BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spooky Scary Skeletons

Argumentitive numberal uno: the master argumentMy argumentSS= spooky skeletonsSO= soceity.F= properly functioningG= morally desireable Premise one: SO(f) iff SSP2: SO(f) > GP3 SS is Gpremise one is saying socieity only functions if and only if there are spooky skeletons. This is truuey lewy because we all need fear to survive. If there is no fear there is no fear of death no fear of death would entail a morally undesirable qualaity (and qantitiy). We have skeletons and if we dont get the fear of them out there we would all be repressed. Not being afraid means being jadded and dispasinate. Frued said this leads to fear of sexual development and a focus on an anal fixation because there are less bones there. It will cause a sexually backwards society and inhibit reproduction causing the human race to be destroyed. Spooky scary skeletons will give eqaual fear to everything else helping a brave exploration of sexuality and reporoduction. This is a freudian axiom.Premise two is a moral axiom. We all want that is what is morally desiarable for the human race ~p2 would cause destrotion of our soceity. Premise 3 follows tutological from the pest premises. We NEED THEM SPOOKY SCARY SKELETONS TO SEND SHIVERS DOWN OUR SPINE!!Argumenttiev 2: SongsIf there are spooky scary skeletons then there becomes more and more songs about them including HEAVY F*CKING METAL MIXES\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/\m/Some good sh1t there if I do say so myself.Arguementtive 3: Anthropology and paleoenonologwhatevrMost anthropos and palenotos are boring as sh1t and not tough. They are old bastards but with spooky scary skeletons they will become brave or face a job loss. They will be like bruce campbell from the evil dead and create a group of smart tough skeleton fighters to safe gaurd humanity from the evils within http://www.cinemablend.com...; />F*ck yeah
Spooky Scary Skeletons

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Awwwwwwwwwwww yeahhhhhh. It's halloween and I am argue we need to have skeletons that are spooky AND scary. I am pro spooky scary skeletons (hallowed by our dark lord mr skeltal) and con is aganst there being spoopy scary skeletals. http://i2.kym-cdn.com...; />
evil is unintended, as belief is unresonable

What PRO has said in this argument is entirely unreasonable, due to the lack of rebuttal of my standing logic in the previous round. However, my opponent brings up an interesting point: "i didnt show why its unresonable to have belief, but belief is imaginary, and there is no logic in fantasy, and illogical is unresonable" Aside from the near-incomprehensible grammar in this statement, PRO said that belief is imaginary, therefore, all of the things he says without providing rigorous proof is imaginary. In a sense, PRO *believes* that what he says does not exist in a concrete state as belief is imaginary, which ends up in a paradox as he continuously believes. As this makes no sense, this further reinforces my argument that what PRO says is utterly unreasonable. The only thing I have left to say in this round is to ask if my opponent is currently intoxicated on battery acid. Back to you, PRO.
evil is unintended, as belief is unresonable

hm its true i didnt show why its unresonable to have belief, but belief is imaginary, and there is no logic in fantasy, and illogical is unresonable the opposite of right is wrong, the opposite of moral is immoral, the opposite of logic is reason, the opposite of resonable is unresonable, and unresonable is illogical i have no beliefs, logic is absolute, reason is guided by logic and morality is guided by reason reason+intent=morality would you give your kid battery acid to drink, if you wanted your kid to be healthy(logic)? and even if you didnt want your kid to be healthy, would you give your kid battery acid?(morality) belief=false knowledge=truth truth can only be in the past right is most favorable, becasue consequence is absolute, and because we dont like pain, going and and beginning to stab people in the street they or police would take you Down very fast, favorable? isolation for life time?
evil is unintended, as belief is unresonable

(Note: Just for fun, I tried to construct a rebuttal in five minutes) It took me a while to comprehend PRO's argument due to his terrible grammar, but he has done nothing in his argument to prove that evil is unintended, nor did he show that belief is unreasonable. "the right way, is the moral way, is the logical way" PRO fails to specify exactly what the "right way" is, nullifying the purpose of this argument and merely showing his upheld belief. The definition of right is as follows: Right - most convenient, desirable, or favorable [1] There is no definite and objective definition of what is convenient, desirable, or favorable. Therefore, PRO's statement is not a fact. Here is the meaning of belief: Belief - Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof[2] In other words, PRO has not proven this statement, thus lacking rigorous (or any for that matter) proof. Therefore, Pro's first statement is a belief, which consequently leads to the result that as he takes the position in that belief is unreasonable, what he says, in his opinion, is unreasonable, and his words cannot be considered as a serious argument. All of Pro's next arguments are now entirely nullified. GG. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Ok now i almost understand your point of view. So i ask you frankly if you think assault weapon shouldn't be banned, then are you against the movement of March for our lives ? Then you would think this movement is quite stupid right ? But we all agree and you should strongly agree with us that we should have background check on all guns sales. Nobody should oppose this. Background check is meant to keep guns out of dangerous people. Anyone who argue that background check does not work is really retarded. 99 % of experts agree that background check is the best approach to end gun violence. Background check has nothing to do with infringe the right to bear arms. It doesn't violate 2n amendment. terrorist,criminals,domestic abusers and mental ill are not well regulated militia. How about if we do like this . Let's make gun regulation like in Germany. Germany has fourth highest gun ownership but the lowest gun death. How did they achieve that ? Germany has strong background check Germany has safety storage on guns Germany has gun registry and gun license Germany banned fully automatic weapon and also semi atuomatic weapon that cannot be used for hunting and sports. And Lastly most important point is Germany does not guaranteed the right to self defense. It's illegal in Germany to use guns for self defense. Concealed carry permit is forbidden. Look i want to send important message to Hunters and Sportsmen. ' I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. IF YOU WANT TO USE GUNS FOR HUNTING I FULLY SUPPORT IT. I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE YOUR RIGHT AWAY. MY GRANDFATHER ALSO LIKE TO ENJOY HUNTING. BESIDES THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT YOURSELVE FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND YES I TRUST TRUMP AND THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL. WE ARE IN THE 21TH CENTURY. AMERICA IS AN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. THERE ARE NO SLAVERY AND COLONIES ANYMORE.
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Before I start, I want to say that this should be a civil debate and no name-calling. Remember, you are trying to change my mind, and have made some good points so far. "Majority of mass shooters obtain guns legally, 167 of mass shooters weapon were obtained legally and 52 were obtain illegal." Sure. However, there should be mental illness screening, because at least half of mass shootings are carried out by mentally ill people.(http://www.latimes.com...) "You claim that knives kill more people which is another flawed argument. In USA gun homicide exceed homicide by other mean. Did you see any students go on rampage killing with a knive ? Hardly are there any. Knives does kill people but it can never reach the same death toll as with a gun or assault weapon." I said "rifles of any type". Knives kill 4 times the amount rifles do, and blunt objects and body parts kill more than rifles as well.(https://www.statista.com...) "But why can he achieve the death toll of 58 ? Because of bump stock device can make semi automatic weapon functioning like automatic weapon. And now you argue that everyone should own this type of deadly weapon including mental ill and criminals right?" There should be mentall illness screening and background checks, and you should be able to get one if u pass for sometimes hunting, but mostly to protect against a tyrannical governemnt. "Simply we don't ban cars because it can be useful for transportation but it should certainly have a strong regulation on it." And guns are neccesary for self-defense and to protect against government tyranny. There are over 2.5 Defensive gun uses per year. 800,000 of those saved lives. Even if you take away guns, it still means 200,000 lives saved by guns. That equivalates to 1 murder(all weapons) every at least 18 lives saved. "The same argument should we also say,, OH HEY AIRPLANES KILL MORE PEOPLE, LOOK AT 11. SEPMTEMPER ATTACK 2001, 2000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHY NOT BANNED AIRPLANES !!!" ?" Airplanes kill very small amounts of people. Cars kill much more than guns. "Assault weapon is completely unecessary to own and it should be outright banned." America already tried it for 10 years 94-04 and it did not have an affect on murder rate. Cities and countries with the strictest gun laws have have high murder rates after guns were banned, it did not help murders go down. "assault weapons(plz define)" kill 370 people a year. very small. Question: Do u trust the government and trump admin.?
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Sorry but your argument is stupid and flawed. It's very idiotic to say that knives kill more people than guns. Majority of mass shooters obtain guns legally, 167 of mass shooters weapon were obtained legally and 52 were obtain illegal. You claim that knives kill more people which is another flawed argument. In USA gun homicide exceed homicide by other mean. Did you see any students go on rampage killing with a knive ? Hardly are there any. Knives does kill people but it can never reach the same death toll as with a gun or assault weapon. Does the second amendment protect knives ? No it doesn't. The problem here in America why so many suffer from violence because we have gun culture. If the Las Vegas mass murder armed with a knives, do you think he would be able to kill 58 people ? I don't think so. But why can he achieve the death toll of 58 ? Because of bump stock device can make semi automatic weapon functioning like automatic weapon. And now you argue that everyone should own this type of deadly weapon including mental ill and criminals right ? Please use more common sense. Please don't think like kindergarden children do. Even they can think more rationally. You also argue that cars kill more people than guns. Okay that might be true. If you look upon the news, there are many vehicle ramming attack which kill as much as mass shooting. For example the terrorist attack in France (Nice) , a truck drove into pedestrians killing 86 people. That attack is indeed more deadlier than the Las Vegas mass shooting. But you must keep in mind that vans and trucks are not design to be a weapon but they can indeed be a weapon. Should we have regulation on cars ? Of course we should, but i certainly don't agree with gun enthusiasist saying ,, If guns are banned, why not ban cars as well ? it killed even more people". Simply we don't ban cars because it can be useful for transportation but it should certainly have a strong regulation on it. The same argument should we also say,, OH HEY AIRPLANES KILL MORE PEOPLE, LOOK AT 11. SEPMTEMPER ATTACK 2001, 2000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHY NOT BANNED AIRPLANES !!!" ? No we don't say such kind of stuff. It's very retarded to say that. Cars and airplanes are not a weapon of choice but guns are. We can work hard to regulate cars and airplanes but not banning them. But nevertheless it cannot be compared to assault weapon. Assault weapon is an military style weapon, it's an weapon of war design merely for killing people. You can't go hunting with it or using as self defense or use in sport . Assault weapon is completely unecessary to own and it should be outright banned.
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

We should not ban assault weapons, or any type of gun. More than 80% of mass shootings are done with handguns. Only 350 deaths a year are with rifles of any type. Over 90% of gun murders are with handguns. Knives kill more than 4 times the amount of rifles. Should we ban knives? What about cars? Gun bans have proven not to be effective in america or other countries. The assault weapons ban from 94-04 did not work one bit. Why should we try to ban guns if we have already tried several times, and now the government has your guns, so you can't protect yourself for self defense or a tyrannical government? Another question. Do you trust the government right now?
I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

"So i ask you frankly if you think assault weapon shouldn't be banned, then are you against the movement of March for our lives ?" I think they have the right to do it, and should be able to voice their opinion on it. The ultimate goal is to save lives, but people have a different approach to it. I think people need to do more research on it, like I have done so much. I like to find actual statistics more than what I feel. I think the movement is ban guns or assault weapons, but if anyone disagrees they hate children or don't care about saving lives. I think they should be more open to opposing arguments, so I am mostly against their opinions their expressing through the movement. "But we all agree and you should strongly agree with us that we should have background check on all guns sales. Nobody should oppose this. Background check is meant to keep guns out of dangerous people." We already have background checks on gun sales. But I think they should be stricter and mental illness screening. "Let's make gun regulation like in Germany. Germany has fourth highest gun ownership but the lowest gun death. How did they achieve that ?" Even if they have a low gun death, that doesn't mean they have a low homicide rate. Even if they do, Germany banned guns before 1930. It would not be conclusive to say German has a low murder rate because of the ban. Plus, look what happened a decade after they banned guns- The holocaust. If Germans and Jews had guns, they could have had a very good chance of defending themselves or other people. This is a perfect example of why the 2nd amendment was created- to protect against a tyrannical government, like Germans could have done if they had guns. "Germany banned fully automatic weapon and also semi atuomatic weapon that cannot be used for hunting and sports." Semi-automatic is basically every gun, unless you are not counting a revolver or shotgun. "BESIDES THERE IS NO NEED TO PROTECT YOURSELVE FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT AND YES I TRUST TRUMP AND THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL." Look at Germany, and North Korea right now. It is very necessary to defend against a possible tyrannical government. Ok, I was asking because I've talked with people who said they don't trust the government, but wan't them to take their guns away, which seems very illogical to me.
Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves.

"Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves." lookingattheissues ...Round Number 3 OCT 21St. 2015 "Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves." Diversity isn't any more than a handy tool of the leftist in education to further degrade the quality of education available to American students. The socialist/ communists, enemies of this country have long understood that to be able to undermine a country you must first have the ability to reach and shape the minds of the youth of a country into a new way of thinking and viewing the world and this is what these enemies of America have been successful in doing. In the book titled," PUBLIC EDUCATION AGAINST AMERICA ,THE HIDDEN AGENDA," by Marlin Maddoux the authorwrites about the agenda of the enemies of America. The author of this book said this about John Dewey, who has been referred to as ," The Father of Modern Education," It is clear from Dewey's high praise of the communist ...Educational.... system in Russia that he was motivated to impose a similar system on the United States...." ...." noting the Strategic role the schools were playing in promoting collectivism,.... Dewey..."that which distinguishes the soviet schools...from the progressive schools of other countries (with which they have much in common) is precisely the conscious control of every education procedure by reference to a single and comprehensive social purpose." "Their function is to create habits so that persons will act cooperatively and collectively as readily now in capitalistic countries they act individualistically." Dewey wrote the previously quoted material in a " New Republic" magazine Article around 1929.
Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves.

"Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves...." The need for diversity at colleges and Universities is thought necessary by the elite hierarchy of educational institutions but they demurely reject the benefits of diversity for themselves. This rejection of the benefits of diversity to the faculty is reflected in the educational institution's hiring practices. Quite a few books have been written revealing the truth about how eager educational institutions in America really are for diversity, "diversity," its preached, is good for students, but bad, and not required in the hiring of professors who teach there. Strange , how diversity for one group, the student body is good, but is somehow looked upon as a bad thing when hiring professors. This policy of the educational hierarchy to reject Diversity for themselves almost smacks of hypocrisy on their part as if they might had a ideological agenda to indoctrinate the students under their tutelage to their particular leftist political beliefs. "Frank Luntz who's firm conducted a survey .... on the political leanings of professors" thought so. " I think Universities should insist on the same diversity in their faculty that they look for in their students." Quote taken from the book,"PUBLIC EDUCATION AGAINST AMERICA" by MARLIN Maddoux This leftist preference in hiring professors to teach at colleges and Universities isn't just the luck of the draw but done with the full duplicity of these institutions. Some one applying for a teaching Job at a educational institution isn't an unknown quantity as these applicants for teaching positions are interviewed before they're hired. "Most universities use a search committee. This is a group of faculty and selected student representatives from the hiring department who have been charged with structuring and coordinating the interview process and recommending one or more candidates for the position." " When you send your letters of recommendation, curriculum vita (known as a CV), and letter of interest, the search committee reviews your credentials first. the committee will examine your documents, contact you or those cited as your references for further information if necessary, and then rank all applicants based on the information gathered." Interviews are completed. Faculty share their opinions about the candidates in a group meeting." " Following this discussion, a faculty vote is conducted to determine the top candidate." " An offer of employment is usually presented by the department director to the person selected by the faculty, followed by a letter of offer sent by the Dean of the College."From Interviewing for a Faculty Position By Helen K. Ezell (adapted for the Web from Guide to Success in Doctoral Study and Faculty Work (2002).A thorough research is done on someone who applys for a teaching position at colleges and Universities The faculty knows by this investigation just who this applicant for a teaching position is politically before they hire them,
Liberal educational elite demand diversity but they excluded themselves.

If diversity of students is demanded and thought good at the colleges and universities why wouldn't diversity be a requirement and good and just as necessary among the faculty of these Educational institutions . Uniformity of liberal political ideology among faculty members doesn't seem to be a determent where professors teaching at these institutions are concerned and diversity of thought and ideologies is of no concern when hiring faculty members. For example, Conservative ideology and freedom of expression are censored by disapproval of those leftist professors who determine students outcome and grades. The fact that colleges and Universities tout the benefits of diversity but refuse to demand the same diversity in faculty members demonstrates that diversity is just another method, a tool, of the leftist controlled Educational institutions to indoctrinate students in the leftist Ideologies and silence dissenting opinions of those who disagree by hiring only leftist professors . "College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "..., 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week...... The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans." Washington Post article...Howard Kurtz..1952. In a book by Marlin Maddoux, titled," Public Education Against America, ".....Luntz Research company did a survey of Ivy League professors to assess their political leanings as compared to the views of of the American people in general. What they found was a disturbing lack of intellectual diversity among the professors polled, as political bias in the hiring practices at Ivy League Universities, which excludes views that are not politically correct." I am arguing that if Diversity is thought good and necessary for the students it is even more beneficial to the students if the faculty is diverse in political ideologies as well .