BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We live for happiness

First off, let's define Formal Fallacy. Formal Fallacy: "In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called deductive fallacy) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic." [1] I didn't make the formal fallacy, you did, you made randomly irrelevant examples without explaining the whole point of these examples. Let's prove that you have the formal fallacy. "Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. You committed a formal fallacy." You have no proof that I've committed "formal fallacy." Again, you reinstated irrelevant examples, and again, you proven no point. "Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness." Yes it does prove that we did not live to have the "happiness" because we're not suicidal, you blindly believe that all people are suicidal, and again, you still haven't proven your point. Let's read the rest of your argument. "Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness. Why do we want to have the life? because 'in general for the living beings life is happier than death.' 'some people depart for happiness,' but 'no people live for unhappiness,' so 'happiness is our ultimate goal.' I already said these. You continuously show you do not understand my arguments. (if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane) Is there an example? You also used 'happiness' before defining. I could also say 'you could've done that.' We are talking about the purpose of actions, not actions themselves. You have to reread the second paragraph shifting words from 'death' to 'funerals' before I say four times. Think about why do people commit suicide and go to funerals even though these themselves are mostly unhappy. (No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.) It's easy for everyone to say like this without effort to understand. Your saying is true if you did not overlook and refuted my statements. However, many pieces of evidence were explaining you miss my assertions as well as you ignored my paragraph two in the third round." Yes, you made assertions, but you did not state the point that proves all of these random irrelevant examples. Just because I refuted and overlooked your statement, doesn't mean that you criticise me for doing so, it's just a thing to do when you're the one that made all these irrelevant examples, but has proven nothing. You have no evidence to prove that I missed any points at all, since you made that statement, now you have the burden of proof. Why should I have to re-read anything from any of your arguments when I read them through all the time. Also, answer this question. Why should people have to die or kill themselves at all? Source: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Hierarchy in society pro or con

Social Hierarchy - "An hierarchy is an organizational system of persons or things where one is ranked above another.""I see no reason for a hierarchy as the human race has evolved..."Evolution has nothing to do with hierarchy that goes on today. Hierarchy in society is something that just happens, and is very difficult to prevent. In many cases, social hierarchy just forms on its own. The reason these hierarchies tend to emerge, while all voices in the workplace are heard, not all voices and says are equal. If a group of people are stranded on an island, though nobody has the right to call themselves the "leader", leaders begin to present themselves.Hierarchy is necessary in a healthy workplace, for those who have a specific set of skills may do their own job. Almost all companies and organizations contain hierarchies. If you want hierarchies to cease to exist, it is not going to happen, for there is no controlling them. Another example of hierarchy is The United States of America. The country has divided itself up into around six different classes:The Capitalist ClassThe Upper Working ClassThe Middle ClassThe Lower Working ClassThe Lower ClassThe Under Classhttps://www.forbes.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.hierarchystructure.com...
Disney Channel Sucks!!

My opponent has forfeited his final round. Since Pro did nothing to affirm the resolution other than making an unproven claim, I rightfully don't even need to present an argument. He failed to maintain his BOP and therefore automatically gives the win to me, as it is his duty, above all else, to affirm the resolution. I will still present a few arguments, for the sake of at-least earning myself argument points aside from conduct points. Since this resolution involves Disney Channel as a whole, I will share some shows from the Disney Channel which were given awards over the years, thus showing the awesomeness of these shows and in effect, the awesomeness of the channel as a whole. I. Even Stevens (1999 - 2003)7 wins, 19 nominationsWon, BAFTA Children's Award 2002Won, Daytime Emmy 2003Won, Young Artist Award 2001, 2002, 2003, & 2004http://www.imdb.com...II. That's so Raven (2003 - 2007)14 wins, 27 nominations (I'm just going to include the links to these awards instead of actually posting them all, this is beneficial both in regards to space and time restraints)http://www.imdb.com...III. The Suite life of Zack and Cody (2005 - 2008)9 wins, 21 nominationshttp://www.imdb.com...IV. Opponent lacks any proof affirming his positionAnyone can see the list of Disney shows and there awards easily by looking at the following link:http://www.imdb.com...My opponent has completely failed to show any evidence justifying his claim. I thank the audience for their patience.
Disney Channel Sucks!!

The debate resolution is clear: Disney Channel Sucks! !Pro will be arguing that Disney channel sucks. I, Con, will be arguing that Disney channel doesn't suck. Since Pro is making an affirmative claim that goes against the status quo, the BOP (Burden of Proof) is fully on him to show that Disney Channel does indeed suck. If I am able to defeat any of his arguments, then I rightfully win this debate. At this point, Pro has done nothing more than make an unsubstantiated claim that Disney sucks. Claims of this nature require proof though in order to be found valid. Otherwise he is just making unjustified claims which hold no bearing in our actual reality. I can just as easily say that Water sucks, but without providing evidence or justifying my position, no-one has any reason to accept my claim as valid. This is the case here, where Pro has made a claim without providing any evidence, justification, or proof to maintain his position on the resolution (meaning he needs to prove that the claims he makes are valid). Since there is nothing to rebut at this point, I will return the floor to Pro and wait as he responds with actual evidence supporting his claims.
Cloning should be Legal

Ohh... I'm so glad of what I'm reading from team Proposition. First of all, about the sheep Dolly. You never told us how was this sheep created! For this sheep to be created, it had taken 277 embryos, so if we would have tried it on a human being, it would have taken 277 human lives to reach to only one clone! Is it ok? Is it ok to kill 277 lives just for one clone, and for us to feel Gods? NO! That's what we are afraid of. We are afraid of taking so big risks! Actually is a fact that only one clone will be perfect from 30 tries.. so the team is denying cloning because it's UNSAFE! So because of its unsafe we want t to become illegal! Secondly... today's proposition said that these clones will be identical to the humans, but we actually need to tell them that the demographic explosion (the fast increasing of population on Terra) is a very big problem... so if we don't actually have enough resources for ourselves, why would we create these clones, because we will finally get to no resources faster... and this is not a good thing. About the doctors... well, the problem with the pills is that they were created just to avoid the situation in which the baby will be denied by his parents, or feel the absence of one of them, thing that cloning will actually promote, because once this process will be legal, females, and maybe some males will clone babies to have care of them, because they want a baby but they don't have a partner, so that baby clone will have only one parent, and he will feel the absence of his other parent, thing that the Opposition really wants to avoid. So we should not legalize these process of cloning. Mainly from the aspects presented, but for every risk that we would need to assume by legalising clones, we beg you to deny the statement: Cloning should be legal!
Cloning should be Legal

So... what actually team Proposition said today is that cloned people or animals are TOOLS for us to use... Well one of the questions that the team Opposition is putting is: How will the humanity use this tools? Are these clones powerless? No! They will have power and will be easy influenced by everyone. They will be put to fight in wars! They will be put to kill people! Why? Because they are created by us! We'll think that we are gods, because we create life, so we can judge what should we do with it! But there is no such a thing as a human selected to be god, to can decide what would someone should do, even a clone! Will we win if there would be more soldiers, because as we explained, this is a way how we will use these clones. More soldiers that we could use as kamikaze! Why? Because if one clone is gone, well... we do another one. Human brain can't have such liberty as creating life, because human race is not pure enough to have this right, or to have the mentality required to use such a power! So, what team Opposition is saying today, is that we can't let human race to have such a power, and make cloning illegal is the best option to avoid every bad thing that could happen, or any bad way that these clones would be used by humanity, because any wrong choice could be fatal to US ! In conclusion, VOTE WITH TEAM OPOSITION !
students should be allowed to possess cell phones

Please state your ideas in the actual argument, not as a source. If you do so again, I will not be reading the sources and only the words inside the round. Cell phones can be used for educational purposes. I agree with that. But there is no way a teacher knows how the student with the phone is cheating or is doing non-educational things on the phone for it is facing away from them as they teach the students from the front of the class. I am in school now, and I have seen many of these problems as students sneak texts to others when the teacher says they can use their phones. Cell phones will not help the school education as a whole.
students should be allowed to possess cell phones

If the topic really was that students should be allowed to possess cell phones, I will ask the opponent for why they have put up two sources that have to do with using cell phones in class. Obviously, Pro misunderstood the concept of the topic he was trying to assert, and then came back later to say that I have misunderstood. I only have gone along with Pro's sources as the basis of my opinion. Thank you, everyone.
students should be allowed to possess cell phones

A student always carries around their phones. I have never said that they cannot use their phones for extracurricular activities or cases where the bus breaks down. They can, and they will. I am only saying, based on the sources you have linked to as your first argument, that students will not benefit from using their phones for school. I am not arguing from the perspective that students cannot have phones at all; I am arguing the fact that using cell phones in school will not benefit in educational matters, which is what your links state.
It was a mistake for Germany to take in 1million migrants.

1. According to the EU only 21% of the migrants who came to Europe in 2015 were Syrian. According to the EU and European Comission most (60%) were economic migrants and therefor had no claim for asylum under Section 16a GG of the German Basic Law. It makes sense to take in actual refugees but not the hundreds of thousands of people coming for welfare and other economic reasons. http://ec.europa.eu... 2. Lowered standards will harm school kids and teens not matter how long they last. Plus Germany will have to take money and resources away from German school kids to give to migrants. Do you want this to happen? How will you guys teach all those people German and get them caught up? 3. Your experience of every day life is anecdotal evidence. You got on me for using dozens of anecdotal cases but you want to argue with just your own? Do you not understand what German culture is? Every country has a culture and/or sub cultures and so does Germany. The cultures the migrants are coming from is very different from yours. How can you possible assimilate 1million people a year from vastly different cultures? What will happen in otehr countries will very likely happen in Germany. Many of the migrants will create ghettos and even no go zones where they won't assimilate but will continue to practice their own cultures (some of which are bad). You'll probably get on me for saying that some of the cultures the migrants are coming from are bad. Some of them, not all, but some are. 4. Standard of living. Massive increase in crime, worsted education, different and some even regressive cultures will lower that. 5. http://www.express.co.uk... Figures from Germany's Federal Crime Office (BKA) show that in 2015 migrants committed 208,344 crimes (nearly 40,000 being violent) . This is 92,000 more crimes than they committed in 2014. The dramatic rise in crime is obviously because of the dramatic increase in the number of migrants who came in to Germany. 208,000 crimes by a population of 1 million. Do the math. The crime rate among migrants is extremely high. This does not mean that all migrants are criminals it means that there is a higher rate of criminality among them than other demographics. And if Germany allows 1 million more migrants in in 2016 crime will again rise dramatically. The rate of migrant crime in Germany is not surprising when we consider the rate of migrant crime in other European countries. Considering the increase in crime caused by migration in other European countries and the high rate of migrant crime in Germany, it is obvious that Germany is going down a dangerous path. 6. Allowing in millions of people (mostly men) with out accurately screening them is a recipe for disaster. It will allow ISIS terrorists to travel to Europe. The Paris attackers for example went back and forth from Syria to Europe disguised as migrants. They killed 130 people. Is even that worth a risk?
It was a mistake for Germany to take in 1million migrants.

According to the European Comission 60% of the migrants who came in 2015 were economic migrants. According to the EU 21% of the migrants who came in 2015 were Syrians. This means that 19% of the people who came in 2015 were refugees from places besides Syria, places like Iraq or Afghanistan, as you mentioned. I believe that America and other countries should allow legit refugees, from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan ect to live within them, but we should allow little or no economic migrants. Your stats are about German's intake of migrants mine are about the migrants who came into all of Europe. 2. You don't understand how hard it is to assimilate and teach German to over 1 million people. Why should Germany be forced to sacrifice its education, economy and safety for people who aren't eve refugees? The sacrifices are worth it for the actual refugees but not for the economic migrants. Most of the migrants are not part of some humanitarian crisis and according to the European Comission shouldn't be in Europe. Countries should worry about their own people before others. 3. Do you want sharia controlled no go zones in your country? Do you want rape to sky rocket? Hows that for ruining a culture. A lot of the people coming in have regressive views on women and will treat women all ready living there like second class citizens. Sweden has literally become the rape capital of the west due to immigration. There is a huge epidemic of migrant rape in Europe, which is obviously horrible for women. Do you want that to happen to Germany? Do you want German women to go through what Swedish women go through? 4. First post. 5. 40,000 violent crimes per 1,000,000 means that 1 in 25 migrants commits a violent crime. That rate is very high. How is it against the law to revoke asylum status for a criminal? 6. No successful terrorist attacks have happened in Germany yet and hopefully won't happen. But unfortunately with Germany's open door policy the likelihood is high. Just because no German citizens have died in Germany die to an Islamic attack before does not mean it won't happen. Is the risk of terrorism worth it for economic migrants? Maybe for actual refugees but not economic migrants.
2012 Presidential Debate: Wily vs. Light

*gazes back as Dr. Albert Wily sits humbly back in his chair, staring at the ground in silence. The audience looks onward at the clearly defeated man who's manipulations have been exposed.* Friends, family, and dear citizens. Today has been a powerful and thought provoking day for myself, and I imagine for all of you as well. Whether you watched it here live, or are viewing from home on your television, or perhaps watching this on youtube days after... the evidence has become undeniable. If this dead silence is indication of nothing of my opponent's true motives being exposed, let it at least be an indicator of his strength to confront adversity when challenged. He is not the man for the position of President of the Free World, for that reason as well as all the ones mentioned prior which he has failed to contend with. It is with this opportunity that I once again ask for your vote in this upcoming election. I have demonstrated my core beliefs in changing the way we live in America for the better, without sacrificing what allowed us to get to this point in the first place. I have outlined several plans for you that I hope to implement in the coming years if elected. I have demonstrated why these ideas are safer alternatives to those of my opponents as well as being more efficient in general. With technology and the spirit of the American people we will usher in a new future where cities can be built in a day, and we will build towers that reach the heavens! We have waited so long for this day, where the death can finally be taken away! No son will ever have to say, that my father worked until his grave! Vote for what is good and right, Vote for Light!
2012 Presidential Debate: Wily vs. Light

Look around you, citizens. Your jobs have been shipped overseas, where they can be done more cheaply. Your standard of living has declined precipitously - your children will live a less comfortable life than your parents. Across the world, American soldiers give their lives, to fight a shadowy, faceless enemy - terrorism. Assuredly, it is an important struggle - but is the benefit really worth the life of your sons? For far too long, we the ordinary people have borne the burdens of our great society, while the elites sit in their ivory towers, twenty stories high. Elites like my opponent, Dr. Thomas Light. But enough about him for now - unlike he, I am interested merely in service: in solutions to the problems our nation faces. In fact, I have one plan to solve all our problems, one wonderful, simple plan: robots for all! Why was your car assembled in Mexico out of parts made in Taiwan or Malaysia? Because the average Mexican wage is lower than that of the average American, and the average Taiwanese or Malaysian is paid less still. But you know who works for free? Robots. The robot wage will be 0, and so all those dollars that America sends over to Asia and Latin America and Europe will become euros and pesos and yen, all shipped over to the United States. We, America, will regain our former role as the world's factory, ensuring a steady stream of income. "Wait, wait, wait, Dr. Wily wait!" you say. "If the robots are working, how will we be able to afford a decent life?" Well first, my friends, call me Albert. I am just the same as you. Second, the proceeds from the robot factories will be distributed freely amongst us all. Food, shelter, clothing - all the basics will be of course provided. But entertainment as well - I plan to create the world's largest network of closed circuit televisions, on which will be continuously broadcast entertaining and educational programs, free for everyone to enjoy! In this way, we the people will finally get our due - finally you will be freed of the burden of breaking your back for an oppressive system. Finally, my plan will recall all human soldiers - they will be treated as heroes, every one of them. In their place, to protect vital American interests around the world - robots. Robots will fight for us, for you - robots to do the work you cannot. Robots to protect you, to guard you from harm. That is what the Wily Plan will get you.
the bible

My goodness, I think you are right, we are not going to have a debate and I think you are right, one of us is rambling! I could ask people all day to read my statement and they would agree I am saying the Bible is not the word of any god or supreme being. Your profile says you are a Christian. I have never had to exlain to a Christian what "Bible" I am talking about. If my profile had said I was a Moslem, then you could question what Bible. I think you just want to show people that you know the names of some of books in the Bible. It was just rambling and a waste of time. The Bible is supposed to be word for word the word of God. If you don't think it is word for word of God and you are one of those people who who just takes what they want to hear out of it, I can't debate someone who lives in a fictional world. If you believe it is the word for word of God , why does it say "then God made two great lights?" My answer was that a god or supreme being did not have anything to do with this book. It was just people trying to promote their religion and back in their time they thought the moon was a light of itself. I should not be suprised that a so called Christian can't answer a simple question. They never do. But at least when I talk to them in person, although they ramble on about something else and never give you a direct answer, they do understand the question. I really do not think you know much about the Bible other than a few quotes that someone has told you to read. Why don't you come out of your room and ask your Mom or Dad or some other grownup to explain the question to you. I don't mean this as a reflection of your age because I talk to a lot of young people that do make sense, but you do not. I know I won't get an answer to why it says ,"then God make two great lights." Just make a couple of smart a-- comments and do your rambling. Don't want to hear from you after that. This has taken way too much of my time just to get you to understand what this debate is about.