BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

I stand in affirmation of the topic, "An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip." For those of you who don't know, this is the slogan for Lay's: "Betcha can't eat just one!" Great, huh? Unfourtunatly, this company is lying to you. Here are some definitions for the round (dictionary.com): Can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to Average: typical; common; ordinary First off, there are no chemicals in Lay's that make it hard to eat just one. Potatoes, nor salt, are phyiscal addicting. Therefore, there is nothing in the potato chip that makes your body addicted to the chips nor even compels you to eat more. Secondly, a person could easily take a chip, eat it, and move on with their day. People have too much to be worried about to be eating potato chips. Also, most people are concered with their health, so they would only eat one to get the taste and not the calories. Finally, there are other things they can be snacking on. If the person is hungry, there are pretzels, crackers, and other types of chips that are not potato like Cheetos. There's no reason a person can't eat those instead of Lay's. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
A hot dog is a sandwich

I shall now refute my opponents arguments. 1. While Merriam-Webster may claim that a hot dog is a sandwich, they did not elaborate on why. They only did as everyone else always does in pointing out the anatomical similarities between hot dogs and sandwiches. To say that a hot dog is a sandwich because Merriam-Webster says so without then providing elaboration and supports for the claim is an appeal to authority fallacy. (note that when in my case I cited the NHDSC on the issue I then provided further supporting details on the claim building off of the information they provided.) 2. in his point two and subpoints one and two he once again simply points out the anatomical similarities between hot dogs and sandwiches. Again, there are many things that share a large number of anatomical similarities but are not considered the same thing because of it. 3. next my opponent states that simply because a hot dog does not have the name sandwich in it doesn't mean that it's not a sandwich. He cites the BLT as evidence of this, regardless of the fact that it is indeed called the Bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich and can be found under the sandwich menu in most restaurants. The main issue I take with his argument, however, is that he is refuting a claim that I never made. While the argument could be made that I was not calling a sandwich a hot dog in my arguments, I hold hot dogs and sandwiches to be different things. Therefore, his argument could only stand if hot dogs are sandwiches which I don't accept as fact. and to conclude, he points out the mere anatomical similarities between hot dogs and sandwiches one last time. Seeing as I've already refuted this claim multiple times throughout my argument, I don't see a reason to do it again.
A hot dog is a sandwich

Thank you for replying to this debate. I'll give you reasons on why hot dog is a sandwich. 1. Merriam Webster says that a hot dog is a sandwich http://www.foxnews.com... 2. Hot dogs fulfill the requirements of a sandwhich. 1. You must be able to pick it up and eat it with your hands and without your hands touching the fillings. (If fillings ooze out it may be a bad sandwich, but it's still a sandwich.) 2. The fillings must be sandwiched between two discrete food items. As you can see these requirements fulfill a hot dog. A hot dog is between 2 pieces of bread. http://www.sporkful.com... 3. Just because hot dogs doesn't have the name sandwich in it doesn't make it one. Look at the BLT a classic sandwich but you don't see the word sandwich in it. As you can see a hot dog fulfills the requirements of a sandwich. A sandwich is hold together by 2 pieces of breads in which is the most basic and important requirements.
A hot dog is a sandwich

Sorry I didn't post sooner, I've been busy. I would also like to point out that this debate is going to be humorous and isn't restricted to normal debate mannerisms. I hold that a hot dog is not a sandwich thus I offer the following contentions to negate the resolution. 1. A Hot Dog is not officially considered a sandwich. The national hot dog and sausage council have determined that a hot dog is not, in fact, a sandwich. there are several reasons that a hot dog is not a sandwich. 1. does ESPN show sandwich eating contests? 2. Imagine being at the ballpark with the organ playing, the crowd cheering and a vendor walking through the stands saying "Sandwich, get your sandwich here!" 3. Marlene Dietrich didn"t say that champagne and sandwiches were her favorite foods; it was champagne and hot dogs she loved. 4. You wouldn"t get arrested for putting ketchup on a sandwich in Chicago. 5. You don"t go to the ballpark and see racing sandwiches. 6. There was never an organized campaign for a sandwich emoji. 7. If you won the lottery, would you say "Sand wich!" No, you"d say, "hot dog!" as you can see there are numerous differences between a sandwich and a hot dog. After all, simply stating that hot dogs are sandwiches because of their anatomical similarities is like saying that dogs are humans because we both have hearts, lungs, and reticular formations. http://www.hot-dog.org...
For the sake of the Dems, the delegates in Florida and Michigan should NOT be counted at the DNC.

You haven't considered any median option. The Dems should do with the delegates what the Republicans did. The Republicans cut the delegate count in half, punishing the states while simulataneously avoiding the winner's contreversy. But, due in large part to the Democratic Party's ignorance, this can't happen now because the election has already happened and the results are skewed as you mentioned. So, they should rehold the primaries and count half of the delegates. The Clinton supporters want them counted while Obama's people argue they shouldn't be. This political, self-interested squabble can only be solved by copying the way the Republicans did it originally. Punish and avoid the contreversy.
For the sake of the Dems, the delegates in Florida and Michigan should NOT be counted at the DNC.

There is no reason to believe that punishing the states reasonably and practically would make the party look weak. This is terminally non-unique as the republicans have accomplished this exact scenario and not suffered the consequences you mention. If anything it would build the realtionship between the dem and states by taking down this big brother type of relationship. There is no way implementing the reasonable median option would cause the party to lose the election. No voters would vote against Obama because of party disputes with the states. If anything, voters would be less disenfranshised as the squabble comes to a reasonable and peacable end, alleviating a childish situation and making the party look stronger. We can most certainly hold the primaries again. While they would need a certain amount of notice, the states can get funding from the dem and their own funds to rehold the primary due to the dispute. It would take time, but even after Obama's W in Wisconsin, this nomination is likely to go to the convention. I agree that we can't capture the results from that specific day. But, getting honest and reflective results from a different time is better than the alternative of counting skewed delegates or not counting them at all. I don't need to argue the opposite of your point, just prove your point wrong. Just because you argue "delegates shouldn't be counted" doesn't mean i need to argue the exact antithesis. There are numerous ways to defeat an argument. Not to say that I have done that, but I have advoacated an alternative to your position. So, reholding the primaries is the best option for reasons that I stated in round 1. None of the impacts you claim will happen because the republicans did the exact same thing and didn't suffer those consequences. Also, reholding the delegates would make the dem look stronger by alleviating a messy political situation and building relationships with states. We don't get state-party anarchy because the states still get punished. FL and Mich can rehold their primaries with excess state funds and dem party funding. Abasentee voters can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, which is allowed by the lengthy process this nomination has become.
For the sake of the Dems, the delegates in Florida and Michigan should NOT be counted at the DNC.

These states can hold new primaries and this is all part of the DNCs rules. If they re held the primaries that would be fine but the fact is the cost is prohibitive and they cannot rehold the primaries w/o leaving out vast amounts of military and absentee voters. A primary held today would be unfair for the residents of the states due to this. The reason I haven't advocated a median option (as I have considered them) is due to this impossibility of holding a fair primary and b/c if the DNC backs down all hell breaks loose as I explained in my opening argument. Why won't other states not follow DNC rules if FL and MI get away with it? If the DNC compromises at all on this issue they will be rightly viewed as weak and hypocrites. It will be anarchy between the party and the states. Why follow a rule if it will not be enforced. I think we are arguing two different issues. I can understand that you think the DNC should have severely penalized but not disenfranchised the states that held illicit early primaries (perhaps by following the republican model). This is not what our debate is about. We are debating whether the DNC should currently allow the already illicitly nominated delegates to the convention. I've already explained the consequences of backing down. The dems lose the election as they are viewed as weak by independents who McCain attracts. The party crumbles due to no enforcement of rules. Future elections will be decided more so by money and less so by quality, and we cannot divvy up the votes fairly. We cannot hold fair primaries due to absentee and military ballots and the costs. Also the electorate's opinion has changed from then so polling now doesn't get the same results as before. The only solution imo is to uphold the ban.
The conservative view point should be labled as hate speech to eliminate it for ever.

"It's absurd for my opponent to ask me to find a liberal who defends conservative ideology;" The resolution is quite clear in this debate and I have clearly stated what should be a very simple way to win the debate. I listed only three examples of what conservatives are constantly accused of over and over again in the news media, countless Internet sites and any other form of media outlet. Show me a liberal defending a conservative saying that conservatives don't "hate" little children,old people or the middle class. My opponent wishes to change the rules to fit his argument. "It's absurd for my opponent to ask me to find a liberal who defends conservative ideology" I didn't ask my opponent to defend conservative ideology. I asked him to show me a liberal defending a conservative being accused of "hate" and that any possible ideas about the young the old and the middle class are not based on "hate". Is it just as impossible to find a conservative defending a liberal? Here is a link to a conservative that I think most on this site would be considered a prominent conservative defending a liberal being accused of racism and hate. http://edgycater.blogspot.com... My opponent says my sources are merely biased sources and need not be addressed. He simply states that just because they say what they say does not make them true. He makes no attempt what so ever to even discredit a single one with some alternate source showing it to be false, Just his word will do I suppose My opponent says that because suits are not filed that it doesn't make it true. He gives no source, just his word again. And last but not least he completely switches the tables and tries to turn it into a "liberals hate debate" Not at all related to the resolution.
The conservative view point should be labled as hate speech to eliminate it for ever.

My opponent says it is "impossible" to defend the "absurd". There is no possible way to find anyone that would defend accusations such as the ones I have put forward. My opponent states himself that the examples are absurd but makes no attempt to even try to find a single prominent liberal in govt that would also say it is absurd to make such accusations. If it is impossible then it must be true. It should be easy to disprove something absurd. Now an endless litany of accusations against conservative speech and thought that all goes unchallenged. So it must be true. http://www.alternet.org... http://www.prospect.org... http://www.freezerbox.com... http://www.grist.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://liberapedia.wikia.com... http://www.mydd.com... http://www.feministing.com... http://www.appletreeblog.com... http://psyact.org... http://www.preemptivekarma.com... http://www.ryansager.com... "This general statement that my opponent makes is libelous, fallacious, and is, in and of itself, hate speech; it's obviously libelous to some extent by trying to discredit all conservatives, and, as my opponent himself states, he's aiming for the eradication of conservatism as a whole." If any of the sources I provided were liable or untrue would there not be law sits filed? All of the previous sources clearly insinuate hate on the part of conservatives and all back me up. All are unchallenged. Conservatives hate everyone and everything how many sources do you need, I can supply thousands more. My opponents rants about the debt and other such things are irrelevant to the debate. Conservatives hate and their speech is hate and their political positions are all based on hate. The resolution stands my opponent can't find anyone to defend even what he calls "absurd" therefore it must not be. Conservatives invented the word "hate" as far as I can tell from all of my sources.
The conservative view point should be labled as hate speech to eliminate it for ever.

It is said almost every where I look and goes unchallenged. Conservatives don't care about people. They "hate" the poor they "hate" little children and want to deny them medical care. They "hate" the elderly and also want to deny them medical care. They hate the entire middle class and want to deny them a living wage. Who don't conservatives "hate" ? Oh ya, big corporations, they don't hate them. That's even worse. To not hate big business may as well make you Hitler. In order for my opponent to win this debate he will have to show liberals defending a conservative in any of the above. If he or she can not then conservatives are just "hate" speech criminals and all of their ideas are designed to oppress and stifle free choice and freedom of any kind. Their ideas are to discriminate and leave out entire demographics. It is time to eradicate once and for all the conservative view point that clogs up the political process that prevents the gov't from doing what it wants to in the name of the general welfare for all of the people. Conservatives don't want people to take help from the govt. How can anyone not want a hand out from the govt. Only a conservative would even think such a thing. It is the govts responsibility to make sure everyone has what they need and want. The last election was a mandate. Govt knows what is best for everyone, why else would so many people vote for someone who ran on that premise. Conservatism is just getting in the way and preventing govt from doing what it needs to do to take care of everyone. It is time to eliminate the "hate" speech dinosaur called conservative speech.
women should be given the power to rule world

First of all, women have had very little experience in "ruling the world," so we cannot accept the argument that women are improving themselves in every feild they perservere in, until we see a successful woman ruler. I'm not saying that it's because they can't rule, but it has yet to be proven. In this country, Hillary Clinton is probably one of the closest women to ever take control of the most powerful office in the land. Is she qualified, not necessarily. I, for the most part, do not feel that any of the remaining candidates in the election are capable of running this country, but not only does McCain have more experience in government, but alson in war. We are in a crucial time of war, and if we are to hand power over to someone without vast knowledge of military experience, we could be in serious danger. Men have run the world, for the most part, for the entire existence of mankind, and we still have not gone extinct, which is pretty good I'd say. Now I'm pretty sure that my opponent would agree, alongside me, that there are certain women who are unfit to rule the world. I certainly think that there are men unfit to rule the world. So why should we put a gender on the "rulers of the world"? I think that instead of just giving power to women, we should be looking at the qualifications of each and every person. Some women and some men are perfect for running the world, but why should we label the job by gender? In order for everyone's best interest, we need to have a mixture of leaders, male and female, white and black, etc, if we are to make the world a better place. Giving power to a single group is going back to the day when the white man was in control and African Americans were slaves. The same would happen if women were in control, men would become slaves. Thank you
Team rap battle: Truth_Seeker and lannan13 vs. JasperFrancisShickadance and RevL8ion

Truth_Seeker Good God Jasper! Girl, what just happened to your hair?!? One minute we see your face, next minute, it's not there! You went from being a sheep to looking like one! Never expected you to literally mimic God's son! But now you changed your picture of Lecrae n' Drake Cuz sticking with one face is what you just can't take I'm about to show Jasper that she can't run complexity It's because she's a phony rapper with no dexterity What you know about droppin' toys for tots on hot blocks with hot shots n' pots in a dropbox? What you know about robots that get shocked with a thousand watts and cops with red dots Tryna to cast lots in these spots where crime's got plots,Jasper you a flop, you not solving no knots Fillin' up no slots, your intellect stops like blood clots, cuz even Thoughts (1) has thoughts in thoughts You all are lyrically incompetent to the one whom heaven sent While i am purely self confident that your life has been spent Right now, you are about to get dematerialized by my sophisticated lyrical blades Cuttin' you with such advanced precision as you spit up weak bars, typical babes Stop tryna create a realistically schematic as you fantasize about mythical raids Me and lannan13 are a triple man team the way we murder you in biblical glades Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org... lannan13: In the name of the father, son, and Holly Spirit, You want me in a rap battle then so be it. Saving souls like a Crusifix. Damin' you like my number is six-six-six. Let me give you a Reading from Revalations, It shows the winner of this battle with no hesitations. It shows Jasper getting Sodomized and Rev gettin' Gamora. Unleshing my wrath like Pandora. Shockin' the audience like like Zeus. Your murder will be on the frontline news. Call me Legion, cuz your defeats are many. Here to end your Satanic Tryanny. Your about to be put back on the shelf, Do like Robin Williams and hang yourself. Handing you a loss of every selection. Your bars are gayer than 1 Direction. Rev ain't got skill, all I hear is your croak. Be like your grandpa and die from a stroke. You're a disgrace and killed all your friends with your villigente, Another win for the mafia, Dente. You stole a story, bet your raps are plagerized too! [1] So funny we should lock you in a zoo. Better turn that smile upside down. Cuz it's time for Rev to recieve his Freshmen beatdown. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, I can school both yo a$$es from Africa to Hawaii, You think this is poker, I'm about to raise the stakes, This is Seek and Destroy, Marines do whatever it takes. I'm gonna leave you hanging like we did Sadam. Droppin' the bombs, just like we did in Vietnam. [2] Your in too deep now, you took the bate. Damn, I guess you should have had a V8. Stakin' the claim here like I did on Iwo Jima. Wipin' you out like it's Hiroshima. You two rappin' on DDO is a joke. Just like Porky Pig said, "That's all folks." 1. http://www.debate.org...... 2. Operation Rolling Thunder
Team rap battle: Truth_Seeker and lannan13 vs. JasperFrancisShickadance and RevL8ion

Each pro and con will have their teammates write raps for them and submit both raps at once. Voting by judges based on the following criteria Conduct: no forfeits Spelling and grammar: No slip ups except when using slang or other literary devices. Arguments: 1) Bar length - In my opinion, every line should be the same length. Were each rappers too short or too long to your distaste? 2) Aggression - If you favor aggression, Was it aggressive? How aggressive? What was aggressive about either rapper's lyrics (ex. death threats, boasting, etc. ) 3) Originality - Were their verses original? What did you like? What was original about it? 4) Rhyme schemes - What kinds of rhymes did you like (ex. multis, slant, internal, etc. )? 5) Personals - What bars did you find devastating on each rapper's reputation or character? 6) Disses - What jokes (ex. yo momma jokes, appearance jokes, personality jokes, etc. ) did you like? 7) Rebuttals - Rebuttals are when a rapper addresses a bar, flips it, and disses you back. How effective were they? Why? 8) Imagery - How detailed is the imagery presented? What's unique? What did you like? What metaphors and similes as well as other literary devices stood out to you? 9) Word-play - What word puns did you find most clever? What did you like about them? 10) Complexity - How creative were their lyrics? What stood out to you? What ideas and/or thoughts did you find most appealing and entertaining?
Team rap battle: Truth_Seeker and lannan13 vs. JasperFrancisShickadance and RevL8ion

lannan13: I'm taking over like the Queen of the night, Luna,You coulda had a chance, shoulda responded soona.Ruling this site and Equestria,Taking you out just like I did to Celestria.I tod to debate me and rap fair,But it's too late and I'm gonna make you my mare.In this world I control the night,It seems your skills are nowhere in site.Betta watch out, because I'm your worst nightmare.I'm not gonna give you a terrible scare.Your skills here are both worth sh*t,You had a chance at winning, but like a hooker you blew it.Truth_Seeker: You can waste lines n' great minds with basic rhymes, but do not waste my time Cuz i killed yours, now i gotta Audamer on my list, turn more emcees to chyme (1) RevL8ion should just use a glock round the clock, speech impaired when he talkJFS swingin' at ya jock for gettin' caught trippin, not on writers, but a stumblin block Jasper's not Scriptually advanced, talkin' bout the pain that ripped the rebel My punch smash your face as i crash land like the train that filled the Temple (2)You couldn't handle the beast because you were munching on small chicken You are a coward for being silent, there's no day of reckoning for the wicked You ate too much than you could chew, you just had too much on your plateNever considered what's at stake, cuz you were choking on your lunch break (3) 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. Paraphrase of a Bible verse http://www.charismamag.com...;3. https://answers.yahoo.com...