BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

1. I didn't say he was losing money. I said that it is affecting any and all Windows users, and all because he can now look through windows! 2. Female cum is not good for you: Clearly, when females consume another female's cum, they gain more estrogen, which allows them to become straight, therefore defeating the purpose! 3. Coke is an energy drink because it is on crack! Look at it! It is full of coke! (Enjoy all them puns!) 4. Thus, they clearly are against homosexuals! Since clearly they do not kiss, and they never allowed it, they are clearly against it! 5. No, they will not. My opponent forgets that we live in America.Hollywood actors run everything, clearly, as demonstrated in this video: Hollywood does not have a person extremely popular enough that is gay in which everyone will try to be like them. Thus, everyone is extremely unhappy, due to point 1. Onto you, pro!
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

REBUTTALS1. Bill Gate's ApprovalNobody cares about the richest man in the world losing money...he already has WAY too much. -.-Besides, he likes losing his money, he has more space for other stuff. 2. Me being sexistFemale cum is not salty, yes. It is rather sweet and awesome, like lollipops! Mmmmmmm, mmmmmm! 3. CokeYou are wrong. Coke is actually an energy drink, while alcohol makes you fall asleep. VS As you can see the two drinks are COMPLETELY different. 4. MLP stuffAhh, but you are wrong! In fact, they try to kiss each other secretly by distracting you. A few examples: Rainbow distracting you with her awesomeness and her cool smile Twilight about to kiss Rainbow but unfortunately she got interrupted by Spike, who was extremely jealous of this scenery Fluttershy being extremely nervous about her first kiss5. Straight people being in miseryNah, straight people will actually try to become gay, so as to be happy!Besides, straight people follow the mid-way path, which is not awry at all, and because such, they are happy too. It's just that homos are more happy, and the allowance of same-gender marriage encourages straight people to drink the "gay potion" to become happy!In conclusion gay marriage should be allowed.Onto you, con!
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

We can see an overall increase in homosexual relationships. The marriage of homosexuals should not be allowed! Why? \1. Bill Gates does not approve! We can see through Windows 8 that there is a decline in quality. Why? He is too busy getting a perv fix. He can look through windows to watch pervy lesbians get it on, thus there is a decrease in how good Microsoft's products are. It is affecting people who are straight! Now that all homosexuals are affecting people, how is that beneficial to society? It is impacting our technological advancement! 2. My opponent is sexist. He clearly has not given any thought to the lesbians, in which he gives semen nutrition facts. What about female cum? It is not salty as Pro proclaims. 3. Coke is on crack. You see all those coke bottles before you, but as you can see, they are all on crack! Coke has been rumoured for many years now to have coke in it. But, as the picture above proves, it is on crack! How can you trust such evidence if it is high? You can't! 4. MLP is totally straight. People claim MLP is gay, but Rainbow Dash flies in a straight line. Thus, MLP is straight! 5. Straight People are in misery! Homosexuals around the country are making people unhappy, and, as far as we know, homosexuals are the minority! Do we want to make the majority of the country unhappy because people wanna get married?Back to you, Pro!
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

1. Gay people are happySince homosexuality is a synonym for gay, and gay means happy (as defined by dictionary.com) therefor gay people must be happy. Hey, we like happy people in our society! Angry people will rebel and destroy the government! How terrible! We must get more gay people, and allow homosexual marriage so as to encourage all to be gay.2. Wonderful conversationsOne great example of a homosexual pair can be found on this site: bsh1 and YYW. Together, they have inspired a great debate here: http://www.debate.org... many many fanfics. Since there are so much, I cannot post all of them here. I will just post one as an example: http://www.debate.org... is actually one of the more approprate ones. In addition, they have damaged lots of threads, and flirted with each other. Allowing homosexual marriage would increase their bond and lead to ultimate love, and everyone on DDO would be happy again!!3. Epic friendships See that picture above? Yeah, that's the MLP characters now. But what if homosexual marriage was allowed? They would obviously pair up with each other, strengthening their friendship bond and loving each other more. If it doesn't work out, well, they always learn lessons! That's what the show's about. Making marriage allowed for the same sex vastly stretches the show unto boundaries never seen before, obtaining more fans, love, and support. This support gives money that the company would love to have.4. Coca Cola does a roll-up You see those lonely bottles, wishing that homosexual marriage would be allowed? Yeah, the guys in the above arguments wish so too. Allowing homosexual marriage increases the chances of having ***, and because such, they will cum, and the salty taste of cum tastes amazing with the great sweetness of the coke. In fact, cum has protein in it that helps people! Notice how there are NO calories from fat whatsoever, so it can't do any harm! In conclusion I have proved homosexual marriage a benefit.Onto you, con!
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

I have not looked at the wonderful conversations for a couple reasons: a) I am not going to be one to judge b) This is a thirty minute debate. Time is of the essence! Semen is unhealthy, because it is consumed and increases testosterone, which makes the gay guy straight. Does the audience see how inefficient this system is? 1. You have not made a rebuttal against Bill Gates other than he is losing money, which is completely irrelevant to the topic. 2. I have proved this point in the argument above, however, I have not had enough time to properly find a source for such information. 3. You see, my opponent is now converting to a semantic tactic. You see, he claims that I meant the slang definition, even though my argument clearly states specifically which definition I mean in my argument above, which is a literal, Coca- Cola is on crack (cocaine).4. I am not sure what first, second, and third thing he is referencing.. 5. The fact that it was a parody was purely coincidental. It contains an example, however, of the effect celebrities have on children, which is drastic. Miley Cyrus used to be a Disney Star prior to what you would call her now. It guaranteed to have an effect on children. I have debunked almost all of Pro's arguments. He claimed I left two points in the air. He has left three of mine (Points 1, 3, and 5) Vote Con! Well done, Pro!
Abortion should be legal in most cases.

Killing in self-defense is justified because it reduces suffering for the inflicted. The death penalty has been justified because it reduces the emotional pain felt by relatives. Should babies who are likely to live a life of pain and suffering be aborted? Personally, If I were told that someone I cared about would live a life of suffering (maybe torture) for the rest of their life, Killing them would be the most moral thing to do. I will accept that a fetus is a life.
Abortion should be legal in most cases.

Good rebuttal actually. But, Is abortion in self defense? Is the death penalty in self defense? Abortion is not in self defense. And in my opinion, People who kill people should be killed, But babies who have not killed people should not. Anyway, I'd assume that outside of those cases you don't think that killing people is a right thing to do, Which would support the point that you do not think a fetus is a life. Would you agree?
Abortion should be legal in most cases.

If the baby is going to live a life of pain and suffering, Put it up for adoption. I don't know what kind of circumstances that baby would be in with you. I think that killing people is wrong. I think that a fetus is a person. Also, In a vast majority of abortion cases, The woman isn't doing it for the baby's good. They're doing it for their own good. Which is wrong. Basing whether or not you kill someone on whether or not they're convenient for you is the basis of evil. You haven't really addressed the argument, Rather avoided it. Do you think a fetus is a human life? If so, I say don't kill it. If not, Do whatever you want with it, But then the question is raised, What constitutes something being alive? I think that anytime you draw a line other than the conception of the child, You draw a false line that could also be drawn for an adult.
FNAF is a terrible over hyped game

Pro has brought up some good points, and it very well could be used to explain why fnaf is a terrible game, but, pro has failed to bring forth a single shred of evidence in regards to the game being over hyped. With this alone i could declare victory as i do not have a case to argue against. But in the spirit of a true and fair debate, i shall continue on with my case. The ultimate question to be asked (At least in terms of our debate, I'm sure there are more important or more serious questions to ask), Are you Ready for Freddy? When i first saw the game, i as well thought it was a joke, until the jump scares set in. It wasn't the run of the mill type, it left you guessing and afraid. The game is scary, because it isn't. This game draws upon an imaginative horror and successfully manages to force the players mind to come up with scenarios. So at face value, this game is not scary at all. But, as we dive deeper into the games, deeper into the rich story line and lore that this is filled with. We start to fill in the blanks and start to realize the true form of untapped horror that this game possesses. Sources: Game Theory (YouTube) Markiplier (YouTube)
FNAF is a terrible over hyped game

1. The storyline is good that's all 2. Being accessible to play doesn't mean its good, there are many mobile apps based off a video game, and they are terrible 3. Suspense? Its the same thing over and over, you get jump scared, then killed if you are lucky. I an predict what will happen next The game is not scary at all, during the first time playing, you're going to get scared for sure, once used to it, the game play is garbage ,http://cdn2.scratch.mit.edu... The above link is Bonnie attacking. Im pretty sure thats scary (sarcasm) The game is the most boring game I've ever came across, you lose power just to close a door and the game cheats you, a animatron can be a few cameras away from you and when you put down your monitor, your done. The idea of scary was a terrible idea really A bear with a top hat A bunny A chicken And a fox Are suppose to be scary? The game doesn't even show you how to survive the night, when I first played, I didn't know how to lure em, how to make em go away, just simple and garbage
FNAF is a terrible over hyped game

Now, in order for me win this debate, i must prove that fnaf is merely an ok game, whereas Pro must explain why the game is both terrible and over hyped. Allow me to list off a few things that makes the series amazing 1. The game has an innovative story line that keeps everyone guessing and it manages to successfully create doubt at every turn. It is still debated whether the second game is a sequel or a prequel 2. It is accessible to almost anyone who wants to play, but it takes skill and patience to learn, therefore allowing the game to reach out to a diverse fan base with relative ease. 3. The suspense of the game play creates tension and does a very good job of drawing the player in. 4. While yes the fan base may worship Chica, but if we were to look at almost an game, there would be a fan base that we saw as questionable. To conclude, while i see that not everyone loves the game, i do not see how those same people are unable to admit the merits of the franchise, but i guess to each his or her own. I eagerly await you rebuttal.
FNAF is a terrible over hyped game

Lets make this quick and simple FNAF is a game where you survive 5 nights, a very odd first person strategy game. Awfully boring game mechanics. The game isn't interesting its only popular for its story. 1. You can't move, you have to actually use monitors and cameras 2. Unrealistic 3. Garbage gameplay, the only thing you can actually do is use a moniter and your camera 3. Boring - Terribly boring, game, you cant walk around and see where they are coming from, yet you stand in a place, which doesn't make any sense especially when they attack. 4. Not scary- After the 4 jump scares it isn't scary especially when spring trap gets to you, its just unexpected. It fails to show manual on how to play, I actually had to ask others what each key was for. Along with its silly fanbase that worships Chica like she is a god. I have yet to see how this game is well made, just overrated garbage
Schools should drop underachieving students

" A school test is a test that is in accordance to the standard of that schools educational system. Therefore, a test that does not adhere to those guidelines is invalid as it is not testing what was intended. Therefore, the student could not be consider an underachiever by this school system which gives it no reason to drop the student." ->My opponent's definition of an underachiever is anyone who gets below a 70%. He did not elaborate any further concerning that definition. Therefore, he is unable to further elaborate on what he originally meant. "I stated that dropping the student was the best course of action for the other students. Nowhere do I mention everyone since that would be a clear generalization" ->Well, I stated earlier that my opponent's logic is dropping out a student and abandoning that child is best for everyone. Well in fact, rather than being closed minded about a child getting 70% or below, there are other courses of action the school may take. It is a human right to be educated despite the fact that the human is an underachiever or not. " This study is about the current high school dropouts which involve many students who voluntarily dropout of high school" ->And a forced dropout is expected to decrease criminal activities? The school should seek other ways to educate the child rather than dropping it out and seeing increased criminal activities due to lack of education. "child grows up since poorer neighborhood are correlated with abusive family homes." ->Pro had made this argument for me. It is unjustified to drop a student without looking at all the factors, and coming straight to the argument to drop out the student. I believe I had stated that earlier. "Theoretically, the GDP might even increase since the remain students (the majority of the student at the school) would be more prepared for the workforce and thus more efficient." ->Pro provides no evidence on how decreasing underachievers may lead to more focused children. Punishment on classroom distracters may, however I fail to see how dropping a student who brings no harm to others may increase a child's productivity. "It is possible but unlikely since humans are creatures of habit and have strong tendency to conserve their energy" Again, there are many possible factors. A habit of getting bad grades is not the only one. Thanks for your reply pro. Good luck http://www.unesco.org...
Schools should drop underachieving students

"In order for the school to drop a student they must be sure that he is an underachiever therefore they could not drop any student that was under a bad teacher since there would be doubt as to whether or not he truly was an underachiever." This was not stated previously by my opponent, and it was presented by his argument that it is justified to drop the student for the sole reason for getting 70% or lower. It appears as if my opponent agrees that if the teacher is not doing her job correctly, the student does not deserve to be dropped. Thus, proving my opponent wrong. Regarding my opponent's argument, my opponent's logic is that if the child gets below 70%, it is best for everyone if we drop the child. However, this is absurd, for it could lead to higher homeless rates for the lack of education. Let me pull out some statistics. 1. The U.S., which had some of the highest graduation rates of any developed country, now ranks 22nd out of 27 developed countries. 2. A high school dropout will earn $200,000 less than a high school graduate over his lifetime. And almost a million dollars less than a college graduate. 3. In the U.S., high school dropouts commit about 75% of crimes. Now, with forced dropouts, it is greatly expected to see a decline in jobs (thus theoretically causing a decline in the entire GDP), and increased criminal activities. This is certainly not beneficial for the child, as well as the society as a whole. It is very possible that the child can progress later on. The emotions of the child can change, and he/she becomes an achiever in his/her later years. Apparently, my opponent believes it is logical to drop out the student despite the fact that people can change. Students should only drop out, when they feel it is best for them. Lets not leave it to the school to assume what is best for the students, personally. https://www.dosomething.org...
Schools should drop underachieving students

This is wrong in both a federal and moral standpoint. There are multiple cases that could take place, that causes the child to get below 70% on said class. 1. The child aims for a 70%, but fails to do so 2. The child does not aim for a 70% 3. The child has household issues 4. The child has legal issues 5. Peer pressure causes the child to fail All I have to do is, successfully show that only ONE of these scenarios is justified for the child to get below 70%, and I have proven my opponent wrong. 1. If the child aims for a 70%, it means that the child is trying. However, due to lack of studying, the child may fail. This is certainly NOT justified cause to simply abandon the child. The blame can indeed be put on the teacher for not teaching well enough. If the teacher does her job successfully (e. g provides a standard learning environment and performs his/her job, and follows accordingly to the state standards and education system) and the child fails, then the child may be put in extra support. Or, forced to go to summer school and is forced to do something extra, to achieve failed class. My opponent is implying that despite the extra classes the school may offer, to increase the child"s education, those extra times and offers are worthless solely upon the fact that the child got below a 70%. This lacks logic, basic morals as well as federal support. 2. If the child fails all subjects and gets below a 70% in all of them, it means the the school is not providing enough activities to reach the child"s interest. Furthermore, it means that the fault is towards the school for providing a poor education system. 3. This should be quite obvious, and it is the easiest point to prove my opponent wrong. If the child has household issues (abusive/criminal parents, parents who do not care about their child"s education etc") then the fault is not within the child nor the school. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child if he/she is not at fault 4. If the child has legal issues, then there ought to be extra support. Support from a federal standpoint, to provide an education fit for the child, as well as the school. . The child may be an achieving student before the issue, and dropped after. There has to be support outside school (due to said legal issue the child has performed to lower grades) to bring the child up from an educational standpoint. To bring up the child legally is irrelevant. 5. If peer pressure causes the child to fail, then the child is not at fault. It is his/her surrounding peers that caused his/her to fail, thus the child is not at fault. Therefore, there is no reason to drop the child I will preform rebuttals and expand my argument in the following rounds. Good luck Pro
Schools should drop underachieving students

1. Underachiever will be defined are those who score under 70 on a test (this includes those who are failing). 2. Schools, in this debate, are the public school since private schools are already selective. 3, We are not debating whether or not the school system is optimal. The public school system objective is to produce a large amount of productive complacent workers that can function in the real world. This is shown through its design. Its hierarchical structure teaches the students to deal with bosses while the act of doing homework trains them to do tedious repetitive work. Currently, schools attempts to achieve there goal by teaching every students at the same pace. This results in a curriculum that is based on the needs of the underachiever since the teacher are force to slow down pace of the class. Because of this the average and advance students scholastic achievements are held back. This conflicts with the schools purpose since it slowdown the production of workers in to order to caters to students who do not fit with the goal of the school system since these underachievers will struggle during their time at university and in the workforce. Those who are underachiever because there are not intelligent enough will struggle to be productive in white collar jobs. While those who are too intelligent will be bored by their repetitive job and therefore will not apply themselves making them also unproductive workers. The school lesson plans are not design to do develop the minds of the student. In fact, schools teach students through lectures which is the least affective way to learn as it carries only a 5% retention rate. At the same time, the students are instructed to take notes even though studies shown that human being cannot multitasking. Therefore, those who seek intellectual stimulation will not receive it from school.
Debate.Org's Age Criteria Isn't Right

Thanks to my opponent for their rebuttal for round 3. I will rebuttal back on round 4 and finish this off.My opponent states that my BoP has fallen off for not showing any proof of people who set minimum or maximum age requirements are afraid of teenagers or old people. And I might have proof or a bluff. And if this is not sufficient proof, I will provide additional proof.My main proof/bluff is: You set minimum or maximum age requirements on your own debate (and additional Elo rankings).Con has made a debate, linked here: http://www.debate.org...Previously, and I wish I had a screenshot for this, I could not accept this debate (not that I ACTUALLY wanted to [as it looked like I said in the comments] because of requirements. Con, please be honest, straight with me: Was AGE part of the restriction before you had lowered it? And if so, you yourself might've just admitted to why, and tell me again if I'm wrong: Your reason is stated in your argument in Round 2: "They want to debate rationally, not emotionally. The age criteria allows for older people to debate with there peers."And that is the reason why you did this. And if this is not the case, you still basically admitted my proof for argument 1 on round 2. Therefore, I will not go farther on this.My opponent argued that there are more options to improve your skills. I can't refute this. My argument has been refuted.In conclusion,My first argument still remains standing on its last leg, while my second argument has been refuted. My third argument on Round 3 "Adults are getting less mature over the generation; And they can unwillingly or willingly be the same mental state as their childhood" remains unchallenged.I'm excited to see what my opponent says. However, I feel like my arguments are about to be defeated, so this might be a lost for me. But, that's the voters' decision.Thank you.