BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape Battle

Wylted, I'm trying to have a conversation with the person/creature behind the mask. We can't get to the root of your problem if you do not let your mask slip, if only for a second. I fear we won't have many more opportunities to discuss this, as I hardly doubt I will accept any of your debates again. Could you, for both me and the poor saps reading, acknowledge the act? If only for a round. Perhaps this is too meta for your character, but I'm sure you can work it into the backstory. Have you read Deadpool? Deadpool's funny, and he's selfaware. However, he doesn't fear his impending and total doom, so I guess he's not exactly the rolemodel you need.Was I wrong, in my initial analysis? Does this stem not from your completely extraneous life (I'm having to go further down the synonym list for this, Wylted. I hope you appreciate the effort), but instead from some past experience? Were you bullied as a child, and instead of rising above this you decided to be an a*shole for attention instead? Grave mistake, Wylted, for you have neither the power, nor the creativity, to be a memorable a*shole. Look at Stalin. He sent people to deathcamps in Siberia! Now that's a potent combination of creativity and power. But you are doing a rape battle? Really, Wylted, the shock factor is over and all that remains is a pitiful little person hiding behind a computer screen too small for their insecurities, but too big for you to have any place in it. Isn't that sad, Wylted? I think its sad.I want to help you, Wylted, I really do. But that requires cooperation. What do I need to do? Do I need to find a video on youtube with colorful shapes and a catchy tune on how not to be an as*hole? Or maybe a diagram on dealing with one's own mortality, and how you wont live on after your death, even in the hearts of those who know you? Intimately. Is your persona contained by your mask, Wylted? Are you a pitiful excuse for even scum in the real world too? Oh dear, my dear Wylted. I am not a man of faith, but I shall pray for you. Because only divine intervention could save the creature I see before me.
Rape Battle

Wow, what a killer second round! That is what I may have said if I actually read this. Certainly you are aware of the contradiction you are committing by applying rules to a troll debate, right? Isn't the purpose of a troll debate to disregard the rules in some HILARIOUS way, especially in order to offend one's opponent?A thought just occured to me. If you are, in both the grand scheme of things and in the small scale, completely unimportant, then wouldn't this also apply to your words and actions? Who will remember this debate? You? Sure, I bet a debate about rape on the internet is going to be what you are able to look back on as old age claims your mind. Me? I don't even remember some of this debate, not even an hour since it commenced. Viewers? What viewers? Is anyone actually reading this debate? That's an odd, if somewhat depressing thought. I congratulate you for being able to be tucked in so firmly in your comfortable delusions. I'd ask you how it feels to be utterly irrelevant, but I doubt you could even answer me. Sure, I know the answer for myself, yet obviously this is something that is dealt with on the subjective level. I recognize my unimportance and focus on the small scale, like accepting this debate but refusing to argue the premise. I can't help but get the impression you feel like this is some testament that will last time. Like when people think of the year 2014, they will remember whatever the hell you are doing. Although, as you are a troll, that is likely a persona.You theorized that if you had a bigger dick you would be able to cope with your inconsequential life, but I don't quite agree. I think, to some level, you understand how trivial you are, and this is a mask we see to shield you from dealing with that. Who knows? Maybe if you had a bigger dick you could focus on something other than your insignificant existence. There is a remedy to this, you know. Just take some of the dick out of your personality.
Privatize Medicare

To make things clear, PRO has the BOP to demonstrate why privatization of medicare would be beneficial. I hold the negative proof to deny that any of his assertions are accurate to win this debate. So Pro's only argument is the last two sentences: If we were to privatize Medicare, the government will not have to spend any money on this at all. I believe the private sector almost always provides things more effectively and efficiently than the federal government. Society can take care of itself, it is just that we as a society expect the government to do it.The problem with Pro's argument is that he refuses to use any supporting details for his assertions. Seeing how Romney's campaign in 2011 delt with medicare privitaiztion, we have evidence proving that complete privatiztion will harm the poor and the elderly. For support, please look at these articles: http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; In summary, we have to realize that insurance companies are not healthcare practitioners. Insurance companies are businesses. Their main objective is to make money off of selling commodities. In this case, healthcare coverage. How would insurance companies make a profit? By selling better coverage at higher preminums. If we were to completely privatize medicare, then healthcare would be completely based off of social economic status. Which means, over 50%** of the population would be recieving little to no care when we take into consideration the cost of medical procedures. **The 50% is an estimation by considering that the average household income is 35K/year. Seeing how it costs 8 grand for an xray w/o insurance. 50% seems more than likely as a statistical number. http://en.wikipedia.org...;While it is true that complete privatiztion might reduce government spending, one has to realize the health tradeoff as a result. Please see previous pragraph. If one is more concerned with government debt, then one should consider killing off part of the population instead of letting the population suffer through inadeaquate care. If we consider both scenarios in form a utiltairian view, then my proposed strategy would be more efficient because it would elminate uncessary suffering. Your beliefs about the private sector is irrelevent when you cannot support your arguments with evidence.Why do we have a govenrment if society can take care of itself?
Privatize Medicare

I'm glad you accept and now I will begin. Medicare and Medicaid has been around for nearly 50 years. It was originally signed onto law by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and began in 1966. While it had opponents, in the end, it remained popular and is a big part of American life to this very day. However, in recent years this program has caused us problems. Spending for this program has gotten way out of control. Medicare and Medicaid alone account for 25% of all our spending. With Social Security spending at 23%, almost half of all our money goes to these programs which is more than we use to. In fact because of rising medical costs, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is expected to increase drastically over the next few decades. We cannot continue to support this frivolous spending and simply trying to cut spending from these programs will not do us any good. If we were to privatize Medicare, the government will not have to spend any money on this at all. I believe the private sector almost always provides things more effectively and efficiently than the federal government. Society can take care of itself, it is just that we as a society expect the government to do it.
The Bible does not contradict itself

Hello, I will be debating Pro for the resolution. The same guidelines for every debate apply.And by "Bible" I mean the Scriptures that are recognized to be sacred by the Church: Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi New Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation Good luck!
The Bible does not contradict itself

Since I have the BoP and I presented arguments in R1, I will simply conclude and will not present any arguments. I have dismantled the resolution on several occasions, especially on point 1. My opponent has dropped several arguments throughout this debate and has never even responded to the last two contradictions; one, if God is infallible (which is mentioned in the Bible), than God's word (which the Bible is) cannot contain factual errors (which the Bible does), and two, if God is not the author of confusion (which the Bible mentions), than there cannot be more than one version of the Bible because multiple versions (and thousands at that) signal confusion as to the contents of the real Bible. As for the second point, the Bible clearly makes several contradictions regarding God as peaceful or a man of war, and when taken in context, they mean that literally. I mean this is just a contradiction plain and simple: "I will not pity. .. "[Jeremiah 13:14]; "The Lord is very pitiful. .. "[James 5:11]. There can't be any doubt. In addition to this, my opponent skews the definition of contradiction; it doesn't just mean the opposite of two statements; it can mean that two statements differ in evidence (i. e. if Jesus was born in 4 BC or AD 6). The example is a contradiction. I can use outside sources to prove my point, just as you have. I have provided unbiased evidence, including the Bible, that the Bible contains contradictions; I have provided peer-reviewed studies for the first one and even used Christian sites to prove my latter two. Also, just because a site leans one way does not necessarily mean that it is wrong; in that case, nothing could be proven right. Thanks to my opponent again for this debate.
The Bible does not contradict itself

Thanks to my opponent for a great debate. Now, for my summary in the last round, I'll start with the key issue in this debate. Does the Bible contradict itself? I believe my opponent has not fully dismantled the resolution I've upheld, and here's why: My opponent said a variety of attacks. Does the Bible contradict science? Irrelevant. ITSELF being the key word. Contradict - To imply the opposite or denial of. On each of my opponent's attacks, does the text say the opposite? Some, as I've said, can go hand in hand. Others have a deeper meaning. Is God a literal warrior, fighting a literal war with literal swords, etc.? Of course not! It's relating Him to something fierce, brave, and strong. Also, outside sources don't count as contradictions. Now, look at my responses to the arguments and evaluate if it's possible. If it's possible at all that it's historically accurate, then the resolution upholds. Unless my opponent has fully proved 100% from a non-biased, non-atheistic agenda website that it's historically impossible, and that it implies the opposite of the previous text, then I win. Thanks again to my opponent and to my judges for keeping those points in mind and having an open mind. I know my opponent will have the last say. But no matter what stretch he tries to make, I have answered all the points he's clarified. And won them. I chose to summarize instead of repeating myself once more because it's more effective. Thank you.
YHWH is the most powerful God in existence

Well firstly, there isn't proof that there exactly is a "God" and here is wear I prove my statement. Evolution, yes I know that everyone says this, but it's true! The Bible was just made up by a bunch of misogynistic men. A man and woman didn't just appear out of nowhere and decided to freak in some bushes. There honestly isn't any proof whatsoever. So my answer to this is not there is no powerful God, and if there is a God then he is trapped in an eternal prison, with no way to come out and actually HELP people.
YHWH is the most powerful God in existence

Well there is no solid proof there is a god. A book that was made thousands of years ago is your proof? There is no powerful god. If there was a powerful god, then why doesn't he have the "power" to change the world? Why doesn't he stop all of this violence and hatred that is happening on this planet? Why doesn't he heal the people who are suffering? What kind of "powerful" is that? If there was a god, then that god would be very weak. Just sitting back, relaxing as he watches people suffer from the violence act upon them.
Avatar

I do not perceive any slights from my eloquent and clever opponent. I reiterate my previous argument that, regardless of the merits of subtlety in plot, having a subtle or "unprecedented" storyline is not a necessary condition to establishing an artwork's greatness. It is but one quality among a wide variety that are relevant to the degree of a film's achievement, which, as a package, can qualift as a great artwork, in some cases being instantly great and classic. As I said earlier, the epic scale of Avatar, its ground-breaking technology, and the real thematic depth of the film are the reasons for its artistic awesomeness. The comparison to the Manhattan project is apt because just as the Manhattan project marshalled a huge amount of resources and entailed ground-breaking interdisciplinary research, so did Avatar. Avatar had dedicated supercomputers and cloud computer networks ("a new cloud computing and Digital Asset Management (DAM) system named Gaia was created by Microsoft especially for Avatar, which allowed the crews to keep track of and coordinate all stages in the digital processing" See . http://en.wikipedia.org...), a corporation dedicated to inventing new 3D and digital imaging techniques, linguists creating a unique Na'vi language (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), and zoologists and botanists working with graphics engineers to create a biogically realsitic alien ecosystem. This business of "tangible products" is misguided. The Manhattan Project yielded only two tangible products: Fat Man and Little Boy, and maybe a test bomb. That's it. Nearly all the benefits of the Manhattan Project were "intangible" science and engineering concepts: civilian nuclear energy, nuclear submarine engines, ICBMs, etc. It took decades of slow production for the US to eventually develop a large nuclear arsenal, of which The Manhattan Project was merely a genesis. Similarly, tons of films developed since Avatar have been using derivative innovations like purposeful 3D filming and facial mapping digital imagery (such as the Red Skull in Captain America, which I saw today). I liked District 9. That doesn't detract from Avatar's greatness. I really dig my opponent's thematic analysis of Avatar, and his investigation into the perversion of the Na'vi is not something I've heard elsewhere. Kudos to my opponent, and likewise kudos to Avatar for containing substantive themes that even fascinate its detractors. To conclude, I urge the audience to medidate on the thematic depht of Avatar as described in the above posts and to give due credit to its mega-mega blockbuster status and the gargantuan amount of human effort that made it possible. Do not judge Avatar for eschewing quirks and gimmicks like eccentric characters or surprise plot twists. Avatar is an elegantly simple story with deep and fascinating themes, and it is an epic, awesome work of art.
Avatar

Avatar, the motion picture directed by James Cameron, is an AWESOME work of art. My opponent in this debate disagrees with that assertion. Avatar is awesome for the following reasons: it is a huge creative achievement because of its theological, philosophical, social, moral, cultural, technological, existential, and other themes; because of the quality of its visual effects and related technology; because of the attention to zoological, linguistic, geographic and botanical detail, and other details; because of the vast amount of labor, cooperation, and time invested in Avatar's creation and execution; because of its unprecedented popularity and economic revenue; and for many other reasons that I might recall and argue in subsequent rounds.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

To conclude, Broad Regulations on devorse would be cumbersome and complicated, not to mention costly and burdensome for the state. Finally these kinds fo regulations are based on a desire to restore santicty to a relgious practice that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's society and admitted by Pro that such regulations would push it into an even further relegated status. Braod and strict regulations of Devorse there for are impartical and counter productive in the long run.Thank you pro, for the excahnge. Feel free to issue a debate challenge anytime you like.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

1: In this case society is advanced by statistics. A statistic is a representation of data to what people are doing. If people are getting fewer divorces, the stats would simply show. The number itself would show advancement. 2: Yes, so why not regulate divorce as well? (Which is the main point) 3: Fair point, however I'm not condoning the "old ways", just the old views of what it meant to get married. Also, by structure and discipline I mean that people must learn to live with the choice, not back out 55 hours into it. 4: Yes it is a fact. You said it yourself, " ...sure it happens". The levels as to how much it happens are irrelevant. It is the fact that it is still allowed to happen. People are ALLOWED to marry someone for any reason they see fit. I just think there needs to be a few guidelines to protect innocent people that go into a marriage with high hopes and end up with nothing. How is it not fraud to enter a marriage for personal gain? ( which is why I introduced divorce investigation). 5: interesting point. 6 (the remaining summed up due to overlap of thought): Again, it is not about the "old ways", but the old views of marriage. With a few changes to the proceedings of divorce I firmly believe this could be. Yes, maybe the next generation will find it irrelevant, but that already seems to be the trend. So what if people find it irrelevant. At least they will still respect it enough not to get married for the sake of getting married. It would stop the downwards spiral of divorce that our country is already on. I know it may be "easier to rely on the government" to take care of your problems and responsibilities, but it's not what it is for. That kind of mind state is what you wish to prevent during marriage. You do not go for easy, you go for what you promised at the altar. Thanks for this debate. Your words will not be forgot.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

" A lower number on paper is the goal." Pointless. Society is not advanced by statistics. " Marriage itself is already regulated, e.g. licensing..." True. " Broad regulations add structure and discipline back to the institute of marriage."What gives you the authority to decide what structure is needed? Are you really representing "Society" or are you representing a conservative segment of society that wants to hold up the "old ways" as being the right way. "fact remains people are getting married just to get divorced (immigration, publicity stunts, financial reasons)." Is this a fact? I mean sure, this stuff happens but is it really at epidemic levels, sure it happens. I see no evidence to support the idea that is at a level which undermines society at large."As a society we cannot simply allow this to happen". Really, I could give a rats #@!, I am perfectly content with watching people make fools of them selves for publicity. Also it makes the corporate over lords happy to see people numbing their brains with clebirty devorse garbage,happy. The more sedated the least intelligent of our species are, the less they bother anyone else." Certainly a lot of divorce laws would cause conflict" To say the least."but as I mentioned before it would only help to promote marriage as it once was in the past."What was once, can never be again. The fact that you cant sell your daughter for two goats and a chicken means we have already changed the "old ways" of marriage. "Not a extended relationship, but a beautiful lifelong promise. "This statement is a bit to heart glowing and stary eyed for my tastes. "Enforcing strict divorce laws would ultimately make people question if they are in fact actually ready to commit to such a promise."Easier and safer to hit up the government for taking care of kids than it is to rely on some guy who may or may not have a job 5 years from now ( and there is no occupation that is currently immune from that concern). "It will only help solidify those who know where they stand with their feelings about the other person, with those who do not."More likely it will only push people further into the more progressive camp ( as you some what conceded) and make marriage even less relevant in the next generation as it is proving to be in my (millennial) generation.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

A lower number on paper is the goal. A lower divorce % COULD mean less people are getting married, however the same could be said about people staying married. You have different ideals on marriage and divorce, but in the context of the discussion it is irrelevant. The laws and procedures are to provide structure for those who embark in the journey of marriage. Marriage itself is already regulated, e.g. licensing and (in some states) who you can or cannot marry. There is a logical problem to most regulations, but governing the divorce process would serve as a more positive contribution. Broad regulations add structure and discipline back to the institute of marriage. As you stated before, it may mean something different to different people, but the fact remains people are getting married just to get divorced (immigration, publicity stunts, financial reasons). As a society we cannot simply allow this to happen. Adding broad regulations would only strengthen the public decision to view marriage as a lifelong process, without an easy escape. While most marriage cases are between two capable adults, some are not. Some people realize down the road that they may have not been 'ready'. Certainly a lot of divorce laws would cause conflict, but as I mentioned before it would only help to promote marriage as it once was in the past. Not a extended relationship, but a beautiful lifelong promise. Enforcing strict divorce laws would ultimately make people question if they are in fact actually ready to commit to such a promise. It will only help solidify those who know where they stand with their feelings about the other person, with those who do not.