BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland

I will first respond to his arguments, then present my own. My opponent points out a Highland Safari Center, and claims that this gives him an edge. Well, I must say if this really is any kind of edge, it is exremely Dull (by the way, be prepared for horribly bad puns, maybe have a drink or two before reading. .. or six. Acctually, keep drinking until that last one was funny, then continue reading). In fact, if you used an edge that dull to skin a living cat in Russia, Putin might think it to be cruel. Anyway, there are two reasons for us to be skeptical about this source.1) Probably the most significant. If any of us have watched ground breaking movies in 1986 (I know I did as a sperm), we would know from the documentary commonly known as "Highlander" that there can only be one. My opponent's highland safari suggests that there are multiple and that they are known. If this was true, they would be forced to destroy each other until there was only one.2) Probably the more logical (if you care about that sort of thing). Looking at the source, we can see from their "contact us" section, that they are located in Alberfeldy, not Dull [1]. So this is really something that is merely near dull. How exciting is that? That's like being on the other side of a wall of two people having sex, rather than actually having sex. Now, moving on to my arguments, there are so many they will blow your mind (if you're four years old).1) Boring Oregon actually has a number of bars and pubs [2]. Everybody knows that anything and everything is exciting when you add alcohol to the equation (this is actually how they teach math there. Have any equation, add alcohol = AWESOMENESS! )2) There are cartoon shows inspired by Boring Oregon [3]. The new Disney show Gravity Falls was based around Boring Oregon. Can Dull Scotland say that it has a TV show designed around it? Didn't think so. While the writer is not even from Oregon, this only adds to the awesomeness and excitment of Boring. They've inspired a TV town, by a writer from a different state.3) The most solid argument (of course saved for last). Boring Oregon has, not one, but two golf courses [4]. Dull, Scotland has none. Let that sink in for a minute. Dull SCOTLAND does not have a single golf course, in a nation (~ish) where having a golf course is a legal requirment (they are trying to pass a law that says those under the poverty line can have a putt putt course and be okay with the law, but that isn't looking like it will pass [5]). We also know that golf is one of the most exiciting, thrilling, and heart stopping "sports" of all time (I use "sports" looser than a [insert some kind of racist or sexist joke here, but make sure it is funny, thank you, feel free to use the comments section]). So after all of this, we can clearly see that Dull Scotland is so boring, even the sheep won't put out on a fourth date. While in Boring, most put out on the second, if not the first. Thank you,[1] . http://www.highlandsafaris.net...;[2] . http://boringoregon.com...;[3] . http://www.oregonlive.com...;[4] . http://attractions.uptake.com...;[5] . http://th05.deviantart.net...
Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland

Firstly, we should be clear that some people, older people and conservative Christian types mainly, do not crave excitement: they are perfectly happy with soporific tranquility; so this debate isn't really about what location is more appealing to everybody, but which younger people who have not been indoctrinated by some happy-clappy, tambourine-bashing pastor would find more exciting. That said, clearly, both the hamlet of Dull in Scotland, near England in Europe and the town of Boring in Oregon near Canada in North America are both mind-numbingly tedious and lacklustre places, but the purpose of this debate is which location is the most incredibly dull and boring place to visit. As I intimated in my pre-amble, coffin-dodging retirees and religious fundamentalists are not bothered about the lack of excitement: pubs, drive-through restaurants, nightclubs, casinos, all-night bars and extreme sport venues, so let's look at which town presents normal younger people with the most opportunities to enjoy themselves: Boring, OR ------------- Nightclubs: 0 24/7 drive-thru restaurants: 0 Casinos: 0 All-night bars: 0 Famous residents willing to invite tourists to celebrity parties: 0 Highland adventure safaris centres: 0 Dull, Scotland ----------------- Nightclubs: 0 24/7 drive-thru restaurants: 0 Casinos: 0 All-night bars: 0 Famous residents willing to invite tourists to celebrity parties: 0 Highland adventure safari centres: 1 So, we can see that having a Highland safari centre which offers mountain adventure opportunities by Land Rover, bike or foot (1,2) gives Dull the edge over Boring: it's not much of an edge, I agree, but an edge it most certainly is. Thank you. (1) . http://maps.google.co.uk... (2) . http://www.highlandsafaris.net...
Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland

Boring Oregon [1] Dull Scotland [2] Earlier this month, Boring and Dull decided, like a 15 year old girl with daddy issues, to get married purely for the publicity of it [3]. They sharing nothing in common but a rather silly name. I will be arguing that Boring Oregon is a more exciting and interesting place than Dull Scotland. While my opponent will be arguing for Dull. This is meant to be a semi-serious debate (we are to actually be arguing the topic) but with a humorous tone (since what fun would it be if our arguments were dull and boring?). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com...
abortion

i completely agree with you're argument. yes if the woman's life is in danger due to issues then it is understandable because like you said its better to save one life than lose two. i also think that in some instances it may be okay for the woman to abort her unborn child if she was sexually assaulted or raped. however it must be done with in the first 9 weeks before the child is considered a fetus. but still then i don't agree with abortion I'm just more understanding in those cases because of the emotional impact it could have on the mother and then later affect the child. the mother may have trouble holding or giving affection to her child because the child could resemble the rapist or could be just a constant reminder of that one incident so that could cause psychological issues in the child later on and may lead to them becoming violent in society. but a teenage mother who was just careless should not be able to abort her child because of her irresponsible actions, she needs to learn from her mistakes; the raped victim however did not do anything wrong but be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
abortion

Although I oppose abortion in most cases, I accepted this debate because Con's position is that abortion "can never be justified regardless of circumstances." That is the point I want to disagree with.I don't think anything Con said substantiates his position. He argues that abortion is not justified to avoid hardship, or deal with problems like low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, promiscuity, poverty, lack of education, and absense of moral guidence. I agree with all that. But those do not exhaust the circumstances under which a person might get an abortion; therefore, they do not show that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances."The one circumstance in which I think abortion is morally justified is in cases where the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Abortion is justified in these cases for two reasons. First, it's justified because people have the right to preserve their own lives. Second, it's justified because if a pregnant woman dies, then so does her unborn, and it's better to save one life than to lose two.Since there is a circumstance under which abortion is justified, Con's claim that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances" is false.
abortion

Killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development... In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy - problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems. Finally, a society which allows the killing of its most vulnerable members, in the very place in all the world which should be for them to be safest and most nurtured - their own mothers' wombs - is incapable of cherishing and nurturing human life or valuing childhood and motherhood. Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances.
Rap battle

You are only 12 so what can you do to me? I ain't losin' to a stupid dweeb who ain't even hit puberty Shouldn't you be in school? Class is waitin' Oh I forgot, you just discovered masterbation Spectators can watch this guy get destroyed Your not determined to get a girl cuz your liking the boys The only thing that makes your shaft get long Is watching Disney Movies with Zack Efron I'm not single I have a fianc" She has a hot face better than Beyonc" I came to strike hard like a big comet Your only girl was your hand with a wig on it It's hurting me how your just a nerdy emcee You aint gotta pay cash you get murdered for free You are just a little person to me You lost, now go home and learn about the birds and the bees
Rap battle

Ah first of all, you don't know how I look A fail you made the risk you took No pimples no nothing on me I am in fact everything that you could never be Number one, FYI, I don't have a wive I am 12 in school just living my life And why on earth do you want to include my mum? This is about me. Oh wait I know why, your dumb! You are the greatest? Hah! Dream while you still can. The one who inspired me to rap is Eminem So stop complaining say something true Cause one way or another i'm still gonna diss you. You bet bout my family Well you lost, gimme all your money I am not determined to get a girlfriend, not now anyway Cause when you get one, I am gonna steal her away. Yes you are the illest. You need a doctor. Or the disease may travel to your daughter Not that she was even born yet you are single You are so lame that I giggle
Rap battle

I bet your mum smells like sweaty dumbbells And your dad reeks of moldy as* checks Your sister's twat burns like like it's from hell She tried to give me diseases last week You wanna battle the greatest? That's odd Eminem's in your photo but you ain't a Rap God You have pimples and a fat bod But claim you look like Brad Pitt what a wack fraud I'm the illest so listen your style gets diminished You ain't good with the women in one minute your finished You deplenish my interest I'm sinister with it Won't give you the whole thing this is a snippet Into the darkness away you fade So just cut yourself with a razor blade You look up to me like your wife when she's licking my balls I guess your life just isn't worth living at all
Rap battle

OK guys let's cut to the chase But keep in mind this is only the first phase Of dissing this foolish disgrace You wanna roast someone? You are in the wrong place RationalThinker9119 Out of rhythm look at the time time time Kick you out the spotlight, my turn to shine Whatever you are going to write, first redesign your rhymes I'm tough like I am from the mighty jungle Mind-states strong but thoughts are humble Enter your mind like evasive fungal Enjoy the ride, I hope you are buckled Your rhymes often cause controversy The next two lines just make me happy For no matter how many fish in the sea It would feel so empty without me
Phone use in school

I think we should be allowed to use phone in school as we might need to call our parent for an emergency. If in danger, your children can reach the authorities or a medical provider. Phones can be silenced during class or study periods, and active only in appropriate places. Cell phones create a convenience that was previously unavailable. With cell phones, you can easily reach your kids for any reason: to ask them questions, change plans, or to simply say hello. Most working people benefit from having their cell phones on them. They can access their email, call clients, check inventory, read the news, use software applications, and more. Students need to learn how to use their cell phones responsibly Administrators often take notes on their phones as part of teacher observations. Some teachers, coaches, and counsellors use their cell phones in school settings, too. It may not be permitted, but they are allowed to do so without the same consequences as students. Why shouldn"t students be able to do the same? Many phone apps offer visual representations of difficult-to-grasp subjects (like astronomy, science, or anatomy) that can assist visual learners and/or students who have dyslexia. Tablets offer the same services, but may provide a better user experience because of the size difference.
Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False.

It appears my opponent thought this was a four round debate. Anyway, I'll still answer the questions truthfully. 1. No, I don't take issue of the celebration of Christmas. Actually, I celebrate Christmas with my family every year. It's a great holiday. 2. No, I don't take issue to naming an evergreen tree a Christmas tree during the holiday season. Once again, my family partakes in the activity. 3. No, I don't take issue with Nativity scenes. Some of my neighbors have them and I personally think they look very nice. 4. No, most of our governmental figures do that. I would only have a slight problem if the state officially promoted it. 5. I find myself, on the political spectrum, as a Left-Libertarian. However, I don't hold any grievances against Republicans or Christians. My opponent has failed to 1. Show Atheists are being malicious/unfair with 'our' 'War on Christmas'2.
Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False.

I would like to redirect to my opponent. The reasoning will be evident in the next round. This is to instruct him to answer these questions, as they are exceedingly relevant the more information he gives. I ask he please answer all entirely truthfully. 1. Does my opponent take issue in any way, shape or form, to celebration of Christmas? 2. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue to the naming of the evergreen in winter as a Christmas Tree? 3. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue with Nativity scenes? 4. Does my opponent believe recognition of Christmas is an offense if any government figure is the recognizer? 5. Is my opponent biased, or has any form of grievance, against the Republican Party, Conservatives, or Christians?
Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False.

Thomas Jefferson, the biggest secular progressive of his time once said: "It is of no concern to me if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or none." America is a place of freedom, creatively, religiously, and overall, it is a boiling pot of different walks of life. However, it is detrimental to this mix's balance to transgress upon the religious expressions of another if it does not advocate violence, profanity, or other unacceptable conduct. An example being the removal of the Nativity scene from Santa Monica California, the birth of a man, regardless if people believed him to be the son of God, cannot cause a group of people, Atheists specifically, harm as by their own tongue's admission, they do not believe in an omnipotent power, a deity, a God, or intelligent design, and they do not believe in religion. I view this as a confession of discredit on their part. A Nativity scene reminds us of the birth of a wonderful man, and to remove chance of bias I submit I am Jewish, who's teachings have endured through millennia, IE being good to others, forgiveness, selflessness, etc. In all honesty, Jesus Christ never asked or told anyone to worship him, just because people do worship him today, does not mean he is responsible for this. Now acknowledging this, the display of a Nativity scene is simply the equivalent of the annual erection of a monument to a deceased individual, therefore there is no grounds for removal of it. An argument that has been brought up to me by Atheists I have held discourse with, is that under Separation of Church and State, the government cannot in any way do anything so as to prefer one religion over another. Logically, this is an oxymoron/paradox, as Atheism is not a religion and it makes it very clear by self-admission it is not a religion. And even if Atheism was a religion, the government is not promoting a religion, but a winter holiday that has multiple associations, and benefits the nation in many ways, from a government standpoint, primarily economically. There is no religious promotion with erecting a Christmas tree, or allowing the Salvation Army to seek charity, in letting children see the Nutcracker, or in stringing colorful lights, or letting children believe in a man who wants to give them presents if they be good to their fellow man. If anything, if this is the argument the Atheists will use, they are making themselves a religion, and they are infringing upon our rights, and promoting their religion. This is malicious for the end result would be the denial of the Christmas holiday to the people, when, as it stands, no one is making anyone do anything to either involve themselves in Christmas, or disassociate themselves from it. If anything, this is an ideal situation as no one is being preferred.
Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False.

The Christmas that is celebrated for the most part, is about good will towards all, family, festive decorations, good food, fun, and all around it is a beneficial thing. It morally brings people together, spiritually makes people closer, and reaches across every barrier to make the coldest and oldest join hands with the youngest among us, not to mention is economically beneficial. So Atheists, being a group of people who DEFINE themselves as "believing in no religion or higher power"... what case could they possibly make. And even if they could, why would they? It could only cause further division in a country where people are already at the brink. It is my view that Atheists are making noise to simply call attention to themselves, and to really make young, rebellious teens become Atheists, so if anything, this behavior is dangerous on their part. The Christmas tree is a tree, not a cross. Santa is not Jesus Christ. And even if you have a case with the Nativity scenes, then why don't other religions feel like you? Because they don't feel infringed upon. This is America the free. No one is forcing Christmas on anyone except maybe extremist preachers. So, based on the points I have raised thus far, I argue that Atheists have a malicious vendetta against Christmas.
Teachers should stop giving homework

I don't even need to even give a definition on homework to begin with you all know the deal. One thing to say for the other side. YOU ARE WRONG! Homework isn't that beneficial, I wouldn't like if a teacher just slams paper on the table demanding you to do your projects and bringing it back next week. Here's your response or what you are saying in your head ' This kid is just lazy children in America these days are just lazy that's all they don't want extra practice' NOT TRUE!! A statement like that is false and you know it is. The reason children aren't doing homework is not because of laziness that's 1. 2. Children have other curriculum activities other than home work you know, and teacher don't understand that it isn't that easy to go to after school, end at 6:00 and then expect so much homework to be done. Homework is just a lazy way of teachers to give an excuse that they don't want to do a lesson. 3. Many adults who haven't finished school are like 'I did homework when I was young so should they' That's not true this is just like saying 'I starved when I was young so should my child' 4. Mainly children already have 8 hours of school, added with extra curriculum. Would you like to be doing 5 projects at 9:00 PM? I know how it feels because I just had 8 homework assignments. No you don't. I bet you people against this is like 'Oh he's a whiney baby' and ' Oh he just another spoiled one' I am just taking my personal experience People just get stuff off the internet that says homework is helpful and crap and that kids get smarter. Some websites say that but its not true at all if that's the case many children in my class would be as smart as me so your really playing yourself from getting things online as proof that home work is helpful but its not true Its better to get a person inside the situation
Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists.

The topic of discussion is (verbatim): Torture should be used to gain information from terrorists. (I noted my opponent's definition of the word 'reliable', but I didn't see reliable anywhere within the topic. I'm pointing this out to tell my opponent that, although it is a viable contention to which he can resort, reliability is in no way an argumentative parameter. It's not that important, but I just thought I'd point that out.) I will be defending torture-interrogation under the following contentions: - The probability of torture-interrogations' successes justify its implementation (therefore, the cases of failure are dismissible) - Successful interrogation saves and has saved lives[1] Rebuttals and such will be delivered in the proceeding rounds. [1]http://waterboarding.org...
Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists.

In this round we will create our arguments, then in round 3, 4, and 5, we will rebutt the opposing arguments. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Firstly, torturing is in-reliable. Some will not know the information asked, and/or may lie. Some examples of information may include terrorist camps, or bomb targets. The terrorists may lie by naming previous bomb, and camp locations. Interestingly, torture actually slowed down the attempt to find Osama Bin Laden [1. . http://www.dailykos.com...]Secondly, torture may encourage more humane actions by the US army. For example, masacares.
Torture should be used to gain imformation from terrorists.

DefinitionsTorture: Physical pain used to force terrorists to reveal information.Reliable: How trustworhy the information is from the terrorists.The burden of proof lies with both Pro and Con. Pro and Con will be arguing wherever, or not we should torture Terrorists should be tortured to gain information. No alternatives will be argued.Rounds:Round 1: Acceptance and Introduction. No arguments.Round 2: Opening, and new arguments by both Pro and Con. No Rebuttals by Pro or Con.Round 3: Rebuttal, and new arguments may be added.Round 4: Rebuttal. No new arguments.Round 5: Closing arguments and Rebuttal. No New arguments.I look forward to arguing with my opponent.