BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roblox vs Minecraft

Minecraft is better than Roblox in about a hundred different ways. First of all, the graphics in minecraft fit together much better than the graphics in Roblox. Why do you play as a freaking lego minifigure? I mean, you have a round head and a square body. WHY?! Not only that, but the fact that your accessories disappear randomly. I’m not the only one to complain about this: https://forum.roblox.com.... Also, Roblox has an ultra-strict filtering system. Harmless words such as: idiot, stupid, and poop are CENSORED! This filtering system made talking too awkward and serious; I couldn’t express or be myself. Also, you can be banned for little to no reason. I was playing with my friends and said one of their buildings looked stupid. 1 DAY BANNED. Another time, I was BANNED for a week or so because someone falsely accused me of ‘sexual harassment.’ My friend actually got banned for a day for typing the word Minecraft. Finally, I’d like to mention the fact that you can play Minecraft offline.
mayor term should be extend up to 6 years

My opponent has not added anything to her argument. She only states that 2 extra years are not slight and doesn't prove to me that they are not (so my statement stands.) Again, I must point out to my opponent: If the people like the mayor, they can re elect him. Adding another 2 years (the population might have to endure a bad candidate for 2 extra years at some point...) doesn't seem necessary.
mayor term should be extend up to 6 years

The difference between 6 and 4 years is slight. Why, I ask my opponent, give the mayor an extra 2 years? Just because he is good to his people? If a mayor is doing good, then a re election should be no issue. A four year term is long enough for the mayor. It keeps him from getting too comfortable and keeps his power balanced with the terms and powers of other politicians in the city. Checks and balances.
Being a surgeon is better than being a physician

Well, That depends on the person. Although both physicians and surgeons help people by treating diseases or injuries, And both help diagnose them. Their are many reasons why I believe being a surgeon is a better choice. First of all, Surgeons get paid better than physicians. Secondly, Surgeons perform surgery while physicians don't, And I suppose surgery would be enjoyable to someone that likes working with their hands. But it all depends on the person to.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Oh, I misread it. Anyway, 4 days is still too long. You're insane. You're a social reformer who reforms in the wrong direction. We're not sending any kids to concentration camps for their whole childhood if they refuse to work in dusty mines for four days every year. That's a violation of freedom. You are a crazy person. If I had kids, I would not send them to work in the mines.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Excuse me, frankfurter50, I said 100 HOURS, which is just a bit over 4 days, in one year. I did not say kids have to work 100 DAYS out of the year. To answer your questions near the end of your second argument: No, the kids do not get paid. And, what is going on in my mind? I'm just being a social reformer. In case your are misinformed, I do not belong to the KKK or anything. Also, we are going to build gulags in every country for the people who are naughty or lazy. That's where kids who refuse to go work in the mines go. Kids who don't go work in the mines are sent to the gulags for the rest of their childhoods. Isn't that a good idea? Now I have 2 questions for you: 1. Are you a male or a female? 2. If you have kids, would you send them to work in the mines?
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Yes. Homework and school will always be the top priorities for kids in elementary, middle, and high school. However, when they are not at school and not doing homework, they are bored, so what should they do? The answers is pretty obvious; go to something productive to humanity and exercise! Thus, let's make all kids between the ages of 6 and 18 work 100 hours per year in the mines. To clarify, a year is determined by your birthday. My birthday is February 24, 1995, so my first year in the mines lasts from 2/24/2001 to 2/24/2002, my second year in the mines lasts from 2/24/2002 to 2/24/2003, and so forth, until my last year in the mines is from 2/24/2012 to 2/24/2013, and then I'm done with the mine job. Okay. Anyways, the alternative to working the mines should be sending to the gulags, because life will surely tough kids up there. Most gulags are concentrated in West Russia, so they can be near Chernobyl, Ukraine. As a West Russian myself, I believe that life in West Russia isn't really that bad as dumb Americans believe. The gulags are stereotypically abusive and harsh, but it's actually good for making kids tough, fit, and diligent. Also, I do not have kids. I am only 23 human years old. However, I will send my kids to work in the Russian mines IF I get married and have kids.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Yup, I accept, absolutely. Your claim is insane, sir. We are not going to revive child labor, it was one of the worst institutions in the history of mankind, equal to the institutions of slavery and warfare. You cannot make the claim that all kids are TV/video game addicted, nor can you claim that they deserve to be sent to hard labor as punishment for their addiction. A more logical solution to the problem of TV and video game addiction would be to train kids away from that stuff. We are never going to require all children between the ages of 6 and 18 to work 100 hours per year. Going to school and learning about the world is far more important. Might I also remind you, sir, that even hard labor for adults is rarely seen or practiced anymore, even for the most ruthless of murderers. It's seen as a sin to force somebody to work without paying them. If we don't make people in prison do it, we're certainly not going to make kids do it simply because they watch too much TV or video games. A time out would make a lot more sense. Might I also add, sir, that by saying the "only alternative" is to send kids off to the gulags, you're committing the false dilemma fallacy. Also, I think both of your solutions describe the conditions of gulags somewhat. I think you ought to go see a doctor, sir, and lie down on his couch for a while and tell him some things. Then you'll feel better. Black kids are not going to work for 130 hours per year in the mines , and neither are rich kids. Black kids do not deserve hard labor because they had to deal with it for two centuries of blood, and we are not going to punish rich kids because their parents are the ones who are succeeding in the economy and prolonging capitalism, not them. We are never going to revive the harsh conditions of child labor. You're crazy, off your rocker. Here, sir, is what I think your perfect utopian society will look like: https://pm1.narvii.com... Also, does your own kid go to work in the mines? Thank you. Let's have at it.
Kids should be forced to work in the mines

Well, here we are at debate #19 this year. Kids should work in the mines because they are overweight and TV/video game addicted. All kids between the ages of 6 and 18 should be required to work for 100 hours per year in the mines, and the only alternative is sending them to the gulags for the rest of their childhood. However, black kids should be forced to work 130 hours per year in the mines, and to prevent rich kids from being spoiled, they also to have work 130 hours per year in the mines. You will have 3 rounds to debate me, and you have an upper limit of 5000 characters per argument. Let's go!
One Sentence Debate

This round is mostly for fun; this is my second time doing this. First round is acceptance.Rules1. Can use only 1 (one) sentence in each round (after acceptance round)*2. No run-on sentences3. No profanity; keep it clean4. No personal attacks5. Sarcasm is allowed, as long as use of it doesn't violate rules #3 and #46. Failure to adhere to rules results in forfeiture.*If your opponent violates one of the rules, you are allowed to use more than one sentence to address it.Debate TopicHere are three possible debate topics. Con will decide which to use. Pro (me) will be for the topic and Con will be against it. Please say which topic we will be using. :-)1. Time is more valuable than money.2. School should be year round.3. Quality has been lost.Any questions? Ask in the comments!
Women working on deserts as engineers.

As Pro, I believe women can work in deserts as engineers. Most engineering firms evaluate the demands of the job and the employees for the position. If an experienced boss feels a woman could do the job, I see no reason why she shouldn't. Modern technology helps keep employees cool such as fans, tents for shade, and constant access to fresh water. Certain women could easily hold their ground against a man and do physical labor For these reasons, a woman could easily work as a desert engineer.
Women working on deserts as engineers.

Dear All, I am discussing on this argument about working women on deserts as engineer? Do you agree on working women in such environment where mostly there are men. And male stuff are covering more than 95%. And the job rotation is not daily where the stuff have to stay around two weeks or more. As well, the job nature is hard for female as it required physical effort and it is very hot most of the year. And it hotter with global warming. So, I kindly require your honest opinion about this sub ?
God exist - and he speaks to each and everyone of us through experiences and coincidences

"My opponent states this to discredit my claim that God is natural, and therefore to assert that God is not restrained by fundamental natural limitations." I apologize, my argument there was flawed. I concede that that was a poor argument. You still have not provided any evidence for your belief in the existence of god. I will concede that you have shown rational evidence for the natural deistic god over its theistic counterparts, but that is only evidence under the premise that god exists, which is not a premise of this debate. While I will not debate the existence of a theistic/deistic god, I will debate the god theorem in general. The problem with your argument is that you continue to accept the premise that a god exists. You have provided no evidence for the existence of any deity. I have taken several deistic arguments seen elsewhere on the web, and attempt to argue against them. 1) You cannot disprove the god hypothesis That is all that god is, an falsifiable hypothesis. However, one could make any number of these claims with as little evidence as they see fit. I could claim that I had a invisible giraffe that couldn't be heard, touched, smelt, or captured. Then anytime someone put forth evidence against it, I could change its properties to better fit its new scientific and logical boundaries. Such is the same with the deistic god that you propose. 2) The universe couldn't have been an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause argument has been used time and time again. The problem with this argument is that there are either a finite or infinite number of causes. If there are an infinite number of causes, then you cannot have a god, because there would be a cause before god, and therefore god would not be a god, simply a large being. If there are a finite number of causes, then you would most likely propose that god was the original cause, perhaps I am wrong. If the universe is a super complex place that demands a cause, god is a super complex being, a being so complex and intelligent that it too demands a cause. 3) Purpose to life Why does there have to be a purpose to life, why can't it just be random? I know its a hard truth to face, but in the end would you rather have a celestial bearded guy staring at you on the john, or know that this is it, and we should make the most of our time? I couldn't find any others. Good luck in the final round. I won't post any new arguments in round five. My main complaint is that you have provided no evidence for a god, just evidence for your god, under the premise that a god must exist.
At least 40% of Ed Milliband should be female, to be in line with political correctness.

"Companies should at least have 100% men running them. "It looks like we have a misogynist on our hands! Black Trans Lesbian Feminist Guards, cease him/her/xyr/preferred pronoun! "Like, honestly, women have a job to do. We're back at home making the whole world run. If you want the world to stop then just take us out of the homes and put us in corporations like that. If you want the world to go superman style and start reversing its rotation, switch gender roles. Unfortunately, it will not make time go backwards. We'll just all die. "This would be true, but everyone knows that when people say that womyn (Yes, I said womyn, that wasn't a spelling mistake. Look it up you White CisHet Transphobic Misogynists! ) make the world go round, it's just a saying. We know this because the world doesn't go round - it's flat - and the only reason gravity works is because the Earth is ascending at a constant rate (1). "So this is a terrible idea. If the world stops rotating, we die. Why? Because we'll all be crushed under the force of gravity. "Excuse me, we obviously cannot be crushed under the force of gravity, because gravity is underneath us. That's why they say Gravity pulls you down, not pushes you down. duh. "This is sexist. Hey, look, I'm not saying I don't appreciate chivalry, but you know I want the best for men too. "Oh dear. It looks like someone hasn't been attending all their/xhyr/preferred pronoun Gender Studies classes. What a misogynist, am I right, girls/boys/otherkins/preferred pronouns? "This law would have to assume that a company can even find enough women to make the board 40% women, and then what about board's that are like weird numbers that don't work? Are we going to through .45 of a woman in a seat and call it good? I hope that's a no. "No, what we're going to do is make Ed Milliband 40% female. I mean, if we can put a man/woman/otherkin/preferred pronoun on the moon, then why can't we make someone 40% female, am I right? "Anyway, how about we give my opponent a round of applause for attempting to be politically correct, and then it would be super awesome and nice of you to give me a round of applause and maybe a vote when this is all done. Please do that actually. Both of them. Thank you. "Err, excuse me - why does it have to be round? Why are you supressing me with society's impossible standards? Why can't I be whatever shape I like? Oh, help me, (perhaps with a vote and a £10 gift card) I feel so oppressed! :((1) . http://theflatearthsociety.org...
At least 40% of Ed Milliband should be female, to be in line with political correctness.

I would love to thank my good friend KingDebater for instigating this important and critical topic. Anyway, onto my assert... I mean... arguments, shall we? No answer? Okay, that's what I like to hear. 1) Companies should at least have 100% men running them. Like, honestly, women have a job to do. We're back at home making the whole world run. If you want the world to stop then just take us out of the homes and put us in corporations like that. If you want the world to go superman style and start reversing its rotation, switch gender roles. Unfortunately, it will not make time go backwards. We'll just all die. 2) So this is a terrible idea. If the world stops rotating, we die. Why? Because we'll all be crushed under the force of gravity. 3) This is sexist. Hey, look, I'm not saying I don't appreciate chivalry, but you know I want the best for men too. I love my boyfriend, and other guys are alright I guess, but the point is that men should be able to do what they do best (which is businessing and politicking and stuff). 4) This law would have to assume that a company can even find enough women to make the board 40% women, and then what about board's that are like weird numbers that don't work? Are we going to through .45 of a woman in a seat and call it good? I hope that's a no. Anyway, how about we give my opponent a round of applause for attempting to be politically correct, and then it would be super awesome and nice of you to give me a round of applause and maybe a vote when this is all done. Please do that actually. Both of them. Thank you.
At least 40% of Ed Milliband should be female, to be in line with political correctness.

In the 2010 Green Party General Election manifesto, it was proposed that 40% of board members of larger companies should be required to be female within five years (1).We all know that all the establishment parties are exactly the same, and tha of course, we need as much political correctness as possible (question that and you're a racist!), so these sorts of policies should be in the labour party.The labour party does not apologize for using quotas (2). After all, it's only sexist when it benefits men, duh.You cannot get higher up than the leader of a party, so it only makes sense to say that at least 40% of Ed Milliband should be female. (1) http://www.greenparty.org.uk...(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Islam Is a Religion of Peace

I apologize to my opponent and those who looked forward to this debate. As my opponent explained, we will continue. I do however, wish to submit myself in humility to my mistake and ask the voters to grant my opponent a victory in this debate. Thus far I am undefeated, a title which I hardly find suitable if I cannot engage my opponent with enough fervor to be "on time".Forfeiture with continuation in second debate.
Islam Is a Religion of Peace

I know you might get tired of me doing these debates, but of the three I have done, all three have had forfeits by my opponents. Besides, my opponent appears to be a worthy adversary to debate. Full Resolution: Islam is a religion that preaches peace. Definitions: Islam: "Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God."[1] Peace: "Freedom from or the cessation of war or violence."[2] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals). Round 3: Rebuttals of opponent's arguments(no new arguments). Round 4: Defending your original arguments(again, no new arguments). Round 5: Conclusion (just summarize your arguments and the flaws in your opponent's arguments, no new arguments, max 2500 characters). By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the full resolution, definitions, rules, and debate structure. Please make this debate clean and mannerly. May the best debater win. Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:https://www.google.com...
Ban on semi automatic rifles.

Uh-oh! Might wanna turn on email reminders bro! So ya, assault rifles --we don't want crazy people and mean people having them. This means we must stop allowing them to be sold liberally in the streets (funny coming from a liberal, yes?). We have to actually put laws on the books, so when people or agencies "lose" weapons they can be held responsible for violating laws, rather than some simple charge like negligence. Our police should be working to keep unregistered guns and assault rifles out of the hands of criminals, instead of harassing teens for drug use (in fact, legalize drugs and you'll get rid of half of the guns). I'm on tangent now, but my opponent forfeited, so really I am just talking to myself. Or am I typing to myself? Am I supposed to answer that?
Ban on semi automatic rifles.

Please forgive me if I set something up wrong, this is literally the first debate that I have done on here. This topic is of great interest to me as well. My first argument is there are not a lot of murders committed with this particular type of weapon. According to the FBI (. http://www.fbi.gov...) there were a total of 322 deaths from rifles of all types (bolt action and semi automatic). This is the least used firearm type for murder. My second argument is that the causes of murder will not change and therefore the weapon of choice does not matter. Again going off the table I posted above from the FBI, there were a total of 12,765 murders in 2012 (only 2.5% were killed by the use of a rifle). Of those murders 4,378 were result of gang killings, prison killings, arguments, babysitters killing children, and drugs and alcohol. Banning a weapon probably will not stop these especially the one that are committed because some on lost their temper. My third argument is that the United States did have an "assault" weapons ban in the 1990"s that expired in 2000. According to the FBI (. http://www.fbi.gov...) there was a decrease in crimes once the ban was lifted. The numbers are in per 100,000 people In 1995 violent crimes were at 684.5 In 2012 violent crimes were at 386.9 There was a decrees of 307.6 occurrences. In 1995 murder was 9.5 In 2012 murder was 4.7 there were 4.8 less murders In 1995 rape was at 37.1 In 2012 rape was 26.9 10.2 less In 1995 robbery was 220.9 In 2012 robbery was 12.9 108 less In 1995 Assaults were at 418.3 In 2012 it was 242.3 176 less In 1995 Burglary was 987.0 in 2012 Burglary was 670.2 316.8 less
Ban on semi automatic rifles.

Hello JMC! Thanks for posting this, as it is a topic of particular interest to me. Since you're opening was brief, I will not offer rebuttals at this time, and will begin in the same manner. I disagree that a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles would be ineffective in preventing deaths which occur at the hands of these weapons. I would also like to add that it seems this debate will have to rely mostly upon presumption, contradicting statistics, and personal experience. We can't really gauge the effectiveness or non of something we haven't done yet (and gun control can't be likened to prohibition, because most people can't build a gun in their home. Not sure if you were gonna go there. :-)