BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Troll Debate: Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber are Secretly a Gay Couple

Many thanks to clownthebubba for his counter-rebuttals Rebuttals:Such LogoPro claims that Larry leaning his head against Bob makes them a gay couple. This is many fallacious. such wrong. not wow. Anyway, it's wrong because one time.... I saw these two guys leaning against one another and I walked up to them very cautiously and said, "are you g-guys g-g-g-g-g-gay?" They said no. This proves that fruits and vegetables from a dumb, Ron Paul worshipping, Christian TV show are not gay.many Romantic InterestExactly, Pro. You dismiss the alternative of them being asexual. The possibility exists.... your original argument was a false dilemma.quite Madame BlueberryMy opponent claims that I should look up the sombrero song. I refuse. My opponent is trying to rape me. Rape = trying to get someone to have sex with you through force and coercion.... my opponent tries to employ the rape tactic. I will not stand for this. And besides, I wear dresses and I'm not gay, at least I hope not. such Voices. not very wowMy opponent claims that Wikipedia is probably not a reliable source. However, for this claim to hold true, he must show me some scientific evidences. Thanks. He then says that Bustin Jeiber has a really high-pitched voice so he is also gay. But, this is simply an ad hominem towards Hitler and French Jews. Y u do dis? ;-; He then cites the yodeling song, but doesn't present any scientific evidence. Now please. thanks.Nudity 4 Doge pls"You said that their nudity somehow does not mean that they're gay. Then what does it mean, that they like walking around naked?"Possibly. You have dismissed this alternative outright and you shouldn't have. Thanks. "Also, they don't need external reproductive organs because they've got seeds inside." Get a load of this guy. ^ I have seeds inside from the watermelon I ate today and yet, I need an external reproductive organ, i.e, my member. lel."Of course, they never try to have kids because it means somebody would have to dig a big hole in them."Good. It's for the best.... God is great. Vote Con if you love God. :*no Prostitutes for me pls"Don't their faces look like they're wearing makeup?" Maybe. However, my opponent never the fact that leaning doesn't exist. As covered in my acceptance round. Shut up, Tina! You fat lard! 'There are plenty of "gay Christians" out there who believe that their lifestyle is compatible with Biblical teachings, ignoring such Bible verses. Perhaps Bob and Larry are among these."Yes, but they are not true Christians. "True christians do not engage in the same behavior as the homogays, who should be stoned. A true Christians hates homogays and eats dirt and lives in a hut for 40 days to come closer to God. Jesus loves you is a nice motion in church, it is a nightmare in prison. Vote Con." -Jesus
Troll Debate: Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber are Secretly a Gay Couple

Logo: They don't have digestive systems, so they cannot drink this "purple drank." I was referring to the fact that Larry is leaning his head against Bob, as if they're a couple. Lack of Interest in Female Vegetables: My opponent suggests that they are asexual. This makes no sense; they couldn't be gay if they were asexual. Madame Blueberry Quote: I believe my source to be quite reliable. However, if you still need more proof of Bob and Larry's gayness, Google the "Sombrero Song" and you'll find that Larry is seen wearing a dress. That should be proof enough, I believe. Haven't you heard all those fancy dressed Liberal college professors speak? Kissing guys is more normal than kissing girls, dude! Of course they're healthy! High Pitch Voices: You cited Wikipedia, which can be edited at will. However, this still does not excuse their high pitch voices. Do you know who else has a high pitched voice? Justin Bieber, and it's commonly known that he's gay. Then, take the Yodeling Song. That sounded really gay. Nudity: You said that their nudity somehow does not mean that they're gay. Then what does it mean, that they like walking around naked? Also, they don't need external reproductive organs because they've got seeds inside. Of course, they never try to have kids because it means somebody would have to dig a big hole in them. More Proof: Don't their faces look like they're wearing makeup? There are plenty of "gay Christians" out there who believe that their lifestyle is compatible with Biblical teachings, ignoring such Bible verses. Perhaps Bob and Larry are among these.
Troll Debate: Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber are Secretly a Gay Couple

Before I begin, you'd probably ask, "if it's true, why's it a secret?" Here's why: A. Veggietales is a Christian show (even today), and Christianity views homosexuality as a sin, B. No kids show that I know of portrays homosexuality, even in our increasingly gay-tolerant culture. Evidence 1. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org... If you look at the the Big Idea logo, you can see that Larry is leaning on Bob, as a romantic couple might lean against each other. Evidence 2. They've never married or shown romantic interest in any female vegetables, despite occasionally pretending to do so for various Veggietales productions, such as "Larryboy" and "Duke and the Pie War." Evidence 3. Taken from transcript from Veggietales episode "Madame Blueberry:" [Bob and Larry are crying] Bob: Oh that was beautiful! Larry: Hold me Bob! Bob: I would if I could. http://en.wikiquote.org... You can't get much more gay than being a guy who wants another guy to hold you when you're crying. Evidence 4. Larry has a high pitch voice, and even Bob's voice sounds a tad too high to be normal. Evidence 5. Both Bob and Larry are completely naked when around each other, except perhaps during the productions, such as Larry Boy. Pro has made his case. During his/her turn, I ask Con to: A. Keep it (relatively) clean B. DO NOT forfeit I await my opponent's rebuttal
space is an intangetable reality

Knowledge of genetic predisposition to future illness and disability creates uncertainties that shape and influence life decisions about reproduction, career, health behavior, and the need for care. Current research has not yet identified the meaning of the experience of feeling uncertain among intimate partners of persons who have received genetic information pertaining to future health status. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the meaning of uncertainty as a lived experienced among intimate partners of persons who have tested positive for a mutation in the gene causing Huntington disease (HD) but have not yet been clinically diagnosed with HD. The specific aims were to create a rich, vivid description of uncertainty as experienced by this population and to present these findings within an existential phenomenological perspective. Using van Manen"s hermeneutic-phenomenological methodology, experiential descriptions from 10 intimate partners of persons in the prodromal phase of HD were obtained. Thematic aspects of the lived experience of uncertainty were uncovered and isolated; essential themes were determined; and linguistic transformations were composed. The analysis revealed four essential themes, indicating that the meaning of the lived experience of uncertainty was 1) an intangible reality characterized by 2) anticipating with ebbing and flowing disquietude while feeling 3) a weighty pull to dwell upon, towards inner turmoil and 4) a subdued presence with freeing possibilities. The implications of these findings are that nurses need to ensure adequate opportunity is created in which the meaning of the lived experience of uncertainty can be ascertained and explored among persons who are on the cusp of the inevitable but not yet graspable. Continued research is needed to further address the implications of being situated in this potentially fracturing phase of the disease trajectory and to determine appropriate interventions.
the Script. teach water baptism is to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins.

To cut the long story short, my opponent believes that the bible teaches baptism is a resultative requirement of salvation, meaning "if you are saved you will be baptised while I believe that the bible teaches that Baptism is essential to salvation.My Rebuttal: Example1) As i have said in the first argument "Tell us what kind of believers are under consideration! Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?"Example2) Again, my opponent showed similarity of Greek meaning and literal meanings betwween Luke 7 and 8. Again "Tell us what kind of believers are under consideration! Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?"Example 3) Same with example 1 and 2Example4) In the first place i do not approve salvation by works, i have already clarified that: 3. That we are not saved by the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).4. That we are not saved by man's own righteousness (Tit. 3:5).AND I ALREADY CLARIFIED IN MY FIRST ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. I'll discuss further of the necessity of baptism next round. And I expect my opponent to rebut my first argument. Sorry if this rebuttal seems to be lacking, it's because of lack of time. But we will be debating more thoroughly next round.
Resolved- Direct popular votes should replace electoral votes.

===Rebuttals=== My opponents main point is that it hurts the majority. My position is: so what? It's not the people that elect the president, rather the states. The constitution supports this point. We only should change the system if it has some downfall legally. So I have two objections. First, America is a republican form of democracy. Having a majority rule is not needed in our system, and never should be. A republic exists just too be an alternative too democracy. It was made so we are not abused by the mob. It exists to protect the rights of the minority, not the majority [1]. Second, states elect the president not the people. The constitution notes, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."[2] It's not 51% of us choose, rather the electors choose. Vote Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.archives.gov...
Resolved- Direct popular votes should replace electoral votes.

Because I don't want to give away too much about my case- I will only be using one point because anyone reading this could easily be my next match. My first and only contention is that the Electoral College only takes the ideas of a few- not the public in general. "The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. " because I agree with the New York Times i agree that the electoral college has got to go. According to a 2012 poll, 23 out of the 50 states are leaning toward democratic or republican just by a 10% increase, which wastes many votes. "…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. "- Robert Dahl, editor of On Democracy. Since we have the Electoral College, not everyone's vote is considered equal. For states such as Texas who usually automatically lean towards the republican side since 1976, democrats in Texas will basically have no voice.
The type of afterlife seems irrational when considering ghosts, and heaven.

The idea of the table/spirit is confined in the corpse of the tree for your analogy, to make it seem less likely that a tree would innately have a spirit, when the idea of human a spirit gets to float around and disperse. subtle The tree scenario seems akin to saying, if i cut off my arm would that be my spirit. Ghosts are said to be you in your best form that's why it's personalized, if my brain was torn into 50 pieces are there 50 ghosts. Ghosts don't disperse, but Dead bodies Deteriorate.
The type of afterlife seems irrational when considering ghosts, and heaven.

Up until now I had never heard of Animism, but if a tree has a spirit, does the table it become also have that spirit? I also think you are giving ghosts a very personalized appeal, such as Casper the friendly ghost. If there are indeed ghosts, then they may be nothing more than dissipating energy from a living being, with no meaning or purpose than to just float and disperse. Most of what we believe about ghosts and heaven are just a human's tendency to put a face on things we cant explain.
The type of afterlife seems irrational when considering ghosts, and heaven.

Me being an atheist, I find any thought other than non-existence after death to be a flight of fancy. I don't believe in a heaven, and I'd like to say I don't believe in ghosts. Science tells us anything we cannot prove to exist or not is not considered science, but there are many things that science cannot measure that we still find to be very real, such as the consciousness, art, and other very subjective items. In the same way, heaven and ghosts fall into this same category.
The type of afterlife seems irrational when considering ghosts, and heaven.

I would like the opportunity to openly refute the idea of heaven, and ghosts. My grounds for refuting such are based on points that should sway a rational mind. Feel free to jump right in, I would like to strike preemptively and say the argument of us all being aloof to reality, as logic at it's base is relative, only works in my favor. Thus pointing out that value is an illusion, such a relative existence would undermine individual values and replace such with a myriad of causal contingencies.
This house would ban the smoking of cigarettes

Okay, so I've escentially addressed why smoking is biased and how it's over blown in my last round, so this round I'll be focused on uncovering the shocking truth on second hand smoking. I'll be brief though to be fair for my opponent. A recent study done by the National Cancer Institute found that out of 76,000 women that there is NO significant link between second hand smoking and cancer. “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm." [1] Here we can see that these effects are minisuel and when we apply to what I shown last round we can see that this is entirely over blown now. Sources1. ( http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org...)
This house would ban the smoking of cigarettes

In the motion this house would ban the smoking of cigarettes: What I mean is that the smoking of cigarettes should be completely prohibited. To smoke is to emit "a suspension of particles in a gas." The objective of this house is to prove that we should indeed ban the smoking of cigarettes with the central question that is "Should we ban the smoking of cigarettes? This house says yes; we should ban the smoking of cigarettes. The proposition gives out two reasons on why we should ban cigarettes, namely: I.) Smoking is dangerous for everyone. II.) Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Aside from that, there is also the fact that smoking is preventable. I. Smoking is dangerous for everyone. Smoke coming from smoking cigarettes is extremely dangerous, and it affects people around a smoker the smoker himself. It is said by the national cancer institute that cigarettes contain over 7000 chemicals, 250 of which are deadly and at least 69 cause cancer, some of these cancer-causing chemicals include the following : Acetaldehyde, Aromatic amines, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo[^5;]pyrene, Beryllium (a toxic metal), 1,3"Butadiene (a hazardous gas), Cadmium (a toxic metal), Chromium (a metallic element),Cumene, Ethylene oxide, Formaldehyde, Nickel (a metallic element), Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, Vinyl chloride. This matters as we are guaranteed the safest possible environment by the government, and with such dangerous chemicals polluting our air, the cleanest possible environment cannot be achieved without the banning of smoking. Therefore, we must ban smoking. II. Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Second-hand smoke does not discriminate. It will not choose to slowly kill the smoker, nor will it choose to not let itself into a bystander's lungs, and this is the problem. All people in all places have the right to health, this, according to the UN, means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Second hand smoke generated from cigarettes however, directly violate this right by contributing to making an unhealthy environment, an environment that from which a lot of people die from. In this case, governments have to ensure healthier environments around the world starting with the ban of smoking. Data provided by the WHO, for example, shows that more than 600,000 premature deaths occur every year just from exposure to second-hand smoke, and more than 5 million from direct smoking. In other words, the right to health of innocent bystanders are being offended by smokers, this is why the proposition strongly believes that it is an uttermost responsibility for governments to ban smoking.
Life is better then it was 50 years ago

I would first like to state that I live in England and I'm a History student so I know what was going on 50 years ago in Europe and America because I've studied them. But if you would really like me to stick to America... THE SPACE RACE I would like to address two of your concerns, kill them both with one stone so to speak. First of all, the 1960's was a time of exciting space exploration for America and the satellites that were being launched were powered by solar energy. So yes, that kind of thing was popular in 1964. The excitement of the space age for most people who were only really starting to become aware of the merits of science proves that America was a much more desirable place to live in 50 years ago than now. Technologically, not much has changed in fifty years, but there is a lot more stress in society now. Thank you for agreeing with me that minorities in Europe are not all better off now than they were 50 years ago. For reasons that I explained in my last post, there are minorities that were better off 50 years ago than they are now. 50 years ago cars were allowed to go up to 70 MPH on some roads, They are still only allowed to go up to 70 MPH on some roads, nothing has changed. There were less cars however, which resulted in less deaths by dangerous driving, surely proving that life fifty years ago is more desirable today where we have too many cars resulting in lots of traffic jams and crashes. Seat belts weren't as needed because there were less cars around so it was safer, again proving that life was more desirable fifty years ago, therefore 'better.' When was the electric car invented? I'll tell you, 1884, that's 130 years ago, so it makes no difference to how much 'better' life was or wasn't fifty years ago. Nice debate.
Life is better then it was 50 years ago

I see what you are saying and I want to start with what you said about technology. I suppose that you are right about that, but people are more into it now then 50 years ago. They may have invented those things, but were those things popular in 1964? Did companies trust this new way of getting energy? Nowadays by your research it has been 126 years since this was discovered. More and more people now know about it then 50 years ago. Same thing about all of the other new ways of energy, solar generation was made 175 years ago, and tractors were made 122 years ago. Not only was this stuff new, it was probably expensive for a little while. Like for example in this day they have made hovercrafts, but they are so expensive that nobody has them. Still on the technology subject, they have also made electric cars, so people using electric cars don't make pollution. Also on the basis of electric, they have also made hybrids, so it is half gas half electric. Nowadays cars are faster now then 50 years ago. 50 years ago cars had seatbelts, but nobody used them, the law wasn't as inforced 50 years ago as it is now. About what you said on minority's it has not gotten much better then it was 50 years ago. 50 years ago minorities in other countries were still in that hardship that they are now. Also unless you are living or know someone in Africa or Europe I would stick to America, where we know what is going on. As you can see life is better then it was 50 years ago. This is a good debate and can't wait to see what is in store jay Conor.
Life is better then it was 50 years ago

Life was better 50 years ago than it is today. For the sake of clarity, 50 years ago takes us back to the year 1964, so I shall be arguing that 1964 is a year which, for the majority of people in the world, was better than 2014. I would also point out that 'better' is defined as being more desirable. I would like to talk about technology first. To start with, wind farms were invented in 1888, solar generation in 1839, tractors in 1892, the list goes on. My point is that technology has not, in the last 50 years, made such great leaps as you are proposing. However. 50 years ago, less things had actually been invented, for example, in 1964, acrylic paint was invented. 50 years ago there were a lot more things that were still waiting to be invented, therefore, for inventors, 50 years ago is a much more desirable and, therefore, 'better' place to live. Your hypothesis that if I was to ask any minority at all whether they would rather live in the present or in 1964 falls down when I ask the 40,000 Yezidis who are now marooned on a mountaintop in order to escape a slaughter that would not have even threatened them say, 50 years ago. This is similar to the fates currently suffered by many other minorities in Iraq recently, all of whom would happily see a return to the way things were 50 years ago, when they still had homes. You would probably argue that this is an example of minorities from one country who think life was better 50 years ago, so I shall give you another example. Arabs who live within the current boundaries of Israel often state that they wish for a return to the pre-1967 Israel borders. So that is all, or at least most, of the Arabs within the Golan Heights, Gaza strip and the West Bank. I admit that black men and women whom live in America would probably say that they live in a more desirable time now than they did fifty years ago, but that is 'one' ethnic minority, not all of them as you have, rather ignorantly, claimed. Indeed, the world was a lot simpler fifty years ago, very few countries had access to nuclear weapons, whereas now most countries have access to them. We live in a world which has become more dangerous as we have created new ways to kill each other in mass numbers, We have a lot more to worry about now than we did fifty years ago, an example is global warming, pollution of that scale was not a problem fifty years ago as it is today. Fifty years ago the world was less stressful than it is today which makes life fifty years ago more desirable and therefore, 'better'. Your turn.
Life is better then it was 50 years ago

First off I would like to talk about how technology has helped us. Technology has made it so we can stop pollution by getting energy out of things like the wind, the sun, and even things like wood and trash! There are some other things that make life better now then 50 years ago. Back then there was a lot of segregation. Blacks were thought of as scums back 50 years ago. I bet you if you asked any minority, they wouldn't want to go back 50 years ago.