BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Daniel Bryan is awesome

"So, you believe that just because something is fake someone can't excel at it?"No im saying that because someone can excel at a fake sport that doesnt make him awesome.... Throwing the remote control at my dog is a fake sport and i can excel at it but it doesnt make me awesome. "Unlike an actor, a wrestler cannot request a redo because the segment came off poorly because he or she is on live TV"But unlike actors, wrestlers suck at acting even more than pro actors which means that now Wrestlers are sucking at a fake sport, which is certainly not "Awesome""Unlike an actor, wrestlers don't have an off-season"So now they can spend the entire year sucking at a fake sport? lovely....."And last, but not least important, unlike an actor, wrestlers have to do their own stunts"You forget the part about how they have to do their own FAKE stunts..... See video abovehttp://www.youtube.com..."Anyway, what you're saying is that Daniel Bryan isn't awesome because he's in an entertainment company that pretends to wrestle their opponent."Yeah, thats exactly what Im arguing. Your only argument about why Daniel Bryan came in the first round and I cant even understand what the heck you were trying to say. Daniel Bryan being good at a fake sport does not make him awesome, and you havent argued why it does. "I'm not a fan of cheerleader"I can tell youre not a fan because cheerleader isnt the name of it, its called cheerleading. "I'm not a fan of cheerleader, but that doesn't mean that somebody cannot be awesome in it because it's not a real sport."Name a famous cheerleader who is famous because she is limber and athletic and NOT because she has a massive butt....... I thought so"Seriously, your counterargument is extremely narrow-minded and shallow."That was an introduction round.......WWE is obviously a fake sport, so off the back if a person is great at a fake sport that destroys their credibility. Second, WWE isnt exactly a respectable sport, any sport where somebody willingly dresses up like the sparkling fairy from Twilight certainly lacks respectability. So here are the arguments about why Daniel Bryan isnt awesome1) Barely anybody knows who he is2) He is known primarily for excelling at a ridiculously fake sport3) He looks ridiculous, not awesome4) He isnt even that goodYes I said it, Daniel Bryan isnt that good at WWE wrestling. How can I make this claim?WrestleMania 28, the one that just happened. The very first round of Wrestlemania pitted Daniel Bryan against Sheamus. Guess how the match went? Daniel Bryan lost after 18 seconds.......http://en.wikipedia.org...So yeah, I hate to break it to you but Daniel Bryan is famous in a fake sport, almost nobody knows who he is, at times he looks like a sparkly twilight vampire, and he SUCKS at a FAKE sport. That is all for now :)
Daniel Bryan is awesome

So, you believe that just because something is fake someone can't excel at it? If so, that's like saying Robert De Niro circa 1990 wasn't awesome because he pretended to fight people instead of actually doing it, which is beyond asinine. Although unlike an actor , a wrestler cannot request a redo because the segment came off poorly because he or she is on live TV. Unlike an actor, a current WWE wrestler has one day to memorize all his lines and the important spots in their match if they have one. Unlike an actor, wrestlers don't have an off-season. They're either traveling or working throughout the year. And last, but not least important, unlike an actor, wrestlers have to do their own stunts and don't have a special camera that makes it look better. Anyway, what you're saying that Daniel Bryan isn't awesome because he's in an entertainment company that pretends to wrestle their opponent. There's all different sources of entertainment in this world. I'm not a fan of cheerleader, but that doesn't mean that somebody cannot be awesome in it because it's not a real sport. Seriously, your counterargument is extremely narrow-minded and shallow.
The United States Federal Government should adopt a Single Payer Health Care system

Time for the last round of the debate. I shall refute my opponent's points, bring up what she's dropped, and then wrap things up.My opponent continues to go on and on that my Milton Friedman arguments are just for nothing, but they are key in this debate. We cannot look at this debate without looking at the economics aspect and any attempt to do so is flawed. We can see that the single payer system harms the economy, which my opponent has dropped, by creating inaccurate price controls and destroying innovation, which my opponent dropped. My opponent states that I dropped her Spending argument, but I did indeed refute it. Here's the quote from Round 2, "My opponent attempts to slam my argument due to Public Spending, however, she fails to realize that the system that I purpose is completely privitized. Meaning that there will be no Public Spending on Health Care," then after that I go into my Rand Paul counter-plan. So we can see that my opponent dropps refutation on this argument, so I'll extend it across.My opponent states that Health care is a perfect duty, but has no proved it this entire debate, I showed that by my definition in Round 1 that a Perfect duty is escentially that of a Minarchy and we can see that Single Payer system and Government intervention in the economic system is not a duty that a Libertarian nor a Minarchist would support. [1]My opponent continues to complain that I dropped the argument about Single-Payer in the US, the thing is that, as I stated in the second round, is that the US doesn't have a Single-Payer system and thus any attempt to source the US as an example is flawed. I gave a European example of which they have a Single-Payer system and would thus be a better example.My opponent is again misunderstanding Rand Paul's plan. He's not requirng people to buy government nor private health care. He is simply opening the markets to more options that only government employees get. Things my opponent dropped.-Single Payer system harms the economy through harming innovation and restricting Freedom to Choose.- Perfect vs. Imperfect Duty-Single Payer System is harmful in Europe-Public Spending harms Private Sector.-Price Controls = bad.-Rand Paul Counter-Plan solves Pro's Disadvantages.-Single-Payer Health Care is more costly and looses American jobs.For these reasons the resolution is negated and I urge you to vote Con.Thank you.Sources1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
The United States Federal Government should adopt a Single Payer Health Care system

con mentions a bunch of stuff about price contorls and supply and demand. most of his thoughts are just abstract musings. but in reality, he doesnt respond to the idea that we spend 17 percent GDP while single payer countries spend 10. he doesn't account for the fact that insurance companies spend thirty percent of costs on adminstration and profit, but medicare is less than 5 percent. i didn't ignore the kant argument, i just said i believe health care is a right. or if you want to use that langauge, a perfect duty. it is part of the social contract. it needs to be affordable and accessible. con didn't respond to the waiting lines in the USA v elsewhere. he just showed it isn't great or perfect elsewhere. he gave no frame of reference, i did with the liberatarian admitting france is better than the USA. im surprsied rand paul is endorsing that plan. it actually indirectly sounds like obamacare. it might not be government as the insurer with single payer, but it would surely involve buying plans in the insurance market. a bottomline is the insurance companies are a big problem, spending thirty percent of their income on adminstration costs and profit. medicare spends liess than five.
The United States Federal Government should adopt a Single Payer Health Care system

con says health care isn't an imperitive function of government. i just have to disagree. i think it's part of that social contract mentioned by con. it's up there with making sure people dont kill etc. con mentions long lines and other examples of poor outcomes. but, he doesn't provide any USA data to compare it to. i at least have anecdotal evidence with that right leaning libertarian who admitted that France was better than the USA in terms of paper work, wait lines, etc. im not sure what con is referring to with the 70 in cash v 50 etc. con quotes friendman, but he was speaking a long time ago, and said medical was acessible cost wise. he might think different now. he should, anyway. the fact he mentions it's accessible must mean accessibility is an issue worth mention. con mentions a bunch of stuff about price contorls and supply and demand. most of his thoughts are just abstract musings. but in reality, he doesnt respond to the idea that we spend 17 percent GDP while single payer countries spend 10. he doesn't account for the fact that insurance companies spend thirty percent of costs on adminstration and profit, but medicare is less than 5 percent. i dont know enough about federal employee options to talk about it. but you know even rand paul is endorsing the government be in health care. it seems the main point is whether it's mandatory or not, cause you know people will take health care like federal employees get, if they can. i fear con just copy and pasted too much from past debates to really engage in good debate.
College should be entirely govt funded

The average cost for a 4 year school is over $30,000 per year. If higher education was paid for by the government, more students will be able to attend school, making our country stonger and more educated. Since a college diploma is important in this day and age, the government should cover the costs. With unemployment as high as it is now, diplomas will help give jobs to Americans, which is very important in this day and age.
College should be entirely govt funded

Americans spent almost $100 billion last year to send students to public colleges and universities. When you account for all student loan programs, grants, tax breaks the government is already paying for almost half the tuition, so why not the rest? The country should also tweak spending budgets to account for govt funded schools. So a complete reform would need to take place to avoid us going deeper into debt. Schools can also cut costs in various ways such as letting qualified volunteers teach
College should be entirely govt funded

We have scholarships and grants that people can sign up for, there are also private loans and scholarships that people can apply to as well. Our economy is not stable enough to support free college education for everyone; there are public school systems K-12 that are cutting programs and faculty because the government can't afford it. If the government were to provide a free college education as well, the cost of utilities, facilities, and modern technology for the school would put us in debt
the terrorists do not fight by our rules of war, but we still have to obey those same rules.

My opponent is yet to define what "our rules of war" are, and is yet to prove that we follow them. As well, they are yet to prove that terrorists do not follow these rules. Since my opponent has not provided any rules, I shall assume that there are none. If there are no rules, then clearly we cannot follow them, and terrorists cannot break them. Therefore, you should vote Con. As well, for future notice, the affirmative must be able to define what "our rules" are, and they must be able to prove that we follow ours, and that terrorists do not. If the affirmative is unable to do any of these three things, I should be voted for. Assuming that the affirmative will prove the three things above (in a later round), I will address the second part of the resolution. Establishing the stance that we must always obey rules is foolish. Ultimately, this defines a zero tolerance policy, which is ultimately a no thinking policy. A. Zero tolerance policies are bad. 1. We would not allow for any mitigating factors. 2. Often, circumstances arise where a zero tolerance policy ends up hurting someone who has clearly done nothing wrong. From 1st graders kissing another 1st grader being suspended for sexual harassment to students losing scholarships and the ability to participate in graduation for having a steak knife in their car. B. The policy adopted by the affirmative may not be a typical zero tolerance policy, however, it is equally bad. 1. We would be unable to handle unforseen circumstances that may require us to compromise these so-called "rules of war". 2. It would weaken the government if they were forced to follow unbreakable rules, governing is meant to be flexible, not rigid. I reserve the ability to make new arguments in the following rounds seeing as the affirmative has only provided the skeleton of an argument. Finally, if the affirmative does not answer my arguments in the next round, or post some evidence and define the three things discussed earlier, I clearly should receive your vote.
There is no philosphy behind solfege over numbers.

Why thank you, I know what solfege is, and I know fixed-do from moveable-do. What I said, was that I see no point in learning solfege as I am already fluent at sightreading, and can easily recognize and evaluate intervals by looking at the notes on the staff. As I already learned the number system, I see no reason to learn a new system that is less (or maybe as) affective as the one I know alreday.
There is no philosphy behind solfege over numbers.

Solfege is the system of syllables traditionally used to help students learn the notes of the major and minor scales: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti . There are two approaches to solfege, theFixed-Do system in which Do is always the note C, and Moveable-Do, in which Do is always the first note of the major scale - whatever scale that happens to be.Quite simply, there is no more efficient way to learn/teach music.
There is no philosphy behind solfege over numbers.

I am being forced to learn solfege for sight reading from my music teacher, and I see no reason behind it. I am fluent at sight reading without solfege, but my teacher insists solfege is better. He says that it is important to recognize the distance relative to the pitches, and I told him that I already do, I just know them by intervals instead of solfege. I feel as though it is unimportant to learn solfege, and that it is a waste of time I could be spending working on other musical things. My teacher went to college for the Kodaly concept yet is unable to explain to me why it is relevant to me. If at all possible, can you please answer the question- Why Solfege?
There is no philosphy behind solfege over numbers.

I completely and utterly disagree. The method that I learned was extremely effective. I learned how to sight read through learning intervals and pitch differences based upon those intervals. While learning this method, I also learned quite a lot of music theory, history, and other important things. Along with this, I was taught this method while simultaneously being taught how to read music. I have also found that it was much faster for me to learn sight reading through this method than it has been through solfege. I have been working on solfege for over a year, and it only took me a matter of months to learn through intervals. So what is the philosophy behind solfege that makes it better than the interval method?
A Society in which nothing is secure

Lookingattheissues response in debate titled A Society in which nothing is secure Plato once said,"The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about reality. It would seem apparent that when a society and its leaders lose their ability to discern reality from illusions that as the title of this debate, "A Society in which nothing is secure," notes, that society is primed for dissolution and it is only a matter of time before a tyrant is set over the people who determines the people's reality for them.The people's problem once a tyrant rules over them To paraphrase Plato's Quote The people will then ,under a tyrant , ....have "Knowledge"...of....what "exists" but will be powerless to change that ..... reality..." Obama and the leftist democrats have ignored reality as it presently exists, and of their making, and talk insistently about change, that change of which they are the author,has resulted in "A Society in which nothing is secure."
A Society in which nothing is secure

With that said, my opponent takes a quote from a book called "THE COSERVATIVE MIND". The quote he refers to leads me to believe that (as well as the last part of his argument) he is worried that tyrants may soon take over. I would like to debate that they already have and for a very long time. First we should look at how this country is run now. Huge amounts of debt, a tax code over 73,000 pages long, a book on the laws that rivals the tax code book where the average person commits about 3 felonies per day, the list could go on and on. Now in order to understand how we got here, I think my opponent would like us to go back to the constitution. However I proclaim that the constitution has never had any authority at all, except for those who signed it. I also proclaim that the u. s. government has put the people who live here in more turmoil and it is not the "radical tendency which has become so wide, deep, and active in the american people. ". In today's day and age, the "founding fathers" would be considered radical extremists. They went to war over 2% taxation while we accept 30 to 40% without blinking an eye. The mere thought of an income tax during those times would be considered treason! Handing the "power" to print money over to a private bank, waging wars without the approval of congress, etc would all be considered tyrannical by no stretch of the imagination. Today people are conditioned NOT to see these things as tyrannical. What do the american people do? We work, play, enjoy company of others, have dinner with our kids, and for the most part, voluntarily interact with people in a peaceful manner not because a government tells us to do so, but because this is universally preferable behavior (upb for short). I don't want to be killed therefore I wont kill. I don't want to be stolen from therefore I wont steal. Of course we have people with some screws loose however, in any social environment we would as well. I am taking the argument that we cant go back to the constitution because it failed to keep the u. s. government small enough to manage and cannot, by law and reason, ever do what it was created to do. I will wait to hear if my opponent disagrees, and believes that we need to go back to the constitution. From there we can have a debate!
A Society in which nothing is secure

The Citizens of America today are in a state of unsettled fluctuation where it seems, nothing from day to day remains the same and there are no longer solid understood permanent established guides to live their lives by. Isn't this unsettled condition of present- day life a policy for the dissolution of a nation. Russell Kirk in his book,"The CONSERVATIVE MIND" wrote this about about America's people and the unsettle conditions in which they are living today, "Our great danger lies in the radical tendency which has become so wide, deep, and active in the American people. Ceasing to regard anything as sacred or venerable, spurning what is old, injuring what is fixed, setting adrift all religious, domestic, and social institutions, we borrow nothing from the past and ignore the data of experience. We even try to deny that language has exact meaning. " A nation can not survive without an established order allowing people to live in harmony with each other as a civil society, America 's unsettled state of affairs can not continue without the dissolution of this nation and a nation ripe for a tyrant to rule over them.
A Society in which nothing is secure

Lookingattheissues response to CON's last post I'm sorry that I haven't responded sooner with my rebuttal but I will dissect your response point by point and hope thatIi will be persuasive and informative enough to perhaps convert you over to my point of view in the end. I appreciate the fact that you went to the effort to enter this debate with me and it wasn't out of disregard for you or your point of view that i haven't replied ,it was just that I didn't have the time to reply, I will try to do better, thanks again for entering the debate with me.
purgatory is real

Transcendology can eliminate superstitions in religions about beliefs in purgatory and demons. Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Logic dictates that spiritual interaction is only possible between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man; claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not rational. The unfortunate circumstance that many will never become un-yoked from the traditions of their forefathers, perpetuating a chaotic state is applicable to many monotheistic religions that have become the culmination of their own dogma and politics.
purgatory is real

Protestants believe that one's faith dictates one's state of salvation and one's place in the afterlife. Those who have been saved by God are destined for heaven, while those have not been saved will be excluded from heaven. Accordingly, they reject any notion of a provisional or temporary afterlife state such as purgatory. Near-Death-Experiencers have typically not reported experiencing purgatory. Their feelings were consistent with unconditional love from the light, which communicates forgiveness because the NDEr was still learning how to become a more loving person. NDErs tend to say that this "learning how to love" is the purpose of life.
purgatory is real

Purgatory, according to Catholic Church doctrine, is an intermediate state after physical death in which those destined for heaven "undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". Beliefs in Purgatory, Satan and sins originated via superstitious beliefs; they were invented by people in order to frighten the masses or to conform to standards set by people. When evil deeds are constant, the conscience gets anesthetized and no longer communicates with the spirit; upon physical death, the spirit/soul dies also.
We need to up our resource collecting to fit modern day standards (ON EARTH)

Hello opponent, to make sure you are not a troll please type in "I accept your challenge" and write your opening statement. In this Debate I will tell you we need to slow down on resource collecting instead of speed up, I have prepared a few arguments so be prepared for this. I will tell you we need to slow down on resource collecting for things like wood, along with cutting down on our mines ans telling you alternatives. Good-luck Sir/Mad'am.
Rap Battle 2k17 PT 3 Freestyle (CONT)

Accepted __________________________________________ I'll obliterate you in to bits Harder than an earthquake Murdering the competition like Jason But I guess you can call the mason Because I built bricks just for you Because your jump shot kinda got me messed up Big Z, Big D, flatter than a pancake Or I'll shank you into bits Ugly a** go pop your zits Flow is juicier than OJ Because I go and get A's Give me a good beat I'll cook you up like burnt meat Look at that Think you can sauce me But you just taunting me Can't make me lose Try not to get in a noose Stop getting f**king triggered Like that gun I just popped in the system Oh my god Look at the crime Look at the lord Better give him the award He's tryna show His little b**ch opponent gonna hit a gord What are you on You think you can beat me Because as a matter of fact It's like Jordan vs Javale