BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the world stop using Oil/gas

Oil/gas are prude inefficient resources that have only brought war and greed wherever they are found besides there is already more efficient cleaner better sources of energy like water,nuclear,fusion,solar etc.. the list goes on even the air in the atmosphere can be used as a source of energy. If there is so many sources of energy why don't we use them? well its because of the greed and laziness of the powerful because the better energies would be cheaper for the people and less of a burden they only care about money and themselves they are aiding in the destruction of our environment which at the pace we are at will be destroyed.
Has an Anti gun opportunist just jumped on the Band wagon

David hog apparently is like all opportunists, is taking full advantage of the tragic mass shootings at the high school which he attended to advance himself. While the shooting of young students attending the high school where he also was a student might be a much more personal experience for David Hog it doesn't mean that others don't feel equally as horrified and aggrieved by the needless deaths of those young students. However, this young man, it appears, has taken this tragic event that occurred at his high school and is using it for his personal advantage. One is reminded of what progressive democrat ,Rhom Emanual, once said about a serious event, he said," Never let a serious crisis go to waste." Rhom Emanual then explained, "WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, ITS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME THINGS THAT YOU COULDN'T DO BEFORE." This young Want a-be, must have taken the message of Rhom Emanual to heart and has jumped onto the stage of the nations affairs in an effort to self-promote himself. Edmund Burke i believe, sized it up quite poignantly when he said, "It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare." David Hog, like... " The fly...Who... sat upon the axel-tree of the chariot-wheel and said, What a dust do I raise! Will david Hog soon Just disappear from the lime light of public view like those opportunists before him. quote from: Read more at http://quotationsbook.com...
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

Werewolves are not serial killers nor wolves. They are by definition, humans with the ability to transform into wolves, whereas zombies are, by unrefuted definition, those afflicted with puffer fish poison. These are the entities which the debate concerns. Their origins are irrelevant. As my opponent has failed to refute any of my points, he essentially concedes them all to be true.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

However, werewolf lore comes from serial killers or vicious animals. That's what werewolves are. And people dosed with puffer fish are still perfectly fine lovers. They might need a bit of recovery time but in the end they are just human. That's where the mythos comes from and zombies would make fine lovers. However, werewolves find their origins clearly within the realm of way way gross murder and death. Either way you slice it, you're dealing with humans. Save in the case of werewolves they kill and sometimes eat people. That's gross. Sorry bad lover. Thank you all for reading.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

Those dosed with puffer fish toxin are zombies. My opponent has conceded this. However, werewolves are neither serial killers, nor wolves. They are, as both Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia agree, humans with the ability to transform into wolves. Persons afflicted with the toxin are defined as zombies, while serial killers and wolves do not meet the definition of werewolf. Thus, my opponent's point is inapplicable. Please extend my points and refutations, as they have not been addressed.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

My opponent apparently neglected the wikipedia articles I noted to refresh one's memories as to what a proper zombie is and a proper werewolf. I didn't suggest that zombies in the sense of a person given a dose of pufferfish and found to be in a death like state for a couple days. Which is the origin of zombies. However, I will still concede the point in order to use the origin of actual werewolves. This is intended to be a fun debate and I might as well accept your angle. --- http://en.wikipedia.org... The origins of werewolf beliefs are two fold. First serial killers, "Many authors have speculated that werewolf and vampire legends may have been used to explain serial killings in less rational ages. This theory is given credence by the tendency of some modern serial killers to indulge in practices commonly associated with werewolves, such as cannibalism, mutilation, and cyclic attacks." and secondly, wolves which commonly attacked people. --- So now the question becomes, do you want to have sex with somebody who was dosed with pufferfish toxin and recovered or do you want to have sex with a serial killer or wolf. Neither is very appealing but proper zombies typically fully recover from the toxin after a good period of time. As such they would just be humans. Whereas for werewolves you have the choice between having sex with a cannibalistic serial killer or an animal closely related to your dog... oh so very sexy. Wait, no... ick!
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

Note that the resolution concerns both males and females. My opponent has presented no definitions. Therefore, I define a zombie as " a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated"-Merriam-Webster. This sort of zombie an integral part of the Voodoo belief system, and was the origin of all subsequent zombie myths. Werewolf will be defined as "a person capable of assuming a wolf's form"-Merriam-Webster The vast majority of the time, werewolves are mere humans. The only difference lies in slight animal instincts, which result in more passionate love-making. Because the resolution states "werewolf" and not "transformed werewolf", it is assumed that said werewolf is in human form. This negates my opponent's werewolf-related points. "Having sex with a zombie it doesn't matter what kind of lover you are... she's always moaning. Rather than care about your body or your technique the only thing that matters to her is your brains. A zombie is a real gentlewoman. Further, you don't have to worry about her dying or growing old because she won't. A little potpourri and she's just a sexy, passionate lover for life!" A sexy passionate lover? Given the definition of zombie, this would not appear to be the case. How can a will-less, automatic lover be passionate? They cannot. Werewolves, on the other hand, can be very passionate indeed. On the subject of moaning, Voodoo zombies are not known to moan. The brains point is not an actual offensive argument. Finally, immortality does not make one a good lover. Thanks for posting.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Con)

Werewolves make terrible lovers. First they are violent animal like creatures that wouldn't stop long enough to have sex with you prior to ripping your throat out. You'd have to tie the beast up and then that's just bestiality and rape. That's not sexy! Zombies however are perfectly sexy. In fact, they are so sexy that within the last few years they have made not one but two movies about zombie strippers. http://www.imdb.com... http://www.imdb.com... Having sex with a zombie it doesn't matter what kind of lover you are... she's always moaning. Rather than care about your body or your technique the only thing that matters to her is your brains. A zombie is a real gentlewoman. Further, you don't have to worry about her dying or growing old because she won't. A little potpourri and she's just a sexy, passionate lover for life! http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kids Should Eat Less Candy

Although this debate has very little detail, I'm a bit bored today and decided to test my luck on this debate. I'd like to thank my opponent for making the debate and allowing it to be open so that I may accept it. I will be arguing that kids should not have to eat less candy. Going off of your statement, you mention that children should eat less candy because they could get obese. While you're correct that there is a possibility of a child becoming larger if they had a diet specifically filled with treats and goodies, studies have surfaced to show that children who eat candy are less likely to be obese later on in their life. "Researchers at Louisiana State University in the U.S. monitored more than 11,000 children and young people between the ages of two and 18 from 1999 to 2004. The data showed that children who ate sweets were 22 per cent less likely to be overweight or obese than those who did not. Among adolescents, even more " 26 per cent " were likely to weigh less than their counterparts who did not eat sweets. (O'Neil)" As you can see, children who eat a fair amount of candy were less likely to be overweight. Regardless of that, I don't think the problem with obesity lies within eating candy and I don't think children should be given strict guidelines on how much candy they can and cannot eat. I believe it's more important to teach them about calories-in and calories-out, how to take care of their body, and how being active is better than sitting in front of the television screen. To equate obesity to candy is generalizing an entire group of children and it's a bit draconian to limit everyone else's consumption of sweets because a few children are becoming obese. Chances are, those obese children have more extending factors for their weight gain than just the candy. Sources. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net...
A Dictator is exactly what America needs

RebuttalsI. A Dictator would reduce debt. This is an interesting argument raised by Pro. Currently, our national debt limit is $17,855,201,400,000.00 and rising constantly, that's nearly 18 trillion dollars. Please take a look for yourself at this link: . http://www.usdebtclock.org...So, first, I must ask: Does my opponent think the Dictator will just snap his fingers and 18 trillion will disappear? There is no logical reasoning for this to be a valid claim. If anything, it is an unintelligent opinion which lacks all form of justification. My opponent, as Pro, needs to show how this would logically happen for it to be considered a valid claim. This is his burden to show. Furthermore, this raises the question of who exactly we are in debt too. If someone tries to void 18 trillion dollars, there will be consequences from those who are owed that money. This can be seen in real life models such as debt collectors and banks collecting payments on loans. The number I shared above is our National Debt, meaning that we are in-debt or owe that money to someone or something. My opponent needs to do two things:1 - Show who we are in debt to, and 2 - show how we will be able to overcome the consequences of not paying those who we are in debt to. Until he does this, his first line of argumentation is defeated since it is both illogical and unproven. II. Consumption reform? My opponent needs to expand on what exactly this consumption reform would even be or entail. Why should the dictator expect anything from the public when his actions aren't even logically possible? Until my opponent maintains his burden for the first line of argumentation, this line that follows is equally unjustified. Arguments Since my opponent, as Pro, has yet to introduce any arguments of logical consistency I will wait until the next round to present my own counter-arguments. It is the duty of Pro to affirm his position on the resolution by maintaining his burden of proof. This is especially important since he is going against the status quo. Up to this point, he has failed at providing any valid reasoning to affirm his own position. I will now return the floor to Pro in the hopes that he will provide valid reasoning for his position, so far - he has done nothing but present illogical hypotheticals and invalid assumptions.
A Dictator is exactly what America needs

The Pro position, (mine) is that a Dictator is able to solve all of America's problems in a timely and equitable fashion. Here is one example to start the debate- A Dictator would not just reduce the national debt, a Dictator would erase the national debt. One way the Dictator could do this is by ridding the nation of the debt holders. This would be a positive for business, for private citizens, for the military and so on. All that the Dictator would expect from the American people in return for debt liquidation is that the public would conform to consumption reform. Sort of like going on a diet.
A Dictator is exactly what America needs

It seems my opponent has decided to troll in this last round. I suspect he did in the last round as well. It is evident that my opponent dropped every argument I challenged him with. It is evident that my opponent failed to present any proof to validate his baseless claims.It is evident that my opponent, as Pro, failed to affirm the resolution due to his lack of proof and failure to defeat any and all of my challenges. For these reasons, I ask the audience to please vote Con. Thank you.
A Dictator is exactly what America needs

Only The Dictator of all dictators could possibly conquer the United States. Only the Dictator of all dictators could possibly rid not only America but the entire world of all the debt-holders everywhere. Only He can erase all debt. And He is going to do this by conquering Jerusalem. Not just the Jerusalem in the city. But all Jerusalems everywhere. Even the hidden Jerusalem in the wilderness. For the Dictator of all dictators is- The Prince of Peace
A Dictator is exactly what America needs

"The Nation is not what it once was." As a Christian I must face the fact that America today is not a Christian nation. The most that can be said about today's America is that it has a memory of being Christian. And in the memory of most Christians there such of a thing as the Old Testament. And contained within the memory is this Old Testament passage- "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:" (Deuteronomy 23:19) As a Christian I know that all people come from Eve. And further I know that all people have descended from Noah. Therefore- All living are Brothers through Eve and Noah. What this means is that who-so-ever charges us interest is saying that they are not our relatives. They are saying that they are strangers to us. Therefore- Our non-relatives, our non-brothers, our debt-holders must leave our country.
The Federal Reserve

First and foremost, the US mint is controlled by congress, it does not act without congresses approval, there is no one even in charge of the mint except congress, the mint is just a branch of congress set up to do this coining money task. the US Treasury does not issue money anymore, and when it did, it wasn't actually issuing money, that was congress who coined gold and silver coin, the US Treasury just kept this gold and silver on deposit and issued a claim check on them. They were not issuing money, they were issuing claim checks on money, and the US Treasury didn't even control their issue, they couldn't issue any if there was no gold or silver being deposited, and they had to issue them when it was deposited. Secondly, "Standard weights and measures" means gold standard and the exchange of gold or silver coin for certificates and back. If you were to read "The Wealth of Nations," you would know this. Because in chapter 5 the amount of gold or silver in coin is referred to as "the standard weights and measures," this was a misinterpretation to get people like you to think that the constitution does not mandate a gold standard. Thirdly, I know very well that Richard Nixon ended the gold standard, and I know exactly why, and if you think about it, this is the feds fault, it did not have to print all that money for the government, it could have told them no, and they would have never done it. And on top of it all, the fed could have continued to back the money. Thirdly, many different currencies is not a bad thing, it's called competition, whoever provides the most stable currency is the one who's currency is the most accepted and the biggest, this will cause the US Dollar to gradually become more and more stable over time. Also, the recession in 1907 was because J P Morgan told everyone there would be a recession, so they withdrew their money from the bank, and that caused a recession. This isn't a conspiracy theory, if you watched "the men who built america," you would know this, it's a historic fact. Lastly, if the money was left to the gold and silver standard and these competing currencies, the politicians would not matter, it wouldn't be left to them.
The Federal Reserve

Turning to Article 1, Section 8, the Congress shall have the right to "coin money and regulate the value thereof". A very narrow interpretation of this would result in the argument made by my opponent, that only congress can print money. However, this argument would not only make the Federal Reserve unconstitutional, but also the Mint, and even the Treasury department as it, not the congress, designs bills through the bureau of engraving and printing. As well, "standard weight and measurements"does not reverence the gold standard but the unit of measurements used (imperial, metric, etc.) In addition, it was not the Federal Reserve that got rid of the gold standard, that was Richard Nixon. The Federal Reserve operated with the gold standard for years, and had done so with great successes. However, extraordinary spending on social programs resulted in a massive amount of money that was printed which forced Nixon to remove the US from the Gold Standard. This massive rise in the money supply was not the fault of an independent federal reserve, but of politicians, who concern themselves primarily with controlling unemployment at the cost of sky high inflation. When Paul Volcker raised rates sharply in the 1980's, he drew fire from many different directions, but he got inflation under control. If it had been left to congress, sky high inflation would have lasted for decades. The Federal Reserve is perhaps the most misunderstood organ of our governments vast and complex bureaucracy, but also one of the most important. The existence of the Federal Reserve has safeguarded American, and indeed global finance, for over a century. Before the Federal Reserve, there existed many different types of fiat currency, with nearly every bank printing its own money which would experience rapid fluctuations in the value of money. This resulted in an unstable market where panics resulted in the frequent loss of massive sums of money, and as there was no "US Dollar" as there is now, no currency held value everywhere. A dollar from the Second Bank of Omaha could be wort half as much in Kansas City, and be worthless when you got to Chicago, solely because the person you were giving the currency to would never travel to Omaha to cash in. This system not only allowed for rampant fraud, but also stunted growth in the economy for years. It was not until after the civil war, with a more centralized banking system, did the United States start on the road to becoming an industrial power.The Federal Reserve has helped to save global markets time and time again, and has helped to create a stable and growing global economy. Only under the Federal Reserev system would America rise to its place of economic power, and only under the Federal Resreve would the U.S. dollar still hold value after all that has been done to it by Washington politicians and there extraordinary spending policies.
QueensLand Hotel V Sex Workers Court Case

In this case I plan to proove that the Sex Workers, mainly Karlaa, had inproperly used the Queensland motel/ hotel as a place of buisness when the hotel was not notified about it. http://au.ibtimes.com...'ll prove that Pro will win this case through the Anti-discrimination Act. I'll now let my opponent begin his opening arguements for his side before this case gets underway.
Overall, It is better to be Hispanic then to be Black

1) "The argument was that hispanics dominate soccer in comparison to blacks, which is what the debate is focusing on here." They don't though. Not compared to whites, blacks, jews, queers, asians, or canadians 2) "Boxing has been dominated by blacks and will continue to be dominated by blacks." I'll keep my argument http://m.voices.yahoo.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.pbs.org... 3) "what are you auditioning for the KKK?" I'm not sure what my extra curricular activities have to do with this but yes 4:15pm sharp on Wednesday following Tom Cruise's tryout. 4) "Youre missing the point again, the point is that its easier for hispanics to visit the countries their ancestors came from while its not so easy for blacks." You didn't say that last time though you said both countries are shitty. That's all I commented on. 5) "First, he is the pope, that isnt disputable" I never said he wasn't the pope. 6) "Second, Italians and Hispanics are the same thing! They both speak wickedly fast, they both get sweaty easily, both have a sh*tload of grease in their hair, and both are great at Soccer. Theyre basically the same so hispanics do control the papacy" Well done troll well done however i have reasonable doubt for this wild accusation. Behold Exhibit A!! http://tucsoncitizen.com... 7) "You can help the economy and build work ethic by not being a slave dude.... Those arent mutually exclusive things, and the argument still stands that blacks were at one point slaves whereas hispanics never were." They might as well be slaves at this point i mean if you are dying to get into the country legally or illegally to get the lowest paying jobs how is that any better than not making any money but still being fed clothed and housed while helping the economy boom paving the way for freedom dor the black slaves. 8) "Obama is definitely not the best president ever, in fact many on here believe hes one of the worst. The point is though that hes only half black, acts even less black then he already is, and therefore isnt really as black as you claim he is." Okay first of all like I've said before I don't give a rat's hat about your opinion. It says in your profile he approve of him so it doesn't matter. I am saying he is black and is the president therefore he is the highest ruling person in the nation. Yes a black man is not a Hispanic. And so what if he is half black he is still black none the less which doesn't prove why being Hispanic is better in this case. 9) "Again, missing the point. Ill just count that as another dropped argument" Again, I was replying to what you said about how the slaves immigrated and I said how hispanics immigrate is no better. Regardless of who came when My Bottom Line: - Blacks are more dominate in sports overall as a whole. - USA is run by a black man - Blacks control the rap industry and make bank from it - Blacks were here first - Even distribution of blacks and Hispanics in congress - More blacks population wise. - Both have equally decent food. Hispanic food is not better - Fun fact Morgan Freeman was God and he is black. Thank you for a good debate and vote Con!!