BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facebook is better than Twitter

Ya buddy, you are right, i think by mistake i chose CON. However, will continue the debate and Iwill argue on Twitter is better than the Facebook :) Though I like facebook,as a matter of fact,twitter is better than facebook in some cool features. You are able to get other’stweets easily just by following them in twitter.But in facebook you must add the person as a friend to get their updates. You don't have to waste time dealing with quiz invites and unexpected pokes and tags.
Facebook is better than Twitter

Thanks for starting this debate, Sumone2Every1. I am on the Proposition stating that Facebook is better than Twitter. Here are my arguments. 1. Facebook is better than Twitter because it appeals to people looking to reconnect with old friends and family members or find new friends online. Facebook is user-friendly whereas Twitter is not. 2. Twitter has limited functionality and as a result, not all people find it useful. That's it for this round. I look forward to the Opposition's response of how Twitter is better than Facebook.
Facebook is better than Twitter

I think Facebook is better than twitter, coz it appeals to people looking to reconnect with old friends and family members or find new friends online. Facebook is user Friendly comapre to Twitter. Twitter has limited Functionality,not all people find it useful. In the end, both Twitter and Facebook are simply communication tools. But, will either Twitter or Facebook become the next Google. or its just a hype for couple of years like Orkut. What do you think?
Smoking Ban

I will agree with her that smoking is unhealthy; in fact I wish that no one smoked. However we have to face the reality that people do, and most likely always will. My argument is not based off of what is healthy or not, it is based off of individual liberties. A1: If we are going to ban smoking because it is unhealthy, why not ban soda, candy, popcorn, cakes, ice-cream, and all junk food. The number of people who die of heart disease far exceeds the amount of people who die of cancer. Diabetes is on the rise due to our daily diet. So why should the government not ban this? Because of basic human choice. We should have the choice to consume soda, smoke tobacco, or drink alcohol. The government should not have the right to take away our choices. If we let them ban one thing to take care of us, then what stops them from banning those other things? When you willing buy a milkshake, no one is forcing you to consume it. It was your choice to get it. No one is forced to smoke cigarettes. A2: My second argument is tax revenue. The government makes a decent amount of money selling tobacco products. State governments need all the money they can get right now, and taking away such a big product would take away plenty of money. A3: Banning cigarettes would open up a new market for drug dealers. Do you think that once it’s banned it will just fade out and be forgotten? Dealers from all over, including Mexico, would see the potential in this new law. People would be willing to pay extreme amounts of money for their tobacco. Do we really want yet another drug on the market? Do we want to spend tax payer dollars putting people who smoke and sell tobacco in jail? Also, for some reason youth flock to illegal products. It’s “cool” to smoke weed because it’s bad. I would not want this starting up with something as simple as a cigarette. Of course kids are already attracted to cigarettes because they are under eighteen, however a ban would make it all the more “cooler” because not even their parents are supposed to have them. Regarding my opponent’s arguments, I agree that you could find something better to spend your money on. However, just because you could give my family some food does not mean you should be banned from buying some new shoes. The environment issue also came up, but I will simply respond that if we are going to take that approach, we might as well ban the automobile. I look forward to the next argument. Sources: (1) . http://www.cdc.gov...(2) . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
home made food is better than restaurant food

I will jump right in with my responce. Restaurant food does not cause any of the diseases that my opponent claims. My opponent is mistaking correlation for causation. The real cause for most diet related illnesses is poor nutrition, namely an over consumption of trans-fats and saturated fats, sodium, sugars (and other simple carbs) [1][2][3]. These unheathy nightmares can be found in food in restaurants and in the grocery store. It is not where you get your food, but what is in the food. As for taste, I would argue that the average professionally trained chef can make a tastier dish than the average joe in his kitchen. Most "home cooked" meals consist of mac and cheese and microwave dinners from a box. Those do not compare to what you can get at a sit down restuarant. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov...[2] . http://circ.ahajournals.org...;[3] . http://www.heart.org...;
home made food is better than restaurant food

Nw tell me how can u say restaurant food is better. You say home food sometimes better right. Thnk god it sometimes better. But restaurent food is made up of sporius things. We make food in home by taking into the account of health. Nw how can u say it sometimes better. If u eat restaurant food daily u are beset with many dangerous diseases like heart fail,obesity,diabetes etc Gvgff
home made food is better than restaurant food

My opponent has not provided any arguments or sources that counter that diseases are caused by things in the food (sugars, fats, salts, etc) and that these can be found in restaurant and home made food. Instead, my opponent has simply restated his cause and referred to my arguments as "a joke." If my opponent would like to counter them, he can provide facts and sources. I will extend my arguments and say, it isn't where you eat (in a restaurant vs at home), it is what you eat.
home made food is better than restaurant food

thanks for giving arguments. i think you are a man of different thinking. sir, i was also a victim of restaurant foods. in a restaurent, its employes make the food for lots of people. so they often use bad materials in the preparation of foods. these are always rich in trans fats and high calories. they are often oily. you dont think if you eat this type of food daily, you will not beset with disease. afterall, doctors also give advice to avoid restaurent food. are all the doctors mad? you said this food does not causing any disease. how can you say this althogh i was also its victims. because i ate daily restaurent food and i became fat. i also suffered from obesity and heart pain. now i avoid this food totaly and i has become a healthy person today. And i have no disease. sir, you know if you eat a plate of chowmin, you will have to play tennis for five hours continuesly to burn the calories. i m laughing at your argu that restaurent food does not cause any disease. what a joke sir. please tell me how can say this. alhtogh i can see many restaurent in india which make oily,harmful foods to you.
Superman vs Goku (Revised)

I accept this terms but I would like to point out that Superman is in fact not unbeatable I would also like to state that the reason I choosed superman is because of his ludicrus feats so all he feats in his comic books I shall use-I will start with something simple Superman exceeds Goku in speed so how would Goku's attacks which is calculated as mach 20 up catch somebody who is 4 times the speed of light this itself gives Superman the advantage to outrun Goku while fighting and while flying-Now as impressive at it is for master Roshi destroying a moon and Piccolo too both doing it with relitive ease here is superman heating the entire earth with his heat vision not that he could easily destroy the earth as scientist who can measure the heat of the sun say they cannot measure Superman's heat vison: which means he can easily destroy multiple planets with ease which exceeds Goku who needs to scream kamehameha before launching an attack -That is my quick argument time for yours GOOD LUCK!
Superman vs Goku (Revised)

I won't be making any arguments in this round, but I will be making some distinctions that I hope my opponent can agree to. I will be arguing for Goku in his condition at the end of Dragonball Z. I am, in and out of this debate, going to do everything in my power to make it seem that Dragonball GT does not exist. As this is a Superman vs. Goku debate, I would like it to be that this is a debate over who would win, not over who would kill the other. If Superman is more likely to stand over an unconscious Goku, then my opponent should win the debate, and vice-versa for me. I will leave it up to my opponent as to what Superman he argues for, but hopefully it will not be anything too far from the mainstream. Something like from Justice League or the main understanding of Superman in the comics would do fine. I would also like to argue that Superman should not be defined as unbeatable as I've seen people attempt do to. In return, I will operate with Goku not having any access to Kryptonite. I greatly look forward to this debate, as well as my opponents arguments.
Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws, would be a better president than Donald Trump

I agree that Hilary would be a better president than Donald trump but here is why, Donald trump has no realationship to the people he wants to govern. He lives the 1% life that amarican family's can't have. While a half of the United States is living at homeless shelters and even park benches he has never known anything other than the wealthy. Also the way I see it Donald trump is a hot head I think all it would take is one threat from North Korea and he would have no hesitation to press the red button and send hundreds of nukes their way. Now I may be stretching that a little far but just think about it. Also here is the #1 thing i cannot stand about Donald trump, which is the fact that he wants to build the trump wall which when you think about it, yes it probobly would do is Job but most immigrants are not illegal and those who are not illegal are being kept out rather than invited in this can be represented by the quote, "the difference between walls and bridges is walls are made to keep things out, bridges are made to invite those who belong." Why make a wall when you can knock up security.
Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws, would be a better president than Donald Trump

Round One: Introduce topic and a small argument introducing your position. Round Two: Full arguments. Round Three: Rebuttal and closing arguments. I think that Hillary would be a better president than Trump. Trump's lack of political experience is not an advantage, as he claims, but a massive disadvantage for dealing with complicated partisan politics. Trump's ambiguous political history proves that he can't be trusted to follow through on his promises once he gains office. His ignorance of even the most basic principles of this country (The Bill of Rights), shows how unprepared he is for this position. Finally, Trump's blatantly racist comments show that he has no idea what being a president is all about.
America: Christian Nation? - Rematch

Thanks Pro for your response. I will now take the chance to make some final rebuttals.I. CHURCH ATTENDANCE IN AMERICAPro points out that there are states where many people are religious and thus would have higher levels of church attendance and displays of faith. He has no source to support this, but even if it were indeed a true fact, he has merely proved that these states are religious. He still has not proven that the country as a whole is culturally Christian.A good chunk of states go to church more than half Alabama 58% 1 Louisiana 58% 1 South Carolina 58% 4 Mississippi 57% 5 Arkansas 55% 5 Utah 55% 7 Nebraska 53% 7 North Carolina 53% 9 Georgia 52% 9 Tennessee 52% according http://www.religionfacts.com...it's just the states with less attendance to affect the country's statisticsII. THE GOAL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLEHe still has not proven his fallacious statement correct. I have already stated that even though such documents mention "God", they do not point to THE Judeo-Christian God specifically. Also, one building does not represent the culture of the country as a whole.It's not just one building. It's the stuff, our money we use. The pledge of allegence we used to have. It does matter.III. THE FAITH OF PRESIDENTSPro says that the majority of U.S. presidents were Protestant. Based on the list he gives us, if there are 14 Protestant presidents and 43 presidents in total, that gives about a 33% minority. Even this does not matter as I have already shown that just because many of our presidents are Christian doesn't make us a Christian nation.John Adams – UnitarianJohn Quincy Adams – UnitarianAndrew Jackson – PresbyterianMartin Van Buren – Dutch ReformedJames K. Polk – MethodistMillard Fillmore – UnitarianJames Buchanan – PresbyterianAndrew Johnson-Protestant, no official affiliation thoughUlysses S. Grant – Presbyterian, MethodistRutherford B. Hayes-Protestant, but didn't belong to a particular churchJames Garfield – Disciples of ChristGrover Cleveland – PresbyterianBenjamin Harrison – PresbyterianGrover Cleveland – PresbyterianWilliam McKinley – MethodistTheodore Roosevelt – Dutch ReformedWilliam Howard Taft – UnitarianWoodrow Wilson – PresbyterianWarren G. Harding – BaptistCalvin Coolidge – CongregationalistHerbert Hoover – QuakerHarry S. Truman – BaptistDwight D. Eisenhower – PresbyterianLyndon Johnson – Disciples of ChristRichard Nixon – QuakerRonald Reagan – PresbyterianBill Clinton – BaptistGeorge W. Bush – MethodistAs you can see the majority here are Protestanthttp://en.wikipedia.org...I didn't put Episcopilian as it really isn't Protestant, but Catholic (Church of England is really Catholic moreso than Protestant for various reasons, which I won't get into -- the origins of the church were not for the sake of Reformation; King Henry was still a proud Catholic in ideology after the conversion, just he didn't take orders from the Pope)Actually it does matter as people elected them, though mostly white people historically.IV. ADVERTISINGAgain, it is a fallacious argument.Actually no, I brought up things in our money and our buildings that are Christian.Thank you con.
America: Christian Nation? - Rematch

Thanks Pro for your response. I will now take the chance to make some final rebuttals. I. CHURCH ATTENDANCE IN AMERICA Pro points out that there are states where many people are religious and thus would have higher levels of church attendance and displays of faith. He has no source to support this, but even if it were indeed a true fact, he has merely proved that these states are religious. He still has not proven that the country as a whole is culturally Christian. II. THE GOAL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE He still has not proven his fallacious statement correct. I have already stated that even though such documents mention "God", they do not point to THE Judeo-Christian God specifically. Also, one building does not represent the culture of the country as a whole. III. THE FAITH OF PRESIDENTS Pro says that the majority of U.S. presidents were Protestant. Based on the list he gives us, if there are 14 Protestant presidents and 43 presidents in total, that gives about a 33% minority. Even this does not matter as I have already shown that just because many of our presidents are Christian doesn't make us a Christian nation. IV. ADVERTISING Again, it is a fallacious argument. V. CLOSING STATEMENTS Thank you for this chance to do this rematch debate. SOURCES: [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
America: Christian Nation? - Rematch

Thanks Pro for your response. Obviously, the meaning of the term "Christian country" was not well established between us. I guess from this point in the debate, we will be arguing over whether America is culturally Christian or not. I. CHURCH ATTENDANCE IN AMERICAObviously, for a religion to be culturally integrated into a society, there must be frequent practice as well as a majority declaration of faith in a population group, as Pro has asserted. However, although affiliation with the Christian religion is a majority at around 70%, weekly church attendance is only practiced by only about 36% of the American people [2]. True, the people of a nation can claim affiliation with a faith, but if nobody practices it, it can hardly be considered "cultural." This is very tricky, as America has 50 states. There are bastions where the people are deeply religion. North and South Dakota are very Lutheran. The Southern states are very Baptists. Delaware is strongly Methodist. So yes, a good portion of America is devoutly Protestant. It even affects the laws.II. "In this country, we have many Christian cultural things. The goal of America was a country blessed by God."Can we get a source that asserts this point? Ten Commandments on a Washington BuildingUntil not too long ago, our school pleadge of allegiances said, "One nation under God.'Our US dollar bills say "In God we trust"You won't really find things like this in other countriesIII. THE FAITH OF SOME U.S. PRESIDENTSPro claims that because some of the presidents that we elected were proud Protestants, America as a whole is culturally a Protestant nation. Besides not giving any sources to confirm such the fact, his assumption is fallicious. His logic is presented as follows:P1: Some U.S. presidents were ChristianC: America is a culturally Christian society. Actually make that the majority -- John Adams, Jackson, Polk, Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr -- all devout Protestants.IV. ADVERTISING OF CHRISTIANITYAgain, a fallicious argument. What can we expect from a religion that calls upon it's followers to spread their beliefs? I have seen an advertisement for Islam. Is America culturally Islamic because of it? Advertisements for Christianity can be found in other countries as well as seen in this image from Japan.More Judeo-Christian ads exist than any other religion.http://en.wikipedia.org......V. REBUTTALS TO MY ARGUMENTSPro seems to be conceding to each of them. Actually I've rebutted all of them
America: Christian Nation? - Rematch

Thanks Pro for your response. Obviously, the meaning of the term "Christian country" was not well established between us. I guess from this point in the debate, we will be arguing over whether America is culturally Christian or not. I. CHURCH ATTENDANCE IN AMERICAObviously, for a religion to be culturally integrated into a society, there must be frequent practice as well as a majority declaration of faith in a population group, as Pro has asserted. However, although affiliation with the Christian religion is a majority at around 70%, weekly church attendance is only practiced by only about 36% of the American people [2]. True, the people of a nation can claim affiliation with a faith, but if nobody practices it, it can hardly be considered "cultural." II. "In this country, we have many Christian cultural things. The goal of America was a country blessed by God."Can we get a source that asserts this point?III. THE FAITH OF SOME U.S. PRESIDENTSPro claims that because some of the presidents that we elected were proud Protestants, America as a whole is culturally a Protestant nation. Besides not giving any sources to confirm such the fact, his assumption is fallicious. His logic is presented as follows:P1: Some U.S. presidents were ChristianC: America is a culturally Christian society. IV. ADVERTISING OF CHRISTIANITYAgain, a fallicious argument. What can we expect from a religion that calls upon it's followers to spread their beliefs? I have seen an advertisement for Islam. Is America culturally Islamic because of it? Advertisements for Christianity can be found in other countries as well as seen in this image from Japan.http://en.wikipedia.org...V. REBUTTALS TO MY ARGUMENTSPro seems to be conceding to each of them. I await your response.
America: Christian Nation? - Rematch

Let's begin by asking: what is a "Christian Nation"? For the purposes of this debate, we'll call a "Christian Nation" the following:A nation that has it's priniples intentionally built upon specifically Christian ideals and promotes the Christian religion; a Christian theocracy. Now let's get down to my arguments:I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONThe First Amendment forbids Congress from "promoting one religion over others. "[1] So right off the bat, we know that the United States is a secular nation. II. USES OF THE WORD "GOD" IN OFFICIAL AMERICAN DOCUMENTS AND GOVERNMENT ISSUESSince the word God is used in things such as American currency ("in God we trust"), my opponent will probably bring this up. True, the word "God" is often used such documents, but is it really referring to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible? The thing is, there is no proof whatsoever that God, as found in the Judeo-Christian Bible, is specifically the God that is mentioned in said documents. The above sum up my inital arguments. I am willing to counter any new arguments that Pro decides to bring up. I await Pro's rebuttals
Rap Battle

I eats grenades for breakfast, Lunch and dinner My rhymes are stuck to me like a wife, And she gets out of control when you offend her What is this claim, That you are going to get to fame? Do you not realize that is only if I enable you to maintain? Sorry bro, This was a bad investment, And your stocks aren't going to grow, Only shrink Because the only propelling you are going to be doing is the water drink When I'm done with you, You will be dehydrated from me demolishing everything you spit I don't cuss, But you're right my rhymes are that word, Just another slang definition of it You can try and crush me, You can come at me in any way, Shape, Size, I'm up for surprises Go ahead and set me on fire, Because we all know that heat always rises I'm horrified, You're a knight, Oh no Just kidding, I don't even think I need my lyrical gun, I will just take out a crossbow
Rap Battle

You say youre holding the lyrical gun, Ive got a grenade. And im gonna propel myself to fame, And you the other way. Ive gotta say, Your rhymes are pretty sh*t. Maybe i should be the one who teaches you how to spit. Im gonna crush all your rapping desires. Better yet, Ill just set 'em on fire. Seems like your situation is getting pretty dire. Pretty soon ill be the knight, Youll be my squire. Back to you!
Rap Battle

Alright for now I'm not even going to really try, Because I don't want to say that I've already won But still, I am going to be the one holding the lyrical gun And I'm fixing to shoot, And there is nothing you can do Oh wait, Actually I'm not even going to do that, I'm going to drag you to the bullet and put it through you Sorry about that I get a little out of hand sometimes So out of hand that my sometimes even rewinds My rapping can get pretty bipolar until it turns into an ugly hot, Or maybe colder Colder than a popsicle But at the same time hotter than a two dollar pistol This is all I'm typing now, You might think this is weak, But trust me this is not all I've got Just respond to this, And I will start to reveal my sinister plot
Its acceptable to be a homophobe

Thank you, let us proceed. My argument is the exact opposite to your argument about feminism. Feminism is the belief of equality between men and women, women who discriminate against men are called sexists, but homophobia is the belief that being homosexuality is wrong and implies inferiority. Moreover, I believe my opponent to have misinterpreted my phrase in his last argument, since the topic of the debate was whether being a homophobe was acceptable or not, and I see no way in which its legality legitimizes it.