BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This is not a debate.

Well, my opponent has forfeited pretty much all of the rounds of this debate. I'm not sure if that is because he just isn't coming back, or because he believes that by him not debating in this debate will make it "not a debate," but the later is not the case. If my opponent titled this "I am not debating" then he would be correct, in that he is not doing the said action. But whether he participates or not, this is still, by definition, a debate.
This is not a debate.

"The debate will commence..." "By accepting this debate..." "...therefore I made this debate." These are all quotes from my opponent, where he admits that this is a debate. I would also like to point out that this shows up under the debate section of this website (debate.org) and it shows up under the debate sections of each of our profiles. But even apart from that, this is a discussion in which we are arguing for or against the resolution (the resolution that this is not a debate). I am arguing against that resolution, my opponent is arguing for it. Fortunately, there is no qualification on the quality an argument needs to be at in order to qualify as a debate, so even if there is no argument made (as that is a type of argument), it still counts. Thank you,
This is not a debate.

Welcome. The debate will commence in this fashion: Round 1) ground rules set up Round 2) Introduction, resolution Round 3) Arguments Round 4) Rebuttals, attacks Round 5) Closing statements NO language, direct attacks, immaturity debate - argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal By accepting this debate, you accept the terms and conditions mentioned above, and state in R1 that you do, in fact, agree.
Fidel Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero because he's got balls.

"False premise behind your question. He did not "liberate" cuba from anyone. He eliminated one master and then replaced them. Not for a moment could cuba be considered "liberated." The wise in cuba will not put the label of hero to he who continued their enslavement far longer than the previous master could have, however much chutzpah it may have taken to do so." This is where you are wrong. You were fooled by the American propaganda as were many. Fidel Castro suffered and nearly died liberating Cuba from Batista. I call it liberating because I have people in my family that have been taken away from their home into jail or to death. Batista was a butcher, and no one cared in America because his evilness wasn't as publicized as much as the supposed evilness of Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro took everyone out of jail when he came to power, gave them homes, food, health care (which is more than I can say for this country), and nobody is homeless in Cuba. This is what they don't tell you on T.V., the pros of being in Cuba. That is why you'll find Fidel Castro supporters even in Miami. Only because Cuba never had chance to be as great as America, and only because Fidel Castro doesn't allow criticism of his administration doesn't mean he was a bad leader. Cuba was never better since before Columbus. Then it was run by Spain, then unofficially run by America because of the dictators who sucked up to us like vacuum cleaners. You say that the wise in Cuba wouldn't call him a hero? You are as ignorant as they come, in Cuba they all support Castro. Politicians, Doctors, Teachers, they all are smart enough to admit that if it wasn't for Castro, everything would've been worse. Continued their enslavement you say? Do you know the racism and torture that went on under Batista's administration? Of course not, because American politicians back then didn't want you to know. Blacks were treated like dirt, and Batista's KGB would harass everyone they could. Fidel, who is 100% white, ended the racism, dismissed Batista's police and army, and started treating everybody equally. Fidel came from a rich family, and still he wanted to make a difference in Cuba's discriminatory society. He might not be the best leader in the world, but he was certainly the best in Cuba. Now you give me a reason as to why I should think these murderous Cuban leaders are better than Fidel.
Fidel Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero because he's got balls.

"Hitler had balls, both in the literal and metaphorical sense. Is he therefore always going to be germany's national hero? I think not, and most germans agree with me." Well he isn't a hero because of the Holocaust, not because of lack of "balls". I didn't say "Everyone that has balls is a hero", I said that being brave is what makes Fidel a Cuban national hero. "Fundamentally, heroism is not just about courage. For someone to be your hero you have to agree with either their cause or their motive, or at least something about them." If you actually read my whole argument you'd see that Cubans DID support Fidel Castro's cause. And people forget that, that's why I started this debate. <> Well if I didn't state that limit then you'd argue George Washington is braver than Fidel. 1st of all the time they live in makes that argument impossible. 2nd of all, all Americans would vote against me due to their patriotism and love for George Washington. <> Haha! You make me laugh. John McCain being tortured doesn't make him brave at all. Did he choose to be tortured? No. Were the Vietnamese agreeing to stop torturing him if he had given them information they wanted? No. He had no choice! < > I did not suppose that Castro's administration was positive, I'd be pretty insolent to suppose that. However, I did suppose that actions made by him in order to gain power in Cuba were positive, and many of his actions were BRAVE. < What about all this suggests heroism? Middle fingers? I can make a middle finger at you if you like, but it won't help you much if you are enslaved in the process.>> 1st of all, I am not defending Fidel's administration. Second of all get you facts straight, Fidel's a socialist, not a communist. Giving the middle finger to America is heroism. It's like giving the middle finger to a boss that overworks you. Except America was the kind of boss that would kill you. Allow me to summarize your argument: 1) You like to play smarta*s and use the word "balls" as in testicles, which you and I both know is not how I meant it. 2) You state your opinion on Fidel's administration.----> What does that have to do with our debate? 3) You fail to tell me why Fidel wouldn't be a national hero to all those people that love him. In your next argument please answer this question: Why would Cubans not consider him a hero after all he did for Cuba, liberating Cuba from Batista, and indirectly liberating Cuba from America?
Fidel Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero because he's got balls.

You state that the reason fidel castro is and always will be Cuba's national hero is "because he's got balls." Having balls however, is no indicator of whether someone should be a national hero. I happen to have a few myself. Am I therefore cuba's national hero? Or the united states' national hero? Or does it only apply to a country's leaders? Hitler had balls, both in the literal and metaphorical sense. Is he therefore always going to be germany's national hero? I think not, and most germans agree with me. Fundamentally, heroism is not just about courage. For someone to be your hero you have to agree with either their cause or their motive, or at least something about them. Courage alone is not a point of agreement but an emotion. Is hitler your hero? " Fidel Castro had more balls than any American president, and if you disagree name me one American president from the 20th century that committed an act of bravery bigger than Fidel Castro's. " Ignoratio elenchi. In the literal sense, all american presidents had the exact same number of balls as castro, and an act of bravery is no indicator thereof. Also, the limit to the twentieth century violates fair discussion of your idea that "Fidel Castro had more balls than any American president." After all many early brave US presidents rebelled against Britain, which had no geneva conventions and such at the time that limited the danger against Castro. Also, you are ignoring possible future US presidents (John Mccain anyone? :D). Resisting torture requires a lot more of the metaphorical balls you seem to be speaking of than risking assassinations from an incompetent intelligence agency. But alas I digress, the quality of american presidents is not the article of the debate. I need merely prevent you from proving at least one of the following two notions: 1. That Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero: 2. That Castro's possession of balls is the cause of 1. Regarding your suppositions about the positiveness of his administration, need I remind you of the creed "Liberty or death." Batista created a lot of deaths of innocents and so was a monster-- but it was possible to live. Indeed his existence in Castro's way is the only thing that kept any sense of purpose to many cuban's lives, the purpose of course to resist him. No sense of purpose is possible under communism for the living who have surrendered to it, as death is the purpose and the standard of the communist ideal ("From each according to ability, to each according to need" is set perfectly to extirminate ability and exacerbate need, ultimately eliminating production and therefore life). Because communism unlike Batista makes confusing pretensions at goodness to fool somebody, it demoralizes its victims far more. The victims cannot even know they are victims under castro until they escape. What about all this suggests heroism? Middle fingers? I can make a middle finger at you if you like, but it won't help you much if you are enslaved in the process.
I will not break a rule.

As someone pointed out in the Comments, I may have created contradictory rules. However, I would like to point out that by Rule #3, the first player to break a rule (in this case, my opponent) loses. There is no rule that allows for a draw. My opponent broke Rule #6 every round, and contradicted most rules that I posted. 23. CON must post cool ASCII art each round. 24. CON must post "I lost the game." 25. CON must post an intention for a rematch in the near future.
I will not break a rule.

Rule #6 states that "each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. " My opponent provided no rules in Round 1. Therefore, my opponent broke a rule, and by Rule #3, loses the debate. I have repeatedly asked my opponent to post three rules in the Comments section of this debate, so that we may possibly include them in this debate, but after two days, I have received no response. 14. CON must include an even number of each keyboard character in each of his Rounds. 15. CON must post three YouTube videos each Round. 16. CON may not use hyperlinks.
I will not break a rule.

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. No rule posted by CON may discriminate between the individuals PRO and CON in any way beyond what may be required by the foundation rules. 12. CON must include one palindrome, one similie, and one biblical allusion in each Round. 13. CON may not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

*1. Carrots do not have bones. Carrots are vegetables (. http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu...). Bones are NOT in vegetables (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). *2. "That topping stuff" IS CHEESE. My opponent contradicts himself. *3. My opponent has not truly addressed this argument completely. Just because he likes chicken and chicken has bones, he makes the false assumption that all "good" foods contain bones. This is not so. *4. I argue that my opponent made up that food on the grounds that I have never heard of it. My argument stands, is extended. >My opponent's "new argument" is a fictitious story and has no value in debate. >I wish KDub222 luck in his ne
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

$1: Carrots have BONES too! Why do rabbits like carrots? B/C Carrots = Rabbit Bones. $2: Dude, that "toppin'" stuff ain't pizzaz. Pizza = BREAD + CHEESE. Bread = WHITE. Cheese = WHITE (buy a bag of it and check). #3: Chicken tastes good, and it has BONES. Does that mean that chickens have no bones? Q.E.ME (liek QUED). #4: Are paï¿½achuelos (a food) on the Internet? Go and CHECK! Hint: #0 results on google. New Argument: Buy a Barn. Put some Cheese Pizza In It. Put it inta that ground. Dig up that spot and everything else for 40 miles. I did it and I found a BONE! How did it appear there? Not EVIL-lution, right? B/C monkeys aren't SMART Finally, dude, you = the smart guy ever! I have totally $1 of respect every time you Tawk
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

>I assume the topic of this debate refers to general pizzas, not a specific "bonepizza. " My opponent has the burden of of proof to prove that pizzas contain bones. *1. Crunch Many foods are crunchy. An example is carrots (. http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu...). Carrots do not contain bones. *2. Color Pizza IS NOT generally white (. http://www.littleladyfoods.com...). Bones ARE generally white (. http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu...) *3. Taste Many things taste good (to average people). This does not mean that bones are involved. *4. Internet Almost ALL foods are on the internet. This proof here. >Good luck.
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

Alright.. u first... except me 1st... Bones + Pizza = The Truth b/c have you eaten pizza? Hear da crunch? That's a bone. Pizza is bone-colored. See any non-white pizza? NO! Plus, pizza is good. If you didnt have bones, you be dead! I have the final respuesta: Wiki-diki. Go to Pizza on Wiki, click Pork. THERE'S BONES IN PORK. In conclusion, bones have to be in pizza because a) there's a crunch (liek a bone), b) same color (liek if it have da same color, it da same thing), c) pizza and bones both good (not coincidence), and d) both on the internet. Also, pizza is my FAVORITE food. So are BONES!
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

lol i didnt rite that last part... my bro did... sry about teh dumb arguments lol lol anyways so i wanna say again my argument * i liek pizza and bones and both are wright there in the pizza * paï¿½achuelos are food, and yet not on the internet * pizza pirates (they have bones and starttt with piz coincidence? lol) no recipies have pizza w/ bones. B/C the government dont want U to know the truth. good luck (lol i win now)
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

>Thanks to KDub222 for his response. *1. My opponent cites that carrots are not proven to be vegetables but according to . http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu... which I previously cited, they indeed are. Also, this point has already been won by CON due to a forfeit. *2. My opponent claims that Cheese pizza has no toppings, but he simply cites an imaginary menu. He has no proof or evidence, just a thought. *3. My opponent drops this point. *4. Firstly, I would like all readers to notice that my opponent threatens to kill me. With that said, pizza does exist (. http://pizza.com...).
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

*1. Yes, I did, because you, dear sir, dropped the ball by failing to see that carrots was an imaginative metaphor for the human bone. Yes, carrots are not bones, but how can one define what a "vegetable" truly is? Some may say, "vegetables are not X." But that presumes a linear concept of knowledge based around the word "is." You sir, have not read Edvard WEstermark's seminal work "Wit and Wisdom in Morroco." *2. Cheese pizza lacks toppings. if you wish to know more, simply go to a "menu" and see what category they place meat (or, as I creatively spelled it in order to destroy Euro-centric spelling, meet) as "extra toppings." Extra cheese is not LISTED. *4 Paï¿½acuelos do not exist, but does pizza? Answer correctly or die.
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

*1. My opponent drops my point. *2. One topping on pizza is cheese; hence cheese pizza. *3. Chickens are not implemented in pizza. *4. As I suspected my opponent has made up a food. >I am not interested in taking my opponent's offer to go to Pizza Hutï¿½. >My opponent's article does not exist, thus I claim this point invalid. >I await my opponent's next response.
r there bones in da pizza? plz plz im new

1) 'K, EYE'm wrong... carrots =/=bones. You gonna call me on me "phone" and tell me I = WRONG? 2) "Topping Stuff" ain't cheese! It's liek ta meet. 3) Chickens = Bones = Pizza. Nuf Said! 4) Paï¿½achuelos are real. It = String Cheese + Apple Sauce + M&Ms. Put it in a bawl and TEX-MEX FIESTA TIME. Finally, go to Pizza Hutï¿½ and say you want a "bone pizza." They look at u weird b/c obviously pizza = bones and they hide it lots. I furgut the rest but I wan @ the end. Oh, and um.... go to pizza.comand search bone. Y'll find my article "Bones: Pizzas Contain Them." It was published in "Scientific Journal Weekly: Pizza Edition."
Graffiti is art

Nevertheless, I continue. REBUTTALS: "Graffiti is not art! Some of it may be, but that is only the paintings and murals. " In this argument you just admitted that graffiti is an art. "Graffiti is what you see on the streets with gang names and code words for doing drugs or to say threats. " Graffiti is seen in many ways. Gangs use graffiti to mark their territory, and drug dealers do the same. However graffiti is not only done by these people, but a variety of individuals who put things on the walls. Graffiti does not always demonstrate evil things. "Most drug dealers study graffiti to be able to figure out the code and where people are selling drugs based on their graffiti. " As you can see, they study to understand codes, according to what you said. There is in art in that, correct me if I'm wrong. " Art is murals and paintings and sculptures. " Art is seen in many ways. Everything can be art in it's own way. However if you are explaining what is technically art, you are incorrect. You neglect a variety of arts including dance, theatre, music etc. ARGUMENTS: Before anything, we need to understand the 3 basic things we need to know for this debate: art, graffiti and vandalism. Definitions: Art: " the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" [1] Graffiti: "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place" [2] Vandalism: "the wanton or deliberate destruction caused by a vandal or an instance of such destruction" [3] So art is an expression or application involving creativity and skill, something that graffiti uses both of. Graffiti is written in public places in a variety of crazy spots. Take these for example: [4] This forum shows a variety of graffiti in crazy places, which happens very often. It takes hard work to do that, or in other words: skill. Graffiti also involves creativity, some graffiti is amazing. [5] These pictures involve creativity, and explains how graffiti artist chose to change their surroundings to their imagination, or in other words art. So the big question now is " How is vandalism art? ". Well that's the thing, Vandalism includes graffiti, that doesn't mean all graffiti is vandalism. If a man draws graffiti styled art (keep in mind that graffiti is literally called "graffiti art") then it is no longer vandalism, yet still graffiti. Graffiti is an art, and an amazing one at that. Your turn con! :D sources: 1:. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2:. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3:. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4:. http://www.bombingscience.com... 5:. http://thechive.com...
Graffiti is art

Graffiti is not art! Some of it may be, but that is only the paintings and murals. Graffiti is what you see on the streets with gang names and code words for doing drugs or to say threats. Most drug dealers study graffiti to be able to figure out the code and where people are selling drugs based on their graffiti. Art and graffiti are two different things. Art is murals and paintings and sculptures. graffiti is gang signs and writing on walls or property in an area that it is not allowed in which is also called vandalism also graffiti is street art, that is illegal. Your turn Pro.
Smoking bans are unconstitutional

Hi Rupert, This will be my first debate on this site, so we'll see how it goes. :) I have to first ask what part of the constitution does this law infringe on? Also, this debate therefore have to be taken to a state level rather than a federal level as it is the individual states that apply such laws. Your argument appears to be this, not that it is unconstitutional but rather it betrays some of your personal political ideologies. 1. You claim that this should be something left to the business owners and not the government. Actually, the government makes all kinds of standards for business owners including health standards, so naturally it would seem logical to ban something definitively linked to cancer (second-hand smoking) to protect the citizens from irresponsible business owners. 2. You attempted to draw a connection to the prohibition and that it is giving the "big government" more power to do thing such as that. This argument is the slippery slope fallacy, and the presupposition is likely an emotional one rather than logical one. Also, it is refuted by the fact this is not handled on the federal level, but the state level. 3. You contend that this law is tyranny. Which is "cruel and abusive rule by a governing body." I also have to disagree with this, we live in a republic in which we vote for representatives on the federal and state level to voice the wants and desires of the people. These representatives elected by the people have not only made this law, but have not attempted to repeal such a law, and was deemed Constitutional by the State Supreme Courts. This is not tyranny or an abuse of government, this is the government acting in a healthy way for the good of it's citizens (to protect them from the harmful effects of second hand smoking). 4. Your last contention is that "only institutions should be able to determine whether to ban something or not." This is basically a repeat of your first argument, just worded a little bit differently. However, can you please point out where in our Constitution it states anything to the effect of what you stated here? Regards, TrueScotsman