BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Bought a Toyota

Um, okay, so I should've listened to your advice about how Toyotas try to kill you, like I was driving in an intersection but Ms. G. (my beautiful GPS named Garmin) suddenly said "Take a U-turn" in Chinese, and since Toyotas are surprisingly smart the car took control over me (because I forgot to change the language though I cannot understand one word of Chinese) and so the Toyota crazily did a U-turn. My friends all say "With you behind the wheel, how can we crash," but, you know with my socialness problems I couldn't figure out a way to explain to them that IT'S NOT REALLY ME BEHIND THE WHEEL. It's my Toyota. But see? It doesn't sound right and it never comes out the way I want it too either. Well, I gotta tell you, Siris get extremely annoying when they translate your words wrong. Like I asked it a personal, serious question about my Toyota and it thought I said "what does the fox say." That was entertaining for 5 seconds. So (at-least for me) throwing Siri high-pitched is the easiest way to let out your anger. Oh and by the way I think I have a special kind of Toyota because it noticed how easily-angered I get sometimes. (Surprisingly smart, right?) After cracking the sun-roof in my Toyota for the third time this month (from throwing Siri high, don't worry, I said sorry) it even told me "You must unlearn what you have learned." I think it was referring to my tempers I learned in school when trying to do math. As you have heard, the tempers have carried over in more serious life problems such as ones I have with my Toyota. Here's another set of questions, as I haven't gotten to know my Toyota very well yet. (Me and Toyota are taking some time off from each other with the intention to mend our friend-ship/car and ESPECIALLY to mend the broken sun-roof.) 1. Do Toyotas light up? I can't tell when I'm driving. I'm too focused on letting the Toyota drive me around. 2. Can you get them at toy stores? That would be AWESOME!!! 3. Is God capable of saving me from Toyotas? (After all, their both from the spiritual world!) Thanks, nice person con, you have really helped me along this investment I made with a Toyota so I am eternally grateful.
I Bought a Toyota

1. "Are Toyotas nice?"No, Toyotas are NOT NICE! They're mean and evil! I was riding in one and it tried to kill me!2. "Do they have Siri's?" Is that pronounced "Seer-ee?" Why would you want a blazing hot steering wheel?3. "is Siri high-pitched?"High-pitched? No! An iPhone isn't a baseball. Why would you throw it up high in the air?4. "How fast do Toyotas move?"So fast it nearly killed me.
FDR(Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a better president than Abraham Lincoln

It appears that my opponent has forfeited, but I will briefly add to my case.FDR had several shortcomings as president:1) FDR authorized the forced internment of over 100,000 U.S. citizens with Japanese ancestry during WWII. These citizens were stripped of property and home and forced to live in concentration camps based only on their race. Internment during WWII represents one of the blackest marks on the US's moral scorecard.2) As shown by the court packing incident, in which FDR massively overplayed his popularity and killed his ability to get anything done, FDR tended to overextend himself and polarize his opponents. 3) FDR mishandled and misjudged Stalin. FDR based his early relations with Stalin on a grossly incorrect belief that Stalin valued democratic government and would work toward a free post-war society. By the time FDR realized that Stalin was a totalitarian monster, Stalin had achieved an impenetrable geopolitical position in Eastern Europe. FDR's miscalculation set the stage for the East/West split of Europe during the Cold War.Lincoln's Virtues1) Lincoln maneuvered a complex international landscape with incredible success. Despite efforts by the Confederacy to maintain relations with France and Britain, not a single country recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy during the Civil War. This can be attributed to the stern foreign policy Lincoln and Seward took up- that recognition of the South would entail a declaration of war by the U.S. government.The delicacy of the situation was underscored by the Trent Affair, in which the U.S. boarded a British ship, the "Trent," and seized two Confederate envoys to Britain along with British mail. This erupted into a major crisis in relations as Britain demanded the envoys be released and the U.S. was loath to release the envoys for loss of face. Lincoln worked with his cabinet and Secretary of State Seward to defuse the situation, avoiding what could have been a disastrous re-alignment of power in favor of the Confederacy.2) Lincoln had to overcome a lack of military leadership. The head of the Union army, General Scott, was far too old to head the army at the start of the Civil War. Scott wanted to hand over command to "the finest soldier [he] ever saw," Robert E. Lee, but Lee would not take up arms against Virginia. Lincoln started the war with his best man playing for the other side. Lincoln then had to tread the tight rope of trying on new and unproven generals in a time of great crisis, cycling through leadership until he found General Grant. Lincoln displayed incredible patience and capacity to develop leadership in others during this time- he had to know when to trust capable generals and when to ditch generals who failed to perform. Ultimately Lincoln's magament of military personell proved correct by virtue of the victory of the war.Sources:What I remember from the above cited sources.
Veganism is a moral obligation

Round 1: Debate Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttal 1 Round 4: Rebuttal 2/Conclusion Definitions: Veganism - a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. Moral Obligation - something that we ought to do in order to be consistent with our moral beliefs I will be arguing in favor of the proposition that veganism is a moral obligation.
The President is wrongly held to expectations that are the responsibility of Congress.

Although the president himself cannot pass laws, he is ostensibly the head of government, so everything is pinned to him. He is also the party leader, and should provide the clout that gets laws passed. This is why Trump held the speech in the rose garden with the house republicans after they passed the AHCA. It was a victory for Trump's agenda.Conclusion: Though the president cannot pass laws himself, he is ostensibly the face of the party and their agenda, so shoud therefore provide the political clout that gets those laws passed.
The President is wrongly held to expectations that are the responsibility of Congress.

The president of the United States is the overseer of the executive branch of our government. Per the Constitution, that power is limited to enforcing laws passed by Congress with regard to domestic affairs. In today's politically charged environment, presidential candidates campaign issues such as tax reform, health care, and social issues. Citizens should not expect the president resolve issues to the degree they are currently doing so. Each state has 2 senators and a number of representatives elected by the people to represent their voice in the congressional branch. People should first hold their representatives accountable as resolutions will always begin with Congress.
Is there ANY evidence to support the existence of Christ

As I said in my previous response if you take the time to research what the scholars of Josephus say about the small blurb the "testimonium flavianum" It was inserted into the surviving copy of antiquities held by the catholic church by Eusibius. There are many aspects of the "TF" that don"t fit the works of Josephus but most damning is that before the 3rd century Origen clearly states that Josephus did not believe in a Christ (messiah). This is not my opinion but the most accepted belief of biblical scholars. You are correct about the Bible being reviewed by many but the majority of the people reviewing it were doing so for religious purposes. The object of the review is only to find religious meaning in the words. If you read and study the texts with an open mind in a critical sense to see where it leads you, there are many historical inaccuracies and contradictions. You claim that it is historical, can you offer any accurate historical facts from the Bible? There are many historical inaccuracies as I had mentioned in my previous statement. The ancient texts that you refer to are religious texts. These are not written as historical documentation but as stories of religious events and miracles to gain followers and give people a false hope of eternal life. Yes people want to believe that it is hope that they are immortal no one wants to face mortality. You talk of mass collusion, Yes that is what religion is that is why it is perpetrated on the young and impressionable. I would like you to offer historical evidence from the Bible which is historically accurate. We know that many of the events did not happen
Is there ANY evidence to support the existence of Christ

So in summary you contend the writings of Josephus (or just those referencing Jesus ) are forgery. The works of Josephus are highly regarded scholarly, academic and historical text. It is utilized often and accepted everywhere. I will take society"s position on its acceptance as opposed to a website. Secondly you contend the Bible is written as allegory. Again these works have been reviewed more often than any on the planet and the at large the determination is not allegory but poetry, yes, narrative, yes, prophetic, yes, historical, yes. Completely allegory, no. Finally you continue to speak against works dated after Christ to once again contend collusion. The Jewish scribes were excellent record keepers, who by the way sent Christ to his crucifixion. You speak of the Hebrew Talmud and other works like the documents at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Murtatorian fragments, the Codex Leningradensis, documents proven and verified as early period A.D. as invalid because they are not dated the first thirty years A.D. Do you realize the mass collusion you would have to orchestrate to get millions of people to perpetuate a lie over the course of millennia? These writings would have never got out of the first century having been fabricated as you contend, let alone preserved and transcribed with the detail it has. Finally since you are already online vested, I included another website to further points. https://youtu.be...
Is there ANY evidence to support the existence of Christ

Regarding the Gospels, I believe they are highly regarded as historically accurate , especially Luke, although that is not their intent. I believe they are harmonious but I would interested in what you reference as historically inaccurate. Actually I believe there is quite a bit of historical evidence to validate the first century person of Jesus of Nazareth. First there is Josephus a famed Romano-Jewish historian with eye witness account of the final stages of the Jewish rebellion before Jerusalem was crushed by Titus and his Roman army in A.D.70. As a inheritor of Roman citizenship Josephus chronicled the Jewish history in exceptional detail having lived the life as a Pharisee and now Roman citizen.(1) Accepted by all historians, Josephus works are considered extremely historically reliable and he speaks of and references Jesus of Nazareth. He describes him as a wise man. and a worker of amazing deeds. Both Roman and Greek letters reference Christ as does the Talmud. The Talmud is an encyclopedia collection of rabbinic letters collected over the first few hundred years of A.D. Tacitus an early second century Roman writer when speaking of Nero's persecution of the Christians wrote of the founder of Christianity this "Christ" being crucified under Pontius Pilate.(2) "Tacit. Annal 15.44 - Nero, in order to stifle the rumor,.. ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices and called by the vulgar Christians, these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator." (3) These are Roman historical documents. There would be no reason for Romans and Greeks to perpetuate a story they did not hold or regard as true and they certainly had no religious reason. Why would they advance such a story? Not to mention it would be almost preposterous to think millions of people would collectively agree to deceive the nations for thousands of years. But I believe the facts speak for themselves. (1) William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing Marketing LLC, 1987), Intro (2) Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 439 (3) William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing Marketing LLC, 1987), 815
Is there ANY evidence to support the existence of Christ

I have spent a good deal of time searching for evidence for the existence of Christ and The evidence I have found all points to the Jesus story being completely fictional. There is no historical record of Christ except for the Q-document which from the best evidence was written at the earliest 35 years after the supposed death of Christ. The Gospels that we ended up contradict each other and have many historical problems which are difficult to rationalize if the story is historical and not fictional.
Racism

1. WHAT was the percentage of blacks voting for Obama- 90%; WHITES for Obama- roughly 50%. If this was like any other election, blacks and whites would have been split approx. 50-50. HOWEVER- well over 50% of blacks voted for Obama- a statistical anomaly. THEREFORE- Blacks overwhelmingly DID NOT vote for Obama because of his politics but because he is BLACK- THAT IS RACISM!!! 2. I did NOT say ANYTHING about racism not existing- I know it does. But I'm sure you don't mean to say that blacks are just an innocent little minority either. Everyone is racist in a little way, whether we know it or not. 3. How would you like it to see whites as the same thing? There was an incident near my town where a white family hung a "black" dummy from a tree for Halloween (it wasn't even really black as the dummy had a black hood over it) and a black family sued the other family for racism. They won because the courts are "politically correct" crazy. The next year (this year), the SAME black family had hung a dummy of Sarah Palin from a tree to be "scary" for Halloween. The white family sued and LOST and the black family said "It was just for Halloween". THIS IS RACIST AGAINST WHITES AND THIS BLACK FAMILY ARE HYPOCRITES. 4."Ship them Ni***s Back" is a song from the 60's- 70's. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW. 5. "Or someone makes a silly remark saying black men have biger penises then any other race" I don't know about you but I would take that as a complement. However- I am not black so I wouldn't know how it feels. 6. "People walking up to me saying Ni*** this Ni*** that and think it's ok." I don't think this is okay. But you are alluding that all whites say it. That is not true. That word is disrespectful and I don't know about other whites out there but I would never say that.
Racism

And what exactly does your termonology of "If anyone is more racist it is blacks." suppose to mean? It's not hard to see. Even Stevie Wonder can see that racism still exist today. More as you may not see it that way because you dont want to. We live in a "generation/era" where slavery is prohibited and black have the same amount of rights as whites do. Yet, we or should I personaly say: I have to deal with it everday. People walking up to me saying Ni*** this Ni*** that and think it's ok. Or when you walk up to someone they tell you to back away because they feel "threatened" Or someone makes a silly remark saying black men have biger penises then any other race. I ave had people say to my face that i'm not black just because i choose not to smoke weed/do drugs/ or steal. I would define that as racism wouldn't you? It works both ways. Why must blacks be called "blacks". First of all we aren't black if anybody didn't notice. We are brown. And why should we be classified as African Americans when/if we were born in the United States of America. And i want you to tell me. How would you feel if you walked into a public restroom, and you see a black man drawn on the wall haniging from a tree? Are you telling me that wouldn't make you wonder. Or here's another good example. Im sure or maybe you haven't heard the song "Ship them Ni***s Back" by Jonny cash. Cuz that's not pure racism or anything.
Racism

First- I challenge my opponent to define what this "new generation/era" actually is and why. Second- I believe that what you might mistake as "racism" is actually just dislike. Maybe the other African-Americans in your school just don't like you- this is not necessarily racism. Third- I do not understand WHY the term "black" is not acceptable but "white" is. Fourth- Puertoricans is not one word- it is two- Puerto Ricans Fifth- I did not say that racism does not exist today. It does- just not to the extent it has in the past. If anyone is more racist it is blacks. Sixth- I don't know about any other "whites" out there, but I don't pick my friends by the color of their skin.
Racism

Being in a new generation/era (2009) many people often say that racism does not exist and everyone is treated equally now. But I myself feel this is not true and racism still exist up to today. Now I can say this and use this as my argument from the current issues I deal with on a daily basis. For instance in school, at work and ect... I feel racism deff exist today but it's more of an "under tone" racism. It's projected directly but indirectly at the same time. Being African American, it is easy to identify racism. Not just from Whites or Jews or Puertoricans, but also from other African Americans. It is clear to see that none of us are perfect, and we all have different likes and beliefs but where do you draw the line when it comes to racism. Being in a predominant white school, I deal with it everyday. But the issue is why do people claim racism does not exist when in actuality it really does. I can stand on it and say it does exist and beg anyone to differ.
Solipsism

Hi Pro, I have responded to all your points previously in Rounds 1 to 3. There is little point in me repeating why you are wrong, and why my view (Realism) is true. My view is supported by argumentation. Your view continues to be bare assertions. Allow me to help you establish why you are not actually debating but merely asserting. From Wikipedia - the bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. One form of the fallacy may be summarized as follows: Fact 1: Simon says that Jack eats ice cream. Fact 2: Simon says that Simon is not lying. Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream. This is what you are doing: 1 Pro states that everyone else is infact non-existent projection of his conscious mind 2 Pro says he is the only person that exists Therefore everyone else is infact non-existent projection of his conscious mind You should also make yourself aware of the interpretation of scientific experiments that supports your view. You seem unaware of this, and it is somewhat disappointing that your opponent in this debate would have to correct your statement that science doesn't support your view. In the final analysis I agree that it doesn't, but others disagree with me (some idealists think that science has validated idealism) and at least we can have a fruitful discussion. It it would make for a better debate. At the moment I have nothing to refute. What you can assert without evidence or arguments, I can dismiss without evidence or arguments.
Solipsism

Imagine you had a rubber and the current accepted view of mainstream science on the way the universe is you erased. What would be in its place, when everything has been erased, space, galaxies and all? This is not pointless as it is leading to explaining a different view on what already exists, especially dimensional space. I ask you for an answer to this specific question: What SHOULD exist? I argue that SHOULD existing means NEEDS existing and therefore DOES exist. SHOULD exist means WOULD exist, I'll defend this idea and I know that having the outlook on existence mainstream science has contradicts this. A room being on the other side of the wall is just pointless. A planet being away from where you are is just pointless. It should be there when it's required. It should only be when you sense it, not something alien and away from you. What SHOULD be is what WOULD be... If casualties of war are not real, just a dreamlike version of them with the illusion they have suffered then isn't the world a perfect place? There wouldn't even be anything incorrect done by infringing. It is privacy of experience including the illusion of others experiencing.
Solipsism

Idealism was an aspect taken further with solipsism, which I will defend by stressing the concept of illusions. You say that there is evidence and calculations that are apparent in the direct way it disproves Solipsism plus Idealism. It is a conspiring of Idealism and Solipsism I am arguing for and I claim that solipsism cancels out there being so much of a question of it including idealism as a minor aspect of something much more serious, in ways of being reasonable and even ethical, that being solipsism, which you say is incoherent. How is true fairness amongst beings done without either something such as robotic technical equality or solipsism. The inclusion of illusions solves the problem of companions who are not conscious. The illusion of the companion having senses. Your argument about language is simply solved by a deterministic metaphoric script were the companions who are an illusion behave properly to perform such things. In a cosmos where one solipsist being is the entirety of the physics an Earthly history would not only not be needed but not even exist as the beings first experience was the start of the cosmology, emphasising Idealism.
Solipsism

Illusions simply occur in our world, if not the solipsists individual world for example falling asleep and dreaming of other people with the illusion you can be heard and seen. So how different is the woken world, why is it not that there is the illusion of others being real and not just behaving real. Why is it not that spaces, rooms etc come to be when you come across them and not be when you turn away. How is this not as in dreaming when everything is encompassed within just your one feeling and just experiencing and believing that others can sense and are aware also and believing that places and spaces are meant to remain when your away.