BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Guns Be Banned

No they should not... you cannot overturn an amendment... that has only been done once in the history of then United States, and that decision was to stop gang violence during the prohibition. (18th overturned by 21st). Guns do not make people kill people it is the people themselves that decide that for themselves... even if they do ban guns... there would just be underground black marketing just like during the prohibition... everyone would just disobey the system... the government has this weird idea that if they make something illegal people would just stop cold turkey... but it just doesn't work that way... obeying someones law just for the f*ck of it is not part of human nature in fact it goes against everything in human nature... so do you think it should be illegal?
Trump for President

I accept. Before we begin I would like to clear some things up for the voters and provide definitions. There is no clear resolution so I will provide one after the definitions. Trump - a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit President - (Definition 2) an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons Full Resolution based off of definitions - A Card Trump For The President Of The World My stance is as follows: A Card Trump Should Not Be The President Of The World http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dictionary.com...
Trump for President

The man leading the current race for the presidency is who? None other than Donald J. Trump. Why is this? Why are people voting for him? I'm both curious and scared. To start this debate, I'll use one of the most obvious points as to why people should not be voting for this man. Racism. In a world that is constantly moving forward, away from a time of racism and prejudice, why is it that there are so many people voting for a man who wishes to bring an end to equality for coloured people? This world is always changing, always evolving, and I had thought that humans, as a species, had moved on from blanket racism. Apparently not, if the majority of Americans are voting for a man who has openly endorsed racist violence. This brings me to another issue on equality. Donald Trump has expressed interest in rescinding marriage equality rights for members of the LGBTQ+ community. He says he is for 'natural marriage'. As I have already said, this world is forever moving onwards. Why take away the rights of a person simply because of their sexual orientation? Why vote for the person that wants to? Trump has also said that he has a big issue with Muslims. This is another example of blanket racism from the man himself. If a minority of Muslims are part of fundamentalist and extremist groups, does that really mean that you should tame away the right to worship from the majority? What Donald Trump, and indeed the people who vote for him for this reason, have failed to realise is that the majority of Muslims are not a part of these groups. He has expressed wishes to close the mosques, but for what reason? Does he really think that will solve his 'problem'? Do you? I have heard that some people vote for Donald Trump because they are tired of listening to politicians. Tired of their empty promises to give this and that, but what makes you think he will be any different? What makes you believe his promises more than anybody else's? What will you do if he gets into the White House, and you find out that he has no intention of fulfilling any promise he's ever made? What makes you think he can do what others cannot? If he becomes president, life in America could go one of two ways. He could be a tyrant, or he could just not care about the people at all. So, what is it about Donald Trump that makes him such an appealing candidate for so many people?
KAUAI is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! (at least the Hawaiian Islands) : )

< > Yes, because they were irrelevant. There are many other Pacific Islands that share similar examples of beauty, but you haven't explained what makes Kauai the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! It's beautiful, but you didn't explain what makes it more beautiful than any other island, thus making it "the BEST". <> Samoa isn't the subject of the debate. Just a point of reference in my argument. < > To you, but not to me and many others. < > You didn't post any links to support this claim. I think beaches in the South Pacific are far more breath-taking than Kauai's. < > Again, no links. Just your testimony, and I'm sure there are surfers that would disagree with you there. < > Once again, I'm sure many would disagree. < > I'm pretty sure most of the Earth thinks the South American rainforest is the best, as it produces the majority of the planet's oxygen supply. < > Fa'afetai tele!
KAUAI is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! (at least the Hawaiian Islands) : )

< a) it is in the Hawaiian chain>> Yes, but you the Hawaiian chain aren't the best in the world. < > But these points do not make Kauai "the BEST IN THE WORLD!" < > You just argued that the Hawaiian islands were the newest, indicating that that was a reason that made them "the BEST". If that is so, then Kauai being "the oldest in the chain" is obviously not the newest and therefore not the best, by way of your own argument. You may have had a slam dunk of a debate had you posted: KAUAI is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD, to me! ...but you didn't. Kauai is, no doubt, the best island in the world to you, but that isn't the case for me. Samoa is the best island in the world. It is a matter of opinion and not everyone is going to agree with either of us. You have one round left to prove why Kauai is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! I suggest you not waste it.
KAUAI is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! (at least the Hawaiian Islands) : )

Kauai is #1 bacause a) it is in the Hawaiian chain the Hawaiian islands are the most remote in the world and unique insmuch as the they are the newest island b) Kauai is the oldest in the chain, and was SO BIG when it was formed 25,000,000 years ago, that it is STILL as big as O'ahu. Kauais natural features Incredible beaches Incredible waves the Na Pali Coast - with a least 5 sandy beaches to land on that can ONLY be accessed by boat (Kalalau is reachable by an 11 mile incredible cliff trail) Waimea Canyon- the grand canyon of the pacific Waialeale - the wettest spot on earth, surrounded by an impenetrable rainforest (unless youre a nut) with unique species only to Kauai Kauais also the good ole USA and thus there are KILLER hotels restuarants etc also there are gazillions of fruit trees all around dripping with fruit I miss my paradise! : ( ALOHA Kau'a'i man
KAUAI is the BEST ISLAND IN THE WORLD! (at least the Hawaiian Islands) : )

Kauai is NOT the best island in the world. (Nor are the Hawaiian Islands the best in the world.) I personally LOVE the islands of Samoa much more and they are all way better than Kauai, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're the best in the world. I've been to Kauai. It's not that impressive. Perhaps you can give me tell me why you think Kauai is the best. Thank you.
I miss the 20th century

My opponent has the burden of proof. miss definition: http://dictionary.reference.com... [mis] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin verb (used with object) 1. to fail to hit or strike: to miss a target.My opponent cannot hit the 20th century. This is impossible. 2. to fail to encounter, meet, catch, etc.: to miss a train.You cannot miss an intangible object. "I missed peace", "I missed war", those both make no sense, and neither does miss in this sense. 3. to fail to take advantage of: to miss a chance.Would my opponent have taken advantage of the 20th century? He has to prove this if he is using this definition. 4. to fail to be present at or for: to miss a day of school.My opponent states he was "barely alive"--but this hints that he is at the very least and basic point, ALIVE. He is indeed PRESENT in the time of the 20th century. He admitted that his contentions fall. 5. to notice the absence or loss of: When did you first miss your wallet?My opponent does seem to notice that the 20th century passed, noticing that "it seems like it was pretty cool", but he was also dubious with it "probably about the same as the 21st century"--so he didn't really notice the loss of it. Once again, I stress this, my opponent uses VERY weak and doubtful words, such as "it SEEMS like it was cool", "I KIND OF WISH". 6. to regret the absence or loss of: I miss you all dreadfully.See 6. 7. to escape or avoid: He just missed being caught. The 20th century doesn't seem dangerous accoring to pro's wording. verb (used without object) 9. to fail to hit something. 10. to fail of effect or success; be unsuccessful. noun 11. a failure to hit something. 12. a failure of any kind.My opponent didn't fail at anything. Thus, 9-12 are not applicable. 13. an omission. 14. a misfire.These don't really seem applicable either. Verb phrases 15. miss out, Chiefly British. to omit; leave out. 16. miss out on, to fail to take advantage of, experience, etc.: You missed out on a great opportunity. My opponent could have easily won or supported the contentions of the debate if he just added a single word-- "Miss OUT on"--but he failed to do so. He did not use any idiom. He simply stated, "I miss the 20th century" as the debate topic, and unfortunately that is what he will have to prove.
Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

My opponent wished to ask me why it should be a medical professional and not a member of the government that evaluates each case of planned euthanasia and decides whether or not to permit it , he then proceeded to sum up the exact reasons as to why it should be done in such a way! As explained by my opponent, the job of a doctor is to 'prevent their [patients] life from deteriorating and to make their lives better.' Therefore, a doctor will ensure that every option which could save their patients life or increase their standard of living is taken before finally allowing the patient to end their life with the help of another person. I.E. to undergo euthanasia. You attempt to claim that suicide and assisted suicide are the same thing: 'Euthanasia is no different from suicide.' I am quite sure I can prove that you are wrong. Suicide is defined as the act of killing oneself, whilst euthanasia is defined as the act of the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Therefore there should be no need to worry about young people considering euthanasia in order to stop their suffering at the hands of bullies, because that would not be viewed by a medical professional as a valid medical reason as it is, in fact, not a medical reason at all. Indeed, the only people who would meet the criteria and be allowed to legally be assisted with suicide are those suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, as suggested by the definition of euthanasia. Your penultimate paragraph does not seem to be on the subject of the debate at all. If an individual is suffering from an incurable and painful illness, how can their life be made better? Perhaps in the short term the pain could be relieved slightly, but would you rather die in agony when you have no choice or die with your family and friends in relative comfort before the disease makes you unable to communicate with your loved ones or the pain becomes so unbearable that you become angry with those who mean the most to you, how would you wish to spend your last moments? Your turn.
Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

I accept. I look forward to this debate. Before I start out, I will like to say my opponent is all over the place. It is difficulty to grasp my opponent stand and points, considering his writing. If I'm not mistaking...are you accepting that "Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional" or are you against it, due to you stating... "However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized." So are you saying that it should be legalize or not? I will like to argue and say that simply because a trained medical professional approved something doesn't mean we should allow it. Take for instance the many fake advertisements about weight loss pills. Many doctors have been used in those advertisement as a way to convince overweight people into buying them. In their eyes, its a medical professional that is approving it, and when they do buy it, it does nothing. What you're saying here is that we should not question authority, simple because its "approval by a medical professional." So if a pill was to kill you and you didn't know about it but a medical professional approvals it, would you question him or not, or you just going to take it because he approves it? Before I dealt deep into this debate I will like my opponent to clarify these points and where he stands, considering that he's on the pro side of "Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional." "So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions." From reading this my opponent does not support his "pro" side of this topic. "It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering." "This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised." Are you combating you "pro" stand that it should be legalize if its approved by a medical professional?
Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional

Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person. ' Currently, such an act would be viewed by the eyes of the law as murder on the part of the assistant. However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised. It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It is already legal to allow a person to die of natural causes, for example in the signing of a DNR, when we are able to help them yet recognise their right to die. So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.
Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia.

This is for the Bsh1 Debate Tournament: Politics division. The resolution is as follows: The US Government Should Legalize Euthanasia. Because this challenges the status quo, I have BOP. Because my opponent is upholding the status quo, anything short of meeting the BOP means my opponent wins the debate. Standard DDO Code of Conduct applies here. Standard debate rules apply here. Goodluck and have fun!
Better song writer: John Lennon vs Paul McCartney

As my opponent has forfeited her round, I'll keep this short. I think one thing we can all agree on is that regardless of who did more or which one was better, the song writing DUO of McCartney/Lennon was larger than the sum of its parts. But that being said, for submission on McCartney's prowess, I'll submit, "Yesterday". Although officially recorded as another co-credited Beatles hit, ALL sources credit this as being Paul's song. In fact, Lennon himself did so, saying, "Well, we all know about "Yesterday. I have had so much accolade for "Yesterday. That is Paul's song, of course, and Paul's baby. Well done." [1]Yesterday went on to become the most covered song of all time. It was voted the best song of the 20th century by a BBC radio poll. It has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame. The whole song was composed and performed by McCartney himself, making it the first Beatles song that the whole band didn't play.Paul was also a gifted multi instrumentalist. He was able to play a wide range of instruments to a professional standard, despite being largely self taught. This placed him in a far stronger position than Lennon when it came to song composition and arrangement. It was a poorly kept secret that McCartney often recorded his own drum track for the song after Ringo Starr had left. When Lennon was asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he replied,"In the world? He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!" [1]McCartney has also co-written a strong of hits with a number of other artists, such as Elton John, (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) Stevie Wonder, (Ebony and Ivory) and Michael Jackson, (Girl is Mine and Say, Say, Say)He is universally respected among his peers as a songwriter, and as an individual artist. If my opponent comes back for her final round, I reserve the right to expand on all of these points, as there is a mountain of further evidence I could use to prove my point. However, for now I will rest my case here so as to give my opponent a chance to make her case. Vote CON![1] http://m.imdb.com...
Better song writer: John Lennon vs Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney was a far superior song writer to John Lennon. Since PRO hasn't already done so, I'll propose some simple definitions to get us started:John Lennon and Paul McCartney refers to the main songwriting duo from the Beatles. Obviously. This debate will centre around which of these two exhibit more talent in the art of song writing. "Song Writing" shall include two main parts, music and lyrics. Both of these will carry their usual dictionary definitions, although it should be noted that when judging music, we're not actually judging pure skill at playing their instrument, only the composing and arranging of it. It will be my contention that Paul, being a multi-instrumentalist and well-known control freak contributed more than Lennon to the music composition and arrangment side of the Beatles' tracks. And although many of his songs could lyrically be classified as love songs, this should in no way infer that they are any less thoughtful or creative than such Lennon masterpieces as, "I am the Walrus, goo goo g'choo, goo goo g'choo. "I will also be addressing the massive creative contribution McCartney has made in collaboration projects with a huge range of artists, and importantly, crossing over a wide range of genres. This shows tremendous versatility and skill. I look forward to this debate and welcome my opponent's opening round.
Homework should not be mandatory

I will rebut some of my opponent's arguments1.Homework has shown no proven benefitsThis statement is wrong as many studies have shown that doing homework has benefits (http://www.theguardian.com...; AND http://today.duke.edu...). I cannot believe that Pro has said that homework has shown no proven benefits. 2. Waste of timeHomework is not a waste of time since it gives students practice. Pro has also failed to rebut the fact that more practice=more perfect. 3.Homework is not carving names in wood nor it is reading menus at a restaurant. Homework is writing long essays and reading long paragraphs. Pro is comparing homework to something we do everyday. In addition, there are people called teachers who will explain a hard problem to students who are frustrated. 3. ResponsibilityYes, I accept the fact that no responsibility can be earned from completing homework with no care. However, if a students gives care to his or her homework, the students will learn responsibility. In addition, you can gain responsibility from regular life and homework. Pro has also failed to spell "unnecesary" correctly.4. Getting an A on the last term does not mean that a student will get an A on this term. Furthermore, students can practice and get even better by doing homework. For example, if a student gets 90% on a test, he or she can do homework to help get the percentage to 100%. Now, for my arguments.1.PreperationHomework prepares students for upcoming tests. Since tests are worth more than homework, students can do homework in order to find their trouble spots and work on them. In addition, homework ensures that students are ready for class activities.2.Time management Homework teachs students to manage their time. Since teachers give due dates, it is important for students to hand it in on time. In addition, many careers require excellent time management skills to succeed. Therefore, teaching time management to kids at an early age helps them develop the skill once they are older. Furthermore, since many kids play games, it teaches them to limit their gaming time and focus more on homework. 3. QualitySometimes, it is the quality of the homework that causes students stress. Many teachers give homework that is off-topic. Therefore, homework should not be banned, but teachers who are giving the wrong homework should be banned. Fortunately, the quality of homeworks given nowadays is better than the quality of homework in the past. Sources:http://today.duke.edu...http://lessonplanspage.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://news.stanford.edu...;
Homework should not be mandatory

1.http://www.edutopia.org...2. http://www.alternet.org...Case 1: Homework shows no proven benefitsMany studies have shown homework has no benefits. In fact, high amounts of homework made many highschoolers drop out! (1) A quote from Harris Cooper, one of the best reasearchers on the subject. "The conclusions of past reviewers of homework research show extraordinary variability... Even in regard to specific areas of application such as within different subject areas, grades or student ability levels, the reviews often directly contradict one another."Variabilltiy shows that homework has no benefits, just as it doesn't show it build responsibility or character.Case 2: Waste Of TimeHomework has shown nonproven benefits, so isn't it just wasting the child's time? Think, the child isn't gaining any knowledge, responsibility or character, what is the use of spending hours and hours on homework.Rebuttal 1:Teachers can see if their students are struggling with something based on test scores. I have proved no.benefits with homework. You could say I am gaining writing skills when I carve my name in wood. You could say I am gaining reading skills by reading a menu at a restaurant. Homework has shown no benefits. I can't see how it can help students, as homeworks seems over-whelming. It can also make a student confused or frusterated at a problem he can't solve. It will bring their GPA down even more.Rebuttal 2:You can say getting a dog builds respinsibility, yet, if the child chooses not to feed, give it water or give it love, no responsibility will be gained. Why have un-necisary responsibility. I will just cause more stress. All of the skills you say students "gain" from homework are actually gained in regular life.Rebuttal 3:I meant, if a student gets an A on the test, he shouldn't need to do homework. You gain no skills with homework. I have proved this.This argument kinda doesn't make sense. Good luck!