes, Denmark is a market economy, But Bernie was highlighting the socialist elements of the country like their social programs. Thank you for the debate.
Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist

Hitler pretended to be socialist, Didnt make him one, North korea claims to be democratic so did east germany, Mussolini for the record claimed to be right wing once he switched to fascism, Trump claimed to be honest so did clinton. Its not that Bernie is lieing he has like almost everyone else has musued a word, If you ask a REAL socialist a laft wing marxist or anarchist of benie is a socialist they will laugh, Its like people who claim the democratic party is left wing. . Though what it proposes in its platform would be solidly center right in any European nation, And that the test. . Here is my winning argument. . The Prime Minister of Denmark got angry when Bernie claimed Denmark was a successful model of Democratic Socialism. . The pIME mINISTER IS a member of the conservative-liberal party and does everything he can to cut tax rates and lower welfare spending and improve the business climate. . Hardly socialistic. .
Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist

Let's define the term "socialist". Socialist - one who advocates or practices socialism. [1]What's "socialism"? Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [2]ARGUMENTFirst off, Let's remember that Bernie himself said he was a "democratic socialist. " [3] Democratic socialism is a type of socialism that just believes in a more libertarian point of view. DSA describes democratic socialism as, "Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. " A collective ownership and administration. This is similar to the definition of socialism. Therefore, If Bernie advocates for democratic socialism, He is indeed a socialist. (Couldn't post links due to character limit)[1] and [2] - Merriam-webster[3] - Politifact
Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist

I like Bernie I agree with Bernie on his policies, But the term socialist is so misused today. H e doesnt advocate changing a market system to a state system, He merely advocates radical reforms, To our present Capitalist mixed economy to make it more like Canada or Europe, Not to make it like Cuba, Venzuela or, North Korea, Or even China, Social democracy is very very different than socialism. . Or do you disagree?
Resolved: The US Federal Government should abolish Capital Punishment

Wow, so much Biblical illiteracy and ignorance on one post. The issue of what 19 crimes God commands mandatory capital punishment for is not relevant. The fact that He commands capital punishment alone is proof that it is just. Gen 9 says nothing about all life being sacred or its protection being important to God. What Gen 9:6 teach us is that from the very beginning God commanded man to execute murdered. In John 8, Jesus is following the letter of the law as to how to deal with those accused of capital crimes. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. The NT says obey the OT down to the jot and tittle, including capital punishment. Matt 5:17-19 and Romans 13:3-4. And the OT is contradicted by the NT only in the minds of the ignorant and the reprobate. Which are you? And the Bible teaches a unified thing that capital punishment is just, and this notwithstanding the attempts by the ignorant and reprobate to deny its teaching. Your reasoning is wrong beause it denies th justice of capital punishment. And, yes, all of the earth is a Christian theocracy, since Jesus is King of king. Thus, we should execute people who God says to execute. And there is no separation of church and state, even assuming such was relevant to this discussion. It is not. BTW, Jefferson had nothing do to with the Constitution. Try harder to hide your ignorance next time.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should abolish Capital Punishment

R1: Conceded ViceRegent has conceded the fact that the people who should be killed are the people that God wants killed, not what our Federal Government wants killed: “Thus, federal law should follow God's Law to be just.” The 19 laws that are not listed is actually hurting him now since he has no evidence to prove that the people the federal government executes are different from the people he wants to execute. This is where you have conceded. R2: Final biblical argument A. Interpretation My opponent makes a point: “And it is not relevant that there are different interpretations of Scripture. I am giving you the right one. BTW, the fact that the Bible is rejected (i.e., differently interpreted) by fools does not say anything about the Bible.” To assume such a thing is absurd. You have no proof as to whether your god exists or whether your interpretation is the correct one. Also, different interpretations of the bible are why we have different religious sectors within Christianity. Unless you are going to make the argument that only you and your sector of Christianity is correct, then you are wrong. Also: “Rather, you have put your credibility on the line by using yourself as a reference.” Yet, you claim that the only interpretation worth following is yours. What makes you such a brilliant Christian theology expert that you can simply cite your own interpretation of the Bible? Better yet, what makes you think that the Bible is even worth considering in the debate when only a select few who cannot prove god’s existence or that the book is not written by people will actually consider your argument? I am doing you a favor by trying to debate by your context, but since you won’t meet my half-way and respond to my original points, you ultimately lose. B. Non sequitur Secondly, you have not given me specific proof that a biblical argument is correct. Instead, you claim this: “Your argument here is a non-sequitur.” This is the definition of non-sequitur: “a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said” http://www.merriam-webster.com... Let’s look back at the first response from ViceRegent: “Capital punishment should be made mandatory for 19 crimes because God says so, which is to say it is just.” Does this look familiar? It is literally the same fallacy that ViceRegent has accused me of. You still have not attacked my original points you only attack my “credibility” with name-calling. Good luck on the final round.