BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
goerge bush was a good president

R1: Obamaresolution =/= obama. No rules indicate a comparison. You are in a red herring.R2: spendingMy opponent just condeded my point. This argument prevails.R3: Education1. you provided no source to prove ANY of your point.2. He did have like 2 sources saying he did3. use sourcesR4: tax cutsI have proven they didn't work. =conclusion=My opponent has NO sources to prove his points, therefore he has only starements. He ignroes or drops many of my points from round 1. Also he only has blank statements. I have sources + logic on my side. My sources trums sentencs with no facts. So I deserve soruces. Also I have refuted his arguments, as he has tried but failed to do, I have refuted already. Also his arguments are shorter then I expected. For reasons above, and his non proven arguemnts, I urge you to vote CON! I see no reason to contitiue as I was the really the one who started refuting.
I am really bored can someone please entertain me

Hold up, shouldn't you be pro then? Oh well whatever. Kay then I'll go Con. I will first present my own case then move on to attack my opponents. The MTV network should not be abolished. I don't really watch MTV, so I don't know much about it but w/e CONTENTION 1 Abolishing MTV, would also abolish millions of jobs. All the people who work for MTV, actors, musicians who have there music videos played on MTV... And we can't really afford that in this economic crisis CONTENTION 2 MTV is entertaining Why else would people watch it if it didn't entertain them? CONTENTION 3 You can't really abolish MTV without contradicting democracy. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be entertained. Ever heard the phrase "it's a free country?" You can freely choose to be entertained by MTV. Furthermore if people choose to have their brains rotted by MTV it is their choice, and no one has the power to tell other people what they should do in a democracy. ATTACK ON MY OPPONENTS CASE Ct. 1, No beneficial info. So what? Even if we did abolish MTV the problem would just move somewhere else. How about Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, 90210, Privileged, not very beneficial. Should we abolish the CW too? Do we really spend tax dollars on MTV? don't they pay for their programming by like comercials and stuff? And also imagine you have had a rough horiible day at work, and when you go home all you want to do is watch T.V. and not think about it. You turn on MTV, and you lose yourself in whatever show is on. Your entertained and relaxed. This just goes to show MTV isn't always bad. Ct. 2, Futile to Intelligent Nation I'm pretty sure other countries like China and whatnot also have pointless T.V. shows, so they can't really say we're stupid without being hypocritical. Secondly you can't really solve the problem of Americans wasting their time on T.V. human nature doesn't change, you mught as well abolish every other T.V. station and replace it with educational stuff. In which case people would no longer watch T.V.... Ct. 3 Waste of time Ok then if those families make the coice to block MTV, it's their choice, and they shouldn't be able to speak for the rest of America. Obviously people do watch MTV, otherwise it would go bankrupt. P.S. can we change the rsolution to MTV should not be abolished? So that I can be pro and you can be con? Well if so then I urge a Pro vote. If not then I urge a Con vote.
I am really bored can someone please entertain me

Resolved: The entire MTV network shall be abolished. Contention 1: The MTV network provides no beneficial information whatsoever. Contention 2: MTV is futile to our development as an intelligent nation. Contention 3: MTV is viewed by the majority as an inappropriate waste of time. THE MTV NETWORK PROVIDES NO BENEFICIAL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER. We have over 200 different networks on T.V. to watch and over a thousand channels to surf. We could be furthuring ourselves intelligently, but instead, we are stuck in the false propoganda of MTV. Can you tell me how shows such as The Hills, The Ikki Twins, or Date My Mom, sound beneficial to you? We need to stop wasting our tax dollars which pay for these programs and spend money towards something that yields actual results. We could stop exposing our children or even ourselves, to the unnessecary images and words on MTV. MTV IS FUTILE TO OUR DEVELOPMENT AS AN INTELLIGENT NATION Tell me how our nation looks to others when they see us watching such absurd shows. We are falling in the ranks as a superpower and one of the ways to solve this problem is simple. We are sucked everday into needless hours of T.V. watching. Instead of watching something educational, we are watching obscene stories. According to the T.V. Radio Broadcasting Station, we spend on average 40 hours of our time each week watching T.V. Can you imagine what 40 hours of educational T.V. could do? You tell me. MTV IS VIEWED BY THE MAJORITY AS AN INAPPROPRIATE WASTE OF TIME The majority of American families either block or ban networks such as VH1, MTV, and E!, according to familytvtime.net. Why waste money broadcasting such networks, when most families just block it anyways? After all, MTV is primarily funneled towards young teens. Those teens parents will not allow their children to watch such inappropriate shows.
You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists.

Also thank you for understanding and explaining. Pro states "This website may not be real. " However, we experience it. We read and should it ever have sounds, hear it. As Pro stated, I did mention that, however this debate could truly exist should text ever reach self-awareness. Pro also states "They also cannot confirm these things ARE NOT in existence. " How can you confirm something not in existence yet you can prove it is in existence should it be physical? Also you say that the chair(Or rather couch I am sitting on) may not be real. However, if it was not real, or physical, I would not be sitting on it.
Elements of division,

"It amazes how people fail to look at the big picture and snivel over all the little details which are nothing more then excuses for their point of view."As Con it is my stand to debate against the "big picture". I have provided ample examples of causes of war which do not fit any of the 4 categories mentioned by Pro. Pro has yet to provide a sound arguments against my points aside from his opinion. Pro has failed to provide examples and to address my point on one occasion (War due to instigation). Pro has shown himself to be a bigot that is unable to justify his stand. "The fact is that all wars are a matter of religion and race. People of the same religion and race never go to war, they get along fine."Wars appear due to conflict of interest. I did not say that religion and race never caused war. But my stand as Con is that race and religion are only a subset of war causes. I have proved that race and religions are a subset through the use of examples of war causes that lies outside that subset which Pro fails to disprove. "As far as your argument goes, it is nothing more the a reiteration of the politically correct history books." Yes I use history as example because it is proof that it has already happened. Aside from that, do note that the statement "politically correct" in no way implies that it's wrong. Thus, thank you Pro for agreeing that my arguments are correct. "Are you a religion, race, gender, or party member? If so you are divisive."Everyone has a belief[1], race and gender. Political belief is by choice. But it does not address the issue here.Once again, I would like to bring up my example of the car theft. A Caucasian male who is a Christian decides to steal a car and is caught.Do you punish him for being Caucasian, male, Christian or the theft of the car?If I have to spell it out for Pro,P1: Punish him for being Caucasian.C1: 245.5 million people in the world have to be punished.P2: Punish him for being male.C2: Half the population in the world have to be punished.P3: Punish him for being Christian.C3: 2.2 billion people including the Pope has to be punished.P4: Punish him for car theft.C4: The current practice all over the world.As a conclusion, I would like to point out that Pro has yet to show evidence to disprove my examples or negate my arguments. All Pro has done is to provide his personal opinion. As Con, all of my arguments are supported with evidence based on history.Con is the obvious choice in this debate. To close it up, thank you Pro for the debate. Here is some interesting read up for entertainment. Note to voters, please do not take the following link I posted as part of my argument. It is strictly for fun only :)http://www.history.com...[1] I used the word belief instead of religion to acknowledge atheist and also Buddhist which in essence is a philosophy, way of life and not a religion.
Elements of division,

It amazes how people fail to look at the big picture and snivel over all the little details which are nothing more then excuses for their point of view. The fact is that all wars are a matter of religion and race. People of the same religion and race never go to war, they get along fine. As far as your argument goes, it is nothing more the a reiteration of the politically correct history books. Are you a religion, race, gender, or party member? If so you are divisive.
Elements of division,

I'm amazed by the new breed of debaters who think that they can state their opinion without proof. I will now refute Pro's points as they are weak with no evidence.1. Pro claimed that the Spaniards invaded the Aztecs because of their different religion. Please note the following text. "Another small fleet set out from Cuba in 1518, under the command of Juan de Grijalva, and explored the coast, during which they heard tales of the wealthy Aztec Empire further west. As a result of these rumours, Hernán Cortés set sail with another fleet. " http://en.wikipedia.org...Most of the conquistadors were motivated by the prospects of the great wealth to be had from the seizure of precious metal resources such as gold or silver; however, the Maya lands themselves were poor in these resources. This would become another factor in forestalling Spanish designs of conquest, as they instead were initially attracted to the reports of great riches in central Mexico or Peru. http://en.wikipedia.org...Au contraire, the Spaniards invaded Aztecs for their gold. Religion was only an excuse.2. I do not understand Pro's point here. However I assume he was trying to address my 2nd point which was war for land. I have shown evidence by using the Alsace- Lorraine example which was a piece of land that had changed hands as many as 3 times due to conflict between France and Germany. Pro has yet to dispute me with any evidence here that the geo-political prize contested was in no way connected to the France Germany strife.3. Ex-President Bush (of the US) did NOT say "let us invade Iraq because they are Islam/Muslim." He said "Let us invade Iraq because they have WMD which would put us in danger of being targeted. Pro has yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise.4. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.—Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980http://jah.oxfordjournals.org...In his state of union address, Jimmy Carter (ex-president of the US) there is ZERO MENTION of RACE or RELIGION.He specifically mentioned vital interests of the United States of America. Now as far as I know, the Persian Gulf is famous for being the world's largest single source of crude oil. Obvious point to Con.5. Pro failed to even mention my 5th point which was War due to instigation. And World War 1 is definitely one of the biggest war in history. Thus this itself is undisputed proof that something other then the "four horsemen" can be a cause of war. Con stands firm with no contest from Pro here.Pro has failed to provide evidence to back his opinions. Pro's argument is not even a fallacy of weak inference. Pro's argument is a fallacy of NO inference. My prediction on Pro's response came true. A black man who stole a car should be prosecuted for the theft of the car. Not for being black.Thus Con is the obvious choice to vote.
Elements of division,

You are wrong on all fronts and here is why. 1. The Aztecs were a different religion from the Spaniards and gold was only an excuse. 2. Essentially, the Germans and French see themselves a different races, or nationalities if you prefer, but the me thing in the end. 3. Again, this war was both a war of opposing races and religions. 4. Wars in the middle east are always religion based.
Elements of division,

The theme of this debate is quite vague. However I will take Pro's Round 1 statement as his stand. Pro's first statement is that "The main reason we fight wars is that we divide ourselves by these 4 horses of the apocolypse [which are] Race, Religion, Gender and Party" My assumption is that Pro uses the word Party to describe Political Parties. My strategy as Con would be to prove that there are wars fought that were not caused by Pro's above 4 points. 1. War for gold. In the year 1519, The Spanish Conquistadors waged war with the Aztecs due to their greed for gold. "The conquistador's awe at the Aztec achiements and their lust for native treasure." http://www.pbs.org... 2. War for land War has been fought for whereby the prize has been land and territory. The territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded 3 times between France and Germany due to conflict. "Alsace-Lorraine, during this time, was a geo-political prize contested between the French and German powers." http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. War for the greater good. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq with the claim of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Although the claim turned out to be false, you could say that the cause of the invasion was due to the "presence" of WMD in Iraq. "Although Bush marketed the war in Iraq as necessary to protect us from Saddam Hussein"s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), his decisions had less to do with self-defense than with dominating the oil-rich Middle East. " http://www.globalresearch.ca... 4. War for oil. The real reason for the 2003 US invasion as mentioned above was the the oil in the Middle East countries. Prove of that would be the same quote I used in 3. 5. War due to instigation. I would quote World War 1 for this. World War 1 was complex and big. But the initial point of the war can be traced to one very specific event, the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. "The immediate cause of World War I that made the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary." http://americanhistory.about.com... These are my arguments against Pro's "four horsemen of the apocalypse" (Note to Pro: this is the correct term, not horses. And your spelling of the apocalypse was wrong *hinting to voters ^^*) . Pro will definitely argue that in each of those wars that I quoted there will be a difference of race, religion, gender or political parties, or even a combination of the four. However I would like to point out that the four mentioned by Pro are NOT the instigators of the wars. If Pro were to argue otherwise, Pro is saying that if a black man stole a car from a white man, the black man should be prosecuted for being black, and not for the theft of the car.
The story of Golash, the Goblin Swimmer

A Very Merry Christmas Samantha returned home after a long business trip that involved visits to three different continents. It was Christmas eve. It had been an exorbitantly busy and stressful trip. It spanned all of three months. During this time, Samantha hadn't even had the chance to touch herself, let alone have sex. She was very lonely, very stressed and very horny. She was also very hungry. She ordered pizza. Gluten-free, vegan cheese, arugula, spinach, tomato, pineapple toppings. She was very health-concious, and had an incredible physique. Guys would tell her "You are smoking hot!" and "You're a bombshell bangin' blonde girl!". She was used to such compliments. Unfortunately, she did not often get a chance to "bang" any of those guys due to her busy schedule. The doorbell rang, and Samantha answered the door. The pizza boy was incredibly hot, to her surprise. "Do you have any more deliveries tonight?" she asked. "This is my last one." "Stay with me tonight?" It was a glorious Christmas eve, and Samantha knew that it was going to be a very merry Christmas.
The story of Golash, the Goblin Swimmer

Excellent story so far. I have tried many times to come up with a debate topic that no one will challenge me on. So far, only topics that I actually want to debate have gone unchallenged. This wasn't even really a debate, but I guess this has become a contest whereby we will try to write a better story than the other person. In response, I will begin a new one down here, in hopes that it will be more entertaining than yours. The Life and Times of Bethesda Moonshiner A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. There lived a beautiful humanoid woman named Bethesda Moonshiner. She was a resident of the planet Gobbledigobbledigoopgobblegobble, or "G", to be brief. Bethesda had a great fondness for the male anatomy. She was known for having participated in coitus with over 10,000 men. In planet "G" however, slut-shaming was unheard of. The choices that she made did not hurt anyone, and only made her and the people around her happy. The fact that she was a woman and had so much sex was neither a neither to be proud, nor ashamed. One day Bethesda decided to engage in oral sex with another woman. She liked it so much that she married said woman. This was completely legal and no one hated her for it. While she was married, Bethesda explained to her spouse that she would continue having sex with other men and woman. The spouse was totally ok with that. The End
The story of Golash, the Goblin Swimmer

In the year 2052 CE, goblin-like aliens invaded Earth. Originally, they did not come in peace. They were aiming to enslave human beings and all other mammals on Earth. However, they came just in time for the Olympic Games, and witnessed a spirit of competition within themselves that they had never before experienced. They were so intrigued and interested in the games, that instead of working towards enslaving the human race, they instead persuaded the IOC to allow them to represent their planet MushiMoshiPichuPichu. Unfortunately, the MushiMoshiPichuPichuians, though they were great engineers, were awful athletes compared to human beings. The aliens were not able to qualify for a single event, except for one: the 100m freestyle swimming race. Their representative was, Golash. He represented the aliens in the race and placed 8th. From then on, he was known as the the Goblin Swimmer. During the event the hashtag #goblinswimmer trended. The aliens left Earth, and provided human beings with knowledge and technologies that lead to the invention of this time-travelling device which I am using to write this story. I hope you enjoy the year 2032, when Kanye West finally becomes King of the World. As for 2014, well, let's just say it is not going to be the best year ever. #fail
Joe Arpaio is awesome and totally doesn't hate on latinos unjustly

Fun Fact of the round: Joe Arpaio recieved a death threat from a man named Adam Cox who threatened to fill Arpaio with a thousand bullets. What was his reason for the death threat and what did the death threat actually say?""I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. He won't f*ck with Obama"http://en.wikipedia.org...
Joe Arpaio is awesome and totally doesn't hate on latinos unjustly

My opponent has cited credible evidence for his side of the argument, yet has not voiced his personal opinion. I would ask that instead of merely giving citations, that con justifies them.Arpaio is merely enforcing (as he is required to do by law), SB1070. He has not created a "discriminatory" or "racist culture" and to imply so would be plain wrong. He has lawfully and intelligently gained the support of a posse that helps, among MANY other duties, to prevent illegal immigration. Even if one can accuse him of hating on latinos, he does so because the new law encourages him to do so along with all of the supporters of said law."The Arizona Act additionally makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" when there is reasonable suspicionthat the individual is an illegal immigrant,[9] bars state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,[1" -http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.sheriffjoe.org...By the by, awesome picture.
Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) is better than Goku

Before closing his account and fleeing this site like a jack rabbit, the instigator sent me a rather inappropriate and "butthurt" private message in regards to this debate, hence the forfeit in his last round. Since the instigator has decided to leave us, I will wrap up this debate in a clear and concise fashion.The instigator failed to prove that Green Lanter was better than Goku, presented virtually no evidence of his position or his attacks against mine and failed to demonstrate how Kyle Rayner would overcome an adversary that could incinerate him before his mind even processed that there was a battle taking place. The instigator failed to prove that Kyle Raner could endure an attack that was even capable of destroying a planet, much less a solar system or galaxy.For these reasons, great justice demands that you vote PRO.Best regards,Logical Master
Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) is better than Goku

This is obviously a laughable argument. Broly cannot destroy galaxies. In the original Japanese version of movie 8, it's stated in the beginning that the South Galaxy had been ATTACKED by a Super Saiyan. Also, King Kai told Goku that the Super Saiyan was IN the South Galaxy. When Goku teleported there, we could still see lots of planets and stars in the sky, meaning the Galaxy wasn't destroyed. Broly didn't destroy the South Galaxy; he destroyed some of the South Galaxy. There's a huge difference. Instead, my opponent fails to comprehend that his information is fan made crap. My opponent, however, claims that Bills can destroy a galaxy, and he also implies that Goku can destroy a planet. If he had any scientific knowledge, he would know that Supernovas in real life only affect solar systems. Goku cannot destroy a universe; there is nothing said about that in any DB manga. Goku was not stronger than Omega Shenron at the end of GT. The Dragon Balls made Omega Shenron nigh-omnipotent due to his tremendous powers + the Dragon Balls. However, Kyle has way more feats than Goku, such as teleportation, flying, telekinetic abilities, etc. The ring has far better molecular structure than a Super Saiyan. Goku would only be 1-2 tier in DC. You've provided no proof of Goku being able to destroy a Galaxy whatsoever. Your claims are only plausible if they've been mentioned in the official manga. Otherwise, none of your claims are true; they are only FUNimation dubs. Your only source is the manga; they have all of the real information there. Wikis are not credible sources. None of the information you've provided is true. You merely got your information from FUNi dubs and fan dubs. Goku hasn't shown any feats that are able to destroy a galaxy, nor did Bills. The Spirit Bomb, however, is totally irrelevant. If you think a Supernova is able to destroy a galaxy, I don't know what to say.