BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

Nonetheless, I'll just regard this as an intellectual break from the studying that I may or may not be doing. As pertains to the resolution, I don't feel the need to define any terms. I believe we can both hold to the same "Affirmative Action"; with no semantics such as "I think the act of affirming is bad, which is why I am negating the resolution. " That being said, I'll give a brief intro and hand the debate over to con. Affirmative action is a taboo. Generally speaking, I would disagree with the policy, but at the same time the extensive research I have done over time has led me to appreciate both sides of the story. The fact of the matter is, there are compelling arguments both for and against affirmative action. Its purpose is to level the playing field of opportunity in the US across the racial spectrum; whether or not it is currently needed or was ever needed is controversial. My opponent will be arguing against the policy, and I will be attempting to defend its merits.
Elevators are better then stairs.

I affirm "Elevators are better then stairs". I thank my opponent for the challenge of this debate, and especially like its topic too! I will begin with my case. - Climbing the stairs can be time consuming, especially if you are climbing to a higher floor. Elevators are much faster, (given you are going more than a few floors) which also saves precious time that can be used in better ways. - Elevators are more fun than stairs. Some provide music while you wait, others have awesome views, and you can even play with the floor buttons or jump in between stops (as long as the other passengers don't mind). This may not prove true for everyone, but it is a general truth. - In any tall building, elevators are ideal. It is ridiculous to have to climb 20 flights of stairs to work, up and down, every day. Furthermore, it would be outrageously hard to transport large objects, like an injured patient in a hospital, without the use of a device like an elevator. Next I will refute my opponent's contentions. My opponent claims "stairs are safer [than elevators]". However, this is completely untrue. According to [1] efesme.com, the chances of actually being killed because of an elevator are slim to none. It goes on to explain the safety mechanisms in modern elevators, and the only realistic risk is getting stuck (which is more inconvenient than it is dangerous). I would also like to point out that, according to [2] mongabay.com, 1307 people died falling from stairs or steps in the year 2000. This is a significantly higher amount than the 14 that die due to elevators each year. My opponent also claims that stairs are healthier, due to exercise. This may be true, but it is important to acknowledge the fact that people generally choose to take the elevator instead of stairs anyway. My opponent's third contention is that "stairs cost way less then elevators". But, in reality, I believe their added functionality is worth the cost. For these reasons, elevators are better than stairs. [1] http://www.efesme.com... [2] http://danger.mongabay.com...
Elevators are better then stairs.

I define stairs as "one of a flight or series of steps for going from one level to another, as in a building", and elevator as "a moving platform or cage for carrying passengers or freight from one level to another, as in a building." I negate the resolution "Elevators are better then stairs." My first contention is that stairs are safer. They are very sturdy and can withstand natural disasters like earthquakes and floods much better then elevators can. According to ELcosh.com, the 173 deaths related to work on or near elevators – about 14 per year – were most often caused by falls into elevator shafts. Stairs have no such dangers, and have no chance of not working, unlike elevators, which can't operate without electricity. Elevators cause 14 deaths a year on average, which is 14 innocent lives we'll never get back. My second contention is that stairs make people healthier. By walking up and down stairs instead of taking the easy way (the elevator), you are getting exercise, and helping build muscle in your legs. Many people that work in large office buildings (that generally have a lot of elevators) are sitting in a desk all day and need all the exercise they can get. So, since they help you get exercise, lose weight, and become a healthier, happier person, stairs are much better then elevators. My third contention is that stairs cost way less then elevators. The average elevator costs 25,000 dollars, not counting maintenance or inspection fees. The average cost of a flight of stairs is about 7500. This is a drastic difference, and all the extra money used for unnecessary elevators could be put to better use. Since stairs save lives, make people happier and healthier, and save money, they are much better then elevators. I look forward to an awesome debate, even though this is kind of a weird topic! (Which makes it more fun)
celebrities should face strict penalties if they commit crime

I strongly agree that celebrities should face strict penalties if they commit suicide because today crime is a common thing and they happen everyday and to stop that criminals who do a crime face strict penalties but most of the times celebrities doesn't because they are popular and are left and they are also very rich they get bailed but what about those poor people who don't have enough money to get bailed and they stay in the jail and so nobody should be allowed to get bailed because its inequality and every one should be treated equally according to our constitution and so celebrities should face the same penalties as we does.
Insult War

1. Other people eat to live, but you live to eat. 2. You are so stupid, no girl wanted to go to the prom with you, so you asked your mom out. 3. You tried to look thin by wearing skinny jeans, but the jeans only revealed your fat, chubby thighs. 4. Because you make a mess in the bathroom, you have to take off all your clothes before using the bathroom. 5. You are so retarded that can only spell one word: "yes".
Farooq will win this debate

The choice is obvious, for I will most certainly not win this debate because I have decided to waste people's time with an issue as petty as this, when there are far more interested and spirited conversations going on elsewhere. Therefore such people will grow angry with my insolence, and vote against the agitator (me), thus making it far harder to achieve victory in terms of words. In addition to this when a person casts their virtual ballot for either me or my opponent (already upset with me) they will look at the current number of votes I received and try ot counteract it, for if I'm leading they will realize I made a faulty prediction and vote against me. As the polls begin to get into closer margins of course, others will counteract this and vote for me for they see a chance I'm right. Overall the votes should balance, except that I will vote against myself and no doubt my opponent will to imp rive his track record, and me to prove myself correct. Therefore these 2 swing votes, cast at the end, will tip the balance in my opponent's favour causing me to lose.
Water is not wet.

Definition of wet: covered or saturated with water or another liquid. To say that something is wet means that the wetness can be dried. If I spill water on a table, it becomes wet and can be dried, but can I dry the water inside of a bottle? NO. Humans can get wet, tables can get wet, but can an ocean get wet? If you pour water into the ocean, does it become wetter, you dry up the water that you poured into the ocean. A fire burns things but does it mean that fire itself is burned? NO. Water can get things wet but does that mean itself is wet? NO. Can water cover itself? NO. therefore it is not wet because the definition is covered with another liquid. According to your logic, if water molecules touch each other, they are considered wet. So the air is wet? Because water molecules in the air are bumping into each other. Watch this:
Water is not wet.

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WERE YOU HIGH WHEN YOU POSTED THIS??????? Of couse water is wet. If it wasn't wet it wouldn't be able to get other things wet. Water is wet because water is surrounded by other water molecules, right? The molecules are touching, so water would then be wet, the water molecules are getting each other wet. If you are underwater, you are wet. The water is touching you, your skin has been saturated with water. You have water touching you, you can't say that you aren't wet underwater when you literally have water touching you. Wet is used to describe something, not what it does to something. Water also can't make other things wet if it is not wet itself. That's like saying fire can't burn things because it's not burning in of itself (fire is an energy, not a physical thing, I'm just being hypothetical)
It's time to crackdown on ATM dilly-dancers

Indeed, the delay behind a dilly-dallier can be several minutes and if there are several dilly-dalliers in the queue then that delay can be multiplied and that delay can have serious consequences. For example, consider the case of a British businessman travelling to Turkey: he must pay ï¿½10 in cash on arrival in order to obtain an entry visa. . http://www.turkishconsulate.org.uk... Now, imagine he is airside at the airport and the gate is about to close and he only has minutes to spare to get the cash before boarding the plane but he finds himself behind a dilly-dallier at the ATM. Now, because of their ignorant, selfish behaviour in not concentrating on the job in hand, he misses his plane – there was no point boarding the aircraft as the Turkish border officials don't accept credit cards, just Sterling in cash. The result this is that he misses an important business meeting that costs his company millions of pounds and means dozens of workers lose their jobs. Otherwise, imagine a man needs to get money out of the whole in the wall to pay for his train ticket to work but because of a dilly-dallier he misses his train. As a result of this, he is sacked which means he can no longer afford to pay his mortgage. The knock-on effect of this is that he and his wife and kids are thrown onto the streets and his wife is forced into prostitution so that they can afford to pay for food. And all this because some dirty, ignorant Untermenschen on their mobile phones would rather chat about soap operas or gossip about celebrities or drivel on about what they had for dinner rather than get their cash out of the machine as quickly as possible. By the way, those people who are daft enough to ignore the warnings and end up getting Tasered would not win a court case since they were duly advised in advance that to wilfully delay other customers would have serious consequences. Therefore, for the sake of the economy, jobs and social coherence I urge a crackdown on ATM dilly-dalliers. Thank you.
It's time to crackdown on ATM dilly-dancers

Very interesting topic. The world is full of selfish, idiotic peole, there's nothing we can do about it. What about the idiots who cut in front of you while you're driving? The morons who ask for refunds on their wines because they didn't like the taste? You suggest inserting a tazer device? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, I actually laughed when I read it. Let's say, hypothetically, that someone DID install those devices, disregarding the fact that it's ILLEGAL, there would be so many complaints that the bank would be shut down and there would be absolute financial chaos. You're saying to taze anyone who decides to use the machine? What if it's some old fool with a heart condition? What if the person got tazed and died from it? The bank would have ALOT to answer for. And I'm just saying, it's an extra minute from your life, does it really matter that much? Such drastic measures are completely unneccesary.
It's time to crackdown on ATM dilly-dancers

We've all been there, haven't we? Stood behind some ignorant half-wit who doesn't care how long the people behind him have to wait to use the ATM just so long as they can conduct long-winded financial transactions while simultaneously continuing their inane conversation on their mobile phones. The selfish bastards. Well, I don't know about you but that really makes my blood boil and I've had more than enough of it - I want to see these cashpoint cretins punished – and punished severely. That's why I have written the following computer program to replace the existing programs installed in cash machines: 10 PRINT "WELCOME TO [N] BANK. PLEASE HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS BY NOT DILLY-DALLYING WHEN USING THIS CASH MACHINE. NOW, WHAT SERVICE DO YOU REQUIRE?" 20 IF "CASH" THEN PRINT "HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT?" 30 IF DELAY >10 SECONDS PRINT "COME ON, HURRY UP, PEOPLE ARE WAITING YOU KNOW" 30 IF FURTHER DELAY >10 SECONDS THEN PRINT "WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG? ARE YOU SOME SORT OF MENTAL CASE?" 40 IF "YES" THEN PRINT "OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH, THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER 30 SECONDS, BUT IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED YOUR TRANSACTION BY THEN WE ARE GOING TO RETAIN YOUR CARD" 50 IF "NO" THEN PRINT "WELL WE SUGGEST YOU GET A DAMN MOVE ON THEN BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T COMPLETE YOUR TRANSACTION WITHIN THE NEXT 30 SECONDS YOUR CARD WILL BE RETAINED AND YOU WILL BE INCAPACITATED IN ORDER TO MAKE WAY FOR THE NEXT CUSTOMER" 60 IF DELAY >30 SECONDS THEN RETAIN CARD AND ACTIVATE INBUILT TASER DEVICE I believe that this simple program, together with the installation of an internal Taser devices in all "hole-in-the-walls" would prompt dawdling customers to stop dilly-dancing around and complete their transactions as quickly as possible. This will mean that other customers, whose time may be very important, will not be stressed and can use the time they have saved to do something productive. Thank you.
It's time to crackdown on ATM dilly-dancers

Interesting response. I have an idea! Let's imagine that you're a wealthy British businessman going to Turkey for a very important business meeting. You're waiting outside the boarding gate for a plane that would be ready to depart in about 1-2 hours. You're sitting there waiting, and you realize you need to pay the ï¿½10 in cash for your entry visa. You have the incredibly smart idea to wait until the last minute to withdraw money from the ATM before the plane leaves. God knows how you become a businessman. The solution? Take into account the chance of there being a possible idiotic ATM dilly-dallyer and go to the ATM a minute earlier. Or an even better idea, withdraw ï¿½10 in the time 1-2 hours of waiting until your plane leaves. Then maybe your company won't lose millions of pounds, and your workers won't lose their jobs. Generally, most people carry at least ï¿½10 in their wallets, but I don't know about you And haven't you heard of social security? And even tazering people was legal, it wouldn't matter whether or not it would go to court. It would cause an outrage by the media, the bank would get terrible publicity and lose money. The thing is, the bank doesn't care, it's unfortunately just the general public. So the bank wouldn't bother to install the tazer devices, because ATM (Automatic Teller Machine) is an AUTOMATIC teller machine. And it's not like the dilly-dallyers cause the BANK to lose money, all they do is supposedly ruin multi million dollar companies because people apparently don't keep money in their wallets. Thanks, Shadelol.
Psychiatry is a hoax and should be abolished

Psychiatry is not a hoax, or, as the aforementioned definition states, a "deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade truth." Psychiatry saves livesThrough prescribing medications and talk therapy, psychiatrists are able to help people and prevent serious problems involving health risks related to stress, suicide, and anxiety. It has saved lives of any sufferers of mental illness. Psychiatry works The medications work. They are tested. Some common examples? Ritalin. [1] Or Prozac. [2] Or Paxil. [3] When a medication goes through its trial period and has detrimental or Placebo-like effect, then it is thrown out; that's how it works with medications in any medical field.Psychiatry is a medical scienceModern medicine involves diagnosing and treating diseases. [4] Psychiatry does just that. Hence, it is a medical science and should be considered a medical specialty.In conclusion, psychiatry, as a whole, is not a hoax, since its primary purpose is to relieve suffering, and there is no deliberate trickery. Moreover, psychiatry should continue to be considered a medical specialty, since it fits the definition of a medical science. Thank you. [1] http://psychcentral.com...[2] http://www.brainphysics.com...[3] http://anxiety.emedtv.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
halo vs assains creed

Outro After the forfeit of Con, it seems like I have won. Though both games come from different backgrounds, and are meant for different purposes, it seem like it is almost impossible to avoid the fact that all games are unique, and good. Some, more than others, but either way all games are worthy of getting an audience, and support. Because of the Con's forfeit, it seems that me, and my stance have won. Currently, Assassin's Creed is the better game. Letter To ConDear Con, I would like to start off by apologizing if I offended you during this debate. I just happen to have a very short temper when it comes to people not taking debates seriously. My stances are very strong on things, and I tend to sometimes take those stances too far. I am really sorry if I was rude to you. I would also like to say that if you ever want my help in debating, you can add me as a friend. I would gladly help you in debating. I am still learning things too however. I literally just learned how to change the font of things now, and I am still trying to learn how to put pictures in debates. In life, we all learn at different paces. For me, it's slowly. So if you ever need assistance, I am here. Best of luck even though there is still one more round, Jordan Cook (WheezySquash) http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;
Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind.

I will keep this short. My opponent says something can be legal and regulated, but does not talk about if legalization is directly superior to decriminalization. I directly stated that there may be too many regulations in place with legalization vs decriminalization. It would cost a lot to enforce these laws rather than just decriminalizing them. As for decrease in rape in general, my opponent has inferred over the course of debate that it is worth the sacrifice to the general public to let the prostitutes suffer instead. I will let voters decide whether my opponent has fulfilled his burden of proof. Finally, for German's human trafficking, a problem is a problem regardless of how you compare it. Just because a country only has 1,000 murders per year and another country has 10,000 murders does not mean the first country doesn't have a problem. Overall my opponent has done a good job in this debate, but his crucial central belief is "trading anything with anyone as long as consent is given". However, the crux of his argument is undone with decriminalization providing more benefits than legalization.
Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind.

First of all, I never stated that I did not want any regulations on prostitution. I'm arguing for the legalisation of prostitution only. The definition of legal is "of or relating to law" (https://www.merriam-webster.com...). Just because something is legal, does not mean that it cant be regulated. There are plenty of things that are legal but regulated. The definition of prostitution is "The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...) and I want to legalise that. I don't want to legalise beating prostitutes for example, quite the opposite.Your study had a wider range worldwide yes, but your study only proved that 75% of all prostitutes have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives. This is not really proving much of what the legalisation will do to rape overall. My opponent also stated that "even the researcher admits it may be limited to Rhode Island". This research only show the exact statistics of Rhode Island because it was made in Rhode Island. What they are really saying is that there is no "proof" of it being the same outside of Rhode Island. But if this were a real argument, then your Swedish argument is also invalid because it might only be limited to Sweden. But to prove that prostitution actually decrease rape worldwide I will give you some other studies that show the samehttps://www.aeaweb.org...http://www.nber.org...http://www.micaelasviatschi.com...I cant show any more studies showing the same result because I'm running out of characters. But do some research, all studies show the same. The decrease of rape when prostitution is legalised ranges from 30-50%. There is no doubt, there is a decrease in rape.I did not fail at all to cite sources for Germany having little human trafficking. The third link in my argument proves it. The site that my opponent gave me only states that " Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems". The site does not tell us how big of a problem it is, and not compared to other countries. Even if it were a big problem the site stated: remain as a problem. This means that the legalisation did not affect human trafficking. It stayed the same. Again my site shows how Germany is doing on a worldwide scale, and its better than most countries (https://www.theatlantic.com...).(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com...) This study shows that when prostitution was legalised in Germany 2002, sex trafficking started to decline. From 159 convictions a year, to 110 convictions a year."Sex work is work" This simple yet powerful statement frames sex workers not as criminals, victims, vectors of disease, or sinners but as workers.I suggest you vote Pro. Thank you.