BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head

You got that right, About the kick to the head being more powerful, BUT you don't want to kill the guy. Than you would be charged in murder, You just want to punch him hard enough to knock some sense into them and also stun them for a bit, Kind of like knocking the wind out of them. It's almost like a hard reboot on your computer, Sometimes the computer glitches or get stuck on an application and needs a quick reboot to reset it. Well it's the same with a person, Sometime they get into a argument or rub someone the wrong way, Well in those isolated incidents where people lose their common sense, A good hard shot in the head puts them back on track and resolves the conflict very quickly. That is why the punch to the head is the most effective method, Forget talking, Yelling for hours, Throwing things, Just a quick hard punch and conflict is over. Simple
Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head

Pushing is not as effective, It might knock the person down but they will just get up and want to fight. Best solution is a punch to the head hard, Or a punch to the throat, That way they get stunned, Lose oxygen and also won't be able to mouth back or talk as they will be more stunned. Pushing just leads to more pushing and eventually to punches anyway. Therefore a hard punch to the head resolves the conflict right away and people see things your way after that. Unless it's Tyson who can take a lot of punches to the head or some tweeker who is strung out on speed, Than more punches might be require to complete the conflict resolution
Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head

Best method for solving any type of conflict with another individual is a punch in the head. It solves the problem right away when the person is knocked out on the curb. Someone cuts you off and flips you the bird, Next light get out, Punch to the head Someone is mouthing off and arguing, Punch to the head Someone is in your face over something, Punch to the head Solves the problem quickly and there is no counter argument. Problem solved, Most effective method
Two Party System vs. Multi Party System

I am certain that this debate will be fruitful, fun, and exciting. First, I would like, if my opponent will allow, to refine the scope of this debate to the United States alone. I am not (nor, do I believe is my opponent) well versed in foreign situations and politics; certainly not enough to properly debate such systems. Secondly, though I will overlook it in the spirit of the debate, your wording and lack of definitions makes this debate almost invalid. "Multi-party" simply means "more than one party," and this could include a two, three, or infinite party system. In other words, a two party system is a TYPE of multi party system. I do, however, know what you mean; two parties versus three or more parties. So, to begin. Contention 1: Restricting choice to two parties limits the free marketplace of ideas, reduces each voter's choice, and is undemocratic. People come in more than two flavors; reducing our choice to two is like having every American drive either a Dodge pickup or a Honda sedan. It is preposterous to think that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented properly by a bi-chromatic facsimile. What if you are pro-life, but support gay marriage? Or, for that matter, what if you support the right to own assault rifles but also support nationalized health care? A two party system unnecessarily and arbitrarily forces people to make concessions on their beliefs, all in the name of simplicity. The more parties, the better (to a degree, of course); it allows each citizen to find the party (and thusly, the candidate) that most directly fits their beliefs and best represents their ideology. Arbitrarily choosing two parties as being representative of all Americans is political favoritism and is wrong down the the very core. Contention 2: There is no appropriate way to pick the two parties. Even if you pick the two most popular parties, you still have a predicament. .. what if public opinion shifts, and the parties do not? I need not remind you that our two most dominant parties were themselves not established until well into the 1800s. Had we codified a two party system in our nation's infancy, we would today be choosing between the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs. Contention 3: A 3-or-more party system is more responsive to change. If the public opinion should suddenly shift, or if events should lead to a rapid mood swing in the voting public, more parties would allow government to reflect this change with more fidelity. Contention 4: At least in America, there is no Constitutional basis for a two party system. Since the neither the Constitution nor any of it's amendments allows us to restrict political parties, permitting only two to exist would be illegal. So, for that matter, would be forcing us to have any arbitrary number (1, 5, 10, etc). We must allow freedom to determine how many parties there are, and it has; there are dozens of parties in this country. This is clear proof that an unrestricted, multiparty system is best. .. it has arisen from free exchange and choice, and thus is a direct representation of the will of the people.
Two Party System vs. Multi Party System

In this debate I will argue for the two party system and whoever takes this debate will argue for a multi party system of republicanism. Republicanism is defined in this debate as a form of government made up of a legislative branch where each member is a representative of his constituency (this includes the parliamentary system as well). Note: There is no PRO and CON for this debate. Both sides are arguing the PRO for the merits of their system. This is an argument on the merits of both systems, I am attempting to avoid an argument on semantics.
Abortion

You seem to have misunderstood my point. There is a near-impossible chance of you only having one possible organ donor, either you have multiple possible organ donors, or none. I was simply saying your example couldn't hold out because in a real organ donation situation, there would not be only one possible donor. To reuse your tone, A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER BODY, UNLESS AN UNBORN LIFE IS INVOLVED. A fetus has not done any wrong, or committed a crime in existing in her mother's womb. A baby will demand at least one person's body, if that person feels uncomfortable or unable to cope, they can give care to someone else. In the case of an unborn child, the mother will have to wait until she gives birth to assign care to someone else. There are numerous ways to soften the pains of pregnancy, the woman will have to endure because another life is involved. I do agree, there is a major issue with orphans not finding a home, but in Asia, the Carribean, Europe and North America, rates of orphaned children are down. This is a problem which is slowly being solved. What did the fetus do against the woman? Why does the fetus deserve to die simply because the woman wanted it to? You cannot simply allow a woman to do what she wants with her body, regardless of other lives involved. The fetus has the right to live, and its right to live outweights the woman's comfort. I thank you for debating with me, it was a pleasure and I hope to debate again some time with you again.
Abortion

Actually, there are a lack of organs available. http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org... "On average, 22 people die every day from the lack of available organs for transplant." Theory debunked. But it was irrelevant anyway My third point was simple. You cannot force someone to donate organs. Even though there are 22 people per day dying of lack of transfers, no one can be forced to donate these organs. Everyone can do whatever they please with their body. "When a baby is born, it needs at least one parent or guardian to live, it cannot live on its own. A newborn child can be sent to an orphanage to new parents, similar to an unborn child. There will be an emotional cost, but this is unfortunately unavoidable." Again, you aren't understanding the argument. Let me state it for you again. A WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER OWN BODY. PERIOD. A baby does NOT need a specific woman's body to survive. A fetus needs its mother's body to survive. "This brings me to another point, adoption. If a parent cannot raise a child, another family will always want to help." Untrue. https://showhope.org.... "There are roughly 400,000 children in the US foster care system. Of that number, approximately 100,000 are waiting to be adopted." Again, none of this matters. It all goes back to the basic principle. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. A fetus needs its mother's body to survive. A woman has the right to not share her body with anyone, including her fetus. Q.E.D
Abortion

You misunderstand my point on opt-in and opt-out organ donation systems, it has nothing to do with my point on abortion. I was simply trying to explain that in your example of Human A and Human B, it is almost impossible for Human A to only have one possible donor, or for all their possible donors to reject donating a kidney. If your brother is so horrible that even your mother or father would not donate their one of their kidneys, he has probably committed numerous unforgivable felonies, or you exagerrate. If the former is true, I could understand why you don't see him as a part of your family. Your third point confuses me, do you mean to say that people who have registered their organs in an organ bank but simply do not want to donate them? Again, my first paragraph outlines why your example is impossible so doesn't apply to the debate on abortion. When a baby is born, it needs at least one parent or guardian to live, it cannot live on its own. A newborn child can be sent to an orphanage to new parents, similar to an unborn child. There will be an emotional cost, but this is unfortunately unavoidable. This brings me to another point, adoption. If a parent cannot raise a child, another family will always want to help. Why must we punish the unborn child for doing nothing wrong, other than existing in the way of the woman's comfort? Adoption is a much better solution to abortion, it comes at much less of an emotional cost and you are not unfairly punishing an unborn child.
Abortion

It's irrelevant whether or not it's an opt in or opt out system. Abortion would technically be an "opt out" system as well, since you need to "opt out" of the pregnancy. If you do nothing, you give birth. Example debunked. How do you know no family member wouldn't donate his or her kidney? You can't speak for everyone like that. I wouldn't donate my kidney to my horrible brother. Neither would my mother or father. Example debunked. Whether or not there are a number of organs is irrelevant as well. You can't force anyone to give an organ they don't want to, because people can choose to do what they want to do with their own bodies. Example debunked. What you don't understand is that when a baby is born, it does not need its mother or father's body to survive. It can survive with different parents, and it doesn't need their bodies. It may need assistance in other areas, but it doesn't need their bodies. Did you not read the argument? A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own BODY. So, that example is debunked.
Abortion

In your example of 'Human A and Human B', I would like to note the simplicity of the situation. Most countries use an 'opt-out' organ donation system. This means, if you do not want your organs to be donated, you must actively remove your name from the register. If you do nothing, it is assumed you want your organs to be transplanted. In your example, Human A needs Human B specifically. Very rarely is there only one possible donor for an organ transplant, in opt-out countries, it is nearly impossible for you to have only one donor. If you do happen to have only one donor, or you live in an opt-in country, your donor must be your family. And in the case of a kidney transplant, no family member would not donate their kidney to you. Even in opt-in countries where you must actively register, there is still a relatively large amount of organs in the organ bank. Your example does not apply to the situation of abortion. All people, whether born or unborn, have the right to exist. From the moment the sperm enters the ovum, the organism has become a human and deserves a human's rights. A newborn baby needs their mother to survive, they quite literally feed off the mother's body, but no government approves of the murder of a newborn baby simply because the mother does not care, or is not able to sustain their life. This continues throughout childhood, of the children draining resources from the mother and father, in order to sustain their survival. This relationship, you could consider, is 'parasitical'.
Abortion

The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
The Big Bang

I am a believer in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit but in this debate the main focus will be on God. By accepting this, I am going to argue that He is our Creator of the Universe and our very existence is based on His love for us. I also believe that humans are not animals, the reason being God created us as worshippers and people to love Him and we are special in His eyes! I understand that this won't be about Evolution, rather about the Origin of Life, and the Burden of Proof is shared. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
The Big Bang

I shall be arguing that the universe began with the Big Bang. In your acceptance statements, please state what you think created the universe. Round 1: Acceptance StatementsRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: Counter Arguments Round 4: Counter ArgumentsRound 5: Closing Statements1. Please, no trolls. I don't want someone replying with "Santa made the Universe!".2. No Ad Hominids or Cursing.3. If you are quoting or getting info from a website, please give a link to that page.Failure to comply with these rules will result in a 7 point deduction.
Gay Rights and Marrige

If what you are stating is true, then equality and fairness have nothng to do with this debate, that is just an unbiased opinion. I am not biased toward anyone, for you to insinuate that I am prejudice toward anyone Gay or Straight is a character attack, that assumption is dead wrong. My being Gay or Straight has nothing to do with my opinions. Those are just what I think. My opinions are informed and not biased. In 38 other states Gay's are already getting rights and marriages, so what is your argument. My argument is that we are all equal and being Gay has nothing to do with that. So Gay Marriage and rights are not a real arguement. Fairness has nothing to do with being Gay or Straight it has to do with being human and decent toward others.
Gay Rights and Marrige

not every one in america has the same religion! their are so many here why should are marriage laws be controlled by one! men should marry men and women should marry women if they are gay you are not gay so why should you care marry a women if you want to gays are not tring to control that for you. you ask me to back up my statements but really you need to backup yours. all you are giving me are biased religious opinions. all I'm saying is that if you are gay you should be allowed to marry whom ever you want to. I'm not saying that straight people are not allowed to marry because i don't like it so why are you? doesn't that sound unfair? so what you don't agree with gay marriage but some do. and its not fair for people to not be able to marry whom they want because some people think its a abomination or whatever you ask me to back it up? any one can see that the treatment of gays aren't fair. STOP being biased! and let gays be. no one said you or anyone has to be apart of a gay marriage. your life wont change at all! so why do you feel it it fair for you to marry but gays cant! i strongly believe in equality for every one and i thought so was my country. why do you not believe in equality? because what you and many people are doing are stating that its not right for gays to marry. that's not equal. tell me a true statement on why gays cant marry but nothing about your religions belief and god(because that does not apply to every one) or anything that is biased. can you?
Gay Rights and Marrige

In response to your previous comment,I still think that it was intended by God that men should be married to women not to men . Here is a question for you? Why should men be with men why not women , also why should women be with women not men ? that is not natural .I think that by rights men should not be with men, but by nature should be with women. Please back up your statement about gay rights and marriage .These need to be somehow supported and backed up. also you need to clarify what you think is a union between men and men and women and women ,because in most states this union is being supported. please tell me what you mean.Can you support and tell me why men should not be with women!
Gay Rights and Marrige

marrige:the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; marriage two people who are married to each other; "a married couple with love" marriage the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; marriage a close and intimate union; online dictionary.com LOOK IT UP! it does not say anything about just men and women!and besides america is the melting pot of the world why should marriage and a religion entertwin when we know not everyone has the same one!or why should our laws be wrapped around a biased based idea!if you dont agree with gay marrige dont go to one. no one will be forced to particapate in a gay marriage. but the option should be their for those who it refers to. what if the situation was reversed and you really loved a girl/boy and you never wanted to be with any one else but you wern't allowed to get married becuase it was not natural in the gasy communtiy. would that be fair? of course not. so why does it make it right for people to do the same becuase its not a striaght couple. it its still unfair and unjust for gays to be singled out and treated differntly! dont you agree?
Gay Rights and Marrige

i am apaled that gay's cant marry whom the want America is sopposed the land of the free have you ever herd of freedom of rights? freedom of speach? how about freedom of beliefs?!? Why can people get a away with murder yet gay people cant marrie who the want? im so sick and tired of people geting religion and politics in the way of marrige! if you appose of gays and their marrige you dont have to be apart of it! why cant gays get married huh? love is love it dosnt matter if a child dosnt natrually come of it! besides alot of gays adopt the kids most striaght people cant handle or dont want yet they have them. im not striaght people are bad. im just saying that gay people are people to.try reversing the situation. what if you striaght in a gay communtiy and you couldnt marry the one you love. how would that feel! i believe in equall rights. i aprove of gay marrige. do you?
Ethan will get laid before Rohan.

First thing's first, Rohan has WON MORE ROUNDS than ethan has, so clearly he is superior. The reason why he has not passed on his debate prowess vaginally yet is because of the fact of the matter, which is that the debate girls so far, as Thomas Jefferson stated in his writings "mentally... handicapped" And the idea that the girls that ethan has follow him is proof that he is better is invalid simply because the girls that DO follow him are predispositoned to do things that don't make sense. Also, I have a quote from Ethan himself stating that "I... would... only... do... a girl... who wasn't... pre...dis...position...ed... to do... things that... don't... make sense." He wouldn't do the girls that follow him around, because of their inability to make sense. Even if those girls wanted him, ethan would be wearing a chastity belt, so it wouldn't work. Although rohan has no potential mates now, he has better potential because he is infact sexier. Local sexologist Ethan C (yes, the same ethan) said about Rohan 'My, what a fine specimen.' At Ethan's year end party, there was free soda, which all girls love. All girls, on the other hand do not love Ethan. In fact, no girls have time to love ethan, because they're all banging Rohan. The english teacher of which I cited is of course a proper source, as it indicates that Ethan has no longer term potential for getting a mate. Actually, there is that one girl who always says "I want my Rohan, and then proceedes to hug him." This is proof that Rohan gets it indeed. Rohan actually has the power to eat ethan alive with his badminton skills. Also, whenever I try to get ethan into a fight with other people that are much bigger than him (like Rohan for instance)in gym class, ethan always backs away, indicating that his black belt is not in Taekwondo, but rather in being a virgin forever. I continue to affirm the idea that vegetarianism is a plus to getting laid. Besides, you've admitted many a time that "I have a soft spot for bacon." what the hell kind of vegetarian likes bacon? Not you, because you aren't a vegetarian. Therefore, your opinion on the matter is invalid. Rohan is also Hindu, which makes girls hot in the pants, because he does something 'unique, but not weird, like eating pencils.' Ethan is protestant. Boring. Also, the evolutionary sociologist need not answer to Jesus because in the old testament, which everyone knows to be up to 45% more true than the new one, (as quoted by God) says that people who are 'not only boring, but also weird, shalt never get laidth, and so shalt die in hell alone.' This applies to ethan, and not rohan. My final point, proving Rohan's superiority and also greater ability to get girls is that Rohan has Super Smash Brothers: Brawl. Ethan has the older SSB for the Gamecube. Girls like newer stuff, and are 85%more likely to go to third base on a first date if you tell them that you have super smash brothers: Brawl.* *As explained by Genesis 1:1, King James Edition Vote Neg.