BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
family guy is better than the simpsons

theres a lot of people who think family guy is stupid because of all the things it says. thats why it was cancelled before n im sure if a lot of ppl who hate this get together again, family guy will get cancelled. A lot of kids watch this n thats where they get all those bad jokes n bad stuff from. the simpson never shows bad things like they do in family guy. n dats why i think the simpsons are way better.
family guy is better than the simpsons

family guy says that is for tv 14 every television HAS an option to block unwanted programing from being viewed this is forced by the FCC so if te kid learns stuff he isnt supposed to its the parents fault because they should watch for theyre child not anyone else. and no plus the simpsons doesnt make any funny jokes that are funny enough to "LMAO" and family guy will make you lauf your azz off in every spisode
family guy is better than the simpsons

the kids are always gonna watch tv. so idk why instead of having family guy out where the kids could watch, they should have it to where kids arent able to watch. n plus family guy was made for everyone to watch so idk why they cant be a little less mature about their bad jokes. they should know that kids are gonna watch it so they should just be aware that kids are watching. the simpsons know what theyre doing so therefore they have more rating then family guy. and theyre better.
family guy is better than the simpsons

you can not possibly blame family guy for the kids actions if the kid is mest up whos to blame? the creator of the show or the parent? plus listen to the radio. msot songs are perverted. so you can not blame family guy for what it says because clearly iif im not mistaken iat the begginning of the show it says viewer discretion is advised TV 14 and if 14 and not mature enough to handle family guy then your the one to bame not the creator of the show.
Debate.org votes biased

"I dropped the first half because it was on the wrong definition. It is now irrelevant that the site cannot vote for itself." No it wasn't. you set no guidelines as to what the debate meant, therefore, I made my own. Perhaps your definition is the wrong one... "By human nature you at least somewhat biased, as in considering a point made, etc. It is human nature to be very biased, and you cannot escape that completely when you vote." That is not true. Simply because we are all partially something does not make us wholly that. Say I am a mixture containing 20% water, 60% acid, and 20% pickle juice. This strange concoction is not just acid, nor water, nor pickle juice, but a combination of the three. We are biased but that does not mean every part of us is biased, even including our voting. "Then, my opponent stubbornly maintains his argument that bias is always unreasonable. It does not have to be, an inclination to consider one's own argument superior is not necessarily unreasonable, but it is biased. Also, all humans have inclinations and tendencies to interpret and consider points different ways. I may find a point ridiculous and vote against that debater, while another member of this site may interpret it as very logical, and vote for that debater." I maintain that bias is unreasonable because I have proven it to be unreasonable. "Voters are biased when they vote for themselves, that's an..." No. Voters have a reason when they vote for themselves. "I have just shown that bias will inevitably creep into the voter's decision." And I have shown it doesn't have to. "In Round One I said, "I think the resolution is clear. " And it was... to me. I CLEARLY said "The site itself cannot vote" That was what I interpreted from the resolution. "Why vote PRO? 1. I have shown that bias is inevitable when voting 2. I have refuted my opponent's case, on my interpretation by going line by line and showing its fallaciousness, and for his interpretation by showing it was irrelevant." My opponent has done nothing of the sort in either case. Let's recap: 1) the site itself cannot vote. 2) It is not provably inevitable that we will all vote biased. 3) My opponent dropped half of my case Thank you and please, vote CON. It's only logical, unbiased decision making skills. Thanks again, -EG
Debate.org votes biased

First I would like to say thank you to the Webmaster for clearing this up. Second, I would like to say that in no way has my opponent refuted all of my points. He dropped the first half of my argument and only stated: "First, my opponent claims he is completely unbiased in his voting. If that is true, he is most likely a robot or a zombie, but I believe he is probably wrong. It could mean that he did not consider every single word and point completely objectively, or that one person wrote a long argument that he simply skimmed. While we all try to be objective, there is subjectivity in our nature, and we cannot avoid it completely. Although if we take his definition of bias, he could be right. But, we cannot take his definition. I feel the most palatable definition for our purposes is this definition, by Merriam-Webster, "an inclination of temperament or outlook", from http://www.merriam-webster.com...; I never said I was completely unbiased, I said I have yet to vote based on a bias. You believe this is wrong but for now, you cannot prove it. And my opponent is right, we cannot avoid subjectivity. Some things, by nature, are subjective: Morals, opinions, belief structures. The list goes on. And while bias is a subjectivity, we have no way to say that only bias should be considered. temperament: "characteristic or habitual inclination or mode of emotional response" inclination: "a tendency to a particular aspect, state, character, or action" This action or "temperament" is unreasoned as it is a tendency. You cannot reason a tendency as it is nature. I still maintain my definition and my original argument. "His meaning of bias is also used to justify his argument against my point that people vote for themselves often. He said it is reasonable, therefore unbiased. If we take the more valid definition we see that these voters would have an inclination to vote for their side." That inclination is not a bias, it is reasoned. As I've proved above, you can apply reason or lack thereof to this word. "1. Everybody is slightly biased 2. His interpretation of the resolution is invalid" Everybody is slightly biased but simply being biased doesn't prove your resolution, voting biased does. My interpretation cannot be invalid as it is my interpretation. You did not expound in your R1 and therefore, you opened the field for a range of semantics arguments. My opponent has not provided anything to refute either my first aspect or his aspect which I am debating both. The Webmaster below has claimed that the site itself cannot vote, therefore proving his resolution invalid. Thank you, -EG
Debate.org votes biased

When you accepted this debate, you agreed to the parameters I set, that was part of accepting my topic. So we will have to debate the meaning of the resolution, and as I said before, as I wrote the resolution, I know best what it means, so we must accept my definition. Because of this there is no need to debate on his meaning any further. Now onto the real debate. First, my opponent claims he is completely unbiased in his voting. If that is true, he is most likely a robot or a zombie, but I believe he is probably wrong. It could mean that he did not consider every single word and point completely objectively, or that one person wrote a long argument that he simply skimmed. While we all try to be objective, there is subjectivity in our nature, and we cannot avoid it completely. Although if we take his definition of bias, he could be right. But, we cannot take his definition. I feel the most palatable definition for our purposes is this definition, by Merriam-Webster, "an inclination of temperament or outlook", from http://www.merriam-webster.com.... His meaning of bias is also used to justify his argument against my point that people vote for themselves often. He said it is reasonable, therefore unbiased. If we take the more valid definition we see that these voters would have an inclination to vote for their side. Why vote PRO? 1. Everybody is slightly biased 2. His interpretation of the resolution is invalid.
Debate.org votes biased

"Since you did not apply the meaning you wanted in your first speech, you have given free reign to give my own perception to this debate." I clearly said "I think the resolution is clear. If you have a problem, we can debate what it means as well." So, we will also have to debate what it means. Now, as I wrote this resolution myself, I think I could be considered an expert on what it means. To quote myself "This resolution means that voters on Debate.org vote based on their own beliefs rather than the quality of a position." Although I could have been clearer, I know what I meant, so I can enlighten you to what it means. Even if you don't accept my meaning, I still will win. First, my opponent claims that the website itself can't vote. This is not necessarily true, it could have been programmed to vote on a debate. Unless you are the programmer who programmed this site, or you provide testimony from said programmer, you can't claim that this is true. Then, my opponent says that since the website has no conscience, it can't be biased. This also is not necessarily true. First, according to a 2005 NPR report, a man tested the shuffle feature on his iPod, and found it to be significantly biased towards playing Eagles music. I am not sure how he did this, but obviously this sows that a machine can be biased, for whatever reason. Also, the site could have been programmed to be biased towards one end of the political spectrum. Now, to uphold the resolution under my meaning: First, a possibly abusive way to uphold it: Everybody is biased. Including the voters of Debate.org, I vote on this site, and even though I try to be objective, I still am admittedly biased. Now, another possibly abusive way to uphold it: Even if we were objective, and voted for the better debater, we would still be biased. That is, towards the better debater. Next, a definitely non-abusive way to uphold it: There are debates that are more like opinion polls on the issue rather than debates. I'll use two examples: (One is of mine, please don't think I'm a sore loser or anything) http://www.debate.org... In this debate, PRO presented a superior argument, using Civil Unions as a superior alternative to gay marriage, and CON forfeited a round. CON won, as gay marriage is supported by many on this site. The second example (Vote PRO), is one of my debates This site has many atheists and agnostics, my opponent conceded two rounds and never refuted my only weak premise, (I'm not going to say what that was). My opponent won. Finally: Some on this site vote for themselves. That is logical, but it is biased towards oneself. Therefore, they vote biased. QED
Debate.org votes biased

Since you did not apply the meaning you wanted in your first speech, you have given free reign to give my own perception to this debate. My perception is that the site itself is giving a biased vote. The site itself cannot give a biased vote for the following reasons. 1) This website in particular is not at liberty to vote within itself. Debate. org cannot vote for anything at all. for example The world has an election for a world leader. The world itself cannot vote but it's inhabitants can. 2) The website cannot have a bias on anything because it has no consciousness. For example: The world decides to kill all caucasions. The world cannot kill the caucasions but its inhabitants can.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

Seeing as my opponent forfeited the last round of our debate, he cannot refute the fact that he did indeed, contradict himself. I will also point out another contradiction. In my opponent's profile summaries, he lists "anything" under Music. When asked if he listened to the Jonas Brothers or Eminem he replied no. Therefore, he does not listen to "anything" causing a contradiction. Second, I will reiterate his other contradictions. In question 4 I asked him if he thought treating people differently because they were different was fair, he said no. However on his profile he is against gay marriage. Gay people are in fact different than him, and he believes that they should not have the same rights as he could have. In questions 8 and 9 my opponent contradicted himself again. When I asked if he thought it was dumb for guys to be overprotective of girls he said, yes. However, this goes against one of the biological imperatives, which is being territorial. In addition to that, he stated that I needed to define biological imperative, however in the rules, he stated that sources were irrelevant therefore a definition, which is a source would be irrelevant as well. I believe you can see that my opponent has contradicted himself, I urge a ballot for CON. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

My opponent has contradicted himself. In question four, I asked do you think treating people differently because they are different, fair? He said, "No, I think it is unfair. On his profile, he is against gay marriage. Gay people are in fact different from him, denying them the right to marry is unfair. However, he is still anti - gay marriage. My opponent has contradicted himself in questions 8 and 9. He says it is dumb when guys are over protective of girls. One of the biological imperatives is being territorial. He also states in question nine that I need to define biological imperative. However, he states that sources are irrelevant to this debate. Therefore, no definition should be necessary. I will continue with questioning. 1.Do you believe that information such as name, birthdate etc. should be kept secret from online communities? 2.Do you think that everything has the right to life? 3.Did you hear about this site from word of mouth, e-mail, personal contact etc? 4. Do you listen to Michael Jackson? 5. Do you like the colour purple? 6. Is your username - Studentatheletechristian8? 7. Do you have respect for Richard Nixon? 8. Are you a nice person? 9. Did the chicken come before the egg? 10. Do you think Sarah Palin is hot?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. No, facts/evidence are not alaways relevant to supporting opinions. 2. No. I actually like oranges. 3. Yes, I would be open to it. 4. No, I think it is unfair. 5. I disagree with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. 6. Yes, to a certain degree, for definitions. 7. I have never eaten steak. 8. Yes. 9. My opponent needs to define biological imperatives, because there are differing views on exactly what it encompasses, 10. Yes, I agree with Karl Marx on something.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Are facts/evidence always relevant to supporting opinions? 2. Do you not not not not not like oranges? (yes, I mean the fruit) 3. Would you listen to Operatic Gregorian Chant? 4. Do you think treating people differently because they are different, fair? 5. Do you agree with the democratic stance of Don't Ask Don't Tell (The Military Policy banning gays from the military)? 6. Do you believe the dictionary is a reliable source? 7. Do you like to eat steak? 8. Do you think it is dumb when guys get overprotective of girls? 9. Do you think humans should act in accordance with their biological imperatives? 10. Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Not all people are able to back up opinions with facts or evidence. There are some cases where it would be beneficial for people to back up opinions with facts or evidence, but there are other cases where they cannot. 2. I am a Republican. You need to define 'true. ' Although I consider myself a Republican, that does not mean I cannot support another party's policy. 3. No, I do not. 4. Yes, if by oranges you refer to the fruit. 5. I have never listened to the music of the Jonas Brothers. 6. I have never listened to the music of Eminem. 7. Yes, to a certain degree. 8. Yes, I believe moving all the gays to the Bermuda Triangle is unfair. 9. Sometimes, depending on the circumstance. Maybe be more specific? 10. Yes, I do respect Barack Obama.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1.Should people back up opinions with facts or evidence? 2.Are you a true republican? 3.Do you believe homosexuality is incompatible with military service? 4.Do you like oranges? 5.Do you enjoy the music of the Jonas Brothers? 6.How about Eminem? 7.Are your profile summaries accurate? (In regard to your actual opinions) 8.Do you believe moving all the gays to the Bermuda Triangle is unfair? 9.Is denying anyone rights unfair? 10.Do you respect Barack Obama?
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

I stand in affirmation to the resolution, "I will not contradict myself in this debate." contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of http://dictionary.reference.com... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes or No, or with an explanation as to why neither Yes nor No would be completely correct or appropriate. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant to this debate, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate.
Background checks should be applied to all private firearm sales in the US.

I enter this debate earnestly, and sincerely open minded. I"m not trying to win an argument, I"m trying to refine my thoughts and ideas on this subject, so please be courteous to me haha. The acceptant recognizes the following definitions: US= the nation of the United States of America, Firearm= current legal definition of a firearm in the US federal government. Pr"vate sale= any sale that does not occur at an FFL (a federally licensed firearm dealer) and includes person to person transactions legal in most states, and most gun show transactions. Thanks in advance!
Canada Has more incredible Heroes than (Opponents Choice)

Billy Bishop Billy Bishop was Canadian WWI ace who shot down 72 enemy fighters in two years. Also known as the Devil's Handmaiden. http://en.wikipedia.org... Raymond Collishaw During WWI Raymond Collishaw was 6th best ace during the war shooting down 60 enemies during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org... Terry Fox Tried to run across Canada with a prosthetic leg to raise money for Cancer. http://www.terryfox.org... Romeo Dallaire helped save the lives of 32000 people during the Rwandan Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sir Arthur Currie A Canadian who got all the Canadian troops together to win Vimy Ridge, and sparked Nationalism in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Falcon of Malta He officially shot down 31 people in his career. http://en.wikipedia.org... Ernst "Smokey" Smith, Leo Major, Tommy Prince, Fredrick Hobson, James Cleland Richardson, Charles Smith Rutherford, Harcus Strachan, Leo Clarke, Hugh Cairns, and Robert Spall http://listverse.com...
People should raise their children without religion and let the child form their own thoughts on t

I accept the challenge. However, our children will hurt themselves if they decide for themselves. For example, if a child wants to drink bleach or smoke tobacco would we be committing abuse on our children for stopping them from doing they're not supposed to do? the title of the debate is that Pro wants us to let our children drink bleach and thinks that children should decide to do bad things like talking or going with strangers. Would Pro really want our children to go missing or die from prescription drugs that look like candy? Children are too young to make their own decisions. Parents should raise their children and teach them about right and wrong. Now to religion, he probably means Christianity and not Islam as atheist and other of these Liberals condone Islam including Michael Moore. He wants to injects so called evolution facts like the Piltdown Man (a jaw of a dead ape) and Nebraska Man (a tooth of a dead pig). The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalm 14:1
People should raise their children without religion and let the child form their own thoughts on t

Children should be raised without religion because religion can be controlling in the sense that people might not feel comfortable being themselves because it might go against their religion. If you are raised without religion you can be more true to who you are and make decisions based on how you feel about a topic and not how your religion feels. As a result you also can be more open minded to other ideas because you are not taught that people who don't think the way you do are wrong.
Bronies forever

I will sum up my argument below:Bronies are all pedo-bears, and thus bronies are bad and should not be "forever".My opponents arguments are as thus stated below:.....As we can all see, the debate is neck-and-neck. But I have come upon insider information that tips the balance in my favor. Are you ready for it!? I don't think you are. I said: "ARE. YOU. READY!"You are? 'Bout damm time. Okay, here it is.My opponent supported Rick Perry.I know, right!? Horrible!Vote for me. I'm not insane.
Bronies forever

You wanna know how bad you're losing? Take a look at this picture. .. .. .. And I'm the cat. Yeah, totally kicking your a. ss. If you want a picture of you, well you're like the guy below. .. .. .. .. .. . Yeah, awkward. Spend your time jerking off to gay porn and MLP. Just to point out for the actual purpose of the debate, he hasn't refuted a single argument I've made for real. So now, I will take this debate not seriously.
Bronies forever

My definition came first, and was the only one cited. Plus, bronies isn't a real word (not in any other dictionary), so my definition is the best one out there. So you're going to prefer my definition.In no way have I been racist, but objective. You haven't refuted a thing I've said.Stop being ignorant, ya' dumb hoe.Extend all my arguments.God I really hate this 500 character limit.
Bronies forever

Definition of Bronies (according to Urbandictionary): The male, older fans of my little pony: friendship is magic.http://www.urbandictionary.com... So we're looking at older people here. Not kids.MLP encourages pedophilia amoungst elderly men.Pedophilia is bad.Thus "Bronies" are all bad because they are, most likely, pedophiles.As a side note, I would not ask this guy to babysit, unless you feel like suing him for molestation. That is all.