BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Wanted are a better band than One Direction

One Direction worked just as hard as The Wanted. And just for the record, some of the most talented artists are from The X Factor. They have had more gigs than The Wanted, showing that people think that 1D is the better of the two. I am proud to be a Directioner, and sorry to burst your bubble, but the 1D fad is here to stay. Furthermore, 1D is noticed as soon as they step outside they're noticed, The Wanted are noticed if they a) do a gig or b) start a fight on Twitter with 1D. The Wanted as a tv show, but 1D has a movie. The Wanted have worked hard, but from what I've seen, they're insecure about the 1D thing and their attitudes suck. Final thing: numbers don't lie, it's a proven study that artists with high numbers tend to stay for a long time. Directioners will be around for a very long time, can't say the same about The Wanted, not everyone's perfect, but at least 1D doesn't take the Twitter fight too far, because they're not insecure about where they stand, if it was reversed they probably wouldn't have the bad attitude The Wanted has. To me, it seems The Wanted does it because of being confident, they want to put the blame on others, instead of just being happy that they were even discovered. Not trying to be disrespectful, but it's true.
The Wanted are a better band than One Direction

One Direction have more fans than The Wanted only because One Direction took the easy route and went on X Factor, they were obviously going to have a platform for fans, The Wanted on the other hand worked hard to get where try are. From playing at two or three school gigs and club gigs at night to playing to a packed Wembley stadium, they gained loyal fans from this an these fans will always be there to support The Wanted until the end unlike the "directioners" who will leave as soon as the "1D" fad gets old. Quality not quantity.
Resolved: Bill Richardson was a better NM governor than Gary Johnson.

I would post rebuttals, but upon examining my opponent's account, it is no longer active. In addition to this, Rule 3 of this debate states, "Your arguments can't consist of pure opinion. For example, don't solely say "GJ vetoed 750 pieces of legislation in his tenure. " That doesn't show him being a good governor, it just shows him satisfying your beliefs as a Conservative. Instead, say something like "GJ vetoed 750 pieces of legislation in his tenure, which allowed him to balance the budget. " This shows him benefiting New Mexico as a whole. " Pro has broken this rule several times. He likes the middle class tax cuts (not rich tax cuts), increasing of public infrastructure, capital punishment, no school vouchers, environmental protection, universal healthcare, just to name a few. I have provided non-baised statistics regarding both's economic policies. Again in addition, I have already disproved his arguments. Johnson lowered the unemployment rate while Richardson almost doubled it. Richardson increased inflation. The different tax cuts. Richardson's scandal. And Richardson only got more done because he had an easier state assembly (i. e. does what he proposes, unlike Johnson's two terms).
Resolved: Bill Richardson was a better NM governor than Gary Johnson.

This is a debate inspired by a spar 16k and I had a few weeks ago on a politics thread. We got into an argument about who was the better overall New Mexico governor - Gary Johnson, or Bill Richardson. While it was very interesting to hear 16k's arguments at the time, I thought it would be great for him to expand upon those arguments by means of a formal debate, where we use proper sources and proper claims to defend each former governor. Now that he has rejected the challenge, I will make this debate open to anyone. Rules 1) The burden of proof is shared, as in we must both provide unique arguments. 2) You may only use Gary's time as governor in your arguments. Don't talk about the rest of his political career. Obviously, I will do the same for Bill. 3) Your arguments can't consist of pure opinion. For example, don't solely say "GJ vetoed 750 pieces of legislation in his tenure. " That doesn't show him being a good governor, it just shows him satisfying your beliefs as a Conservative. Instead, say something like "GJ vetoed 750 pieces of legislation in his tenure, which allowed him to balance the budget. " This shows him benefiting New Mexico as a whole.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Does god exist? No. Do all things have a creator? No. Time is infinite Is the United States of North America the greatest country in the world? No. Is there a symbol for all mankind? No. Are people giving to others? Yes? Are wars justifiable? Only when absolutely necessary (i.e. WWII, not Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...) Should religion and government be separate? Yes. Should suicide ever be committed? Yes. Is pornography the same as prostitution? No. Can something exist that you can not sense with sight, smell, taste, touch, hear? No.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I accept and agree to my rivals rules. Does god exist? Do all things have a creator? Is the United States of North America the greatest country in the world? Is there a symbol for all mankind? Are people giving to others? Are wars justifiable? Should religion and government be separate? Should suicide ever be committed? Is pornography the same as prostitution? Can something exist that you can not sense with sight, smell, taste, touch, hear?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I know that most people fail this, but I want to try my crack at it. Rules: 1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers. 2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No. 3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-5, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5. 4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken. 5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins. 6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. 7. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person. 8.
Lord of the Flies sucks

Okay, I do not think that is the true meaning behind the book but that's a different debate... Lord of the Flies was literally one of the most disturbing books I have ever read. And I've read a lot of disturbing books. In the beginning scene, we see a lot of spoiled brats who get stranded on an island. At first, you feel sorry for these poor kids. But right off the bat they act like jerks. This is before they "descend" into madness (though I would argue they were already mad). They bully Piggy for his weight and glasses, they tease the kids, they're outright evil. And what the heck is up with Jack?! And then they make weapons and try to kill each other in some makeshift war. Kids don't do that! What?! Afterwards, they jump around a fire and sing (trust me, I know) and then Simon falls and they kill him! What the heck? But it gets better because before that, Simon hallucinated that a pig head was talking to him. Also the whole "the beast" thing irritated me. Basically the idea was that the real beast the kids were afraid of was themselves which I thought was lame. The author tried WAY too hard with that one. You can't even feel sorry for them at this point. The only people I actually cared about were Piggy, Simon, and Percival. They all died in a sense. Percival died in a more figurative way. It's hard to put how I feel about the book in words but essentially I despise it because it's so...unrelatable for lack of better word. I feel like the author tried so hard to make a point that it just didn't work out in the end. It was ridiculously extreme and yeah, maybe they were supposed to represent different aspects of society but it was still so....awful. After I read the book I was deeply perturbed. I still can't get over the fact that they raped a pig. With a freaking (excuse my French) spear.
Lord of the Flies sucks

Lord of the flies did NOT suck. It was a profound, multifaceted statment about society. The author purposely uses exaggeration to define the very additudes that lead to war. We as the reader, watch as this group of civilised boys descend into tribal, warmongering, madness. In the end, it's only when the marine in full uniform arrives that we remember they're just little kids. The first thing the reader thinks is that they were acting too much like unfriendly adults may act, but then just as quickly another unnerving thought enters the readers mind. Are the little boys acting too much like adults, or are we as a society acting too much like spoiled little brats? It is a profound statement about society, therfore it does NOT suck.
Lord of the Flies sucks

Lord of the Flies is an awful book. I hate it. 1. They raped a pig with a spear 2. I can only imagine what would have happened if there had been girls... 3. They traumatized Percival...he didn't even remember his OWN NAME!! 4. Those "posh" British boys infuriated me. They didn't become animals, they already WERE animals. 5. Piggy's head exploded on a rock. 5. Simon!!! No!!! 6. Jack deserved to die. Not Piggy, not Simon.
Steel Roller Coasters vs Wooden Roller Coasters - you choose!

Resolution: Given the choice the build a new roller coaster, an amusement park must build a wooden/steel roller coaster over a steel/wooden one.Background:Wooden roller coasters and steel coasters give vastly different rides and have different features. Wood coasters have been around a lot longer where as Steel coasters are a relatively recent invention.In this debate, Con will choose which type of roller coaster he wants to argue in defense of. I will argue for the other. The point of view is from the perspective of the Amusement park in question. Hence the resolution.Burden Of Proof: BOP is shared. Whichever debater better proves that their type of coaster must be built wins. It is a cost-benefit analysis. Rounds:Round 1: Acceptance - Con chooses whether he wants wood or steel.Round 2: Opening arguments and rebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals and DefenceRound 4: Rebuttals and Defence (no new arguments) Rules:1) All arguments must be made in the debate. Sources must be provided in the arguments section not in the comments or on a separate page.2) Dropped arguments are considered to be conceded.3) All sources must be directly linked and provided with page numbers if the source is long. 4) No sources may be given where the opponent/voters have to pay for access or need to locate where it is. Books may not be cited. If a book is cited, every part of the argument that references the book is considered automatically invalid.5) Absolutely no semantics. In case of conflict on undefined terms, the most general and relevant definition of the word should be considered.Definitions:Amusement Park: Amusement Parks and Theme Parks are terms for a group of entertainment attractions, rides, and other events in a location for the enjoyment of large numbers of people. Examples of Amusement parks are Disneyworld and Six Flags. [1]Roller Coaster: A steep, sharply curving elevated railway with small open passenger cars that is operated at high speeds as a ride, especially in an amusement park. [2]Wooden Roller Coaster: A roller coaster with running rails made of flattened steel strips mounted on laminated wooden track. [3] Steel Roller Coaster: A steel roller coaster is a roller coaster that is defined by having a track made of steel. [4] Questions: Please ask in the comments section before accepting this debate. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Organized Religion has Inhibited Societal Progress

Resolved: Over the course of human history, organized religion has actively inhibited the advancement of science, medicine, and human rights. Opening argument: I will construct my argument around the following two areas that organized religion has impacted negatively: Science and human rights. I will focus on Christianity and use it as my primary example, though my argument may be extrapolated to all three of the world's major monotheisms. 1. Science. Over the course of history, religion has had an autocratic rule over much of human thought. The church sought to repress the questioning of theological traditions and critical thinking. This can be seen all the way from heliocentrism (the Catholic church criticized and ostracized Galileo for developing the theory)(1) to stem cell research (taxpayer-funded research was withheld during the Bush administration in accordance with the wishes of Chrisian lobbyist groups)(2). 2. Human Rights Organized religion has been a major obstacle for human rights and continues to rationalize discrimination today. The two most relevant human rights cases at the moment are abortion and gay marriage. The church opposes both a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body and a homosexual's right to marry the person of their choosing (I will not be footnoting these as the church's opinions on these issues is common knowledge. If this is an issue, I will throw a couple of links in my next argument.) Best of luck to my opponent. (1) Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6. (2) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
Organized Religion has Inhibited Societal Progress

Thank you, Con, for the timely response. I will begin by addressing my opponent's contentions before developing my own further. 1) My opponent has pointed to religious support for charity and "hope" and while it is true that many organized religions support charity work, the religion part of the equation is not necessary; it really comes down to actual people donating time and money. There are many secular charities [1] that do excellent work with no religious association whatsoever. This proves that it is people who contribute to charity and not religion. There are also examples of discrimination within faith-based charities where individuals have been dismissed due to their religious beliefs [2]. 2) The second point my opponent makes is about particular denominations within the major three monotheisms "constantly improving one another and causing social progression". I will touch on this issue further in my own contentions later, but would like to point out that this is only societal progression within the framework built by organized religion in the first place. It's like if a convicted murderer were to assault someone and then be praised for his progression to the point where he no longer kills his victims. My point: 1) I am going to condense my own contentions to one major point here because I feel like the rebuttal of my earlier claims also focused on only one argument. My opponent has responded to my points about the way in which organized religion has sought to stand in the way of the advancement of human rights and science by saying that not all religious denominations do so; only a few take this position and therefore I am making a generalization. While it is correct that not all religious denominations oppose the major issues within these topics, ONLY religious organizations oppose them. There are no secular groups standing in the way of stem cell research or gay equality. Without the intervention of organized religion, these issues would not be issues and our society would be better off for it. [1] http://www.freethoughtpedia.com... [2] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk...
Gay Marriage

Thank you for your reply. 1) You are still trying to defend something that is used as a prize on a reality show. Marriage is important and should be respected, but don't mask it and present it as the "sacred institution" you are propping it up to be. Also when you state that "the single parent ratio will only increase if gay marriage is legalized." This is simply untrue. EdgeBoston.com reports that "UK Data Shows: Gay Divorce Rate Approaches Zero" . They go on to say that "The UK online GLBT news resource Pink News published an Aug. 7 story citing numbers that show that in a two-year period, from Dec. of 2005 through the end of last year, out of 24,629 civil partnerships that same-sex couples entered into in the UK, fewer than 250 had dissolved." This proves that there is actually more stability in Gay marriages than heterosexual marriages. I am using UK data because gay marriage hasn't been legal for long enough in the US to show any accurate data. 2) You are sounding very alarmist when you say "What it means is, the country itself will change." Because it's so absurd that people have rights! (I'm being sarcastic, of course) The fact is that no, Armageddon will not ensue and the world won't end because Gays have rights (as you and your source claim). All that will happen is that America will be one step closer to equality and fulfilling that Great promise of providing "Liberty and Justice for all." Also when talking about the situation in public schools, just like when children are taught that Blacks are equal to Whites, they will be taught that Homosexuals are equal to Heterosexuals. I don't understand why equality alarms you so much. Also with the adoption, Affirmative Action will not even be an issue in the adoption process. The child will go to the family with the more stable household. 3) There is no reason to debate this since, apparently, my opponent has agreed with me and conceded this part of the argument. I look forward to your reply.
Gay Marriage

1) I see where you are coming from, but just because Tiger Woods and a couple thousand other people's marriages don't work out, does not make it any less sacred then it already is. Yes divorce rates are high, and kids usually have single parents. But the single parent ratio will only increase if gay marriage is legalized. 2) What I mean is, the country itself will change. First its homosexuals, then its polygamists asking for polygamy to be legal, and other alternatives to one-man or one-woman unions will ask for the same thing. This is because the argument presented by the polygamists may be, "If two men can marry, why can't 3 men and 2 women marry?" Also, if gay marriage is legalized, then every public school in the U.S. will have to teach students that this one-man and one-woman relationships are equivalent to traditional marriage, and stories written for elementary school children or even kindergarten students will have to give equal space to gays and lesbians. Ever heard of Affirmative Action? Well this can happen even in gay marriage. How? If a married woman and man want to adopt the same child that a gay married couple want to adopt, who do you think is going to get the child? Another downside, Foster-care parents will have to go through "sensitivity training classes" to get rid of their bias feelings that traditional marriage is okay, and assure that homosexuality is fine in teens and children. 3) Ah, the Elastic Clause. Look, the country has changed since the Constitution was written, and I'm sure if things were still like they were back then, this wouldn't even be an issue. Sadly they are not. Sources: http://www.nogaymarriage.com... Looking forward to the next round.
Gay Marriage

I appreciate it. 1) You start by stating that "marriage is the sacred bond of a man and a woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. " Tell me why two human beings who love each other can't have the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities because of their gender. This blatant discrimination is unacceptable. Also when you say that marriage is a sacred institution, divorce rates are at an all time high, infidelity in marriage is an epidemic, and when someone can compete on a television reality show to "Marry a Millionaire", the argument about saving a sacred institution seems kind of pointless. 2) You stated that "If gay marriage is legalized, there will be many riots. " I do not understand and if you could elaborate, please do. This is a foolish assumption and there isn't any evidence that such events will manifest. 3) You also state that "it wasn't thought in the time that the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were written, because back then, there were barely, if not any homosexuals. Our Founding Fathers never thought of this as an issue when these great documents were written. " 1st of all, these are very important documents, but there is no denying that they were written over 200 years ago. Many things aren't defined in the Constitution. 2nd of all, you coveniently forgot to mention when speaking of the Constitution that there is a clause in the Constitution named the "Elastic Clause" that grants Congress the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " Many issues aren't clearly defined, and because of the vagueness of the Constitution, this clause was included. I look forward to your reply.
Gay Marriage

I will start off by saying that of course, marriage is the sacred bond of a man and a woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. If gay marriage is legalized, there will be many riots. Anyway, it wasn't thought in the time that the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were written, because back then, there were barely, if not any homosexuals. Our Founding Fathers never thought of this as an issue when these great documents were written.
Life beyond death

this debate is about whether there is life beyond death, whether the is a heaven or hell, what will happen to our bodies our mind, our spirit after death, will it simply end there? this debate is not about the remembrance of someone through their art or accomplishments in life. Wiki is a user submitted database that anyone can go and change and write whatever they want (my friend edited the Soulja Boy (rapper) page saying that my friend indeed was Soulja Boy) you see how anyone can go and edit the pages found on wiki? this debate is about whether there is an afterlife "in christian terms"