BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parody Election

Dude youre giving me literally nothing to work with at this point...."My opponent, Ash Ketchum, has created fake conversations."How are they fake? I found them on the internet so that proves they arent fake, people wouldnt lie on the internet.... Thats just silly. "Also, Mr. Ketchum has obviously gone crazy, which leads me to the conclusion that he is not fit for Presidency."EXCUSE ME......... MR. Ketchum is my fathers name...... Call me Ash ;DAnd I am not crazy, I am mentally hilarious.... Theres a difference. Crazy people commit 4 murders because theyre mother stopped talking to them for doing so many drugs, mentally hilarious people make a huge batch of Vanilla Pudding, put it in a jar that says "Mayonnaise" and then eats the pudding out of the jar in public so that everyone thinks hes eating nothing but Mayo....... And yes, I do plan on doing that sometime in the future. LRANGAS W SMIT W H
Parody Election

"Second, I did not 'seduce' my wife in high school, we fell in love immediately."We all remember very well how your first conversation went....http://s594.beta.photobucket.com...It got even worse soon after that....http://www.8sa.net...Fun fact, Edward and Bella's relationship meet all 15 criteria for what is considered an abusive relationshiphttp://weknowmemes.com...WE DO NOT NEED AN ABUSIVE SNOWMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF GETTING AN ERECTION BECAUSE HE HAS A VAGINA THAT SMELLS LIKE FISH IN THE WHITE HOUSE. "I have never seduced anyone of either gender."See link about the abusive relationship you are in right now"I would like the citizens of America to note he did not have a legal guardian with him, nor did he have a legal-passport."And I turned out just fine! We need to cut down on government over-regulation and let people be free again!Wouldnt you like to hang out with people like this?http://static.themetapicture.com..."It seems you have created a military which wasn't authorized by the United Nations."Yeah, I did. What have you done recently besides stalk a chick while she was asleep? Thats not romance, in a real country that gets you a restraining order. "I would like America to know that this statement is completely false and insane, I do not believe America wants an insane leader."Clearly America DOES want an insane leader...... They elected Obama twice. I rest my case. Remember our battle cry: LRANGAS W SMIT W H!!!!!!(Less Regulation And No Gay Abusive Snowmen With Smelly Vaginas In The White House)
Parody Election

'...hang out in High schools over and over while trying to seduce an 18 year old girl.....' First off, I've only attended high school... Ah... Once or twice for being... Er... Chosen to repeat high school as a test. Second, I did not 'seduce' my wife in high school, we fell in love immediately. ...'all of the girls he seduced...'I have never seduced anyone of either gender. ...'travel all over the world when I was just 12...'I would like the citizens of America to note he did not have a legal guardian with him, nor did he have a legal-passport.' In other words I dont own slaves, I train soldiers.'It seems you have created a military which wasn't authorized by the United Nations. 'YOURE A SNOWMAN'I would like America to know that this statement is completely false and insane, I do not believe America wants an insane leader.Thank you, and vote for Edward Cullen.~Edward Anthony Mason CullenDylip
Parody Election

"I'm very fluent with politics, I infact was governor of Washington in 195- Nevermind when, but I was."First off, this man has never been Governor..... He has been a live for hundreds and hundreds of years and instead of using his knowledge for politics all he has ever done was hang out in High schools over and over while trying to seduce an 18 year old girl..... As soon as this man enters office (If he enters office) it is highly likely that all of the girls he seduced will come forward and completely destabilize his administration. He will be the laughing stock of the world if Manti Teo doesnt end up dating someone else who doesnt exist....."He and millions of others he's befriended, have enslaved strange creatures known as, Pokemon. They capture them by force, than force them to brawl each other in devastating battles."First off, its not my fault that a grown man gave me a fire-breathing animal and then I was allowed to travel all over the world when I was just 12...... Dont blame me for that, I just grew up around awesome parents. Also I cant force my Charziard to do sh*t... Every time I need him in battle he just lays on his a** the whole time, I cant force him to do anything... Pokemon arent forced to fight, they willingly do so by receiving orders frm their bosses.In other words I dont own slaves, I train soldiers.In other words, I have extensive military experience..... "If I'm elected President, I will increase funding for the music program." Geez dude you already sparkle in the sunlight and have really pale skin, you dont have to act even gayer then you already are.....Now that I think about it I doubt youre even human! You have pale white and Ice Cold skin.....Beady Black eyes.....You speak like youre from a different time......You never eat or drink anything.......You dont like the sunlight.......I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE..............................YOURE A SNOWMAN
Parody Election

Hello, I am Edward Anthony Mason Cullen, and I would like to be your President.I'm very fluent with politics, I infact was governor of Washington in 195- Nevermind when, but I was.I would like the citizens of America to note that my opponent, Ash Ketchum, is infact a slave-dealer. He and millions of others he's befriended, have enslaved strange creatures known as, Pokemon. They capture them by force, than force them to brawl each other in devastating battles.If I'm elected President, I will increase funding for the music program.I'm Edward Cullen. And I want to be your President.~ Edward Anthony Mason Cullen
Parody Election

Note: This is a fake election meant only for humor.I have challenged imabench to this debate because I have seen many of his parody debates, and I believe it would be very amusing with the two nominee's I've chosen. ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ The two nominee's for President of the United States are *drumroll*... Edward Cullen and Ash Ketchum! ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ My opponent has first choice of nominee.Dylip
Monarchy and Democracy III

my opponent don't understand any of my point.all of his points don't hold good for bad monarch. why? because unlike good monarch, bad monarch are selfish, greedy by nature. why their nature is so? i don't know.clinton was impeached because of monica. so impeachment machinary can work well. lawmakers cannot stop it.one last virtue of democrasy is its freedom of speech and expression which media and people use often.monarchy doesn't have such freedom.in a democrasy one can criticize the ruler and still get going but in a monerchy the consequence of such act will be death or jail.so i think democrasy is better than monerchy.vote me.
Monarchy and Democracy III

This round will be short, bcause there really isn't much to say.Con has dropped literally all of my arguments, only trying to refute them by saying that they dont hold for a bad monarch. Yet he's never explained why, nor responded to my attacks about how he's only named a handful of bad monarchs anyway. It's strange that he says: "democrasy has the inherent opportunity to throw out bad rulers. it does not mean that they are relaced by bad people again"Yet makes no response to the Hoppe card proving that only bad men rise to power in democracy. Con brings up impeachment, but he's not really argued this. Politicians very rarely get impeached, and politicians themselves make laws so this isn't really a risk.Therefore, I have clearly won bcause my opponent has conceded to it all.
Monarchy and Democracy III

my opponent wants to know how his points do not apply to bad monarch. first we must understand the difference between good monarch and bad ones. the fundamental difference is that good monarch take care of his men. he will do all those things for the benefit of his people. bad monarch will do the same thing for his own interest and not for the benefit of his people.i am going to show how my opponent's point won't apply to bad monarchs : Points Good monarch Bad monarch War Will do when attacked by enemy Will do when he needs money himself Diplomacy Do to stop war Do that for own interest. Accountability Will not harm the economy at all. Will destroy the economy yet he will be rich. e.g. through wars, taxes etc. Taxation Will reduce tax Will impose high tax Productivity Will keep productive people Will keep unproductive people who praise him. Tyranny No Yes Corruption No Inheriting the kingdom does not mean no corruption. King can do corruption in many ways since he has the most power. so you see, that in monarchy too, there may be all kind of corruption if the monarch is bad. actually it depends on the nature and quality of ruler that how the people are taken care of. consider the presidency of abraham lincoln, george washington, winston churchill, they took good care of their own people.democrasy has the inherent opportunity to throw out bad rulers. it does not mean that they are relaced by bad people again. in democrasy anybody can run for presidency. a good people can also run for presidency. there is a possibility. this possibility is absent in monerchy.also in democrasy there is the facility of impeachment. a president can be impeached during his term. this facility is absent in monerchy.democrasy is like that house which has many doors to escape. monerchy is like the house which has only one door to escape.i think therefore, democrasy is better than monerchy.
Monarchy and Democracy III

My Opponent concedes to every argument I make, only stating that they do not apply to bad monarchs, such as "nero, caligula, richard the third". First, he hasn't warranted this; quite a few of the advantages of a monarchial system arise from self interest and he hasn't explained to you how a bad Monarch won't act in self interest. Secondly, that he can only name 3 supposed bad rulers after millenia of Monarchial rule and literally thousands of Monarchs is telling. I can name more bad Presidents in the past century in the U.S. alone (Woodrow Wilson, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, & Jimmy Carter to name a few). His "case" for Democracy rests on one argument, that: " democracy provides for an opportunity to the people to throw out bad rulers through votes." This is false, because voting out bad rulers in a Democracy only replaces them with other bad ones. As Hoppe writes[1]:"The selection of governmental rulers by means of popular elections makes it practically impossible that any good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually ensures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government; indeed as is the result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will becomeincreasingly bad and dangerous individuals."Thus, Democratic rulers are more threatening than Monrchial ones. He has dropped my entire case, I've already won the round. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "On Monarchy, Democracy, and the Idea of Natural Order." Democracy: The God That Failed : The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order.. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2004.USA. 87-88 Print.
Monarchy and Democracy III

all of the points mentioned by my opponent are valid for good monarch. but for bad monarch like nero, caligula, richard the third etc. these points will go reverse or against the interest of the people.the inherent benefit of democracy is that democracy provides for an opportunity to the people to throw out bad rulers through votes.monerchy did not give it to the people. in this way only good rulers will rule in democracy while in monerchy both good and bad ruler will rule.so democracy is better than monerchy.
Monarchy and Democracy III

The purpose of this debate will be an attempt by me to defend Hoppes thesis in the book Democracy: The God that Failed regarding Monarchy and Democracy; that is that Monarchy is a superior system of government than Democracy, a position contrary to my own beliefs.The burden of proof is shared. My Opponent acknowledges that they will have to present a case in affirmation of democracy themselves, merely trying to refute my arguments is an automatic forfeit. Round one is for acceptance.We will be using Hoppes definitions: Monarchy is privately owned government ultimately ruled by one individual who generally gained his status via the position of his birth. Dictators in the modern sense who sieze power without respect to private property, law and order, or social facilitation (as has been the general trend for autocrats in modern times) are not considered Monarchs. Monarchs pass on their kingdom to their heir after they die, and a kings kingdom is his personal property. Democracy is government owned publically. Leaders are chosen directly by the people, or decisions are made directly by the people (my opponent must choose to defend either representative democracy (Republic) or direct democracy), and decisions are made on the basis or majority rules be it a vote in Congress, a public referrendum, ect. The Resolution is referring to rule of large territories in nation-states, advancing an argument such as democracy is better for a small town, or monarchy is better for family units or tribes leads to an auto-loss.The debate will center mostly around the historical effects of democracy, as well as inherent advantages of Monarchy.Also, I have no idea why but on my last two debates on this subject my opponents attempted to show an elective monarchy to be a democracy. Advancing an argument of this nature will be an automatic forfeit of the debate. For clarification on an elective monarchy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Social Media is terrible for young teens even adult's self esteem

Social Media is indeed a good platform for people to communicate, however they are many studies done on how social media is rather a system of gossiping over people's burden. Nowadays on media is focused on negative things since now sadly that is how teens are taught to live. People get views over other people's "beef", since that is now entertaining. Society is taught to hate over love, to the point telling someone that you love them is harder to say than telling someone you hate them. For example rice gum a formal you tuber that is popular "roasting people". Millions of users are seeing his post since they are entertained by hate. In some cases, people would post selfies, or opinions and get bashed over it. Online any internet trolls can say anything, and comment anything on anyone's picture. Furthermore, having those options can cause anyone to post negative comments and can definitely harm someone's self esteem. Especially for teens, they are at a time where they are influenced easily, and following big following stars like Kylie Jenner, Sommeray, Kim and etc, most of their posts are about half naked pictures, and Botox face, skinny nose. And for normal person seeing those images constantly trying to fit in to society, you tend to lose yourself, trying to fit into society. Although you can try to not try to see those images, but it is on popular page. Moreover, following your friends on Instagram, you feel left out, when he went out with his friends, but not invited you. It is the little things that is affecting your self. Nowadays everyone is on their phone, because without it people feel awkward. Now social media affected mostly everyone to the point when they are hanging out with their friends, they should be able to talk face to face, but they rather on their phones, and now that is a serious issue. They are low percent of people that are not affected by this, but majority of the population are addicted to Social Media that they can not "survive" without their phones. When people get likes on their social media photo, people get adrenaline and dopamine, which is an hormone that makes you feel happy. Dopamine hormone functions as a neurotransmitter, which is a part of a brain that is linked to nervous system. And when the dopamine rush wears off, people crave it more causing them to be addicted to likes, which is an serious issue in today's society.
Social Media is terrible for young teens even adult's self esteem

Greetings Opponent, I believe that Social Media is a good tool for the majority of teens and young adults, and the minimal disadvantages to most media systems are far outweighed by the positives. You can see what friends you haven't seen in a while are up to, socialize with your friends and share things about your life. The platform doesn't show you things that make you sad or insecure, you look them up. And Social Media doesn't make you insecure, it only reveals you already were. As a teen who has had been using social media for years, and took a experimental three month break to see what my life would be like without it, I can tell you it does not cause extra or new insecurity, and such arguments are (in my experience) completely unfounded.
Social Media is terrible for young teens even adult's self esteem

Greetings, today I want to debate about a personal topic that relates to me considering that I am a person who has been social media a lot and recently has been not going as much. Social Media is a great way to socialize and coummicate, and to see what everyone is upto, that includes family and friends. But looking up to these beautiful instagram models, and edited (facetuned) photos and rather make you feel worse about yourself, since it makes one compare themseleves to others. People on instagram or any media post the highlights of their day, to show everyone how "amazing" their life is. Nobody would post the bad days, that makes teen that is seeing that re-think how they see their life. Since teens are seeing images of faked perfect life, they tend to compare their life and be sad that they are not swimming with turtles in school. Furthermore, social media is time consuming because you post pictures and wait for likes, and if you do not get enough likes compared to some girl in your school, you feel more insecure. All of these factors is toxic for the brain and can cause anxeity, social problems ( Since nowadays most people contact through social media, people do not know how to talk to people in real life without being awkward), having social media also causes you to become more self concious and tend to care more about what others have to say about you, since you become relied on likes.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1. Solitary confinement is a tool used in correctional facilities as a punishment. 2. Solitary confinement is the way to help give inmates who break the rules to have the time and space to find out why they were wrong. 3. There have been no definitive studies that suggest damages will occur for everyone. 4. It is not illegal to use solitary confinement. 5. Most people who go into solitary confinement understand what they did was wrong. 6.The correctional system have solitary confinement under strict rule to try not to harm the psyche. C. Solitary is an appropriate punishment for inmates who break the rules.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1.) Solitary Confinement is a form of imprisoment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2.) Yes, the most famous study of 1950's, University of Wisconsin by psychologist Harry Harlow, the monkey was placed in a situation like solitary confinement the monkey ended up being more drawn than the other monkies. 3.) The use of Soliatry Confinement produces reduce mental and physical capabilities. 4.) Solitary Confinement is considered a mild form of torture. 5.) People do not only become criminals because someone bullied them there are also other reasons for this. 6.) Prison is not a rehab because of the violent and terrible approah prisons are taking. 7.) Solitary Confinement is used because the actual effective non-violent methods cause too much money for the government to spend. 8.) Years of this method has proven that this is an ineffective method if people are questioning it today. (C) Solitary Confinment is not an appropriate punishment to any inmante who violates a prisons code of conduct.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3. Is there proof that this is what happens to inmates? Have you read anything on it? 5. Drugs addicts do learn their lesson, even though it is a repeated lesson that is harsh on the person. 6. Who they are was not a good person. Who they can be when changed is a form of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is changing someone to be better. 8. You are describing torture not solitary confinement. The room is lit up and has a nice bed for the inmate to lay and think about their actions. It is a nice calm area to reflect. 10. We pay taxes for them to eat, sleep, read work, and exercise. We give them all that and then they break the rules because someone bullied them. Solitary confinement is a just punishment for taking advantage of the nice prison environment we offer our convicts.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3 and 7: Psychological damage is not reversed after leaving solitary confinement. The inmate is actually sent back to integrate back with his fellow prison mates and left on his own. 5. "After they learn their lesson" drug addicts go through multiple cases and never "learn their lesson" because the point of rehabilitating someone is to help them become the person they can be not to help them learn their "lesson." 6. Rehabilitation is meant to guide a person to be the people they know they can be not "get rid of who they are and make them someone else". Therefore this is not a form of rehabilitation defeating the point of what prisons are for. 8. Leaving someone locked up for 24 hours on their own in a dark room with just a window (maybe) is completely opposite to helping them reflect on their own. Reflection needs to be done in a place that won"t make you feel like you"re in a stress position instead. 9. Why are people getting murdered in jail? Why are people being sexually assaulted in jail? If it"s meant for rehabilitation why is it possible to not come out alive? Since they are criminals" people do not care for their well being like they should. It"s a societal problem. Does not make it correct. 10. A harsh punishment is not justice. Justice is correcting the problem just because you do not implement solitary confinement does not mean you are lenient. (C) Thus, Solitary Confinement is not the appropriate punishment to an inmate who violates a prisons code of conduct
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3&7 you state these are risks. These are risks taken into consideration and are reversible when the inmates are helped after leaving solitary confinement. 4Solitary confine has different effects per person and have no concrete evidence it will always happen. 5These are reversible after they learned their lesson(s) 6 Rehabilitation occurs after having them getting rid of who they were and changing them for who they will be be. 8That is done after any punishment, and solitary confinement just gives them time to do it on their own first. 9 The prison system believes that what they are doing is just and within the law. If their have been psychological damages to every person why is it no illegal in the United States? 10 Leniency is when not giving a hard punishment as needed to show they are wrong