BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama and Hillary; Icarus and Daedalus

For one I have never truly heard Obama ever say anything about race or ethnicity. Obama has actually done something for the United states of America, more than many people could ever do. He provided care for those who needed it most. He did his best which is more than some presidents have done. If he was so into race or ethnicity why did people vote for him as president? Trump how ever clearly does care for ethnicity, of all the people who have came here illegally, he choose to get rid the Mexican's. He trying to keep them out. What about all of the American Serial Killers and Psychopaths that go to Mexico to hide out? What about the Canadians that come here? You do not see Other countries complaining about Illegal Americans, do you? Why only choose to pick on the Mexicans. He is building a wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. He is making them pay for a wall that he is choosing to create not them but him. Trump may claim not to be racist but he clearly is. To see Strive to make another Ethnicity look bad is just making him look ten times worse. He also says that there is no such thing as a Mexican-American then what am I I am half Mexican and I was born in America. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Obama and Hillary; Icarus and Daedalus

Icarus and Daedalus In this thesis I have written how the Obama administration terrorized the United States psychologically, and how Hillary Clinton, and support, are corrupted by Barrack Obama's legacy. The Forgotten White Children Barack Obama wants to, and has used race against Americans, but he has hidden his agenda behind stern expressions. The political power of Barrack Obama has caused a silent revolution; not only in the United States, but worldwide. This revolution, henceforth referred to as Obama's revolution, is against the white race, and continues to progress. Barrack Obama has expressed to the world that non-white races deserve apologies for racist crimes of the past; to suppress racist crimes of the present and sanctify the future for non-whites. In this process, the Obama administration has neglected the past, present and future of the white race. The white race, under Barrack Obama, have low racial cohesion, and primarily white nations are plagued by anti-white, whites. Anti-whites are an enmity between whites. and prevent racial re-cohesion. Evil anti-whites, are apologetic to non-whites, but ignorant of whites. An anti-white will support non-white races, but then claim that whites are non-existent, or insignificant. The main problem is that this atrocity has been committed in primarily white nations. The nature of anti-whites, and their actions, has had a harsh effect on the cultures and wisdom of all primarily white nations. Metaphorically, a piece of the puzzle is missing, but the puzzle is regarded as complete. Here is a list of adverse effects of anti-whites in society: accepted misbehaviour; pseudo-intellectual socially accepted 'intellectuals'; immature media coverage of politics; neglect of police and armed forces; weakened or corrupted alliances; and more. This is a result of anti-whites because anti-whites stemmed from a primarily white nation under non-white leadership, the United States. Hillary Clinton; Obama's Legacy Hillary Clinton, in the current presidential election, is a pundit for Obama's policies. Hillary is unaware that she has been manipulated by the Obama administration, and through her, the Obama administration will prosper. Hillary Clinton bares all the traits of an anti-white, as described earlier, and her support in this election are non-whites and anti-whites. Hillary Clinton is also corrupt, and with Obama's help, she has seduced powerful people to create a subversive political deadlock. The Dreamer's Nightmare Members of congress were overcome by negativity that spurred from Obama's revolution. Congressional decisions are often stupidity. Members of congress will use abstract terms, such as "evil", but have no real understanding of the abstract. Members of congress are unwise of the adverse effects of anti-whites in society, but are effected themselves; their decisions will ultimately be negative for the white race and positive for non-whites. Conclusion Vote Trump.
Dook Sucks

In 2003 Coach Roy Williams cursed and flipped out in an interview. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) Heck, if you check out this video, he himself slams UNC. http://www.youtube.com... UNC is so bad that a Belmont fan distracted a shooter by singing Miley Cyrus. (http://ftw.usatoday.com...)
Dook Sucks

Also they made this 208 page book all about why Dook sucks. Here the link to Amazon for you can purchase it!http://www.amazon.com......My opponent brings up Duke sucks because there's a book about it, but there is an actual website called Carolina Sucks. ( http://www.carolinasucks.com...) Here's along list of great Duke players that have turned pro. (http://raleighdurham.about.com...) Also you can see today that Kyrie Irving is beter than Tyler Hansbrough (http://larrybrownsports.com...) Dook Rape case (in 2006 three guys in the lacrosse team have been found Guilty of rape at a party in Durham, NC)My response is the UNC Scandle. ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...)
Dook Sucks

First off all I am referring to the Duke Blue Devils, Us Carolina fans just spell it "Dook" Here are my reasons: Dook Rape case (in 2006 three guys in the lacrosse team have been found Guilty of rape at a party in Durham, NC) How much Body paint do you possibly need? http://www.ridethepine.com... Coach K is a winier and likes to call out fouls to win the games You are hated so bad by NCS, ECU, Wake, UNC, Maryland, and Syracuse Dook Lacrosse never one a championship (because nobody likes rape) http://www.fannation.com... Also they made this 208 page book all about why Dook sucks. Here the link to Amazon for you can purchase it! http://www.amazon.com... If Dook didn't suck Tyler Hansbrough will not of had this broken nose. That day made UNC hate Dook much more as they already did. http://i.usatoday.net...
Dook Sucks

Dook as define by dictionary.com is a plug. Plugs prevent things from being sucked down the drain so you can easily see that Dooks don't suck. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) If my opponent is refurring to the Duke Blue Devils he is also incorrect considering that Duke is ranked higher than them in both collage polls in basketball at number 4 while UNC is at 14. (http://espn.go.com...)
GPS is making us lose our sense of direction and adventure

Ok the Pro is arguing that when your print out GPS maps you are using your sense of direction, but when you are taking step by step orders you suddenly are not using your sense of direction. First off, for you to lose something it must be something that can be lost in the first place. Sense of direction is not something you can lose permanently though and it is not making all of us lose our sense of direction since all of us can use GPS and still retain our ability to tell that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West..... Secondly, just because people have or use GPS, it doesnt mean they are actually listening to the GPS all the time.... If lets say you wanna know how to drive fom your house to a far away stadium for a football game, then you might not know the highways and all that but you would definitely know the surrounding roadways within your neighborhood, which means the GPS may tell you to get on a street here but you ignore it and go on a shorter neighborhood route to get to a road where the GPS then directs you. Point is, you dont have to listen to the GPS and you can still use your own sense of direction. Lastly, GPS can be used to help people find their sense of direction. If you have ever been lost somewhere and whipped out a GPS real quick to get you to where you want to go, then by definition you have found your sense of direction and where to go. So we have 1) Sense of direction cannot be lost since it is a learned skill, 2) One is not enslaved to the GPS since one can still use their own sense of direction to navigate, and 3) GPS can often help people find their sense of direction.
GPS is making us lose our sense of direction and adventure

Ok first let me say good luck in this argument now let me first say that if you use map quest or Google maps and print it out then yes you are using your sense of direction because you have to find your way and not have a computer telling you where to go. But if you are using your phone or a car g.p.s and its telling you where to go then it is like getting the answers to a test. You get it all correct but you didn't do anything. here is a link that also states what I have said http://www.facebook.com... so that is why we lose our sense of direction. For adventure as a human or species we always like to explore like when Christopher Columbus when he discovered America so if we know where every thing is we will lose the fun of adventure in the real world. That is my turn good luck.
Batman Renders Your Argument Useless

My friend my friend, there are surely no logical fallacies at all. I’m sure you all already know the reason. I don’t think you quite understand my argument. You see, Batman booping Bane on the head like that is the win of all wins, the victory of all victories for he completely and utterly degraded Bane to nothingness with that boop. Batman is saying, “Hey Bane Ima boop you. Yep, I just booped you.” and Bane is all like, “WTF just happened.” Much win. Very victory. Now my opponent triest to rebut Batman’s legendary victory with how Bane “broke” Batman’s back. My opponent said it himself though, Bane is literally chiropractor! In fact, Bane and Batman have been friends for a long time! Look at those cuties taking a selfie together. Really its just a friendly rivalry between them but really their great friends at heart. You see, Bane was actually helping Batman with some back problems he’d been having lately. Batman being such a badas$ and being so strong and powerful actually required Bane to use as much strength as he could just to do something to his back. Sadly Bane being the silly goose he was accidently missed and furthered Batman’s back injuries.So to summarize: Lastly my opponent brings up Joker and how Batman decided not to kill him. Batman abides by his set of moral standards, and a man who can stick by his moral standards like a stone is a pretty badas$ man. Anyways, Batman is so strong that he doesn’t even need to kill any of his enemies. He’s so powerful that his enemies won’t come be able to take him down anyways so if they ever get back on the street and start trolling the public again batman will be ready to kick their as$ again. I mean who the hell would mess with that? There really was no imperative need that I rebuttal my opponents arguments because really in the end: Thank you for this debate. It has been my pleasure.
Batman Renders Your Argument Useless

At first glance i had no idea how to respond to our argument. I could no find a single logical problem within it. You being Pro, have quite successfully provided a sufficient quantity of material to support your assertion. I decided to check to ensure you had made no logical fallacies. I feel as though you may have committed the slippery slope fallacy when you kept pulling batman back into this argument, and kept sliding with it assuming that i would be cool to roll with it. I don think there are another fallacies committed.Here is a link that will well describe my next point, but will likely fail at articulating.www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQSo what I am trying to say is, while all batman does is: Laughing at the smallest victories, while bane goes all chiropractor on batman: Lets not forget batman is a big panzy. He had the chance to kill joker, but instead he decided to play with the lives of hundreds of inocent people.
Batman Renders Your Argument Useless

Batman is batman. And because batman is batman the answer to everything is batman, even if batman is a seemingly incoherent statement. Thus is one of the secret laws of the internet: the use of the answer “batman” or “because I’m batman” may be used to dismiss any statement, argument, question, ect. while still successfully responding/answering it thus making anything and everything my opponent says to be ultimately useless. Batman holding a bomb also makes your argument useless, why? Because Batman with a bomb. I don’t always dismiss arguments, but when I do, its because I’m friggin Batman. Why am I right? Contentions “i will break your back like Bane” No you won’t, because I’m Batman. “I will also break your mind, soul, and upper cervical spinal bones” No you won’t, because I’m Batman. “to ensure you will not stop with my plans.” I will stop your plans. Because I’m Batman.
Abortion

"We are not having a debate about cells or trees. The definition is not supposed to apply to those things as we are talking about human abortion. I am not saying that a cell is not alive until it is born, I am saying that a human fetus is not alive until it is born. " You're saying that there is no general definition of "alive"? I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me. If we divided all things into categories we could divide our ontological categories into "non-living" and "living" things. Biologists study the whole latter category. Humans, including fetuses, are simply a sub-category of living things. We don't mean completely and entirely different things by "alive" when we say that a cell is alive or a human is alive. Indeed, the whole reason we can put them under the same category of organisms is the fact that they share the attribute of "alive" in common. ". .. one cannot be alive until the organs are fully formed. " Do *all* of the organs have to be fully formed? What about pre-pubescent children? Some of their organs are not fully formed and functioning. Are they not alive? "And the fetus is relying on it's mother to breathe until it is born so you can follow my line of reasoning from there. " To be honest, I *can't* follow your line of reasoning from there. You're saying that whatever is dependent on something external to itself is not alive? People who are in comas often depend on external support so that their organs will work. You still don't show me what you're trying to get at. As for how I understand a thing to be alive, I understand it in the following way. An entity is alive just in case it exhibits intrinsic teleological/goal-oriented functional behavior. For example, fetuses take in nourishment so that they can grow and develop. But my case by no means depends on this. We can take almost any other plausible understanding of being "alive" and fetuses would still count. Conclusion: Your whole argument rests upon an incredible assumption, namely, that fetuses are non-living things.
Abortion

"I'm worried about what we fundamentally understand alive things to be. If I'm understanding correctly you understand the class of "alive" things to be co-extensive with the class of "born" things. But there are so many counter-examples to this. Cells which reproduce by splitting from other cells don't fit into the class of "born" things. Yet they are certainly alive. Trees aren't "born" and yet they are certainly alive. " We are not having a debate about cells or trees. The definition is not supposed to apply to those things as we are talking about human abortion. I am not saying that a cell is not alive until it is born, I am saying that a human fetus is not alive until it is born. As to the fetus relying on the mother for breathing, I meant to post this link: . http://www.biology-online.org... It says that to be alive isbeing in a state in which the organs perform their functions. Not to say that an alcoholic who's liver shuts down is not alive but that one cannot be alive until the organs are fully formed. And the fetus is relying on it's mother to breathe until it is born so you can follow my line of reasoning from there. "I'm assuming that you mean because the fetus is dependent upon its mother that it doesn't have any rights. " This is not my point. My point is that a human is not alive until it is born, therefore a termination of a pregnancy is not murder or killing in that you cannot kill something that is not yet alive. To voters, my opponent never gave a definition of what it means to be alive and could not properly refute my line of reasoning.
Abortion

I am glad we accept the same definition of person. I will first argue that your understanding of being alive is wholly inadequate. A couple of points are in order then. First off, your link is to a definition of the word "born" not the word "alive". However, this is a quibble because I'm not worried about nominal definitions. I'm worried about what we fundamentally understand alive things to be. If I'm understanding correctly you understand the class of "alive" things to be co-extensive with the class of "born" things. But there are so many counter-examples to this. Cells which reproduce by splitting from other cells don't fit into the class of "born" things. Yet they are certainly alive. Trees aren't "born" and yet they are certainly alive. And besides, it seems utterly implausible to suppose that a fetus is a non-living hunk of matter. It exhibits the functions and characteristics of other living things. I'm not sure what the dependence of the fetus on the mother's womb is supposed to show. It's an interesting fact, but I don't understand what you're trying to infer from it. In charity, I'm assuming that you mean because the fetus is dependent upon its mother that it doesn't have any rights. But how does that follow? A born baby is dependent upon its mother for food, nourishment, and upbringing as well. Hopefully you can explain in more detail the point you're getting at.
Abortion

I accept your definitions of person but would like to extend your definition of murder to "df intentional killing of a LIVING innocent human being." I will argue that one is not yet living until they are born. Alive: brought forth by birth. http://dictionary.reference.com... In the womb a fetus or embryo is not yet functioning on it's own. It is still relying on the mother to breathe and to receive nourishment. Birth is the miracle of life. It is when a fetus turns into a baby.
New characters for Smash Bros

I guess it'spossible to misinterpret a debate like this, although round 1 said a few times, although not directly, that you'd have to choose a character.Defense: "As far as I know, they are not pressing new disks of this game or selling then new in retail stores which means that no profit made from sales of this game would go to Nintendo. The company has nothing to gain from people buying copies of Okami." You can probably buy Okami (or its DS sequel, Okamiden) online.Plus, maybe we could get an Okami game for the Wii U? I can at least hope.Rebuttal:True, people did want Splatoon as DLC for Smash Bros Wii U. I concede that it's a reasonable choice... but what would her attacks be, and Final Smash? Looking back at Round 1, Rule #4 says you need to create a moveset.
New characters for Smash Bros

When someone does pick up that Smash Bros game, and wonder who this white wolf is, they'll look towards a fantastic video game, and possibly purchase it.As far as I know, they are not pressing new disks of this game or selling then new in retail stores which means that no profit made from sales of this game would go to Nintendo. The company has nothing to gain from people buying copies of Okami.Anyways, my choice is the Inkling Girl from Splatoon.Splatoon is one of the highest selling Wii U games and has a lot of franchise potential. It also has strong fan following among Nintendo consumers.I honestly don't have much investment in the Super Smash Bros. series and there aren't any characters that I like that I could realistically see appearing in the game. As I mentioned in the comments, I misunderstood what this debate was supposed to be. I thought this was an argument for and against Amaterasu.
New characters for Smash Bros

Okay, I'll bite. Okami is not expected to expand as a franchise. Likewise, Nintendo has very little stake in the IP as it is a cross-platform title published by a third-party. Nintendo will not be promoting its promising IPs (why they included so many Fire Emblem characters), continuing third-party series (Solid Snake, Sonic the Hedgehog) nor would they be drawing attention to an established Nintendo franchise. Thus, there is little practical reason to include Amaterasu in future games.
New characters for Smash Bros

This is a debate for new characters to put in the Super Smash Bros franchise.Rules:1) There is a forfeit glitch, so try not to forfeit.2) No characters that originated from the Internet (No memes, YouTube, or whatever)3) No characters that originated from a brand (KFC, HEB, Burger King, etc.)4) Your character must have 4 special moves (Up B, Side B, Neutral B, and Down B), and a Final Smash.5) You must also list a reason for your character. And saying "he/she's cute/sexy/cool, etc" is insufficient.6) Characters that have already been in Smash Bros are not allowed, since they've already been there.My character is Amaterasu from CapCom's Okami. You are free to post your argument Round 1.
Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

Let's start to sumarize; I would rather have people take mental stabillity tests rather than be on the news and than be recognized as an mentally unstable person. But I also belive that there shouldn't be as many pets out there as there is now like I don't approve that people breed dogs so much that theres a rediculous surplus of dogs that they have to put some of them down. Because that is truely animal cruelty. In response to a statement you made that "adopting a pet should be like adopting a child". I do not agree with that because there is so much that goes into it for example you have to attend training to have a child, you have to have your home inspected, ect. .. . So to have to go through all that extent to adopt a pet would be ridiculous. Thanks for debating me.
Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

To answer your question: Jail time and a mental evaluation for starters. And of course the longevity of that jail time will be based upon the severity of the abuse. To close off my argument,Animal abusers should not only be incarcerated but be required to take a mental evaluation. Why? Because severe abuse of an animal can point to sociopath tendencies in an individual that could be acted out upon humans if not stopped early on. Deeper into the question, I feel that certain people of suspicious background and reasoning should be granted a license before owning a pet (like adopting a child). Of course that would have to be a government-issued requirement but still; the incarceration of animal abusers is a good place to start. For the good of the poor animal that is recipient to this abuse and also to other humans whom the individual could possibly harm. Thank you for participating in this debate with me. I look forward to possible future debates with you. :)