BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Materialism is the best way to pursue happiness

I will begin my defense. "How does it benefit everyone then? These people are scientifically proven to be less happy then their less materialistic peers. So no, it doesn't benefit them, it actually harms them. Yes, we should live our lives to our full potential, but this can lead to unhappiness in these types of people. " I have asked my opponent to repeatedly provide another philosophy a person can live by. My opponent has not. "Then, my opponent brings up the internet. First, I'd like to point out that Pro's information is wrong. YouTube - My opponent claims that all people combined watch 100,000,000 videos a day through the site. Where does he get this information? Yahoo Answers. It's the third link provided in his arguments, but for the sake of my rebuttal, I'll put a citation. [3] Also, the question was answered seven years ago, so it's definitely outdated, according to statistics. " The actual number is 4,950,000,000, as of 2015. [4] While it may be outdated by now, 2015 is closer to today than 2009, as of today. The number is still very large. This doesn't disprove anything. " the second half of the argument, my opponent points out the Cons of spiritualism. My opponent provides no sources for any of the values he posts. "I do agree that materialists can practice novelty and honesty, but I can make a case against humility. Humility - a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness. [17] In my opening statements, I made a whole subpoint of my argument about narcissism and it's relation to materialism. I'll repost the definition of narcissism" My opponent has not made a case for any other philosophy. She has simply pointed out the cons of materialism. This has made for an unfair debate. Materialism can be challenged, but it must have another philosophy that outweighs it. My opponent has not provided this philosophy. I have provided countries with high levels of spiritualism, and have pointed out how they are usually poorer. They are usually less happy, than materialistic countries in the western world. Critique materialism all you can, but if my opponent cannot find another way that would outweigh materialism, than this debate is clearly a win for Pro.
Troll Debate

Flavoring is more difficult to add when cooking large sections of meat, especially if the dwarf is cooked whole. Moreover, since dwarfs typically consume exorbants amounts of alcohol, eating the dwarf whole would most likely result in unwanted wild nights and massive hangovers due to the fact that the alcohol vapors inside the body are not released. Because of this, cooking the body whole would trap the alcohol vapors inside the body and cause the the body to pressurize and expand, and if temperatures become high enough, which they most likely will, the body will explode, causing a very gruesome mess. Moreover, dwarves also tend to store old food inside their beards and bodily hair. Because roasting involves minimal cleaning of things such as hair, it would be difficult to remove all the rotten food the dwarf has stored inside them. Mincing and boiling it, however, allows you to skin the dwarf and thus remove all the hair, leaving only the fresh meat and not mixing in a year's supply of expired dwarf food. Burying the body and heating the ground also has a risk of attracting various exotic bugs to the cooking site . Of the exotic bugs that may be attracted range from the heat resistant Musca Cyclorrthemophilae to the temperature resistant Scarabaeus Thermorphanos, both of which could easily devour your delicious dwarf meat in a matter of minutes. Putting it in a pot and boiling it inside the house removes the risk of any exotic insect intruding upon your delicious meal, save the Sympetrum Flammorapenetrae, which has the uncanny ability to move through walls using a wall hack. However, since these insects die instantly from cold, setting up liquid nitrogen turrets inside your kitchen will remove such a threat.
Troll Debate

Though mincing would make the meal more pleasing to the eyes, you have to think of your health as well. Roasting, especially over an open fire, the fat would fall of the meat, and even cause a hotter flame, cooking thoroughly. Though undercooking could be a problem, this could be easily solved by either roasting the dwarf in sections, or roasting by burying it and heating the ground, as was and still is a widely used cooking method. Roasting it in a liquid could solve the problem of drying meat. Flavorings could not only be added to the food directly, but placed in the fire as done with pine to give more flavor. It is healthier to cook the dwarves through roasting, and you can gather friends around the fire before the sun comes up, thus avoiding petrification.
Troll Debate

Dwarfs are typically known to have high body mass, so if this debate is about those kinds of dwarves, roasting them would not be a good idea for a number of reasons.1. Dwarves' high body mass makes roasting them have a higher chance of leaving the insides undercooked2. If the dwarf has a high body mass due to fat, the fat will either stay on the meat or melt and seep into the meat, making the fat content of the meat very high3. If the dwarf has a high body mass due to muscle, the meat will be tough unless tenderized, something that cannot be done if the dwarf is roasted whole4. Because roasting involves dry heat, the moisture in the meat will evaporate. Because the chest of any animal, be it human, chicken, or dwarf, tends to retain less water than the legs due to the fact that the legs have more fat content are thus juicier. Because of this, the chest needs less cooking than the legs, meaning that if you want both the chest and the legs to be juicy, you must cook them separately, something that cannot be done when you roast it whole.5. Looking at something that resembles a human with brown, oiled. and crispy skin with corneas that have literally evaporated and sclera that have melted over the pupil is quite a ghastly sight to behold. /r/nosleep worthy.On the other hand, when you mince and boil the dwarf, quite a few problems that are present in roasting are solved.1. Mincing the dwarf will ensure that all the meat is cooked uniformly, and nothing will be left undercooked2. If the dwarf has a lot of fat, it can be removed before cooking, allowing for healthy, lean meat.3. Minced meat not only can be tenderized but also marinated, allowing for juicy, flavorful meat.4. Mincing allows for different parts of the body to be cooked separately, allowing the chest to be cooked less than the legs5. The aesthetic qualities of a minced dwarf is much less gruesome than that of a dwarf roasted whole
Troll Debate

If said dwarves were roasted, they would retain water, keeping the meat from drying out. Using this cooking method would also allow their fat to, for the most part, dissolve. This would be crucial as they are very large beings, due to the size and frequency of their meals. It would not only allow a greater taste, but would also have some health benefits. If they were minced, much of the fat would remain, and even be absorbed by the meat, which could cause blood clots and heart problems in the future.
The English Premier league is better than the Spanish La La liga: football(soccer)

I find this topic interesting. For clarity I would like to tell the readers what is what what we(my opponent and I) have to do win. First definitions First the Premier League is is an English professional league for association football clubs. Contested by 20 clubs, it operates on a system of promotion and relegation with The Football League. [1] The La Liga League is is the professional association football league in Spain. It is contested by 20 teams. [2] better -superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"[3] So the Pro must arguing that the Premier league is the better league than the La Liga. I agree on that of what my opponent says of what his job is but what the con must do, is what I have a disagreement on. Since my job is to shown that the topic isn't true and that it is wrong that is my job. So since the topic is asking if the Premier League is better than the La Liga league all I have do is show that that statement is false. I can prove that statement false by 2 ways; 1 that the La Liga is the better league OR that both leagues are equally good. I can show that the Leagues are equally good and still be con because I'm showing that both leagues are equal and since the resolution says that one team is better than another, and I'm saying that that is false because both leagues are equal you must look at my criteria of what I must do. Also what to do in each round. Round 1- intro Round 2-present arguments Round 3-argue Round 4-argue and show why you won Good Luck! 1-. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2-. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3-. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
The English Premier league is better than the Spanish La La liga: football(soccer)

As my very first debate I would like to debate about something other than politics or religion so I chose my favorite sport. The Premier League and the La Liga are regarded by most people as the two best football leagues in the world. But it is often debated which one is the best, so I hope that I will get an opponent willing to debate me. I (pro) will be arguing that the Premier league is the better league. My opponent (con) will be arguing that the La Liga is the better league. My arguments will be based on how good the teams in the leagues are, and how many good teams their are, how good the players are and how many their are in each league, and how tough the leagues are.etc.. I look forward to having the debate. =)
There is a difference between a black person and a nigger

You don't get to called a nigger just because you steal and like to do crack. If that were the case, your mother would be a nigger. When a baby nigger is born, there is no changing that baby, there is no helping that baby. It will always be a nigger and it will always want to steal your bike. You refer to blacks as though they are actual people. This infuriates me. To be defined as a person you need sentience, civility and a societal job. These are things that blacks lack and therefore cannot be defined as people, leaving the only word to describe them as the word NIGGERS.
There is a difference between a black person and a nigger

My stance is, they're all niggers. I'm not even racist. I love blacks, sometimes when I haven't choked the chicken in a while I can view weird porn, such as nigger porn. Do you know how long it takes a black woman to take a sh*t? Nine months. My argument is, a nigger is always a black person. We know this. Therefore it must be true that nigger is synonymous with black person. One cannot be black and claim to be anything other than a niggin nigger. Thank you and I humbly await your argument.
Should school shave the right to search lockers

I can see why something like that could be bothersome. I have actually had similiar experiances where my lock was cut because I was acused of having drug on campus(I didn't...). The problem is the lockers are property of the school giving them the right to search them. You don't have to use a locker, and if there are only textbooks and notes in their why does it matter if they see it? In the end it is a safety measure for the school. If the school wasn't able to search lockers students could be using them to store drugs and even weapons. We have to weigh the pro's and the con's, it may be annoying to have someone searching your locker but in the end it is for your own security.
The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat

Thank you for accepting and i wish you good luck. I affirm this resolution on the premise that history proves technology only leads to the the destruction of our habitat Observation: The habitat I speak of includes its inhabitants as well. First note that weapons only lead to the destruction of a habitat or its inhabitants ie: guns kill living creatures, knifes do to, as well as axes(which can harm a habitat as well). More modern inventions (the car, power plants, etc.) pollute the Earth which harms a habitat. Finally, things such as solar panels, bridges, wind turbines, phones, computers an etc. cause pollution through their creation and all require resources which leads back to harming the habitat. So, i place this burden on my opponent: The Con must give one example that does not harm the habitat in anyway. If he fails to do so, the Pro wins. Thank you and I await the Con response.
A National Health Care System should not be passed through Congress.

I'm sure this topic has been debated before, but I'll do my best. A nationalized health care system is defined as a federal regulation of a country's medical centers, hospitals, hospices, etc. It makes health insurance mandatory to all citizens and decisions for these citizens will be made by the government as opposed to by themselves. This debate will be primarily moral, close to a Lincoln/Douglas debate. Contention 1: Forcing an individual to invest in health insurance is Unjust. Health insurance can cost $5,000 to $20,000 a year. A broken leg may cost about that much. But the chances of somebody actually breaking a bone are fairly low- I personally have never broken a bone in my life, and in a large, random crowd of people, you may only see one or two people with broken bones. But the individual will still have to pay that amount of money to a health insurance company yearly whether or not they use any of it. Far better than this, I can put that amount of money into a bank account, get interest off of it, and use the savings if I need to. If I don't, I have now made money from the bank instead of losing it forever. Compare this to a nationalistic health care. Now EVERYBODY must pay taxes to equal everyone else's health care costs. Given how inefficiently the government runs, this would be entirely disastrous. This leads me to: Contention #2: The government does not run well enough to run health care. The post office, Amtrak, and Medicaid are only examples of this. All lose billions of dollars a year and are destined for bankruptcy. Any businessman could see this, but the federal gov. only continues to pour millions and billions into these programs. Why? Because politicians have absolutely nothing to lose to such things. This relates to individual liberty because our choice is taken from us not to follow an inefficient plan. Contention #3: Our national debt cannot handle the strain of this plan. We are already drowning in debt and over the next couple decades, a health care system will do nothing to help. Our children and our children's children will be paying this debt, and that directly interferes with personal liberty. And finally, Contention #4: The health care system is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the only thing protecting individual rights- like the right NOT to buy health care. In the end, it the constitution that governs us, not Congress, not the president. Thank you for reading this. I hope this will be a good round.
nature of our free will in analogy form

so i was reading this christian book. it said we were like sand castles. god is the creater of the castle. our will is like a kid who comes along and wants to do things to the castle. "why can't i do what i want with my life". the decision is up to god as he is the creator, the book said. and most christians just accept this as it makes somewhat sense. i don't necessarily disagree with that. but, i wonder if that basic analogy is so wired into us from youth that we wouldn't realize it if it was fundamentally not the best description of the reality of our situation. i was thinking a better analogy would be. if you wanna be warm, you gotta start a fire. you don't have to start the fire, but you won't be warm if you don't. it's not about power displays so much as a fundamental element of existance. free will etc. i mean, if existance required us to not do things to it like the sandcastle, then sure that analogy is good too. but it seems more like we can mess up the sandcastle, but if we want a basic sandcastle, we won't.
nature of our free will in analogy form

yey for me! I win my first debate. WHOO HOO! YEY YEY YEY YEY! QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
nature of our free will in analogy form

So then your saying our will is out of our control? And that our will can either destroy us or bild onto us? I don't like this analogy. God being the creator--- this would mean God is a bad craftsman. Why chose sand? Sand is unsturdy, grain, and get stuck in places nobody wants it to be. Wouldn't it be better to have build the castle out of something more durable, like Titanum, or diamond? Sand castles also only last for about a day, until the tide comes in. If God really cared about his castle he would have, again, made it out of something that won't fall apart under when it gets wet. About or will being a kid--- if you think that then that means we are our own destruction. Because God can't control our temper tantrums we'll just run amuk and break sand castles. It also assumes mind and body are seperate when they are really one, so, this is out. About us being the sand castle--- so then we are just God's play thing. He'll make us then leave us to die. He doesn't care about us that much, otherwise we'd be made better. He'd have built us in a safer place. He'd control the kid so it doesn't kill us. Our existance means the creator is flawed. Especially if we are a really badly made sand castle. U dudn't really specify what I was supposed to be debating with you about, so I'll assume atacking the analogy itself is my job.
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

My opponent seems to have dropped my entire case, and has instead attacked something that I never said, which is called a strawmsn fallacy: I never said we should treat Muslims like the Nazis treated the Jews, I said we should treat Islam just like we treated the Nazi regime, because it really is no different. Winston Churchill knows what I'm talking about:"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."Let's recap so my opponent knows my stance:First of all, Islam is not a religion but a militant ideology, much like the Nazi ideology, it bears some similarities with a religious cult, but isn't a religion. Second of all, the Arab Bloc, ran by the Islamic Regime, is an enemy of the United States, and it has already declared war on us. Third of all, we are at war, and thus we need to build a massive military and destroy our enemies. After this, we should handle the situation just like e handled Nazi Germany- break it up between us and Russia, end the indoctrination of youth in the Regime ideology, and stomp out any good memory of the former regime. This is not a Joke debate, I'm serious. Islam is a real threat and it needs to be destroyed.
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

My opponent suggests that we, the United States of America, treat Muslims as a Nazi would treat a Jewish person. I think I do not need to explain myself on how irrational and utterly stupid this idea is.Yes, I still firmly believe this is a joke debate. I'm waiting to see a camera man pop out of the doorway and say "YOU'VE BEEN PRANK'D!"
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

My opponent is confusing Christianity and Catholicism- Christianity would count as a pagan cult, but it isn't a regime, it wasn't invented for military and political purposes, the Catholic Church was, by Constantine, but they had a reformation in the late Middle Ages. The Crusades are not comparable to Muhammad's bloody military campaign ecause the Crusades were actually justified- you see if my opponent would have stayed awake in history class he would know that the Muslims provolked the European Nations to wage war against them by attacking Constantanople, conquering Spain, and stealing the Holy Land. Furthermore, I sai we should treat the Muslims like we did the Nazis becuse that's what they are, not like the Nazis treated their enemies. And yes- we should shoot, bomb, and nuke the Muslims, because that's what you do when you're at war. THIS IS NOT A JOKE DEBATE this is serious.
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

Similarly, Catholicism started out as a cult where a man self-proclaimed himself as the son of God. Though he died on a cross, only accumulating a mere 12 followers, his will lived on.Catholicism grew on a larger scale. Politics and religion became intertwined in Europe, with the Pope having almost as much authority as vassals, lords and even Kings, during the Middle Ages. Even to this day, Catholicism is related to politics, and has influence in matters such as marriage, posing as heavy opposition against homosexual marriage. In the 11th century, the European Catholics initiated a series of holy wars, which we know today as the "Crusades." Kings offered their armies to Pope Urban and his cause to recapture Jerusalem. Citizens, consisting of Jewish and Muslim peoples, were massacred at the hands of the Crusaders. However, these violent wars seemed to have come to a peaceful end during the "King's Crusade," where Frederich the Lionhearted and Saladin reached an agreement where, though Saladin and his empire would still control Jerusalem, the Europeans were welcome to go to Jerusalem without any sort of conflict. However, Pope Urban was dissatisfied with this outcome, initiated the Fourth Crusade, and so on. Nothing was accomplished by these wars. They were nothing more than a series of fruitless wars with casualties on both sides, all a result of religious intolerance and a hunger for power.My opponent claims that Islam is not similar to Christianity because it was only their Holy Scriptures, who he claims were entirely fake, were the only things that had any violence in them, not the religion itself. However, the Crusades were a prime example of how malicious Christianity was, and how much authority it has.My opponent continues saying "No, we're not going to massacre Muslims. No, no. We're just going to treat them in the way that Nazis did to their enemies. It's totally okay!" And then he goes on to say, quite simply, "then we're going to shoot them, bomb them and nuke them. There's a difference between that and massacring, somehow."I am 100% convinced this is a joke debate.