BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gay is bad

gay is bad because jew book says its bad, christian book says its bad and the holy Qur'an says its bad. Gay is bad. Human is the best and smartest species in the world and we are the only ones to condemn gay sexuals. That should say something! Gay acceptance is all jewish degeneracy! Gay get killed in 11 countries. In many others gay go to jail. It is dangerous to be gay. You bring shame to your family. You have your own emotional issues with being gay and gay have very high suicide rates. More gays, less kids! Also, full gays make up only 3% of the population in america but make up 33% of kid molesters! They want to get married now, who is next? Zoophiles, pedophiles? NO! I will fight gay! Gay also have higher IQ than normal human so gay is bad because gay doesnt have kids and 60-80% of IQ comes from your mom and dad but gay wont usually have child so gay make society dumb! Gay kill society!
Tom Brady will overtake Joe Montana as the greatest QB ever to play the football

There are numerous reasons why Joe Montana is and will forever be the greatest QB. 1. Joe Montana has 5 Super Bowls, while Tom Brady has 3. 2. Joe Montana played in an era where running the ball was more common, and still was able to get over 40,000 yards passing and 273 touchdowns, as well as a 3-1 TD to INT ratio. 3. Joe Montana had a 4-1 record in the Super Bowl, while Tom Brady was 3-2
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

In his final round he says the following: "Even so, "more reliable sources" is a category, and should be counted in a debate. Thus, Izbo should"ve won. " My opponent essentially ignores my previous round and just reiterates his source argument. I've already argued against this argument, but will do so again here. Source points should not be given unless there is a significant reason to do so. Since Izbo's sources were mostly pointless, he shouldn't be given any credit for using them, and they were definitely not reliable, as they didn't actually specify anything related to the debate. Of course, Keytar didn't use any reliable sources either. Therefore sources should be tied. To reiterate, source points should be given when one debater uses a significant amount of quality sources related to the subject matter, in contrast to his opponent. They shouldn't be given when it's a "grey area", or 4 quality sources versus 3 quality sources. Points should only be given when sources are significant enough that they play an important enough role in the debate. That wasn't the case in the debate that is the subject of this debate, and thus shouldn't be voted on. The only points that should be awarded in that debate are conduct points, entirely to Keytar. Therefore Keytar should win based on conduct. My opponent has therefore not carried his burden of proof in this debate that Izbo should have won his debate with Keytar.
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

My opponent says in the last round: "Yet Izbo10 used sources relating to the topic. So Izbo should've had sources and should've won the debate." As I've already argued, sources in this debate shouldn't be counted because they mean little to the substance of the debate, and more importantly, the outcome. But let's ignore that for a second and actually look at the sources Izbo used [1]: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] This wiki link to "special pleading" can ultimately be ignored because Keytar debunks its usage in the specific case of their debate. 2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] This link to "The Free Dictionary.com" simply links to the free dictionary.com. It doesn't link to any particular word or reference. It's a pointlessly used source. 3) http://education.yahoo.com... [4] This link that Izbo used links to a Yahoo education page, but doesn't link to anything specific, and especially not anything relayed to the debate, making it a pointless source as well. Therefore all three of these sources have little to do with the debate or the outcome and shouldn't be used to offer Izbo source points. [5] As readers can see below, I have given 5 sources at the bottom of my round. Since these sources are mostly redundant and aren't crucial to understanding this debate they can be ignored when it comes to voting. This is actually an important aspect when it comes to voting on this site. Some debaters will attempt to essentially "spam" sources in the hopes that voters will see the quantity of them, and give that debater those points. Thankfully, most DDO voters are savvy enough to see through this, as was the case in the Izbo debate, and generally ignore those points. So ultimately, me and my opponent agree that arguments are tied, s/g is tied, and I've argued that sources are tied, and the only points given should be conduct to Keytar. Therefore Keytar should win based on the awarded conduct points. [1] http://debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://education.yahoo.com... [5] http://debate.org...
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

It seems like the focus of my opponent's argument is on source points. Since sources weren't a significant aspect of the substance of the debate, they shouldn't be voted on. A good example of this would be the sources used in my opponent's last round. Should he be given points because he sources the sources Izbo used? Should this sourcing be significant enough to award him source points in voting on this debate? I say no, because in this debate those sources mean little to the substance of this debate and arguments, and in the case of the subject at hand, they meant little to the outcome of the debate between Izbo and Keytar. 2 of 11 voters thought it was necessary to give sources to Izbo, yet still didn't think he should win (and that is the ultimate issue at hand), while the majority didn't even think it was significant enough to offer source points at all. While the votes themselves don't entirely make this case, the debate itself ultimately has little to do with the sources used because the debate result has little to do with the arguments. Therefore I maintain that Keytar should win with a total score of 11-0 (1 point for conduct from each voter).
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

Even so, Keytar would've only gotten 11 points instead of the 51 he actually got. I'd argue that Izbo10 should've gotten the More reliable sources vote. His sources were all quite reliable,[1] [2] [3] especially when compared to the one link that Keytarhero gave that doesn't even work. [4] So therefore, if the voters voted logically, Izbo10 would have 22 points and Keytarhero would have 11 points, making Izbo10 the winner.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (http://debate.org...)[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;(http://debate.org...)[3] http://education.yahoo.com...;(http://debate.org...)[4] http://www.debate.org...;(http://debate.org...)
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

Since my opponent wants to break down the debate by point categories I'll rebut his arguments and do the same: Spelling & Grammar (1) My opponent says: "Tie. They both had good grammar." I say: In Izbo's second round he wrote: "My opponent has not addressed the topic, he voted in another debate this argument took a valid form, He should be able to defend the conclusion of the debate if the form is correct." Being that this is the only s/g issue I can find in debate, if one were to award s/g points (which I only recommend in significant cases, and this debate wouldn't be included) they should be awarded to Keytar. More reliable sources (2) My opponent says: Izbo10. He used three quite reliable sources whilst Keytarhero only used one source. I say: Just like in the above, since this debate doesn't come down to the significance of sources, I wouldn't award points to either. Conduct (1) My opponent says: "Izbo10, as Keytarhero didn't take part in the debate at all." I say: Izbo plagiarized and c/p'd his opening round. He also insults the readers by saying: "I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see" So given that, Keytar deserves conduct points. More convincing arguments (3) My opponent says: "Tie. Neither of them made real arguments." I say: I agree with this. This debate wasn't really about the debate resolution or topic but about Izbo complaining about a separate incident. My opponent concludes: "So that is 3 points to Izbo10 and none to Keytarhero. If every voter voted logically, Izbo10 would've won." I say: I disagree. This debate ultimately isn't about the arguments, s/g, or sources, but about Izbo's conduct. This is reflected in the votes on the debate and the general sense one gets from reading the debate. Therefore if one were to vote on the only criteria separating the debaters, Keytar gets 1 point from each vote, entirely for conduct. I'll leave it there for this round.
Izbo10 deserved to win this debate.

There are seven possible points that could've been given.Spelling & Grammar - 1 pointMore reliable sources - 2 pointsConduct - 1 pointMore convincing arguments - 3 pointsSpelling & Grammar (1)Tie. They both had good grammar.More reliable sources (2)Izbo10. He used three quite reliable sources whilst Keytarhero only used one source.Conduct (1)Izbo10, as Keytarhero didn't take part in the debate at all.More convincing arguments (3)Tie. Neither of them made real arguments.So that is 3 points to Izbo10 and none to Keytarhero. If every voter voted logically, Izbo10 would've won.
The use of French the the movie "Ice Age"

Are you arguing about how a simple French phrase shouldn't be in an animated movie, or the fact that animated characters are speaking at all? And tons of Americans know that "bon appetite" means something along the lines of "happy dining", as is used in various spots on TV, though none are coming to mind. Nevertheless, there's no reason why this line should be controversial. "My argument is that the movie is not being translated from how the animals would communicate with eachother, but instead the lines are written how people would talk today." Take any movie where animals are the main characters, and imagine them not speaking, but rather making their respective sounds. Doesn't sound very exciting. Also, some movies need speech so we, the viewers, know what's going on. And with giving characters the ability of speech, comedy becomes available. Lots of barking doesn't sound nearly as funny as "I'd much rather be at home with Susie. This place is giving me the chills!"
The use of French the the movie "Ice Age"

In the movie "Ice Age" the character "Sid," who is a sloth, says "bon appetit" while presenting a pine cone as a meal to a rhinoceros. My brother argues that the phrase "bon appetit" should not be used because it is French, and the movie is being translated from the language that would be used by animals to communicate with eachother to English. My argument is that the movie is not being translated from how the animals would communicate with eachother, but instead the lines are written how people would talk today. "Bon appetit" is such a commonly known French phrase that it makes complete sense to include this phrase in the movie .
Rap Battle 2.0 2 round

You may be white but this not your world, go back to writing conspiracies and scream f. the free world, your a turtle in my race so go in ur shell and curl. your playing turtle in a rabbit race, your hoping on my dick, B.tch u gave me nausea now my flow so sick. my hot rhymes will make u run so quick. You claim ur a rapper but you make beats, that the djs job yo im weak! I make more in a day than u earn in 3 weeks, call me the hot sauce cause my rhymes to spicy here, Your careers at stake, so i roast u medium rare, Ur whack talents may not be the think to share, Forfeit is what u should declare, let me give you a hint the end is very near! I call myself Ali cause id be tough, im like Canibus, second round ko, when I end u rough Id smoke u all day, call me the big bad wolf cause id give ur straw house a big puff. like the house ur career is down because of my bars that you cant get enough.
Rap Battle 2.0 2 round

Sorry that took me so long; I actually have a life, Unlike you, who challenged me to your final strife. Time is ticking down, had come up with this on the fly. You know that I can drop some sick beats for a white guy. If you think this'll be easy, take a hike. You know that I'm legendary on the mic. I won the battle last time, it's time for a repeat. You can go wallow in your second defeat. You fit all the negative black stereotypes; from the guns, to the gangs, to the drugs, to the crime. The only one you don't fit, is the only one that's positive. It's the one about dick size, one inch you have to live with. Think you're like Ali, you're more like Brian Sutherland. You city slickers can go back to Baltimore, Maryland. For the past fourteen lines, you've had zero joy. Go spread the word that says: Don't mess with the white boy.
Rap Battle 2.0 2 round

You may have won the last battle because your fans got a little hyped, they talking about I used a corny diss when I spit on the mic, but your the one using the same joke the every same verse, talking about my sis but your family is cursed the day after your parent gave you birth, Im the last man you see walk this earth, Im like a god cause Ill end you so you diseased Im the one swing axe down your family tree, My word will hurt when I brake you down to who you be. You can catch me counting your trees when their falling I'd be calling, like Im a CEO sipping on Hennessy, and your careers ended,u still hoping for relevancy. And you call yourself Muhammad, but Im the Ali, My words are are like these fists that goes: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." Not even on my level but still wanna be roasting me This rounds diss isn't even the most of me, so Il hope you forfeit and be the best of defeat.
welfare to poor people

My opponent concedes that the problem is a lack of jobs. Welfare is not the solution to that. Government works projects (like those during the New Deal) and a "grant" program to help kickstart small businesses is the real solution. If you went back to LBJ's day, do you think it would be more effective to spend $15 trillion on welfare or on government works programs and Kickstarter-type campaigns? Obviously the latter. Vote Con to spend taxpayer money wisely; let private charities fill the void.
welfare to poor people

Lots of people go to these job-training programs, but increasing your skills does not mean there are any more jobs available. According to ed.gov going to job-training programs it leads to you getting lower wages. There are not a lot of these programs available or they can not go. Unless you have been there, like me and my mom currently, you won't see how hard it is and how it keeps you functioning. Also, you can create rolling taxes; the more money you earn the more, not by much, more tax pay.
welfare to poor people

Since LBJ's presidency, the United States has spent $15 trillion on welfare, yet it has done absolutely nothing to alleviate the poverty rate. [Cato, http://tinyurl.com...]. Public works and job-training programs are more effective means of reducing poverty because they give people the skills to succeed. [Fisher, http://tinyurl.com...]. Also, using the money to create a government "grant" program (similar to Kickstarter) for funding smart business ideas would create more jobs.
welfare to poor people

Welfare should be given to the most needy of people. Some people just naturally are in better positions, and sometimes it is jot your fault if your company goes under. People need help. And if you say they are abusing the system, only % of recipients are abusing it and they are not the average prison. Plus you'll say they don't work, to get on a lot of the government assistance programs you must have a job. And the " free phones" they provide are old flip phones with 7 hours a month.
Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites

Pro claims sperm is a commodity because of the value a lady (or man or transgender or animorph) places on it. But a thing having value does not make it a commodity. I appreciate the sun, moon, stairs, and rain [1] but these things are not commodities – commodities are things which can be bought and sold and owned. Pro has a point that fertility clinics buy sperm- If a vegan went to a clinic, bought a vial of sperm, and threw it back like a vodka shot it may be hypocritical. Yet even in this case the man freely gave this sample- unlike the forceful coercion of animals. But the resolution is about swallowing after oral sex, not clinics- a situation where no commercial transaction occurs. Pro avoids engaging in seminal sementics, sementing my victory by ignoring the intellectual girth and thrust of Marx. Pro rightfully points out that swallowing semen is beneficial to women’s health due to its high protein content, it also reduces risk of breast cancer [2]. But vegans object to the ethical content of eating animal products, not the protein content. Pro misses the jizt of my argument. An analogy: suppose I say “I am ethically opposed to slapping babies and so will not slap babies.” Then one day I see a baby choking on… semolina pasta. I slap the baby on the back, dislodging the food. No one would accuse me of being a hypocrite because I did not violate the ethical spirit of my pledge. In the same way, cum guzzling does not violate the ethical spirit of veganism. Finally, extend my argument that semen drinking solves class disparity- as Pro concedes. This means that when swallowing her sire’s sperm, a vegan is solving the class inequality she objects to by rejecting the social inequality between man and beast. Swallowing is an act that helps bridge that inequality. [1] Even my literary references are sperm puns! [2] http://web.archive.org...
Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites

Following the Glorious Revolution when I am duly installed as Britain's rightful dictator I will implement its recommendations in full but, in the meantime, I will explain why it is, indeed, hypocritical for a vegetarian lady to swallow her boyfriend's mess. Firstly, I dispute my opponent's claim that love custard is not a commodity: when a man spills his kids into his girlfriend's mouth the lady enjoys the experience just as much as he does [1]. Obviously she doesn't pay him for this service but, nevertheless, it has value for her, and as such, gentlemen's sauce should be considered a commodity. To underline this point, although girls don't pay for sperm, fertility clinics certainly do. My opponent then referred to Marx's "semenal work". If I hadn't realised this misspelling was an intentional (and very clever) pun I could have pointed out that the correct spelling is "seminal", but I wouldn't do that because I think engaging in seminal sementics is tedious. Moving on to my opponent's argument, whilst it is true that the woman's willingness to gobble her boy off and then "finish the job" by swallowing his muck will "remove antagonism" in their relationship, it nonetheless remains the case that the girl receives sustenance from the semen, which, like most animal products, is very high in protein. [2] A vegan woman's decision not to eat meat for ethical reasons is wholly consistent with socialism but, in developed countries, being a vegetarian is a matter of choice, not a necessity. So, by choosing to swallow her sire's semen vegan women are deliberately breaking their vow not to consume animal products and are, therefore, hypocrites. [1] I expect. [2] Probably.
Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites

Definitions: Veganismis the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals http://en.wikipedia.org... product - something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity http://www.merriam-webster.com... The Cummunist Manifesto “Let the guzzling classes tremble at a Cummunist revolution. The harlotarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!” –Karl “Big Gulp” Marx The vegan ethos is motivated by the recognition that neither man nor beast may be made an object to be sucked dry by the ruling classes. Vegans see ethical worth in all sentient beings and so refuse to partake in the reification of animals. Meat and leather represent the coercive transformation of a sentient being into an object to be sold and consumed. Swallowing semen is consensual act- the sperm is willingly expelled from the body with joy and vigor. Barring fringe cases of prostitution, the vegan is not making the sperm donor an object to be bought and sold; the vegan is not reducing the sentient spewer to a piece of meat. Simply put, spunk ain’t a commodity. Oral sex and the eager lapping that follows is not only wholly within the ethical bounds of veganism, it solves the inequalities vegans object to. In his semenal work, Marx noted: “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” Swallowing is an act which bridges the divide between classes. It removes antagonism as the donor appreciates the moral fortitude of the vegan for finishing the job through to the end.
Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites

Some of the more prim and proper women consider ingesting harry monk [1] to be a common, vulgar practice: unbecoming of a lady and, therefore, they refuse to imbibe such testicular tinctures. However, most women these days aren't so prudish and are quite happy to quaff their boyfriends' penile coloda. That said, some of these gunk-guzzling girls are vegans for ethical reasons and are, therefore, sworn to abstain from consuming animal products. This is an outrage because humans are a species of animal and sperm is produced by humans, so it is totally hypocritical of vegan women to swallow their sires' semen. Thank you. [1] http://onlineslangdictionary.com...
Chocolate chip pancakes are better than blueberry pancakes

blue berry pancakes are better. After many years of research on blueberry antioxidants and their potential benefits for the nervous system and for brain health, there is exciting new evidence that blueberries can improve memory. In a study involving older adults (with an average age of 76 years), 12 weeks of daily blueberry consumption was enough to improve scores on two different tests of cognitive function including memory. While participants in the study consumed blueberries in the form of juice, three-quarters of a pound of blueberries were used to make each cup of juice. As participants consumed between 2 to 2-1/2 cups each day, the participants actually received a very plentiful amount of berries. The authors of this study were encouraged by the results and suggested that blueberries might turn out to be beneficial not only for improvement of memory, but for slowing down or postponing the onset of other cognitive problems frequently associated with aging. http://www.whfoods.com... chocolate chip pancakes are not as healthy please explain... do you mean dark chocolate? or light chocolate? Caffine This is an aging drug. It puts your body into stress. It makes people tired so that they then crave more of the drug which made them tired in the first place, just because it gives them an initial kick which exhausts their adrenal glands. Very high oxalate conent, especially in cocoa This can cause kidney stones. Dangerous levels of lead. http://www.relfe.com...