BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I can be really weird and confusing: More then you would think.

Ever did I claim to make sense! O, on the contrary, lad. Oh, by the way, did you know dogs say woof, with their cute little snouts. But, before we start this, let me ask you: What did the peacock say to the antelope? Do you know, short fella. Nothing, it just stood their and said absolutely nothing. So they put the peacock on trial. I doubt many spring chickens like yourself know of this ordeal. Well, wah, wah, wah. the duck said 'quack' and off went the peacocks head. Quack! However, cows still say 'Moo'! Hmm, I am hungry, aren't you. I wonder what your girlfriend had for lunch. Maybe you can take her out for a chicken salad later. By the way, when are going to pay me that dollar you owe me? Send me a check, sometime or I will put the book on you. A dollar, per favor, just a dollar is all I need. Without further adue, on we go. T:hen the cow said: 'I want to moo around like a little cow.' Now, he did not really tell me that but I am just lip reading which is very hard to do when it is chewing cud. And a word to the wise: Do not try to interview a goat when it is charging you. You should grateful I am telling you this helpful information. I am full of helpful tidbits that make everyday life easier like "Always have a ready floss stick when eating." and "Never throw a duck when is already agitated." Well, until next time, Doei. That is Dutch you know.
I can be really weird and confusing: More then you would think.

I hereby state that I am the best at what I do- annoy the hell out of people, confuse them, a profess to be totally weird when I want. If anyone wants to, say otherwise, well- it isn't over till the giraffe sings. 1. This This debate will prove you are better then me at what I do. 2. All swearing is prohibited unless in another language.
I can be really weird and confusing: More then you would think.

Forfeit. You forfeited? How could you possibly forfeit this?! O my gosh. I am like perplexed. You just had to forfeit this round. You were probably like "Eh, a yeah, quack, mesa gonna forfeit this one little round. Do you actually think you can get away with this. I will sue you.- Is that okay? Na, I am just joking. Because I know you had a good reason. Neine? By the way, I found a perfect girl for you. Please respond.
Unicorns are real. (Joke Debate)

Unicorn-A fabled creature symbolic of virginity and usually represented as a horse with a single straight spiraled horn projecting from its forehead.[1] First, I would like to say: P1. There is glitter P2. Unicorns haglitter C. Unicorns are real. 2. The theory of aerodynamics do not disprove this. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Unicorns are real. (Joke Debate)

This is intended as a joke debate and shall not be taken seriously. I'll say that unicorns are real. 1st. Unicorns are real because aerodynamics does not say that they do not exist. 2. Here is the logic: P1. There is glitter. P2. Everything has a cause. P3. Unicorns produce glitter. C. Therefore unicorns are real. 3.University: an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Continental European universities usually have only graduate or professional schools[1] Corn:Also called Indian corn; especially technical and British , maize. a tall cereal plant, Zea mays, cultivated in many varieties, having a jointed, solid stem and bearing the grain, seeds, or kernels on large ears. [2] These have nothing to do with unicorns, but I'll say that they are evidence that unicorns exist. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Taxation is on moral par with theft.

It seems to me that taxes are to a government as hunting is to a village. Is it wrong if a village expects people who are able to hunt to pull their weight? Is it wrong for a government to expect people to pay some taxes to pull their weight? I admit at times things may seem uneven, as if you are pulling an unfair load in comparison to others. But the expected act to pull your own weight or even demand of it is not immoral, sometimes people are messing up the application of it. I recall reading a book about Webster, Clay, and Calhoun once, mostly found it tedious to read, but something I found interesting was that one of the large issues back then seemed to be tariffs, taxes, public projects, and such. Example, people from one state did not see why they should pay money to help build a road or a dam or some infrastructure in some other state. Even though such an action would improve the country as a whole and come back to them in time. Point being that it seems doubtful that America would be what it is today if we had not implemented taxes. And that people have continually found it necessary to include in our country over time. I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. My source here should not count toward best sources vote, as it doesn't really apply all that much to my argument. https://www.amazon.com...
Taxation is on moral par with theft.

People cannot pretend that they are not part of the world and that their actions have an effect on the other people in it. A detailed infrastructure is an important feature of society, of organizations such as police, of laws and the lawmakers. The idea that all people be allowed to do whatever they would like and to follow some broad basic laws such as the golden rule seems flawed. Without an overarching force to pull people together then division is inevitable, this can be seen in all the divisions we see in politics today even as they operate together within the framework of government. We do not generally find it immoral for families to work together or for children to follow their parents directions and wishes. Is your thought that once someone is an adult suddenly all contact and obligation to ones family is cut off and it is immoral for them to expect anything of you?
Taxation is on moral par with theft.

Well thank you for debating. So if I understand, your argument is "people benefit from society, therefore they should have to pay for it's upkeep." So if somebody benefits from a certain service such as roadways, they should have to pay, but that does not change the fact that tax dollars are taken from people under the threat of force, which is very similar to theft. The flaw in that argument is even though certain people don't mind paying for certain things, that doesn't mean they get to force their beliefs on others and force them to pay for things they may not use. So if I use roads that doesn't mean I get to take somebody's money and have them pay for roads even if they don't drive/use sidewalks. Society does have benefits that don't apply to everyone, and the state forces people to pay for stuff they may not get in return.
Taxation is on moral par with theft.

Sure I'll try. I'll argue for taxes as being a moral construct. If a person is walking down a street and over time they cause wear and tear to that street, that street which has proved beneficial to them over time of seems immoral not to pay for it. Even if mistakes are made by those in charge of the road and they make it a bad road, then it is immoral of them not to fix the road rather than the person not to pay for it's upkeep as part of society. If you are part of a society and the well being of the society depends on individuals contributing to it, would it not be immoral not to enforce a code of sorts encouraging contribution? To not do so risks the society failing as a whole and all sorts of social and economic malaise. It is not as though you are arguing that we go out and find people not of our society and demand they pay us tribute. As I understand it you are talking about people that the society has raised, people that have benefited or should have benefited from the society.
Taxation is on moral par with theft.

I assume we can agree that somebody pointing a gun at you in an alley and forcing you to give them your wallet is wrong. Taxes are not so different; the definition of a tax is a financial charge imposed on citizens by the state. That means taxpayers have to pay money or a SWAT team will likely show up at their house, point guns at them, and take them to jail. So the choice is: give someone your money or have violence incurred upon you, similar to getting mugged. It is a violation of property rights and therefore, I think it is morally unjust. You will argue that taxes are morally justified.
The Best Kind Of Shoe? Velcro.

I really like that you finally gave some substantive in terms of your arguments, but even then you yourself realise your flaws and own up the fact that your entire stance relies on the future where velcros are accepted as openly as lace-style boots, which is the most integral of my rebuttals, something you failed to rebut properly. In this round I will just do one thing, that will send your side toppling down a hill. I will prove that the future you hope for, wherein velcro is accepted openly is utopic, unreal and a thing out a fairytale book. 1) You yourself seem unsure about such a future wherein you yourself concede and say 'I feel as if Velcro was reintroduced, and rebranded, it could easily take off again'. This is just a sign of your uncertainty. 2) Why is it improbable, velcro was made for children and even though now there is availability of options, these velcros can't even manage to compete with that of lace-style. Just search online for the difference between consumption patters. 3) And because I have shown that currently people don't use velcro even close to the amount of lace-style it'll really tale some incredible change to be able to overtake the industry. But this debate wasn't even about which industry is better or more product focussed. It was about which individual style of shoe is better, be it in terms of comfort, looks, brain requirement, adaptability. And if you scroll up through the debate you would see that I have proved how all of these clashes are clearly in favour of lace-style boots. And because of all this, I feel I have been a successful opposition and believe that the motion should fall.
The Best Kind Of Shoe? Velcro.

Three things that you put forth about velcro's- 1) Cost effectiveness 2) Time efficiency 3) Availability of aesthetically pleasing and age appropriate velcro's. Heres what I have to say about these points- 1) Even though you put your velcro up against a $60 Nike shoe, I would like to remind you that because of the extent of demand in the shoe industry, you can find lace-style boots at as effective if not more effective and affordable prices. Not only that but this also means that the quantity and quality of the shoe you would like would be of your choice and the price would also be accustomed to your preferences. So because velcro doesn't pose any significant advantage in terms of cost, I win this argument. 2) Okay, here's one point that your side does pit itself slightly higher on. But even to this argument I tell you that the easiness brought into one's life with the adjustment of velcro's on shoes means that the higher-level thinking species that we are, deteriorates. Also, for centuries people have been accustomed to the usage of laces and therefore although velcro might make life more convenient, it doesn't necessarily make life easier because we do know how to tie laces and that too very easily. 3) Okay, agreed that there might be the availability of good looking velcro shoes for adults and for children, I tell you that the image associated with a nice Oxford formal shoe or a pair of leather loafers or hand-crafted moccasins, are what society currently falls for. So replacing these age-old shoes that define us on a daily basis is nothing short of renaming the planet. Even then, referring back to my initial rebuttal, if there is a presence of an array of options in velcro's I tell you that the lace-style boot or tennis shoe or slip-on industry has a much larger collection, as it has been running for longer than velcro and is generally a much larger industry. On that note, you should also realise that the velcro industry is still new and upcoming and therefore there is no way you can pit the collection of velcro with that of lace-style and win. For my arguments I tell you- 1) The current image in society looks upon lace-style and not the same way upon velcro. 2) Velcro is a relatively newer and emerging industry thus can not provide as much or as well as their older lace-style counterparts. 3) Easiness, such as associated with using velcro instead of laces, is not always beneficial for the mind or the species altogether. I have incorporated the analysis of these three arguments in my rebuttal. Hoping for some rebuttal from your end!
The Best Kind Of Shoe? Velcro.

Hello, good to see your opinion, but sadly, Velcro shoes are still the most efficient and cost effective shoes you could find anywhere. With a single strap, you would never have to worry or concern yourself with the time it takes to tie, and untie a shoe. Velcro latches on, providing both quick and easy access at any given time. Not to also mention, a simple search of the web will showcase how cost affordable Velcro is compared to non Velcro shoes. Many examples being $20 compared to many a Nike brand shoe being $60. And you believe Velcro is purely made for children 8 and younger, i have bad news for you. Adult Velcro shoes are also manufactured by companies such as New Balance and Puma, They look nice, and are made for both formal and casual occasion. Not to mention even athletic, with a strong and firm sole allowing for almost any activity. So while you may prefer tennis shoes, or slip ons, the most efficient, cost effective, and formal adult or child shoes you can obtain are clearly Velcro.
The Best Kind Of Shoe? Velcro.

Greetings! In this round I would just like to give rebuttals for your preface. I will give my arguments in the next round. Ok, so here we go, Your entire anecdote heavily relies on the fact that the normal lace-style boot easily 'flies off', causes discomfort and generally has more problems/hazards than the velcro shoe. Two things, 1) That could depend and differ from person to person, we could virtually never end this debate if you rely on your own experiences and anecdotes. Which is why I advise you give examples and evidence on a more all-rounded scale with a more open perspective . 2) Since your anecdote is just an imaginary situation, not much I can say although I do have to say that you have in no way substantiated how your substitute of velcro manages to outperform the normal shoe which in my experience isn't even the case, this is something that I will substantiate from the next round. Also, I find it slightly absurd that you consider the shoe-flying incident will make one look like a fool whereas I argue that due to society's current ideals and notions, the image of a grown man at a wedding getting married (using your own example) wearing velcro shoes will look nothing short of a three-year old's play date. Why is this, because velcro was made only and only for the purpose of the youth (below 8) who couldn't physically tie a shoelace due to their lack of expertise, and still exists predominantly for the same cause. So wearing these very type of shoes for a marriage or any other occasion will not fall under society's constructs thus will be looked down upon and the individual will be left feeling like even bigger a fool if not of the same level as in your mentioned incident.. Also, I would like to remind you that the opposite of velcro isn't always the lace-style boot, due to modernisation there are even slippers, slip-ons, sliders, etc. It is because of all of this that I feel I have taken your challenge and done justice to it of 'proving you wrong'. Hoping for more arguments from your end!
The Best Kind Of Shoe? Velcro.

Imagine this. Your walking down the aisle. that special day, about to marry the love of your life. Then suddenly! Your shoe flies off! It shoots over the bride, straight into the pastor. Not only are you not getting married, but now you look like an absolute fool. So think, what could've prevented this? Easy! Velcro! Velcro shoes are not only the past, but also the future, and present. Prove me wrong.
Modesty

I am in a crisis about modesty. I feel that I am not worthless but I do not feel my body is anything special. Not that I don't respect it but I feel like more free clothes would not be so terrible maybe because it is a human body. But it would be respected differently because not everyone could touch as for everyone could look. I don't believe one is a sex item and that they should be covered and that if one does not that it is their fault for being raped. I feel like I am more uncomfortable with showing my body any because I am so used to not seeing it as it is. However, there is one more part I have concern to; that I do not want to shove my beliefs down someone else's throat. I am completely empathetic for I don't really feel comfortable when a larger breasted girl will bend over. But when it is a smaller breasted girl I doubt it bothers me at all. Then all that leads to the thing about well you should be able to express freely your views and all and they don't have to look. It's just all so tricky. SOMEONE HELP ME THINK WHAT I AM TRYING TO THINK. P.S. I put for because I don't really think it can be a bad thing as long as it is not shaming the human body.
Terraria is better than Minecraft

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Minecraft. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the creepers will go over a typical gamers head. There"s also Steve nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they"re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Minecraft truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn"t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Steves existential catchphrase "i just sharted nibba" which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev"s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I"m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Notch"s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Minecraft tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It"s for the ladies" eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they"re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Terraria is better than Minecraft

Minecraft is a great game, don't get me wrong, but Terraria is a much more fun experience. I would know - I have multiple versions of both games. Anyway...1. Finite World AreaHaving a world that isn't infinite makes it so you never get lost, which is helpful for new players. It also helps you remember where important things are, like the Dungeon or Floating Islands.2. BossesMinecraft has two "real" bosses: The Ender dragon, which is the most cliché boss in existence, and the Wither, which is a skeleton with three heads that you can easily kill by just trapping it in blocks. Counting all versions, Terraria has over 30, and almost every one has a different attack pattern and difficulty. 3. ObjectivesThere's way more things to do in Terraria, while in Minecraft you basically only go for diamonds and to beat the Ender Dragon, and that's it. In Terraria, you go through Normal Mode, get good gear to fight bosses, collect tools, weapons, money, and NPCs, and once you beat the Wall of Flesh, you enter Hardmode, which gives you way more things to worry about (and way more cool stuff to get). You have to contain the Corruption, smash altars, get better tools and weapons, and fight bosses.4. ContentMinecraft's "cool" content comes only from mods, while Terraria has it built in. Minecraft is too realistic to be fun - in Terraria there are crazy biomes like the Hallow, the Corruption, and the Crimson, and it also has its share of realistic biomes as well. Minecraft on the other hand only has biomes that exist in the real world, excluding The Nether and The End, because those are dimensions (And before you say "Well, Terraria doesn't have anything like The Nether or The End!", Terraria has The Underworld and the Outer Space biome. So there). Also, Terraria has insane events like the Pirate Invasion, Martian Madness, Lunar Events, Solar Eclipse, Blood Moon, Pumpkin Moon, Frost Moon, and more.5. ItemsTerraria has many more items than Minecraft, more armor choices, more weapons, and more tools to choose from. Sure, having armor and a good weapon in Minecraft is helpful, but in Terraria, if you don't have armor and a good weapon, you're going to die. I guarantee it.6. CostTerraria's PC version is $10, while Minecraft costs over $20, and yet Terraria still has more content and is a better game.Thank you for reading my argument, and have a nice day.
This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts Are Immoral!

As-Salam-o-Alikum! This debate entitled: This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts are Immoral is a re-do of one of the first debates I had from my old account. I lost miserably to kbub and I would like to see if my refined argument can now hold any ground. Now I believe that I should clarify the rules, the order, and some principle definitions which will be referred to throughout the debate. 1. The first argumentation rounds of both parties must be positive material only, no refutations will be allowed in the first argument. 2. The first round is for rules, orders, definitions for Proposition, and kbub may only engage in pleasantries and accept the debate. 3. There may be no positive material in the last rounds of the debate. 4. The order of the debate is of 3 rounds (with the first round being for acceptance, 10, 000 characters per round, 72 hours to post a round, and an Open Voting where anyone whose Elo is above 3, 000 may Select the Winner. 5. If any party forfeits two times, they automatically lose. 6. Each side is allowed to provide references from journals, books, essays, and blog entries so long as the pagination are cited, and easy access is made available. 7. As this is a Philosophy debate all definitions should come from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Penguin Philosophy Dictionary, the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, or any well respected philosophy text. Some definitions have been provided: (i)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. (ii)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specif circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons. (iii)homosexual acts: refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex. 8. None of the parties are allowed to take help from any other party in this debate. With that I hope we can engage in a wonderful debate, and it provides us with a productive experience. Please welcome my opponent! Faithfully Yours, Ajab.