BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Random Debate

Let's look at my opponent's points. //"When we consider this as which is more accurate account of one's life we must assume that one is able to provide a unitary account of their life, this discounts infants and toddlers (who probably have no need for an account of their life regardless) and those with psychological problems since they are incapable of providing a unitary account it is narrative by default"// I will agree with my opponent that one must be able to provide a unitary account before we can consider if it is accurate. So I will discount infants from my argument. Toddler who are old enough to speak, paranoid schizophrenics(As opposed to disorganized or catatonic schizophrenics) and people with lesser forms of mental retardations(such as Down syndrome) however are able to provide at least a rudimentary account of their life. A toddler can tell you what she did today or a paranoid schizophrenic can tell you about their delusions of a reptilian secret order of controllers. So, toddlers(probably between the ages of 5 and 7), paranoid schizophrenics(with no other forms of schizophrenia) and people with lesser forms of mental retardations(Down syndrome) are able to provide an account of their life. We will look at my opponent's other points. //"Also even if a schizophrenic decided to provide an account of his/her life then they would be able to better describe their delusions than the casual observer could"// If my opponent and I were debating on who could provide a better account of one's inner thoughts then my opponent would have a point. However when arguing about an account of one's life we are debating on the objective reality of a person's life. Ex. Who can better describe the first day of pre-school of a toddler? The teacher or the toddler? We are not however debating who can describe one's innermost thoughts but objective events in a person's life. //"As far as knowledge of influences, I will make the assumption that anyone worth having an account of their life made is mature enough to be cognizant of their influences. "// My opponent assumes wrong here. We did not agree on who was having an account of their life made, we have however agreed on what kind of person could create a unitary account of their life. Based on who has the mental capacity to create a unitary account of their life we can conclude that toddlers are able to provide a unitary account of their life. It seems that my opponent agrees that toddlers are mostly unaware of their influences and that is why he has resorted to such an odd argument. So it follows that toddlers can make a unitary account of their life and are for the most part unaware of their influences. I await my opponent's response to this. I await my opponent's response.
Random Debate

Well,When we consider this as which is more accurate account of one's life we must assume that one is able to provide a unitary account of their life, this discounts infants and toddlers (who probably have no need for an account of their life regardless) and those with psychological problems since they are incapable of providing a unitary account it is narrative by default, this is not a judgement of which is better merely of which is available. This debate however is over which one is better.Also even if a schizophrenic decided to provide an account of his/her life then they would be able to better describe their delusions than the casual observer could, since the casual observer only knows that the schizophrenic is shouting something about these reptilians invading the world.As far as knowledge of influences, I will make the assumption that anyone worth having an account of their life made is mature enough to be cognizant of their influences. Sure, children are unaware of what influences them, but most adults should be able to recognize why they made a certain decision making them more accurate than the observer.
Random Debate

My opponent has defined the terms of the debate as: Narrative account: An account of a person's life made by a casual observer. Unitary account: An account of a person's life made by one's own self. Preferable: One theory being a better (i. e. more accurate) explanation. He has brought a few points to defend his position and I will list them and refute them below. "they know more about it" My opponent believes that just because someone is who they are they will automatically know more about themselves then anyone else. I will however list a few examples below that disprove this theory. Examples of people who do not necessarily know more about their own life simply because it is their life. -Infants -Toddlers -People who are mentally challenged -People who are schizophrenic -Others who exhibit psychotic symptoms Who knows more about the life of an infant? It's mother or itself? Infant's minds are not anywhere near all the way developed. Their memories are still forming which makes it so that they forget many things instantaneously. Or take the example of a paranoid schizophrenic who's entire view of life is misconstrued and might believe that a secret order of reptilians are controlling the world and are going to silence him for his knowledge of this. Obviously no such reptilians exist and only a crazy person would believe so but this schizophrenic cannot help it. A casual observer who is free of mental diseases and is clear of mind would clearly know more about the poor schizophrenics life and know that there are no such reptilians. Now let's move on to my opponent's last point. "they know what influenced them and what made them make certain decisions" It is not impossible to know what influenced a person to make a decision or think a certain way. In some instances a casual observer would be the only one to know what influenced another person. Take for instance a child who plays all sorts of violent and gruesome video games and watches scary movies. This child then begins to exhibit violent tendencies at school and with his classmates. Does this child understand that he is acting out because he saw the same behavior in a video game? No. The child is not yet of a level of maturity to understand what influenced him. A casual observer though with a clear mind could easily make the connection. To voters, vote for me because I have shown that in many instances, a casual observer would be able to see the connection between violent games and violent behavior or the fact that reptoids plotting to take over the world is completely ridiculous.
Random Debate

I don't know much on this topic and since I'm a student in high school with AP exams next week I just don't have much time to do much research on it.I will begin by laying out that this debate will be on, in the terms of a comment posted by my opponent, someone describing their own life verses someone else describing it.I am going to argue that it is better for someone to describe their own life. Seeing as they are speaking of their own life they are better because: It was their life, this is better because they know more about it, and also they know what influenced them and what made them make certain decisions. A narrative account would have to male their own decisions and assumptions based upn what they know of the person which poses a significant chance of being incorrect.
Random Debate

So that I do not have one more round than my opponent I will let him make the opening arguments while I further research my position. The resolution shall be: Resolved: a narrative account of the self is preferable to a unitary account. My opponent will take the Pro position and defend a narrative account as preferable to a unitary account. I as Con will defend a narrative account over a unitary account. I will allow my opponent to define the terms as I am too tired to do so right now. Seeing as the first round was wasted, I will ask my opponent to challenge me to either a one or two round debate titled with the resolution with a part two after it so that we may finish this debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Scream at the sky day or what ever its called is useless

Regarding the definition of democracy, from Merriam Webster online dictionary: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections [1] Definition 1b applies to the United States, since in the United States "supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them [...] indirectly through a system of representation." As far as "not bringing good attention," it's worth noting that this objection could be made to most protests. People don't generally view the protesters per se positively. The point is to get people talking about the problems with Trump's administration. 33,000 people are interested in the event on Facebook [2], so there must be some people who view this activity positively. Pro is clearly not a liberal (he writes "liberal holidays seem useless"), so he wouldn't view nearly anything that liberals did positively, but people sympathetic to the goals of the protesters won't view their actions as merely stupid like he does. They will realize that scream at the sky day is intended somewhat humorously. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://www.inquisitr.com...
capitol letters are superior to miny letters

There seem to be two main arguments. 1. Readability First, my opponent has already conceded in round 2, "Your arguments are accepted,but consider beyond the readability of the capitals..." she hasn't contested the 'readability' of capital letters. This seems the most important part of a letter, since its only purpose is to be read. Second, she tries to argue that "capitals [are] clearer because they are bigger" She uses the example of all CAPs on signs. I'll ask PRO (or anyone else interested) to do a simple experiment. Type a capital letter on MS Word. Now, type a lower-case letter beneath it. Highlight the lower-case letter and increase the font gradually. You will find that the lower-case letter soon becomes as large as the capital letter and, voila! Problem solved. There is no written rule that lower-case letters must be smaller than a capital letter would in their place. In fact, you will find that street signs can quite easily substitute lower-case letters with no lost clarity: http://storage1.colony1.net... The next issue is popularity in general usage. My argument was that we use lower case letters far more often because they are more appealing and easy to read. PRO doesn't ever respond to this directly, but does make a similar argument that: "if we do something quite regularly,it loses it's significance." However, if we only do something irregularly, we rarely benefit from it. Would you only drive to work or school on special occasions, and walk on all other days instead? No. We recognize driving's superiority to walking, so we drive regularly. It might make driving less 'significant' (whatever that means) but that is not what we are debating at all. We choose the superior option all the time in our daily routines, from transportation, to occupation, to clothing, even to letter-cases. We use lower-case letters because they are superior, clearer, and easier to read, thus the resolution is negated.
capitol letters are superior to miny letters

I find capitals clearer because they are bigger, dominant and easy to recognise, warning signs etc are all usually writen in capitals because of this. I would write eveerything in capitols only my keyboard only has about 26 keys (including numbers) and i have to copy and paste lower case s's,it would take too long. Also the way you have swapped the capitol and the lower case in your example is grammatically incorrect. Also if it were the case that it was the otherway around, then the lower case would then be the superior because it takes on the roles of what we know is a capitol letter. Also, another example on the usage of small case to capitol. Using the lower case more does not make them more significant because if we do something quite regularly,it loses it's significance. For e. g. If we celebrated our birthday everyday the importance of the birthday would reduce because the celebration is higher.
capitol letters are superior to miny letters

Well, my opponent has made a convincing argument that capital letters increase the clarity of a sentence by differentiating between the beginning and the end of a sentence or between common and proper nouns. However, the resolution is that "capit[a]l letters are superior to min[i] letters." However, if that were the case, I ask you: wHY AREN'T SENTENCES WRITTEN LIKE THIS, pro? wE CAN STILL DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE BEGINNINGS OF SENTENCES AND PROPER NOUNS (SUCH AS tIGER wOODS OR mOUNT rUSHMORE.) The answer is because it is less appealing. Capital letters are inferior, so we only use them when necessary, whereas we use lower-case letters all the time because they are quite easy on the eyes. On a final note, PRO also mentioned, "beyond the readability of the capitals, I personally find them clearer" What could you mean by 'clearer' besides their readability?
capitol letters are superior to miny letters

Your arguments are accepted,but consider beyond the readability of the capitals, I personally find them clearer. Capital letters are as shown in the following link, not necessarily and aspect of punctuation, but being significant at the beginning of sentences they show the contrast in the beginning and the end of a statement. Also used for names of people and places giving them a role to define when a name is just a word or a name. Furthermore note that the page of rules regarding capital letters, is extensive showing the complex usage of a capital letter. In contrast the smaller case of letters, indeed form the body of the sentences,but only fill in the gaps between one capital and another.The correct usuage of the capital letters determines the differece of understanding in intelligence. In an English exam, incorrect usage or failure to use appropriate capital letters results in lower test results. Also capital letters give a lot more emotion in prose, they show exclamation, anger and surprise without any other means of punctuation. Thus the capital letters are the superior to small case letters. They are the bomb. resources: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk...
capitol letters are superior to miny letters

CAPITAL LETTERS ARE INCREDIBLY ANNOYING AND HARD TO READ. THERE IS A REASON WE HAVE TWO CASES OF LETTERS. TRYING TO READ A DEBATE (OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER) IS VERY HARD ON THE EYES AND QUICKLY GETS TEDIOUS. COMPARE THIS TO THE PARAGRAPH BELOW. IT IS FAR MORE STRENUOUS TO READ. capital letters are incredibly annoying and hard to read. there is a reason we have two cases of letters. trying to read a debate (or anything else for that matter) is very hard on the eyes and quickly gets tedious. compare this to the paragraph above. it is far less strenuous to read. This is why capital letters are used far less than lower-case letters in modern English. Look at this average news article: http://www.theonion.com... There are 2,203 characters, 45 of which were Capitalized.
All video games should be banned

However, it can't be denied that there exists video games that people can benefit from. For children, specifically, it can just be math, reading, or academic based games that will assist them in school. I'm sure that they would much rather complete a math problem in a video game, where it is embellished, rather than a math book, where it's just "bleh". I'm totally on board with placing limitations on the violent video games you have in mind, but I don't agree with removing ALL video games.
All video games should be banned

Hello, I am Korean and you know, I am very young, 13 years old. I did many debating but I am still don't know English well. I will start with video games. I strongly think that all video games should be banned because there are many games that are violent so children or even adults would not realize the real and the game world. Also, video games can harm people's health and children can easily be addicted. Also, I think there are many fun activities to do except video games.
Death penalty

As this is the final round of this debate, Let me start by saying that I have really enjoyed your posts, And they are thought provoking. I do still hold to my opinion that I should not be asking the government to do that which I myself am unwilling to do, At least when it comes to another's life. Another issue that I do have with the death penalty is there is a gray line between what crimes are horrendous enough to qualify for the death penalty, And which deserves life in prison. There must at some point be a line of where someone is just bad enough for the death penalty, Or one is just barely good enough to qualify for life. Where exactly is that line, And does it vary by what state it is tried in, Or just by random jury selection? As with any punishment, There is a gray area, But when it comes to someone's life, That gray line is the difference between life and death.
Death penalty

As is the case in all representative democracies, We pass the responsibility to the person/people we elect as a society to take our decisions for us. Should the representatives then not be ready to take the decisions no one else is willing to take as it is still their job to represent their voters? Should you be more interested in that topic, I would like to recommend a short film by The Truth Podcast on this matter: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=jseknkdNfA0. In this case, As I mentioned before, I believe it should not even come down to a personal decision on whether or not to take a life. As I mentioned, I believe the laws concerning the death penalty, Should it come back into place in, For example, America, Should be extremely specific on what can be considered 'worthy' of the death penalty. Is it, In your opinion, Better to leave them to rot in a prison cell for the rest of their life, A cell that is being provided by THE VERY SOCIETY THEY ENDANGER(ED), Simply because no one is willing to take that decision? If the laws are passed, It is not even a choice, But even a duty for those representatives to execute them and to protect their society from those would try to harm it.
Death penalty

As a society we delegate the responsibilities of law enforcement to those who enact (legislative), Enforce (executive), And interpret (judicial) the laws. We may delegate these responsibilities to others, But it is us, Through choosing our leaders, That are "pulling the trigger" on the executions. They "represent" us as our delegates. If we are personally unable to pull the switch, How can we delegate this horrid responsibility to others? Are you willing to pull the switch? If so, You may have an argument, But as most of us would answer no, It would be unethical to ask that others be burdened with such a job.
Death penalty

The death penalty should be put back in place in Western society because it is a way to get rid of the extremely small percentage of people that are a public danger for members of society to be killed in a quicker and cheaper way. I only ask this. Is a perpetual prison sentence not simply a more expensive and frankly more cruel way of killing these criminals? Obviously, The death penalty should only be applied in extremely specific circumstances to ensure that only criminals that have committed crimes so horrid they lose the right to live in society. Is food and shelter for several decades really the best investment for the tax payers? Would it not be better to simply end their life in a non-painful way than to let them rot in a prison cell for so many years?
Death penalty

In this final round I also wish to give credit to my opponent in this debate, Which has come up with excellent points. But, My opinion in this subject remains the same. I still believe it is the representative's duty to protect the people he represents, And if that means taking the life of someone who has threatened those people, So be it. In the second round, The opposition came up with a very valid point on 'what can or cannot be considered worthy of the death penalty' and the truth is, There is no right answer to this specific matter. What should be considered worthy of this sentence is obviously extremely subjective. . . But that is a decision to be made by the legislative branch of the government. And, Referring to the previous answer, No, I do not believe it should vary depending on the state as this would only create more conflicts in already-complicated situations. The crimes worthy of the death penalty should be voted for by representatives of all states if it is in a country composed of states such as the United States of America, Or even possibly by bigger organizations such as the EU, NATO, And in very idealistic situations, Even in the United Nations. If the laws are agreed on, They may not all be 'right' immediately, But it sets a foundation that learns and changes with the needs of society. The line the opposition talked about can never be dispersed as such moral reasons do not have a correct answer. But we must learn from what worked and what did not to evolve and to make sure we keep our society safe. Thank you.
Darth Revan is the better than Darth Malgus

Revan is the foremost feared Darth in Old Republic History 1. He is the coolest looking Sith Lord Ever. . http://fc03.deviantart.net... Look at him Looks Far Cooler than Malgus who has the stupid rebreather thing on his Face I mean really how dumb is that in comparison to Revan's Mask. 2. He Created a massive Army in a matter of a Few years to Challenge the Republic This massive Army was Created by the Star Forge witch could create a massive Fleets easily Revan was the only Sith Strong Enough to handle the Star Forge Malak lost control of it and then was Killed by Revan. Also in this point I would like to address the fact that Malgus could not have Created or Controlled the Star Forge and he is part of an empire that has taken Thousands of Years to Form instead of a Few Hundred years Like Revan's Empire. 3. Revan Has a Religion to him what does Malgus have nothing other than his Apprentice so Revan obviously has the people on his side. 4. Revan has His Compainions to like HK-47 Who doesn't like HK he is the Best far better than anything that Malgus has.
Rap Battle 2k17 PT 2

We ain't talking scenario So you better say "cheerio" Never doing smack Better get on track It will end up being thee Because your rhymes are weaker than the RAM of the wii Its Supa b***h, not Super Better know the man's name that will make you a loser Maybe that is why your IQ is One Light shining on me, almost like the sun Never hallucinating Always doing Crafting L's since I joined on the bell And I handed you this special L Because your almost as special as Miley Cyrus in 2013 Not even being mean Only the truth I ain't gettin' snarky doof I see you like god I admit that is not flaud But don't crying to Him When you hold a fat L, that is not slim World is crying my name They hear your name they ain't doin the same I am the king My chains just bling Put a nice zing on it Go and pop your zits on you forehead Because I just made your rap arguments dead Dynasty is this b***h Never been a snitch Always making sure That is rap battle is blur As Cleveland Brown would say "Oh that's nasty"