BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All psychics are frauds

A psychic is a person who claims to have an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or who is said by others to have such abilities.In 1988, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject and concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."There are several techniques used by self-described psychics to give the illusion that they do indeed, have psychic abilities. They include: prestidigitation, cold reading, and hot reading. Prestidigitation is also known as "Sleight of hand" and is used by magicians to manipulate objects such as cards.Cold Reading consists of analyzing a person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc., in order to quickly obtain a great deal of information about the person they are trying to convince. These techniques convince people that the reader knows much more about them than they actually do.Hot Reading is just getting personal information about a person before meeting them in person. This can be done on the internetby use of collaborators who work for the "psychic".By using these three techniques, it can become very easy for an experienced user of these techniques to convince somebodythat they are indeed "psychic". Many psychics prey upon people who have recently lost loved ones and have a desire to communicate with them. Their desire and emotional state of mind, makes them very susceptible to gullibility. The scientific community does not have sufficiently verified evidence for scientific acceptance, and there exist many non-paranormal alternative explanations for claimed instances of psychic events.In conclusion, it would be fair to say that all psychics are frauds.
100 Debate challenge 19: THBT Cannabis Should Be Legalized

1. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. They aren't harming anyone, so there really is no reason to prevent them from having a good time. 2. There are more harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco which are legalized. If it's okay for those things to be consumed than it's certainly okay for the less harmful cannabis to be legalized. 3. If Cannabis is legalized it can be regulated. At this point there is no Fda or government oversight of the cannabis market.
Grandzam won the debate with RPC about evolution

Theory shells can be used to win a debate, but in this case, your "theory shell" was a Red herring. RonPaulConservative did not use more than the amount of characters set as a limit in the beginning of the debate. His Essay Was a Source, You Failed to Prove OtherwiseYour explanation as to "why [RonPaulConservative's essay] is a genuine argument and not a source" is as follows:"Do not let my opponent get away with this by claiming that his doc is merely a source. Good sources encourage fun and accessible debate by providing the warrant for facts that would be impractical to prove on one's own . . .This source, however, is just a long argument against evolution." So, you're saying that...P1) RonPaulConservative linking to an essay isn't fun or practical.P2) Realistically, RonPaulConservative could have expounded on his argument within the character limit.P3) RonPaulConservative's essay is just a long argument against evolution.C) Therefore, RonPaulConservative's essay is not a source.This argument fails. Just because the source "is just a long argument against evolution" does not mean it isn't a source. And while you may think that RonPaulConservative should have condensed his argument into 8,000 characters and posted it directly into the debate for the sake of fun, accessibility, and practicality...the fact that RonPaulConservative didn't do this does not mean his essay is not a source. Therefore...RonPaulConservative didn't use more than the amount of characters set a limit in the beginning of the debate. You have no excuse for failing to address his claim that evolution is false.
Grandzam won the debate with RPC about evolution

This debate has its origins in a complete disagreement between me and my opponent. The point of this is to help both of us understand eachother's viewpoints and to learn more about the nature of debate. I urge my opponent not to accept if they do not feel up to this challenge. If they do, however, I expect this to be fun and rewarding and completely worth their time. The first round can either be for acceptance or for putting an opening argument, depending on whether my opponent wants to prove right away why I am wrong or whether they want to wait to attack my particular reason for victory. I am ready for either. No new arguments in the last round. Good luck!
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

He made NO args his last speech. Even if it isn't the U.S., IT'S STILL FEDERALISM. IT STILL UNDERMINES FEDERALISM. IT IS STILL PASSED AT A LOCAL LEVEL, i.e. the states or provinces in CANADA, as he says. We have made no arguments against each other. Even if you don't buy the dropped federalism-war argument, vote for me on presumption: the instigator has not provided a reason why MY POLICY ACTION would be BAD (which captures all his arguments why SSU is good).
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

"We have a system of federalism in the U.S., the presumed country of this debate." I'll use the same resource that you did to show how many other nations use federalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It could also be referring to "Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, [or] Belgium, etc." "Extend my dropped args, I capture all his args and avoid war. Vote Pro" Are you kidding...? Thank you, extend all my arguments, you MUST negate.
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

Misconception. . http://en.wikipedia.org... We have a system of federalism in the U. S. , the presumed country of this debate. The word "federally" in the resolution modifies how the resolution is passed. I have to uphold that SSU shouldnt be upheld federally, meaning the gov't in Wash, DC. However, I can argue that it should be recognized by the state governments, which upholds the rez. Extend my dropped args, I capture all his args and avoid war.
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

"I must prove that same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage." Right. "However, I can advocate that same-sex union should be recognized as marriage by the fifty states." Wrong. The resolution says absolutely nothing about the federal government of the "fifty states," therefore your argument is void. The resolution is not referring to a specific federal government, rather it is referring to federal governments in general. Extent all of my contentions, thank you.
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

I must prove that same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage. However, I can advocate that same-sex union should be recognized as marriage by the fifty states. I gain access to all of the reasons why gay marriage should be allowed presented by Con. Furthermore, same-sex marriage is not a federal power in the constitution, and thus it is enumerated. Usurping this power undermines federalism. According to Norman Ornstein, federalism is needed to prevent dictatorship and war
Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

My observations... 1. Aff has the burden of proof 2. Aff must prove that federally-recognized same-sex marriages ought never be allowed My arguments... 1. Homosexuality is natural and homosexuals, being humans, deserve equality 2. In a truly free society all individuals must be equal 3. For true equality everyone must be treated in the same manner and granted the same rights 4. Same-sex marriage is a right necessitated by any free society Thank you, I look forward to friendly debate.
Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

Con is off topic and gives no facts. By calling everyone a liar is false on many accounts. Are all Nigerians liars? How about ancient Egyptians? What about the Vikings? How about newborn babies, they are people, are they liars too? Where is any of your proof Con? Stay on subject next time or do not accept debate. Con has failed to provide any factual argument and is only here to disrupt this debate. His debate skills and intellect are sub-par and this shows by his lack of staying on topic. My argument gave three factual reasons to support my position. The Con did not even talk about the position, he went off on a tangent that was not even about the subject.
Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

Hillary told America that the Benghazi embassy attack was due to a protest about a video tape when it was actually a terrorist attack. She said that intelligence was bad. It was not a covered up to make her or Obama look bad. We should believe her because she is an honest person. She did not lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, she just mis-remembered. It's not a lie if you say that you mis-remembered. Therefore she did not lie there. She also did not lie about having classified emails on her home email server. She originally said there are no emails, but, then when the FBI found some, she said, "there are no classified emails", but then when they found classified emails, she said, "they weren't classified at the time". This is all a setup by Republicans according to Hillary, Therefore, there is no lie here. On to you Con
Evil is addiction, And good is fasting

Yeah I made a mistake with dehydration. What if you find joy in your own pain (masochist)? Joy is a limited to a certain instance or in a short term. Love is more of a long term thing or not only limited to a certain instance. I am sure someone can love both furries and spiders. Yes to love something you must also feel the opposite. Which means for love to be the case hate will also need to exist. If you are addicted to arriving at work on time. Then how is that a bad thing. Lack of self control can help make it easier to voice your opinions. Self-control can make it more difficult because it would be hiding or nullifying some emotions for you to have control over yourself. How about a person in a desert or has no water or food, Does he have pure will power or does he want to survive until he can quench his thirst? Fasting no where in the definition that it is a choice or not. So then I can assume that guy in the desert was fasting. Yes he might have pure willpower to survive but the next civilization he finds he will stuff himself with food. If you cannot make it a regular thing instead of once in a year it has no affect. Sure you lost weight in Ramadan or something else but you eat a lot more afterwards which pretty much nullifies all the gains you had. Fasting is good if you keep it consistent and if what you are fasting is good. I can say I am abstaining from fruit and vegetable so that I can fill myself with Junk food. By definition addiction is a condition or fact of being addicted to a particular substance or activity. Being addicted to being better every day can be an addiction. I am simply stating that there are good addictions. Could you make another debate on the same topic so that there are more rounds to make arguments on?
Evil is addiction, And good is fasting

Dehydration is not a disease lol, Maybe you could get a vaccine against it? Lol Joy is 100 percent pure, Or pain free, Like you can pet a cat and no pain has to be involved, If you pet it right you know hehe. . Where as love is balanced by hate, They can not exist without each other. . Love for life is hate for death, Love for cute little furries is hate for something like a spider, I recken addiction is lack of self control, And fasting requires pure will power your last statement is broken. . How do you become a better person than you are? Being yourself, There is no higher level. . But i woudnt call it an addiction, Im pretty sure its not, Sure enough to not go check it. . Addiction is like being 2 in a way, The drug is calling from inside. . Fasting will kill that shitt, If you have anxieties or some mental health issues, Its the real deal, And its the exact opposite of addiction, Like i said takes pure will power, Try it ;) Snake diet channel: https://www. Youtube. Com/channel/UC_yUeH8TsG5pxqvkOxBtsFA
Resolved: 'The Amazing Spiderman' was the worst of the last four spiderman films ever made

I am surprised. I genuinely thought Pro was going to provide a substantial argument. To respond to his ridiculously simplistic argument, for one thing it is a fact that Bing's share in the U.S. search engine market has risen to 17% (1). Therefore, Bing has a big enough user base to justify its use in ASM. As for the other movies, I submit that the entire Raimi trilogy have worse movies than ASM, on the basis of considerably more irritating plot points of actual importance. These include Parker walking away from a mugged man when he loses his powers, Parker losing his powers when he doubts his desire to be Spiderman (mutations should NOT work that way), the ridiculous logic that only Spiderman could stop Octavius even though he's still flesh and blood aside from the tentacles and not wearing armour, the STUPID butler scene, Venom only getting 5 minutes... the motion is rebutted. Vote Con. Sources: (1) http://www.realclimate.org...
Resolved: 'The Amazing Spiderman' was the worst of the last four spiderman films ever made

In 'The Amazing Spiderman", Andrew Garfield gives a great performance, Emma Stone is fantastic, the plot is solid, the and effects are amazing...... But in the movie Peter Parker uses the search engine Bing on three different occasions to look something up. EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THOUGH THAT NO NERD WOULD EVER USE BING TO LOOK SOMETHING UP ON THE INTERNET The only people who use Bing are old people who cant figure out how to switch browsers from internet explorer, where Bing is the default search engine. In none of the other three movies did something so scientifically implausible occur, therefore 'The Amazing Spiderman' is the worst of the last four Spiderman films ever made: because it implies that smart people use the search engine Bing when that has never happened in the history of forever. I rest my case
girls are totally lame

PRO obviously has the BOP. I'm not going to create a counter-case because (1) it's his burden to fulfill and (2) it's obvious he's going to forfeit every round. To respond to his opening round, he doesn't actually link to the resolution -- he makes an assertion that "girls are annoying and whine a lot. " This is an inherently subjective judgment for which he provides no evidence (particularly on the claim they are "annoying"), and he doesn't explain how this makes them categorcially "lame. " This boils down to nothing more than subjective opinion, when his burden is to prove the resolution objectively.
Con will definitely lose this debate

Your loss is definite because for you to win this resolution, you must gain the least number of points (this is a direct result of your definition mistake). Thus, it is definite that you will lose this debate. The two scenarios are:1. You receive the most voting points, thus you lose as you failed to disprove the resolution2. You receive the least voting points, thus you win by disproving the resolution, yet lose because you have the least number of pointsA win for me is actually a win for my opponent, so it is clear if my opponent wishes to win to advocate for voters to vote for me.
Con will definitely lose this debate

I accept all definitions brought forth by my opponent. These will be the definitions we will use as a guide for this debate. My opponent has foolishly definined the following terms:Con: the one who contradicts the proposed resolution. Definitely: positivelyWin: Gain the LEAST voting pointsDebate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly involving opposing viewpointsSo, following these definitions we can simplify the title of this debate for my opponent to:Con will definitely lose this debateCon will definitely win this discussion, as of a public question in an assembly involving opposing viewpointsCon will definitely gain the least points in this discussion in a public assembly involving opposing viewpointsSo, for Con to win, he must gain the least points. However, this will mean that he will lose this debate.
Con will definitely lose this debate

Pro has to argue that Con will definitely lose this debate. First round is the pro's case. Not just acceptance. Definitions: - Con: the one who contradicts the proposed resolution. Definitely: unequivocally; positively.[1] Win: Gain the least voting points. Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints.[2] Boundary: 1) Neither candidate can use the the theory that this is an impossible debate in their argument. If you think it's impossible, don't accept. Simple. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Animal Testing

Good job debating."So you're saying that just because something isn't perfect, we should give up on it?"Ok, I never came close to saying that because it wasn't perfect, we should give up on it. Also, those are one fo the very few diseases that animal testing has helped by a 50% survial rate."But the rats intelligence wouldn't be twenty times more advanced- you'd just have twenty rats."I am multiplying the whole aspect of an animal, not just making 20 of them. That's one way to look at it, but it is less effective. I am looking at it in a manner as if a rat was 20x more advanced."What they are doing to the animals is animal abuse, not animal testing."...Yetwe still have video evidence of them doing it. Therefore, during animal testing, animals can also be abused. If animal testing isn't almost literally animal abusing, then that video should be enough to push it through. The fact that animal testing is like animal abusement, I mean."Because they legally have to be in as little pain as possible."Ok, you've missed the whole point of my argument. ANIMALS FEEL PAIN AND ARE IN AS MUCH PAIN AS POSSIBLE. That is the main reason for me to stop animal testing! (Of course, there are many other reasons I mentioned.)"Yes, but these people abusing animals aren't allowed to be! Should we ban having any children? There are also thousands of children being illegally abused, too."And yet they're doing it. Same goes for having children. Laws don't stop fathers from abusing children, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. In animal testing, it is happening at a significantly higher rate. For example, child abuse is getting hit with a beer bottle. Animal testing is getting your fur shaved off, burnt, have wires hooked up to you, feel intense pain, and then die.Yep, that's my argument. Best of wishes and God Bless!
Animal Testing

You did not say that whole phrase entirely, but you said, "these are the same animals that we are killing every day for food." Okay, maybe I should have worded this differently, but if you check, I also said "and exterminated". I thought that I was being clear enough at the time, but I'll work on it. " What I'm trying to say is that the useless outweighs the useful most of the time." So you're saying that just because something isn't perfect, we should give up on it? Who are you to decide whether the thousands of people saved from diseases each year are worth it or not? Also, medicine has not just BARELY improved! Seriously, did you see what I posted about childhood leukemia? A 90% mortality rate, now only at a 10% mortality rate. 1955 was the first time that the polio vaccine was discovered. Polio was once a death sentence too, much like lung cancer. What would have happened if Jonas Salk, the inventor of the vaccine, had just given up on healthcare because it has "barely improved"? You can argue the morality of animal testing, but it's use to medicine and medicine's evolution are very large. " Imagine if a rats' thoughts was 20x more advanced" But the rats intelligence wouldn't be twenty times more advanced- you'd just have twenty rats. The rats aren't mushed together, each one is still much less advanced as humans. " But I'm saying that some of the ones are like the people in the video." Yes, I'm sure that some of them are, but they aren't legally allowed to be. What they are doing to the animals is animal abuse, not animal testing. "First off, I don't think that law matters, since I am trying to appeal the animal testing act." I'm not making the argument that animal testing is legal, and therefore moral. I'm saying that it isn't fair to say that the animals are always in pain, because they legally have to be in as little pain as possible. "But with 100M animals being tested a year in many different facilities, I'm pretty sure this happens every day. " Yes, but these people abusing animals aren't allowed to be! Should we ban having any children? There are also thousands of children being illegally abused, too. I think that I've made all of my arguments! Thank you so much for this debate, it has been very fun. God bless! http://www.achievement.org...
Animal Testing

most people are against animal testing because it kills 'sweet little' animals. However, birds (mostly poultry), rats and mice make up to about 95 percent of all animals tested on. These are the same animals that are slaughtered for food, and exterminated for being pests everyday. We cannot even begin to argue against animal testing when killing any animal anytime is still legal. Would you be willing to give up cancer treatment, which saves thousands world wide every year, for a thousand rats? Many scientists, like professor john stein, say that they would not be able to conduct the experiments that they do to try to better understand our world without the use of animals. It may seem wrong to some people, but it is my opinion that humans are of more value than other animals. We can think on a higher level than them, and we can understand pain too. When it comes between another animal suffering or a human suffering, I would have to choose another animal. Animal testing is necessary to our society, to ensure that large amounts of human beings can survive. http://www.4thought.tv... http://www.neavs.org...