BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in a brawl who would win I say the Bunny

Chocolate eggs are dangerous?" no one said that these were chocolate eggs in fact eggs are often associated with death and in the past have been filled with poison and glass. "Santa has a hefty layer of protective fat" fat is not protective if a fat person is cut do they still bleed? Of course they do. "The eggs, if able to be thrown would crack, fall, bounce off, fall short" I would like to know why eggs would not brake and send glass and poison on to fatty. Second the Easter bunny is a giant bundle of muscle and would not have any problems getting an egg to its target. "poorly formed grasping digits" you your self said he was "Mutagenic bunny" so why would he have poor grasping digits he could have four thumbs which would obviously mean he could grasp some thing. Taken this into account he would be able to throw as far as he wanted. "range from the high 100s to 1000s of km/h." as we know this only counts if he is on his sleigh and no one sits down all the time and if so how would Saint Nick hurt the Easter Bunny he would be in the air. Mutagenic- An agent, such as a chemical, ultraviolet light, or a radioactive element, that can induce or increase the frequency of mutation in an organism. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thesun.co.uk... http://www.spike.com... "Of course Santa, if desirable, could simply run into our unfortunate pagan remnant. At those speeds, the only result would be a bloody snow stained rabbit smear." this makes no sense! and sense when are rabbits pagan "Thor, gnomes vs. fluffy grass loving hippie," as you both said before Mutagenic Bunnies are not the same as regular bunnies and nothing close to grass loving hippies. "are not simply small men with pointed ears, being magical in nature (more gnomish than elven), also prone to bursts of capriciousness (see Black Peter, writings of Rydberg). Magic Scandinavian, yeah we knew mighty Thor" this is a stretch don't ya think and an authors opinion does not change the general idea of a Christmas elf. "yeah we knew a chick associated with springtime and sex, bunnies ..." what does this have to do with anything and it is also quite volger. "Mr fat man has his reindeer and sleigh: super fast battering ram!" once again he would be in the air so this has no affect. "Gnomes have magic" these gnomes you speak of are still elves and are not magical they are just good workers. "like oh say, tranquiliser guns! Magic tranquiliser guns and just plain magic vs. ooo I'm a gonna gnaw at your boots..." elves only make toys and that is not a toy. Also it is more like bite your head off! http://skirt.com... http://www.claus.com...
If Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in a brawl who would win I say the Bunny

"The Easter Bunny is the better choice for many reasons the first being that the Easter Bunny can throw eggs and Santa can't." Chocolate eggs are dangerous? I don't think so, especially given Santa has a hefty layer of protective fat and nice thick woolen clothing! Plus we are talking about a mutagenic bunny with poorly formed grasping digits. :/ The eggs, if able to be thrown would crack, fall, bounce off, fall short - and that's assuming a stationary Santa. The calculations for the speed of Santa traveling are varied, but range from the high 100s to 1000s of km/h. Mutagenic bunny would have trouble even seeing Old St Nick, let alone harming him. http://www.snopes.com... http://www.thesun.co.uk... Of course Santa, if desirable, could simply run into our unfortunate pagan remnant. At those speeds, the only result would be a bloody snow stained rabbit smear. "Also the Easter Bunny has an army of rabbits that is so massive that it would out number elves 7 to 1 and they have teeth so the elves are kinda screwed." I wasn't aware the Easter bunny commanded minions, certainly not part of a standard doctrine/mythos I'm aware of. Certainly not in relation to how many elves either. In any event, the Christmas elves share a pagan heritage with your bunny and are not simply small men with pointed ears, being magical in nature (more gnomish than elven), also prone to bursts of capriciousness (see Black Peter, writings of Rydberg). Magic Scandinavian, yeah we knew mighty Thor, gnomes vs. fluffy grass loving hippie, yeah we knew a chick associated with springtime and sex, bunnies ... Elves win. http://www.helium.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.vaidilute.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... "Also Bunnies are faster than fat men in red suits and midgets with short legs." Mr fat man has his reindeer and sleigh: super fast battering ram! Gnomes have magic.. and a factory.. a magic one.. it lets them make things.. like oh say, tranquiliser guns! Magic tranquiliser guns and just plain magic vs. ooo I'm a gonna gnaw at your boots... Elves win.
If Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in a brawl who would win I say the Bunny

The Easter Bunny is the better choice for many reasons the first being that the Easter Bunny can throw eggs and Santa can't. Also the Easter Bunny has an army of rabbits that is so massive that it would out number elves 7 to 1 and they have teeth so the elves are kinda screwed. Also Bunnies are faster than fat men in red suits and midgets with short legs.
Leelah (Joshua) Alcorn's parents should be punished for her death

Just to make things clear, this debate is wiether or not the parents of Josh/Leelah Alcorn should be punished by the law. Pro makes to claims to this regard, first she says that the parents did not provide psychological care for his depression and that becouse his parents spoke harshly to him, they are responsible for his death. For one, according to the parents, Josh rarely talked about being transgendered and they also did give him pyscatric care. As to the second point, the first amendment protects all freedom of speech. Josh was responsible for his own death. FInally lets assume for just a second that harsh words could legally get someone convicted for causing a suicied. Even then, it becomes the word of josh against his parents, leaving quite a lot of room for reasonable doubt.
Leelah (Joshua) Alcorn's parents should be punished for her death

Leelah's parents are responsible for her death in several ways: 1) Parents are required by law to allow their children to receive necessary medical treatment. By denying Leelah the opportunity to see real, licensed, appropriate doctors and therapists for her emotional and physical needs (depression, suicidal thoughts, gender dysphoria), they denied her access to the resources that could have saved her life. "I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression," wrote Leelah (Source 1). 2) They were emotionally abusive. They talked to her in a "derogatory tone" (Source 1), belittled her, punished her rather than supporting her, and denied her identity. According to the law of Ohio, where Leelah and her parents lived, the responsibilities of parents towards minors (Leelah was 17) include "[the minimization of e]xposure of the child to harmful parental conflict [. . .] as much as possible" and "[. . .] a parenting arrangement that best provides for a child's safety, emotional growth, health, stability, and physical care" (Source 2). 3) Leelah, who has a better understanding of her situation at home than anyone else, pointed to her own parents as the cause of her death. Most children would feel a strong enough connection to their parents to want to protect them from legal prosecution. The accusations Leelah made extremely serious against her parents: ones that could put them behind bars. That's precisely why they should be taken seriously. Leelah was the closest witness to her mistreatment by her parents, and her clear, unambiguous accusation is testament to the severity of her abuse. Because Leelah's parents caused her death, they aught to be held responsible for what was unintentional but blatantly a murder. They should be tried for wrongful death. Leelah's dying wish was that change be made to empower and GIVE power to the transgender community. Punishing her parents would do so by sending a clear message that people cannot mistreat others on the basis of non-cisgender identity and get away with it. Sources: 1)http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... 2) http://codes.ohio.gov...
Any Rap Battle You Choose

Zeus? Hades? Poseidon? Please! I'm in control of Kronos of which those gods he eats! Your the king of Persia? I'm the king of Sparta! Ten million vs 300 And we still ripped apart ya! All we need is our shields And a vision of stife And we shatter the army Of this half naked dyke! A man named Xerses with the claims of a god? Then how come he lost almost every fight that he fought Against a boss Your kingdom won't save you now Against a man with the dream of taking you down To the ground And if you need a reminder of who blew apart ya Remember your mistake... THIS IS SPARTA!!!
Any Rap Battle You Choose

Peasant talk...yea, I'm used to that But let's face the facts And cut the chitchat. I rule you, bro Whether you like it or not If you wake the Beast Then face the onslaught. I command the men that are loyal to me They serve me forever, not temporarily. 10,000 Immortals And a Divine Cavalry I'm the King of Persia, fool Not some silly wannabe! I own all lands Beyond the Horizon, I own Zeus and Hades, and their brotha Poseidon. They bow to my shadow They're the dust beneath my feet They quiver at my strength I'm the King they can't defeat. Zeus of the Sky Hades of the Deep Poseidon of Sea Is there a god I cannot beat? Bullet in the chamber, Rifle loaded up Finger on the trigger... So bye bye buttercup
Any Rap Battle You Choose

So its gonna be like that? ok,i take it all back! By the end of this,you'll be flat on your back Your skull bashed in by the head of my baseball bat you'll be walked over like a mat and go splat all i need's a nice whack to end this track your guns are nothing to the fire I spit Im like a dragon, your like a knight's squire without a wit you say the game's over, but I haven't even begun to play I'll make sure you'll have the ultimate price to pay You say your a legend? You say your a myth? Your legacy will be buried by dirt and sh*t What's this talk about bloodlines and this Mr.Wordsmith? More like Mr. Wordsh*t! Your kingdom never was never gonna be So you should probably stop this living fantasy Your time is over, don't you hear the clock go clang? I can see your scared, so I won't shoot you...BANG! (lolz)
Any Rap Battle You Choose

So das'how it is? Is dat all you got? 4 rounds a'dis? pff...Imma be o'ma yacht. Wait...what?? As little as a dot??? Brotha, I get honeys on da spot! I'm a dreadnought of love, somethin' I be but you NOT! Imma put you in yo'place with a Times 2 buck shot Think I'm playin?... Ask the brotha with the blood clot! FLASHBACK! To the day I was hot In 72' I jabbed the Legend in his spot But he be so chapped, he called out "cheap shot!" I still won d'match cuz I knew his weak spot. The game is over. DING DING DING! I chant my victory, you know I don't sing. And now... There be whole new legend My name was a myth, And now I'm unquestioned. Like the Lord of the Sith Im a blacksmith with words So call me Mr.Wordsmith I don't plea the 5th..I wrote the 1st to the 5th!! #ROYALTY My Kingdom's vast, my vocab is the same Im King of this sky, the seas, this plain But I won't become nothin....CUZ I ALREADY BECAME! I became the King through my red bloodline... The bloodline's a line, cuz I spilled it in a line! So, my brotha.....u wanna be in my bloodline?
Any Rap Battle You Choose

sure, I don't suppose why not lets see what we both got I mean, usually i have a reason for rapping on the spot Now i guess i'm not i don't know if I should diss or not I don't want to make my opponent feel as little as a dot You know what I mean? Theres plenty of raps I've seen where the contest gets so mean spitting at each other like they just ate a bad bean making everyone watching feel green making them sick at the fact that they not keeping it clean I know my rhymes are getting a little boring now But i'm just trying to figure out how we can do this now without it getting ugly, and one of us getting shot, POW! we should just worry about the rhymes, not the dissing, and keeping it clean cuz you never know, you know what i mean?
Rematch: Does God exist

Well lets see your first six paragraphs to sum it up was basically the universe couldn't create itself because that would be impossible so something else must have done it and therefore god did it. This leaves a huge loophole. If something can't create itself and has to be acted upon by something else then what created god. You said for everything created something must have acted upon it. So what or who created god. If your response is "well god always existed" then why couldn't the universe have always existed in some form. So I'll ask again who or what created god. If something did create god then what created that and so on. No matter how you answer you have a problem. Then you go with the argument from causality. You say something had to cause the universe. Again what caused God. The argument from design only works if you prove god which you have failed to do. Otherwise I could easily say nature behaves according to natural laws we have observed. Gravity for example is a natural law that helps shape nature. The Ontological argument is just stupid. You basically said human minds aren't perfect therefore there must be a perfect mind. You don't prove that you just sort of declare it. The Morality argument is easy to debunk. You say all humans seek to do good and avoid evil. Really ask Ted Bundy if he had a problem doing evil. Ask Hitler if he had a problem killing six million jews. Why do we have laws, the military, prison, and self help books. Easy we have laws for two reasons. One is for the good of society. If everyone runs around murdering each other that hurts society and hurts are ability as a species to survive. Also for self interested reasons. For example I don't want to be raped so lets make it a rule people can't rape me. Then you say the Atheistic view is incompatible. Which is odd seeing as not all atheists have the same moral view. You say the theistic view is so it must be correct. Really which view is that exactly. The Theistic view of Ivan the Terrible who slaughtered thousands for not agreeing with his god. How about the Theistic view of Hitler of in his book talked about doing gods work? Is that the view you mean. No because many different theists have many different views. Because morality is subjective. If there was one god wouldn't everyone have the same morality. Not everyone does I'll prove it. I don't support burning someone alive. But people in ISIS do. Need more proof I have a challenge for you. Go up to ten people and ask them this question. " You're favorite Dog that you love and Your neighbor that you hated and despise are both drowning in a pool. You only have time to save one who do you save? I've ask 4 people that and two said the dog and two said the neighbor. Go ask it to ten people I bet you wouldn't get the same answer.
Rematch: Does God exist

ROUND 2 I will accept. However one thing. I don't have burden of proof. You do because you are making a positive claim. Like I said in our last debate. That's like me claiming Batman exists and when you say prove batman exist I say prove he doesn't. You can't disprove a negative. you have to prove god exist because you are making the claim he does. I am taking the position of I don't know if god exists or not but I don't believe he does. Just like me saying. I don't know if the men in black really exist but I don't believe they do. So in summary You have burden of proof not me. Please present your first argument. Also we have previously debated which I won eight to zero. If would like to check out that debate The link is right here. http://www.debate.org... Good luck to qwzx.
Nuclear energy is benefit to the society

The Chernobyl plant was manned by untrained personal, was built in inadequate housing for a nuclear power plant and had poor safety standards.[1] About 30 died in the disaster with thousands of cases of cancer due to the disaster [1]. Since then there have been no deaths attributed to disasters anywhere else. [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org... You dropped my points about cost and waste and you need to show how Germany is abandoning nuclear energy with sources.
Nuclear energy is benefit to the society

In the catastrophic events such as Chernobyl disaster, the damage and cost are unbearable. German Environment Minister has stated that "potential human costs of atomic power make it unaffordable over the long term".Nuclear waste is increasing considerably and experts predict that even if repository at Yucca Mountain were to open today it would fill to its limit of 63000 metric tons of commercial waste in. After the tsunami in Japan Germany has acted further to abandon nuclear plants.
Nuclear energy is benefit to the society

Note: there is a 500 character limit The production of Nuclear Energy is by far the cheapest compared to other sources. [1] Nuclear waste is also in very minuscule amounts and is very easy to manage [2] If Nuclear Energy was that harmful the liberal nations of Europe wouldn't use it more than the U.S. does [3] [1]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [2]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [3]http://www.world-nuclear.org...
Is smoking bad for you

It depends what you define by "you". Is it your body? Is it your mind? Is it your state of happiness in life? By understanding it I can say that for the first question, yes it is bad for you. For the rest of the questions it depends entirely on the person. For example, I may feel neutral about smoking even knowing that it will harm my body! I may have some kind of terminal disease in which is far worst than smoking for the rest day of my life.
(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Before I begin with my points there is something I must establish: if we are to have this debate we must assume the existence of God; otherwise there would be no point and many of our arguments would be invalidated. I would also like to mention that I am much better with rebuttals than I am with arguments, so if any of these seem incomplete then just ask for clarification and I’ll elaborate.1. God is omnibenevolent by definitionThe Christian God is, by definition, omnibenevolent [1]. If he were malevolent, he could not be omnibenevolent, and if he were not omnibenevolent then he would no longer be the Christian God. Saying that God is not omnibenevolent is illogical for the same reason that saying cat is not a feline is illogical; it goes against the definition. It is possible to argue the malevolence of some other god, but because this argument is about the Christian God in particular my point stands.2. God is not good, good is GodIn the Christian religion, God is not considered good because he exhibits the qualities of goodness, he is good because goodness exhibits the qualities of Him [7]. Because, as I showed earlier, we must assume the validity of the Bible, this belief is an entirely valid argument.3. God gave up his only son for an undeserving worldThis has been pointed out many times but it is a very important proof of God’s benevolence.According to Christian belief, Jesus is perfect [6], in contrast with a world full of rapists, murderers, and all manner of despicable people. The fact that God would give Him up for humanity because of his love for us [5] is possibly the most benevolent act in history.The most common counterargument to this claim is that no loving God would put to death their only child, which leads into my next argument:4. Jesus willingly went to the crossThis negates any objection to my previous point, since the only real counterargument is the one I already mentioned.Jesus died on the cross willingly [4]. Since he is a part of the Trinity [2] this is proof of God’s benevolent love.ConclusionMy last two points outline God’s love for humanity. His love is proof of his benevolence, since He doesn’t have to bother with us. But instead of sitting idly by He offered us a way into heaven [3].That sounds pretty benevolent to me.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.biblegateway.com... [4] http://www.reformation21.org... [5] https://www.biblegateway.com... [6] https://www.compellingtruth.org... [7] https://books.google.co.jp...;
METADEBATE!: Noam Chomsky vs. J.Kenyon

My opponents argument, if you really can call a rephrasing of his previous appeals to authority into an argument that seems this time to completely ignore any views Noam Chomsky actually has on the economy. Since there is actually very little content to his argument, I'll try to break it down so the reader doesn't have to re-read what has been written: 1. "my opponent is far too articulate for me to believe that he's making these mistakes because he's stupid. Does he seriously think that the US Highway System exists as a result of Native American trails built hundreds of years before" In this statement my opponent either purposefully or unintentionally does not understand what an analogy is. My entire "highways exist as a result of trails" is simply an analogy that is meant to show the reader (who may not be familiar with terms such as TCIP and Ethernet) how ridiculous chomskys statement is that the ARPNET (and moreover the state) is responsible for the "core of the economy". 2. "From this we are to assume that he is a better judge of Chomsky's knowledge than, for instance, the MIT faculty who hired him and gave him tenure? I think that Chomsky's extensive bibliography proves that he does indeed know something." Readers this is a clear logical fallacy and a clear appeal to authority. So because Chomsky was hired, He knows about the economy? This is ludicrous to anyone reading. 3. "I am not going to waste my time and effort outlining Chomsky's views when voters can read about them elsewhere if they find it important, because the exact details are irrelevant" I think this statement speaks for himself that my opponent is unwilling to "waste time" discussing Chomsky's economic views in a debate about whether Chomsky can win a debate on economics. Unfortunately the rest of my opponent's argument is a copy and paste of his original appeals to authority which have no real substance. Extend all arguments from the above as my opponent is unwilling to actually debate and seems to find more pleasure in wasting my time with logical fallacies and Chomsky's irrelevant credentials.