BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Messi is the king of Barcelona

Barcelona has no king Barcelona is the amazing capital of Spain. With it's population of almost 1,620,000 [1] it has grown to be an amazing city. Various tourism areas, and amazing sports teams. Culture is also very evident in such a city. Now as we already know, this city is the capital of Spain, so in order to understand how Messi can't possible be the king, we must understand the politics in Spain. Basically, Spain is a constitutional monarchy. [2] A constitutional monarchy is when a king or queen acts as the Head of state. The Monarch must follow the govers according to the constitution, constatly getting advice from ministers. This Monarch must remain politically neutral. [3] So now we know that there is a king/queen who governs Spain. However, nowadays they are considered more of a Monarch or a Soverigne than a king or queen. To this day, the current leader is Juan Carlos. Not Lionel Messi. s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> Lionel Messi Lionel Mesi is an overrated soccer player, definitely not the king of Barcelona! Barcelona doesn't even have a king. Messi is on the soccer team FC Barcelona. He isn't even the best player! Though he is very good, there are far superior people on his team like Iniesta.http://www.youtube.com... As I have already proven, Messi is not the king of Barcelona, because there is no king in Barcelona, but there is one in Spain. It is impossible at this point for my opponent to win this debate. I have alreayd proven him wrong, and incapable of counteracting my contentions. I have already won this debate. sources:1.http://www.aviewoncities.com...2.http://www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com...3.https://www.royal.gov.uk...
Messi is the king of Barcelona

Lionel Messi has set the bar so high for himself that even a brief dip in scoring form immediately raises eyebrows, but it also allows other aspects of his game to be recognised. The Argentina forward"s incredible goals tally in recent years " he has netted 47, 53, 73 and 60 goals respectively in the past four seasons " has unsurprisingly stolen the limelight from the number of assists he makes for his teammates. But he is also an important link to his fellow attackers, often dropping deep to collect the ball from a midfielder or defender before passing it on or making a trademark weaving dash towards goal.
Abortion

Expanding upon a few of your statements this round, abstinence is the only 100% guarantee of no child. Therefore, everyone should know that if they consent to engage in a sex act, whether married or unmarried, there is a chance of conception. Therefore, I think that a man's consent to contribute to that act should be respected as his commitment to the possibility of a child. Expanding upon my last point, in the event of a conception, it is, in terms of physical responsibility, a much larger commitment on the part of the mother. A man has the physical ability to walk away, whereas a woman doesn't really have the choice to walk away from the baby (except in the case of an abortion, which I will touch on in a moment). Therefore, if the mother wishes to keep the baby, both parents should have an equal responsibility in the child-bearing and child-rearing. Since the woman is the one with the child inside her, she has the right and the responsibility to ensure that the father does not abandon the child. However, in the case of abortion, this should be a mutual decision, but ultimately the woman's choice, for the same reasons stated above. To conclude this phase of my argument, the woman has the right and responsibility to obtain from the man the resources necessary to bear and rear the child that he chose to whose conception he chose to contribute.
Abortion

I understand what you are saying that abstinence is the only 100% effective way of avoiding pregnancy. What i am talking about is when two consenting adults that do not want to have a baby have sex and a baby results. This is no longer the middle ages where religion rules all and sex is only allowed between married couples. In modern time with modern medicine and the likelihood that non-married, adults with no intentions of starting a family are going to have sex the rules should change from what they were. I agree that both parties should be responsible for the outcome but one person should not have all the power to make the decisions. Before the act is made, if neither side is intending to make a baby, and a pregnancy results, the man and the women equally should decide what to do. the man should not be at the mercy of what ever the woman wants to do.
Abortion

I understand and acknowledge your concern for the financial and emotional well-being of the man involved. I applaud it, in fact. However, the fact remains that it takes two individuals to become pregnant. If a man and a woman decide to have sex, even on birth control, they should go into it knowing the facts. Even if they are using an implant or IUD, there is still anywhere from a 0.2-0.8% chance of unexpected pregnancy . However, implants are often expensive or uncomfortable, so often couples use less expensive and more readily available means of contraception, the most effective of which (Contraceptive injections) still leaves a 6% chance of pregnancy (http://www.cdc.gov...). If the parents do not assess the risks beforehand, then it is both of their fault that there is a baby. The only exception to this is in the case of sexual assault, which I am not including. When making my arguments, I refer only to two consenting individuals who decide to have sex. Therefore, it is my view that the decision to abort a pregnancy should be a mutual agreement. Additionally, since the male was consenting enough to engage in the sex act, he should be consenting enough to accept any and all consequences.
Abortion

Most people when they hear about an unwanted pregnancy, they are so fast to hang the man out to dry. The automatic assumption is the man knocked her up and then took off so what a bad person he is. Granted, this is an accurate description of what happens some of the time. What about when a pregnancy occurs and neither the man or the women is truly to blame. Say there is a situation of failed birth control or any other reason that results in a pregnancy that is not due to negligence. A woman has the sole authority to make a decision to bring a life into this world, and to force a man to be a part of it. If a pregnancy occurs and it is unwanted, a man should have the right to one, force a woman to get an abortion, or two not have to be involved in anyway, (especially economically) if the woman chooses to have the baby. A pregnancy that happens out of shear bad luck should not subject someone who is rational enough to realize having a baby at random is life ruining, to be forced into that scenario. if a woman wants to do something illogical due to her own beliefs based on whatever nonsense, a man should not be dragged along without even having a say.
Marijuana should be legalized

This is meant to be a completely comical and over the top debate. Using logic-lacking arguments, fallacies, and just general WTFs is the point. Voting should be done on whatever side you think was funniest or most extreme, or you can vote however the heck you please. To whoever accepts this, you may begin in round one or you may pass and I will begin in round two. Whichever seems the most logical to you, do the other. Thank you,
Marijuana should be legalized

Now onto the defends of my defends of his refutes of his case of my counterplan. My opponent states that killing humans is bad since it would harm his sex life. I would like to apologize first of all for neglecting this issue, as I was under the impression that my opponent didnt have a sex life in the first place. As for the arg, there is no issue here, as my opponent will be one of the people killed by marijuana legalization. Since he will be dead, he will not need a sex life and thus will never know what he is missing. My opponent claims this rez is specific to the US and A, however as my opponent clearly stated in his opening round, we are talking about legalizing marijuana on the outer moons of Mars and Neptune. When my opponent makes such ridiculous contradictory claims, how can you vote for him? He says we need to start a war between China and India. Extend this over to my side. Since both nations possess nuclear weapons, conflict between them will inevitably result in nuke war. As my entire thesis has showed you, the more destruction we create, the more steps we take to saving the planet. Since nuke war would kill millions, its inherently moral and desirable. My opponent continues to list ways to kill people, thus helping me to make my arguments. He claims legalizing gang rape will lead to more people getting fat. But fat people have higher blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, and urinary output. These health risks mean a higher chance of death, thus once again, aiding my cause for solving overpopulation. Debate summary: 1. I rickrolled my opponent. I win by default. :) 2. All my opponent had to do to win was to say that legalizing will SAVE lives. This would have countered all my arguments about legalization leading to death, which is good. However he didnt. 3. Legalizing = Nuke war = save the planet. Nuke war will also inevitably lead to the death of Miley Cyrus. How can you not vote for that? ! 4. Three and a half people in the world, Charles Mansen, Bill O'Reilly, Brett Favre, and Justin Bieber, support legalization. That many people can't be wrong. I urge a pro vote.
Marijuana should be legalized

http://www.youtube.com... I thank my opponent for continuing this debate, and will proceed with my final round. My opponent continues to state that killing all humans is best for the world. I would disagree, since I find sex only enjoyable with humans, and if all the humans die, my sex life will likely be cut in half, and no one wants that. My opponent also states that legalizing pot will help solve our overpopulation problem, however, we would only be legalizing it in the USA, which doesn't have an overpopulation issue, we have an underpopulation issue. China and India have the over population issue. If we have more babies, that will solve so many of our nation's issues. We will have more workers to take our job back from those dope dosing illegal immigrants. If we want to solve a population problem over in China and India, I can recommend starting a war, those tend to help spark our economies and with the population that they have, we could keep it going for decades, growing our economies to tremendous heights. Though that would be a different debate for a different day. We still know that legalizing will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in law enforcement and prevention, will make Americans fatter and fatter. I have also just learned a horrific fact, regarding pot and WWII Nazis. [1] Please see the youtube attached. Now I know many of you may think, "that can't be true, it looks falsified." However I assure you that this comes from a very reliable source. I saw it on FOX myself. Thank you. [1] youtube video
Marijuana should be legalized

My opponent attempts to argue that doing what I want is a slippery slope to legalizing murder, theft, etc. Once again my opponent makes all my arguments for me. I have already sated that mass destruction of the human race is the only way to save the universe from imminent destruction. This is why we must legalize marijuana, because it will also lead to the legalization of murder. If murder were legal, murder rates would skyrocket and would help us to rid the planet of the human parasite. He claims smoking weed turns people gay. All the more reason to legalize! If all these new pot users go gay, they will not engage in "sexy time" with women and thus, be unable to produce offspring. This will help furthen my cause to solve overpopulation. My opponent states Earth enjoys being consumed. However, a renowned plastic surgeon by the name of Amaso nib Nedal, clearly states, and I quote, "the planet's interior exterior furniture design clearly indicates that the ontological intervention radius-spectrum sector of the core desires to survive. " Thus, because this expert on Islamic celestial mind-reading states the Earth wants to live, its most definitely true. He states cannabis criminalization increases jobs. Nontopical. The resolution clearly states we are talking about legalizing gang-rape. My opponent bashes my avatar. However, his avatar looks like an African-american dog about to be raped by a giant tree trunk. How can you vote for someone who advocates animal rape?
Marijuana should be legalized

My opponent makes the argument, "Pot makes people happy, increasing quality of life... We cannot deny people the ability to increase their quality of life." However, pedophiles, rapists, and murderers all commit their crimes because it makes them happy. Does that mean we should legalize them too? Obviously my opponenet supports legalizing these dangerous crimes and is simply using the legalization of "bongs" as a "gateway law" to reach his ultimate goal of legalizing murder. The simple conclusion is that a vote for legalizing "mary jane" is a vote for raping and murdering little children! There are still many many dangers that come from smoking "pins" that clearly outweigh the non-existant, make-believe selfish benefits that the users claim. For example, "weed" is more previlant in the gay comunity (there is a reason that cigarettes, including those with "pot" are called "f@gs"). [1] This proves that, logically, if you smoke this stuff, it will turn you gay. My opponent also makes the comment, "We as a race are slowly leading the Holy Earth on a path to destruction. We consume her resources with impunity..." Now, I don't make to make any speculations on my opponent's love making abilities (though he admits to getting stoned, so that speaks for itself, since it must have turned him gay), but I've never had a lady complain when I consumed her. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that us consuming mother earth (what a MILF) is giving her great pleasure and me must continue our path. Of which marijuana will prevent, as pointed out in round 2 and agreed with by my opponent. I would like to mention that "potheads" are far more likely to commit various violent crimes. Such as Assault, Theft, and Murder, among others [2]. If we legalize this, it is only obvious that crime is going to skyrocket along with it. We must also look at how keeping "cannabis" illegal is creating jobs. The US government spent over $44 billion in 2008 fighting these terrible drugs [3], employing more then 200,000 people throughout the entire legal system. Legalizing this stuff would put them out of a job. Finally, I must ask. Can we really believe anything my opponent says? Just look at his avatar (assuming he does not change it because of this argument), it is clearly some drug-induced image brought on by the heavy "hemp" intake. [1] http://www.homosexinfo.org... [2] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

"Marijuana has several pros. In addition to medical benefits, it provides increased satisfaction with one's life and helps to solve for many of the Earth's troubling problems." Its because I agree with this quote by Yours Truly that I stand to affirm this topic. I was originally going to make over 9000 arguments as to why pot should be legal, however I will not be presenting many arguments of my own since my opponent made most of them for me. I agree with everything my opponent has said, with the exception of keeping plants illegal. Every single thing. I would also like to add however that pot is devastating to the body, causing several brain disorders, depression, and high gas prices (1) That being said, Point 1. Pot makes people happy, increasing quality of life. Its no secret that people smoke weed because it is enjoyable. I, for example, smoke pot three times an hour, and I love my life. And since I enjoy smoking weed, consequentially everybody enjoys smoking weed. Marijuana is a pleasure stimulant that creates a euphoric sense of pleasure and power. We cannot deny people the ability to increase their quality of life. As the great philosopher, Matt Damon, once said, "Pot rocks! Everyone should use it, its a great stress reliever" (2) Now, I will turn to the con side as he makes several arguments to support my case. His thesis is that marijuana legalization will cause Rosie O'Donnel to devour the planet, thus disrupting the space-time continuum and leading to the end of the universe. Or something like that. But anyway, con makes my arguments for me. He claims legalization increases use which will lead to obesity, heart disease, and worldwide famine. This leads me to point 2. 2. Death and sickness resulting from legalization will solve for overpopulation. Humans are a virus (3). We as a race are slowly leading the Holy Earth on a path to destruction. We consume her resources with impunity, and add deadly poisons to the atmosphere. As more and more humans are born, more resources are necessary. Eventually our skyrocketing population will reach the point to where we will consume 100% of the Earth's resources, which means there will be nothing left for all other life. The only solution, marijuana legalization. My opponent concedes that it will lead to global famine and death. This turns all of con's arguments to the pro side. The only way to save the planet and maybe even the universe, is to cause worldwide death. Thus, legalizing mariuana is the only way we can save the Earth from imminent destruction (4) So in short, if you want to save the planet, vote Pro! 1. http://www.dafk.net... 2. http://encyclopediadramatica.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://votepro.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

I would like to begin by saying that everything you are about to read, is 100% completely, undeniably true. Let us begin with a basic overview of the nightmares that this horrific drug, so mildly referred to as "pot" will do to you. Potheads jokingly talk about how "marijuana" gives them a disorder called "the munchies," characterized by a never ending appetite that causes them to devourer anything and everything in their path. [1] If "dope" were to be legalized, the use of this extremely deadly drug would rise dramatically. [2] The rise in munchies would cause us Americans to eat more food, which would only raise our already fattening obesity rate, which would lead to heart disease and certain death. Not to mention on the other side of us getting fatter and fatter, we would be drawing more and more food, thus causing international food prices to skyrocket, and leading to widespread, global famine. Some estimate that the death toll could be in the tens of billions within 2 years! However, if that cold hard statistically questionable, yet correct rational (if I do say so myself, which I do) is too vast for a single simple individual to grasp. I have a more personable fact to show you. Please observe link [3]. This individual smoked a "bowl," and on halloween decided to be a plumber. However, he did not have his own plunger and snuck mine from my bathroom without telling me. This plunger is NOT new, and has never been cleaned, except by toilet water. This clearly shows, that if you smoke "wacky tobaccy" you will be shoving sh! t into your own face! I rest my case and may the non-"weed"-smoking God have mercy on my opponent's soul! [1] . http://www.xomba.com... [2] . http://www.netmba.com... [3] . http://www.debate.org...
Partial Birth Abortion

>>yes but having abortions is a form of a homicide.<< No, it's not. First, the baby is not a fully developed human being. Second, homicide is not universally wrong (using here the 'killing a human being' definition). You have to do more than show that something is homicide to show that it's wrong. The death penalty, which you agree with, is homicide, yet it is right. Homicide in war is justified. I hope you get my point there. Being homicide does not mean something is bad. >>I feel that abortion should be bad and that abortion is not the only way to go. you can give op for adoption, you can give it to someone you know can take care of it.<< I went over this already. Similarly, if you feel that Ramen noodles should be bad, that doesn't make it wrong for people to eat them. You _can_ do other things, some of which may seem better to some people. Adoption allows the child to live, but it puts one more person on this earth, which is not always a good thing. >>There are many other things besides partial birth abortion<< Dealt with it in round 1 and 2. *bow* Thanks for the debate, though I wish it could have been more involved.
Partial Birth Abortion

I maintain that while protection (birth control pills, condoms, etc.) is one way to not have a baby and still have sex, so is abortion. While you contend that they 'should' have used protection, I contend that a couple is not limited to simply these choices. I could eat steak tonight. I could eat fried rice. I could eat cereal, fruit, or hot pockets. While these options may not all have the same outcomes, and indeed some may be worse than others, they are all viable choices for me to make. You'd be mistaken to assert that I 'should' eat one rather than the other, just as you're mistaken in asserting that a couple 'should' use protected sex rather than having an abortion. Which method of not having a baby is the choice of the couple in question, and abortion is but one of these choices.
Partial Birth Abortion

I look forward to a lively debate. I'll first respond to each of your statements individually. >>I think that partial birth abortion is totally wrong.<< In this debate, I do not. >>It is unfair to the babies.<< It is not unfair to the babies. >>It does not give them the chance that other kids have.<< And that makes it unfair? What about having kids in a third world country? Is that unfair, since your kids won't have the same chances other kids have? Kids do not automatically have anything when they come into the world. What they get is solely predicated on what society and their parents give them. In the case of a baby of a wealthy couple, it likely gets a lot. In the case of a baby born in a third-world country, it likely gets very little. In the case of a aborted child, it gets nothing. This is not unfair. It simply is the case that the parents and society did not feel it necessary to give the child anything. Or possibly that they were not able to, and decided to be merciful, rather than allowing the baby to starve. People don't inherently deserve anything, society gives them stuff based on how much society values that person. (this also works for anything that isn't a person, such as animals or rocks) >>I think that abortions should not happen and that the mother should have her child given up for adoption with visiting rights.<< I think the mother should do whatever she deems necessary. >>And if the couple did not want a child they should have used protection!<< Protection is not the only way to not have a child. Abstinence is also a possible way, as is abortion. The couple should do whichever they prefer. That's it for the response, and it seems I've made a good enough case for now inside my responses, so on that note, back to you.