BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justin Bieber haters

It was for fun and I made those 'serious-fun' attacks that were extreme over-reactions to small things that might be a stupid reason people don't like him. In reality, this debate was meant to express your opinion about Justin Bieber, and make other people aware that there is no reason to hate him. So now, in closing, I will just basically lay out why people are actually hostile toward him. As with most problems, this mostly has to do with the human mind and not nescesarilly whatever the person is disliking. People look at Justin Bieber: young, has the looks, has the talent, has the ladies, has the world's eye on him, and they realize that Justin has accomplished everything in their imagination. Then, they look at what he is actually doing, singing, and they find minute imperfections, like country origin and voice, and they begin to think that he has unfairly gained this position of fame he is in, and that he doesn't deserve it. Soon, people begin to associate all sorts of negative things with him, like the declining popularity of other young artists or the decreasing etiquette in America. Then, in the end, this boy is transformed from an innocent pop-singer, to a 16 year old pre-pubescent high-voiced american hatin' jonas brother killin' dream destroyin' son of a whore. This is not fair, but unfortunately many Americans will do this, and this is exactly why people slander each other. I rest my case. In terms of voting: Since this was a very different form of debate at the end, I urge you to vote for whoever represented the idea of hating Justin Bieber the best. I urge you to vote for me as I explained the actual ideology and the WHY in regard to people hating Bieber. My partner only presented some accomplishments about Justin, and did not try to explain WHY people hate Bieber. I have done this adequately and this is why you should vote for Pro. Thank you for the debate. Have a nice day.
Justin Bieber haters

Again, I will be using the same format as before. 1. He is Canadian I find that the case is not so different with athletes than with musicians. Celine Dion, The Beatles, Drake, and Wyclef Jean are few of the foreign singers respected in America. America is a country that is mainly open to foreign singers and this case, him being from a neigboring country is less significant than if he was from a rival country such as North Korea or even Mexico. We, as a country are not as critical to Canadians as Mexicans. 2. He is attacking the Jonas Brothers The opponent also fails to recognize that people can think for themselves. While peers can cause some influence, people don't download his music unwillingly. I highly doubt that Bieber's 15,000 plus attendance concerts and platinum album are caused by unwilling fans. 3. His voice is annoying With his newest album, My world 2.0, Justin Bieber became the youngest solo male act to top the billboard chart since Stevie Wonder in 1963. His first album went platinum which means over 1,000,000 people bought it. He also was the first artist to have 2 top fives since 2004. With his second album, he became the second youngest artist to have a number one album. He was beaten out by a 15 year old Miley Cyrus who was promoted by her own T.V. show. This album made the top five in eight different countries. His debut album made the top five in three different countries, including the U.S. Your argument is opinion, but all this is fact. 4. He is destroying Americas youth First of all, taste your lip gloss is just an expression for kissing, it's no worse than smooching. No where does it imply that "all pre-pubescent boys and girls are allowed to make out furiously all the time". I think that statement is an extreme over-reaction. Thank you to the viewers and to Mr_Jack_Nixon. I hope this debate has helped open your eyes to this case and that of many other celebrities. I can't wait for your response and the results.
Justin Bieber haters

I will be following up on the arguments made and, for sake of space, not present any new ones. I will only expand upon ones already presented. Down the flow: 1. He is Canadian. While I admit that there are many athletes of foreign nature respected in our country, this is not quite so with musicians, and there is a huge difference between both. A sport is a past-time, something we use for entertainment to excite ourselves. But music, is the gateway to the human soul. Through music we find our inner selves, and find what morals and aspects we have. Being one people in one nation, it only makes sense we would try to have the same ideas and thoughts. But these foreign musicians impose THEIR ideas upon us. This is slowly destroying our nation's values. Most would say that it is our values that made us great and keep us great. Without them, we are doomed. 2. He is attacking the Jonas Brothers. The opponent fails to recognize the fact that one person will often do what his or her friends do. So when one person starts liking Bieber everyone does. This forces millions of young girls everywhere to turn away from the J-Bros and to Bieber, completely unwillingly. 3. His voice is annoying. Seeing as there are 6,692,030,277 in the world and opponent stated that only 137,000 copies sold in the first week this means that only 1 person bought per every 49,000 people. Obviously a vast majority of people agree his voice is quite irritating. 4. He is destroying America's youth. The fact that other people are corrupting America does not make Justin Bieber any more in the right. You say he is tasting girls lip-gloss, and act as if this is O.K. So by this standard all pre-pubescent boys and girls are allowed to make out furiously all the time? It also imposes the idea on young women that they need to wear make-up to be appreciated by men. Both of these ideas are extremely wrong and THAT is why people hate Justin Bieber. I look forward to my opponent's respons
Justin Bieber haters

I will be posted my argument in the same format of my opponent. 1. He is Canadian. Americans have been okay with other foreigners being big in our country. Many atheletes and musicians are well respected in America. The argument states that Bieber stole the dreams of American boys everywhere. Is that a reasonable argument? This statement implies that only Americans should be famous in America. In this perspective, don't all celebrities steal the dreams of american boys? 2. He is attacking the Jonas Brothers Justin Bieber has never taken any popularity from the Jonas Brothers. If he had then wouldn't that be the fans responsibility. If the fans decided to like him more than the Jonas Brothers then wouldn't Justin Bieber deserve the attention. Girls suffering is an invalid argument in my opinion. If they would rather listen to the Jonas Brothers then they would listen to them instead. 3. His voice is annoying I'm going to put this simply since that's what you have obviously done, his first album sold 137000 copies in one week. 4. HE is destroying America's youth. I want to know how he would destroy the U.S. You said "This one boy threathens everything we are, and everything we stand for." I can name a a hundred people who do that. If you listen to modern American music, Justin Bieber's is extremely mild in comparison. The most inaproppriate thing that he's ever said in a song is "to taste your lip gloss" (First Dance ft. Usher). You act like he's the worst influential characters in america yet our country's heroes have murdered people, raped women, and done drugs. I don't mean to say that we live in a bad country, just that there are several worse things than Biebers alleged "hip-hop gangster flo".
Justin Bieber haters

Hello. It seems you are going Con against Justin haters so that means, of course, that I will be 'hating on him' and just generally trashing him the best I can for the sake of this debate round. So without further ado, this is why Bieber sucks, and why other people should find that he suck to: 1. He is Canadian. It has been shown throughout time that Americans, by default, dislike it when people of other nationalities come and take the spotlight from Americans. Justin Bieber is a Canadian that has come and stolen the dreams of American boys everywhere. How can we feel safe with our own country's music, if foreigners like bieber keep coming in and destroying everything? 2. He is attacking the Jonas brothers. For example, the Jonas Brothers were obviously the superior boys in the country before Bieber came along, now Jonas fans everywhere are being put out by Justin's pop "ability". It is disgraceful that millions of girls everywhere have to suffer because of one ignorant boy, and this is just another reason we hate Bieber. 3. His voice is annoying. This 16 year [influences kids to become gangster. ] sounds as if his little young bull rammed him in the no-nos. His voice is always high pitched, talking or singing, and has a habit of being exceptionally annoying. 4. He is destroying America's youth. His supposed "hip-hop gangster flo" is twisting the minds of young children everywhere to become gangster in nature. Gangsters inherently create violence, oppose education, and lack the desire to accomplish anything ever. If America continues to fall victim to Bieber's "swagger" surely the U. S. is doomed to collapse upon itself. So now I leave off with that people hate Bieber because he is destroying the pillars America stands on. This one boy threathens everything we are, and everything we stand for.
the alphabet was created in the bible

I told you... English was made after Jesus died (If he even is real). This proves that English was made after the Bible. The original language the Bible was in was Hebrew according to biblica.com Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.)
the alphabet was created in the bible

This is not true. English began in England. Germanic tribes (Saxons, Angles, and Jutes) came to Britain from around 449 AD. They made their home in the south and east of the island, pushing out the Celtic Britons who were there before them, or making them speak the English language instead of the old Celtic languages. So it is 449AD. England was not or nor controlled by the Rome empire.
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

What you've done is stated the parameters of your mind, your mind being the process through which you define what you perceive of your physical surroundings. These parameters are there to control the outcome of your experience, to produce the results you're able to deal with. None of this is real, only energy being perceived as information through consciousness. Your lack of "imagination" reflects the truth of my argument in that this is all just a part of this one dream you're unable to wake from, arguing with yourself about what it all means. The screen which you perceive isn't really there; it's only a field of energy vibrating in a pattern which you define as being a screen; the words you see written upon it exist only within your mind's capacity to understand them. If you were not there to perceive this, in your many forms, then how can you guarantee that this really exists as anything more than an illusion?
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

I don't have an imagination. Thus, your argument is false. Other people have imaginations. I, on the other hand, know exactly what I'm going to do and what I'm going to say to whom always.If I do have imagination which I have never used before, then that argument above fails. But I began to exist at one point. Because I began to exist, that means I was created, in some way. If I was created, something created me. If something created me, something else exists. If something else exists, we are both subjected to some sort of rules that allow both of us to exist. If there are rules that define what is possible so me and that something could coexist, then those rules apply to everything else we can perceive, too. If the people and objects we perceive are subjected to the same rules as us, there is no reason to think that they are any different than us. If a person or object isn't any different than you, then you really have no business not believing that it exists.If you don't like that, than randomness proves foreign existence. [P1] If randomness exists, then you cannot make up something.[P2] Randomness exists[Conclusion] You cannot make up something. Premise 1 will be challenged. If randomness exists, or to word it differently, something occurs that you could not have forced yourself to imagine at one point, then that object is foreign and still exists. And if two things can coexist, well, just look at the above paragraph. Engineer's argumentYou exist simply because you typed the words on the page. If you didn't exist, than those words wouldn't be there, where I am looking, currently at the screen. So you exist. Get over it.
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

I'm here, that much is easy enough to see, but what's the reason I've been summoned here to this spot for you to read this? How can you prove I'm not just some figment of your imagination, taking part in a dream you're unable to become aware of? Am I here to make you aware of the fact that you're dreaming by engaging you in an argument over what it is you perceive? What is it your existence here is missing; perhaps I'm supposed to show you the connections to find what it is you're seeking; or maybe what you're seeking is something that's already been found. How am I here without you there to witness it; were you not there, would I be?
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

I still stand by the notion that I simply didn't, because if I did I would have realized it, and it cannot be my imagination because I know I don't have one. Therefore, the resolution I accepted to debate doesn't stand up, because my opponent fails to prove I have an imagination, or that I did will anything into existance. All of his arguments are "What if".Since my opponent didn't bother, let me define imagination.Imagination: The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses http://www.google.com...Now, this debate didn't solve anything. My opponent initiated this well knowing that nobody could provide any conclusive arguments against him. But because he phrased his resolution poorly, and didn't attack simple statements I made, (I don't have an imagination) I have to conclude that I have still won this debate. He didn't even make a single argument, but rather asked questions repeditally!So, since I was the only one who made arguments and provided a source for any information that I may have provided, I urge a vote to con in this silly debate! Have a good evening, voters!
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

What makes you so certain that people exist, is it beyond the realm of possibility that I would go through such an effort just to create an opponent you could produce such an "easy win" against? How do you know this isn't some sort of schizophrenic episode that's beyond your ability to detect? Who's taught you the meaning of the word imagination? Are these people as real as I am or do they exist solely within your perception the way the rest of this world does? I'm not here to explain how you've willed this all to be, perhaps your consciousness is simply a piece of a universal entity that incorporates everything and connects us all on this plane of existence. I'm here to bring something to light about your character, the character you've created as the "you" which you assume to be; that character is only a myth; a figment of the mind's imagination that encompasses your existence in the mind of those which your mind perceives is there.
I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

Engineer's argument People exist because they do. Its not that hard to deduce, you're just over-thinking it. Real argumentI didn't state anything in my mind. I am in total control of what I do, and I'm telling you I didn't do that. If nothing is real, than consciousness is not real. But it is. And since it exists, it was created. And since it was created, than someone or something created it. If someone or something created it, than something else exists, etc. .. Whatever caused the screen to exist, all I can conclude is that it wasn't my imagination. I don't have one. You are concluding that I have simply "willed" everything into existance, but that is not what your resolution stated. That stated I "imagined" everything into existance, but this is not so, because I don't have an imagination. If my opponent would like to continue sputing his "What If" arguments, he must first relate how I willed everything else (with the exception of the other thing(s) that exists and the rules regarding me and the other thing(s)) with my imagination, which he cannot, because I have none. My opponent tried for an easy win, and because of his poor word selection in the beginning, he has inevitably lost. Another easy win for me.
Nobody can prove the existance of God

By God we understand what most people understand by it, creator of the universe, etcetera. We are not talking about the word "God" but about what it represents. 1) An atheist cannot prove the existance of god because he thinks (in fact he knows) that God does not exist , but as an idea in people's minds. 2) An agnostic thinks that it could be either way, but there are no sufficient data available to prove either possibility. 3) A theist holds that God cannot be proven because all the issue is a matter of faith. If a theist believer had the ability to prove that God exist, then his faith would undermine his religion. Therefore it is impossible for a theist to prove the existance of God. 4) Those who have never heard of the idea of a God (assume a single person on an island lives his whole life in solitude), cannot prove his existance, this should be obvious. You cannot prove something of which you yourself have no knowledge about. 5) Any person is either atheist, theist, agnostic, or does not know anything about God. There are no other options, this leaves nobody with the ability to prove God's existance.
Nobody can prove the existance of God

"He clearly states that it leaves no one to prove the existance of god, but he has not yet proven that what god represents really doesn't exist. " >We are not discussing whether God exists or not so this argument is null, and even if we were, I don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, especially when that something doesn't exist, like , God. If somebody proves that God exists, then I would be in a position to bring evidence that his proof is false. You shool learn what a "burden of proof" is and keep in mind what the topic is when debating something. " "God" is an idea from the people, and it is proven through faith. " > Doesn't matter whose idea is, it is believed to be true through faith, never proven. If you claim such a thing you got a really tough job ahead of you. Be my guest and present the case that you prove that god exists through faith. faith: "religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;" Source: . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... This argument is debunked in absence of any proof through faith for God's existence. "This debate gives the pro side an advandge, because really no one can prove that god existed. But I prove that god exists through this debate (. http://www.debate.org......). It is a matter of faith" Contradiction 1. "Really no one can prove that god existed" then "I prove that god exists" If god exists,he is infinite in time so he has always existed. same evidence that show how he exists would prove that he existed. Contradiction 2. This debate gives the pro side an advantage, [. .. ] but I prove that pro is wrong so I win. If you win then stop complaining about pro's advantage. "I prove that god exists through this debate". http://www.debate.org... And you show us a debate where you are LOSING IT. this only proves that you know how to make fun of yourself.
Nobody can prove the existance of God

I will wait for my opponent to post his arguments, bit I'm going to make some comments to his starting arguments. All his points are basically examples to his last point which is. .. 5) Any person is either atheist, theist, agnostic, or does not know anything about God. There are no other options, this leaves nobody with the ability to prove God's existance. He clearly states that it leaves no one to prove the existance of god, but he has not yet proven that what god represents really doesn't exist. The word god is defined as the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). The god or what it represents is a belief, you have to believe it or not. "God" is an idea from the people, and it is proven through faith. This debate gives the pro side an advandge, because really no one can prove that god existed. But I prove that god exists through this debate (. http://www.debate.org...). It is a matter of faith. Thank you.
Tulio is better than Miguel (Road to Eldorado)

First off I'd like to state how my opponent has brought up a false fact such as. "he boned a priests daughter?" Chel the "Priest Daughter" is not the daughter of Tzekel-Kan they do not mention or hint at this at all during the whole of the movie. Firstly, Miguel is clearly a much better character as he shows more loving qualities such as his concern when Cortez's horse jumps off the side of the boat during one of the earlier parts of the movie Miguel immediately leaps into action to save the horse while Tulio shouts at him to leave the horse behind. We also see a lot of Greed in Tulio much more than we see in Miguel this is evident in many scenes but I think the most important thing is when Tulio breaks a pact in which he proposed and that was that Chel was off the table. He breaks his own pact and gets together with Chel betraying his best friend Miguel. Miguel has never hinted at betraying Tulio or doing anything bad to him yet Tulio has done these things to Miguel. Secondly. Miguel is more caring this is extremely evident throughout the whole movie when Miguel begins to shame Tzekel-Kan for wanting to sacrifice people to the gods. Miguel takes it upon himself to be a loving "God" to give the people of El Dorado hope instead of fear as where Tulio just wants to leave with all the gold they could steal from the people of El Dorado. This is evident due to the end where Miguel was happy to stay with the people rather than leave but ends up leaving to ensure Tulio and Chel are safe when a pillar gets stuck. Therefore Miguel is the better character and overall person than Tulio. I await Pro's Response.