BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stay mad kid

Stay mad kid You hate the way I talk You hate the way I am You hate me because I am a pedophile You say how you want to see me die You say how I deserve a life in prison You say that I should be castrated To you, I say Stay mad kid, You will learn You are so mad because I exist You are so mad because I molest children You would be happy if you saw me dying in pain Stay mad kid, You will learn You will learn that the world is cruel Right now you think that I am the worst kind of person You want to shoot me, You want to kill me, You want to see me burn But I have news for you, None of that will happen You are just a kid who hides behind his words Stay mad kid, You will learn You will learn that saying how I deserve to die Won't even kill me, Won't even harm me Stay mad kid, You will learn You will learn that your words hurt no one That your words don't make any difference And that will be painful for you Painful for you
Gay people should not be judged

Search with Bing, “Definition of judge. ” It pops up making it a Bing definition because it is supported by Bing. We really should not have used this whole debate to contest definitions. I wish my opponent had decided to debate my arguments instead of my definition. My opponent never linked gay suicide rates with her statistics which are found in a BLOG. Blogs are not a credible source for quoting statistics. My opponent never contested my points in which we call it a “Drop”. When you Drop arguments one can only assume they had no better response to them, which links to a concession. The famous debate quote that has been floating around is, “Silence equals acceptance.
Gay people should not be judged

First of all we CAN NOT drop the definition argument. My opponent stated that they got their definition from Bing, however when I searched it on Bing for this definition, and it wasn't the actual Bing website definition, unlike the Google definition which was directly on the website, not a link. Also the first link when I searched it was Dictionary. com and although it agreed with my opponent's definition, that is only one source, compared to my four sources, so mine is much, much more superior. Also the Con side argued that I forgot to mention that other definitions under the word Judge agree with her definition, but the resolution states JUDGED not judge, so that argument is non-topical to the resolution and therefore that argument was unrelated. Then she argued that one of them came from Urban Dictionary which is made from normal people, but if everyone agrees with that definition (which they did considering it was number one) it is superior. Also not all of of my definitions come from the Urban Dictionary and are made from equally average people. My opponent also said that hers was more superior, but considering they have no source for their definition, and I have four sources for mine, my definition is definitely far more superior than my opponents. My point did prove that it is judging that they commit suicide for not any other reason, because the title was JUDGING gay people kills, and the reason they didn't say it again was because as my opponent said "because few words are always best" they shouldn't have had to say it more then once wasting space. I never dropped any of my oppenets points and therefore she cannot say I agree with them.
Gay people should not be judged

I’m sorry for not having a link to my definition it somehow deleted. There being, my definition comes from Bing which is equally as credible as Google. Now my opponent has decided to contest my definition and substitute it with her own. She forgot to mention that the other definitions under the word Judge agree with mine which concede to mibe. Also one of her definitions comes from Urban Dictionary the leading dictionary of erotic definitions and are made by your regular people. The Affirmative was bothered that I could have made mine up when her definition came from equally average people. For these reasons we should drop the argument of definitions because mine is more superior then hers. Now let’s go to the point. And because few words are always best, her burden of proof has not been fulfilled she didn’t prove that gay men commit suicide because they are judged, for all we know is they committed suicide for lack of judgment. In debate when a opponent drops arguments that means they agree with them for lack of better response. Because my opponent has not responded she concedes my points.
Gay people should not be judged

Definition First of all the definition of judged is form an opinion or conclusion about (the source being Google). This definition was made directly be Google and if you searched it yourself you could see it. My opponent never stated a source for the definition and therefore by definition is far more superior. Defending The con side could have just made up the definition, so their point on not being judged in court is completely faulty. Also as I clearly stated in my first speech I mean be treated unfairly for who people love. They also stated that it would ruin the freedom of speech and be unconstitutional, but it's completely unconstitutional for people to be able to call people mean things and judge people not by their personality, but by their sexuality. It's not healthy for someone to dis someone else, in fact it could kill considering that people commit suicide. And very last they said that without judging debates it would be unfair, but again their definition was most likely false because they have no source for it. Other Definitions Other definitions that proves my definition is correct and theirs is wrong. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... To form an opinion or estimation of . http://www.merriam-webster.com... to form an opinion about . http://www.macmillandictionary.com... to form an opinion about something . http://www.urbandictionary.com... to quickly form a bias and/or personal opinion about someone or something I have proved my definition is most definitively correct so all of there arguments were false. Attacking Judging Gay People Kills . http://gactupdate.wordpress.com... The Stonewall 2012 Survey discovered that 3% of gay men and 5% of bisexual men had attempted to take their own life, compared to only 0.4% of men in general. In the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 6% of gay and bisexual men had attempted to take their own life compared to less than 1% of men in general. There are similar findings for self-harming. 7% of gay and bisexual men had deliberately harmed themselves compared to only 3% of men in general, and in the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 15% of gay and bisexual men had harmed themselves compared to 7% of men in general. So is it healthy to have people die or feel horrible about themselves? Of course.
Gay people should not be judged

First I will take it upon myself to define the word “Judge” so that way we can clearly understand where this debate is going to go. The definition of judge is “Judged to: form an opinion or conclusion about someone, decide the results of (a competition), and to give a verdict on (someone) in court.” I’d like to start my debate case with a snazzy analogy, but alas, analogies are like potatoes, they just don’t work. :) On a more serious note I’d like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate, and I’m happy to start my case. My negative philosophy is that, “Judgments may not always be pleasant, but they are extremely necessary in the foundation of character building, law and order, and discernment. “ Contention 1: Law and Justice Now the word Judge means to give a verdict on someone in court. If we shouldn’t judge homosexuals then we will be promoting a unorderly country and unorderly politics. We would be allowing homosexuals to run around committing crimes without any punishment and this country would fall to pieces. All you’d have to do is say, “I’m gay.” And then you could do whatever you want. Contention 2: Freedom of Expression and Speech The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression through freedom of speech from government interference. If you tell people they cannot judge homosexuals then you will be removing these freedoms and would be unconstitutional. Contention 3: Promotions of Critical Thinking with Good Types of Judgments There's a huge difference between judging a person by their appearance or background, and judging a person by their actions and agendas. There are so many people that we come into contact with, and it's important that we judge their actions in order to make healthy decisions for ourselves. If we cannot judge a gay person’s behavior it will take away our use of discernment and the quality of our minds. Contention 4: Promotion of Competition and Achievements I do high school speech and debate and what happens is we prepare speeches and we preform them to judges. Then they will critique it and give ideas on how to make ourselves better. In this instance it’s perfectly acceptable to judge someone even if they are gay. It wouldn’t make sense not to and it would ruin the competition.
Gay people should not be judged

Hello my name is Emily and I will be arguing the Pro side. So just to clear this up i'm not saying that gay people should get special treatment or anything, but should not be judged and should be treated normally. It's like this: Imagine you liked the opposite sex (which in today's society is fine) and that was wrong. People treat you differently and say "it's not right that you like them" and other offensive things. It's not wrong to love someone.
Intelligent Design should be taught in school

"The makers of the theory of ID say it is a theory unrelated to religion." Really? And which makers would those be? Can you cite any sources advocating this please? How on Earth is Intelligent Design unrelated to religion? Does the Christian Faith say that God created the Earth? Yes. Does it say that God designed everything? Absolutely. Does it say that God is intelligent? Immensely. How then can you possibly say that? Intelligent design IS religion. "In Theology, you would teach the Christian faith, which includes Creationism." You seem to misunderstand religion. Christianity is certainly not the only religion. In a true theology class, numerous religions would be taught, not just Christianity. Nice try though. So lets look at some more definitions to bring my opponent up-to-speed. Intelligent Design- The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. Religion- A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Again, how can you possibly say that Intelligent design does not fall under "religion?" That being said, please try to refute the rest of my argument from the previous round. The resolution is affirmed.
Intelligent Design should be taught in school

"My argument will be brief, and to the point. In schools, the course of Theology, or the like, is often offered as an elective. At schools, children are to be instructed by their teachers in their respective subjects. In Theology Class, one must be instructed in ID if one is to understand modern Theology. If a student was not taught ID, the teacher, and the school would not be achieving their goals to instruct. Therefore, ID MUST be taught in schools, else the system fails. " The makers of the theory of ID say it is a theory unrelated to religion. In Theology, you would teach the Christian faith, which includes Creationism.
Intelligent Design should be taught in school

School- a large number of fish, porpoises, whales, or the like, feeding or migrating together. Just kidding. I will however start by defining what my opponent has failed to, and go over his observation. He is now limiting the debate to Biology classes. This foul play, and overly abusive to the negative side. Was "biology" in the resolution that I agreed to debate? No. The negative cannot now throw in this curve ball. School- An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age, offering a variety of courses. Should- must; ought Taught- to impart knowledge of or skill in Intelligent Design- The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. My argument will be brief, and to the point. In schools, the course of Theology, or the like, is often offered as an elective. At schools, children are to be instructed by their teachers in their respective subjects. In Theology Class, one must be instructed in ID if one is to understand modern Theology. If a student was not taught ID, the teacher, and the school would not be achieving their goals to instruct. Therefore, ID MUST be taught in schools, else the system fails. Thank you.
Intelligent Design should be taught in school

"Introducing...rougeagent21! From Colorado Springs, Colorado, he comes seeking worthy opponents. On the other side of the ring is just that. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome...ournamestoolong! Well, this should be an interesting debate folks!" (Sorry, I couldn't resist "introducing") Well, I'm goind todebate you on whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Just to clarify here, are you referring to US schools, or just SCHOOLS in general? Good luck!
chess is a more brain challenging game than any other board game

Small character limit... Advanced Squad Leader A strategy game that took several years to develop with dozens of pages of complicated rules. Hard to get tougher than that. Go"While the baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play go."Edward LanskerThere are far more options to chose from in Go, making stratagem harder, and therefore more challenging. It has been shown that whereas chess players use almost entirely the left side of the brain, Go "fully utilizes/integrates analytic (left brain) and artistic/pattern recognition (right brain) functions."___ Pros sole argument is that in chess you have to think about the other persons move as well as your own, but that is the same in almost every board game. Therefore pro completely fails to meet his BOP. http://users.eniinternet.com...
Should we retain teh status quo regarding the monarchy

I am arguing to retain the monarchy as it is beneficial to our country and a fundament al part of our culture tradition and history. Firstly, a common argument from anti monarchists is that the queen is a waste of money, money of which could be spent else where especially in our faltering education and health care system theoretically we could save lives by paying for another 3000 doctors a year as the monarchy costs 52 million in the pocket money for the queen and 150 million for the rest of the family plus maintenance of royal estates etc and extra jobs. I would respond to this by saying this money is virtually a very small fraction of the entire budget 1/5000 and easily could be raised by cutting or a 1% increase in the highest tax bracket of which I would be in favour of, the amount of money as a proportion of the budget is arbitrary. Secondly it is a small price to pay considering she is such a large part of ourtradition and culture Britain just would not be Britain without the monarchy and I think that is more important to preserve than a minute extension in the nhs budget. She is fundamental to our british identity.
Democracy is not real or the best form of government!

Ok well I agree that democracy is the best form of government for America, however for other countries with that population count, communism would be even better. In a country will a big population there is of course more poverty and less equality, however communism fixes that. There are no classes in communism just one very equal class. For example, China is a communist government, it seems to be working out for them (yes I do know that North Korea is a communist government but sort of logically it's a dictatorship), having said that, democracy is working out for the U.S.A. also. I think I have made most of my points clear and I don't feel like I really have to restate them. For me communism is the closest form of government to equality, however among everybody there is a different opinion, like I stated in round 1 there is usually always an opposing force and that cannot be changed. When looking at the best forms of governments it can always be broken down to "it depends on..." that could be: the leader, the country, the people etc. To end this debate there is not one but 196 countries in today's modern world. Every country with a different opinion and a different government best suited for it. For me in the country I live in to me, communism is the best form of government.
Democracy is not real or the best form of government!

So we both agree that any form of government ran by the right people will resolve in good leadership. By that logic, all forms of government is good, but only when used correctly. So the problem is not with whether Democracy is not real or the best form of government, the problem lies with its people. All forms of government can be used for good leadership, therefore Democracy can be a real and or best form of government with the right people in charge. I've already stated my concerns for some of the forms of government as examples on our previous round, stating the down sides and or unlikelihood of these governing methods' success. Of course, as you mentioned in this round, they can all be a good way to govern people. I will agree it is true, however, again, that all lies within the capabilities of the people using such methods. In truth, Communism was suppose to be a method of leadership that was suppose to be immune to both corruption and greed. We all know what happens when it's executed by bad people, or simply people who wants power, dominants, respect, honor, pleasure or simply to be better than everyone else. We were all given examples from the past, when people would not let go power, instead they use that power to make sure they stay in power. We all should know what lengths some people would do to keep that power. I would like everyone to acknowledge that if something can happen in the past, can happen again in the future. Therefore, as long as those who are longing for power will never stop trying to find a way to corrupt the system to their own benefits. Not saying there's no good doers in the world, I'm just saying there's a good side and a bad side to everything, especially governments. Which brings us back to your initial argument; Democracy is not real or the best form of government! Like a hammer that to be used to build houses, bridges, and more, can be used as a way to murder millions. Democracy has many upsides and downsides, but note that under capable hands, it can be used greatly like any other governing methods. So yes, Democracy is a real and best form of government for America.
Democracy is not real or the best form of government!

When I said democracy isn't the best form of government don't forget I'm definitely NOT saying it's the worst I'm just stating it may not be the best in some countries. Of course when you really look at it, any form of government can be the best or the worst depending on who governs it. If a dictator meets all the citizens wants and needs and manages to respect the people he/she governs that would be considered a good dictatorship(not all dictators are bad). This also implies that if someone can manage to also meet the requirements for the citizens of a country in a democratic state that would also be a good democracy. Now I want to get into communism. Not bad USSR communism, the original theory of communism Utopian Communism. Of course when people think Utopia it usually means a place were no sins are committed and everyone has equal rights, now of course sadly this form of Utopia can't happen in the modern world but Communism is one of the closest things. What I think the flaw here in communism is, is that the citizens don't legally own anything. People also state that its not fair that someone who does for example statistical factoring (A.K.A. sits down and plays with office toys and dreads going to work everyday) would have the same amount of things as a doctor and any kind including neurosurgeons, vascular surgeons, oncologists etc. and what's really put to the test here is how much "money" means to you when choosing a job. I know some doctors who are among the lowest paid physicians, family doctors, but I know they sincerely do not care about the money and could care less if they got a bonus, the only thing they really care about that involves money is if they get paid enough to keep their family running. For people who actually love their "jobs" (jobs is in quotations because technically it's a career if you enjoy it) they would be supported in Communism because it's provided by the government. As of right now I will admit that Communism is also unstable but in theory if its followed it can be the best form of Government.
Democracy is not real or the best form of government!

When I look at it there is no such thing as a complete and real democracy. I like the example: If there is 10 people and there is a vote of who wants subs and who wants pizza and 6/10 people choose pizza what happens to the people who wanted subs? Yes its a majority vote and its the peoples vote but its not equality. In a democracy you can vote for the candidates but you can't vote for what they do, for example if 50% of a country voted to raise the minimum wage to say $15/hr, it wouldn't happen because a "democratic" vote needs the majority to win which at the minimum has to be over 50%. This is considered democratic though? Shouldn't it be called a majority system. -Merriam Webster defines democracy as this: -an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights. Well that should be tossed out the window, if 51% votes to make gay marriage illegal the 49% are not being treated equally because their wish is not granted. Also if the government wants to keep it legalized then the 51% isn't being treated equally either. Either way in a "democratic" country no one wins unless 100% EXACTLY votes the same thing. Usually there is always an opposing force almost never have I seen an entire country vote for the same thing. If a "democratic" country is governed by the people then wouldn't it be considered a state of anarchy (and by anarchy I mean the ideology and theory not immediate chaos) politically? We don't choose when/where or who we fight the government does. We don't choose how high the minimum wage is the government does. I think if the government gave everyone a chance to vote, should we keep taxes? How many would say no, well not everyone because there is usually always an opposing force and the fact that tax dollars pays for a lot of important things. -Another important point is the instability of democracies. Since 1867 Canada has had about 28 prime ministers not all of them are the same party. U.S.A has had about 43 presidents. These constant changes can lead to instability and that is never good for a growing country. For example, in the U.S.A., in the 22nd amendment it states the following: - No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. What if Obama had a really good idea but he needed a year to complete it but he only had 3 months left, and then when the new president arrived he/she decided "nah I don't want to do this let's do something I invented". That's representing instability.