BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clinton would have been a better president than Donald Trump

I disagree massively to that statement. Hillary Clinton is no better than trump. You might be worrying about trump at control of any wars that might happen but may I add Clinton has no better control on war. If I have my information correct, and please correct me if I am wrong, clinton has played a role in the Syrian war being as bad as it is. I would have voted trump over Clinton even though I do openly despise both of them and if there was another presidential elective I would have voted for them but as Trump is a lesser of two evils, in my opinion, if I had to vote I would have voted for him. In a their 'debates' they merely were fighting more than trying to achieve a political viewpoint. This had greatly influenced my view on this matter. I disagree with Trump's idea to build a wall around the Mexican border but if he can't get planning permission to build a wall around a golf course over here in Ireland I don't see how he can manage to build a wall around the border, that is just irrational. If he's going to do anything at least either get the wall built here or get rid of the idea and prevent all the headache with the protesters.
Abortion should be legal in all states.

Abortion should remain legal; in all states. Making abortions illegal would be a violation of our constitution. The fourteenth amendment, a part of our constitution, clearly states, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property." Women's bodies are just that, women's. They should not be deprived of doing as they see fit with their body. It goes against what our country was founded on- freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to choose our president, senators, religion, and opinions. And what we want to do with our bodies. Abortion is a choice, a personal choice, that women should be able to make for themselves. Our country also faces population issues. If abortion became illegal, they would only grow worse. This is a serious issue. I'm not pro-death, I am pro-choice.
Consensual Necrophilia

Well that's exceedingly disappointing. After his first round post, I was really hopeful that this would become an interesting debate, especially considering that he took the time to contact me before the debate and express his interest. He's been online several times over the last few days, so he had multiple opportunities to contact me and let me know that he wouldn't be able to post this round. However, I have said all I mean to say on this issue for the time being, so I hope that kventling posts in the final round so that we can finish this out.
Consensual Necrophilia

In case there's uncertainty here, I'll provide some definitions: Consensual: relating to or involving consent, esp. mutual consent. In this case, consent would be acquired before the person's demise, and will require the signature of both the person whose body is to be used and the proposed partner. Both would have to be in their right minds before providing their consent. Necrophilia: sexual intercourse with or attraction toward corpses. In this case, it would embody the former mainly, with attraction being implied. This would be implemented by making it lawful for those at the legal age of consent, while still alive, to give and record consent for posthumous sexual acts to be performed on their bodies and for these wishes to be honored within a short period of time (roughly a week) thereafter, during which time the corpse will be kept at cold temperature for short term preservation. After use, this claim to the corpse ends. It would be similar to committing one's body to scientific research after death, though in this case, there would be a distinct limit to use. Both of those involved would be made aware of the risks involved in such sexual acts as a part of signing this contract. Obviously, there would be limitations to who could put up their body in this way, such that someone who dies with a terrible disease that could be transmitted post-mortem would not be able to utilize this system. Dealing with basic safety concerns such as this should require little effort, as diagnoses would be made regardless. I have set it to 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments. The only restriction I've placed is that you must have completed at least 5 debates. As I am getting extremely tired of forfeits, I will also request that whomever accepts this debate be prepared to take it to its conclusion. If one of us does forfeit without reason, voters are advised to afford the other debater the full 7 points. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance only R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: New argumentation and rebuttal R4: Rebuttal and conclusion Yes, I am aware that there have been a lot of issues going around in the forums regarding what is reasonable to discuss here on DDO. However, I feel that debates like these must be had in order to better understand our views, instead of just feeling them viscerally as we so often do. I will be happy to engage with any and all arguments people have against this case.
Brexit

When you simply dismiss an opponent's arguments as "factoids and other junk," it is to be assumed that you have no rebuttal for them. Thus, unless you provide an adequate rebuttal in later rounds, you concede all of these points as true. I don't know what political correctness has to do with this debate; if you would be so kind as to explain so both of us have some context to argue off of, that would be nice. Just as a note--since the British people have now voted to leave the EU, I hope that it happens and that Britain does succeed in invoking Article 50. It's one thing to be against something passing and quite another to try to override the will of the people by undemocratic means. I respect the will of the British people and hope that the choice they made actually occurs. If I'm not mistaken, however, you titled this debate "Brexit" and I took the Con position. Does this not mean that I am arguing that the effects of Brexit will be mostly negative and you arguing that they will be positive?Seeing as you don't appear to have made any actual arguments as to why a Brexit will be beneficial, I shall refrain from expanding my arguments this round, seeing as I have nothing to respond to.
Brexit

Hello! I have a number of arguments that will be elaborated upon in further posts. For now, here they are:1. Global Economic ImpactAs we have already seen, the Brexit has already led to severe economic implications in markets worldwide. Over $2 trillion have already been lost just in one day (June 24).This has resulted in worldwide stock markets plunging in value. Spain's IBEX 35 fell 12.5%, NASDAQ fell 3.6%, Europe's Euro Stoxx 50 tumbled 9.1%, and Japan's NIKKEI 225 fell 7.9%. The British pound has plummeted to its lowest level in thirty years in just one day! British trade will be hindered by not being able to easily trade with the continent. This will inevitably result in further economic trouble in Britain even after this initial damage outlined above.As for Europe: the EU just lost its biggest economy. This will mean that the whole of Europe just got a whole lot poorer, because Britain no longer has easy access to trade. What will this mean for countries like Greece? What will happen to the European continent if there's an economic downturn? The financial security of Europe and all of its trading partners will be made much weaker because of Brexit.2. Impact on BritainAs we both know, there was a referendum in Scotland in September of 2014 to secede from the UK. It failed and the UK is still whole. In the Brexit vote, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU. Already there is talk in Scotland of seceding and rejoining the European Union. There is also a movement starting for the reunification of Ireland (meaning the UK would also lose Northern Ireland). If these happen and the UK is split into three pieces, the consequences will be both profound and irreparable. The UK is our strongest ally overseas. If it splits, NATO, the UK, and the US will be much less powerful, both militarily and economically. Brexit has already set this in motion. Would you (or anybody) knowingly and willingly support the weakening of our country?3. Peace in EuropeThe organizations that led to the EU were founded in 1945, just after World War II. The idea was to create a union of countries that would be so closely intertwined that war between them would be unthinkable. After Brexit, other countries are already clamoring to leave the EU as well. This Brexit has started a long domino chain that will eventually result in the collapse of the EU. At some point, there will be war in Europe because of this collapse. Now that countries are abandoning the network that has held relative peace in a whole continent, who knows what the disastrous consequenses will be?
Living in a city is better than living in a country

Unfortunately, Pro forfeited his second round. Hopefully, Pro returns for the final round. ArgumentsFarmersI am going to expand this point in this round. I will elaborate on my second point in the last round. BoP for me is to prove that living in the country can be better than living in the city for some people. Example: farmers would find living in the country better than living in the city. Farmers have to tend to their farms and support their family. Farms require lots of space, fertile lands, and good air quality. The country usually has all these things. It would be inconvenient for a farmer to live in the city, then have to travel all the way back to the farm. They would much prefer to live in the country close to their farm.
Living in a city is better than living in a country

Rebuttal"They are saying that the cities haven't got enough peace or green channels. I think they are right too"Pro just argued against myself, therefore supporting my side of this debate. ArgumentsThis is a subjective motion, since it depends on the person. I will be providing some examples of why a person may prefer to live in the country rather than the city. If I can prove that the country is better than the city for at least one person, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof. FarmersThey need a farm. Farms can`t be in the city, therefore they would prefer the country. The Great Outdoors Less pollution in the country. More open space. More animals usually. If someone likes these things, they will enjoy living in the country.
Living in a city is better than living in a country

A lot of people are thinking that living in a city is better than living in a country. I think so like this too, because cities have got more possibilities . In a city can everyone doing everything what they want. On the other hand you can find everything in a city. For example , in a city you can find a taxi at midnight. But unfortunately you can't do this in a country. But besides some people are thinking that the cities so noisy and technological are.They are saying that the cities haven't got enough peace or green channels. I think they are right too. In conclusion I think still like that living in a city is better than living in country. Maybe it has got some disadventages but it is better.
Death penalty kills guilty life, abortion kills innocents..Pro believes in death penalty not abortio

I am curious, how is it that you are against the death penalty yet support abortion. The death penalty is applied to guilty criminals, whereas abortion deals with an innocent life. I assume you will bring up the matter of when life begins. Please, in detail, explain when life for you does begin. My definition is that when the potential for life begins developing, i.e conception, life is set forth. This is not a moral issue for me so much as a matter of ethics.
what one must believe to be saved is not taught clearly... or at all if in proper terms

Whether or not pastors agree on it does not make the actual teaching ambiguous, and we both agree on this. The question, though, is if you were learning how to be saved for the first time, you might ask a pastor, but generally you would go to the Bible. If they are not in agreement, do you believe the teacher who can translate it however he wants, or would you believe the Bible, which has been around almost as long as the religion? Personally I would believe the Bible. Man can say what he wants about the Bible and teach accordingly, but the Bible teaches what it means, and what must be done in order for salvation is not the most controversial of Christian doctrines. The necessities for salvation are belief in God and love for Him. These are the bare minimum. If you truly believe in God, and truly love Him, then the fuits of the spirit will show in your life. Whether or not pastors and teachers debate on what is necessary, the Bible teaches the true bare minimum to be saved. It is difficult to find out just what is needed to be saved today, with all of the different denominations of the church, but you can always go back to the Bible. The Bible teaches it clearly. Like I said, even Atheists and Agnostics can agree with this, because you cannot deny it. Thanks, Renzzy
what one must believe to be saved is not taught clearly... or at all if in proper terms

the teaching is not clear if pastors cannot agree on it. it's said to be simple, but it's not, at elast according to them. my premise is that they're not clear, so that's all i have to prove. i'd agree with the idea that the actual teaching is probably clear. you post the requirements that love God and neighbor. but, i'm in other debates where they are listing off things needed. no one can agree what exactly needs to be believe. "believe" is too genearal.... a long list is too specifric, for the very minimum. just to be clear, i'm saying the absolute minimum required to believe is not being taught.
what one must believe to be saved is not taught clearly... or at all if in proper terms

i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. it could be generally whatever savior means to you. but what if someone believes he's god etc, a new convert? that wouldn't cut it. basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. some people say you can't violate a tenant of the bible beliefs of Jesus... but oesnt i know many who say they don't believe he's god or aren't sure despite the bible. does that mean they're not saved? i know some who say it don't matter if they believe these things... they must believe in atonement. if that's the case though, then atonement is a necessary thing. i could point out many christian who don't know what that is... beyond the mere lack of knoing the definition etc. so could it be it's not what you believe but rather what you don't? that doesn't help cause the list problem is just starting in the negative direction. it seems the right answer is it depends on where you are and your heart relationship with God in terms of your believe in jesus. how many christians would say that when you ask them what you must believe? i know of none. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
what one must believe to be saved is not taught clearly... or at all if in proper terms

The pastors and teachers of today do not always agree on what the bares minimum is to be saved, but the Bible always teaches belief and love. With true love for God comes trust in Him, and the fruits of the Spirit. Anyone can go to the Bible and read that plainly. Simple Love is not enough, because the bible say that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is plainly taught. You may say that you truly love God, and I am in no position to judge you, but you know your heart, and whether you truly believe in and love God or not. All I have to say, then, is that the Bible does in fact teach what is the bare minimum, but whether or not you truly believe it or not is up to you. Thanks, Renzzy
what one must believe to be saved is not taught clearly... or at all if in proper terms

well considering you're the very few very few who says the requirements you do, i think my case is shown that it's not clear bc of the pastors etc. i'd agree with you the new commandment you list is what saves. and what is love etc,,,, that can take a lifetime to learn how to do proper. but the basic premise is to do all that and to try and you're good. i think we're just doing semantics and such so i'm done unless htere's more to be said.
Poetry Battle

I had this dream to become an Actor But New York city harbored my fears Never once considered my poverty a factor of the reality that kept me here I kissed you at the center of the universe Your hands holding me up - giving me pity found meaning for every vibrations of verse I died on the outskirts of the city I had this dream to become a dancer As the cars passed, like stars, like bits of hope But Harlem robbed me of my pennies like cancer the only dancing in this city is from a rope I missed you at the center of the universe Your eyes holding my image - what a pity I moved to you by the rhythm of your verse I died in the streets of the city I had this dream to become a poet as the seasons taught me of regret to come the sins ran as a current of ink to permit the sorrows to write then drown in rum I forgot you at the center of the universe Your memory holding on - bear the pity I let go of everything for that grand verse I starved from the wealth of the city I had this dream to become a lover But there is no love in this city.
Poetry Battle

This is a poem I wrote comparing this guy in my life who upset me and then a guy that I really liked while noting all their differences and then how they're actually similar. It is called: My Only Exception There you are, and we're definitely not even, Are you an angel? A God? I think a demon. Though, you consider me less than Satan himself, Which makes you look bad. And I think that myself. You're blind and ignorant, it's all you'll ever see, You can't come to your senses, you'll lose more than just me. You're rage-full like a bull, and bull is all you can say Without me you're nothing, I'm too good for your fray. All the things that you say, are just your deception, And to all of that, I'm your only exception. But there you are! The silver in the darkness, Every evening turns to joy from the afternoon's starkness, The thoughts of you follow me all the time while I'm alone, And I leave you every night with a frown and a groan. There should be a place where it's just you and me, Nobody else, so that we can be free. But while I have to cope with my awful mess, I promise to be content with the loneliness. And to my hopelessly bleak perception, You love, are just my only exception
Poetry Battle

I do not love her as if you were salt-rose, or topaz, or the arrow of carnations the fire shoots off. I love her as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul. And so it is... My words slowly seep Through nooks and crannies Captivating her very soul Questioning those lain before her Slowly dissipating dark into light For their essence is too grand Locked deep in her heart Waiting as time plunders Flowing through crimson shafts Of empty hopes and lost dreams Making the iris of her very being Glistening within her solemn beauty White sparkles drifting in eternity Stealing the very breath I breathe Resting patiently within her being Concealed under layers of pain Hidden to the world before her For her love is only mine.
Poetry Battle

There was a poetry battle on this site that I saw and rather enjoyed, I would like to have one of my own. To my opponent; just post any type of poem that you like. It must be completely original and all written by yourself. Please vote based on the creativity and poetic elements included in the poems. Thank you. My first poem: Hiding Places A hiding place, a hiding place... You ducked out from me and found one, It was fine before, but now what have you done? Tell me when you're ready, I'll need to know... A secret place, a secret place... Inside your mind you stay far away from me, This is absolutely not what we should be! I'll tell you now love, this isn't the answer... A beautiful place, a beautiful place... It didn't exist yet, but we both had claimed it, I wish you made more effort, just a little bit... But now you're looking to give the joy away... A darkened place, a darkened place... I have to fall down to its depths for now, Because I messed things up somehow? But I pray that it's not true, you'll come back... A hopeful place, a hopeful place... I still have you here with me in my mind, Will you go there with me? Are you that kind? I'm really not so sure but I'm not giving up just yet... A hiding place, a hiding place... Now I've found mine and it'll keep me safe, For now while you're confused and disgraced. I want to let you know, that I still adore you...
Who would beat who in the final two battle (Hunger games edition) between the beast or shang

A. beast is not human at all .... he stays beast always unti permanent return to human form so don't say that nonsense. Rebuttal: The beast was a human in the beginning of the play and movie (DISNEY) B. Shang knew black belt level sword fighting and oculd kick a butt or two of a beast, the beast is stupid prince liek a baby Rebuttal: First, could and like are spelled wrong. Second, the beast is not stupid. The beast is clever. In Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the Beast learns about things not to do, and fixes them. Also, if the beast was not smart, then how could he of found Belle in both the West Wing and the woods? Your turn
Who would beat who in the final two battle (Hunger games edition) between the beast or shang

number two is cancelled out by Shang fighitng for mulan.beast is not human at all .... he stays beast always unti permanent return to human form so don't say that nonsense.Beast is primitive.Shang knew black belt level sword fighting and oculd kick a butt or two of a beast, the beast is stupid prince liek a baby.