BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm going to eat this cupcake.

Clearly you haven't eaten this cupcake. It's still on my table. It's still looking really delicious with its purple sprinkles, white frosting, and a bright golden star on top. Allow me to tell you why I deserve this cupcake in a few brief points.1. My Younger BrotherYou know what this jerk did? My younger brother Cody came down the stairs and tore open this six pack of cupcakes. He ate all of them except this last one. I hate to chase him off with a mop caked in grit and dirt. It made him cough and gag and he threw up all the cupcakes! Now all the pre chewed little bits of my cupcakes are being flushed down a rancid smelling toilet. That's disgusting. I need this last cupcake to avenge the other five.2. It's my Cheat DayI haven't had anything unhealthy and sweet in three weeks! I've been eating pre-prepared salads from a gas station that tastes like motor oil. I have to wash it down in asparagus smoothie. Ever have asparagus smoothie? It's disgusting! I had to lose 20 pounds for my best friend's wedding to fit into this damn suit, and now I want to enjoy a freaking cupcake. Is that too much to ask?3. I Bought this CupcakeDo you have any idea how much this six pack of cupcakes cost? Eighty dollars. It's a complete sack of crap that I paid $80 for 6 cupcakes that I can't even have. This is going to be the most expensive damn cupcake I've ever had. I don't even have enough money for textbooks now for college because I wasted them on this cupcake. So you know what? YOLO. I deserve this.You can't convince me otherwise...I want this damn cupcake.
I'm going to eat this cupcake.

I have a cupcake. You have 2,000 characters to convince me not to eat this cupcake. Whatever side makes the more creative and compelling argument should be voted the winner.Rules:-Con may start his argument first round-Do not cite anything, must be completely creative-This is not a serious debate; have fun with it.-Con may either argue he/she deserves the cupcake more or that I shouldn't eat the cupcake-Be creative!Pro will argue that I'm going to eat this cupcake. Con will attempt to argue me out of it.
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

Look the Occam's Razor theory is something I now no of and completely understand. You have no evidence that there not real. All you have relied on is this law all the way through the argument and not actually stated why they don't exist. I cannot remember you once saying in this argument your assumptions ' Illuminati Triangle boosts sales'. I didn't say the music industry knows about it I implied that they might meaning your theory would then be a so called 'draw'. You've repeated the same thing over and over without sting actual facts about the group and their no existence.
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

This is becoming more of a kritic debate than anything else. Oh well. . "we have no proof if it still exists or if it does not" - Yes and no. We have no proof of it's existance, yet I have presented proof of it's non-existance. "why would so many links be found in today[']s world[? ]" (grammer courtesy of mfigurski) - Links such as? If you had at least found several of these "links", I may have even attempted to rebut them. You mentioned the music industry in Round 1. This "Illuminati Triangle" is popular because it attracts customers seeking inclusion into a secret. Again, use the Law of Parsimony. You assume that the (a) Illuminati exist and (b) that the music industry knows about it. I assume (a) that the Illuminati Triangle boosts sales. You have two assumptions, I only one. Therefore, according to the Law of Parsimony, I must be correct. "You've not really gone into any depth on the theory and how it proves me wrong. " - On the LAW, I "haven't gone into any depth on the LAW". And yes I have. Check out my first and only argument in Round 2. You might have missed it, I bet there was a lot of text around it and it was long and boring. I completely understand if you skipped over it the first time. Please read that now though. "it may be a scientific law but you've no exactly provided 'CONCRETE EVIDENCE'" - It doesn't have to be concrete, as no rules state that it has to be neither tangible. If you'd check the link on the bottom of my Third Round. .. yes, the Wikipedia one. .. you'd find a website titled "Scientific Evidence". SummaryI really don't understand this user's unproven and naive belief in the Illuminati. PRO has provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE save a made up story without backing and a mild reference to the music industry. I have used a tested and proven scientific LAW as evidence of Illuminati's non-existance, and PRO has only managed to call it phony and say it doesn't count, though there is no rules against logical evidence. PRO gave no sources, and I've had to correct spelling while creating quotes in order to not be penalized for this by voters.
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

Look the illuminati is a real, legitimate organisation that existed and we have no proof if it still exists or if it does not. I believe it does as why would so many links be found in todays world. You've not really gone into any depth on the theory and how it proves me wrong. Yes it may be a scientific law but you've not exactly provided ' CONCRETE EVIDENCE' that they don't exist have you?
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

I don't think you read my argument correctly. Even if it was just a theory, it would still disprove you. But it is much more than a theory. A LAW, something that has undergone trial from mulitple groups of scientists over the span of (how many did you say?) hundreds of years and has proved right in every regard, says that the ILLUMINATI does not exist.I have found CONCRETE EVIDENCE (LAW'S count) as to the Illuminati's non-existance, while my partner has provided an ample story that wisely misses details without any proof to back it up. There is literally nothing to rebut.(http://dictionary.reference.com...)(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

Occam's Razor is just completely of subject, trying to prove me wrong with a theory from hundreds of years ago, which I'm not saying is wrong but I don't believe it is in this argument. You called the Illuminati 'baloney' with 'no truth behind it'. Well in actual fact it was founded in 1776 by a German by the name of Adam Weishaupt. As secretive as it is now as it was back then, the Illuminati can be spotted all over the music industry. From pop stars gesturing the famous Illuminati sign (which by the way does not really have anything in common with the group besides the actual eye it's self), to lyrics in their songs it's literally everywhere you look. It's also found in their music videos as well to increase the fact that they exist. But well you may say, if they were so secretive why would they demand singers to effectively advertise their organisation to the whole world? This is because if people didn't do this then who would actually know about the Illuminati and if they actually existed. They are still a secretive organisation. You finish your argument with 'So, according to the OCCAM's RAZOR, the ILLUMINATI DO NOT EXIST'. That undermines your question. This means according to one theory they don't exist. ONE THEORY. It appears you need more 'concrete proof' as you would say.
The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

MAIN POINT:It's called the "Occam's Razor", sometimes reffered to as the Law of Parsimony. This law states that "among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected"Let me lay this out for you. My partner's hypothesis is as follows: "The group known as illuminati do exist and are responsible for various acts of terrorism."Notice that my partner's theory assumes only one thing:the existance of IlluminatiMY hopothesis is this: "The Illuminati "theory" is a bunch of baloney with no truth behind it, and all of it's supposed acts of terrorism can be explained much more easily."I assume nothing, as something's dis-existance doesn't have to be assumed (especially if one side doesn't provide concrete proof) and their "acts" can be explained otherwise through easier channels.So, according to the OCCAM's RAZOR, the ILLUMINATI DO NOT EXIST(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...;
People should NOT own guns

Okay, what about the rest of the points I just made? You literally responded to only one thing I said.... If you are going to instigate a debate, you are generally required to exhibit your stance on the subject in all aspects. But W/E. You can't just trust people to be responsible though. Think about all those people who were murdered during columbine. and teh batman shooting. Just because on person was not responsible, lots of people had to die. If there was no guns in the first place, this would never be a problem.Why shouldn't we expect people to be responsible? Anybody who enters a vehicle, holds a small child in their hand, or weilds a kitchen knife is expected to be responsible. All of those options have the possibility of turning deadly. Should we ban all of those things under the principal that someone could go crazy and go on a killing spree? The way society operates, is to raise people to stray away from doing this. With that said, someone crazy enough to kill multiple people, obviously has an intention. They could do the same with or without a weapon. They could easily turn any form of material into a weapon to kill multiple people. Also what about the black market? Do you think banning guns from everyone would literally just shut the system down for everyone? How do you suppose people got ahold of drugs for so many years? And lastly, do you think that if even one of those people in the columbine shooting, or the batman shooting had a gun, that they might have been able to stop the killer before he did more damage?I ask the voters, vote con, given there are many loopholes in my opponents "argument", and my opponent made a baseless, emotional based argument.Thankyou.
People should NOT own guns

The instigator for this debate didn't make a case, so I will outlnie a few principles based on his assertion.Whoever accepts this will have to prove how guns are helpful Since you are instigating this debate, it is your responsibility to prove how each one of the following "aren't helpful".1. Guns are a means for defense2. With the black market, Guns will be available to criminals anyway, making the world more dangerous for those who cannot defend themselves.3. Owning a gun requires responsibilty. Only those who prove to be irresponsible should have their weapons taken away. 4. You didn't make a case, but what about law enforcement? Do you think they ought to have weapons to defend themselves?I'll await your response.
single payer health care is optimal health care system

con cites lots of figures but does nothing to put them into perspective. con ignores when i did.... we spend eighteen percent on health care per GDP and other single payer countires spend ten percent. insurance spends thirty percent of income on profit and administration, while medicare spends less than five on administration. "advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers" payroll taxes." medicare is not a lot of a person's pay roll tax. if people can't afford to have insurance with medicare, that is their own problem and nothing to do with medicare. they should be happy they have medicare. con says it's "existing rules" that cause some to not be able to afford it, but he doesn't say what rules or explain himself. con has a point that the government could and should negotitate to get lower prices. con says people would be forced to give up their doctor relationship with singe payer. but they dont have to with medicare. they dont even have to take medicare, if they dont want, and if they want additional services, they can pay extra.
single payer health care is optimal health care system

lack of perspective. you cite the billions spent on medicare, but dont show any way that means anything. our budget is like 15 trillion. a few billion is not a lot of money. and the bottomline, is medicare pays for itself with payroll taxes, that are not that high, and gives healthcare to all elderly. "A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the 20th century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences." all countries have new technologies. why do we spend more? because of administrative costs of insurance companeis as a large reason. bottomline, is that GDP is compariong apples to apples among nations, and we spend a lot more. "According to the Congressional Budget Office, profits account for less than 3 percent of private health insurance premiums." do you have a source for this? you may have a compelling point, but it needs to counteract the fact they spend 30% on adminstrative costs adn profit. "Moreover, all else is not equal. Government programs typically keep administrative expenditures low by avoiding activities like utilization or claims review. Yet avoiding those activities increases overall costs." you showed how there are excesses by medicare, but haven't put it in perspective, to show how much private insurance saves as a percentage of what it spends in quality control. you may have a real point here but it needs more persepctive. a bottomline, as the initial congressional budget office data i cited in the first round shows, we can cover people with less spending than already occurs with single payer. that would mean my resolution is probably true that we should switch to single payer. we might be able to go even cheaper with a tightly regualted insurnace market like obamacare with regulation, but that remains to be seen? con posits that private insurance is more efficient, so something like obamacare would be necessary to cover everyone, id assume. out of curiosity, what healthcare situation do you con propose? no governemnt intervebntion and every man for himself? or do you have some sort of idea? and if you dont propose insuring all are covered, but had to pick a way to do so, what would it be?
America needs a strong immigration policy and must deport all illegal immigrants.

"Really? Prove it. Also, " Sure, Look up asylum laws, There proven. Sources don't work here because it breaks the website. So I'll just appeal to voters to look up asylum laws. It specifically list the steps of seeking asylum. It's very straightforward. 1. Enter the country 2. Apply. There are a few other steps after that, But nowhere does it say that you're disqualified based on how you enter. "If it is legal to cross the border and then go register with immigration, Then why do the US officials deport them? " They didn't until recently when a certain nameless president came along who doesn't know how asylum laws work. Immigrants who are here under asylum can be deported for violations so the government can pull them into court at any time on something as simple as a traffic ticket when citizens can sometimes get away with murder in this country. The fact is, We're already handling the situation appropriately and a false problem has been created by our brown skin feeling administration. Is it too late to get George Washington back? Your floor
America needs a strong immigration policy and must deport all illegal immigrants.

Alright, I have retrieved all the statistics and information. This time, However, I want you to prove your point. " It's legal to cross the border as long as you immediately go register with immigration, Which most immigrants do. " Really? Prove it. Also, "The ones who don't get deported. " If it is legal to cross the border and then go register with immigration, Then why do the US officials deport them?
America needs a strong immigration policy and must deport all illegal immigrants.

They already have a strong immigration policy. You just don't know what an illegal immigrant is. Immigrants who come here under asylum laws are not illegal. There is no such thing as "illegally crossing the border" It's legal to cross the border as long as you immediately go register with immigration, Which most immigrants do. The ones who don't get deported. The system already works. So what's your problem with it?
The Cold War Never Ended

As this is the last round please note this is the closing arguments.“And with the fall of the Soviet Union many thought America was the undisputed super power to follow or pay the price. However: Russian never felt that they lost. They felt they were down and were anticipating greatly to get up. Knowing quite a few Russian friends, I can confirm this. And even Vladimir Putin agrees:http://townhall.com.........IIn fact, the current crisis in Ukraine just proves Russia is thirsty to have a bigger say in world politics. So the cold war was much more than that.”My opponent seems to think that my statement means the US won the war, whereas it states that they've won the battle but not the war. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it was Germany Vs Poland, then later France And UK vs Germany. Does that mean the invasion of Poland was a separate war? No. It was a battle won, but the war was not over. The Cold War in the 60s for example was a battle won, but the war was not over.The war was essentially for influenceMy opponent also seems to think that the war was also about purely communism. It wasn't. Just like nuclear missiles where used to spread (or fear nations into) influence from either side, Ideologies in the cold war did play a big part. But in the end it was about spreading influence, and ideologies were a way to spread it. And even in communist states like China, yes they currently run a capitalist economy, but they are clearly trying to turn into a communist one slowly, as they know turning into one out of no where would end them up like the Soviet Union.Switching sides does not mean the war is over or is even a new warIn World War II Italy left the Axis and joined the allies. Just like how terrorists today have left the Americans however joined their own side to make it a three sided conflict. When Italy left the Axis, does that mean WW II stopped and immediately began a new war? No it doesn't. Just like how terrorists left the Americans.
The Cold War Never Ended

Pro states: “And with the fall of the Soviet Union many thought America was the undisputed super power to follow or pay the price. However: Russian never felt that they lost. They felt they were down and were anticipating greatly to get up. Knowing quite a few Russian friends, I can confirm this. And even Vladimir Putin agrees: http://townhall.com...... IIn fact, the current crisis in Ukraine just proves Russia is thirsty to have a bigger say in world politics. So the cold war was much more than that.” This indicates to Con the Cold War did in fact end, despite rhetoric embraced by Putin and subsequent leaders that the collapse of the USSR was akin to some kind of temporary setback. The Cold War did end, the former USSR opened up, became a market economy rather than a command economy as it once had been. Even though Pro claims the recent conflict in Ukraine “proves Russia is thirsty to have a big say in world politics,” such statements do not prove the Cold War never ended. The Cold War did end, and Russia is simply trying to maintain influence over areas it has historically exercise power over. The Cold War did end Communism: Russia is an authoritarian state that has adopted capitalism Vietnam, which Pro states lost to Communism, is communist in name only. Even The Economist magazine noted in a recent editorial are "ardently capitalist communists" [1]. The same designation is true of China, where an array of western products like the IPhone is manufactured. Why the War on Terror illustrates the Cold War end: The War on Terror is a direct conflict that involves direct intervention between the United States and non-state actors in failed states. Now, it could be the case “Cold War never ended” only if all the groups responsible for attacking western state received funding from Russia, intelligence, and direct training. However, unlike the proxy wars characteristic of the Cold War, where the United States funded Afghan rebels to deter the Soviet Union, this dimension is absent in current conflict. [1] "A bit of everything: Vietnam's quest for role models".The Economist (London). 24 April 2008. Retrieved 8 September 2014
The Cold War Never Ended

With the forfeiture, I will extend the arguments from Round 1. But let me add a couple of points relevant to the debate. In Round 1 Pro state in argument two: Terrorists are fighting the Cold war in the so-called War on Terrorism Con’s rebuttal: Con does not understand this argument but will still attempt to persuade you the Cold War and Terrorist fighting the War on Terror share little resemblance. The War on Terror is by all accounts a “hot” war. By “hot” war, I mean direct attacks countered retaliation from the other side. The “Cold War” was cold because it did not involve a long-term direct conflict between the United States. Additionally, the “Cold War” involved a bi-polar conflict between two states. The War on Terror involves non-state actors, launching attacks from failed states with no central authority (Yemen, Afghanistan, [western] Pakistan, ISIS (Syrian border), Libya, etc.). Furthermore, the Cold War was global while the War on Terror is regional, limited to the Middle East. The fact that the Cold War was an ideological battle over competing ideologies, capitalist pluralistic democracies and communist autocracies makes it different from the War on Terror. The War on Terror and terrorism is a political method only. Russia is dividing Europe and the world by invading Crimea in Ukraine creating a threat to the EU and U.S.A Con’s Rebuttal: First, Con would like to point out Russia invading former Soviet states and maintaining influence in Eastern Europe bears little resemblance to the USSR and its expansionists approach bent on world domination, including Latin America, Western Europe (East Germany), South East Asia, etc. Besides that, Pro did not explain how Russia poses a threat to the United States. Are you going to use nukes? Over what? The middle eastern uprisings is a direct result of America fiddling around and cooping nations in the region. And these nations are now siding with the Russians (E.G. Egypt). Con’s Rebuttal: Con does not understand the purported logic in this argument either. However, Pro’s logic seems to link countries’ sympathies for Russia and “America fiddling around” but then fails to demonstrate we reach the conclusion: the Cold War never ended. When did Egypt side with Russia? The US provides direct military and foreign aid to Egypt, not to mention our support for their military regime. Now Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran support Russia and have in the past because if they didn’t the US would more likely than not, invade, and overthrow their governments. With that said, it is hard to figure out how the main proposition shows the Cold War never ended.