BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

First we must analyse the definition of "all. " All is defined as, " every member or part of. " [1] In my last round my opponent, himself, stated that a marjoity of Bronies clop. Now let's check the definition of Majority, "the group or party that is the greater part of a large group. " [2] Next we shall define Brony, "A brony is a fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic that is outside the target demographic of little girls. Most bronies are friendly teenagers and young adults that simply aren't afraid to admit that they enjoy a show which is innocent, colorful, and funny. " [3]Now let's address my opponent's case now that these definitions are out of the way. My opponent makes a logical fallacy of the "No True Scottsman," when he states that all Bronies masterbate. This is shown that not all people that do something are part of this which is another logical fallacy known as "Composition Fallacy. " This is shown that not because something is true for a small portion doesn't make it true for everyone. The same survey that my opponent has sited states that 60% of the people have NOT clopped. This is already disproving his claim on the majority of Bronies clopping. Not to mention that this survey is done on redit which is not that much of a creditable source, not to mention since it's a pornographic section about MLP called Clop-Clop. The issue on why this is skewed is that people who don't masterbate to it simply do not view the website excluding a huge portion of the fan base. Next moving on, even if we were to take my opponent's argument as true for the majority clops, we can see, that as I defined, that the Majority is not all. With that I thank you and please vote Con! Sources1. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 2. ( . http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 3. (. http://whatisabrony.com...)
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

When I saw all 'bronies' I mean all 'bronies', because if the majority of a fandom does something then it can be said that is what it means to be a fan. If the majority of bronies(adult male MLP:FiM fans) masturbate to a cartoon designed for little girls then that can be part of what it means to be a "Brony". The majority of bronies clop and therefore being a brony means you clop. https://www.reddit.com...
Riddle is hard

This riddle is a sham. You have provided me very little information to work with! A man that has been blind from birth should not be able to define colors. Therefore, by holding up handcuffs that are red (are we talking toy handcuffs since red handcuffs are rare), the blind man should say "silver", or "grey", or "I don't know". But by saying "red", the blind man betrays knowledge he shouldn't logically have, and must have obtained it through a sham. Most likely the blind man is a confederate of the mysterious man. However, the text of the riddle shows that the opportunity for fraud has not been indicated to be the work of the mysterious man. Therefore I can not make any predictions as to how the blind man knows the correct color because of the lack of information on how he knows the correct color. There may be other reasons besides deceit for the blind man to know the cuff's color: Perhaps someone once told him that all handcuffs are red, and so when he sees the handcuffs, he assumes they must be red. This assumes facts not evidenced in the riddle. In addition Sherlock Holmes will not be able to say it is fake with such limited data considering how thorough he is.
Riddle is hard

A harder riddle... :DThere is a blind man. The man has been blind since he was born. A mysterious man comes out and says to the blind man" since you are blind, I have a potion that can make you see again." The blind man takes the potion and then he can see. The misterous man goes away and Sherlok Holmes comes. He holds up a red hand cuff and says to the man that was blind but not now," what color is this?" The man looks at the hand cuff very carfully and says "red". Sherlok Holmes says that the potion is fake.How is that posible?
Religion and politics should never be combined

Counter Arguments: Religious Politicans for the Religious I find this argument to be valid under certain circumstances. Firstly, you are right; in a Democratic society, the most popular opinion/person SHOULD win. However, this is not always the right (fair, equal, civil) anwser. As you may recall, not too long ago, women did not have many rights, and this was because of democracy. The most popular opinion back then was that men should have more power than women. Obviously, as we know today, everyone has the right to be treated equally. The point is, democracy can be extremely biased, and although it is impossible to please an entire country, a government should give all races, genders and orientations equal rights. Now, this is why I oppose to a government that combines democracy and religion: Say you have a country of 100 people. Maybe about, 60 are Christian, 20 are gay, 15 are atheist. Out of the 20 that are gay, 10 are Jewish, and the other half are Budhist. Let's say they were all voting to pass a law for Gay rights. 50/60 Christians vote against gay rights, and the rest, 45 people, vote for. So, you have the group of people who come from many different ethnic backrounds who all agree, but do not have the majority vote. Then, you have the majority vote, who all share the same religious beliefs. So, of course, the group of Christians would win the vote. However, is it fair? Does it represent the entire country? Did everyone get a fair chance? That's your call. Personal Religion This is where I can't really draw a line anywhere. Yes, technically, even as an Atheist, you are religious. Your beliefs are to believe in science, and therefore you have religious beliefs. Of course, some "religions" have a better (equal, fair, civil) sense of moral than others, that can most certainly be applied to everyday life. It's the other half of every Bible that makes me cringe. So why not vote for Atheism? It's the most unbiased point of view out of all of them. My Second Argument: My second argument actually ties in with the point I mentioned earlier about democracy. Representation by population. Imagine if you were Jewish, and you were forced to obey a government who worshiped a God or a belief tnat you didn't. Imagine how isolated you would feel from your own community. If anything, our government should be bringing communities of people TOGETHER, not preaching exclusion and neglection.
Religion and politics should never be combined

I'm pretty excited about this topic as well. I find the issue interesting, both sides of it, that is. Good luck. For starters, as I mentioned, "one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician." In my opinion, politics and religion walk different paths. I say this because not only are many religious ideas outdated, but they are quite injust. Today's justice systems(in developed countries, that is) are based on the human idea of moral; knowing the difference between right and wrong. Of course, moral isn't always black and white. In yesterday's justice system (meaning, about 50 years ago), in most states, rape was rewarded with capital punishment. Today, your mental stability can save your life in the courtroom. However, religion is similar to what I referred to as yesterday's justice system. In religion, there aren't many "ifs" or "buts" or "maybes". Religion is black and white. Everything in the bible is based on ideas someone else came up with thousands of years ago. These concepts of right and wrong , applied to almost any situation today, would be completly out of context. Context NEEDS to be considered in politics, and that is something religion does not offer.
Religion and politics should never be combined

While I don't believe religion and politics should always be combined, I think there are instances where it would of benefit to combine them. Also, I can't quite understand how politicians would be able to make decisions independent of their beliefs, as you said: "one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician". What else would a politician base their decisions upon? I look forward to your response and wish you good luck in this debate.
Religion and politics should never be combined

I believe that politics and religion should never be affiliated, because of the bias values that religion can impose on society. Gay rights is a prime example. By electing a President such as Mitt Romney, for example, who is very passionate about his hate for Gays and the love between two humans of the same sex, discrimination is made not only acceptable in the courtroom, but on the playground, in the class room and on the internet. Not to mention, suicide is the leading cause of death in the Americas at the moment, because of bullying. Does our country really need more deaths because more gays are being forced into corners?
Gun Rights in the United States (remade)

I would like to first commence with quick salutations: to my opponent and to the peanut gallery/judges to making this debate possible today. Good luck to both of us. I see that the Affirmation has kindly laid out a series of definitions, but as the resolution at hand is: "Gun rights in the US," I do not see how these definitions pertain to it. Since the Aff. has failed to do so, the Negation will offer the following conditionals on: [Gun right] : The right to keep and bear arms (guns) by citizens [of America]. http://en.wikipedia.org... As the NEGATION, I shall advocate AGAINST the Aff.'s plans for looser exercising of the 2nd Amendment rights (and hence advocating FOR stricter gun control). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will now refute some of the "basic points" and observations my contender has made: 1. The 2nd Amendment Argument. This is a common argument from gun rights advocates. However, ladies and gentlemen, we must see that ALL rights that impede upon others are considered null and void. In this situation, if these gun rights threaten the rights of others' safety and pursuit of happiness (as guaranteed by the US Constitution), then such right cannot be exercised. It is manifest that America should prioritize the safety and pursuit of happiness (which pertain to ALL) over gun rights (which pertain to a select few who wants to possess firearms). Ergo, if the Negation can show that gun rights induce effects that infringe/hurt these two paramount, intrinsic rights, then it shall claim victory for the round. As well, I would like to point out the fact that the Constitution changes with time. Some "privileges" - slavery, etc. - are now considered archaic, anachronistic, and simply obsolete today. The Constitution is not an almighty document that defies the multifarious effects of time. It is then our rightful responsibility to modify the Constitution to best serve the needs of the current generation(s). 2. Self-Defense Argument: Before the judges decide to agree to this argument, we should weight the cost and benefits. How many lives are truly saved by self-defense via firearms, versus, How many lives are lost/threatened by gun rights?
(Phantom's 99th Percent) Intervention in Iran

Resolved: A U.S./Israeli coalition should utilize direct action against Iran's nuclear facilities. DefinitionsDirect action: Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover or damage designated targets. http://shadowspear.com......Rules1. No semantics or trolling2. Drops are concessions3. No new arguments in the last round*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 starts argumentation. .
Star Trek over Star Wars

I have a few more points to make! Gene Roddenberry"s original intent with Star Trek was to purposefully discuss issues and ideas that were cloaked in the allegory of futuristic space exploration. Though Roddenberry died in 1991, his tradition has been handed down through all of the series. Star Trek has discussed racism, homosexuality, death, AIDS, sentience, and more, and though it was sometimes heavy-handed or overdone, they often made for interesting discussions on the morality of characters" actions. If you"ve seen Star Wars, congrats. You"re a normal member of society. However, if you are into Star Trek, you are part of a special community of people who share a deep bond. The geekier, the better! Not everyone has the stomach for a wriggling plate of gagh (live Klingon serpent worms, yum), but if you do, you can hobnob with the best of the geeks. So live long and prosper, Trekkies. Let"s go re-watch The Wrath of Khan for the millionth and one time!
Star Trek over Star Wars

I don't believe having Carrie Fisher in chains enslaved by a creature is very "youthful". In Star Trek, has time travel been used to: Save whales Meet Mark Twain Rescue Earth from the Borg Spoiler alert: the answer is "d." If you don"t know what I"m talking about, go watch Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for the whales, The Next Generation episode "Time"s Arrow" for Mark Twain, and Star Trek: First Contact for the Borg. If you do know what I"m talking about, pop some popcorn and watch them anyway. You"re in for a treat either way. Worf. Data. B"Elanna. T"pol. Kes. Seven of Nine. Q. And most prominently, Spock. Star Trek explores the mentality and inner lives of aliens far more than Star Wars ever did. We can"t even understand what Chewbacca and R2D2 are saying in the Star Wars films, but Star Trek gives loads of time to its alien and half-alien characters to develop their characters. A prime example (haha, get it? Prime?) is the reboot Star Trek, in which we get some delicious insight into Spock"s backstory. Most of Star Wars" examples of non-human characters (excluding Yoda, may he rest in peace) speak in incomprehensible noises or are fat ugly crime lords.
Star Trek over Star Wars

Although Star Trek does have more material than Star Wars, Star Wars attracted more attention and more youth. Because Star Wars was made by Lucas Arts (later on owned by Disney), It was more oriented towards families and not being serious like Star Trek. Star Trek is Sci-Fi and it is action packed but it's not something that everyone would like to see. Star Wars was made in a way that even if you were not that big of a Sci-Fi fan, you would still enjoy the story and the characters. I have had many friends in the past say they preferred Star Wars because of it's characters and it's story line. Even though Star Trek had a quite peculiar Story line, it was not as unique as Star Wars. I found that the Star Trek Story line was predictable. Every episode followed the same guide line: They talk in the command room, they get a SOS/Call/etc., They Fight, done. Pretty predictable, don't you think? Thank you for your time.
Star Trek over Star Wars

What with Star Trek: The Original Series, The Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space 9, Enterprise, and soon-to-be-12 movies, the total run time of all canon Star Trek material is over 22 days. Star Wars has three movies"six, if you count the prequels. The total run time of all six movies is less than 14 hours. Though both franchises also boast a healthy extended universe in the form of novels, comics, and games, Star Trek handily beats Star Wars in screen time by more than 21 days. Let me rephrase that. Star Trek has over 37 times the material available for your viewing pleasure than Star Wars does. That is pretty much unbeatable. The Star Trek franchise has the wonderful ability to both summon tremendous nostalgia and still produce sexy new stuff. To compare with Star Wars, the original Star Trek series debuted in 1966, and A New Hope came eleven years later in 1977. The Revenge of the Sith came out in 2006 and has a respectable 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, but in 2009 Star Trek starring Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto was released, and that holds an impressive Rotten-Tomatoes 95%.
Secondary school students should be allowed laptops at school.

Secondary school students should be allowed laptops. It will benefit them in many ways; one of which is that it makes their high school lives so much more convenient. It is easier to be organised if you have a laptop with you; instead of hurriedly searching for missing notes or lost pages in a textbook or lined paper, you can simply save the file on your laptop, and never lose it again. Laptops are great for saving paper; a major issue in modern society, because as we all know, paper originates from trees. This property of laptops makes it easier and much more environmentally friendly to do things such as hand in a school assignment. Instead of taking the time to print out 20 pages of a science experiment report (this wastes a lot paper) and giving it to the teacher in person, students can simply send the assignment to the teacher electronically, who can read and mark it. Laptops can also be used in order to replace textbooks with a PDF file of that textbook, which can be stored on a laptop (this happens at my high school and at many others). This will greatly benefit the student, because the load they need to carry around becomes much lighter, which will benefit their back.
Secondary school students should be allowed laptops at school.

No problem pro^^ And thank you for the chance! This has been a good and nice debate.1. Accidents are accidents, and there are no guarantees that students wont broke their laptop,2. Again pro, I believe in my previous argument I have suggest they school should make rule about students have to buy books from recycled paper, and it is actually helping the environment as usually offices didn't bother to do this.3. You contradict yourself in this statement "You can always back up your data so if something happens to your laptop you won"t lose all of your data (and it does not cost a lot to do this, all you need is a USB or hard drive)." before you said that laptops can save a lot of data, etc. If the USB or hard drive can do this, then what is the use of letting students bring laptop to school? They can just bring their USB with their assignment and give it to the teacher.4. If you are using laptops and internets for sending assignment to your teacher or sharing notes with your friends, you will clearly use email a lot. And thus your chance for accidentally click random attachment has increased,5. Yes, but which one is harder ? Texting in the middle of class and have to be cautious around, because once the teacher saw you with your phone, the teacher immediately know you aren't paying attention, but if you're playing video games, the teacher can't immediately know. Thus it is ineffective.6. 'They do not need to use it' 'we can use pen and paper if we want' then what is the point of allowing students to bring laptops to school ? Isn't it just complicating things ? 7. So, you suggest that the teachers have double role :1. Teaching2. Watching everything the students do?isn't it making the teacher's teaching performance decrease ? Because they to pay attention to two things in the same time.8. The locker's purpose is to storing textbooks, and since you didn't rebuttal my point of they are actually pretty large, I believe you agree with my point. And if the students decides to store other things beside textbooks, it is their own fault. Just like how you are saying that damage to their laptops is their own faults. 9. "if a country or school cannot afford it, then that come"s first and the student can live without it, but it is preferable if the student does have a laptop." Thus pro have agree to my point on government is busy and cant provide schools with laptops. "Of course, if anything happens to the laptop, the student must pay for the damage. This method is actually quite cheap for the school."it is like pro is trying to forcing students to have laptops, yet when they accidentally damage it or something they have to pay it, isn't it a little bit unfair ? Since they cant even refuse the laptops as the school is forcing them to.Clearly, pro has failed to see the status quo and forcing his own opinion without any exact reason nor any urgencies about why secondary students should be allowed laptops.Thank you!
Mother Teresa was not so saint-like

I have tried to debate this several times but I have had difficulty as a result of opponents forfeiting rounds, so I am looking for a good and thorough debate. Anyway: It's an Interesting topic as you don't hear it that often. I will be for the notion that mother Teresa was in fact quite immoral and unjust in her actions and ideas and therefore doesn't deserve the title of "saint". Round one is an acceptance round only, followed by rounds of back and forth argument/rebuttal. Good luck and happy debating.
Mother Teresa was not so saint-like

My opponent has forfeited the final round of the debate. I would like to remind him that he, in his 1st round, had said that he wanted a thorough debate without any forfeiture. I regret to say that he has not kept his words. The forfeiture of this round means that he could not answer my questions. I repeatedly questioned him in the 2nd and in the 3rd round respectively but I did not receive any of the answers from the pro.Anyways, I would like to post some of the sayings of Mother Teresa :-"Keep the joy of loving the poor and share this joy with all you meet. Remember works of love are works of peace. God bless you." "I see God in every human being. When I wash the leper's wounds, I feel I am nursing the Lord himself. Is it not a beautiful experience?""God wants me to give myself completely...to God in the poor.”"The child is the beauty of the God present in the world - that greatest gift to the family"“Before you speak, it is necessary for you to listen, for God speaks in the silence of the heart.”“When a poor person dies of hunger, it has not happened because God did not take care of him or her. It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he or she needed.”“Let there be kindness in your face, in your eyes, in your smile, in the warmth of your greeting. Always have a cheerful smile. Don’t only give your care, but give your heart as well.”“Little things are indeed little, but to be faithful in little things is a great thing.”“Holiness is not the luxury of the few; it is a simple duty, for you and for me…”“Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the action that we do.”I would also like to post some of her photos :-- http://theinnerkingdom.files.wordpress.com...- http://www.majzooban.org...- http://poorpeopleorganisation.webs.com...- http://www.success.com...- http://www.asianews.it...#- http://michaelkaspar.org...You can also listen to her audio biography here (Just 2:30 min in length) : http://myhero.com...Mother Teresa's task was overwhelming. She started out as just one woman, trying to help the millions of the poor, starving and dying that lived on the streets of India. She was confident that God would help her in this task. Because of her self-less love for the people she was also recognised as the "Living Saint of Calcutta", "Angel of Mercy", "Saint of Gutter", "Saint on Earth".That's all from this debate. Had a great time with this debate. One of my longest debate till now. Lots of research work we both did. Some very good points poured from both the ends. But the winner would only be one which would be chosen by the viewers. VIEWERS OF THIS DEBATE, GET READY TO CAST YOUR VOTES. Hope the better debater wins. Thank You..!!