BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WWII weapon debates

The Pistole Parabellum 1908 or Parabellum-Pistole (Pistol Parabellum), popularly known as the Luger, is a toggle-locked recoil-operated semi-automatic pistol. The Luger, in later years, was also made into a full-auto pistol. It fires a 9x19mm Parabellum round, with a 8 round clip or a 32 round drum mag. http://en.wikipedia.org... The M1 carbine is a lightweight, easy to use semi-automatic carbine that became a standard firearm for the U.S. military during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and was produced in several variants. It was widely used by U.S. and foreign military, paramilitary and police forces, and has also been a popular civilian firearm. It fires a .30 Carbine round and has a 15 or 30 round mag. It was also made in select-fire mode, with means it is also capable of full-auto fire http://en.wikipedia.org... The PPSh-41 was a Soviet submachine gun designed by Georgi Shpagin as an inexpensive, simplified alternative to the PPD-40. Intended for use by minimally-trained conscript soldiers, the PPSh was a magazine-fed selective-fire submachine gun using an open-bolt, blowback action. Made largely of stamped steel, it had either a 35 round box or a 71 round drum magazine, and fired the 7.62ï¿½25mm pistol round. http://en.wikipedia.org... The MG 42 is an universal machine gun that was developed in Nazi Germany, and supplemented and sometimes replaced the MG 34 general-purpose machine gun in all branches of the German Armed Forces, though both weapons were manufactured and used until the end of the war. The MG 42 has a proven record of reliability, durability, simplicity, and ease of operation, but is most notable for its ability to produce a stunning volume of suppressive fire. The MG 42 has one of the highest average rates of fire of any single-barreled man-portable machine gun: between 1,200 and 1,500 rpm, which results in a distinctive muzzle report. The MG42 fires a 8x57mm IS round. http://en.wikipedia.org... I was unable to get info on the sticky grenade because my school blocked the site, so I wont be able to source it. The Sticky Grenade was usually just a hand grenade or mine with tar or grease on it to make it stick. Manly used by the British in Africa, they were used primarily as anti-vehicle devices. Good luck Con
WWII weapon debates

I will concede the gernade. You win that one Con. To your PPsH-41 if it was in mass production. Doesn't that mean that it was very cheeply made as well as easily broken or damaged? No, it means that they good crank out hundreds a day, at really low cost. The PPsH-41 was one of the best submachine guns that came out off WWII. I don't wanna say armys, but i don't know the right word, they used the PPsH-41 up into the Iraqi War. Even the Germans used it in WWII. They printed out user manuals in german for people to use it. On your rifle rebuttel, all you did was copy and past Wikipedia, so that is disquilfied. Also, you never mentioned your LMG. Tsk Tsk Con, Don't get scared now.
The Archangel Macaroni will destroy Michael and Gabriel

There is a movement to history. History is not static but it does repeat itself. The repetition is this- 1 Michael the Archangel is protector of Israel 2 Israel is continually destroyed These two facts are a historical repetition. The question is- How does this repetition play out in Christianity? Answer: The reins of Christian political authority is turned over to a non-Christian entity. To do this takes time. Are we saying that the Mormon Church is not a Christian church? No. We are saying that Mormonism represents an intermediary step towards turning the reins of political power over to a non-Christian entity. Here are the steps in America- 1 Puritanism 2 Protestantism 3 Protestant/Romanism 4 The United States is ready for step number 4.
The Archangel Macaroni will destroy Michael and Gabriel

Welcome Con. If we allow for a name change then your premise will work for this debate. Therefore- In this debate the term 'Archangel Macaroni' is now Lucifer. Now Con will you agree that the Serpent of Genesis was more subtle than any beast of the field that God did make? If you will agree to this Con then we need to understand the power that Lucifer wields over Michael and Gabriel- I say that Lucifer's power is the LAW. What makes the power of the LAW effective is that the LAW applies to the Angels of Heaven just as much as it applies to mankind.
The Archangel Macaroni will destroy Michael and Gabriel

I am going to argue that the strongest angel ever realized was Lucifer. Boy is this going to be interesting. Lucifer is the strongest archangel to have attempted to relieve himself from the subservience of God. Before God took most of his power, he bound both Gabriel and Michael and brought them before god. He was the ultimate power next to god. If he wasn't, then the whole premise of heaven and hell is fundamentally flawed, because Lucifer would not have had so much pride over his place. He would not have been jealous of god's plan to glorify all humans into a transcendent state, and he would not have defied god and been cast out. Thus half the Bible collapses when you debate that Lucifer is not the most powerful angel that ever existed. Therefore, it isn't Gabriel or Michael or Macaroni or Moroni, it is LUCIPHER's unbridled power that is the strongest.
The U.S. should have more political parties.

We already have so many, and that alone already causes too much friction. If there were fewer parties there would be less conflict in government. Therefore, if more are added, that conflict only gets worse. Pro seems to think that the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two. Pro says " 58% of Americans say we need a third partie. " Yes, democrats and republicans are the two main American parties, but there are many others. Some other political parties in the US include: Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Progressive, and Tea Party, just to name a few. SOURCE: . http://ballotpedia.org...
The U.S. should have more political parties.

More political parties will give more power to the people, helping smaller parties have a say in govenment. This will give more options to the people, and help diffrent views be expressed. Both republicans and demacrates are over 100 years old. 58% of americans say we need a third partie. 71% of independents want it. 47% of Democrats want it. 46% of Republicans want it. all have gone up sence 2003 look at gallup.org for proof. Other countries have more parties they use proportional representation. This is were you vote on the partie you want to win and the persentage of votes they get are the persentage of seats that partie gets.
Republican vs Democrat = Mommy and Daddy fighting about money!

This debate will be a discussion, or a forum (Haven't figured out how to actually start a forum) I am venting here but would like to hear from anyone who agrees / disagrees. So apparently there is a civil war between the democrats and republicans. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the leaders and lawmakers of our country are using the constitution and our founding fathers words against its own country and its people. I'm not going to blame the republicans, nor the democrats.. I blame myself.. The enabler.. I blame you... the ignorant and greedy! We need to stop shouting clich"d responses like"God bless America" and start paying attention to what is happening RIGHT NOW!! Forget about our past... It is what got us here.. (If you think here is good, Stop reading) Instead of clinging to the rotten carcass known as patriotism and start thinking bigger! I am from a certain city, in a specific state, in a single country.. but why and how could that be my only concern? Don't we live on a single planet in a single universe? I am aware that animals become much harder to control in large groups, so we have clubs and organizations to make it easier, but that doesn't mean that we should not empathize other clubs, why would we not have compassion for other organizations? Same thing goes for sports and competition. This should be done with respect for the other team. If you have lost that you might as well not be playing at all! I use these examples as a comparison to the republican democrat mess! I am willing to debate obamacare to make this interesting. Although I think we are all damned if we do and damned if we don't.. Don't you just love lose lose when it comes to thing like health care and education.. but whatever I give up.. Who wants to join my Fight Club!!! But no seriously comment, discuss debate, don't be a boring wanker! I am 31 years old btw, with a unique writing style, I promise to be at least entertaining if not make your blood boil.. You love it ;)
Republican vs Democrat = Mommy and Daddy fighting about money!

awww.. You remind me of me 5 years ago, only as a sociopath! Its pretty clear I could care less about debating with you. Right from the start I knew what I was dealing with and its a poopoo head ;) I at least got some entertaining responses from you albeit from a sadists perspective. You are the king of Deuschtown and I hope your mothers proud... or dead either way congratulations you pathetic tool. I love you like the wart on the bottom of my wittle tow. I use childish language to make you feel like you are molesting a child.. which you have mastered! Dance into the pale moonlit corridor of pestilence you sloppy ignorant fool. There now I'm on your level. You probably have more respect for me.. or even a boner! Eat doodoo and rot from the inside you insult to maggots! Have a wonderful, hate filled day you pansy! Thank you for teaching me a new debate style! Yes this is my final post on this website. I don't want to start taking high blood pressure medication so I will be searching for frustration elsewhere, you are so awesome it makes me cower to your almighty wisdom.. you win! We all deserve every bombing and war that we cannot afford.. because of you!
Republican vs Democrat = Mommy and Daddy fighting about money!

I know you want to believe that I am the problem, but I have had debates that actually became descent discussions. It seems to work just fine when the person I'm debating understands context and doesn't get hung up over semantics. If you don't like the way I write. . WHY did you choose to debate with me? I still feel as if you attacked me right out of the gate, which wasted these 3 rounds over a pee pee contest. Its as if you were not aware of current events if you cannot understand my frustrations regardless of how vague my comments were. There was a simple theme to my argument,: Our leaders are fighting each other instead of working together. They are wasting valuable recourse's battling each other instead of fixing problems. Then I went on about how it is our fault. We are greedy and as long as we get what we want we could care less about anyone else. It is our fault for allowing our government (that we control) to be a destructive force. How is that incoherent nonsense? Just because I did not take a debate class doesn't mean I am not allowed to participate. But people like you think that this has to be done a certain way, and you end up bull dogging and dictating the conditions for debate. . I do not give you that authority so unless you want to continue to discuss the topics I presented, don't bother, or forfeit. I am not interested in how big your genitalia is!
Republican vs Democrat = Mommy and Daddy fighting about money!

every comment you made was nit picking and without any real response. I was venting and looking for a discussion. Not someone who is up his own tushy about everything that I wrote! I will give you an example. I mentioned that Each club should compete with respect fro the other club. I started this discussion after getting fed up with the democrats and republican fighting each other (quite disrespectfully) I am not saying that democrats and republicans are bad, just that they need to work together instead of wasting resources in a pee pee contest. You said that I was hypocritical when acknowledging this problem? That doesn't make sense but you attacked me with it anyways, Big red Flag, You are not someone worth discussing this topic with! Your narrow mindedness is a detriment to this topic and I see no reason to continue this further!
Republican vs Democrat = Mommy and Daddy fighting about money!

I honestly can't wait to see how this debate goes."I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the leaders and lawmakers of our country are using the constitution and our founding fathers words against its own country and its people. [sic]"I'm interested to see how this is so. Like, how? The gun debate? Free speech? To be honest, I don't see how this relates to your overall point."I'm not going to blame the republicans, nor the democrats.. I blame myself.. The enabler.. I blame you... the ignorant and greedy![sic]"You blame yourself? Cool, debate solved."We need to stop shouting clich"d responses like"God bless America" and start paying attention to what is happening RIGHT NOW! [sic]"...which is?"Don't we live on a single planet in a single universe?"Nobody think that they're the only country that matters. But I also think that each country should try and focus on its own problems before they start trying to fix everyone else's. That's not selfish, that's common sense."...that doesn't mean that we should not empathize other clubs...[sic]"Wait, wait, wait... you're the one complaining about Republicans and Democrats. Shouldn't you try to empathize with those groups instead of criticising them? Kinda seems hypocritical, man."Don't you just love lose lose when it comes to thing like health care and education..."So what's your big idea? Fight Club is about being part of the solution, not just sitting back and hoping Mr. Government takes care of it. "...but whatever I give up..." Oh, that's the spirit, maaaan."(I have) a unique writing style, I promise to be at least entertaining if not make your blood boil.. You love it ;)"My blood's not boiling. I actually just have a headache from trying to decipher your "unique writing style."If I have anything else to say, it's that you really need to make your point clearer. You kind of just ramble and complain, but it doesn't seem to have a goal.
women: for the kitchen .vs. for the office

Refutations: "women are able to vote" Yes but whether they do or not is unknown. "They have jobs" Not all of them. Many "stay at home moms" just stay at home. The unemployment rate for men is lower than the rate for women because men are expected to be the breadwinners of the family, while women are the bread receivers. "we can even own land" What a surprise. I'm taking this fail of a debate off the front page, so I will forfeit the last round. You're welcome.
Practical knowledge is more important than bookish knowledge

Remember voters. I win this debate if I have proven that book knowledge is equally as good as practical knowledge. I can tell you they're at-least equally important, but book knowledge is more important, because you can learn several lifetimes worth of information, where as practical knowledge actually only creates a mere lifetime worth of information. They're at least equally important though, since you can't have one without another. So voters can give me the win based on that alone. However I will take this point by point. Bare assertion, not explained. I'm not even sure what mugging up means. Knowledge also remains in the knowledge through book learning. I still remember when Katniss Everdeen from the hunger games, volunteered as tribute in place of her little sister. I remember complicated topics on a variety of subjects, merely from book knowledge. I admit I could sharpen my knowledge of psychology a bit by observing it personally, but I couldn't have figured out complicated portions of it, such as all of Jung's archetypes without reading, nor can you merely practice calculus and learn it, without a book. Though certainly the opposite is possibe. It doesn't create a better understanding than book knowledge. You can try to fold an origami penguin as much as you want and you'll never gain as clear of an understanding as going to an origami book, where you can build one without any practical experience ever. Actually the best memory system I know of is with flash cards and seems to work better than learning through practice. Scientists haven't been able to find a better system for remembering things than the Leitner system to my knowledge. The system is as follows; "In this method flashcards are sorted into groups according to how well the learner knows each one in the Leitner's learning box. The learner tries to recall the solution written on a flashcard. If they succeed, they send the card to the next group. If they fail, they send it back to the first group. Each succeeding group has a longer period of time before the learner is required to revisit the cards." http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Book knowledge also does the same thing. The difference is it draws from several lifetimes of experience instead of just one mere lifetime. Also the story of Newton discovering gravity by observing an apple fall is mythology. It's a good story, but no evidence suggest it happened. It's more likely he got his theories from books on theories as well as deep thought. No, books interest me more. I can read a book or listen to a lecture at my convenience, but I have to wait for the dairy farm to open to learn how to milk a cow, and they may not one me in there learning, while they have stuff they need to get done. Actually I can listen to a podcast or read a book while on a bus or in a doctors office, time that would be wasted waiting anyway, where as practical knowledge can't be gained the same way. VOTE FOR WYLTED
Practical knowledge is more important than bookish knowledge

Oh no no my friend I don't want to spit on those who have written books. And first of all practical knowledge Is gained by doing that particular thing and not on the basis of somebody else's experience . I hope I am clear. Coming back to the point . Reasons why practical knowledge is better than bookish knowledge - 1. Does not require mugging up 2. Knowledge retains in mind 3. Develops a better understanding. Just to make point no 4 clear . Note: here by practical knowledge I mean the education or the knowledge gained by the student by practicing something like some activities or experiments etc 4. We all know practice makes a man perfect. Eg go on reading a guide book for new language without speaking that language at all and you won't see progress . Speak that language daily and you will see the improvement . And u can learn any language by conversing with the people who know . 5. Involves application and deals with real life situations. Eg . Learning about facts and theories are not really of any use unless you are aware of their application in real life. Sir Isaac Newton gave the theory of gravity after he EXPERIENCED it by noticing Apple falling down . You cannot explain gravity without dropping a thing . 6. Also practicals are also very interesting . Cummon yaar don't field trips,projects,experiments interest you more than books,assignments and lectures ? 7. Interactive education creates a deeper impact . I cannot study chemistry more than 1 hour but yes I can easily spend an hour in chemistry lab experimenting . Students studying the engine in books will not create an impact as much as a live engine will do . For more you can visit www.listdose.com All the theories have come from people after they have done the experiments . History was written by people who had experienced it . So I think students will be more keen in gaining education by learning it in a practical way !!
Practical knowledge is more important than bookish knowledge

I interpret this to mean, my opponent is saying that knowledge that comes from experience is superior than knowledge that comes from book, theory, advice etc... While I don't doubt the importance of both, I think at the very least the knowledge which comes from books is equal to or superior than the knowledge from experience. Nobody wants a doctor who uses experience as his teacher and throws away theory or book knowledge, just as nobody wants a doctor who only has book knowledge but given the choice, people prefer the person fresh out of medical school than the guy who has learned heart surgery by experience. Book knowledge is good in many respects. It allows you to learn from the experiences of others. Human knowledge is largely transmitted through books, though some can only be learned through osmosis and experience. I would prefer the doctor who has the experience of a thousand teachers he can draw from, which he has read in books, to the doctor who only has his own experience to draw on. This isn't only relevant to medicine. Surely the mathematician can learn more through books and perform more advanced calculations than the one who only has the experience of counting to draw on. Surely we'd rather NASA use the data collected before them to send a man to space than to build a rocket from scratch and try to do things strictly based on experience they and they alone had. Did our ancestors die in vain? Do we allow their knowledge to be erased and just depend on our own experience. The technological age we live in is a result of accumulated knowledge, had mankind relied merely on experience for everything, we'd still be cavemen, having to learn how to do everything from scratch, every single time a new person is born and an old person dies. My opponent asks that we spit on the grave of those who have written their hard earned knowledge down for us to draw from, but I say we should move forward holding the hands of the dead. We should carry their knowledge forward and therefore give them eternal life.
There's Valid Reasons to Disbelieve in God

ConclusionCon never provided a valid reason for a God belief in round 2. This violates the debate structure. His only argument in R3 was that there was reasons because many people believe. This is a fallacy of appeal to majority and isn't showing that there's valid reasons for a God belief, just that many people think there's reasons, not necessarily valid. Con never really understood my first argument, he kept appealing to personal experiences. However as I showed, these aren't defining the attributes of something. He also claimed God is subjectively defined, meaning he couldn't provide an argument for God. Tons of things were dropped by Con in my second argument. He flip flopped on how evil came into existence, and never answered my objections directly. Finally, Con closed his account making him forfeit. Violating rule one, making me the winner.
There's Valid Reasons to Disbelieve in God

Resolved: There's Valid Reasons to Disbelieve in God Definitions God: The Tri Omni Creator of the Universe. Valid: Sufficient and correct in actually supporting the intended point or claim Reasons: an argument presented in justification or explanation Disbelieve: Not to believe something is true. BOP is shared Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post Argument 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Acceptance in R1 Follow the debate structure Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Acceptance Round 2: My argument + Con's arguments and rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals from both parties Round 4: Rebuttals from both parties Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.