BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

birthrateA lot of women don't want to become mothers (1), or they only want to have a child or two rather than a large family. This is why there is widespread contraception use and also over 100,000 abortions each day worldwide (2).The birthrate in the US is about 1.9. If the population needs to stay at its current levels, it can easily be supplemented by immigration. There's no need to force unwilling women to reproduce, as Pro suggests.More importantly for the resolution, it is not sexual behavior that is limiting the birthrate. Women have access to contraception and abortion, and so they can have sex lives without having children. There is no connection between polyamory and an increased birthrate.women working togetherPro concedes that polygamy and polyamory will not make fathers more responsible for their offspring. However, he argues that women are more likely to work together to raise children under such a system.For instance, he argues that cooking dinner for ten families at once would be economically more efficient than each individual cooking for her own family. This has nothing to do with polyandry, of course. These efficiencies exist no matter what the participants' sexual habits.It's interesting that despite these efficiencies, families usually do not choose to prepare food in this way. There must be other factors that are more important.many fathersPro argues that if a woman has children with 10 different men, then she shares the responsibility for child-raising with ten fathers. This could be by serial monogamy, of course, rather than polyandry. But this goes against Pro's own argument about efficiency. If a father has ten children with ten different women, he needs to split his time among ten different households, and the travel time alone will make this inefficient.Also he would only be able to spend a very small amount of time in each household. He probably wouldn't be able to keep his things there and energy would be wasted carrying personal items from house to house.Finally, parenting requires constant dedication. If a father is only at a child's house every second Wednesday, for example, he would miss all the important things in that child's life. The proper connection between parent and child would not form properly.many many parentsWe live in an age where paternity can be easily established. People know who their parents are. Children don't have many, many parents.Even if such a thing were possible, it would not be desirable. Fifty acquaintances do not make up for one or two excellent and close friends. It's the quality of the relationships that is important, not the quantity.(1) http://www.theatlantic.com...(2) http://www.worldometers.info...
The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

Pro has argued that sex is good because it leads to procreation, and therefore the more sexual partners the better. There are several flaws with this analysis:More sexual partners does not lead to more procreation.Imagine that there are 20 fertile women at Pro's imaginary table. The procreative potential of the group could not exceed 20 births that year (not including twins and triplets). Whether each of these women sleeps with one man or the entire table of men, her procreative potential cannot be extended.Therefore, there is no correlation between number of sexual partners (assuming at least one) and number of offspring.More sexual partners does not lead to more help with child-rearingPro has argued that the more men a woman sleeps with before becoming pregnant, the more help she will have with the child-rearing. Of course, the opposite is true. When a woman and a man are in a committed, exclusive relationship, supported by society, then the man may devote himself to child-rearing. When paternity is uncertain, or if the man is not committed to the mother of his children, then he often does not contribute much to child-rearing. For instance, 83% of custodial single parents are mothers (1), and there's over 100 billion dollars of child support that remains unpaid in the US (2).More is not necessarily betterThe people in the parable were able to eat when they helped each other. The parable does not say that they kept eating until they vomited. Given the general tone of the story, one might conclude that they ate a healthy sufficiency and then stopped. Similarly, with bearing children, more is not necessarily better. Giving birth too often can be dangerous for a woman's health and for her children. (3) Also, if a mother is already the sole provider for her children, then getting pregnant could have devastating economic consequences for her family. the parableThe parable is about taking care of others.Research shows us that close relationships with their fathers has a large positive effect on children's development and well-being. Not only that, but a good relationship between their mother and father is one of the best predictors of positive outcomes for children. (4)If the parable is about good procreation, then surely the well-being and development of the child should be among the first concerns of society.(1) http://singleparents.about.com...(2) http://custodialsupport.org...;(3) http://www.rhcatalyst.org...;(4) https://www.childwelfare.gov...;
People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason

Once again, I will have to politely disagree with my opponent as I have specifically targeted people who exercise when I targeted bodybuilders. Bodybuilders are people. Body builders exercise. This means that bodybuilders are, in fact, people who exercise. I do not see how this simple statement could be mistaken. In each of the past two rounds, I have stated facts to strengthen the con side of the argument and have provided a specific citatation of a exerciser committing murder. I have also pointed out that the topic of this debate deals in absolutes, meaning that a single murder by one who exercises proves it is false. Because my opponent has given no arguments for her own case [excluding a quote from a character in a 2001 Comedy movie], I firmly believe that Con side will be the winner of this debate and I hope that voters will believe the same. Thank you.
People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason

I will have to disagree with my opponent when she says I have not yet targeted people who exercise. Whether it may have been her intent or not, bodybuilders are included under the 'people who exercise', being that they are people and they also exercise. The act of body building, though extreme, is still a form of exercising. Call it a subdivision if you will. In this way, I have specifically targeted people who exercise. I would now like to point out a flaw in the subject of this debate, exactly quoted: "People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason". Note this does not say 'People who exercise often do not kill more often than people who do not exercise' or anything of the sort. No, this topic deals with absolutes. It states that people who exercise often DO NOT kill people. Under this logical interpretation of the resolution, if even one person who exercises regularly has killed, the resolution is proven untrue. I have already provided such proof, there fore, I see no further point in proceeding with arguments.
People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason

My opponent has made some good points, but.... 1. A bodybuilder((the developing of the body through exercise and diet ; specifically : the developing of the physique for competitive exhibition)) and someone who exercises((to use repeatedly in order to strengthen or develop )) are not the same. A bodybuilder is an extreme and as the framer, my intent was not to include bodybuilders because the topic clearly states "people who exercise". So my opponents points are extra topical. 2. NO where does my opponent specifically target people who exercise. http://www.merriam-webster.com... for the definitions
People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason

As I have taken the 'Con' side in the argument, I will now explain how the stated resolution, "People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason", is completely false. People, in general, kill for no reason. Under the correct mindset (And with the help of modern weaponry), even a comparatively weak human who has not exercised a day in his or her life can kill a person for no reason. If a single, weaker person can kill another for no reason, it is even more likely that a physically empowered person would do the same. But to properly negate the resolution, one must first examine just what drives a person to kill unprovoked. Just as reasons may vary for most crimes, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact trait that will make one take the life of another. Studies have been conducted and results have been found, varying from a non-existent sense of right and wrong to a pure sadistic mindset. But, pertaining to subject of this debate, aggression, confidence, and a testosterone-powered ego may very well contribute to the unprovoked killing. If I may imitate my opponent and draw reference to films and other fictional media, I would like to point out many of the typical 'bad guys' showcased on the television and the silver screen boast a bodybuilder like physique and purely muscle orientated antics. The stronger guy always picks on the little guy, most of the time for no reason other than he can. The same mentality is often translated into the real world; People with physical power often showcase it simply because they can. Sometimes, even to the extent of murder. Many examples of murder at the hands of 'bodybuilders' have been presented through out the years, one being that of 28-year old Melissa James at the hands of bodybuilder Craig Titus and his wife, Kelly Ryan (also a body builder). Everyday, people are killed for no reason what so ever, both by people who exercise and people who do not. Being as the resolution states that 'People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason', with proof of even one unprovoked murder at the hands of an exerciser, the resolution is proved to be false. Thank you.
There is absolutely no scientific proof of a God's existence.

I would like Pro to define "God", as God is the word used to describe a creator as opposed to a divine creator. As Pro has not defined it, I have, by default, won the debate, as proving that there is a scientific creator, e.g. gravity, is a simple task. However, I shall be lenient and use the definition of divine creator. First, some questions: 1) What created the universe? 2) If the big bang, what created that? 3) If Pro knows about M-theory, what created gravity? If there is an area in science that is untouched, the most accepted theory explaining that area is considered the proved theory as it contains necessity. :Theory -> Evidence -> Necessity -> Acceptance -> Proof*: Divine creation is necessary, as it provides a theory which fills in an untouched area of science; what created the universe? If my opposition can provide an alternative theory, which contains necessity, then divine creation would be disproved and the area would be either theory's to be accepted. *Whether this can really be considered proof is debatable. What is proof? Is it acceptance or is it certainty? In this debate, we can assume that proof is acceptance (note that religious acceptance is different to scientific acceptance), as if proof were certainty, it would be impossible to prove any theory.
Donald Trump 2016

My Refutations"Are you truly serious? Videos are never frowned upon in debates. And why didn't that prove anything? The creators of the video weren't some underground news cast or anything, it's not like that was some sort of Trump look-alike. I mean, honestly I think it would be hard to disagree with the fact that Trump can't be trusted. Considering that Trump is someone who owns a failing corporation and an even bigger failed-to-be sponsor of a Mix Martial Arts cast. If you were not aware, the most I've seen Trump accomplish was when he went to WWE and shaved the Chairman's head bald after sneaking a left hand hook and then letting money flow down to the crowd from the ceiling. But business wise he still fails. I counter your Wikipedia article with one of my own showing that it was found from a Pennsylvania University study that 60% of Wiki articles are false:"Your wrong. The study does not say 60% of Wikipedia articles are false. It says they might have errors. Remember: might. My opponent might be referring to vandalism of a Wikipedia article, but it when that does happen Wikipedia is locked down. Also, only 1% of Wikipedia articles ever have to be locked, so there is very little vandalism. [1]My opponent then points out ten things Trump did that seem strange. It goes on about some lawsuits and a board game and spends very little time policy wise or on his leadership style. They mention bankruptcy, but like I said, that can work in his favor because he experienced it and knows how to avoid. Very little people can avoid bankruptcy and some point in their lives if they run a large business. They only policy issue they discuss is a 25% tariff, but Trump explains how that is good in his book. The US and Chinese markets would not turn their backs just because of a tariff and the revaluation of the Chinese currency would create up to 700,000 American jobs. [2]Finally, my opponent used a blog with no credible sourcing. Wikipedia is better than that."Here's something someone showed me earlier about Trump and a lawsuit case. He received a lawsuit for apparently "rigging" a beauty pageant and the loser of the pageant got mad because she didn't become the model of her city. Then Trump "beat her" in the trial."This has little to do with what he would as president. We're not looking at policies or leadership style here. My opponent the talks about Trump's campaign in 2012, but the undisputed fact is that he never ran in the first place.My ArgumentsNot once did my opponent refute Obamacare, lower taxes, or anything else.ConclusionMy opponent did not refute my own arguments. He has never brought anything about Trump's policies or leadership style. He just talks about some lawsuits and personal issues. I strongly suggest you vote Pro here.Sources1. http://www.cbsnews.com...2. Trump, Donald. Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2011. Print.
Donald Trump 2016

Are you truly serious? Videos are never frowned upon in debates. And why didn't that prove anything? The creators of the video weren't some underground news cast or anything, it's not like that was some sort of Trump look-alike. I mean, honestly I think it would be hard to disagree with the fact that Trump can't be trusted. Considering that Trump is someone who owns a failing corporation and an even bigger failed-to-be sponsor of a Mix Martial Arts cast. If you were not aware, the most I've seen Trump accomplish was when he went to WWE and shaved the Chairman's head bald after sneaking a left hand hook and then letting money flow down to the crowd from the ceiling. But business wise he still fails. I counter your Wikipedia article with one of my own showing that it was found from a Pennsylvania University study that 60% of Wiki articles are false: http://www.nerve.com... Aside from that, Trump has a horrible record of business with his so called "Corporation" the false money he caves in every year is something I like to call "Trump Dollars" and it's the false bravado that Americans can never count on. Have I mentioned that Trump is conservative and he's tainting the name of the Republican party! He's making us look like a bunch of jokes. He's so many horrible jokes, you can find continuous lists of his bad doings on the internet! I've found a short list of 10 and will share it with you here. If you think these are slip-ups, mistakes or flukes, I have no idea what WILL convince you.http://www.cracked.com... Again it's a blog post but there are legitimate things support each case. And I don't know if you are a liberal or not, but judging by your picture, I presume you are a Conservative. So you must know how it feels to be pushed to the dirt for being of the political party you are and choose to endorse. Here's something someone showed me earlier about Trump and a lawsuit case. He received a lawsuit for apparently "rigging" a beauty pageant and the loser of the pageant got mad because she didn't become the model of her city. Then Trump "beat her" in the trial.http://news.yahoo.com... If I may put my input into this one, it would seem like this is the most Donald has done on his own. Donald Trump already started campaigning, and the things he said have been horrid. In fact, the Republicans of America (for the most part) voted against the idea of him being a president of the country during a poll!http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... I have another article here where this describes some of Donald's poorest decisions and how Trump affected Obama in 2012.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I think this concludes our debate, from a personal view, you struck out. Good talking to you but it's tea time.
Donald Trump 2016

"While I can agree there are some things Trump has accomplished, he is a terrible business man and a political airhead. And seriously? Are you going to REALLY play the card of Wikipedia searching? Look, here is some REAL information:" I only needed Wikipedia for basic information. However, many people see Wikipedia as a ba source for some reason. In fact, it is just as good as Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not the bad source people think it is in order to just get sources points. A study found that there was very little difference in errors. Also, you have not countered my point on if Obama is better than Trump. "Now, as I mentioned, Donald Trump is a political airhead, so in my next post I will tell you that Trump spoke with racist intent about Obama on national television, I know this link is to a blog site BUT there is a video along with it. Which supports the case of Trump's announcement falling flat and his behind closed doors racial intentions of assaulting Obama's campaign was revealed. Also, Trump was caught sneaking MORE misinformation on television this about net worth and his wealth!" The video makes little difference because there is no accurate source. Videos are often frowned upon in debates. I don't see what is so bad about Trump giving away bibles. If anything that makes him a philanthropist which is a good thing not a bad thing. It shows that he's a good man. Christianity is the way to go. "Well, just when you thought it would end he lied twice as much as Mitt Romney during the 2012 feeding everyone's brains biased Republican ideals and misinformation. You have got to be kidding me. I would say that considering the only lawsuit he's ever one was against a freaking winner of a beauty pageant his contender for president is just one big flop!" Obama lied too a get elected, so what's the problem? My Arguments My arguments have not been countered. My opponent has made no refutations. Conclusion I have prove Trump would be a good president by being a businessman and experiencing bankruptcy rather than the socialist slime Obama. Trump wants to do many good things for America and my opponents has it refuted this. I have clearly won. Sources 1. http://news.cnet.com...
Donald Trump 2016

While I can agree there are some things Trump has accomplished, he is a terrible business man and a political airhead. And seriously? Are you going to REALLY play the card of Wikipedia searching? Look, here is some REAL information:http://www.nydailynews.com... Now, as I mentioned, Donald Trump is a political airhead, so in my next post I will tell you that Trump spoke with racist intent about Obama on national television, I know this link is to a blog site BUT there is a video along with it. Which supports the case of Trump's announcement falling flat and his behind closed doors racial intentions of assaulting Obama's campaign was revealed. Also, Trump was caught sneaking MORE misinformation on television this about net worth and his wealth!http://www.mediaite.com... To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of such a sneaky, grease-stained politician ever! This political airhead has too many tricks in his pocket. He also claims that Religion is the most important thing to him, claiming that he thinks Christianity is the best religion, foreshadowing religious oppression, he also claims he receives 200 bibles a day. And then re-distributes them!http://www.politico.com... Well, just when you thought it would end he lied twice as much as Mitt Romney during the 2012 feeding everyone's brains biased Republican ideals and misinformation. You have got to be kidding me. I would say that considering the only lawsuit he's ever one was against a freaking winner of a beauty pageant his contender for president is just one big flop!
Donald Trump 2016

While I don't agree with everything Donald Trump stands for, I will partially devils advocate for this debate. I think people who know me will be able to tell the difference betwene when I'm serious and when I'm not here. Here we go: OMG Donald Trump is one of the greatest men to ever live! He's a combination of Ross Perot, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Margaret Thatcher and that's saying a lot. It's important to understand that Trump is a very successful businessman who owns a very large corporation. I believe that the government should be run like a business and Trump is just the man. It's also important to remember that Trump has made mistakes and has experienced bankruptcy once. This, however, is a good thing because he now understand how to avoid bankruptcy in the future. I would take Trump, a man who has experienced bankruptcy over Obama, the "constitutional law professor" who could not be more hypocritical and has never experienced work in the market before. Trump has worked in the economy, Obama has not. [1] Three things Trump said he would if he were president: 1. Sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws and use America's resources to create jobs. [2] 2. Cut taxes and reduce government spending in order to bring more economic growth. [2] 3. Repeal Obamacare. Who likes that BS anyway? [2] Finally, just because Trump has held no political office does not mean he should not be elected. I anything he's not part of the problem in Washington. Remember, Dwight Eisenhower never held a political office, but still won as well as Zachary Taylor. Sources 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Trump, Donald. Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2011. Print.
Donald Trump 2016

Donald Trump is running for President in the 2016 election. I hate the idea of Mr. Trump being President Trump. He is an idiotic business man an eccentric flatfoot billionaire and a political airhead. I don't approve of Donald Trump even being a businessman. Plus, think about this...Trump has never stepped into a political position before. He's never been a governor, senator, congressman, nothing. So how could he go from businessman to president successfully?
The Bible tells real accounts

1. It does say pretty clearly that Noah took two of EVERY animal on the ark in the bible. 2.What do you mean by proven? Where is your evidence? I said on my last post that there was no possible way that you can be sure that the accounts were true, so simply saying that because they were from the time of the resurrection proves nothing. 3. Yes, you made it pretty clear last time that you thought that not everything in the bible was true, but I didn't say anything to do with that since after you clarified that. You said that Noah 's ark was "scientifically possible" and I explained how it wasn't. So it has nothing to do with how you said that not everything in the bible was true. In closing, you can't trust the bible as a reliable source of history, as there is no proof that it is accurate.