BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date

I strongly affirm the resolution "The debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date". ---- Contention 1: No Practical Problems ---- Let us get the basics out of the way. (1) I am a male, and you are a female. We are both heterosexual. Therefore, there exists no problems as far as sexual preference goes. (2) According to Google Maps, we live (even in 'traffic') within fifteen minutes of each other. There are no problems as far as distance goes. (Although, really: Love has no boundaries.) (3) We are both sophomores who are fifteen years old, which is just about right. Thank God I won't have to go through another rape conviction. I mean, it was terrible the first time around. (4) Often times, an odd situation will occur when a partner meets the other partner's parents. This will not be the case when you meet mine. You see, both of my parents are Buddhist. You are Buddhist. Do I need to spell it out? ---- Contention 2: Likes Attract ---- Scientific evidence proves that contrary to popular belief, opposites do NOT attract. In fact, evidence suggests quite the opposite; people who are more similar build longer, more lasting relationships. As I will prove through our profiles on debate.org, we are very similar. (1) We share very similar political views. Firstly, we only have a 90% disagreement ratio. (This is remarkable.) The only issue we do disagree on is abortion. However, I assure you that I will always wear protection. The disagreement on abortion should therefore not be relevant. Secondly, we are both democrats who support Barack Obama for president of the United States. As Ragnar_Rahl elegantly put it, "...agreeing on politics is often a good sign for a potential relationship- certainly not sufficient, but enough to go on a date over, especially if one is consistent and derives one's politics from one's ethics and those from one's metaphysics and epistemology. After all, such things point to other compatibilities as well." (2) We are both debaters who use debate.org. Duh. (3) Ethnicity-wise, we are both Asian. Scientific evidence proves that people are attracted more to people of their own race. We are of the same race. Therefore, you will probably be (as I will be to you) more attracted to me than to--oh I don't know--a white guy. QED. (4) We both agree that Meagan Fox is hideous. This same sexual perception reaffirms our biological destiny to be together. ---- Contention 3: Just 'Cause---- Yeah. ---- In Closing ---- I believe that you should go on a date with me because (1) there are no practical problems, (2) we are very much alike, and (3) just 'cause. I sincerely wait for your response.
Economic Prosperity is more important than Environmental Protection

So you're telling me that the thing that gives us all oxygen just so we can take it for granted by destroyed "parts of nature" for businesses, is at all remotely acceptable? You must be the lowest form of living matter on this planet to accept this position... So let me tune you in on some actual logic - the entire idea of business is making profits off of ignorant people, not intelligent people. This is to say that the entire productivity of business is encouraging the stupidity which causes many, many, many people pain and misery because these stupid people continue to envy within this stupidity. So the business profits off of others, in turn causing it to grow - what people don't understand is that there are basically 99% stupid people in this world and 1% intelligent people. This is to say that businesses thrive off of ignorant and stupidity, while the planet, and its entire design, thrives off of an intelligence beyond even my own. You are destroying this planet for what? Your pocket? Yeah, you're such a big guy for making profits off of what isn't your own size or above your own size, thus why you're a spoiled kid that would rather learn how to cheat his fellow men, than to lead them into a better future.
Economic Prosperity is more important than Environmental Protection

Hey people. I look forward to debate anyone. I will not be giving background as I do with most of my debates, for I want this to be free of influence. Definitions: Economic Prosperity: (Dictionary.com.) prosperity. a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune. More important: of higher value Environmental Protection: Policies and procedures aimed at conserving the natural resources, preserving the current state of natural environment and, where possible, reversing its degradation. By choosing con, you believe environmental protection is more important than economic prosperity. So you'll have to defend for environmental protection!
Economic Prosperity is more important than Environmental Protection

I don't mind the printed money, I was just telling you that don't act like its really valuable to begin with. You're right, this was my mistake. I stand corrected. Here's a better question: why are so many geniuses and innovative men shaping this world, all the while not going to school? Maybe it's because school is for average people, not ascended individuals? I don't think you understand how the world works biologically according to convenience and inconvenience. If I had to go to the bathroom, would I walk up the stairs to get there, or take the elevator? If you think that question is unfair, then let me ask you this - even if we do not fall for the technology, there will always be someone doing it, then another doing it, then another, and before you know it, it creates this amazing effect where suddenly everyone is doing it! It's how the brain works collectively. You want to improve their lives by taking two important factors and raging a war between the two? Just accept that they are both important like male and female are important - done, it's over, no more reason to argue. If you cared about the people like I do, you would not be encouraging this country when it's being ruled by tyrants with manners. The environment is the heart of humanity - the economy is the brain of humanity.
Economic Prosperity is more important than Environmental Protection

I'm glad that you keep resorting to that logical fallacy, hence I already explained why you're delusional about it and that printed money is not real value, which causes economical erosion; so it's nice to know that you support economy, while supporting its disease all the while dismissing the importance of an environment. It's like you can't comprehend this simple notion: America started printing money - America started the artificial value. Therefore other places doing what America does, isn't to say that America is richer - it's to say that America is the puppet master and that nobody knows the actual value of these countries - period. That's not true about what they built - schools are the lowest priority in terms of governmental agendas. Do not fool yourself, for you live in a world consisted of conformists and ignoramuses. Technology is the cause of people being lazy, because it's how the brain works. The technology is causing the part of the brain which reacts to convenience to go off, which means the brain is already rationalizing the destruction of the human brain - nice to know the human brain is self-destructive! Just because you still are active, does not eliminatethe fact that technology has slowed down the human brain's evolution to a crawl. Your inability to obtain genuine information concerns me that you will lead your fellow men astray, as you keep saying things that are not true and are simply a ruse created by psychopaths to keep the American people in an illusion that they have freedom! Until you have the same passion as you have, while seeing every ugly aspect of this world, I do not consider it an incredible feat. I support humanity - I do not support all these things that rip away our humanity into make-believe system created by hungry psychopaths. What is the point of having nice materials, when you live in a terrible environment? Please tell me, as I haven't really said much about economic prosperity alone - only in comparison to environmental protection. Until then, you are proving that you'd do a terrible job at playing Jenga.
Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Not Support Hillary Clinton if He Loses the Democratic Nomination

This debate seems to be for democrats, and assuming Sanders doesn't pull ahead somehow, which would be favorable to me but seems unlikely. Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton, because not voting means almost certainly guaranteeing a republican president. Hillary Clinton may not be as good as Sanders, but she is not a criminal and she is definitely better than Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Issues Clinton and Sanders disagree: Marijuana Middle East War Issues Clinton and Sanders agree: Campaign Finance Immigration Minimum Wage Health care Climate Change Gun Control College Cost Sexual Assault Criminal Justice Social Security Wall Street Trade If you didn't vote for Clinton who would you vote for since Sanders wouldn't be running as an independent and even if he did he would defiantly lose?
Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Not Support Hillary Clinton if He Loses the Democratic Nomination

This debate will be about whether Bernie Sanders supporters, in the event he loses the Democratic nomination, should or should not support Hillary Clinton in the General Election, and should instead support Green Party candidate Jill Stein.The format shall be as followsRound 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttles and Further ArgumentsRound 4: Rebuttles (NO NEW ARGUMENTS!)Round 5: Final Rebuttles and ConclusionI shall be debating the Pro and that Bernie supporters should not vote for Hillary Clinton in the event he loses the nomination.
Calling Out Libertarians on Foreign Policy

So, as many of you have noticed I posted a thread on the forum: calling out libertarians on foreign policy. No one accepted my offer there, so I will post here.I want to debate someone who supports Ron Paul's view of foreign policy.I see on the forums the champoning of Ron Paul and how articulate and intelligent he is on the issue of foreign policy. Being a student concentrating on foreign policy and the study of hegemonic theories I want to see who can actually defend his worldview of foreign policy. Thus, the actual resolution: Ron Paul's View of Foreign Policy Should Be Adopted by the USThe two major planks include:1) A withdrawal from the international stage and 2) A drastic cut of the Defense And Military Budget==Rules==1. No semantics2. Forfeit will result in a loss of all 7 pts3. No new arguments in the last round4. Drops are concessions
Gay marriage

State: 1. the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time. State: 2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. https://en.wikipedia.org... All my evidence is right here proving you States argument wrong, you declared that states were a South Asian food which they are not as you can see by my second definition at the top. This was of google definitions so you can most likely count on it and for my wiki source at the top it specifically states what a state is. You should have read my first debate more car fully I said United States Of America implying the actual states of America such as Virginia or California. Also I specifically said in my last argument and I quote "16 with parental consent but the other partner must be 18 or older. Younger with judicial consent (with no strict minimum age). With parental consent, serious reasons are required for a minor to marry; without parental consent, the unwillingness of the parents has to constitute an abuse. I assuming you already new the legal age since you were from america. I did not put a age because I also assumed I was going to be debating with a intellectual person who would not use "Food" and "Babies" as rational debating materiel. https://en.wikipedia.org...... Yes my sex argument is specific enough, you implied that I said erections and sex were Bad which I did not I said and I quote again " Also I introduce the sex argument, a gay guy could not get an erection from a girl. Vise-versa a lesbian could not get aroused to a guy. Therefore it is not a choice to be gay and to oppress people for something they can't help is morally wrong no matter if you believe america exists or not it is wrong to oppress a particular group of people." I don't know how you got erections are bad out of that I was simply saying that being gay is not a choice as many believe it to be. No it is not bad to have sex with the opposite gender nor the same gender, what's your point? www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html I also ask next time you accept one of my debates (if you do) that you do not troll, because you were ether trolling this whole time or just being flat out ignorant. Also the supreme court just ruled today that gay marriage will be legalized, you have nothing now do you? www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/
Gay marriage

I never said that America was non-existent, I stated that something OF the United States was a non-existent place. You still haven't defended would could have been a grammar error in your first claim. You said "sates", and I am talking about sates, yet you keep on assuming that I am talking about states. Sates are food, not a place that exists within America. If I say Godzilla of Japan doesn't exist, I am not saying that Japan doesn't exist, I am saying Godzilla doesn't exist. You also haven't refuted my kritik on "sates". I provide a definition, and in return, you do not rebut it by making a solid point. You failed to clarify that you were talking about people over 18, so why should I make the assump that you were talking about said people? My argument is that only tiny babies could fit in sates. Otherwise, what are we going to do? I guess we could still make giant sates for people to marry in, but that would be pointless. Since we would have to pay for huge sates, then yes, money will be spent. A gay couple can still feel heat, seeing as they would slowly get cooked inside a sate. You haven't properly refuted any of my claims about sates, your argument is basically: "Really? Now you're bringing babies into this?" That is not a proper rebuttals. And since we are discussing sates, all of your rebuttals are invalid. You never gave me a specific age for marriage, and I never clarified that you mentioned babies. But since you failed to establish the age, I had to get the ball rolling. Now you must refute this: Why should a gay couple of people over 18 hold a marriage inside a giant sate? I do not want a mere opinion of: "Really? THAT'S your argument?" Give me actual reasoning on why that should be legal, since you established that people should be allowed to marry in sates. I do not question gay marriage itself, as you keep assuming that I do, I only question the idea of them marrying in sates. Your sex argument isn't specific enough. What's so bad about having erections or having sex with a different gender? Are there statistics that suggest that sex or erections are bad? What is it that is so negative about sex and erections?
Gay marriage

Now your arguing babies getting married, really? Not to be rude but your argument is false no where did I ever talk about babies getting married which in it's self is lunacy. 16 with parental consent but the other partner must be 18 or older. Younger with judicial consent (with no strict minimum age). With parental consent, serious reasons are required for a minor to marry; without parental consent, the unwillingness of the parents has to constitute an abuse. If that was some sort of ex-sample it did not work nor was it understandable so i'll take it as illogical cause i never was intoning that babies should be able to get married. https://en.wikipedia.org... I was never saying babies should get married I simply said, Should gays get married (within the the legal age of course) therefore debunking your babies argument. You also mentioned us wasting money to do something impossible, marriage only costs money for the two of the of the people in the marriage. It costs no state tax, no federal tax, nor any city tax all expenses are between the two. They pay for the cake, the chapel, and all other expenses therefore proving your statement wrong. You also said that america does not exists which is also lunacy, that's also like saying Finland or japan is "non-exsistent" which is false. I get the idea that maybe the idea of it is "non-exsistent" but physically it is false. It is a land mass is it not? therefore the states within the land mass would also exist and to regulate the rights of it's people. Some rights should be regulated such as guns and drugs but marriage really!?!, no that's wrong people should be able to choose who they love and marry not be regulated. Who you love is who you love and that's final. Also I introduce the sex argument, a gay guy could not get an erection from a girl. Vise-versa a lesbian could not get aroused to a guy. Therefore it is not a choice to be gay and to oppress people for something they can't help is morally wrong no matter if you believe america exists or not it is wrong to oppress a particular group of people.
Gay marriage

My argument cannot be invalid just because it's not harming anyone who wishes to marry in a non-existent place. That's not in contrast to what I said. It's not about whether it's right to marry in the "United Sates of America", it's about the fact that since it's impossible, there is no point of legalizing it. That would be the equivalent of legalizing Marijuana inside a made-up country inside the Moon. As I have stated, you have the BoP of proving that the United SATES of America should legalize gay marriage, not the United States. I also have asked you what the United Sates is, and in return, you tell me what the United STATES of America is. They are not the same thing. Since Pro has failed to fulfill his/her defining of the term "sates", I shall do so. Sates are not a place in which gay marriage can be legalized in, instead, they are "a Southeast Asian, especially Indonesian and Malaysian, dish of marinated, bite-size pieces of meat, skewered, barbecued, and usually served with a peanut-flavored dipping sauce." Why should people marry inside food? The only kinds of people who could fit in there are tiny newborn babies, and I mean REALLY tiny. Not only would it be rare to find a pair of two tiny babies of the same gender, but I don't see the point of legalizing tiny babies to marry each other when they don't even know what it is. Why would we waste money (for buying sates for babies to marry in) and time just so a small amount of babies who don't know anything about the world yet can marry. It IS hurting people because the sates could probably heat up and even cook the babies. Your claim that reasoning is better than philosophy and religion is only an opinion. Why? So the Constitution says that happiness and pursuit of life should be garaunteed for everyone. How are we going to make newborn babies happy by cooking them alive in a sate, thus, reducing the population? You said it yourself, "I believe Homosexuals should be able to get married in the United Sates Of America for a variety of reasons." You have the burden of proof of supporting that people (babies) should be allowed to resort to same-sex marriage inside a sate. You have also failed to debunk my claim properly, and have already established your debating topic. In return, since you have the BoP, you MUST prove what you have claimed. Sources: 1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gay marriage

The united states of america is a place founded on the believe that people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness a country were the people are in control. In the constitution it states that all men and women are allowed to basic rights such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore not allowing gay marriage is a contradiction to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have the freedom (liberty) CHOOSE who they want to marry, and if it makes them happy and is not a direct threat to anyone or themselves then who's to tell them otherwise. It does not matter if america's existent or not because it is not harming anyone or themselves so who's to tell homosexuals not to marry, therefore making your existence argument invalid. Note: its best not to bring religion of philosophy into politics, use logic and reasoning.
The direct extermination of 6 million Jews was a myth.

I guess I'll just do this debate anyways, even though I accidentally accepted it. Alright, the first and perhaps strongest evidence I have of the holocaust, is the Hoess affidavit. Rudolf Hoess was Adolf Hitler's second in command for the third Reich. During the Nuremberg Trials, he offered this affidavit which reads "I declare herewith under oath that in the years 1941 to 1943 during my tenure in office as commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp 2 million Jews were put to death by gassing and a 1/2 million by other means. Rudolf Hoess. May 14, 1946." [1] A second evidence is a map entitled "Jewish Executions carried out by Einsatzgruppen A" upon which lists the number of Jews in each Baltic state that was killed [2] A third evidence of the holocaust becomes clear when we look at the Jewish population of Europe prior to the Nazis coming to power. In 1933, there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe. [3] In 1950 there were about 3.5 million Jews in Europe. [3] 6 million Jews don't just suddenly become lost in a 17 year time frame. In addition, in an analysis done of the Auschwitz gas chambers, there was significant amounts of cyanide residue [4]. The amount found was consistent with the amount needed to sufficiently kill humans [5] Wilhelm Hoettl, an SS officer, also testified during the Nuremberg trials that an estimated 6 million Jews were killed by August, 1944- "4,000,000 (four million) in extermination camps and the remaining 2,000,000 (two million) through shooting by the Operations Units and other causes, such as disease, etc."[6] I believe there is no reason to question the testimonies of two Nazi officials, as well as the fact that 6 million Jews went missing after world war 2, and that there is a map detailing the Jews killed in the Baltic states. It is now up to my opponent to refute this evidence, if they can. Sources: [1] https://www.ushmm.org... [2] https://www.ushmm.org... [3] https://www.ushmm.org... [4] http://www.nizkor.org... [5] http://www.nizkor.org... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...