BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Wars

The Pro has disabled his own account so I will use my remaining three rounds to justify the wars, one war per round...AfghanistanNow Afghanistan was the war in the Middle East related directly to 9/11. Al-Qaeda was the terrorist organization behind the attacks, the Taliban was a terrorist organization that had control over Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were very close allies both prior to and following the 9/11 attacks. That friendship stretches back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan but thats besides the point. When it was discovered that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were behind 9/11, the US immediately asked for the Afghanistan government (Taliban) to surrender Bin Laden. The Taliban refused this, twice, saying they wanted conclusive evidence that Osama was behind the attacks, even though the evidence was already presented. The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden and other top terrorists in the country. http://www.usatoday.com... the Taliban was no innocent government, they were behind numerous civil rights violations in Afghanistan and the Taliban were one of the most extreme enforcers of Sharia Law in the world, they even used Sharia Law to outlaw the flying of kites, ban the shaving of beards, ban almost all kinds of music, etc etchttp://www.i-cynic.com... this is what the US goals were going into the Afghan War. Take out Bin Laden, dismantle Al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime from power and install a friendly democracy in the country. October 7th 2001 was when the invasion of Afghanistan started, 4 days short of a month after 9/11. The US invaded Afghanistan with the blessing and support of NATO, The UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries. The Taliban government was quickly disposed of, however the fight against Al-Qaeda has dragged out due to the terrain they hide in and operate out of, the mountains of the Kashmir Region, an area that has shielded Al-Qaeda activity for years The war in Afghanistan is controversial for many reasons, mostly because of its length, issues regarding Pakistan, and less than satisfying results regarding the progression of the new Afghan government's stability. All these issues though come due to a host of unforeseen issues the war has fought light to, however this does not dismiss the argument that the invasion of Afghanistan was uncalled for onthe first place, it merely means that the US has not handled te war in Afghanistan as bet as we should have. The war in Afghanistan was necessary following 9/11 since the US was acting based off of security concerns and the protection of human rights, subsequent actions (such as prolonged occupation) were very questionable, but the war was necessary nonetheless
The Wars

This is for Ron-Paul's Conservatives vs. Libertarians Tournament. Debate Topic: 7 Round: 1 Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. Debate Resolution: Was the Second Iraq War necessary? Will a war with Iran be the best course of action regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program? Is the War in Afghanistan currently necessary? I will be answering no to all of these questions and my opponent will be answering yes. Debate Format: First Round: Acceptance. Second Round: Opening arguments by con, opening arguments and rebuttals by pro.
Spider-man Movies: Andrew Garfield Vs. Tobey Maguire

Yes spider-man is meant to be serious but it also has a humorous side. Peter Parker is a wise cracking high schooler he can't take every battle serious, he needs to lighten it up or perhaps he would panic. Andrew Garfield does a tremendous job presenting that. I am still a fan of the Raimi trilogy, 2 is still perhaps my favorite of the 3, but Garfield has a much more realistic personality than Maguire did.
Based on current evidence we can conclude abortion lowers crime

BOP is on pro. He/she must legalized abortion lowers crime. Legal Abortion -- legalizing the procedure of abortion surgeries which terminate pregnancies Crime -- violent crime Pro states his/her case in round one, but has no argunment in round 4. Breaking this rule is an automatic forfeit, I as con needn't provide a case only rebut Pros. Also no trolling please. Go!
Based on current evidence we can conclude abortion lowers crime

However, one of the problems of this resolution is that it is somewhat unclear. For example, by legalized abortion, does my opponent mean merely in the U. S. ? Because then, certain parts of abortion would still be illegal so analyzing their effects on crime would be flawed. Furthermore, certain crimes are taken for granted such as theft (I will explain what I mean here later on). So instead I will use logic to explain why legalized abortion would decrease crime. 1. Recall that my opponent accepted my definition of crime, any action that breaks a law, at the beginning of the debate. Logically then, more laws leads to more crime since there are more actions that would qualify as crime. Therefore, in an abstract sense, an elimination of a law (such as on abortion) would result in less crime according to its definition in this debate. If taken to its extreme, if all laws were eliminated, there would be no crime. Thus, from a logical standpoint, legalizing anything (voiding a prior law) would result in less crime. Possible rebuttals: Since I cannot post in the last round, I will list what I think are some possible rebuttals of my logical argument my opponent may bring up. 1)That this logical argument does not count as "evidence" that abortion lowers crime. Evidence is anything that is used to determine the truth of an assertion. You could argue that it may be weaker than your evidence, but it would still count as evidence. 2)He could assert his empirical data that shows the abortion crime effect to be either positive (increasing crime) or no effect. This would do nothing to refute my argument since it is metaphysical. Final comments: At the end of the day, I admit that my opponent's arguments from an empirical perspective do show that in this physical world, with our laws, culture, society, and police force, that our quasi-legalized abortion (certain kinds are not legal, depending on country) does not reduce crime (or at least is unknowable). However, my arguments show logically that in an abstract sense, voiding any law, including abortion, leads to a reduction in crime (actions that violate laws). I leave it up to the voters to determine which argument is superior.
Based on current evidence we can conclude abortion lowers crime

I accept your challenge and as my first debate I will do my best. Now, as I understand it, I must prove that abortion lowers crime to win and you must negate. If I can prove in just one case that abortion lowers crime, than the resolution is affirmed while you as con must negate every instance I provide. However, I disagree with your definition of crime and will provide my own in return. Crime: Any action that breaks the law or policies of the government, in this case the U.S. federal, state and local governments. For my first round, I will only post one argument (since you do not specify whether I have to provide my entire case in the first round) and will not post any argument in the last round. Now, the way I will count crime is by cases rather than hypothetical. For instance, let's suppose in this magical country known as A, there were 50 cases of crime, or breaking of the law, 10 counts of murder, 30 counts of stealing, and 10 counts of abortion (this is really simplified). The next year, abortion is legalized, and there are 46 cases of crime, 14 counts of murder and 32 counts of stealing. Logically, this would be considered a reduction in crime, as abortion would no longer fall under its definition. In fact, if we ended all laws, crime as we know it would evaporate. Now there are dozens of differing policies that affect crime, so while legalized abortion may end abortion crimes, other variables may increase crime rates in the same time period, which is why any U.S. crime statistics would be inherently flawed. However, my simplified design should show how a single variable, legalized abortion, should affect crime in a negative (reducing) fashion. I will include more arguments for my case in the next round. I look forward to a good debate. Also, if you could delay posting until after Saturday, that would be appreciated.
Negative consequences of religion

Some atheist moron by the name 'Speceus' for some strange reason believes that religion only brings negative things in the world. Every time I ask an atheist why they believe religion is poison they always mention the middle east and the evil death cult known as Islam. Its common knowledge that Islam is an evil religion that has brought much harm to the world, but just because one religion is a barbaric ideology that does not mean all religions are. What does Islam in the middle east have to do with Christianity in the western world?Speceus believes that religion only have negative consequences, that also means Christianity. If you go against Christianity you are going against Christians, therefore going against Christ and his teachings. What kind of terrible human goes against teachings of having to do with love? Only a dogmatic atheist would be against these teachings. The only people that help people by acts of charity are Christians. The common atheist does not perform charity simply because they have no beliefs. Atheists are soulless, emotionally dead people that should be treated with extreme hostility. Atheists make the claim that Christians only help people due to us fearing Hell. Only if they knew anything about Christianity, they would realize that claim is simply not true. Christians help their fellow man because they want to be good people, they want to make God happy with them. God wants all of us to be kind to each other, thought we cannot do this where there are atheists. I like comparing two famous people of the two groups. Mother Teresa is famous because she helped the poor. She is not the most known Christian, but she is at least well known. Now by far the most famous person who represented atheism would be Christopher Hitchens. What did Christopher Hitchens ever do for humanity? He was a fat Marxist that wrote a few hate filled books, debated some people, died of cancer and now is praised as someone with extreme intellect. Again I ask, what did this man do? The atheist vs theist debate is so unbelievably flawed that it is not even funny. An atheist can simply win a debate by saying "Where's your evidence for God?". There, done, you win. Hitchens used this to his advantage to be seen as someone intelligent. Summary: Atheists are a group of bitchy teenagers on the internet that have wet dreams about sucking off Hitchens, they do not contribute to the world.
The Death Penalty is Ethically Acceptable

I challenge the definitions set by my opponent. I agree that capital punishment "is a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime", however, it isn't just any crime that the person is put to death for. They are put to death for capital offences "such as murder or betrayal of one's country".Source:- www.dictionary.com/browse/capital-offense
The Death Penalty is Ethically Acceptable

Definitions: Death Penalty: Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity sucks

I want to state where I agree and disagree first. Any pedo is a sick blank and should be tried by a military tribunal. In my opinion. I was raped by my father when I was 1, So I understand your rage. I too am angry, However, These pedos are not Christians. If someone loves Jesus, They obey Him. Show me where Jesus said to be a pedo. Also, Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, For he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, " "You shall not murder, " "You shall not steal, " [b]"You shall not bear false witness, " "You shall not covet, " and if there is any other commandment, Are all summed up in this saying, Namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. " 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Show me where loving your neighbor means rape or sexual abuse of ANYONE, Let alone a child. Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do unto show. Show me where rape or sexual abuse of children is included. This is true Christianity, That Jesus loves you so much He died for all sinners so those that repent may receive Him and be saved. I also want to comment on the Catholic Church for a moment. I am not a Catholic, But I am familiar with comparative religion. I believe any church that practices these crimes and teaches false doctrine is not a Christian just like not all Jews control the world. Jesus loves you, And He IS justice. He is God in human flesh, And will punish those who harm children. So I just wanted to respond and talk with you about what Christianity truly is: Following, Loving, And worshipping Jesus Christ. . In conclusion, Jesus is the First Person I ever trusted, And I'm glad I did.
Christianity sucks

Im not raging. . Just asking the question based on 1 incoherence of christianity holy shite, Sry to hear that about your father D: You can say they are not christians. . But didnt christianity mess with their minds? Like christianity does. . I guess your argument is then that christianity is being exploited. . This is basically the point im making though, Is gods work incomplete since there is a flaw like that to be taken advantage of? Well a rapist might love their neighbours appearance, And a bit to much. . Look how christianity has taken your own mind, You claim it to be true, This is not what he bible told you, It told you you need to have faith, Or you will burn forever in hell The main thing i want to get at here, Is how do we solve that problem with christianity? That it can be exploited like that, These pedophile priests are known to brainwash children to make them submissive, And they use the concepts of the bible to do that sometimes, I hear of one case of it anyway. . Where the girl was all of a sudden terrified of demons and her family had no clue what was going on with her before they caught the guy If you ask me Jesus was a killer, Making the seeing go blind, Along with the biblical claims that he is healing them Trust should be earned lady, And when was following things blindly ever a good idea, Except for a someone who is blind
I like pie

Okay, another dumb debate coming up! Anyhow, we'll start: 1. Definitions Pie- a baked food having a filling of fruit, meat, pudding, etc. , prepared in a pastry-lined pan or dish and often topped with a pastry crust . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. I do not like pie Pie is high on sugar. I aim for a 2100 calorie diet, because I am active, and a slice of pie fills a lot of my daily value on sugar. Besides, I get hyper when I ingest a lot of sugar. I would act crazily, jump around, or do a side-split. The side-split hurts.
I like pie

Okay. Thanks for accepting this debate. Good luck! Let's move on: 1. Fat and sugar free pie Still,you would not have the entire flavor as a normal apple pie or so. 2. Poop pie Self- explanatory. Spencer and I wouldn't eat it. Therefore, I hate pie. http://shepherdcentral.com... 3. Pizza I bet that you would argue about pizza, and I will let you know that I do not like pizza. They are greasy. http://www.healthcentral.com... 4. Death berry pie I definitely hate this pie. This, obviously, kills you. I thank my opponent, myself and the readers. Vote Con. Thank you.
I like pie

1. Definitions- Already defined by my opposition 2. You can have fat free pie so there fore it does not have to have many calories and also it can be sugar free so that destroys your point about how pie gets you hyper, according to the www.suite101.com the best pie is suger free so you can have great pie with no suger and it is the best pie ever ! Sources http://www.suite101.com... and ME
The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

"In conclusion, because my opponent admits that he has set up an impossible burden, and has failed to actually address my argument, you know how to vote. " I did say that I set up an impossible burden, yet my opponent knew this coming into the debate. By saying in round one, "My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win" yet claims neither is his answer. Notice here that the word impossible means not capable of occurring or being accomplished or dealt with (1) yet he gives his an answer. In round 2 my opponent goes to state that, "However, even if you all find my argument to be unacceptable, it could still be argued that, because this resolution, by my opponent's definition, is self-contradictory, it could be argued to be "false" because contradictions cannot logically exist in reality. " I would like to point out the meaning of contradictions, (Any of a pair of propositions, that cannot both be true or both be false) (2). Giving a answer to an impossible question seems to be contradictory, yet my opponent does not seem to think that contradictions can exist in reality. So by giving an answer to an impossible question he does infact contradict himself proving contradictions do in fact exist and proving himself wrong. Also showing false cannot be an answer. He also says, "In short, accepting the debate is not the same as accepting the framework. " If a math teacher asks you to solve 500 divided by 10 and must be done in long division and you solve it and get the same answer but you completed in short division, the teacher would mark it as wrong. Just because my opponent doesn't like the framework doesn't mean he can change it and aspect to be right. You would need to use the framework given. Next, my opponent still has not given a true or false answer as the parameters state. He merely says what he thinks the framework should be and trys to come up with he own arguments for something that was irrelevant to the resolution. Thus losing the debate that he already knew he lost coming into because he stated himself this was an impossible debate for pro to win. (1) . http://www.google.com... (2) . http://www.google.com...
The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

My opponent admits that, while the burden was indeed impossible, I am responsible for my own loss by taking this challenge. However, recall from last round that I was simply arguing against the narrow parameters set by my opponent, something which I am entirely within my rights as the contender to do; since I've proven that the aforementioned parameters were abusive towards Pro, it's only logical that such standards be changed. Clearly, I'm not going to message him beforehand and inform him of the logical fallacies in his arguments (in this case, the false dichotomy). In short, accepting the debate is not the same as accepting the framework. Next, my opponent again affirms that he's set up an impossible burden; notice that, by affirming this, he implicitly affirms that there's no room for debate if we accept Con's logic. Finally, he asserts that my argumentation is irrelevant to the resolution; not only is this unwarranted, but it is completely untrue. Look to my argument in Round 1: "because my opponent defines the resolution as inherently paradoxical when the two statements are put together, the resolution as a whole is neither true nor false, since the paradoxical "loop" simply continues ad infinitum." Clearly, when asking an either/or question, the answer of "neither" should be perfectly acceptable, and thus I fail to see how this argument is "irrelevant" in any sense of the word. However, even if you all find my argument to be unacceptable, it could still be argued that, because this resolution, by my opponent's definition, is self-contradictory, it could be argued to be "false" because contradictions cannot logically exist in reality. Either way, you'll be voting Pro. In conclusion, because my opponent admits that he has set up an impossible burden, and has failed to actually address my argument, you know how to vote.
The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

My opponent is trying to set Pro up with an impossible burden." "My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters." It is not so that I have TRIED to set up an impossible burden, but that I HAVE set one up according to my opponent. When my opponent states,"I suggest that we leapfrog over the false 'true/false' dichotomy" he is trying to change the parameters within the debate after the debate has started. He could have messaged me and asked me to change the parameters before he accepted the debate, but he chose not to. Going back to the quote by my opponent, "My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters," he knew coming into this debate as pro that it would be an automatic loss for him. In retrospect it seems I have set up an impossible burden, but nevertheless my opponent still accepted this debate with this knowledge. Instead my opponent decided to argue for something that was wholly irrelevant to the resolution (in hopes of teaching me something of fairness). This, of course, is a red herring (not exactly a very "fair" argument in debate) - there are other avenues for that sort of thing. Sorry that this debate has an impossible burden, nevertheless my opponent accepted.
The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

My opponent is trying to set Pro up with an impossible burden, when saying that "my opponent must tell whether each of these sentences are either true or false. .. ", yet later stating that "These sentences will also just go in a loop and you can never come to a[n] end to find a[n] answer. " My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters; therefore, I suggest that we leapfrog over the false "true/false" dichotomy, and look to the fact that, because my opponent defines the resolution as inherently paradoxical when the two statements are put together, the resolution as a whole is neither true nor false, since the paradoxical "loop" simply continues ad infinitum. So, not only have I given a satisfactory answer to my opponent's question, but I've also proven that my opponent intentionally set up a framework that was so abusive as to be impossible for Pro to win under ordinary circumstances. :)
The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

To win this debate my opponent must tell whether each of these sentences are either true or false. I believe there is no way to tell whether either of these sentences are true or false when in combination with one another. (A) When these sentences are combined, they are formed together to make a paradox. A paradox is an assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises (1). (B) These sentences will also just go in a loop and you can never come to a end to find a answer. (1) http://www.answers.com...