BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama will not win the election, GUARANTEED.

Therefore he must be conceding the fact that, as things stand right now, Barack Obama is the most popular presidential candidate, and the logical front runner for the White House. My opponent failed to prove that Sinclair is telling the truth, but did offer up this reasoning: "I think he's telling the truth until proven otherwise. " No. This simply isn't how debates or the court system or real life works. If someone is going to make a claim, the burden of proof is on them that they are telling the truth. If we were to believe everyone at their word, I could ruin Mike Huckabee's campaign tonight by going on Youtube and posting that he raped my grandmother. Without evidence, though, this claim is baseless. You see, back when this nation became a free country, the founders thought to themselves, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't be able to burn people at the stake just because someone called them a witch", and decided that there should be some sort of reasoning behind castigating a person. The reason my opponent is so eager to believe Mr. Sinclair is because Barack Obama poses a major threat to his party's bid for the White House in November. Reasonable people, like the journalists at CNN, the AP, Reuters, Fox News, MSNBC, and pretty much every other news outlet, have determined that this is a sensationalized non-story and have decided to ignore it. My opponent would do well to follow suit. Once again, in order to win this debate my opponent must either find a way to prove that Mr. Sinclair can back up his outrageous claims, or give a reason why the American people are going to listen care if he can't.
Obama will not win the election, GUARANTEED.

Larry Sinclair is taking a lie detector test within the next ten days, and if he passes, which he said he would, he'll get paid $100,000 by the organization that is setting it up. It's also interesting to note that Sinclair is taking Obama to court. I think he's telling the truth until proven otherwise. If it becomes fact that Barack Obama smoked cocaine rocks and received oral sex from this guy TWICE in November 1999- AS AN ILLINOIS STATE REPRESENTATIVE- there is no way this man will become president of the United States. This will destroy the Obama campaign for good.
Obama will not win the election, GUARANTEED.

I thought about not doing this, but it's just too ridiculous to let go. My opponent claims that he can guarantee that Barack Obama will not win the 2008 presidential election. Unless my opponent has some sort of crystal ball or superhuman knowledge of the future, he has no way of proving this claim. The best he can do is say that it is unlikely. As far as that is concerned, Barack Obama is currently leading Hillary Clinton in the delegate count and the most recent Gallup poll has him ahead of her in national public opinion by a margin of 49 to 42 (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com...). This seems to cast some doubt as to whether or not my opponent can prove that Barack Obama has no chance of winning the general election. Assuming Obama were to get the nomination, current polls show him leading Republican front runner John McCain by an average of about 4% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...). As far as Larry Sinclair goes, I must say that that is a ridiculous claim. His story has been ignored by every major news outlet, including Fox News (who was more than willing to falsely report last year that Obama had attended a fundamentalist Muslim school). Why might this be? Because it's not actually a story, it's some guy with a webcam who doesn't like Obama and wants some attention. To assert that this will be Obama's downfall requires a little more proof that this man is telling the truth, and that if he isn't, a substantial amount of people are going to care. It is up to my opponent to prove that either: 1. Larry Sinclair actually had sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999 or 2. Enough people are going to believe him that it will drastically hurt Obama's image To quote Mike Huckabee at a Republican debate a few weeks ago: "If I'm catching flack, I must be over the target"
People who cut arnt just doing it for attention. It tends to be a big problem

I will attempt to disprove the resolution, or, in other words, show that self-harming behavior is more likely to be for attention than not. PRO has not said otherwise, so PRO has Burden of Proof, however, I will attempt to go beyond simple refutation of argument, and posit the negative resolution that "self-harm behavior is likely to be a call for attention". I will not argue that it is, or is not, a big problem, because, for some, it certainly is. I will simply argue the first sentence of the resolution. It is PRO's job to provide evidence and/or support for the assertion that self-harm behavior is "not just for attention". It is my (CON's) job to in some way neutralize his argument. I will take this a step further and try to prove the opposite of the resolution.
People who cut arnt just doing it for attention. It tends to be a big problem

I am going to make an argument on this touchy statement. Mainly because I feel it needs to be addressed or at least talked about. I see a lot of kids being called crazy these days for self harm. (Burning, cutting,scrapes, ect) but these things don't make them crazy. It just goes to show how weak some of us can get from the amount if ignorance and hate and bullying we recieve. It's a hard thing to cope with depression. I do NOT think cutting and ect is for attention I feel it is to help better the person. I'm to saying it's a good thing it's not and they need help to stop but they don't need to be called crazy and thrown into a looney bin. Cutting ect is an act of ' nobody can hurt me as much as myself' and physical pain is much better than being called names or being ignored.
would it be cool to have a zombie apocolyps.

First, we need to clarify the topic. Pro: It would be cool to have a zombie apocalypse Con: It would not be cool to have a zombie apocalypse Arguments ============== 1. The end A zombie apocalypse means that it's the end of the human race. How fun would it be if there are zombies at every corner and any second you could be killed? 2. Mass civilian casualties Zombies would kill countless civilians, some of which will be close to you. How would seeing your close friends and family die be fun? It wouldn't.
Are we all in no more then a kangaroo court of a debate

As it is never mean if it comes from the heart. I have but made but a hypothetical scenario no more than that. I am sorry if it has come across as a reality that was not my intention. My intention was for you to consider that the law was structured from the fundamental principals of ten commandments. The slow-moving animal that it is. Many nations hold these same rules as harsh as they are. So the modern law is now a merry go round of bias personal pet hates within the kangaroo courtroom judge that revolves around an individuals disposition of mental anguish the money or lack of determines the outcome. How can this system that has no religion between the governing force and the people be for the people and by the people that somehow believe in this system because it's the best we have at the current time that is forced to vote for a system that fails to justify itself by simply saying out loud we find, "WE the people" never I find within the lower kangaroo court past accounts finds a conclusion and it is off to the big house for you or a hefty fine and of course the thousands of dollars for a barrister if you have it or can get it that is. Honestly, you truly believe in the judicial. Just look at the word judicial its self much like the origin of the laws own creation. It's just fundamental principles that create the missing link and it's JUST fundamental principles that are the missing link So if America's liberties of the governing rule the judicial correctional system that profiteers from the prisoners within. I can only hope that Australia does not follow in the same footsteps as we are. For some time now the judicial system of incarceration has become privatised and the system is overloaded and brimming at the edges. So what are the prisoners doing but learning how to weld and such being paid a pittance as to purchase goods of quality nutritious food at the price of a service station goods as to at least not have to eat the swill that is at least offered to survive, if that is not insane then they soon will be. Making a prison will your in prison for other prisoners to fill up so that they can do the same, believe that they are learning a skill and all that do this mind-boggling menial task do it just for something to do and for a few more dollars better quality food and sweet treat. This is the current judicial system and it is failing the human race. WTF not teach human right to children at school as the broken families of today have very little idea on how to teach this to the upcoming generations instead of this elitist driven economic pissing contest of who has the most toys wins or whose name goes up in light or even who becomes the wanker on the top of the tree of monkeys. I am not impressed. But somehow I still believe that not all people are F#CKING totally stupid educated idiots. That hurts and it still does but I can still say with all that I am. Peace be with you all.
Are we all in no more then a kangaroo court of a debate

Here is where you messed up: All educators must educate facts and not opinions, otherwise your "educated idiots", wouldn't be educated, as you say. All things we learn we learn for a purpose. We are not being "Brainwashed." For you do not learn what is right and what is not right in the government, and you do not learn "Who you should be and who you are now."
Are we all in no more then a kangaroo court of a debate

So can you draw a line in the sand between humane and inhumane with? If you see a train coming out of control and you stand at the turning point junction lever. But the driver of the freight train you know him personally you go to his place after work and have a few brews and a barbeque on the weekends. He has kids and a loving wife and you know them all personally and love them as an extended family. But as the horrible fact is that if you let that train continue on its path 8 people will be instantly killed with no exception. So what would you do and how could you justify your own disposition. To yourself let alone everyone else? I will answer this first if you can not. As to be the law of fundamental principals are beyond most especially the ones that do or can't see that the problem lies within us all. Take your time to come to an answer to this there are no semantics of other concussions. This is going on way-away from everybody or towns. I will give you a hint say what you mean and mean what you say. Because it's never mean if it comes from the heart. Peace be with you.
Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan was a Necessary Evil

I would actually like to define some words, but because you said no, I will concede to that. However I have two rules, please don't cite or source anything as "wikipedia." I prefer reliable sources from major news sources and authors, not some random person. Lastly, please leave morals / philosohpy / ethics out of this debate. Clear cut facts need to be laid out and that is how (I believe) the round should be looked at, which is whoever provides the best argument through facts. Observation: The Negative side has to prove there were alternatives to winning World War II over Japan. On top of that, the Neg side must show that its alternative would have been better in the end based on specific factors. I look towards debating this topic and I wish you the best of luck. In the next round, I will lay out my case once my opponent has done so, and in the third round, we may argue each others case.
Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan was a Necessary Evil

Hello - I will be arguing in favor of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945 by the United States of America. I believe that the bombings were necessary for an American victory and the alternative would have been worse in the end. I trust that everyone reading this understands the event in question and that no definitions need to be posted. Round 1: Acceptance/Clarification by Con [if needed] Round 2: Main points Round 3: Conclusions/rebuttals I am in favor of shorter debates in which strong points are made and then thought about so there will be two rounds of solid debating.
Donald Trump Is Not Fit To Be President

Donald trump has good morals and only wants to better the world may put him out to be a bad person, but honestly he has better experience. He has gone to military school and has owned many businesses. He has good negotiating skills which work well with being a president. Would you rather vote Hillary Clinton who wants to start world war 3 with Russia and end the United States of America? I don't think you do, because if you did we wouldn't be here right now on this earth. Donald trump is far better than what people think of him and he is going to prove every who ever said anything bad about him wrong.
Story writing contest

Curiosity Kills by albertjr *The following is a series of diary entries found taped on a wall of a mental hospital cell.* 02-15-03: I know it's me. I know this is all my fault. There is no one to blame except for myself. But why do I feel so wronged? Why am I sitting here without feelings of remorse or guilt? Oh please, Doctor, pity me! Kill me if you have to, just don't leave me here in this cell alone! Oh, Doctor! I see you coming toward me now. Help me! Help m-- 02-16-03: I should've known what a heartless person the Doctor is. How was I so gullible? I heard the stories of his works, his horrible works. How innocent men were dismembered into unrecognizable figures with their mouths sewn shut. "It's for their own good," the Doctor would chuckle to himself. No one ever stood up against him, because they would be the next victim. Oh why did I even step into this blasted building, anyway? Why was I so curious to see the infamous hospital? No-- it cannot be. He is coming again. No please. No no no n-- 02-20-03: It is truly a blessing to be able to think in the right mind now. I must admit, the Doctor must have been extra careful with me these past 4 days in order for me to still be in one piece. I never believed that I would say this, but I thank him. Thank you, Doctor, for choosing to just sew my mouth shut but not cut through my body. I remember you saying something along the lines that I was more advanced than the others. Of course, the pain on my face is still there, as is the blood on my chin. I know that I will never speak or eat through my mouth ever again, but I must be grateful. I hope the Doctor releases me. I hope I can see the sky again. I hope I can-- *That was the last diary entry found taped on the wall. The last person who saw him saw the Doctor carrying him out of his cell, with a large butcher knife in his hand.*
Dc would Beat marvel

Thank you for posting this debate. First of all, my opponent poses no argument. All my opponent that "Marvel Would So beat Dc." The resolution as titled is "Dc would beat marvel" but my opponent is Pro. Therefore, he contradicted his position and conceded in this debate. Second of all, if he changed the resolution to "Marvel would beat DC", he needs to prove it in his arguments which he has none. Conclusion: My opponent either has to clarify his position, by changing his resolution or changing his statement in Round 1.
Is water wet

If water is not wet then water must be dry.If water is dry then why does water make things wet? Humidifier machines use water to add humidification to a low humidity room (a dry room) this is possible because water is moist (wet) If water was dry, then water could not prevent rooms from being dry, thus water is wet. The whole misconception of water being "non-wet" is due to the definition of wet being a terribly written definition and in need of an update. Don't base your arguments on definitions, base them on logic.
Is water wet

No, water is not wet. this is because water is a liquid, but it is not wet. Wetness is is a description of our experience of water. What happens to us when we come into contact in such a way that is imminence's on our state of being. We, or our possessions "get wet". This is why I say that water is not wet. I hope you guys agree with me too, that water is not wet. here is the science about it. Water is made from H2O. https://www.google.com... when saying the definition of wet water is a factor in becoming wet, but it is not wet by itself, because when you are wet, you are "covered or soaked with a liquid such as water", and water is water itself, therefore it is not wet. Water is water, when water touches something that is not water, the thing that the water touches becomes wet.
why schools should, or shouldnt go paperless and let their students use their devices for school

The use of devices such as Ipads are Laptops in schools is counterproductive. It gives an easily accessible way of slacking off in class without it being noticed, therefore decreasing the amaount of learning that is don in the classroom. It's a lot harder to start playing Jetpack Joyride on a piece of paper. Also the use of devices promotes an anti-social environment. Students are more likely to be engrosed in whatever is on their screen and less likely to participate in healthy discussions in the classroom.
should girls play football

REBUTTALSPro: "girls should be able to play football, no matter what their size. if a guy is afraid to hit a girl and having the risk of "hurting her" they shoulnt cause a girl would not be afraid to hit the guy"Hurting people is bad, regardless of gender. See Contention 1. This impact is true regardless of the fear level of anyone involved.CONTENTION 1Girls shouldn't play football because nobody should play football.Football causes brain damage to at least 33% of football players; even the NFL agrees [1]. Brain damage leads to less earning potential, senility, and death, among other impacts. Pro has provided no reason why *anyone* should play football; you must prefer Con's reason.P1: All humans should not play football.P2: All girls are humans.C1: All girls should not play football.CONTENTION 2Instead of spending many hours playing and watching and learning football, girls and all people should have longer schooldays. This can have massive impacts. As Reading Rockets states [2]:Another group of schools we talk about in this book are public charter schools belonging to the well-known Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP network: fifty-seven elementary, middle, and high schools serving fourteen thousand overwhelmingly low-income (80 percent) African American and Latino (90 percent) students in seventeen states (and the District of Columbia), with concentrations in Houston, Texas, Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. KIPP schools all use 60 percent more time than the standard school schedule, going from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and involving some Saturday classes and several weeks during the summer. By every measure — national, statewide, and local — KIPP students not only improve themselves, they also outperform the great majority of their peers. Take KIPP D.C. Key Academy, in which 88 percent of eighth-grade students tested Proficient or above in math in 2006, more than three times the rate of D.C. eighth-graders as a whole (which was 27 percent); and 81 percent scored at least Proficient in reading, two and a half times the district total (32 percent). That same year 90 percent of KIPP Houston High School tenth graders passed the Texas statewide math exam, as compared to 49 percent of other Houston tenth graders. KIPP Ujima Village Academy in Baltimore was the highest-performing public school serving middle grades in the city in 2006; its seventh and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores in the state of Maryland.P1: Having longer schooldays is a good thing.P2: Playing football prevents having longer schooldays.C1: Playing football prevents a good thing.SUMMARYConduct: No vote.Grammar: Con. Pro misspelled words, failed to capitalize, failed to use punctuation at the end of their statement, etc.Arguments: Two reasons to vote Con. 1: Football is bad. 2: School is good.Sources: Con has 2 sources; Pro has 0.REFERENCES[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.readingrockets.org...
God is omnipotent

Thanks for that response Pro, though I must admit, it was rather anticlimactic. Pro also seemed to neglect a ton of resolution-impacting attacks on his case. Oh well, I'll still follow the rules. *Disputing Pro's Logic* Pro reasons: "The creation of God(according to Christians, Jesus is God) was the beginning of Time. Therefore, the end of Time is the moment of Jesus' first conscious thought as Man. " My response: Well, this is a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. It's also unsound. If we accept that the creation of god is the beginning of time then why is the end of time god's first conscious thought? Has there been an end of time, and if not, does that mean that Jesus never had his first conscious thought? I mean, I know I'm supposed to dispute my opponent's logic this round, but Pro isn't giving me anything with logic in it. Pro goes on: "one individual that observes everything from an outside point of view can be accepted as Truth. Thus as Time is part of logic, in order for Time to exist as a whole, it must only have one individual to maintain its integrity. " My response: If we accept that truth requires an observer and time is a part of logic, why does then time require an observer? Pro never showed the link between logic having time and the necessity of an observer, and it's all rather incoherent. This "logic" seemed to be the basis for why backwards time travel makes someone god in Pro's case. Seriously, I want readers to think about this. Pro has made no attempt to show that god is the beginning of time or that the end of time is god's first conscious thought, yet this is used as the only basis for Pro's god proof. I'm saying Pro's case is all bunk. *Drops* Pro never addressed how creation can be done without the universe's spacetime, so Pro never showed that the universe was created or that there was a creator. Pro never addressed how god is the source of moral authority when he clearly instructs humans to own other humans and stone promiscuous girls at their father's doorstep. Pro never addressed the specific contradictions, inherent in omnipotence, laid out in my 3rd round. Pro just dropped the ball in this debate, so. .. One must vote Con given the drops and the clear negation of the resolution that the creator of a universe that wasn't created is unlimited in power in terms of quantity and extent.
God is omnipotent

Here, I don't have to explain it, this guy does a great job explaining it. Min 4:40 is when he starts explaining what you just asked. What you don't understand is that I am applying this logic to God, especially omnipotence. This is why your argument of omnipotence doesn't hold up. Infinity doesn't mean necessarily mean unlimited, it just means knowingly unending. Think of the biggest you can possibly conceive. I will always say to add 1 and that would mean that I would know of a bigger number than you. This concept is represented by infinity. This also infers why infinity minus infinity does not equal to zero. That's where people, including Christians, perceived it to be wrong. You are working on a false assumption of omnipotence. The ability to do all things does not imply that everything will be done.