BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NO SMOKING IN PUBLIC

Yay for Uncle Sam vs Uncle Sam, ok, on with the debate. I can't remember which Supreme Court judge defined personal freedom this way but I have always liked it. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the point where you contact another persons nose." This is basically the generally held belief that you can do what you want if you are not hurting others. So the question becomes, what is hurting others. In my opinion, since links have been made between second hand smoking and cancer, my smoking in my favorite bar or store or wherever, is harming you. Sure you could leave, but what gives me the right to force you out. It is that public good that has led many cities and some states to pass laws banning smoking in public and I am all for it. Which does suck since I would like to be able to smoke a cigar at my local bar sometimes, but whatever, I can live with it.
Worst way to be killed

You can still wiggle and squirm if you are bound down. As for the being fed part there still isnt gurantee that you actually die at all. Mine actually causes death. FF points by the Pro 1) In my version the victim is subjected to listening to Justin Bieber music all the time 2) In my version you can only drink piss and sludge which wont be lethal but is more horrible than milk and honey 3) In my version you actually are guranteed to die by choking on concrete or a turd 4) Music is actually recognized as a form of torture by the US 5) In mine you wont die of starvation in 4 days since humans can go up to a month without food TBH this debate sucked, why did we need 4 rounds???
Worst way to be killed

Wait so we dont get to make up more horrible ways to die and we have to critique the others arguments? Well this sucks alot now..... My version of death is far more cruel because the Pro's entire thing can be avoided just by squirming and wriggling around. Bugs cant lay eggs in your skin if they cant even get stable footing and bugs will flash in an instant once you make a movement. Other than that you get free milk, free honey, and a nice tan. My version of death is more cruel because humans can go up to a month without eating for up to a month, thus they wont die from starvation after 4 days like the Pro falsely claims. http://www.scientificamerican.com... Also there is access to drinking water. Its just in he form of urine. Urine is sterile though so drinking nothing but piss wouldnt be lethal but it would be psychologically terrifying knowing that your drinking someone else's piss. Any fecal matter or sludge in that urine also wont kill you, it will give you vicious vomiting or diarrhea, but it wont kill you. Also my way of death involves Justin Bieber music, which has been outlawed by the US CIA as a form of torture for being too extreme. http://nsarchive.wordpress.com... My way of dying also comes about only in three ways, being encased in concrete, swallowing concrete, or choking on sh*t. Your technique doesnt even guarantee death.
Worst way to be killed

You have been kidnapped and drugged. You wake up tied to a chair in front of a boombox in a basement. You are also enclosed in a glass box that is open only at the top The boombox only has one song, Justin Bieber's "Baby" and it plays it over and over...... Each time the song ends, a random number generator picks a number between 0 and 100. If the number chosen is odd then 1 pound of liquid concrete is poured into the glass box you are in. If the number chosen is even then 1 pound of sewage is poured into the glass box you are in. The cycle continues until the person dies from being enclosed in concrete or chokes on sewage, which could last weeks. And all you can eat is the sewage that is floating nearby and all you can drink is the liquid piss and melted sh*t ============================================================================
Worst way to be killed

you are strapped to a hallowed out boat, naked. After a while you realize you are floating in a stagnate pond. A man walks up begin force feeding you Milk and honey. After you belly is full(and I mean full , if you know what I mean...) he takes left over honey and spreads it over your body emphasis on eyes and your manhood and then leaves. It doesn't take long for bugs to eat the honey while they eat and sting you. Some would burrow in you skin. repeating this cycle the man comes back for round two. You are alerted that you are bathing in feces from that milk and honey. He again feeds you refills the honey on your body then leaves for good. The burrowed bugs left eggs. those egg hatch and the offspring go deeper to your body slowly feeding on you. You die in a few days. Is it bad I felt normal while typing this?ï¿½
Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer.

With that out of the way, I accept my opponent's definition of better and will advocate "The Angry Video Game Nerd is PERHAPS better than the Irate Gamer. " As my opponent declares absolute certainty, this still conflicts with the resolution my opponent has created and fulfills my burden of refutation. Consequently, my opponent must prove with conclusive evidence that "The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer" in order to fulfill his burden of proof. My opponent's first and third arguments state "Irate is not better because he simply copies the AVGN. " and "AVGN fits his character better" respectively. From the description of the two given by my opponent, they have the same character- a stereotypical geek/nerd who reviews games. As the definition of copy is "to make a copy or duplicate of" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and they both have the same character, it is impossible for one to copy the other and one to fit their character better if they both have the same character. Until my opponent shows which is right and which is not, both of these must be ignored. My opponent's second point states that AVGN is funnier and urges you to watch both and compare. However, it is not your job but my opponent's job to show which is funnier with conclusive evidence. Until, my opponent does this, he fails on his burden of proof for this point and thus this point must be ignored. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer.

I believe AVGN is better than the Irate Gamer. I define 'better' as- 'of superior quality. ' I will seek to explain why AVGN is better than Irate by looking at a few areas of analysis. 1. Irate is not better because he simply copies the AVGN. The Irate Gamer joined Youtube 8 months after AVGN, and built his channel and videos exactly like the AVGN. They review several of the same games, each one of which AVGN reviewed first. Irate even goes as far as to copy exact dialogue from AVGN in 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' and 'Back to the Future. ' 2. Angry Video Game Nerd is much more funny than Irate. His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy. Not really much to explain here, if you just watch both reviewers, you can clearly see that AVGN is much more funny than Irate. 3. AVGN fits his character better. Rants should be about BAD games, but Irate reviews good games like Contra and Tetris. A lot of Irate's jokes seem somewhat forced, while AVGN sounds like he's just talking to you about this game. He also gets a lot angrier. He wears a white shirt, glasses, and a pocket protecter. So, he's Angrier, Reviews Video Games, and is a nerd.
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

1. The jury is forced to do this because of the government. 2. Plea bargaining - some people plea bargain and are then found innocent 3. Sometimes there is no good evidence, but a trial still happens Sometimes there is false evidence or evidence planted by others Sometimes there is more recent evidence found after the conviction 4. It is wrong to unjustly waste someones years away and then not compensate them for their pain and suffering 5. After getting out of jail finding a job and getting money is difficult. These people need the money to restart their lives, the ones that the government ruined. 6. System is as fair as possible but that has nothing to do with this debate, they make mistakes. A person DESERVES just compensation because years of their life have been filled with pain and suffering in our jail systems. Even a year inside of a jail cell can give you psycological and physical ailments for the rest of your life.
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

The Government was not in the jury box that decided that the person was guilty. The Justice System was as fair as possible during the conviction period. You make it seem as though the government set out to purposely wrongfully convict people. The government does the fair moral thing in letting a jury decide the innocents or guilt. They also do the fair and moral thing in letting the defendant remain innocent until PROVEN guilty. They also have the fair and legal responsibility to allow legal council. The Government is already doing their fair and moral part. Prosecutors only provide current evidence. Judges decide based on JURY Prosecutors decide which cases we try based on EVIDENCE. These investigation systems do more to help society than to intentionally hurt. The Government does not plant evidence or just decide based on nothing. They decide based on evidence. In that sense there can also be no common good until, descendants of slaves get their promised governmental reparations. There lives were ruined much longer. Lets be realistic and form a line of people who deserve the money, I'm sure the wrongfully convicted would be at the back. Something like this would only further hurt our current legal system. Not only would it take money away, preventing improvements. But it would further delay the conviction of truly guilty people, costing even more money. Money should not be spent on the past it should be spent on the future. Maybe then there could be less flaws.
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

1. They shouldn't have been in the prisons in the first place, therefore the government must compensate them for their wasted. 2. Yeah, life is not fair, but we should try to make our justice system as fair as possible. JUSTICE: fair treatment, that is morally right. (Webster's Dictionary) 3. Government Involvement- - Employs prosecutors - Employs judges - the Public isn't deciding which cases we try, the prosecutors are (prosecutors are part of the government) - the government runs our Justice system - the government runs our crime investigations systems eg. the FBI, CIA, and Police forces -the government is by all means the reason these people were wrongly convicted, they should pay 4. There is no common good when an innocent person can spend twenty five years in jail, working without payment and wasting away, and then be let out of jail and go back to a ruined life
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

The idea of the government giving remuneration to people, who were sent to jail and then proves innocent, is horrible. -Well unfortunately life is not fair, nor is anyone perfect. Families, of right or wrong convictions, will always suffer. However it is not the Government who determines the innocence or guilt of a person. We have spread that power to our peers. If a person was convicted, they were convicted because of nongovernmental persons who decided they were guilty. So should we expect a jury to pay up if they are wrong? Should we expect the lawyer of the defendant to pay up for not adequately defending their innocent client? Should we expect crime scene investigators to pay up for not doing the most thorough job or for being able to point blame in an area? Should we expect the prisons to pay for not giving the wrongfully convicted prisoner a hotel quality stay? There are way too many people who can be blamed. Should we punish them all? No, that would be ridiculous. -I am however curious as to what mistakes a government would have the power to make, in falsely convicting someone. When a person is convicted of a crime, they are sent to jail to protect society from them. We must think of the common good.
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

1. Family- - Its is unfair to the family because they love the person who was wrongly convicted - The person who was wrongly convicted can't make money so it put burden on the family - Convicts whose families are impoverished could starve or get sick 2. Unfair to Convict - The convict has to endure months to years of punishment because of the governments mistakes - That is unfair and because the gov't cannot turn back the clocks, they should make the person's life (which they ruined) better.
The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

1. The jury is not forced to find someone guilty. 2. The government has nothing to do with a plea bargain. That is left up to the lawyers. (once again pointing blame at too many people) 3. Why should the government pay for a verdict of a jury? If there was no good evidence a decision can be appealed. If the jury finds a shred of doubt due to insufficient evidence, it is their responsibility not the government to find the person innocent. If evidence is planted then the planter should pay. (once again pointing blame at too many people) 4. It is not unjustly if they were found guilty by a jury of their peers. 5. I could see the government clearing the person's record if they were found innocent in the end. That would make it easier to find a job. That would restart their lives, the ones that the circumstances ruined. 6. The Fairness has everything to do with the debate when you use a definition (Justice) that is satisfied by the fair and moral actions of the government. You give a lot of information on why they should be given reimbursements, but show no evidence to support that the Government be the one to reimburse them. The only thing you do is point the blame of mistakes to the government when they did not convict the person, the jury did. Why should we punish the government for doing their jobs of protecting the common good? Especially when (and you show support for this argument) they do everything possible to be fair and just in the process of a persons conviction. Until you show a duty of care by the government of persons after they are released there should be no remunerations. I would like to close with the same statement that went unanswered last round. Money should not be spent on the past it should be spent on the future. Maybe then there could be less flaws.
abortion is immoral

Your long-awaited addition to this debate disappointed me. Honestly, I thought you could give me some actual contradictions (*sigh*). I suppose I'll get on with addressing the few new points you have. "I understand your explination, and understand your stream of thought." I hardly can oppose this. However, when one is partaking in a debate, one generally argues against the other's points and shows how they are wrong, and doesn't just acknowledge them. However, it seems like you have nothing to say about any of my arguments so far, so I'll wait for replies for them and move on to opposing your other points. "Abortion is the reason that there are not enough women in China." Well, that is not strictly true. I will admit that because of laws there, a couple is only allowed to have one child to avoid overpopulation. Most families consider it "better" to have a son as their single child, because a son will look after them when they are old and because families of farmers need strong people to work for them. As you said, some parents abort when they find out that their baby will be a girl so that they can have another chance to make that single child a boy. However, if a couple really wanted a boy and there was no abortion, what would they do? Kill their baby when it was born, when it is already a "sentient being"? And, like I mentioned before, isn't it better to abort an unwanted baby than to make it live a miserable life? "Also, if a person, even a fetus or an embryo, has a name, than it (they) would probably be considered to important to be killed." This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Pets have names. Cars have names. Books have names. Some people name stuffed animals. Flowers have names. Does this mean that all these are too important to die? Or that because a book or a car has a name, it is too important to throw out or give away? Also, as I have already proven, a fetus or an embryo has never been "alive", so it cannot be "killed". It never functioned enough to ever be considered alive. As for my previous arguments, they all still stand, so I will not restate them here. Hopefully in the next round you can address them. I await your reply.
abortion is immoral

I understand your explination, and understand your stream of thought. However, it would be better if there was no abortion. Abortion is the reason that there are not enough women in China. People there abort if they are going to have a girl. Abortion also affects many different countries in the same way. Also, if a person, even a fetus or an embryo, has a name, than it (they) would probably be considered to important to be killed.
abortion is immoral

I am sick of this tired old debate, and hope that this is the last time I will have to partake in it. So, you, like many other faceless millions, are saying that abortion is "cheating a person out of life" and that is why it is wrong. Am I correct? Unfortunately for you, this argument has several holes in it. Firstly, you stated that abortion is cheating a person out of life. Now, let's look up "person": an independent, sentient human being (Oxford Colour English Dictionary) Now, a fetus (at the stage where abortion is still legal) meets neither of these categories. It cannot survive on its own, and simply lives off its mother's nutrients, so it is not independent, thereby not a person. Also, a fetus is not sentient and cannot feel what is going on around it. As neither of these categories apply to a fetus, one could safely venture that killing a fetus is not killing a person as a fetus is indeed not a person. Next: "I find that it is like murder". Murder is when one living person kills another living person. As I have just proven how a fetus is not a person, abortion cannot be murder. "It should probably be against the law because otherwise, it is as if the police are allowing murder." Well, if murder is one person killing another person, and a fetus or an embryo is not a person, then the police are not allowing murder. Also, to be "killed", one must have been "alive". alive: possessing life, alert or aware (Oxford Pocket School Dictionary) A fetus (when you are still able to abort it) is not alert or aware. It cannot react to its surroundings. It cannot even feed itself or breathe, it can only leach oxygen and nutrients out of its mother's bloodstream, making it more of a parasite than a person, and not "alive" on its own like a person, which must be "an independent being"( independent: not connected with another, separate(Colour Oxford English Dictionary)) If an embryo or a fetus has never been alive, how can it be killed? Next I will make some new points. If a mother is incapable of or doesn't want to have a baby and look after it, who is to say that she has to? She is about to make a huge commitment that will affect the rest of her life if she doesn't abort. If she is in a bad position to look after a baby, or doesn't want to have one and treats it badly when it's born, isn't it more merciful to abort the baby so it doesn't have a miserable childhood? And unless there is something wrong with their baby, no capable, excited future parents will abort. It isn't as if just because women can abort, the majority of them will. Also, at the point where many mothers use abortion pills to abort, a few days after conception, there is only a 25% chance that the baby will even attach itself to the uterus, and even after that a 33% chance of miscarriage (if the mother is below 40 or so). Is this cruel, when less than a quarter of these embryos will survive anyway? I will await your reply.
McCain will be a better presidant than Obama

First, I'll go through my case and then hit his. My Case: McCain has the know-how: All my opponent says is that McCain can flip-flop. In R3 he concedes the flip-flop argument, and that leaves him with no argument against this point. Already we see that McCain has an advantage. McCain has connections: My opponent points out that McCain is close to lobbyists, and I argue in R2 that this does not mean he is in their pocket. As the quote he mentioned from McCain's website says, he does not like listening to lobbying. As I said earlier, if you spend 24 years being lobbied, you get to know them as people. I don't see how this affects his presidency. My opponent only provides speculation against this point. I win this point, showing that McCain is well connected, while Obama is not. McCain can handle the stress better: Alright, first my opponent brings up PTSD, which he claims that John McCain suffers. The evidence he brings up is from a blog, which never explicitly states that McCain has PTSD, or evidence that it is affecting him. Also, using obscene language is not always an indicator of stress. All this shows is that McCain feels passionately about these issues, when others don't respect these issues, he gets a little angry. Deval Patrick is an indicator of an Obama presidency: All my opponent says against this is that McCain is like Bush. If I show that McCain is not a Bush, I win this point then. SO here's what I got. Torture: McCain is against torture, Bush is for it Iraq: Bush severely underestimated many factors, McCain disagreed with Bush's strategy from the start. Fiscal Measures: Bush is for deficit spending, McCain is not. Iraq and fiscal policy especially have been major catastrophes of the Bush era. McCain had a better plan on both issues, it is clear that he will be different. My Opponent's case: He says that McCain only supports big business, and that Obama is a man of the people. Okay, we have to look at this objectively. McCain has shown that he is not in corporate America's pocket. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was opposed by big business, but McCain held fast to his belief. Also, McCain wants to help everybody, not just the little guy. He supports all around tax cuts, the abolition of the AMT, as well as measures to reduce gas prices. He, unlike Obama also recognizes that we must help business as well so that there are jobs for the people to have. Creating jobs will be the most effective way to eliminate poverty.