BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Idiot Republican vs. Democrat Debate

C1) Government Regulation of the EconomyRead any Dilbert strip, and you will know that large scale corporations are completely and utterly incompetent. If we leave the economy unregulated, it will all be in the hands of those clumsy large-scale enterprises. Do we really want that? NO! The only viable alternative is to let our government take care of things instead!Of course.... our government does have an unsettling resemblance to an extremely large corporation.... but that's only because of them filthy rich Republicans! Oust them, and the government will run as smoothly as peanut butter (without nuts).C2) Legalize AbortionA woman's body is a woman's body! She should be allowed to do what she wants with her body! It's just like how she is allowed to kill rapists who are trespassing on her body without permission... in the same way, she should also be allowed to kill babies who are trespassing on her body without permission! It's the perfect analogy. "Pro-life" people don't even have any ground to stand on anymore. C3) Legalize DrugsSmoking pot is really awes- oh wait, no that's not what I meant... What I meant to say is that the societal harms of drugs aren't enough to warrant their banning. And this one doctor from California wrote about pot's obscure medical benefits on his blog a while back... that's pretty close to empirical. *takes a puff* Marilize Legajuana! C4) Legalize Illegal ImmigrationRecently Mexico overtook our homeland as the fattest nation in the world. We will not stand for this blow to our national pride! We Democrats have come up with an ingenious way to regain that glorious position... By legalizing immigration, we allow all those pump li'l Mexicans to pour into the country, thereby increasing USA's obese population ratio substantially. Not only that, but the Mexicans will also work in our McDonalds and Taco Bells, helping fatten up our native population as well! It's foolproof. USA will retake its rightful title within months of the plan's implementation.C5) Legalize Gay MarriageWe shouldn't discriminate against gay people....Why? Because discrimination is a CRIME.And CRIME is for n!ggas.C6) Can we just go ahead and legalize everything?I mean, let's be consistent here, right? C7) Gun ControlWe can use perfectly clear and sound logic to see that if you don't support gun control, you are *directly* responsible for the shootings in Sandy Hooks and Aurora, along with every other mass murder incident that has happened in the past decade. It is evident that only the morally corrupt can possibly oppose gun control. C8) I gave more contentions than my opponentTherefore, I am smarter than him and you should trust my logic more than his. I expect a full concession from Pro next round. Down with the Republicans!
sum 41 is better than blink-182

I said they didn't win grammys, and sum 41's song fat lip was voted 3rd catchiest song of all time. their album all killer no filler went platinum in canada, usa and uk, so ha. and ther song blood in my eyes was nominated for a 2012 grammy, but lost to the foo fighters' white limo. Blink-182 has been around longer, but split up, during the time sum 41 had the most success, so they had to come back to
sum 41 is better than blink-182

1. I never herd of the Sum-41 and even no one at my high school here in Topeka, Kansas doesn't even know who they are. 2. Here are the Blink 182 albums: Stay toghether for the Kids, Blink 182, Neighborhood, and I personaly have the Ema of State, and I can go on and on but I won't bore you here is the rest are in this link http://www.metrolyrics.com... 3. You say Blink 182 doesn't win awards well I got news for you. Blockbuster Entertainment Awards 2000 Won Blockbuster Entertainment Award category Favorite Group - New Artist California Music Awards 2004 Won California Music Award category Outstanding Hard Rock Album for "Blink 182" Kerang! Awards 2004 Got nomination for Kerang! Award category Best Album for "Blink 182" 2004 Got nomination for Kerang! Award category Best Video for "I Miss You" 2004 Got nomination for Kerang! Award category Best Band On The Planet MTV Europe Music Awards 2001 Won MTV Europe Music Award category Best Rock Act 2000 Won MTV Europe Music Award category Best New Act MTV Video Music Awards 2002 Got nomination for MTV Video Music Award category Best Group Video for "First Date" 2000 Won MTV Video Music Award category Best Group Video for "All The Small Things" 2000 Got nomination for MTV Video Music Award category Video of the Year for "All The Small Things" 2000 Got nomination for MTV Video Music Award category Best Pop Video for "All The Small Things" Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards 2001 Won Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Award category Favorite Band San Diego Music Awards 2001 Won San Diego Music Award category Best Punk Album for "Take Off Your Pants and Jacket" 2001 Won San Diego Music Award category Group of the Year 2000 Won San Diego Music Award category Best Punk Album for "Enigma of the State" 2000 Won San Diego Music Award category Group of the Year 2000 Won San Diego Music Award category Best Punk 1999 Won San Diego Music Award category Group of the Year 1999 Won San Diego Music Award category Best Punk 1998 Won San Diego Music Award category Group of the Year 1997 Won San Diego Music Award category Best Alternative Album for "Dude Ranch" Teen Choice Awards 2004 Won Teen Choice Award category Choice Love Song for "I Miss You" 2004 Won Teen Choice Award category Choice Tour of the Year shared with No Doubt 2001 Won Teen Choice Award category Best Rock Group 2000 Won Teen Choice Award category Choice Rock Group TRL Awards 2004 Got nomination for Rock the Mic Award category Best Performance Your turn...
sum 41 is better than blink-182

I think that sum 41 is better than blink-182 for many reasons, there song fat lip is the 3rd catchiest song of all time, they have 5 studio albums, a greatest hits album, have international success. They are also popular in society, because Deryck Whibley married Avril Lavigne, their success has been different for their different albums, their first was there best while their newest has had no success but is still selling, blink-182 no longer has success. Thank you
To be announced.

Thanks for the debate. I took all 3 topics from IDEA (International Debate Education Association) http://www.idebate.org... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS 1. Children: To Have or Not To Have Should you never have children? 2. Abortion: Parental Consent Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions? 3. Catholic Church: Contraception Should the Roman Catholic Church change its current policy of forbidding the use of contraception?
To be announced.

Gonna take an idea from some other people and do this, because I'm bored and don't know what to debate about. As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example. Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on. In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
To be announced.

1. Habitat Destruction -- My opponent points out that human beings are out chopping down the Amazon Rainforest as we type/read. This is true; however, human beings are also out there planting flowers, smiling, feeding the homeless, having orgasms, giving birth, etc, all of which are good things. Plus, just because humans are cutting down the rainforest or other natural habitation does not solve or change the fact that habitats would be destroyed with or without humanity's contribution. 2. Diseases -- Yes, some diseases are a result of man-made errors. However a lot of CURES for diseases are also a result of man's contribution, including solutions or remedies for things that happen in nature and are not our fault. Further, again even without mankind, disease would still exist, so we must look at which weighs more: the good or the bad? Certainly people/animals without disease far outnumber those WITH disease, so all-in-all I'd say that our existence is pretty A-OK. Plus, before technology a lot of the world's man-made problems (regarding disease, habitat, etc.) did not exist. Thus we can simply choose to go back to a much simpler way of life... think Native Americans... instead of choosing to wipe out humanity entirely. 3. Primates -- Pro writes, "Now as for the issue of whether or not we evolved from primates, it makes no difference." Obviously it makes a difference if his plan is to re-evolve. He assumes that "we evolved from something, right?" but this is not necessarily the case; ask any theist where we came from, and surely they will not tell you that we have evolved from monkeys or a defective bacterium. Further, Pro assumes that we can "do it again" meaning evolve; however, he has no 100% proof that we have evolved in the first place. And even if he did, he cannot say for certain that we would evolve again like I pointed out in R4. Finally, Pro states, "We could re-evolve into a slightly (but still) different species, so we will not be considered humans. So we can have children." Okay well if Pro had proven that humans evolved in the first place, or proved that we would evolve into a "slightly different" species the next time around (haha where is he getting this logic?), then maybe this would be acceptable evidence for his claim. However Pro hasn't done any of these things, nor has he provided any facts detailing how or why we would even be ABLE to reproduce - assuming we were a different species - or if we'd have the know-how to reproduce, OR if we'd have the desire to reproduce. Also, by Pro's logic, if we were only a slightly different species, who's to say that the earth won't wind up even more messed up the next time around than it is today? If it's equally as bad or worse than how Pro claims it is, "we" should STILL never reproduce. Alright so thanks for this debate, gahbage, it's been fun :)
To be announced.

My opponent, once again, states more alternatives to the many problems that man has caused. I'll quickly address some of them and then to my contention. Habitat destruction may be natural in many cases, but there is also man-made destruction. As you read this, people are cutting down the Amazon Rainforest. Many diseases have been passed on by animals; however, some were from errors or carelessness. HIV/AIDS, for example, was released after a lab accident, and from there it grew rapidly. Now as for the issue of whether or not we evolved from primates, it makes no difference. We evolved from something, right? So we can do it again. Because of succession, the Earth will eventually return to normal, and history will repeat itself. Now to address this: "That means that even if we wipe ourselves out, heal the earth, come back in billions of years as a species with a clean slate, etc, we should still NOT (never) have children." We could re-evolve into a slightly (but still) different species, so we will not be considered humans. So we can have children. Remember, vote on the debate, not the issue.
To be announced.

Pro mentions: - Environmental Damage - Nuclear Weapons - War in Iraq - Disease - Species Extinction - Habitat Destruction as further problems plaguing the world today in addition to over-population. I agree, but let's take a different approach to these issues. First, environmental damage, and the extinction of various species + habitat destruction cannot solely be blamed on human beings. Global warming (enviornmental concern) is still a controversial subject which has yet to be proven 100% true. Habitats are destroyed every single day from other animals, or from natural disasters such as hurricanes, volcanoes or tornados - things in nature for which humans have no control. Different species have gone extinct since the beginning of time (Social Darwinism). Consider animals like the dinosaurs, wooley mammoths or sabertooth tigers, all of which were extinct before humans had anything to do with it. In terms of disease, all kinds of diseases exist in the world, some human related, and some not. The biggest plague to ever affect us - The Bubonic Plague - was spread to humans through animals (rats, fleas, etc.) therefore even without human contribution, there would still be plenty of disease on this earth. And finally in terms of nuclear weapons/war, according to my opponent's logic, I don't really see how their presence on Earth is a bad thing. If the right thing to do is eliminate all of humanity, then wouldn't the existence of nuclear weapons and war only facilitate that plan? Therefore these two things should not be considered 'bad' in this debate, because their effects only produce 'good' results (in terms of my opponent's argument). So to solidify his plan, Pro concludes his argument stating that primates may evolve into human beings once again, and "we will go extinct, then re-populate after the Earth repairs itself." Hmm... well first, there is again a lot of controversy over whether or not humans did in fact evolve from primates, so that's an assumption that if untrue would throw off the whole idea. Second, even if humans did evolve from primates, there is no way to know for sure that they would evolve again. And lastly, my opponent's suggestion of us re-populating once we may have evolved completely goes against the agreed upon resolution, which states we should NEVER have children. That means that even if we wipe ourselves out, heal the earth, come back in billions of years as a species with a clean slate, etc, we should still NOT (never) have children. Your move :)
To be announced.

My opponent lists off many alternatives to never having children to settle the problem of overpopulation. However, there are also many more things that are terribly wrong with the world. The environment is being destroyed, more and more countries are building nukes, heated war is raging in Iraq, and more. We have already messed up our own planet beyond repair, at least in a comprehendable time frame. Think of all the damage we have already done and is being done as I type: oil spills. The release and spread of diseases. Extinction of other species. Habitat destruction. If you live in an urban area, take a look outside and see what you can find. We have totally screwed up the natural order and messed with the environment. A solution to completely heal the world (eventually) is to never have children. Once everyone never has children, we will become extinct within 100 years. Then, gradually, Earth will start to repair itself. It may take millions of years, but it will happen. Also, eventually something else will happen: We may re-evolve again. That is, current primates may eventually evolve into humans, just like they have already done. So effectively, by never having children, we will go extinct, then re-populate after the Earth repairs itself. This si why we should never have children.
To be announced.

I wonder if I'm doomed to lose...XD Ok so I'll be PRO, meaning that you should never have children. I urge voters to vote based on who had the better argument, not if you agree with me or not. (I'm playing devil's advocate anyway.) One reason: Overpopulation. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see, the population of Earth has exceeded 6,671,226,000. That's 6.671226 billion. It also says that about 1/8 of the Earth is suitable to live on. That's 1/8 of 510,072,000 km^2, the Earth's surface area. Which makes 63,759,000 square kilometers. This converts into 38,255,400 square miles of inhabitable land. Now, if you were to divide that by the total population, you'd get 0.005734 miles, or 30.27552 SQUARE FEET, of land per person. To fit these evenly on the surface, nobody would have a yard, a porch, steps, etc.; only this space. And on the other side of your wall would be someone else's room. Now I don't know about you, but living in a 30 x 30 room for your entire life would suck some large...genitalia. You'd have to fit a bathroom/plumbing, a shower, kitchen appliances, a bed/bedspace/couch/whatever, and any other supplies you may7 need to survive. Only those on the outermost rooms would receive sunlight unless you had a window on your roof, or no roof at all. You almost would most likely not receive much outside oxygen. There would be little to no room for things such as stores and services, and you would have to walk through a terribly long maze of rooms to get there. I won't go into other obvious domestic problems because I am on a time crunch here and picked a bad time to debate. XD You may ask, "Why aren't we living like this now, then?" Well, it's really simple. While we have minuscule countries such as Andorra, San Marino and Vatican City, China has over 1 billion residents. We are not equally spaced/proportioned around the world, so we aren't using this obviously inhabitable system of living. And we all know the obvious problem: overpopulation. There are four ways to solve this problem. The first way is mass genocide, so you can just throw away that option now. The second, to live underground. I don't think that's gonna happen. The third is to live on the Moon, Mars, etc. However, we are probably decades, if not hundreds or even thousands, of years away from establishing a habitable environment on another planet, and designing a major transport shuttle. The final, quickest (aside from mass murdering) and most efficient way of solving this problem before it becomes unsolvable is to not have children. This will drastically decrease the population. Therefore, my resolution is this: If you are above the age of 10, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. If you are under 10, do not have children until you are 20. The end.
minimum wage should exist

I cannot even understand what my opponent is saying in the first paragraph. First of all, we obviously do not have infinite labor pools. That was pretty much all I could understand (my opponent's use of beans puzzles me) and I would appreciate it if my opponent could clarify this in Round 3. I disagree with my opponent that the price is worth the result. After all, if you're one of the two people who end up unemployed so the twenty could be paid decently, you wouldn't be singing the praises of the minimum wage. It's better for more people to make less than for less people to make more, because that way more people are provided for to a degree. I don't know why my opponent is claiming that instead of making 9 at McDonald's you'd make 4. You can still get raises/promotions to bring you up from an entry level position. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean people will just make less. My opponent has not responded to my claims about the minimum wage causing lasting damage by preventing people entering the job market which then hurts their ability to seek jobs in the future. I remind everyone that this entire segment is pretty much just conjecture, so my opponent cannot claim it is decisive proof of any sort. My opponent concedes some states don't need a minimum wage. If not having one works for them, we can have it work for the country. The minimum wage is known for hurting the poor through employment. If your skills cannot be marketed for minimum wage, you don't get a job. It's that simple. Without the minimum wage, people with less marketable skills could get jobs. Common sense shows the minimum wage harmful. My opponent's own sourc agrees that the minimum wage has minor negative effects. I am confused how my opponent can therefore advocate for it.I will now introduce the freedom argument against the minimum wage. As a nation of free people, it is not just to regulate the minimum amount of money we need to be paid. If we can't find a job for the minimum wage, we should be able to get a lesser job paying under the minimum wage, but we cannot. The minimum wage is against freedom. I do not believe my opponent has conclusively proved minimum wage good, in fact at best I think my opponent has shown minimum wage to be slightly bad. I remind everyone that my opponent is Pro and Instigator, and therefore should have the Burden of Proof. If minimum wage is slightly negative, it should not exist.
minimum wage should exist

we should allow it because on balance it's better for more people who benefit, than from any negative aspects of a minimum wage law. we know the minimum wage accomplishes its objective... because people are paid the wage. every time there's a minimum, that is what employers would pay. and, when the wage is set, it affects not jsut those at the minimum,but those closer to it, especially those who start out there and increase. we shouldn't worry about inflation too much. if the relative few who get minimum cause some inflation... it will only be partial inflation, not full true inflation. full true inflation is where you increase everyone's wages and everything cost wise goes up etc... a pointless endeavor. but here with teh wage, those few will cause only some overall inflation and their benefit will not be fully or significantly offset by costs etc elsewhere given those on the wage are relatively few. we shoudl require the wage, because on balance it helps more than it hurts, wage earner wise. sure, some people will not be hired bcause Joe A couldn't pay him two dolloars an hour, what he was maximum willing to pay. but, we should't cater to that relatively rarer exception... and could even make some common sense exceptions for certain circumstances. on whole, we have the mcdonaldization of america, millions make the wage who wouldn't, compared to a few who aren't hired because of the wage. consider if we have 5% unemployment... a lower wage if we're lucky might drop it a point or two, as the rest aren't employable at all.... but we'd have many many times that being paid less than what they should be, the minimum. on balance more benefit with the wage there's some who argue against the wage as a matter of inherent liberty... but i simply disagree. [side rant... also, the poor have a right to a certain stake of our resources... you can't deny a man from picking apples from a tree in the natural world... no one can claim a tree when they have millions of trees etc. perhaps we could find another way to provide for the poor, but as it exists now... this is the most direct and economical way... and asks from those who surely have, to share a portion, when they are trying to get even more resources etc. it's not like we're asking them to provide every gov benefit in the book. etc
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

Okay polka-dots323, so your argument is that, no one can be 100% sure. Well I'm more than 80% sure. And I think that's pretty good. When I said "Conservatives AND Liberals don't like him." I didn't mean all. I meant that McCain started acting more liberal than the regular Republican and he lost votes from conservatives without winning votes from liberals. Bush's approval rating has many people thinking that if you are a Republican, you are automatically evil. Hillary and Obama (mostly Obama) have received more than 10 times the attention from the media than what McCain is getting. He's doesn't represent change as much Hillary and Obama do and that's what people are voting for, change. McCain wants to stay in Iraq, no change. McCain is being called a traitor by Conservatives and a flip-flopper by Liberals because of his vote against the bill that would stop the C.I.A.'s harsh interrogations. I'm not saying he has no chance, I'm saying saying that it doesn't look like he'll be president.