BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

Now my dear friend we have entered our final round. Here I will make an appeal to the voter. You have seen the argument on whom between we two contenders are more fanatical about Tolkien's works. I emphasize on his works not hypothetical speaking as this debate has been thus far. For evidence of my love for Tolkien's works please reread the first round in addition to this. I own the uncut version of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy which compile to a total amount of almost 11 hours. Now I have watched these movies exactly 12 2/3 times. I would have watched them more often but my siblings also like to watch something they like every once in a while. I submit this to the esteemed, ever deciding, illustrious voters. jrrjacques at your service.
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

I personally do not see the need to use language of that vulgar type. Will you please refrain from such words and phrases. (Also I do not have a crush or girlfriend for I am to preoccupied with things of a more important nature. Again, from how I read and interpret your argument, you still focus on (for the most part) the anticipation NOT the actual content of the genius of Tolkien. And the fanaticism is not enduring as mine has been. Here allow me to expand your story still using your conclusion as a hypothetical replacement for The Lord of the Rings. After I have done such undesirable business in my undergarments and have proposed to my "girlfriend", I then become a fascist in trying to compile something greater than your conclusion, not wanting to be outdone, and my "girlfriend" accepts my proposal. I soon find out than my bride really hates me and only married me for the wealth I had the potential to gain. But now I have lost the potential of becoming wealthy because my life is now spent in an attempt of beating you in rematch. I come to hate you, your writing, and m divorced wife as I live underneath a garbage can behind a Chinese restaurant. What started as intense anticipation for a first view ends up wasting my life. So my frivolous friend it is still not true Tolkien fanaticism. This debate is about who loves Tolkien's story of those who know exactly what it is and its content. Sorry for not adding more but I'm on a time crunch here. jrrjacques at your service.
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

This didn't go quite as well as I planned. Here, let me reverse our roles and hope this works out. I have planned an epic finale in round 5, yes sir-ee! It will be the best conclusion that I ever made in any debate I have ever done, and that counts the one conclusion concerning neurophysiology! Now, I know what I'm doing, I'm very fanatic about it too. In fact I read it six times over and had a group of friends who also edited it. It will be so amazing and mind-blowing, it won't matter that it has nothing to do with Tolkien, the voters will vote me! That's how sure I am. And you cannot rebut. Sorry, but that's the way the debate's set up. As fanatic as I am about it, as excited I am every time I read my paper, I bet you are more fanatic than me. "What will he post?" You are wondering. "What could be so amazing that, even irrelevant, still win against my logical argument?" Why are you more fanatic than me in this case? I am just sitting in my seat, calmly waiting until the final countdown to narrowly post my conclusion, while you are biting your fingernails, your bottom on the edge of your chair, and your hand clicking the "Refresh" button as the timer goes... "10", "9" "8", "7", "6", and then you have to go to the restroom...but you don't... you wait, but you have to go really bad.... "5" "4" "3" "2".... by this time your bladder is about to burst and your brain is on fire for having to wait for such a long time. What will 9spaceking post that will beat your argument? "1.... then the voting screen FINALLY pops up, and you are relieved! Your pants are filled with urine and cum from the excitement, but you have no time for embarrassment as you scroll down to view my conclusion! As you continue down your droll soaks wet your t-shirt and pants from waiting far too long in anticipation...and you finally reach the conclusion, your arm pumps out and breaks the wall, you stand up and do a cartwheel, breaking the table that hold the computer in the process, but you don't care. You finally reached my conclusion! You are so excited that you immediately propose to marry your crush/girlfriend. In conclusion, as it can be seen from my short story, my fanatic exceeds yours. (in Tolkien wise, not waiting-for-conclusion wise)
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

Oh my dear friend you talk of unbearable anticipation. But after seeing this movie (of which I would probably fall asleep during) I doubt almost your every thought you have some how relates to that movie. I have done research on Tolkien his life and books. He is one of a few role models for me. I am held in suspense every time I read it with the hope that I will see something that I didn't see before some humor or interesting detail. Yes I know what will happen but once I finish reading it I have forgotten details from the beginning and wish to remember them. My dear friend if you are honest about your zealous anticipation (it is not zealousness for the work itself but for the first time experience of reading and seeing it) then I hope it will be all that you hoped for. I get into conversations concerning Lord of the Rings and I love every moment of it even if the other person is showing their displeasure for it. My friend you see you are fanatical about the rumors and random details you have heard not the actual genius and beauty of it. Example Christopher Lee (the actor for Count Dooku and Saruman) has read the books over 50 times and loves the art and mind put into it. I have not quite made that level but I hope to someday.
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

whoops forgot to do this:1.approximately how long you have been a fan. zero seconds2. what books you have read and how many times. none of them, zero times3. what nationality you are. USAYou never stated it had to be the person you accepted whom is more fanatical than you.... OK, so you say it has to be ON THIS WEBSITE? Very well then, I choose myself.I argue that BECAUSE you have read every single book and know everything so well, there is no need for you too have extreme zeal or enthusiasm.I, in contrast, have never even glanced at his books (ok I lied, I know he wrote Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit), and because of that, I am fanatic about the books. Why are they so good? I ask myself. Why are they recepted so well? I ask again. I must read them! I exclaim in my head.But I have yet to get my hands on those books.If you do not see why I, a non-fan can possibly be fanatic with the books, then here is an example.EXAMPLE:There is a new movie that has just came out, called "The Italian Job", a remake of the original film.YOU: you saw the original movie, the director's cut, and the special edition. You, with all your crazy research, know how the film's going to end, begin, and change differently from the original. Yawn, boring, you fall asleep before you reach the theater.ME: i did not see the original movie, the trailer, or any spoilers what-so-ever. The movie is incredibly exciting, fascinating, and the literal cliff-hanger leaves me jaw-open and considering to add the movie to my top ten.As you can see an actual fan, because of his overwhelming knowledge, will be bored about the series. However, a guy like me who has never read the books, it is intense, suspenceful, and I'll have no idea what will happen.
BREXIT is good for Engeland

Your main argument seems to be that (security > all other concerns). "Security of the country is more important than trade"This is where I simply cannot agree with you. The long-term damage to the economy, And the resulting affect that will have on the peoples lives, Far outweighs short-term damage caused by immigration. "A border crossing with northern and southern Ireland is also critical in keeping the IRA at bay and controlling movement of people"Both sides of this issue have agreed that they don't want a border between the Irelands. Physical barriers of any kind would violate 1998 Peace Agreements. Even harsh checkstops are opposed because of the massive disruption to traffic, And because it would strongly ignite political tensions. ---Brexit is a complex multi-sided issue with a lot to consider. Your concerns are valid, And I understand why England wants more border control. However, I would argue that your position doesn't consider the full picture. You need to account for the massive loss to trade, The affect of delayed transit and delayed travel times, The rights of ex-pats living outside the UK, The damage to small businesses caused by tariffs, The list goes on. I argue that your position is over-simplified. Brexit has massive, Dangerous implications to all of the above. This is all made worse by the fact that the UK and the EU have been unable to come to any sort of agreement in the last 2 years. With just two weeks left I hope they can sort something out. A "hard" Brexit would be terrible for England.
BREXIT is good for Engeland

I appreciate your response, So here is my final debate round Security of the country is more important than trade. Just look at what is happening in the rest of Europe. The migrant crisis is reaching epic proportions all the way to France because the borders were open and the migrants came cross all borders unobstructed. From Italy and Turkey through the rest of open Europe through the poorer nations all heading for England the most prosperous country in the EU. A border crossing with northern and southern Ireland is also critical in keeping the IRA at bay and controlling movement of people. Open borders are a disaster for security reasons. It might be easier to cross borders for regular travelers but lets look at the Sicilian mafia, They are now free to roam all over Europe, The Russian mafia has open borders to travel to England right now and poison people with polonium. The Gypsies can roam all around Europe without obstruction. And finally the migrants from the middle east including ISIS can freely cross from Turkey to anywhere in Europe. Everybody is complaining about Brexit until the bombs go off in France and England or a 1000 women are raped in Germany over the holidays because there is no control at the border. Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU and they are doing excellent. Not everyone needs to be in a big EU boys club. Countries all separated a long time ago because people couldn't get along. Yugoslavia split into 6 countries because they couldn't get along, Who says we need to make one big Europe country? Have we not learned from the Roman empire, From the Ottoman empire. Countries are created every decade in Africa, In the past in South America. Panama did not want to be part of Columbia so they created their own country with a border. Not having borders or having open borders is a bad idea. That's like not having a fence with your neighbor. And besides why should England pay 13 billion euros to the EU, How much is Romania and Bulgaria paying? Nothing. England is a rich prosperous country, They don't need to be part of the EU clan that is suffering from migrant invasions and terrorism. Besides other countries are pulling out too, Poland and Sweden mentioned they might pull out next. You can have your own country so why would you want to be under the thumb of the Hague and the big brother EU. England will prosper without the EU like they have done for hundreds of years just ask Switzerland and Norway about it. The EU is FAKE NEWS and bad and 50% of the British agree with me and want out
BREXIT is good for Engeland

Thanks for your response. Pro: "By getting out of the EU and their free trade deals, England can be independent by establishing its own trade agreements and that most small and medium-sized firms, Which have never traded overseas, Would be freed of the regulatory burden that comes with EU membership. "If England wants to trade with any country in the EU, They will have to work out a trade deal first. They haven't been able to do that, At all, In the last 2 years. Both sides are now preparing for a "No-deal Brexit". England would be volunteering to pay more for imports (because now they have to pay external tariffs). All commercial goods shipped to/from the UK would be subject to much stricter WTO regulations. Shipping times would increase, Because now all goods will have to go through border checkpoints. Trade is a major benefit of the EU. Brexit sacrifices the benefits of open trade for increased border control. ---Pro: "By getting out of the EU fewer people would be coming to the country which would mean less competition for jobs among those who remained and, Potentially, Higher wages"Only true if:1. You kick out all the immigrants that have already entered England (which England won't do), And2. The economy improves under Brexit (according to England - it won't [2]). ---There are so many logistical problems with Brexit. We haven't even talked about the problem with new checkpoints and borders in between North/South Ireland (I suspect that's why you specified England). Brexit is bad for trade, Bad for people travelling, And bad for the Economy.
BREXIT is good for Engeland

In 2016, Britain paid in "13. 1 billion to the EU that it could have used at home on domestic structure. By getting out of the EU and their free trade deals, England can be independent by establishing its own trade agreements and that most small and medium-sized firms, Which have never traded overseas, Would be freed of the regulatory burden that comes with EU membership. Because of the open borders with the EU in 2016 there were 942, 000 eastern Europeans, Romanians, Bulgarians and Gypsies working and stealing in the UK, Along with 2. 93 million workers from outside the EU. China and India were the biggest source of foreign workers in the UK, That the pace of immigration had led to some difficulties with housing and service provision. By getting out of the EU fewer people would be coming to the country which would mean less competition for jobs among those who remained and, Potentially, Higher wages The reason Europe has so many terrorist attacks is because of the open borders in the EU. By England getting out of the EU they could go back to having a regulated border to stop more terrorists from entering the country.
BREXIT is good for Engeland

Brexit will be bad for England, And the rest of the UK. Now the actual consequences of Brexit largely depend on the deal they work out with the EU. They were supposed to leave the EU on March 29, 2019, However they've postponed this to April 12, 2019. Brittan postponed it because the economic and social impact of a hard "no-deal Brexit" are disastrous. TradeThe EU allows open trade between all countries within the union. This is what makes the EU so attractive. By leaving the EU England would switch to WTO rules. That means the UK would have to pay tariffs (taxes paid to other countries) on all imported goods. This will increase the price of. . . Well everything not specifically produced in the UK. This is bad for businesses and people. TravelLeaving the EU will make travel more difficult for UK citizens. The EU would be free to set new passport and customs laws on the UK causing longer delays at borders. There are 1. 3 million Britons in EU countries and 3. 7 million Europeans in Britain – in terms of their rights to live and work would be unclear. Professionals working in the EU might find their qualifications are no longer recognised. [1]Economic ImpactAccording to Brittan's own estimates: "The Treasury estimates that UK GDP would be between 5. 4% and 9. 5% of GDP lower after 15 years if we left the EU with no successor arrangement, With a central estimate of 7. 5%. “The net impact on public sector receipts – assuming no contributions to the EU and current receipts from the EU are replicated in full – would be a loss of between £38bn and £66bn per year after 15 years, Driven by the smaller size of the economy. ” [2] [1] https://www. Theweek. Co. Uk/fact-check/95547/fact-check-what-a-no-deal-brexit-really-means[2] https://www. Theguardian. Com/politics/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-treasury-66bn-eu-single-market
BREXIT is good for Engeland

Brexit will be good for England. They can close their border to the flood of migrants, Keep a close eye on illegal immigration from the middle east. Also this will save England millions in EU fees. Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU and they are countries that are well off and don't have to follow the rules imposed by big brother the EU, They can run their own countries as fit. Borders are made for a reason, By not being in the EU you can close your border to floods of migration like the rest of Europe is seeing and not follow the rules imposed by EU but by laws and rules of each individual country. There is a reason we have so many countries around the world and why Europe is divided into so many countries, Because the Ottoman empire didn't work nor the Roman empire. The EU is trying to colonize all of Europe into one big nation. It's not going to work Brexit will be good for England
finn hoffmann is the best

My opponent claims that "Finn Hoffman" is the best. I do not know who this person is, nor will three search engines, but the burden of proof nevertheless is on him to prove that he, or she, or it is in fact "the best." But what does "best" mean? Let's look to Merriam-Webster [1]: 1. better than all others in quality or value 2. most skillful, talented, or successful 3. most appropriate, useful, or helpful My opponent has not specified, however, what this person is best at. Skydiving? Debating? Running? Swimming? Hiking? Because he has not specified, we must presume that his contention is that Finn Hoffman is the best at everything. That is his burden of proof. But let me ask you this: if Finn Hoffman is the best at everything, must be not be the best at "not being the best?" Moreover, he must be the best at "being the worst?" This is a self-defeating prophecy on our hands, and an impossible burden of proof for my opponent to fulfill. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Staples Easy Buttons should be less than $5

Borg you bring up some pretty good points, except why the Easy Button should be $5. Why should they be $5? All easy buttons are for is to just press after doing something as a so called "Reward" for your completed task, but we all know that's not how it is. The temptation of pressing an easy button and hearing the oh so loved "That Was Easy" slogan of Staples is too great. Everyone just keeps constantly pressing it, and it gets highly annoying, So then we just put the button away to cease the annoyance, and probably never take it out again, only for the Easy Button to get lost in the deep recesses of our closets (or desks, cars, under beds, etc.) Why should someone have to pay $5 just for something that tells you what you did was easy? It would be cheaper to just have someone tell you what you did was easy, instead of paying five bucks for an emotionless voice recording. You would be better off just getting a tape recorder and making your own recording If you Google "easy button hacks", you will find countless websites about hacking easy buttons to alter what they say and do. The reason why these people do these things is not only because it is fun, but also because they are tired of the same old "That was Easy" function and want something more for the money they paid for the Easy Button. Staples stocks may be doing well, but it is not the sale of overpriced Easy Buttons that are raising it, it is the many other things that Staples offers as the number #1 office store.
Staples Easy Buttons should be less than $5

Massvideogamer, how can you presume to tell Staples what it should or should not do? Your argument can be interpreted in two different ways, one from the supplier's point of view and one from the consumer's. Both of them are flawed, as I will demonstrate: Interpretation #1 (supplier's point of view): The Staples Company should change the price of the Easy Button for business reasons. Why? The company only does this if they are not doing well, and since the Staples stock is going up (as of Jan. 29), there is no reason for them to do this. Also, as I said, Staples makes that decision, not you. Interpretation #2 (consumer's point of view): The Staples Company should change the price of the Easy Button because it does not have enough features to justify the $5 price tag. That's a matter of opinion. You may think that $5 is too much; thousands of buyers and potential buyers may disagree. What it all comes down to is, the company decides the price and it's the consumer's choice whether or not to buy it. Thanks for the debate, I'll be interested to hear what you have to say in your rebuttal.
Staples Easy Buttons should be less than $5

Think about it. You are paying $5 just for something that says "That was easy", and that's all it says, if they are charging $5 there should be more than one saying. Staples could at least add a few more sayings. Like maybe "Good Work" or "You Rock". If they are just going to have that one saying, then it should be cheaper, like maybe $2 or $3.
Staples Easy Buttons should be less than $5

Massvideogamer- I must say, I'm impressed. You present a thoughtful, well-rounded debate. Frankly, though, I am now certain that my tight schedule will not allow me to respond to it fully. In fact, after I write this, I will be closing my account. I'm sorry for not bringing a better conclusion to our debate; I simply don't have enough time to respond. Sorry. Voters- If you believe my two arguments were good, you may vote for me; I must say, though, if I were you, I'd vote for massvideogamer. Thanks for the debate, maybe I'll see all of you again sometime. -Borg
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

You can't call me an idiot. Maybe this is why you're not respected at DDO. Refutation: "They are not original, as I already explained. Calling them original is what makes you non-originally an idiot." First of all, you didn't explain anything... You merely talked about how I am a lying little wh0re. Second, the most common definition of original is existing from the beginning (according to Oxford Dictionaries)... I clearly explained how many debaters created debates that are "original." All of my arguments still stands. Please vote Con. *I noticed that you don't take debates seriously. Most of your speeches are EXTREMELY short. (1-3 sentences)
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

Refutation: "You gave no arguments." I actually attempted to debate. As Con, I disproved the topic by showing how Max.Wallace and Aerogant aren't the only ones making "original debates." "You extend - wait, you cannot? This whole debate is intended for you to lie your way to winning because you know all you have to do is twist the context and conform to rules like a little wh0re?" 1.) I'm not lying; you should have specified during your first speech. Like I said, as Con, I merely disproved the resolution by explaining how others make original debates as well. 2.) You clearly don't know what whore means. Once again, judges, extend all my arguments. Please vote for the negative.
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

1) Not original. Seen it over and over already. 2) Again not original. ... I'm not going to even waste my time with the rest. You do not know what original is because you're twisting the context. This is what I hate about you idiots. You sit here wasting my time with your list of definitions like some fax machine, then you go around that to completely miss the point of a word. So what's the point? There is no point. You're just here to feed your ego. Has anyone not noticed that no matter what you say, how you say it, how stupid it is, people will accept the debate and argue it in the same manner every time - why? The people on this site are nothing but machines with no social value.