BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Easy win for me

Full resolution: The purpose of this debate is for me to receive an easy win. As a brief bit of background information, this debate is derived from ReformedArsenal's RFD on this debate -> http://www.debate.org... My opponent was given the conduct voter as I was apparently trying to "Game the system" for a free win. From such a statement, it is both fair and logical to assume that they felt the only reason I partook in said debate in the first place was to tuck a free win under my belt. Thus the purpose of this debate, is neither to actually debate, or even win. In fact I'll forfeit the debate portion right now, meaning that whoever accepts this debate will automatically win. Yay for you. I instead want to use this debate to make a point, that being that winning or losing on this site is not important whatsoever. And furthermore, that I do not care whether or not I win or lose these debates. I won't lie and try to say that there wasn't a time when these debates win/loss record where important to me. Obviously not on this account, but on my old account (now deleted) under the name Bangbang-coconut. I didn't want to put a sincere amount of effort into a debate, only to lose the round. That kind of sucks. However after having eave the site for a while due to various personal issues needing to be taken care of, I came to a different opinion of what the purpose of debate it. It's to gain, and share knowledge. When the purpose of debate for ay individual becomes winning, they stop getting better. They're no longer conditioned to healthy amount of doubt, instead they become self-righteous, and conceited. Any minor belief they hold suddenly becomes a crusade for them if it is questioned. In short this kills debate. I not only wish to express this for myself, but I also hope sincerely that each of you takes this to heart. Of course there are some battles where you must stick to your guns and not back down, but they will not happen on this site. (more likely than not anyway) please realize that there is an astute difference between debating in person, and debating behind a computer screen. The former my have some significance, while the latter should only serve to have fun with or learn from. So in closing I sincerely do no care if I never win another debate on this site; that's not why I'm here. My desire in being on this site, the purpose of my continued membership, is to learn and have fun. For goodness sake, when I post a debate about something silly and off-beat, take it for what it is. Do no, and I mean do not over-analyze is and assume I'm simply trying to tuck another win beneath my belt; I assure where it that important to me I could easily win several debates on silly topics such as this without even trying. Also a special shout-out to BlackVoid, who knows to take joke. Your RFD made me smile ;).
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

Note to my opponent: to italicize text, click "Rich Text", which should be just over your text box, where you type, on the left side. It will give options such as italicizing, bolding, and underlining.I think it's fair to say that, now, we have reached the sole contention of: does the government has any say in marriage?I think my opponent fails to recognize that yes, marriage exists outside of religion. Within your religious beliefs, you can say that marriage is a bond made by God (or however you wish to say it), but that does not mean that all marriages are as such, or, at least, should be treated as such. For example, an atheistic couple can be married by law, but will not be married through a Church (usually). Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the government? Of course. It is legal, regardless of religion.A large chunk of my opponent's argument hinges on the claim that state governments do not make gay marriage illegal, they simply do not recognize it, and so have no right to begin to recognize it. This is false. View the map, and its legend:http://en.wikipedia.org...The majority are dark red/maroon, meaning "Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage and specified or unspecified civil union types," The overwhelming majority are either dark red/maroon or red (which means "Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage"). If the state simply does not recognize same-sex marriage, it is grey/silver ("No state- or territory-wide prohibition or recognition of same-sex civil marriages or unions"). Almost no state is grey or silver, crippling my opponent's argument.Marriage in a spiritual/religious sense is irrelevant. I'm arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Key word: legal. Law. Government. Whether or not you consider marriage by law to be 'proper marriage' (i.e. through the Church/under God) is irrelevant also, because I call for the legalization of it, not the acceptance of it under religious organizations.
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

Thanks for continuing the debate. Sorry If I seem like I'm shouting through part of this; I don't yet know how to italicize my text. "Legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage." I think that this is our main point of contention. I am proposing that there is, and can be, NO SUCH THING as "legal marriage", as marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is when God Unites two people, and the law has nothing to do with it. There is a reason there is a distinction between Marriage and Civil Unions, which are often legally identical but can have vastly different spiritual properties. Marriage is, in principle, only possible in the spiritual sense. People may get married for reasons that are not spiritual, but marriage is a spiritual act. "Note that 'religious' is even at the very last spot on the list, 'legal' being first." I don't see how this matters at all. "My opponent claims that marriage is a religious occasion, and so the government should be eliminated from the picture. If this was true (which it is not, as I will make clear later), then my opponent shall have easily lost the debate. If laws had no business in the regulation of marriage, as my opponent claims is a desirable situation, then the government would not be allowed to forbid homosexual marriage. My opponent also makes the false argument that the state has no authority to permit homosexual marriage - the opposite is true; the state has no authority to forbid it." I can see I need some more clarification here. there are three ways that I am aware of that a government can attempt to "legalize" marriage. 1. It can attempt to permit the marriage. 2. It can attempt to recognize the marriage. 3. and It can attempt to perform the marriage. It can also attempt to restrict the marriage, but this is not an act of legalization. The government has no business in marriage in different respects. It SHOULDN'T have any business in ANY marriage regulation, but it CAN'T perform a marriage, or recognize a marriage that simply does not and can not exist, or give anyone the license to wed when marriage is impossible. When you say you want to legalize marriage everywhere, you almost certainly do not mean solely the absence of restrictive laws. As far as I know, Homosexual marriage IS legalized mostly everywhere in that sense. Most states do not actively prohibit homosexual marriages. They just don't recognize them. And I may be mistaken, but it seems that you want the government to RECOGNIZE homosexual "marriages", which is something the government can not do. In analogy, suppose a group arose which wanted "rock baptism" to be legalized. the Government can ALLOW the rock to be baptized, but it can't actually baptize the rocks or recognize Rock baptism, because rock baptism isn't possible. Baptism is entirely outside the possible jurisdiction of government.
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

My opponent claims that marriage is a religious occasion, and so the government should be eliminated from the picture. If this was true (which it is not, as I will make clear later), then my opponent shall have easily lost the debate. If laws had no business in the regulation of marriage, as my opponent claims is a desirable situation, then the government would not be allowed to forbid homosexual marriage. My opponent also makes the false argument that the state has no authority to permit homosexual marriage - the opposite is true; the state has no authority to forbid it.Many religions have condemned homosexual marriage, and the organization behind such condemnation is not, nor will ever be, forced to marry homosexual couples within their religion. The prompt of this debate is not "All religions should allow gays to marry." The prompt is "Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere." Legalization does not mean required. If a religious organization does not desire their followers to be homosexual, they will not be required to accept homosexuality - the only requirement is that they must not force their disallowance on others. Their lack of acceptance need not be enforced universally. Legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage.http://en.wikipedia.org..."People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious." Marriage is not exclusively a religious event. Note that 'religious' is even at the very last spot on the list, 'legal' being first.
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

The state can not perform a marriage any more than it can perform a baptism. A marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that the state only has the power to recognize, and even then, should not. That the government ever involved itself in any marriage-- gay or straight-- is a gross violation of the separation of church and state. Marriage is the union of two human beings by God, and thus, the state has no more authority to permit marriage then to permit human beings to turn into hamsters, or to permit human beings to fly. Such a law has no meaning.
Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

Greetings.I will be arguing the point that homosexual marriage should be legalized. I feel that any law, especially one in the U.S., which likes to pride itself on being the Land of the Free, that prohibits homosexual marriage is unfounded and does not deserve to take effect.I feel there is no legitimate reason for the banning of homosexual marriage. The first round is NOT for acceptance - instead, it should be where my opponent offers his/her argument for the illegalization of homosexual marriage. Before concluding, I would like to mention that I am not homosexual or bisexual, and I am not arguing for my own freedom to marry, so I am not biased in any way.
Werewolf's are better then Vampire's

So far I agree with you what's said but im not sure about vampires using healing abillities and powers. This is what I have to say... Werewolf's only appear once a month during the full moon which is the downside but I would say in human form during the day they could trace down the vampires lair and probably kill them off before it get's dark which is also the vampires weakness. Even maybe they could take up a new profession to be a vampireslayer in the daytime. Maybe just like van helsing out of the movie. Now back to werewolf's at night they can be excellent hunters so they can hide in the bushes, trees, or just maybe blend in with the darkness which vampires may not see them clearly. And werewolf's are very quick and have alot of speed as for vampires they do not. They just glide through the air like in twilight movies Very unrealistic also when they turn into bats. Turning into bats is just fantasy I believe. That's all back to you
Werewolf's are better then Vampire's

While I'm obviously partial to the wolf, I eagerly agree to carry this burden: Vampires are better than Werewolves Opening Argument:The werewolf is the logical anti-vampire. Almost every lore ever conceived has poised the two as natural enemies. Yet, it is quite apparent that the Vampire has several distinct advantages over the werewolf. The Vampire is perpetual. Age will not consume this creature and even the most incredible physical damage can be recovered from. Indeed, in some lore, the Vampire can even recover from decapitation, if the severed body parts are soaked in a pool of blood. The Vampire can enthrall powerful bodyguards. The blood of a vampire is addictive to humans, and those who drink it become "ghouls", enthralled to the will of their master. Indeed, no human possesses the willpower to leave their Vampire master, after they have been enthralled. The human thralls posses supernatural strength, speed and healing abilities, granted them by the continued drinking of their master's blood. The Vampire becomes ever more powerful with age. While it could be argued that a young vampire would succumb to a werewolf attack, no single werewolf could hope to kill a veteran vampire. The older a vampire becomes, the more powerful it's innate abilities become. In fact, older vampires tend to manifest a large variety of abilities, such as flight, shape shifting, invisibility, teleportation through shadows, telepathy, faster than sound travel and the most devastating ability is the control over blood. Whether this is the blood bursting forth from the victims body, flowing like a slave to it's master, or if it's the blood boiling within the victims body, actively killing the creature it once sustained, nobody can hope to stand against such an ancient foe. Not all Vampires succumb to daylight. Dracula was free to walk in the sun, however, his powers left him during high noon, but only for a brief moment. The werewolf is completely limited. The werewolf is controlled by natural cycles and generally has no control over it's shift. The werewolf does not retain human intelligence, but rather becomes a ravenous beast. Humans generally forget what they did while in werewolf form. Post-shift amnesia. Werewolves do not become stronger with age. Arguably, older werewolves may exercise a modicum of control over their shift, becoming marginally disciplined in where and when they shift. Werewolves are slower than a newly created vampire. Werewolves heal slower than a newly created vampire. Silver allergies are pervasive in human and wolf form. Injuries sustained from silver heal at human rates. Werewolves age normally. Werewolves only survive in packs. Lone wolves are easily killed by veteran vampires. Over to you. .. .
Werewolf's are better then Vampire's

Ok before I get started this is my first time doing this so im not sure if I got this all right and Im not really good at being argumental but im willing to try. Now the one im picking is werewolf's but vampire's are my favourite and I normally would choose them. So for now im going with werewolf's. Just one rule go easy on me and I think I let my opponent go first on this.
Sci-fi story contest.

The rules are simple. Me and my opponent post short sci-fi stories, one per round. These stories must be readable instantly on the browser, and each must come from a different source. They must be hard science fiction.The voters should rate not only based on overall quality, but by their depth of concept. The winner (that is, the one whose stories are preferred by the voters) should receive all seven stars unless gross violation of conduct is committed.As for story length, I will trust my opponent to use common sense. They should be readable in one sitting, preferably in under ten minutes. Sex, swearing, and violence are of course permitted.I'll start off: http://qntm.org...
Is Peyton Manning the best quarterback the world has seen

Peyton Manning was selected by the Indianapolis Colts as the first overall pick in the 1998 NFL Draft. From 1998 to 2010, he improved the fortunes of the struggling Colts franchise and helped transform them into playoff contenders. During his tenure as starting quarterback, Manning led the team to eight division championships, two AFC championships, and one Super Bowl title, the franchise's first in over three decades, as well as their first since relocating to Indianapolis. After undergoing neck surgery that forced him to miss the entire 2011 season, Manning was released by the Colts and signed with the Denver Broncos. Serving as the team's starting quarterback from 2012 to 2015, he contributed to the Broncos reaching the top of their division each year and his playing career concluded with a victory in Super Bowl 50. Manning holds many NFL records, including passing yards (71,940), touchdown passes (539), AP MVP awards (5),[2] Pro Bowl appearances (14), and 4,000-yard passing seasons (14).[3][4] A two-time Super Bowl winner and the most valuable player of Super Bowl XLI, Manning is also the only quarterback to start the Super Bowl for two different franchises more than once each and the only starting quarterback to win a Super Bowl with two different franchises.[5] During a 2009 Monday Night Football game, Manning received the nickname "The Sheriff" from color commentator Jon Gruden due to his tendency to audible prior to the snap,[6] and he was one of the most recognizable and parodied players in the NFL.[7] Teams led by Manning typically utilized the hurry-up offense in place of the standard huddle.[
should students have a off-campus lunch

The average school lunch costs $2.08, according to the School Nutrition Association. But, http://www.massresources.org... states that meals are based off of salary income. Personally, my school lunch is over three dollars. You say that eating out is more expensive than eating in. http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com..., gives me several menu prices that are under school lunches. Here are a few options: McDonald's: Double Cheeseburger: $1.59 Triple Cheeseburger: $2.00 Grilled Chipolte BBQ Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Grilled Honey Mustard Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Grilled Ranch Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Chipolte BBQ Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Honey Mustard Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Crispy Ranch: Chicken Snack Wrap: $1.69 Small French Fries: $1.29 Medium French Fries: $1.59 Large French Fries: $1.79 Grilled Onion Cheddar: $1.00 McDouble: $1.39 McChicken: $1.00 Bacon Cheddar McChicken: $2.00 Buffalo Ranch McChicken: $1.00 Bacon Buffalo Ranch McChicken: $2.00 BBQ Ranch Burger: $1.00 Cheeseburger: $1.00 Double Cheeseburger: $1.59 Daily Double: $1.99 Jalape"o Double: $2.00 Bacon McDouble: $2.00 4 Pc. Chicken McNuggets: $1.99 Parfait: $1.00 Sweet Tea: $1.00 Side Salad: $1.00 3 Cookies: $1.00 Cone: $1.00 2 Bags of Apple Slices: $1.00 Sausage Burrito: $1.00 Sausage McMuffin: $1.00 Sausage Biscuit: $1.00 1 Hash Brown: $1.00 Coffee: $1.00 2 McGriddles Cakes: $1.00 Egg & Cheese Biscuit: $1.29 Cinnamon Melt: $1.59 That's just McDonald's. I could rave on and on about the extraordinary price difference.
should students have a off-campus lunch

sorry for not using any citations. According to http://www.healthguidance.org... and also to my 8th grade textbook on page 376. You had said that school lunch are over priced, but according to my first website, it states that eating out is always going to be considerably more expensive than eating in. Lets just use the example of McDonald, one Big Mac cost $3.59, and compare to a elementary school lunch, $2<$3.59 obviously that the school lunch is more cheaper.
should students have a off-campus lunch

Lets start, shall we? - In most cases they say responsibility and trust is a good thing and is a key trait to success. If students dislike school lunches, they can always choose go bring lunch from home. Students who are granted the freedom to eat off campus may act irresponsibly and get themselves into trouble. Being on campus is safer. Also, Students having off- campus lunches will not turn out so well. Some students see this as an opportunity to leave school and there could be trouble. Students eating at restaurants can be costly and unhealthy as well. When they leave campus, they are out of adult supervision and cannot be helped if in trouble. -Second of all, students do not have abundant of tie, for example, for elementary schools they only have half hour and 15 minutes, and many restaurants are very far away from the school and it just takes half of an hour for a student to travel between school and the restaurant. - Third of all, how on earth are you going to check how students are going to be disrespectful or not. The yard duties or other teachers can't keep an eye on everyone and everything. In which that that accidents may happen to the students while they're gone during this duration. -Specifically, Allowing students to eat off-campus leads to them eating fast food because that would be the food of choice. Students would be driving to restaurants and that could lead to more trouble. Keep students at school the whole day. If the lunch choices aren't good, students can pack their own lunches. -Besides, if students are acting dismal or disrespectfully outside of school, it is also bad for the school's image, that the school or even that district would be punished for this act. -For the most important thing, what if students are having alcohol or they are smoking outside of school during their off-campus lunch period? Since from the 1800s there are many followers of temperance. -If any student got injured the student(s)' might have a chance to blame the school that way the school have to pay for the price for that student to be "saved"
should students have a off-campus lunch

Responsibility and trust is a key trait to success. Allowing students to go off-campus will show responsibility, trust, and time management. If students had off-campus lunches, they would have a variety of choices. Many students skip lunches, because of poor cuisine and would rather had a sense of freedom of what they put into their bodies. By purchasing your own meal for lunch, administrators and the school will save money and spend it on supplies and other more efficient and beneficial needs for the school. Students will receive more of an option on what to eat from.
Equal Time in the Media

Okay so yeah. Let's do it. I mean... The debate and argument you're posing is sort of... Just a couple of blanket statements, but whatever. Sounds like fun. There are four rounds here so I think I can throw this one away by trying to clear up and clarify what it is exactly you're trying to say and pin-point the issue at hand you seem to have. Ahem. The internet. Media is not only cornered into a couple handfuls of television stations anymore. Were you talking about only broadcast television/news stations, or what? We have radio. Hell. Satellite radio. Podcasts. Websites. Journalism & blogs from... Everywhere. All walks of life. If some group feels marginalized or misrepresented, then 'eh. Kind of sounds like it's on them and shouldn't let somebody do the talking for them. That's what happens when you let yourself be spoon fed misinformation. But yeah, no. If that was what you were trying to get at? Or uh... Okay. Westboro Baptist Church. Doesn't seem like they put too much of a dent in Christianity, does it? Of course not, because majority rules. Just ask our friend Carl Jung. He said something to the extent of; what makes a thing true is solely based on majority belief. True, is it not? Alright. Looking forward to your response. Maybe your counter argument will kind of enlighten the debate a little once I find out what your beef is exactly.
Harry Potter vs Percy Jackson Rap Battle

Wow, look at this, just like the oracle said I get to beat this dude who's L is forever on his forehead Done more than you ever could, with that puny little wand No wonder the girl meant for you fell suddenly for Ron Annabeth loves my sword, and I'm not talking about Riptide Ginny's bored with you because she wished you just had chosen to die I've been great since the beginning, with just a pen in my hand It seems to me that your loss wasn't what Dumbledore had planned