BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammed was a totally EVIL person, abnd thats why the terrorists are so whacked

I know you are a mature muslim and dont want to do harm to anyone I know also that YOU dont worship muhammed as you savior Nonetheless, most muslims around the world DO, and that is where they go wrong I want to debate, in detail, Muhammeds LIFE and legacy, and how it is causing the terror that we see today If you want to decline, I understand and will be respectful SOLARMAN
try to be perfect with a full make-up is better than be natural without make-up

Mr or Ms. u said, " In Fact in this way you can hide your imperfections. " based by what you said on your argument it said that by wearing make up u will hide 'something' from yourself and you called it as your imperfection. but, does that what perfect mean? The definition of perfect is ; having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Yes, as good as it is possible ( at least that what i found in google. lol ) so. i think by make up natural u let people judge how perfect u are because u dont hide anything you can be as good as it is possible
America is Not a Free Nation

My opponent insisted that I was arguing semantics, but this is clearly not the case. It is he whose argument is based on semantics seeing as he just defined nearly every word in the resolution and based his entire argument off of it. I was arguing the concept of freedom and how we are deprived of it. I clarified in my initial argument what I meant by saying "America and its 'people' are not free." Therefore, people who actually undertand what true freedom is, do not need it defined. Since you provided a definition that was a misrepresentation of freedom, I provided a definition that explains what true and complete freedom is. Your definition described 'partial' freedom granted by the government. You are simply arguing that our country as a governing body is considered to be a free nation. This does not solve the issue. You assert that the power rests in the hands of the people because we vote every 4 years as part of a Republic. This is simply not true. We are given the illusion of choice because most of the candidates are already a part of the establishment. Because my opponent insisted on using his definition of freedom, he did not address the reasons why we are not free. So my initial argument still stands. We are not exempt from external control, interference, and regulation. Therefore America and its people are not free. In conclusion, my opponent feels that freedom is determined by how many rights the government gives us. For that, I would like to provide a quote that counters this notion. "All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's going to give it to us or not." - David Icke .
America is Not a Free Nation

Unfortunately, my opponent wants to argue semantics. I apologize to you voters, and I will try to keep this as painless as possible. Reading the debate, you will notice that my opponent is affirmative. That means that (traditionally) the burden of proof falls primarily on him, as well as the burden of defining terms. My opponent did neither of these in his first speech, so I obliged. Now, my opponent is trying to tell you that my definition is incorrect, even though he initially offered no definition of his own. Had he provided his, this debate would have been more interesting. Therefore, please accept my definition over his, as he failed in his duty to provide one. Having not argued any of my other definitions, I can only assume that he agrees with them. Since we are using my definition, we can clearly see that America is free. Therefore, I urge a negative vote. Thank you.
America is Not a Free Nation

I will now proceed to present my argument. =========== {quote}Free- enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people. My argument is a simple one. By definition, America (The United States of) is a republic. In a republic, citizens are free, especially so as in they are not slaves. Since America is a republic, and in a republic, the citizens are free, America's people are free. Therefore, America is a "free" nation. The resolution is negated. All definitions are taken from the American Heritage Dictionary. {/quote} =========== The definition of freedom you used is not true freedom. The people of America have only 'some' personal rights, 'some' liberty. The African American slaves of the past few centuries also had 'some' rights such as the right to sing, the right to work, etc. Just because the people of our nation have a few rights, does not mean we are truly free. It is false to suggest we are not living in slavery. I define true and complete freedom as "exemption from external control, interference, and regulation. " [1] - Are we exempt from external control? No. - Are we exempt from interference? No. - Are we exempt from regulation? No. Unless these three things are fulfilled, we the people of America are not free. Therefore, the resolution is not negated. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... .
America is Not a Free Nation

America- a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. Republic- a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives freely chosen directly or indirectly by them. Free- enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people. Nation- a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. My argument is a simple one. By definition, America (The United States of) is a republic. In a republic, citizens are free, especially so as in they are not slaves. Since America is a republic, and in a republic, the citizens are free, America's people are free. Therefore, America is a "free" nation. The resolution is negated. All definitions are taken from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia

My opponents *) only states that some teachers teach better than others. Unless it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements, my opponents *) does not disprove my 1). And no evidence has been put forth to support that it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements. My opponent's argument 1) from round 2 does not support the claim because although my opponent pointed out many teachers who like their job, whom correlates with good teacher, will quit due to low pay, my opponent never argued the the number of good teachers quitting due to low pay will outnumber the number of bad teachers quitting due to low pay, thus the argument that the average teacher quitting due to low pay is a better teacher than their replacement has not been made. Thus my argument was not disproved. 2) My opponent didn't give evidence to support his claim, so my opponent's argument was based on speculation on what might be true. 3) Now my opponent is arguing that success results in respect, which is not at all contrary to what I argued. I argued that more pay doesn't result in more respect. Whether or not being successful results in respect is irrelevant to the argument. Saying earning more is a factor in success, and being successful results in respect, therefor earning more is a factor in increases to your respect is the logical equivalence of saying being taller is a factor in how much you weigh, and weighing more increases your health problems, therefor being taller is a factor in increases to your health problems. It is a logically flawed argument.
Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia

My opponent's 1) is disproved by my *) 2) I said "could possibly", my opponent irrationally asked me to give evidence they "would", since I never claimed they would. 3) Lawyers are known for lying. That makes people respect them less. I wasn't suggesting earning more alone results in respect. I said being successful results in respect. Earning more is a factor in being successful. For the sake of argument I will name some well respected successful people: Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Aristotle... And ask my opponent to name non-successful well admired people.
Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia

1) There is nothing wrong with teachers quitting their job because of low pay, as long as someone else is willing to take their place. 2) Unless you can give evidence to support that teachers would use extra spare time to prepare for their next lecture, it can't be assumed. If a teacher really wanted work less hours for the same pay, he or she should have picked a different career that pays better. 3.) More pay doesn't result in more respect. For example, lawyers make lots of money but are not well respected. Besides, respect and admiration for teachers should be based on the teachers' teaching skills, not how much they are paid.
Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia

*) Some teachers are teaching better then others. 1) People who like their job are on average doing better then people who don't like their job. Many people who like the job of teacher will quit cause low pay. 2) In order to earn more money, teachers are holding private classes. They could possibly use time they spent on private classes preparing for their next lecture in regular school, or they could use that time for relaxing. 3) Kids would respect and admire teachers more if they were earning more. Naturally, everyone wants to learn from successful person.
Is Gaming a waste of time

I'm going to run down and tell you where you are putting each point. ==Conduct==Conduct goes to Aff because of the forfeit in round 3. ==S+G==Probably goes to him as my spelling is rubbish. However I encourage you to double check. ==Arguments==This is the most solid area you vote pro. I will cover the overview and then go onto key votersRemember, as you evaluate this debate, a waste of time isn't a bad thing. A waste is anything that doesn't benefit you more than it harms you, and where uses of time are mutually exclusive, if you can be doing something better with your time, than gaming is a waste of time. I'll start with Con's offence. First he tries to say that gaming makes you happy and reduces stress. I refute that with the cigarettes example. Cigarettes do both of those, but waste your time in numerous ways. He tries to say gaming is better than cigarettes, but that literally doesn't matter because it ignores the actual argument I make. So vote aff thereThen he makes the claim about social. Recognize that he never actually meets the burden that this is a common way of gaming. No offence here. Finally, in his last round he, brings up charity gaming. Realize that literally anything can be run as a charity. You can run, walk, crawl for charity. But furthermore, this is a small minority of gaming done. The average gamer isn't playing for charity, they are playing to waste time. Now the primary place where I have offence is that gaming is a waste of time. He tries to refute this with social gaming and fitness games. Extend the analysis already given. He concedes that things like health are important, so when gaming and exercise are mutually exclusive, I win this round because human health should take top priority. For these reasons, this should be a very clear affirmative ballot. ==Sources==Sources I net because cite a source in R1. He cites none. Vote Aff.
Is Gaming a waste of time

My apologies for forfeiting last round I was really busy and I forgot I'm sorry : ) My opponents argument has been superb and I'm finding it hard to think of a good comeback argument but anyway here I go. He says that saying that me saying gaming isn't a art doesn't help my case but I disagree because although it doesn't bring up his argument, my point was that the art point of view brings a sort of experience worth the time Bringing up the oppositions point on putting the burden on myself I do have many accounts with others through researching online on different websites shows the prospects of gaming online and I think that if one is cautions . His point on raging, I think it is unfair to say this only happens with gaming people 'rage' in many other things and is just something negative that comes with gaming but everything does have its negative side which most include rage such as sport or people raging due to pranking in short rage is just anger which we all express. Gaming has found itself at many charities where games are played in order to raise charities similar to many sporting events that raise charities which could open to people with different talents so they can help with what they are good at some base their lives on gaming such as game reviewers who play their games and then the time used playing that game is made for a review, which for some is their job. Although it isn't the main issue I would like to address the oppositions opinion on a waste of time as I think it would help my case, wasting time can only be negative since if you see wasting time as not a bad thing it isn't really 'wasting time' I apologize if this isn't very good since its my first debate and I'm still getting used to it hoping to improve.
Is Gaming a waste of time

In terms of socializing I think gaming can still be good for anyone who wants to make a friend or just someone to talk to with the help of the game which can provide anyone with a common interest to talk without the anxiety of talking to someone face to face and also just have fun playing the game, for example I find it a lot easier to talk to my friends when we have a game that we can discuss and enjoy playing this can provide great memories which can't be provided when we don't have anything in front of us leading to awkward moments. It is good for those who have trouble socializing as in terms of being an introvert, is seen as a bad thing in today's society but it is not necessarily a bad thing and I think gaming can help the time go by for those in these situations. Bringing up the Opponents argument for getting exercise and personal health, I do agree that since we have so many youngsters from this generation going on tablets rather than go outside and play. My argument is that gaming can provide those with issues with their personal look and body can use gaming in the genre of exercising games such as the Wii fit because many don't enjoy doing it in public. For many gaming is a way to help them with their problems in their lives and I think that it is at least a better choice than smoking or masturbating because I think it is easier to control than those options and a better alternative. It can be an type of art for some such as such story driven games like the Walking dead series or Journey which can suck people in their worlds and show them what they have to offer I feel like the time shown in these games make the time gone by worth it and therefore they have used this time well. I can see that some do take gaming to an extreme such as the people that do nothing but play for almost 24 hours a day all the time and I know this is unhealthy but there is an extreme for everything and I think this is gaming's 'extreme'. But for those who spend a fair amount of time just wandering in a game for an open world game or beating levels in a plat-former just the time spent can be looked back upon without shame or regret.
Is Gaming a waste of time

In my personal opinion I think that gaming as a media has shown many people a sort of escape from the real world for people who deal with stress or a way to relax. Some criticize that it distracts people from the real world and this is not healthy and while I do think that is true in terms of physical health I think if it makes these people happy there shouldn't be any problems with this in my opinion Looking forward to whoever wants to argue this.
Abortion is nearly always wrong.

In a way, you maybe correct when you say "conception is the bigging of life". If it is, Its only the bigging of "a life" as opposed to the begging of all life so it s not necessarily wrong if someone stops this bigging of one life to promote the wellfare of lives that are already here . Almost everybody accepts this when we use contraceptives . It is the right thing to do because we understand the paramount importance of having controll of how many children we will have and the times we will have them. You also mentioned "murder is unjustifiable" well I do not think that orbartion is the same thing as murder but either way, some murders which are infact justified. these are murders commited for the sole purpose of preventing greater harm of innocent people . Our justice systems rate murders and dose not have the same penalt for all murders because they are not all necessary necessaryly wrong or unjustifiable
Abortion is nearly always wrong.

I recently posted this same topic, however, I am new and didn't quite understand that the time was unreasonably short. This is a re-post of that with a much more giving time allotment, also with five rounds instead of three. I've come to this format to seek what people think about abortion. Abortion is one issue where I truly don't understand a litany of arguments and so part of this is me arguing to understand them better. I'll lay out my arguments and we can go through the rounds from there, no too strict of a structure is necessary. I think this debate comes down to two statements. 1. Conception is the beginning of life. Scientifically speaking, it is no doubt that conception is the point at which life begins. This is simply a proven and indisputable fact. But even if, lets say, it was not. Let's say that, instead, we in fact did not know where life began. I would still argue that its best to assume conception is where life begins. Any other point would be arbitrary and cause many ethically questionable situations (some examples: 1) heartbeat - are adults that rely on pacemakers not lives? 2) brain activity - are adults that are brain-dead not lives? 3) 'consciousness' - loose term, and what about individuals in comas?) 2. Murder is the purposeful, premeditated killing of an innocent life or a life that poses an immediate harm to another. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. At some point, we have to make certain ethical assertions. I think this is a logical understanding of murder. Another important point is that murder is unjustifiable, i.e. it is always wrong. That's it. That's the crux of my argument. I don't understand how people can justify abortion in any context if these two statements are true. I also don't know what the alternative to either of these statements is. This provides a clear image of what I am PRO-ing: Abortion is wrong in the vast majority of contexts. The only context in which is is acceptable is one where delivery would risk lethal harm.
Aviators is the Best Artist

All right, but first, I would like to know exactly who you think is the best artist, because I cannot exactly make an argument without knowing what I am up against. All I can say is this: Aviators (b. Tyler Shaw) is an independent musician that can tackle any genre from indie rock to orchestral to almost Dubstep-like electronic. His lyrics are very inspiring and the music he creates is from the soul and takes the mind and body to a new place that nothing else can. I think in order to have a legitimate argument, you should probably listen to him a little more. So here's the link again: http://www.soundoftheaviators.com... Browse the website a little (yes, I'm also talking to the viewers) until you can actually listen to some of his greatest pieces, such as his latest single "Red". By the way, thanks for that quite nice acceptance, and I too will be looking forward to a fun, challenging debate. Good luck to you too.
Aviators is the Best Artist

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round 4. I will now present my rebuttals for my opponents argument from Round 3.I. He is a BronyMy opponent's first main point in his argument was that Aviators is the best artist in the world because he is a brony. I would like to point out that that is the equivalent of making the claim that, "Mitt Romney would make a great president because he is a Mormon." The manner in which someone bases a personal preference for someone on the way they live their life is not, nor should be, a valid gauge for determining the quality of their talent. Someone might be the greatest debater in the world, but it is not because they are a brony or a Christian or a white person, it is because they have an amazing talent for debate. Which brings me to my opponents next point. II. Aviators is the best artist because of his talent Talent can be defined as: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude [1]My opponent argues that Aviators is the best artist in the world because of his talent. He uses information suchas, "the guy started playing the violin when he was 4, then kept doing it for eight years before pick up the guitar and starting his musical career." Although this does involve skill, there have been many people who have come before him and still around today that have greater amounts of talent if that is the way my opponent wishes to measure talent. For instance, 1) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - had mastered the keyboard and violin by the age of four, and then went on to compose music as early as the age of five while also performing for European royalty. [2] That requires considerably more talent than Aviator's early accomplishments. 2) Ethan Bortnick - began playing the keyboard at three, and was composing by five years old. At nine years old he became the youngest artist to have his own National PBS Concert Special. [3] That sort of accomplishment certainly requires more talent than what Aviator's had at nine years old. 3) Akim Camara - began playing the violin at the age of two, first performed at the age of three, and was already filling the seats of Radio City Music Hall by the age of five. [4] That is real talent my friend. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.britannica.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...III. Ponies!!The last real point my opponent made was, again, about him being a brony and the contributions he has made to the community as a whole. I pointed out in my argument that I believe that just because someone is popular is a sub-culture genre of music, that does not validate the claim that he is the best artist in the whole world. Please refer to my argument in round 3 if you wish to see an expansion on this point. In Conclusion,I have presented my rebuttals against my opponents argument in Round 3. Since my opponent forfeited his last round, I extend all my arguments as they currently stand unchallenged.