BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Left-handed people are smarter than right-handed people.

Actually, this subject really is a matter-of-fact. It's been proven over and over again left-handed people are, in fact smarter than right-handed people. Perhaps, Dr. Oz explained it best on the "Oprah" show when he said, "Well, in a way, left-handed people are smarter, and I'll tell you why," Dr. Oz says. "Left-handed people can deal with more incoming information that doesn't come in an organized way. " Dr. Oz says this is because of the way the brain develops when a baby is in its mother's womb. "The left brain normally controls your right side, which is really powerful," he says. "[In left-handed people], it allows the other side, the right brain, to become an equal partner. " Because left-handed people can use both sides of their brain more readily, Dr. Oz says, they can process information coming into their brain in different ways more easily. "That's why athletes do so well when they're left-handed. And there are a lot of presidents who have been left-handed, and there are a lot of folks who, because they can deal with a lot of complicated issues at once, work pretty effectively," he says. [1] According to researcher Alan Searleman, of St. Lawrence University in New York, southpaws have higher IQs, solve problems better and enjoy more extensive vocabularies than righties. Lefty cases in point: Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso, for starters. Not to mention every U. S. president since 1981, except. .. .yep, you guessed it, George W. Bush. [2] In his book, "Right-Hand, Left-Hand", Chris McManus of University College London, argues that the proportion of left-handers is increasing and left-handed people as a group have historically produced an above-average quota of high achievers. He says that left-handers' brains are structured differently in a way that increases their range of abilities, and the genes that determine left-handedness also govern development of the language centres of the brain. [3] A variety of studies suggest that only 10% of world population are left-handed. [3] As you can see, the difference between righties and lefties is real, and documented. It has already been established that left-handers are smarter right-handers. [1]. http://www.oprah.com... [2]. http://isittrue.msn.com... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap Battle: Trump vs Clinton

Who remembers this chick's first surrender? Easy to offend her because she's weak like her gender Always relying on her identity politics The only women I like, they all know how to swallow quick I like the identity of my women to be models Not model citizens - got model foreigners in my brothel I tried warning her that she would always be under me I'll f*ck this broad up again - not my first time with adultery See girls just can't help but be attracted to my money Have you seen my Twitter account? Everything that I say is funny I'm tall, I got blonde hair, and I got big brooding shoulders F*ck with me and I'll call out for all my "Make America Great Again" soldiers These f*ckin stupid redneck with guns will f*ckin shoot you if I say so Got these idiot buffoons all molded under my thumb like they're playdough And what's more powerful than a bunch of stupid people in masses? I'm about to teach you a lesson that they won't teach in the classes I'll show you how being ruthless and savage is all that really matters I shattered the ideal of manners with "real talk" and now clearly I am your master I got the whole government on little marionette strings with me Every time that people bet against me I just turbo jet to a victory Isn't it funny how they talk sh*t and then I sh*t all over them? Went up against me and now you are overwhelmed I am underwhelmed, I am already bored and not impressed Damn you, f*ck a pantsuit here's a hand to get you in a dress And it's a big hand, and it's yuge like my tower You're a little miss nobody and of course I am the man of the hour Keep scowling at me b*tch but I am the president And if you think about it really of course it's quite evident I'm educated, I'm successful and slimy like all other politicians Listen to this serpent hissing about how it's unfair that I'm winning She thinks she's entitled to sh*t just because she is a woman She's crooked like my d*ck when it's not inside the women I cum in
If we have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage.

Thank you for bringing such an illuminating debate to the floor. I am happy to accept. I hope that this debate will be enlightening, productive and enjoyable. My last debating opponent did not define the key terms in the debate, so I would like to suggest the following definitions: (which you are free to modify) Minimum wage: The lowest salary payable under the law of a jurisdiction. Maximum wage: The highest salary payable under the law of a jurisdiction.
If we have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage.

Every top has its bottom and if we are going to have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage. If there is no maximum it leaves the question "Is it okay for one person to obtain all the capital in the world. Surely that can't happen so a maximum must exist we just refuse to recognize it. Having a maximum wage should be put into place to allow fairness to what one person is allowed to take from the world in accordance to how many people there are and the limits that possesses on the plant.
The con wins a debate.

Ha! Now you fell in my paradox. Read carefully. You are con. This implies you mean to say opposite of topic. Therefore your motto is that pro wins the topic. If you win this debate, this means that you were correct for saying pro wins the debate but I lose and I am pro, therefore your argument goes wrong. Hence, I should win and that is what I want. You are now stuck in the bog of words. Thanks for entering the trap.
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

Contention 0: The Concession. My opponent fails to see that the line of "the correct state of mind," he also fails to see my line justifing that claim by stating that it is natural for a person to choose life over death and that when it's the other way around the person is not in a correct state of mind. Thus them choosing Euthanasia would be invalid concidering that the person isn't in the correct state of mind. Which my opponent has failed to refute thus meaning that there is no concession and that this was just an honnest misunderstanding or a misuse of time by Pro as he has waited until under an hour on each Round before he responded showing that he has either no interest in this debate or a misuse of time. Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without consent. Once again, never refuted so I'll extend this argument across the board. Contention 2:Slippery Slope. Even if they fall under such reasoning of this category it is still a valid argument that has evidence of it occuring. My opponent has yet to actually attack the point head on, but only ignores the arguments here and calls the argument invalid, because of it being under this classification without trying to disprove my evidence or arguments. So I'll extend my points across the board. Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness. Extend across the board. Contention 4: Monetary costs. Extend this point across the board as it was never refuted. Conclusion In a brief summery, one can see that my opponent hasn't really attacked my case and only went after a phrase and attemtping to use it as a means of Concession, but is false as I have showed that if a person wishes for death they are not in a correct state of mind, which was dropped by Pro, thus showing that they aren't able to choose euthanasia. This is a Catch-22 type situation. The points that my opponent brought up in the first round were completely refuted by me and had no counter-arguments by Pro showing that his case is faulty and has been negated. All, but my 2nd contention was outright dropped by my opponent and he never actually refutes my second contention. All he does is say that it's false and calls it good while not even refuting any of the evidence that I had brought up or any of my arguments there. So with that being said there is no other result then the resolution being negated.
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

CONCESSION My opponent has already conceded the debate, so anything I say Is just a bonus. There is no need for the voters to read beyond his concession, and here it is again as a reminder. "only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. " I'm not putting words in my opponent's mouth and Voters are encouraged to go back to round 2 and read my opponent's original statement which matches this word for word. Me and my opponent are advocating only for euthanasia for the terminally ill and with proper safe guards. Are positions are the same even if some of the nuances are different. SLIPPERY SLOPE The resolution is "Euthanasia should be legalized". My opponent makes a case for why the process for Euthanasia should be reformed in other countries but fails to show why it shouldn't be legalized. Here is a reminder of what the slippery slope fallacy is. ""1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). 2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. "This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. " Pretty much all my opponent's arguments fall under this slippery slop fallacy and he has failed to show how legalizing euthanasia will lead to what he believes it will. CONCLUSION Vote pro because Me and my opponent agree that people should be able to choose death over a very brief tortured existence. ).
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

Contention 0: ConcessionMy opponent is putting words into my mouth as he apparently didn't read the full argument that I had made stating that the person in the correct state of mind prefurs life and that when they are sick or in pain they want death, because they will do anything to end their own pain and suffering and this is key as we all have had spurts when we're sick and we wanted to die, because the pain was intense, but we got over it. You see that when a person wants death it's because their mental judgement is skewed and thus the person cannot make the correct sense of judgement. My opponent also states that it must be left to be only voluntary, but in my second contention I will prove why this will lead to other things. If we apply my opponent thought in the last round we can see that it applies to Non-voluntary euthanasia and in some cases involuntary euthanasaia.Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent.This argument went unrefuted so I extend across all points.Contention 2: Slippery Slope.My opponent is believing that this argument is irrelivant, but this is the actual name of this argument that BioEthicist Ezekiel Emanuel had come up with. I have given proof of this as well as Belgium had originally legalized voluntary euthanasia with the consent of a pain doctor, but now this has decreased dematically as they have legalized other forms of euthanasia and even Euthanasia without the child's consent in Belgium. I have also shown that since the types of euthanasia has become legal the number of euthanasias have doubled and even tripled. Also I have shown in the 4th Contention that Oregon has the state paying for euthanasias showing that the poor will have a general preferance to choose Euthanasia over treatment.My opponent also drops my point on giving the doctor the killing roll so please extend that across the board. Contention 3: Self Ownership and sickness.Extend this point across the board.Contention 4: Monetary costs. Extend this point across the board as it was not refuted.
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

I feel like my opponent has conceded and actually agrees with me. I'm clearly only advocating for Euthanasia that is voluntary and for people who are in really bad shape health wise. In such a bad state that they would view death as preferable. Keeping this completely voluntary would necessitate keeping a living will. Just like you'd do if you didn't want to be kept on life support. When there is no living will then it becomes a family decision. A patient would request to be put to death and the family as well as the patient with the help of a counselor and information provided by the doctor would come together, to decide if this is the course of action they want to take. This is the exact same process as the one you'd go through when considering ending life support because this procedure is basically an extension of that. THE CONCESSION "only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind " My opponent issued this challenge and knows exactly what I'm arguing. This is an outright concession and I should win. Me and my opponent are both agreeing that euthanasia should be legal only for people who are in a ton of pain and close to death. This is no different then mercy killing a deer who you just accidently hit with your car and is laying on the ground writhing in pain and close to death. Lannan, I know you think you're con on euthanasia but you're not. You're actually pro on this topic and just don't realize it. SLIPPERY SLOPE My opponent is engaging in a slippery slope fallacy explained like this; "1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). 2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. "This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another." http://www.nizkor.org... The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy but it is in this case. Legalizing euthanasia so terminally ill people can choose to die (with the necessary safeguards aka living wills) isn't necessarily or even likely going to lead to killing a bunch of people against their will. As a matter of fact killing people against their will (and even most of the time with their consent), will still be considered murder and punishable by life in prison and even death. If my opponent is going to argue legalizing Euthanasia will lead to this he needs to show why. He has a good case that it should be outlawed in Belgium or at least heavily reforming the process but that is inconsequential to the case of legalizing it anywhere else.
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

1. We as humans have an inherent right to our own body. The concept of self ownership has been debated for centuries but virtually everybody agrees that we own ourselves. It's the reason that abortion is even debatable. If not for self ownership, the would be no pro choice side of the equation. Self ownership is also why we reject the concept of slavery and allow people to choose their own marriage partners. People own themselves and because of this right to self ownership the government shouldn't attempt to stand in the way of me excersizing my right to die. 2. A lot of really sick people are needlessly suffering just waiting for death to appear in a few short months or years. By allowing them to die prior to this suffering you're merely just cutting off the worse point of their life and actually giving them a chance to die happy. It's sad that as a society we have decided to be kind enough to shoot a deer in the head when it's suffering or put a family pet to sleep but the people closest to us we force to suffer when they'd much rather die. We need to start treating our fellow human as well as we treat our family pets. We need to allow them to die with their dignity and to end their suffering if they so choose. 3. Another thing not discussed much on this issue is the money that could be saved in health expenses for the government and insurance companies. As well as how much of the scarce resources in hospital that could be saved rather than prolonging the inevitable. Conclusion- My case is simple. Humans have a right to self ownership and ending their suffering if that's what they want is doing them a favor. Most of my case will rest on exposing the myths about the downsides of Euthanasia.
Resolved: Euthanasia should be legalized.

Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon. " If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. ( . http://dictionary.reference.com...)
No Gods Exist

1) proving the validity of Premise 2 and 2) showing correlation between your conclusion and the Abrahamic god. I will prove both in this argument. "His opinion is no different than any other opinion. " uhhh, No. He is God. What the true God says is the TRUTH. Not an opinion. I am saying, Raping is wrong just because it is wrong. PERIOD. "You say that Christian morality stops people from raping and murdering" Not doing something is different than being opposed to it. "Hitler believed in the Christian god, You're not helping your case by bringing this up. " He did not believe in a Christian God. Why would he have killed the jews? He was an atheist. "All you're proving is that citing biblical morality turns you into a bad person. " This is not a debate about biblical morality. You can still do things wrong even when you are a Christian I am going to stop here. Your floor. :)
No Gods Exist

Assuming that you premises are true, Then yes, You would debunk me. Fortunately, All of your premises are bold claims. Can you prove that: A) God exist? B) He is all powerful? C) Time and Space exist? D) Anything can exist outside of Time and Space? I see no evidence for any of the things. That means you have no logical defeater for my argument. I may have the burden of proof on my claim, But any claim you make as a defeater has a burden of proof. For instance, If I tell you that gravity is fake and my evidence is that things don't fall, Your defeater would be a premise that is both true and disproves my conclusion. So if you posited that you can a pen will fall if you drop it, You now have a burden of proof to prove that the pen drops. Therefore you have drop a pen in front of them to fulfill your burden of proof. So your mission now is to prove that the premises of your defeater are true. Your floor.
No Gods Exist

I am making the positive claim that no gods exist. I will debunk every version of god, So long as god has these two qualities: 1. God has agency. 2. God created the universe. Lets do this. So lets start with Omni Gods. These are any gods that are omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Etc. Now a god like this would be sufficient to meet the two requirements that I mentioned, But the problem is that this god has been explained in a way that is incoherent. By doing a reductio ad absurdum, We can see that these omni qualities cannot exist in reality. This is because they deal in infinites and infinities cannot exist in reality. Infinities are simply abstracts used as a place holder for the highest conceivable number. When we call something infinite, What we're really saying is that it's too big to count or even estimate. So now all we can have is a really powerful, Really loving, Really far seeing god. Now some people might say that god exist outside of time and space. This is also incoherent. Time and space are also abstracts and nothing can exist with or apart from them. If god cannot exist in physical reality, Then he cannot create the universe because he can't affect reality. So now we're down to a really powerful god that exists in physics. So a god like this could still meet the two requirements I mentioned. But now we have a problem. If god has no omni power and he exists in physics, That means he is in the observable universe. But he's not in the observable universe. Since god has agency, He would need physical matter to exist and therefore could not move beyond the speed of light. So he cannot escape the observable universe. So what if we take away god's matter and just turn him pure agency? Now he might not be observable, So it would make sense that we didn't find him. But wait, Now we have a problem. God can't create the universe anymore. He's just a floating blob of agency sitting ineffectually in our universe. So why is he there in the first place? Let's back it up. So maybe we can go the other end and say that god is just physical and has no mind, Like particles. The problem here is that it's now just an object. No reason to call it God. So by slowing peeling off the layers of impossibilities, We see that while something may have created the universe, There is no reason to think that something is a god. At most, It was some physical thing.
No Gods Exist

I would like to say that my opponent has not trash talked me like backwardseden and other idiots. I am thankful for that. I have enjoyed this debate very much and would enjoy debating you again. Because I slightly disagree with your redoing of my premises, I will re-word them myself. Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence(formed). " Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence(formed) is caused to exist by something else. " Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. " Conclusion: Since there cannot be an infinite series of past causes, The universe must have had a starting point. Therefore, Something outside this world must have created or formed this world. That is better explained by the existence of a God. "I've tried to present your argument in the best light possible and I even offered ways for you to beat me, So I think I've been fair in my assessment. " You have been more than fair. Thank you. "You need to connect this conclusion to the Christian god. " Although I have used the God to prove my points, I just need to show that it is more reasonable to believe that a God exists than that He does not exist. I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, However, Provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, Provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, He must offer arguments that God does not exist. Since my opponent has not done this, We can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.