BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will lose this debate

Descartes: You may have proven to yourself that you exist. But, how do I know you think? I do not. Furthermore, you could just be a butterfly dreaming of being human. Solipsism holds there is only one person in existence, everyone else is just a product of their mind. So until you can prove you are not just a product of my mind, this debate is fallacious because you can neither win nor lose this debate, only I can win or lose this debate and as such, I must win because voting for "my opponent" would be voting for a non-existent entity. Ontological argument: Now let's spin things around, what if my opponent believes in solipsism? Then there is no "you" (me) present in this debate. Therefore, my opponent is simply imagining me, imagine this debate. And they are the only one imagining this debate. The ontological argument, thus, fails. If that is so, this debate does not exist, and neither I nor my opponent can win or lose this debate. Therefore, the voter's have one of two choices (at the present time) voting Con, off of the Descartes argument, or voting Tie, off of the Ontological argument.
Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne

<3RE: Mothers get to pickRoyal still hasnt proven that I'm not a female, until she does, the argument applies to me as well. Too bad poting videos would get us banned so we'll never know :)RE: Olga is uglyShe tries to return my turn, but he response fails because she assumes that it would be a "nasty" shock. I dont see how assuming someone is ugly and then finding out they're actually drop-dead gorgeous could be anything but good!RE: Araidne is a PrincessMy opponent is correct, however she misses the fact that Olga is also a royal name. At least 6 royal women were named olga[1]! I winRE: UnfashionableMy opponent claims that she would look like a hag in a petticoat, but this makes no sense. I conend that she would be goregous and couldn't look like a hag in anything. How offensive! She then argues that because Olga is an old fashioned name, so therefore our baby would be old fashioned, however she ignores the rise of hipsterism, where individuals, in an attempt to be different (not "mainstream") will do unexpected stuff.....like naming a baby olga. And these are progressives, so her impact is nil.RE: Araidne is not commonShe drops my response!!RE: Royal is dominantShe basically concedes that I'm the dominant one. She even said so last night....RE New ArgumentPics or it didnt happen :)Nuke war: In true policy debate style....ahem..myopponentdropsthearrantshesaysglobalwarmingwouldbestopped.firstthisdropsthewarrant,nukewarwithrussiaismutuallyassureddestructionWitchey'12.Negateifyoudontwanttodiefromnukewar.Nukewarkeytohumanextinctionthis isamajorimpactdonotignoreit.Droppedwarrantthatnamingchildolgaimprvesrelationsextendwarratandimpactacrossflowfurther,globalwarminggoodPatterson'11:" In short: Global warming is good for people. If you don’t believe me, look at the temperature variations within the Holocene: The so-called Roman Warming coincided with the heights of classical civilization; then came a period of cooling which coincided with the social collapse of the Dark Ages. Then there was the Medieval Warm Period, which coincided with the rise of monumental cathedrals in Europe and the settlement by Vikings in a lush Greenland, followed by the Little Ice Age (from roughly the 14th to the 19th centuries) — which saw widespread political upheavals, famine and disease. Finally, there is the current warming trend of the last century and a half or so. In each instance, the result is broadly the same: The warmer the Earth, the better it has been for people. So let’s be thankful for the Holocene — civilization could never have arisen without it. And let’s be thankful we live in this especially warm period within the Holocene, which has seen human populations achieve measures of health and wealth unparalleled in all of history."criticalimpactshdropsiwinglobalwarminggoodvoteneg.New argument: Araidne is animal cruelty Witchey '12: "everythime the name adraidne is said, a puppy gets kicked"1. http://www.nypost.com...2. Private interview with Witchey.
Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne

Thanks :D!RE: Mothers should select their childrens namesThis is just silly stereotyping, gender roles are outdated! Not to mention that I'm also listed as a female so it's not clear who will actually be the mother... 0.0RE: Olga is an ugly nameThis was actually going to be one of my contentions! Turn: Of course olga is an ugly name, that's the point! Any child that has the DNA of both royalpaladin and myself is obviously going to be gorgeous, so it would surprise everyone when they saw that her name was so ugly. Not only would it be interesting that someone so beautiful had such an ugly name (talking point) but it would also be surprising, and everyone loves a surprise! RE: Ariadne is a Greek princessAriadne may be a fictional princess, but Olga is a resturant[1]!RE: Unfashionable"Do you really want our daughter to wear petticoats "Yes."uneducated housewife"No! But many famous and non housewife women are named Olga! Like Mexican long distance runner Olga Appell[2]RE: Ariadne is not commonOh, and Olga is? pleeaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeRE: RP is dominant Proving or disproving this argument would involve uploading one of the (many) videos of our vibrant and crazy sex life, which would get us banned. So dont buy this, I'm deifnitely dominant ;)RE: Vote for Royal because False, vote thett!==My case==Contention one: Naming our child Olga will reduce the chance of Nuclear warOBVIOUSLY our child will rise to a prominent position in the US by sheer intelligence, and since Olga is a slavic name the people of Russia will feel a sort of kinship with her. This will better US-Russian relations and lessen the chance of a devestating third world warVote thett!1. http://www.olgas.com...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne

Contention 1: Mothers should select their childrens' names. aMothers have a greater right to select their childrens' names because they invest more time and energy in the childbirth process. Since I am the mother and I want her name to be Ariadne, even if Olga is a better name than Ariadne, my wishes should be respected.Contention 2: Olga is an ugly nameI mean, just listen to it. What kind of image does "Olga" bring up? GrossContention 3: Ariadne is the name of a Greek princessIn mythology, Ariadne marries Dionysus, the god of wine. I want our daughter to have the mythological figure to look up to. If we pick "Olga", all she has to look forward to is being horse vomit. Contention 4: Olga is not fashionableThe name Olga was popular in the 1880s. Do you really want our daughter to wear petticoats and be an uneducated housewife? Contention 5: Ariadne is not a common nameIf she has this name, she will stick out for all of the right reasons. If she has "Olga" she will stick out for all of the wrong reasons, get depressed, and commit suicide. Contention 6: I am clearly the dominant partner in the relationshipI proposed to thett and made him my soulmate, so whatever I say has to go. Contention 7: Vote for Royal because she is RoyalThat about sums up my case. <3
Resolved: We should name our daughter Ariadne

<3Mothers Get to Pick He tells you that all of my arguments about how I am the mother are irrelevant because I have not proven that he is female. Ok, so I have two reponses. I the first is based on the definition of "mother". The mother of a human child in the individual who gives birth to her. Even if thett is female and we are really lesbian lovers, I am the preggo one so I am the real mother. In that case, my argument i still just as valid. Second, however, if you do take his bait, he admits to being male on his profile. The other day, dustpelt expressed shock that thett was female and had a "lesbian partner" (me) but was against gay marriage. Thett explained that he had posted pics the other night that proved that he was male. Princess Ok, so there were some princesses named Olga. Unfortunately for him, I am still outweighing in terms of awesomess. Ariadne is a princess who becomes a goddess. That trumps ugly minor princesses named Olga. Plus, Ariadne was a Christian saint, a Byzantine Empress, an actress, and a giant tarantula. Royal wins! (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation))Unfashionable Only hags were petticoats. So, if our baby wore petticoats, she would be a hag. He refuses to provide pics of him wearing a petticoat, so his argument is invalid :)He then argues that hipsterism has revived the name "Olga" and that our children would not be making sammches eternally. The problem is that Olga is still considered an old-fashioned name, and people from old-fashioned families use it more often than hipsters. Moreover, it was more popular in the old era. This means that the probability of our child being a slave is much higher than the probability of her being a progressive. I outweigh on probability.Araidne is not Common I did not drop his response. Royal is Dominant Ok, I concede that Thett is dominant, but that just means that he should let me pick the name because I have to feel an investment in the relationship. Turn. Nuke WarMy opponent is misrepresenting his evidence that global warming is good. Although the Earth obviously does need to stay warm to an extent, the levels that we are obtaining are harmful. Current trends show that within the next 50 years, the sea levels will rise because of ice cap melting and many coastal cities across the globe will be flooded. Millions of people will die terrible deaths as a result of global warming. It is clearly horrendous. Extend the second turn on the Nuke War argument, namely that nuclear war is good because it reduces population sizes quickly and painlessly. This prevents future suffering from such problems as global warming, famines, and floods. CompromiseThe real purpose of this debate was to teach the readers that love is about compromising and is not about rivalry. Hence, thett and I have agreed ot name the baby Ariadne-Olga. Please vote for a tie.
George Zimmerman is innocent

Extend all of that. I never copied and pasted. I posted my sources and wrote my mind. My opp copied and pasted his whole argument from a website on why Zimmerman is innocent. The Next round I will attack my opp arguments if he has something from my his mind, and if he does not I will rebutall his round one. My opp had a false accusation and then copied and pasted due what ever is going on in the opp.s mindA. "Vote if your not racist". I agree with that statement, I do not know if he is calling me racist. Conduct points.
George Zimmerman is innocent

New evidence in the George Zimmerman case has been reluctantly revealed by ABC News, which clearly shows the back of the George Zimmerman's head bleeding profusely. Consistent with his claim that Trayvon Martin was bashing his head into the concrete, resulting in Zimmerman shooting the teen to death in self defense. George Zimmerman's bleeding head -- consistent with his self defense claim Disgustingly, the Liberal talking heads — even after seeing this evidence — try to spin it to appear that maybe…just maybe…Zimmerman started the fight (without landing a single blow, according to Martin's funeral home director), but then got his but whipped, and only then pulled out his gun. What a bunch of moral cowards — also known as typical liberals. Remember, Zimmerman claimed that Martin confronted him, punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground, and then jumped onto of him and began pounding his head into the concrete. Remember how the Leftist Media and the Leftist blogs from which the Leftist Media gets their talking points jumped all over the video of Zimmerman at the police station, with no apparent injuries (except for the gashes on the back of his head, which they intentionally covered up with a news logo)? Then remember how the funeral home director who prepped Martin's body said that Martin did not have any injuries or any signs of having been in a fight, other than the bullet wounds to his chest? Facts that are inconsistent with Martin having been beaten up by Zimmerman. Facts that are inconsistent with Martin being the voice on the 911 tapes screaming for help as he was being beaten up. Remember how the police report and witnesses all reported that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head. Facts that are consistent with his being punched in the face and having his head bashed against the sidewalk. Every bit of evidence in this case points to Zimmerman's self defense claim being true. And there is simply no evidence that supports the racist narrative that the MFM and the race hustlers have spun. None of the evidence supports the trumped up charge of Second Degree Murder that the over-ambitious State's Attorney Angela Corey threw at Martin to appease the race hustlers and to advance her own career. Even the most Liberal of the Liberal legal bloggers and lawyers are slamming the indictment as pure garbage.
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

Exactly my friend, that's why I took con. Because I am against Sherlock Holmes' theory that music has a connection to the soul. You have to defend the resolution, while I have to argue against it. Apart from your points, music is a man-made invention, meaning that there was a time we existed without music. Plus, likings or dislikings need to be extremely strong to connect with the so-called soul, and music isn't the passion of everyone. After all, that is one of the reasons everyone dislikes bollywood movies.
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

So what about people who don"t like music? I"m 51 now and I"ve always hated music. My mother said that if she switched the radio on when I was a baby I would scream and thrash about until she switched it off. Even now I find music stressing. My head spins, my heart starts beating fast and I have to get away whenever I hear music anywhere. I can"t watch a film, documentary or TV programme with music in, I"ve never had a radio or music system and I"ve never found any sort of music a pleasure, yet I seem to be in a very small minority.
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

Uhh.. not sure what to do in this round now.This is my third time debating it, because I have to give a presentation on Woodrow Wilson in Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH). My friend is actually doing the same president, but she is presenting him with the biases I described. Our teacher is allowing me to go immediately after her, and I will demolish every possible positive spin until each statement praising him is eviscerated and left to die.I'll assuming that you are conceding? If so, just say that you concede to me. Also, if you want to debate any resolution about presidential history, economics, investing, finance, or liberty, just ask.More Sources[1] Ivan Eland, Recarving Rushmore, pgs. 212-229This book is the basis of the metric system and dismissal of the charisma and communication skills biases I used in this debate.[2] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...A section of this article demonstrates how Woodrow Wilson expanded federal power through coercive accumulation methods.[3] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...This article explains the political and economic issues that were caused by Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter World War I, and their effects on the rise of dictators in Europe.[4] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...This article describes the expansions of presidential power ushered in by Woodrow Wilson, which subvert the democratic process and undermine liberty.[5] http://mises.org...This article describes Woodrow Wilson's role in establishing the federal reserve system.[6] http://mises.org...This article describes Woodrow Wilson's role in creating the income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a tax that was previously ruled unconstitutional.[7] http://civilliberty.about.com...A portion of this article describes why Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst presidents on civil liberties in American History.
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

Resolution: Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." -Milton FriedmanI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
Woodrow Wilson was a bad president.

Woodrow Wilson was a bad president. Con made no effort on his side of the debate. Vote Pro on arguments, sources, and conduct."The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows." -Buddha "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!" -Herman CainVote Pro for free kfc.
During a Zombie uprising it is Better to be Mobile then Barricading

I see that my opponent has forfeited round 3, which shows that I have proved my point well. I will restate the major pros for being mobile and the cons for being barricaded. *You have directions to run away when zombies are chasing you. *You can quickly retrieve supplies while being mobile. *You can acquire weapons more easily than staying at one place only. *You are more likely to obtain vital food supplies. *You can escape the 1 million population city, before everyone becomes zombies. Cons for Barricading Read arguments and rebuttals in round 2. Barricade means death because you are basically trapping yourself. You will run out of supplies when you are barricaded. If you try to sneak out for food the zombies that are surrounding your house or barricade, they will sense you with their smelling and hearing senses. There isn't that much weapons in your house. Like I already said in round 2, melee weapons that are found inside houses are useless when you are surrounded by tens and tens of zombies. Conclusion If you are in a barricade you will die sooner or later. If you are mobile there is greater chance of surviving. Please take a look at my rebuttals and arguments in round 2. Thank con for a good debate.
During a Zombie uprising it is Better to be Mobile then Barricading

Here is a scenario... You are in a city that has a population of a million. Within days before you realize something is happening in the city, zombies start to over run hospital, police headquarters, and even the streets. About half of the population is infected. Half of the survivor is being eaten. These events are happening all over the globe. You want to live as long as possible. You want to equip yourself with the weapons that will save you in dangerous time. Pros about Being Mobile *You have a greater chance of finding food. *You can discover new survivors along the way. *New survivors mean new skills. *If any zombie gets close to you, you can get away. *You find new materials to build a better vehicle. *You can find new weapons in a different town. Cons about Being Barricaded *You are basically trapping yourself. *You have limited supplies. *You will run out of materials to improvise your fortification. *Your fort or fortify home will bring unwanted attention not only by zombies sensing you are still alive, but other survivors who will be willing to break in for food or weapons. *You are only available to the supplies in the city. *Your fort will one day fall, but if you are mobile you are never be caught in one place to be eaten. *You are going to be overwhelmed by all the zombies attacking you, when there is no more human left alive in the city. Conclusion The only way to survive for a long period of time is by being mobile. If you are heavily fortifying your home to withstand being overrun by zombie, you face the problem of lack of food. You can gather other survivors in the area and start to prepare to escape from this city which is already infected. You will run out of food sooner or later if you barricaded your home. You have a greater chance of reaching a safe place if you are mobile, ten waiting for the government to send out rescue teams. * If you are mobile you will survive longer than hiding in a barricaded place.
During a Zombie uprising it is Better to be Mobile then Barricading

This will be fun if you follow the direction. Zombie!!! :0 * No writing debate arguments in comments. Round 1: Intro from both sides. Round 2: Reasoning to prove which hero will take the win. Round 3: Rebuttal and argue to the reasons stated in the previous round. Round 4: Conclusion. Definition --------------------------------------------------------- Mobile: capable of moving Barricading: a defensive barrier hastily constructed. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Luck on this debate! :)
TULIP is TRUE

The premise "TULIP is true" would infer that it is an absolute truth and based upon a Biblical foundation. I will present sufficient Biblical evidence to at least question the absoluteness of the Calvinistic doctrine contained in TULIP. While I would agree that the Bible is completely true, it is open to interpretation. One must consider who is the one speaking; who it is written to; who is the one speaking talking to; what was said; why was it said; where did this happen; when did it take place; could this happen again; and, how does it apply to me.