BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Reverend Wright scandal with Barack Obama will prevent him from having a chance to become prez.

Rev.Wright-The controversial pastor of the trinty Church in Chicago Prez-president or vice president My first arguement is judgement, Barack Obama runs on his judgement above everything else on his judgement. Meaning he opposed the Iraq war from the start, while hillary did not. So Obama has better judgement than Hillary, because she supported the war, while obama didn't. Rev.Wright has said many statements such as "god damn America", and others of accussing America of making the AIDs virus against African Americans and America does the same things as Al Qaida does. Barack Obama is a very liberal guy, and the statements of Wright are the bad sides of far left individuals of society. I personally think Obama is a good person, but to have a pastor for 20+ years who believes and preaches this kind of hatred of the U.S. is silent consent in my opinion. He claims he has never heard any of these statements before in his life of being with the Rev., but He has been his preacher for 23 years. His judgement the only thing he has with him is almost gone. New polls from the associated press show Barack Obama is down 5% in public opinion of likability. His judgement will be forever torn. My second arguement is about race relations, this is a simple arguement. Barack Obama gets almost all the African American vote, but he needs the white and latino vote. Silent Consent as I said before will make people believe he secretly is a hater of white people and even latinos. This will change people's minds about him and he will lose the votes that won him elections. When you associate with a individual who calls whites the devil and we control the world, it is profoundly bad on his part and further closes the gaps between voters. This will continue to the point and He will virtually have no support by the end leaving him crushed. My last arguement is about party unity. Barack Obama will have to get the nomination in june. While John McCain is just gaining support continuing on with their agenda. Barack Obama will not have enough time to gather support to win, by this time, at least not enough time to have America forgive him for his judgement. He challenges John McCain with his judgement, while John McCain does not associate with racist individuals on a current basis for over 23 years. In conclusion it is said to hear Barack Obama is done, because he seemed like a good guy from the start, but the Farakaun incident, then his Wifes incident and now this has broken the gap in his weak spot for good. Too bad, I really wanted a democratic President. Here is some video of Reverend Wright for the voters out there. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... These are a few, some are graphic so, have heavy ears.
Poop has DNA

The Pro is arguing that DNA is in peoples poop by using the definition of Deoxyribonucleic Acid as DNAI am arguing that DNA is not in peoples poop by using Demonized Nambian Antelopes as my previously defined definition of DNAI will argue that DNA is not in poop, the Pro must argue why Demonized Nambian Antelopes are in PoopThe burden of proof is sharedDemonized Nambian Antelopes and their origins are very well known, but for those of you who do not know what they are allow me to enlighten you. Long ago, before humans were even around, antelopes and a mix of other creatures roamed the Earth, one of these species were the antelopes. They were apex predators in that they were expert negotiators, they held peaceful alliances with just about all species of animals, including their biggest rivals, the cheetas. The bond between the cheetahs and the antelopes grew to the point where both were regularly raised together as families However, the antelopes grew too greedy over the females of their race, and soon civil war broke out. Scientists believe this was one of the earliest battles in the great Antelope Civil War However, as greed grew so did the Civil War among the antelopes with more and more forming alliances to fight against each other, here is an artists rendition of what the great battle of the Antelope Civil War looked like......................................................... After the Civil War, antelopes evolved into two different species, the ones we more commonly know about, and a race of super demonic antelopes that were part transformer and part antelope with a ravenous appetite for met and female antelopes, here is an artists depiction of what the Demonized Nambian Antelope looks like................................. Due to their rabid consumption and desire for multiple females, they drove each other almost to extinction, with the remaining ones living somewhere deep in the Nambian deserts. People have seen these demon creatures before and the Nambian government warns people to stay out of Nambian habitats, below is a picture of such a sign warning people of what lies beyond. ......................... That being said I believe that I have met my BOP of why Demonized Nambian Antelopes do not live in everyone's poop, because they are extremely violent animals only known to exist in Nambia.============================================================================The Pro has argued that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) exists in poop, which he defines as "waste product of the digestive system"I however believe he is using the incorrect definition of "poop" because the obvious definition of poop is shown in the diagram below............................... "poop" is a business slogan of the Krusty Krab, a very real restaurant chain that currently exists under water. Since "poop" is merely a campaign slogan it obviously contains neither Deoxyribonucleic Acid, nor does it contain Demonized Nambian AntelopesI now will let the Pro offer his own arguments :)
Poop has DNA

DNA=Deoxyribonucleic Acid According to: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov..., it is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Hereditary=Passing down by [traits] by inheritance. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Scientists study animals through their poop-why would they do this unless they had DNA? What person wants to study animal poop for the fun of it? Poop=Waste product from digestive system http://www.thetech.org... All living things eat other living things, whether it be plants, animals, or humans. All of these had cells and DNA at one time, so even if the DNA is dead, the poo is still composed of DNA. There is bacteria and DNA in your intestines. If you were to have to have a rough bowel movement, then those would come loose and into the poo, another way your poo has DNA. Like Yep said, it's common knowlege that "feces have DNA." I declare this round over. My side anyway, oh nevermind. Imabench, your turn.
Poop has DNA

Con is arguing a completely different topic than I am, but his topic does not even exist. Con has said that I did not specify DNA, but round one was just for acceptance, not definitions. I stated the real definition of DNA in round two. These two videos show how waste is used for different purpose: Identifying dogs and detecting cancer. Neither of these would be possible without DNA present. According to one video, "Colon pollens and cancers shed DNA and ends up in your stool." Stool=Feces, waste http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Con has not disputed any of my arguments so far and has misinterpreted my debate, even after I have extensively explained it. Con would rather debate a fantasy argument than debate mine. http://www.google.com... http://search.yahoo.com... http://www.bing.com...= -There are no "Demonized Nambian Antelopes" on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, three of the biggest search engines, therefore I say there is no such thing. Vote PlanetTutTutTurtle!
Governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens.

Since the definitions of words were not provided prior, and you wish not to argue over such things, I'll provide the general definitions that I plan to adhere to in the round: DefinitionsGovernment: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. (Merriam-Webster)Ought: since you said we would be debating the moral value, we believe ought to mean 'moral obligation.'Provide: to supply. (Merriam-Webster)Minimally: the least possible. (Merriam-Webster)Adequate: of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable. (Merriam-Webster)Health Care: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively. (Merriam-Webster)Citizens: a member of a state. (Merriam-Webster) Observation: 1. The affirmative must prove the truth value of the provided resolution.A. Thus, the negative burden is to disprove the resolution through one or numerous ways. i. For example, the negative can prove that government's have no obligation to provide health care,that the health care they do provide does not have to meet any standard, that the health carethey provide should be greater than minimally adequate, etc. 2. The affirmative must accept definitions of terms within the resolution for the sake of clarity within the round. If not, my opponent's first observation must be dropped and my opponent must offer alternative definitions.3. Because it is a debate of morality rather than practicality, both sides must provide a value/criterion structure or a cohesive framework as a weighing mechanism for whether or not their presented morality is being fulfilled.Response to Rules:1) I'm assuming you mean after round 2, because by the logic of the round 1 rule, neither of us can win.2) Concede.3) Concede.4) Also a concession. However, if we abide by rule one, we're forever tied.
Governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens.

This is part of BSh1's tournament. I think it's Round 1. A bit late, but we endure. The structure is this: Rd. 1) Acceptance/stipulations Rd. 2) Opening Arguments Rd. 3) Rebuttal/Reconstruction Rd. 4) Closing. Rules: 1) No new arguments after Rd. 1. 2) No party may violate character limits. 3) Forfeiture of any round results in total loss. 4) Acceptance of this debate implies acceptance of all rules and stipulations. Before we begin, I want to posit the following observations about the resolution. The resolution states that "governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens." The following are stipulated: Semantic quibbling, that is to say, arguments over the definitions of words, are not permissible here. This is a debate of moral principle and value more than it is a debate of whether or not it is practical for governments to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens. The phrase minimally adequate, however ambiguous, is not something that may be quibbled over because the issue of defining what constitutes minimal adequacy if the government is going to provide health care as such to its citizens is secondary to the question of whether or not governments ought to provide health care to that extent to its citizens or not. This is not a debate about whether or not health care is a right. It may be, it may not be... but the question of whether to not health care is a right is beyond the scope of the question of whether or not governments ought to provide health care to citizens because while a right to health care might imply and consequently impose a moral duty upon the government to provide health care, it is not the case that this question asks about the rights citizens have. Rather, the resolution asks what, if any, responsibilities to provide health care governments, generally, have to their citizens.
Resolved: Google should have no manual

Since brianjustin3709 didn’t provide sources for his definitions, I will provide definitions from reliable sources. Google: American search engine company, founded in 1998 by Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Manual: a small book that gives useful information about something Since he provided no sources, I found a better definition for manual from Merriam-Webster. I have just one argument. Google should have a manual that gives an introduction to the company for new employees. In fact, Google should even have a manual for where that bathroom is, or where the fitness room is. As brianjustin3709 said, employees need to relax, and have freedom. A simple manual could tell the workers where the pool is. What he stated in his argument proved that manuals can help employees have freedom. Thank You Sources: [1] Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com...) [2] Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Resolved: Google should have no manual

Hello, today our topic is that if google should have no manual. I agree because of this because of 2 main reasons. My first reason is that the workers have freedom and my second reason is that the employers need to rest. No forfeiting.DefinitionGoogle: Place where they give answers/ information/ do anything.Manual: Rules My first reason is that workers need freedom. You can taste delacies from around the world prepared by top chefs at 11 restraunts. Not only employees but also their families and visitors can dine for free. Personal Trainers are avaliable in the gym, and there is a swimming pool and a spa. Workers need this freedom to work hardMy second reason is that employers have to relax. Google's Vice President Megan Smith says thatwhen employees are provided with a workplace that allows them to work freely, they find answers and ideas beyond their normal imagination.In conclusion I think that there should be no manual in Google.
bruce lee against Ali

Well, I didn't think that I would have to spell out that this debate is hypothetical, which common sense would say that topic does include that if they did fight, it would be when they were still in their prime. Nontheless, you gave no argument on why Bruce Lee would lose. I will tell you why it is most likely he would win. Simply, Ali was only a boxer, limited only by his hands. Lee on the other hand was skilled using hands, feet, knees, elbows,.........should I go on?.....yes?.....Ok, headbutts, the ability to trap an opponents arms and to strike at the same time. You might say well Ali was a heavyweight and Lee was smaller, sure ok but it is well documented that Lee could punch like a heavyweight....he was that powerful. Another example is if you put Ali in the Ufc with only his boxing skills, do you honestly think he would be good say an mma fighter like Chuck lidell or a Randy Couture? I think not because what these guys have in common is they are not limited to just boxing, but to all facets of fighting. So take all this into account and factor everything in your rebuttal. PS please dont take to long to answer back!
bruce lee against Ali

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd ask that voters vote on whose performance was superior. With that said, let us proceed. As the contender in this debate, I strongly negate the resolution which states "Bruce Lee against Ali." Contention concerning the topic: Bruce Lee is dead, thus doesn't possess the mental ability to be "against" anyone in any aspect by his will. The PRO provides no evidence to the contrary. Contention concerning the PRO's argument: I really hate to use the following argument, but I cannot help but do so given the way the topic is phrased as well as the fact that the PRO didn't attempt to define it when he had the opportunity. In the previous contention, we established that Bruce Lee was dead. Since that is the case, I ask you how a dead man could hope to defeat someone who is still alive. Since Bruce Lee is dead, Muhammad Ali would win by default. Had the PRO phrased the resolution along the lines that would imply that we're talking about Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali in their prime, this wouldn't be an issue. Finally, even with the two being at their prime, the PRO has provided no evidence to suggest that Bruce Lee would be the victor. As the CON, I am free to insist that it would either be a tie or a defeat on Lee's part In any case, the PRO cannot win this debate. Your reasons for voting are already in this round.
bruce lee against Ali

And there you have it, ladies and gentleman. My opponent has openly ignored all of my arguments and insists that you read what he said above. In short, since he has omitted my entire case in his previous round, he has conceded to it. He closes by saying that you should use your own judgment to determine who the victor would be. However, for a DEBATE, this is absolutely impractical. You should make your judgment based on the arguments presented rather than your own personal input. Points to note: I went over why my opponent has failed in terms of the topic, his actual argument, as well as if we were to consider a hypothetical street bout between Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali (both at their prime). As you can see, he could not offer a rebuttal to my case and hence loses by default.
Necrophilia should be legal

At first I thought you were joking, but I am starting to think you are genuine. I will try to avoid very emotional responses as much as possible, and try to abstain from personal insults. Instead let's try to have a polite debate. I would like to start of by saying that people's depraved fantasies should remain exactly that, fantasies. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean the government has an obligation to legalise it. Let's take the example of paedophilia. If you had started a debate saying 'Paedophilia should be legal' and then swapped 'necrophilia' to 'paedophilia' in your opening argument, would that be okay? I'm going to assume that you think paedophilia is also acceptable, purely on the basis that you think the government should legitimise your fetish, so why not other fetishes? If necrophilia was legalised then it would encourage people to do it without the government's permission. What if the demand for bodies outweighs the supply? Then people would be performing disgusting acts in graveyards full of the public's friends, parents etc. The problem with necrophilia is that it encourages a lifestyle devoid of respect and decency, as well as sanitation. Now, I know you have come up with your little system so everything's right as rain, but the reality will be very different. If someone genuinely wanted to have sexual relations with a corpse, then why would they stop there? I am trying not to think of all the grotesque acts which would be okay if necrophilia was allowed. But maybe you are for unlimited sexual liberation, in which I ask you why? Why do you actually want to have sex with a corpse? (I am speaking from the view point of a genuinely confused member of the public. By 'you' I was referring to necrophiliacs in general. Of course what you personally disclose is entirely up to you, but I am honestly confused and so enlighten me. Let me see the world from your viewpoint.)
Necrophilia should be legal

I strongly believe that necrophilia ought to be legal. I will admit, I am a necrophiliac, so I am somewhat biased regarding this subject. I've heard the arguments against the legalization of necrophilia, and I've heard the proposed solutions to the problems. I'm going to expound upon what I believe to be the ideal system in which to practice necrophilia. To begin with, allow people the option to leave their body to necrophilia. Once someone has decided to leave their body to necrophilia, they receive a form to fill out, further specifying what they're okay with concerning their body's exact usage (for example, some people might be perfectly fine with having someone make love to their body, but not with having someone mutilate it). Then, when the person dies, their body is sent to a facility where it's checked for diseases that could potentially be transferred to the living and properly cared for. The body is then put into an online database (kind of like online dating for necrophiliacs), including the information from the form that the deceased filled out, the results of the tests to check for diseases (which means that it's informed consent for the necrophiliacs) and a current photograph (because we want to know how long our prospective lovers have been dead, regardless of whether we like them fresh or not so fresh). When a necrophiliac finds a body that suits their needs and preferences, it's transported to them. Thus, this system would eliminate the issues of consent (the person consented to precisely what is happening to their body) and sanitation (the body's are kept in a sanitary environment, and the necrophiliac is informed of the risks before beginning their endeavor), the two biggest real arguments against necrophilia.
Necrophilia should be legal

This is a statement of yours: 'Therefore, my views on pedophilia and the legalization thereof are not inconsistent, they"re merely different than they were at the beginning of the debate.' That, my new acquaintance, is almost the definition of inconsistent, and if I might add, hypocritical. Once you realised a flaw in your logic, you changed your mind. 'My solution is simply to leave it to the pedophiles to come up with a working informed consent system for themselves.' So your solution to paedophilia is leave the crime up to the criminals? Honestly read your statement above to yourself, how can this not create the most evil and exploitable system ever devised? That's like criminals on trial being the jury and judge of their own case. 'Your willingness to debate the topic, even hypothetically, proves that there are at least some people who don"t write the subject off as a complete impossibility from the start.' You mistake me. I do completely write the subject off from the start. Necrophilia is a sick and abhorrent act. The only reason I decided to debate you is to show you, and others, why you are wrong. I know I can't change your mind, and I'm not trying to, but do not think for one second that I do not write necrophilia off as an impossibility. 'As long as I proceed slowly, people will be receptive to what I have to say, and then it"s only a matter of time before necrophilia is legalized.' If the matter of time you are referring to was never, than I would agree with you. Necrophilia will never be legalised. Ever. As for your quote, we don't love the dead, we have loved them. Past tense. We respect the dead, the reason being so that people like you do not desecrate our ancestors, former lovers and former friends. This debate has been interesting, but now it's time to put the final nail in the coffin. But knowing you, you'd probably pull it out.