BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Troll Debate

Llama-Lord approves this message. Llama-Lord, as we all know, has llama henchmen. These llama henchmen are VERY clever under the Llama-Lord's command, and has been known disguise themselves as humans. One of these llamas has disguised himself as the Dalai Llama. To any logically thinking human/llama, it is obvious that Dalai Llama is, in fact, a llama. Dalai Llama, or Ben, as I have come to know him, has committed his life to protecting the Moon Base from the Anti-Llama, an evil alpaca from Canada. Chuck Norris lacks such skills. Llamas are also able to compose music. They embed their “the Llama-Anthem” (as shown here: http://www.youtube.com...) into Nutrisystem commercials. They do this so you will buy their llama-based products. Chuck Norris has never had such an ingenious plan. Scientific research has proved that the average IQ of a llama is -2 this is at least 9.75x smarter than the average IQ of a human, and is at least 17x smarter than the Norris. M. E. Llama wrote the critically acclaimed “50½ Shades of Llama”, which New York Times said was “a better love story than Twilight.” Llamas are better romance authors than the Norris. Chuck Norris’s beard was forged in the heart of a Chihuahua by llama. Most importantly: Batman, one of the few beings more awesome than the Norris, was Llama-Lord’s top Llama. http://irl23.deviantart.com...
Troll Debate

My opponent asked for the topic to be non-contrevercial, but this very important debate MUST be had.I propose we debate whether or not Chuck Norris is more awesome than Llama-Lord.I would be con in this debate, so I would be arguing that Llama-Lord is more awesome than Chuck Norris.If my opponent accepts, then he should know the definitions.Chuck Norris: the one who is known to turn the Darkness off when he enters the room and to cause Continental Drift with his Roundhouse Kick.More Awesome: Higher level of incredible.Llama-Lord: The powerful Cosmic Llama of Power who is King of the Moon (and Ruler of several smaller planets within the Andromida Galaxy.)Chuck Norris is NOT greater than Mr. The Llama-Lord.
American Military Intervention is wrong

Of course, I would be the first to agree that the Cambodian genocide was horrifying. However, i must point out that Pol Pot and his band of murderous maniacs, the Khmer Rouge, came to power because they had overwhelming support from the peasantry. And do you know why? Because the U.S. carpet bombings had killed tens of thousands of completely innocent Cambodian civilians while trying to destroy NORTH VIETNAMESE bases (wrong country, Uncle Sam). And we've all heard about the evils of saddam's regime, that he had nukes (which, by the way, were never found). What is often forgotten is that U.S. airstrikes indiscriminately killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Or take the invasion of the Dominican republic. It started when the dictator, rafael trujillo, died. In the ensuing elections, juan bosch was elected president. He was a liberal who promised democracy representation in government for all classes of society, and actually took an interest in the people's welfare. This did not down well with the high-ranking army officers, who attempted a coup, which failed. It was then that the U.S. intervened - on the side of the would-be military junta. The U.S. made possible an overthrow of a democratically-elected government in favour of a military dictatorship. Go ahead and try to justify that. We start to see a pattern in all this. The U.S. cares not for democracy, nor for the lives of civilians. It only wants to create regimes that it can control, it only seeks to increase it's power no matter the cost. With this I end my argument. I await my opponent's rebuttal, and urge voters to be unbiased if they live in the U.S.
American Military Intervention is wrong

The United States' intervention in world issues is vital to maintaining a safe world. The United States currently has bases in over 90 countries throughout the world. Many countries depend on the defense of the United States for their security. After World War II, being defeating by the US, Japan has never had a significant military. The United States has provided it with defense for nearly seven decades. Polls find that the Japanese support American intervention is about 70%, which is very high. American military intervention in Japan was the best thing to ever happen to it, and I suspect other future intervention to provide the same results. The United States military budget is around 420 billion dollars per year, or about 42% of world military spending. The United States is in a unique situation being a world superpower. It has the power to influence the world to a great deal. It is the power to push out military dictators, help deprived citizens, or halt a bloody civil war. It has made it clear it is capable of this. Bad things happen when America does "nothing." The lack of involvement from the United States in the Cambodian Genocide directly caused the deaths of 250,000 men, women, and children. It could have easily stopped this, they were up against around a force of a few thousand men with guns. They could have stopped it, and did nothing. This is only one example of the "lack of involvement" by the United States and the implications that can have.Pertaining the the Vietnam war, the United States was perfectly justified in its involvement. Communism has been shown, without fail, to cause misery wherever it has spread. It was not just ideological differences the United States was concerned with when it intervened. It was for human rights. Vietnam would be better off today if the United States had successfully installed a democracy in its society. The world would have been better off.America intervening in oil-rich countries to try to stabilize and implement democracies is no less of a world peace keeping than any other issue. The United States is dependent on oil and so is most of the world. Of course it's for oil, and that is a shame. The United states should implement democracies wherever it can. It is extremely naive to think the United States is not justified in intervening in those countries. The world economy would collapse without that oil, people throughout the world would become impoverished, many would go without health care, and many would die. If the world was cut-off from oil, many would die as a result. This reason for intervention is as good as another. Without the United States' involvement in world affairs, evil people are allowed to do evil things. The United Nations is useless, and most of the world is unwilling in aiding countries in need.
American Military Intervention is wrong

I will understand if you are unable to post arguments, and if that is the case, will look forward to debating the same topic in future. I'm afraid however, that i cannot agree to your terms. As you are at liberty to present your defense, so am i at liberty to present my offense, though i will, of course, attempt not to be malicious slanderous. I follow with my argument. Ever since the days of the second world war, the Unites States has been engaged in what it calls "peacekeeping operations" in various parts of the world. While i would be the first to agree that intervention in the two World Wars was vital to world security, I maintain that the recent military operations have been unjustified. Let us take the most famous example, the Vietnam War. People were horrified at the so-called 'atrocities' perpetrated by the Viet Minh, which supposedly 'forced' the U. S. to enter the war. That, however, is not how the war started. It started with the Indochina war between France and Vietnam, which was really a revolution against the french colonialists, who were oppressing the vietnamese. It may be well to add that the Viet Minh, led by the infamous Ho Chi Minh, had won majorities in DEMOCRATIC elections all over the country, but the french did not want to lose their colonies, and with british help invaded vietnam. It was when the french started losing that the U. S. decided to intevene. The viet minh, later the viet cong, were able to recruit so many people because they were fighting for rights and independence. Or take the Korean War. It's history stretches back to 1945, when Korea war divided into North and South(without consulting the Koreans). Kim-Il-Sung, leader of North Korea, wanted unification and called for elections all over Korea, and sent diplomats to South Korea. They were promptly arrested. The day after this, skirmishes between KPA and ROK troops. The United States,worried about Soviet Influence, decided to intervene, and the rest is history. Both these , plus many others i shall not go into detail of, like the failed invasion of Cuba, were simply motivated by the "Red Scare" the so-called communist threat. Both these were simply the result of paranoia and fear that the governments could be replaced by others that would not bow to the U. S. 's every word. I await my opponents argument. I have tried not to sound accusatory, but if i did, please forgive me.
American Military Intervention is wrong

Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. Before we start, I agree we should set what we mutually agree on. -the united states does not have evil intentions when intervening in foreign territories -without the united states' intervention in the middle east, Israel would not exist I am heading off to seattle for a few days tomorrow, I will try my best to find access to a computer to debate! If I don't respond, I am truly sorry:(
We are all Going to Die!

To really think of it, all of Texas sucks, really... You gotta understand the arrogance still embedded because of those ten years it was its own country. Case in point, "The Lone Star State." Out of all of the places I've lived prior to this, I've never seen so much of that state's flag. In fact, while I lived in Utah when I was younger I had to study its flag in a book in order to draw it as assigned... Next, it's so damn republican around here that I understand better now why the democratic congress is having such a hard time being bipartisan with the republican administration. It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, I'm sure they're taking longer lunches because of that in order to repair themselves. Finally, the weather. Austin's even hotter than Nevada because of the humidity, I mean -- it makes me long for Arizona! (A place where I used to get sick because of how hot it was and then off for gatorade in mass quanities we went.) It costs you more money, too -- 'cause now all of a sudden you need expensive conditioner so that you'll show yourself in public... (My hair forgot to finish the naturally curly process so now I'm left with its tendency to frizz, you see...) This isn't just unique to Austin, it's humid across a lot of this God forsaken place. Something that is unique to Austin, though (I believe) is bats! Christ, now I fear for my dog, too... I am unhappy.
We are all Going to Die!

First let start off by saying that The things that we do to This Planet and The things we do to each other we are slowly killing are planet and ourselfs.we have no Jetson future we will all perish away slowly but shurly in our own demise. You cant live in denial and ignorance becuase you dont want to see opean your eyes people look around now im not predicting the the end of the would will be nor do i think it will happen in a day and please do not accept this challenge just to accept it
Talent is more necessary for success than money

Contention 1: Materialism My opponent contradicts himself in his last round when he gives you the definition of success that I have given you (the fact of gaining or achieving wealth, fame, or respect) and gives the examples of thieves and robbers. There only main objective is to steal steal things to achieve wealth. Then there are some these thieves that rob to achieve fame like Bonnie and Clyde. If you really look at certain things in people's lives you can see that they all led to money. Like housing, schooling, technology, food on the table and clothing. You need money for all these things. Whoever has the nicer things tend to be more successful in life and be richer. Contention 2: You can be successful without being talented. The richest people in the USA and the entire world have been the untalented as I have brought up last round. How about world leaders. They have been successful without talent. FDR, Teddy, Reagan, IKE, Lincoln, etc. .. I can go on, but the list is long. The monarchs of Europe just had their jobs handed to them on a silver platter and they were very successful and didn't have to ever do a thing. Contention 3: Hard work My source applies to the average Joe's job and is from employers across the US while my opponent's source is including vocationial jobs. In vocational jobs you need to have a special skill. This must be discounted, because it only works for special skill jobs. You have to have hard work in the average job today's world. If you are lazzy then it doesn't matter how talented you are because no one would want to hire you.
Talent is more necessary for success than money

Money can be very important in defining success, but it is not necessary that having money always makes you successful. A very good example can be the thieves, robbers and smugglers. They do have money, they do achieve THEIR aim of stealing, but can not counted as successful according to our definition of success because we define success as the " fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame" and I don't think that anyone respects them. Also, many people don't have money as their aim. So, money doesn't always define success. Excluding America, many countries define success in terms of whether their work supports their family life. If they enjoy their work, and if it gives them an opportunity to spend time with their family and have a balanced life, they"d consider themselves successful. (http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org...) There might be a few cases where less talented/ not talented people have achieved success. But, it is generally seen that the people who have more talent become successful. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is "every law has an exception". There might be a few people who had a stroke of luck, but all people are not lucky. Luck doesn't make you successful, talent does. If you are not talented in a certain field, I don't think your tremendous hard work in the very same field will reap off. So, hard working and responsible people are not always successful in their life. Therefore, it can be said that working hard and being responsible don't really matter if you do not have any talent. Without talent, these things are generally useless. A recent research says that talented people still have an edge over those who are more hard working than them. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Also, what employers are looking for doesn't really matter because success doesn't always come from employment. Many famous inventors were not employed and still became successful. Also, Beckham went on to achieve his aim and that makes him successful according to our definition of success. And this success didn't take a lot of hard work. So, success means more of talent and a very little hard work(if necessary). Thank you, Lannan for this wonderful debate. Onto you and the voters now.
Talent is more necessary for success than money

Hello. I define success as "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose" and not only "the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame". (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...). The aim of a person is not only to earn money but also get self satisfaction. The success that one gets by using his talents gives a kind of satisfaction that any other thing doesn't. So, talent gives people the 'real' success that they crave for. History has been the witness of the fact that many people, who were talented in a certain field, but were without even a bit of money went on to succeed in their lives. Some great examples can be Charlie Chaplin (http://www.businessinsider.com...), Dhirubhai Ambani, Shahrukh Khan, Harry Houdini (http://www.businessinsider.com...), etc. After thinking about all these people, my mind says that achieving success in life is dependent on talent, and not money. A talented person can earn money and gain success using his talents, but a rich person without any talent can't do that. Even if he does, he wouldn't get much success as compared to a talented person of the same field as his. Also, money can leave a person anytime. So a person dependent entirely on money for success is under the constant risk of becoming a 'Zero' from a 'Hero'. But talent is something that stays with a person lifelong. So, a talented person never has to be worried about becoming a 'Zero' after he has become a 'Hero'. But, along with talent, other factors such as passion and hard work are important. But these factors are of no use if talent is not there. So, I believe that talent, and not money, is the most important thing that one needs to achieve success.
Atheism can be a causal factor in atrocity

Rebuttal to your (#1) statement - Stalin and Mao clearly evil people but their mal intent on religion was never because they were atheist. They didn't do things in the name of atheism per say a religious extremist would. it was the hate for religious domination in society that they were more against ( giving these where greedy dictators that would make sense ) more so than the doctrine of religions believing in God. Stalin did say yes that religion is the opposite of science but keep in mind that it is, making that nothing but a pure factual statement. You can't blame their unethical acts on his atheism specially considering that he was an evil man in general wanting to dominate society which has nothing to do with atheism. religious oppression is what brought this on to its self and there is no doubting that given the power of religion especially in those days of Stalin and Mao (and for the same in response to your second contention [religious oppression is at fault] with Dawkins as a reference, whom by far I know has no major in history making him ignorant of that subject) I almost want to propose the statement that religion is a causal factor in atrocity even more so by far than atheism. given your God supposedly ("supposedly" because I do not believe in god to start off with) killed more than Mao and Stalin Combined ~ I find this ironic http://blog.planetpreterist.com... And crusades anyone? now lets talk about mal religious intent and atrocity. Muslim extremist driving plane into our twin towers in the name of god. there seems to be a direct link with god and their social beliefs that led to such an atrocity and there is no denying it. they willingly did this thinking that they were doing what their god had wanted them to do making there irrational decision to kill thousands easy. It is well known that the pope strongly discourages the use of condoms in Africa, calling for abstinence only. Leading to the death of countless people "600-1,000 people are thought to die every day because of Aids." http://news.bbc.co.uk... In response to your third contention. What are your sources? I cant find any document backing that up what so ever infact I found multiple saying exactly the opposite that there is more religious in incarceration than atheist, agnostics, and non-religious together. Christians make up 75% of the U.S. Prisons population ~according to federal bureau of prisons InquireTruth, you seem to be confused about what atheism is. Atheism is not strictly about people who criticize or hate religion, in fact, that's not the point at all. As you've defined yourself atheists just don't believe or can't believe in a religion. For example, a child raised without religion is, by definition, an atheist. Implicit vs. explicit. This should be adequate for now and I look forward to my opponent's response.
Atheism can be a causal factor in atrocity

Premise: Atheism can be a causal factor in atrocity. Definitions: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Cause - a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect Factor: one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation. Contentions: 1) Stalin and Mao (among many others) were self-proclaiming atheists and they killed tens of millions of people. 2) The destruction of religious art and architecture by groups that were operating under a material atheistic argument for the nonexistence of God. 3) Atheists, per capita, have a much higher probability of incarceration. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Stalin targeted religious institutions because he saw religion as "opposite of science." Mao and Stalin fought for a religious-free utopia under the dictates of the atheistic communist manifesto – religion was the opiate of the masses and need be rid of. Had Mao and Stalin not been atheist, they would not have had a special inclination to rid from their sights all of religion. It cannot be said that such dictators just happened to be atheist and their atheism did not play any fundamental role. This betrays the well known fact that Mao and Stalin particulary fought for a religious-free utopia, a feat that relies heavily on their self-proclaimed atheism. It should lastly be noted that atheists in power commit acts of violence against their own people with such alarming regularity that one would have to be a fool to omit atheism from suspicion. 2. Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion," says this: "I do not believe there is any atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan." Pg. 229 Dawkins must be ignorant of history seeing as how between 1917 and 1969 the atheist soviets destroyed 41,000 of Russia's 48,000 churches. Similar behavior has been seen in atheist-run Spain, Poland, Romania and East Germany. Even in our time atheists have been responsible for destroying 440 of the 500 Buddhist temples in North Korea. The large body of historical and contemporary evidence to support this contention could go on indefinitely. 3. In April 2001, the Office for National Statistics reported that agnostics/atheists/no-religionists are 3.84 times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian. This should be sufficient for now and I look forward to my opponent's response.