BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THB Donald Trump's existence is good for the world.

I have responded to every point that was factual. I cannot respond to baseless assertions. By suggesting that these tribes would have to meet someone who has meet Donald Trump to understand the dangers of racism is rather absurd. 1. Some people will NEVER EVER meet or hear about Donald Trump from ANYONE else. Some people have never heard of Jesus( yet it is a historical name) and will NEVER hear about Jesus or meet someone who has. 2. Some people will never even suggest that his ideas are racist or ignorant. You claim that everyone in the world will admit this? THIS IS FALSE. US government representatives have backed Trump, they would doom their future by saying he is racist. They would also doom their kids future. Respond to my bullets.
THB Donald Trump's existence is good for the world.

I never said tribes were uneducated and I love how con says my side is limited yet he brings no responses to my points which gives me the impression that maybe he's young. What con has still not confronted is that is Donald Trump's existence good for the world. Con says not everyone has heard of him, to which I have said he will make a more welcoming society which he has not responded to. Con says not everyone in this world thinks he is a racist to which I agree and have said eventually they will realise it and become better people after appreciating his racist and ignorant views. His other points say the motion has weakened me but he has not even responded to my points and, anyone can read that I did not say native tribes were uneducated.
THB Donald Trump's existence is good for the world.

"So con might say that what about a tribe in south America, well they might come out/ there children..." This is the most racist and vile statement I have ever heard of in my entire life. I did not say this, you did. I love the argument that the PRO now uses " anyone who defends Donald Trump must be a racist". This is rather comical, considering my main point was that 1. Not everyone has even heard of him, 2. You limited your own by debate by defining your term world as " EVERY single human being" 3. Not everyone in the world thinks he is a racist ( WHICH has been proven). this is a fact. 4. Everyone who has heard of Donald Trump are not guaranteed to come into contact with " fictional native- Tribes". The OP thinks tribes are uneducated?
THB Donald Trump's existence is good for the world.

Con may believe that Trump will win the US election (which he will not, I can bet money on it), but the fact is that eventually people will look past this racist ideology that Trump promotes and look back at him negatively and through this be able to have a better outlook on the world Of course some people agree with his views but in time they will, with more knowledge and education renounce him too. What con is doing is disregarding the principles of long term benefit to the world through us logically overcoming racism and prejudice as a 'troll' But what con has said is that some people view him as racist, which I agree but eventually they will learn and renounce him and create a more welcoming society. Con has still failed respond to this
Is it appropriate for muslims to build a religious center near the world trade center

My whole case can be summed up as I did before: "Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque near the World Trade Center, because Muslims should not be allowed to build Mosques, because No religion should be allowed to build religious structures, because Religion should not be promoted in any way, shape, or form (including religious structures), because Religion is bad" The top four statements are completely logical, assuming that the one below them is true, and the bottom statement is what I have been attempting to prove this entire time; that religion is bad. To re-refute most of your main points: A very large amount of people eat fast food. It has spread all over the world. People need food, and often the easiest option is fast food. But this does not make fast food healthy. The point is to stop them from being Jewish/Christian/Muslim. There is no such thing as rights. After all, if there is no God, where are they derived from. My case is not "Ban activities that cause people to have fun, or religious communities that feel the need to worship God.". My case is that religion, in particular, is bad for the well-being of society. Imagine how you would feel if, every day, a large portion of workers temporarily left their jobs to go talk to their imaginary friends. That is how I view religion. That is my case.
Is it appropriate for muslims to build a religious center near the world trade center

My opponent's whole case can be summed up by this sentence. Ban activities that cause people to have fun, or religious communities that feel the need to worship God. Response: Con has created the most absurd reasons for why there should be a need of banning activities. With his logic, One can ban almost all activities that the government deems to be unproductive. All I have to argue against this is freedom of belief and freedom of expression. A person is free to express, worship anything they want to believe. Con fails to prove that any of the things he is arguing should be banned as any consequences. He also fails to understand the weight of the impacts of his arguments. Con does not provide any evidence for his claims, therefore making them irrelevant. How does Con know that if you ban all of these items that there will actually be a change in society? What if the change is harmful? What if the common man gets angry at the fact that he or she is not entertained anymore? There are so many consequences that could happen when you ban over 200 million peoples' right to worship, and entertain themselves. One could produce empirical results saying that also Hollywood is also unnecessary. One could produce empirical results saying that texting is unnecessary, because it has just become a tool for people to have fun. One could produce empirical results saying that people should not watch television, because it promotes laziness. There will be a huge consequences that would happen if Con intended to ban all of this with his absurd logic. America was founded on freedom of belief and freedom of expression. Con provides no evidence stating that the harms of worshiping God is that significant. Already in America, secularism is rising. The impact of organized religion is being deterred. Reasons for winning: -Con's does not provide any evidence saying that the impact of religion's harms are significant specifically in America. -Con does not provide evidence in general. -Con's logic fires on anything that is fun. Playgrounds and fairs should be banned under Con's world creating a boring world. -Con never considers the consequences of banning such things, and never considers how significant of an impact this would have on over 200 million people.
Is it appropriate for muslims to build a religious center near the world trade center

"You cite no evidence stating that people are going to better themselves when that time in society." There can be no evidence for hypothetical questions." If you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, you will still find a way to devote time to your God."The point is to eliminate religion from our country as a whole." Also, what makes you think that there going to better themselves."A genetic urge to perform well. And also, societal norms."They deserve a right to worship."No, they do not. Devoting your life to the praise of a genocidal mass-murderer who had his son crucified is NOT a good thing."People will do political activities, and worship other things such as materialism if they are not going to worship God."Political activities are a GOOD thing. Materialism is natural, genetic, positive. A caveman who strives for food and shelter will outperform those searching for moral truths."But, I would never enforce secularism on to those people."Why not?"Video Games: Because Video Games promote laziness, and unproductive habits. They should be deemed unnecessary. Video Games are also extremely addictive, and distract people from science and math. Here is a study showing how technology distracts Americans.The study"s primary conclusion is that Americans don"t get enough sleep overall, and that the sleep they do get is largely rubbish. Waking up several times throughout the night, waking up too early, snoring like a truck, etc.As Ric Flair once asked, what"s causing all this? Blame technology. As mentioned, fully 95 percent of Americans use a communications device in the hour before going to bed. That"s a critical hour, too, since ideally you"d be winding down before going to bed. Texting your friends, trolling Facebook, reading Charlie Sheen tweets, etc. All of this mental stimulation essentially keeps your brain awake, and prevents the release of a certain hormone that tells your body, "Hey it"s time to go to bed. Get tired."http://techcrunch.com......Should technology be deemed unacceptable. Pro's logic would support this idea."Yes. I would support that idea. Maybe not texting, or some social media sites, which result in more communication, which in turn is positive.
Gay Marriage

I will let them begin their argument in the next round but will start just a brief outline of my position as they have done. Let us first recognize that this is about marriage, not love. Legalizing gay marriage or not does not stop, nor limit the ability of anyone to love another. It does not stop being able to live with each other, nor show your love with each other. To argue that by not recognizing gay marriage the government is saying that gays cannot love each other is a gross strawman of the arguments. A superior choice in the matter would be for the recognition of civil unions, for both gay and straight. And to have government get out of "marriage" and leave that back as a religious ceremony that has no barring in government, benefits, rights, or taxes.
The Marvel heroes would beat the DC heroes in a fight.

Rebuttals"At best CON has shown DC heroes could match Marvel, and to do that he had them matched up to suit his interests. Yet with no plan for how he would force the pairings in his favor, his points are irrelevant." I assembled core members of the DC team that my opponent has ignored. I made a logical argument that shows how DC could defeat Marvel. "The intelligence of Batman and Flash are not immediately applicable in a fight like Iron Man's hacking skills are. Even if you believe CON, he has only shown DC heroes to have matching IQ scores, not surpassing. In addition, intelligence is more than book smarts. Covert intelligence, Black Widow's strong suit, is where Marvel overtakes DC." Granted. "To reiterate, DC is a roster of various one-trick ponies that don't know how to work together, nor even relate to each other due to extremely different backgrounds. Of my Marvel line up, the one alien is very protective of Earth and has become accustomed to humans by living among them for a time." My opponent has not made a motion to prove this. DC, in fact, is quite diverse, but the members of the Justice League always find a way to put aside their differences and work together for the common good. This can be seen in the comics as well as television. "Superman is highly susceptible to magic and psychic attack. CON claims that Superman will see the Kryptonite coming from miles away. Personally I don't buy that he would automatically be able to prevent the Kryptonite from reaching him. Even if you think Superman is that vigilant, he is still prone to magic and psychic attacks." Flash or Green Lantern can protect and aid Superman in such a struggle. "Spider-man was used as a straw man. I will not use this flimsy hero assigned to me by CON. Instead I called upon X-Men leader Professor X." That is an excellence choice."CON has set up his arguments as a series of straw man fallacies." My arguments are provable. I believe this debate to be a sincere tie. Both sides are correct to some extent. Both sides have their points and their flaws. You should consider that when voting.
Story Writing debate

Con fires his weapon, missing Bob by a millimeter, Joe takes off, running, as it seems, right at Con. Con fires again the bullet ricocheting off the walls of the steel room and hitting Joe, who falls with a bullet in his heart. Con fires several shots at Bob, missing each time by little amounts, Con runs out of ammo and rushes Bob, Bob jumps out of the way and runs around the room, looking for an exit, he finds a door, opens it to see... Nothing, nothing is outside. There is just empty space. Bob says "Where the **** am I?" Con replies, "This is DEATH NOW DIE!!" Bob runs picks up the table and throws it at Con, who falls out into the space. So Burtont, 1. Is Con dead? 2. Where is Bob? 3. Did Joe really die?
Story Writing debate

Bob composes himself for a minute to collect his thoughts. He determines that he should not, in fact, take the pill. This would prove to be a splendid decision for Bob, as a few brief minutes later, he overhears the following conversation between Joe and the stranger, who we later learn is named Cornelius (although he prefers that everyone call him Con): Joe: "Drat. He didn't believe that I was a doctor. Now we'll never be able to get the money... unless we slip it into his drink." Con: "You must have startled him. I think we would have been better suited had I gone over there to fetch you, pretending that you were, in fact the doctor." Joe could not help but agree with Con. He respected Con, yet at the same time, he hated him. Con was ALWAYS right, and he never let Joe be in charge of their criminal doings, which angered Joe deeply. Con and Joe turned around. They were more than startled to see Bob right behind them, clearly listening to their whole conversation. Con brandishes his weapon... So: 1. Does Bob finally understand what has happened to him? 2. Does Con shoot Bob? 3. Does Joe put his own selfish desires in between his and Con's common goal?
Story Writing debate

Title: The Battle "What? Where am I?" Bob Martin says as he rubs his head confusedly, "How did I get In this room?" He takes a moment to look around the dark space, seeing a white round table with three chairs, the table having two plates empty and one plate having a small piece of unknown meat, Bob slowly walks words the table, he stepped on a loose wooden board along the way, CREAK. "Scared me for a second there," he mutters to himself, "I thought some one was behind-" ,CREAK Bob turners around startled. He sees a stranger behind him, the stranger is a Caucasian male in a black suit and a pinstriped tie, he has his hands up in a gesture of surrender, "I didn't mean to frighten you there, my name is Joe, Joe Alexander Mainstand, are you new around here, never seen you before." The man says with a distinct southern accent. Bob replies, "Yeah, I'm new around here, my names Bob, Bob Martin, I don't know how I got here so don't ask. Anyway, is there a doctor around here, my head is killing me." Joe walks over to inspect the Bobs head, amid protests from the latter, "Yeah, you got a pretty good clock on your noggin there, by the way, I'm as close as you're gonna get to a doctor around here. There used to be a registered doc. but, he was killed like all the rest of them." Joe gives Bob a small pill, which Bob seems suspicious about, "Go ahead, take it, you're gonna need a clear head in here." Bob still seemed wary of the pill. So Burtont, 1. Does Bob take the pill, if so, what happens? 2. Who is Joe and the third person there? 3. What happened to the others?
I think girls are smarter than boys.

I will save the bulk of my arguments for round 2. I would also like to point out a few observations from my opponent's opening argument: 1: My opponent used commas in an incorrect fashion multiple times. 2: My opponent makes an assumption by saying that boys will disagree because they are boys. 3: My opponent incorrectly used the word "some-one". The correct word choice would've been "someone".
I think girls are smarter than boys.

I have been fighting with boy's about girl's being smarter than boy's. I am wondering if I am true. It started off with me teasing boy's about how girls are smarter than boy's. But NOW, I think to my-self, "ARE girl's ACTUALLY smarter than boy's?" So I did this debate, so I could figure out if it is true. I think that boy's will say no to this, because they are boy's, and they just say that. I want some-one to give me PROOF if it is true. Either a scientist, or some-one search it up and find it.
I think girls are smarter than boys.

While girls are smart, history tells us that boys are smarter than girls. Most famous scientists were guys, like Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Most famous entrepreneurs are guys, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Even the guy who won the most money ever on Jeopardy, Brad Rutter, is a guy. Also, there are more guy students at Harvard than there are female students [1]. Thank you. Sources [1] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...
I think girls are smarter than boys.

Good luck to you too. And I still think that we are smarter, even though I did bad grammer. I am "sorry" for that. ANYWAYS, GIRLS (most of the time) make better decisions, and boys, they have "gangs" and "parties" and that stops them from learning. I personally think, that if I was a BOY, that I would pay attention to my SCHOOLING and not "gangs" and more like that. Like I said, boys are the one's who USUALLY make bad decisions. I am a girl, and there are more nice GIRLS than BOYS. Thank you.
weaker sex is weakness of stronger sex

hi, gentleman, I agree with the fact that James Bond is a fictional character but it is not created by a fictional person. it is created by some human being who understood the roles of weaker sex in society. let us take another example of movie Barb wire in which Pamela Anderson played the lead role. She also used seduction of men as a weapon you can take examples from number of movies, number of stories, weather it is fictional, love story, or any kind of thriller. you will always find that women always become weakness of men in some or other way. I have taken examples from movies and stories specially because these are mirror of society and created by some intellectual person so I think a large number of intelligent people can not be wrong simultaneously. when you say that those men are weak themselves then I would like to ask the reason of their weakness because every thing has its own reasons to happen. In my opinion the major reason is "the weaker sex". Now coming to those men who hate women. those men are somewhere hurt by women, so again they are the victim of weaker sex and weakened by women. Because you will agree with the fact that "Hatred also weaken person." one more example I would like to share with you. The Lewinsky scandal emerged from a sexual relationship between United States President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. This scandal created a lot of trouble in front of former U.S. President. Now you can not say that U.S. president who has been elected by votes of U.S. citizen was weak person himself. He was weakened by desire created and supported by weaker sex. My dear friend I am not against love because Love is the most beautiful feeling. But many times men are ditched by women or men ditch women. in both the cases women are responsible in some way or other. Like, if men ditch women then it is due to he is trapped by some other women or if men is ditched by women then again women is responsible. you can see a lot of heavy drinkers, drug addicted men are victim of weaker sex. There are a number of porn websites on net. many of these websites are source of nude videos, nude photographs of women. Many of web cam sites are also there in which you can do personal chatting with some nude women at premier charges. do you know why these businesses are growing? Answer is because marketer of these sites know that women are weakness of men (majority) so men will pay the price that they want. so I think now you people understand what I wish to convey.
weaker sex is weakness of stronger sex

Hello. James Bond is a fictional character. Correct, a few wars were fought over women. It does not mean that the women being so stunning and beautiful caused them this weakness. They are just weak men themselves. They were born weak, if you will. They were not smart enough to ignore them. What about men who hate women? Are they still weakened by women? I don't think so. Yes, in hollywood men are weakened by women. What about me? I am not weakened by women. I don't cause them to get in the way of my life. Sure i have been with girls my age (i am 17) but thing is it's not love or anything like that. All the encounters take place at parties, you know what i mean? Weaker sex is not weakness of stronger sex. Weaker sex is weaker sex of the individual. (What about homosexuals)
weaker sex is weakness of stronger sex

I am not feminist. so in my opinion by weaker sex I understand women. yes because they are weaker in physical as well as in emotional sense. but it doesn't mean that they are weaker in every sense. many times females become weakness of male. women seduce men in such a manner that men find himself uncontrolled. you can take examples of history itself. a number of wars had been fought just for women. you can take example of movies of James Bond, always a women become his weakness and cause for problems. so women are weakness of men.
Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

I'm experimenting. First, let me point out that I have a right to make new arguments in response only to new arguments my opponenent brought up last round, otherwise I must stick to my previous points. However, my opponent conceded a strange thing last round. "Banning video games, large meals and theaters would make us more productive." Sweet. So these are all victimless, and my opponenet has shown that they should be crimes. Note that he did not say "Less people playing videogames would make us more productive," which would still possibly be dealt with by my opponent's argument about the prohibition effect. He stated that banning them would ACTUALLLY raise productivity. Thus, I can subvert the entire prohibition effect argument by simply using these new things as points. I can also effectively abandon the arguments about whether or not less gambling/prostitution/drugs raises productivity. So now, this debate is about freedom vs. productivity. Throughout the debate, I have upheld productivity as the ultimate goal of society. My opponent has effectively agreed to my terms - rather than bringing up another goal that is superior, he has consistently attempted to show that my points do not increase productivity. If freedom can be shown to be the ultimate goal of society, then my opponent would have had an easy time defeating my simply by claiming that I infringed on freedom, which my plans do. However, he did not go there. Instead, he went the route of trying to show that my plans did not increase productivity. His only support for his criteria of freedom as more important than productivity is that the constitution supports freedom. THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE WRONG. "Person X or Document Y agrees with me, therefore I'm right" is not an argument. I asked in Round 1, "we are investing in a more prosperous future, and isn't that the goal of any society?" And my opponent never disagreed. Thus, I think it is obvious that the superior criteria is productivity in this debate. Thus, we should ban videogames, large meals, and theaters, since that increases productivity [my opponent agrees that it does]. Thus, there should be victimless crimes. Thank you.