BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

THE REBELS (1778) (sung to the tune: Black Joak) (Originally published in the Pennsylvania Ledger, 1778)Lyrics: Captain Smyth, Simcoe's Queen's Rangers. Ye brave honest subjects who dare to be loyal,And have stood the brunt of every trial,Of hunting shirts and rifle guns;Come listen awhile and I'll tell you a song;I'll show you those Yankees are all in the wrong,Who, with blustering look and most awkward gait,'Gainst their lawful sovereign dare for to prate,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.The arch-rebels, barefooted tatterdemalions,In baseness exceed all other rebellions,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns:To rend the empire, the most infamous lies,Their mock-patriot Congress, do always devise;Independence, like the first rebels, they claim,But their plots will be damned in the annals of fame,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.Forgetting the mercies of Great Britain's King,Who saved their forefathers' necks from the string,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns,They renounce all allegiance and take up their arms,Assemble together like hornets in swarms,So dirty their backs, and so wretched their show,That carrion-crow follows wherever they go,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.With loud peels of laughter, you sides, sirs, would crack,To see General Convict and Colonel Shoe-Black,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.See cobblers and quacks, rebel priests and the like,Pettifoggers and barbers, with sword and with pike,All strutting the standard of Satan beside,And honest names using, their black deeds to hide,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.This perjured banditti, now ruin this land,And o'er its poor people claim lawless command,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.Their pasteboard dollars prove a common curse,They don't chink like silver and gold in our purse,With nothing their leaders have paid their debts off,Their honor's, dishonor, and justice they scoff,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.For one lawful ruler, many tyrants we've got,Who force young and old to their wars, to be shot,With their hunting shirts and rifle guns.Our good King, God speed him! never used men so,We then could speak, act, and like freemen could go,But committees enslave us, our liberty's gone,Our trade and church murdered; our country's undone,By hunting shirts and rifle guns.Come take up you glasses, each true loyal heart,And may every rebel meet his due dessert,With his hunting shirt and rifle gun.May Congress, Conventions, those damned inquisitions,Be fed with hot sulphur from Lucifer's kitchens,May commerce and peace again be restored,And Americans own their true sovereign lord,Then oblivion to shirts and rifle guns.GOD SAVE THE KING!
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

This debate will be about revolutionary/counter revolutionary (non government movements) vs loyalist movement. All songs must be connected to a real war or event where revolution or civil strife took place. For example, you can't use "God Bless America" as a loyalist song, because it wasn't produced for a specific conflict. This is a "who's was better" debate. Some revolutions are undertaken by governments. This will be considered revolution and not loyalist music (cultural/cuban revolution)Good luck, and there will be 4 rounds. Con are loyalists. First Round is acceptancehttp://www.youtube.com...;
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Ok. .. Um if don't agree with rules why have you accepted challenge? I'm currently debating PF and really would like to get some practice, not someone who does not agree to the rules. Vote CON of the bat since Pro doesn't even agree to the rules. Secondly, Pro violated the rules already, she has made arguments in the first round which I specifically said, not to be debated. .. ONTO PRO'S ARGUMENTS To all of my opponent's arguments I say "No Evidence! " Therefore she doesn't get a single contention and Con win, if she brings any other evidence later on, it should be disregarded since, it will leave me with less time to argue it which is totally abusive. 1. If we're to not use oil then the prices won't matter to us will they? What is the impact? None? Secondly China is about surpass USA in oil usage and doesn't want to change their source of energy, therefore you don't solve prices, and you don't solve prices because you only mandating a change in US not the world market. Our foreign policy won't change, we still have allies dependant on oil Evidence: "Oil sells at a global price, the U. S. can't be insulated" . http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... "Turn- Focusing on energy *independence* undermines investment in new energy sources" . http://downloads.connectlive.com... "Independence wouldn't change our foreign policy since our allies would still be dependent" . http://www.cfr.org... "Power-Sector Emissions Of China To Top U. S. " . http://www.washingtonpost.com... "India and China opposes mandatory reductions" Dow Jones Energy Service, December 12, 2007 2. "We will run out of fossil fuels eventually" When? Really? What is the impact of it and where is the evidence for it once more? Are you aware that new reserves are coming and more will come, do you realize the extent of oil that is in Russia? "New reserves coming online" . http://www.commondreams.org... "Higher prices stimulate conservation, solving demand issues" . http://www.domain-b.com... 3. So you don't have evidence, and by saying "whether or not you think it is real" means that you're not sure yourself. Once more what is the impact? If none, then why bother? "IPCC doesn't demonstrate a scientific consensus in favor of warming" Daily Telegraph, August 31, 2008, . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... WHY THE PLAN IS BAD "Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks and accelerating global warming" . http://ecoworldly.com...... "Ethanol production increases air pollution" . http://redorbit.com...... "Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers" . http://www.iied.org...... Ask yourself a question, are we ready by 2040? Certainly there are no guarantees? Finally, if the alternative fuels are so sweet, why not mandate by 2030? Also, why should the goevernment mandate? Why not tax breaks and incentives? Look at all of those negative things about the alternative fuels, is it really the solution? Unfortunately, not. The negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Rules: I don't know what a 'kritic' is? And I disagree with the rules. It shouldn't mean an automatic loss if I 'violate' the rules, if anything it should mean minus a few points in conductivity! The voters can decide everything else. Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is caused by our release of Carbon Dioxide. One of the main releases of CO2 comes from our vehicles. Whether or not you believe in Global Warming, you should realize it is a risk and it is to large of a risk for us to do nothing about it. And not releasing these harmful gases into the atmosphere is something needed immediately if not sooner. Really why shouldn't we use alternative fuels: 1. Decrease the demand of oil -less expensive 2. We will run out of fossil fuels eventually -not reusable -will replenish in a million or so years -the demand is increasing at an ever increasing rate, more people using oil = less oil for everyone 3. Global Warming -we should take action against it whether or not you think it is real
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I stand to negate the following "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels." The first round doesn't count and is only for rules. The Rules: 1. Public Forum type debate, therefore no CP, Kritics, etc 2. Provide evidence for claims and explain things that are not simple concepts 3. Please accept with the PF rules in mind, a violation = losing. Thanks and Good Luck!
god does not exist.

1. God isn't be afraid of people overthrowing him, he just wouldn't want to punish them for trying to, since life would fail to beating God. He wants those to know he's almighty 2.Satan, the Prince of darkness . He causes sorrow. God saves people by making many certain death situations, near-death situations. That strengthens peoples faith in believing. 3. Wikipedia? You use that as a source? 4. To show his power. 5. More sense? God creating everything or everything created of nothing I say God.
god does not exist.

1.The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) why would he then be afraid of people overthrowing him? 2.If god wanted to test faith by killing people why doesnt he just kill everyone just to test there faith and why not give them a neardeath experiance instead of ending there whole life? 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... sould answer all your questions. 4.so planets are just decoration?
god does not exist.

1. How will people believe that he is almighty if he doesn't show his power. If there were no planets or stars the night sky would be fairly empty. So many planets with life might think they can overthrow God and he unfortunately have to will punish them.2. By "test there faith I mean if they were suffering would they still believe. God wanted people in the 9/11 to go to heaven if they were good,hell if evil. 3.Universe(All of space and energy in it) Where does a universe end and another begins?
god does not exist.

Worthy opponent. Let me comment on your 3 points. 1. Maybe he wanted us to gaze upon what he created and the curiosity to see and go to what had been made. 2. The innocent people dieing. Maybe he wants to have to test their faith, I've seen atheists say there is no God something like a building collapse happens and they say God save us and make it out. Maybe god(s) was letting them live with no suffering in heaven. Also the lottery has millions playing it one is bound to win. This is 1 universe.
god does not exist.

1. If god created everything why are there so many planets with no life on them? isn't that just a bunch of wasted space? 2. If god is 'always being there' how come so many innocent people die (both young and old) and so many disasters happening in the world? 3. Lets say there is a 00.0000000001% chance that there will be life on earth. isn't there still a chance? there is a small chance to win the lottery but somebody wins it once in a while.
god does not exist.

Oh really what makes more sense first of all the universe creating itself out of nothing,or a god(s) always being there and creating the universe in his/her/their vision. You may think a god can't create himself, or a god always being there, but how could a universe create itself and how could lifeforms be formed to somehow be made just right to fit the needs of this planet. The universe can't do all of that on chance alone without a god(s) having on image on having the conditions just right.
Bernie Sanders is a Bad Presidential Candidate

Hello! Glad you challenged me to this topic and I'm looking forward to hopefully an active debate. First off I would like to say that even though I am a republican, I currently do not support Donald trump. I'm a Ted Cruz supporter, however I will support Trump if he is the GOP candidate. With that being said, I will address why I do not support Bernie Sanders outrageous beliefs. Bernie Sanders has called his economic plan "Democratic socialism" which is pretty much a fancier way of saying "Socialism". This will create a huge economic destruction because if businesses and corporations are taxes more, they will lay off more workers. This also applies to the fact that he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour which is completely absurd. I will continue as the debate goes on and I look forward to a great debate.
Bernie Sanders is a Bad Presidential Candidate

Relatively self-explanatory. I saw your debate with Agha and I thought it a pity he was unable to respond. Same structure as the original: Round 1: Opening Statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements (No new arguments) BoP is shared. Why is Donald Trump becoming so popular? He is anti-establishment. Voters have begun to realize that the establishment does not care about them. But Trump supporters have been taught all of their lives that nothing associated with Communism, Marxism, or Socialism will work, as part of anti-Soviet propaganda, so instead turn to the other radical politician. Bernie Sanders in nearly every poll outperforms Hillary Clinton in hypothetical matchups between possible nominees. His social policies are intended for the good of the American people, not multinational corporations.
Bernie Sanders is a Bad Presidential Candidate

First things first, Democratic Socialism existed before, exists apart from, and will exist after Bernie Sanders. It is a democratically-led system in which the some of the means of production are socially owned. Link here: http://www.dsausa.org... Democratic Socialism is very different than Socialism, which is described here: http://www.worldsocialism.org... Also, I was not inferring that you were a Donald Trump supporter. I was stating that Donald Trump is popular with the right-wing voters, and explaining why. Now, to get to your main point: Minimum wage. As of writing, the Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25 per hour. To make an average living wage (they vary state to state), a single mother would have to work 125 hours a week on that. (Find the living wage where you live at http://livingwage.mit.edu...). And in case you were to say that a higher minimum wage would cause inflation, or do something else to the economy, look at Australia. Australia's minimum wage is approximately $16 US dollars an hour (https://www.fairwork.gov.au...) , and there is a normal level of inflation. And also, if you want to know what a Social Democracy would look like in practice, look at the Nordic Countries. Most are Social Democracies, and, rank among the highest in the Human Development Index. (http://hdr.undp.org...)
does government workers need privacy

You just told us why government workers are monitored, Pro. There are "rules and regulations," as you said, in place; workers can search for certain things and they can't for others. The employer (the government) has authority to make sure those rules and regulations are kept in place. The only way to do that is by monitoring workers. This isn't a "loss of privacy," this is an employer keeping his rules in effect. To side with Pro would be to support a loss of regulation within the government.
Gay Adoption

My opponent has not presented an argument, merely a copy and paste without context. The wall of blue text may seem like linked sources but it is not accessible. Only the 2 links at the bottom are his (flawed) sources. He has provided no context, no structure, nor any semblance of organization other than quotation for me to refute. All I need to do is show how the study by Mark Regnerus, the man who created the images Con uses and the Family Research Council are without merit. I have 3 points: Lack of Organization/Plagiarism: I can’t find a single word of Con’s argument that isn’t in quotation. With no argument behind this word spam, I have nothing to refute but the study itself. Con just uses words out of context, a list of words and pictures without bearing on the issue. Refuting Mark Regnerus Study: This refers to the images by Con showing how supposedly straight parents are better than gay ones; but what is clearly shown by the graphic is that 2 parents are better than one. The study only compares the ability of a 2 hetero parent household against 1 single gay parent. Such a comparison is hardly scientific. And if we remember in round one I said I wanted to see evidence that applied only to homosexuals – 2 parents are always better than 1 regardless of sexuality [3]. Not only that if you actually look at the number of subjects in the study you’ll find it’s hardly a representative sample. And the man behind the study, Mark Regnrus, has been has already been discredited, his study was used as ‘evidence’ in the Michigan Supreme Court against same-sex marriage, it was dismissed as nonsense [1] even his own colleagues don’t find his study credible [2]. Pro Adoption Argument: In the U.S. there are roughly over 100,000 children in need of adoption each year [4] by allowing married gay couples the same access to adoption services as straight parents they can provide the same quality of household and positive outcomes [3][5]. It would also provide an alternative to gay couples instead of going through a surrogate – contributing to global over population – they could adopt and improve the life of a child who’d otherwise suffer in the system. Conclusion: My opponent as yet to show a coherent argument againt gay parentage. He cites flawed and discredited studies and nothing more. There are children in need of good house holds, by barring gay parents you reduce the number of qualified households that could care for them. My opponent has no care for the happiness of orphans, merely typical bigoted homophobia - no form or structure or care for others - just hate for the sake of it. Sources: [1] http://www.hrc.org... [2] http://thinkprogress.org... [3] http://www.clasp.org... [4] https://davethomasfoundation.org... [5] http://www.reuters.com...
God in nature (intelligent design)

The answer to Pro's question I will address now. First, something may actually be able to come from nothing. It is interesting to think about. Prof. Krauss has given interesting explanations of how something can come from nothing. For example, consider quantum particles which pop in and out of existence from nothing all the time[1]. They're called virtual particles[1]. So, it seems as though the law is violated, which gives us a valid explanation. If you're interested, here's an article on the subject[2]. While I enjoy long posts, this one will have to be short, it seems. Pro only brought up one point, which I have refuted. Therefore, I can say no more for this round. So, I wish Pro good luck for his other arguments! Back to Pro! Source(s):[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.thenational.ae...
God in nature (intelligent design)

The first law of thermodynamics addresses the conservation of energy that exists in a closed system. This basic law of physics supports the existence of God in nature. How did energy begin to exist without violating this law? There are three possible causes for the origin of energy: 1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and/or 3) from something supernatural. There are no experiences or justifications that something comes from nothing. Since new energy is not naturally created then energy cannot come from something natural. Logical reasoning leaves us with the only viable response which is that energy originated from the supernatural. Since the natural origin of energy cannot occur, the supernatural origin of energy remains the only viable explanation.
God in nature (intelligent design)

Welcome, everyone!Motion: God exists in natureFirst, allow me to clarify the motion. By "God exists in nature" I mean the following: "Through observation and reason, we can conclude the existence of a god as the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature." This means no ontological arguments, people! I've been observing (haha...) them recently in the forums and don't wish to debate them now. What do I mean by God? I simply mean an intelligent designer that is unknown to us. (So, Pro could argue for aliens, I suppose). I, as Con, will be arguing against the existence of God in nature. However, the burden of proof will lie on Pro here; proving God impossible and/or non-existent is not a burden I carry.Pro's burden of proof is: To show that God is the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature.Con's burden is: To undermine and/or refute Con's argument(s). The rules are as follows:1) Pro must give the opening case in round one. In round four, Pro must put, and only put, "No round posted here as agreed."2) A forfeit of a round is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded the debate.4) Sources are considered accurate unless they are proven otherwise.That's all for now! If anyone has any question, please post a comment! Good luck to all! Allez!
who is better Mega Charizard XY or Mega Blaziken

Mega Blaziken is also fire.. he also is Fighting. He has good Attack, Sp. Atk, and Good speed. He also has access to the ability speed boost which in turn makes him faster after every turn. So even if Charizard has a better attack Mega blaziken could run a STAB move or a move that counters Charizard and will out speed. Hi jump kick is a bitch
There is truth, all truth is absolute, and truth is knowable.

I will not vote if you won't either ;) And here is my case in a nutshell. [summary]Claim: There is no truth. Counter: Is THAT a truth? Claim: You can't know the truth. Counter: Then how do you know THAT? Claim: All truth is relative. Counter: Is THAT a relative truth? Version 2: There is no absolute truth. Counter: Is THAT an absolute truth?[/summary] Although I think this is fairly enough for me to win, I will still provide a little more detailed explanation. (The longer version) Assume that the claim "Everything is true" would be, indeed, true. It does not work, because then also the opposite of it, "Nothing is true" would also be true. How do we know whether the truth exists or not? Let us assume that the claim "There is no truth" is true. The problem with this thesis is that it can be countered with one question, "Then is THAT a truth?" And if nothing is true, how can the claim itself to be true? If the claim is true, then we must accept that there are truths. There are many truths about truths. -Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton). - The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4) - All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008. - The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth. - Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something. A few phrases that you hear too often (and a brief counter question, which explains why they are just rhetorical nonsense). C: "There is no truth." A: "Is that a truth?" C: "All truth is relative." A: "Is that a relative truth?" C: "You can't know the truth!" A: "Then how do you know that?" Conclusions: 1. Although relativists say that truth is relative, truth is absolute, can be known, and is unique (eg, if 2 +2 = 4, 2 +2 can not be equal to 36) 2. Sentences such as "Truth is not!" etc. "You can know the truth!" are pieces of rhetorical nonsense, which can be proven wrong with a few words. 3. The truth does not care about our beliefs and feelings. Something is true, whether you believe in it or not.
God is real

All I know is that i see good around. The trees, animals, all these are acts of God. If you dont belive in God then where do we go after this life nowhere? Also where did we come from? if you dont belive in God then tell me how was the universe created, and why does space never end, and what created space. All these questions are imposible to answer with out our knowledge of God. Good argument but I think I already won.