BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People with penis-related last names should be banned from holding Public Office

Medicare has helped with seniors' healthcare, which has helped with a decent retirement, especially if one dies before his/her spouse and that never happens (Sarcasm).Bush 1 still whupped Saddam's a**.Harding still supported booze, which had that happened, wold have closed up a source of revenue for the Mafia (hammered guy vs. Al Pacino)John Hancock-You admitted that he got stuff right.Besides, the weak link in your argument is that what if there's a gut out there called Harry Baals or Tiny Kox [1] who gets us out of this Recession. What'll you say THEN?P.S.: You haven't addressed James Cox or my humor point. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
People with penis-related last names should be banned from holding Public Office

"A. These guys have a right to run for public office if they want to."The point is that they shouldnt, not that they currently cant. "B. I concede on Anthony Weiner, Dick Cheney and Bush 2."Excellent >:)"C.LBJ-Medicare has helped millions of seniors have a decent retirement"Medicare literally has nothing to do with retirement"Bush 1- 1st American to whip Saddam Hussein's a**hole"Yeah because after 1991 we TOTALLY never had any other problems with Saddam...... (Sarcasm)"Harding- A senator who supported booze and women's suffrage"He supported women's rights because he was so hammered all the time. "John Hancock-Founding Father, 1st signatory of Declaration of Independence"Anyone who spends all his life with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is bound to get a few things right..... And politicians with penis related last names today dont have that luxury which means they cant be fixed. Therefore we should neuter their hopes of holding political office since they clearly will, as their names suggest, f*ck up everything.
People with penis-related last names should be banned from holding Public Office

A. These guys have a right to run for public office if they want to. B. I concede on Anthony Weiner, Dick Cheney and Bush 2. C.LBJ-Medicare has helped millions of seniors have a decent retirement Bush 1- 1st American to whup Saddam Hussein's a**hole Harding- A senator who supported booze and women's suffrage James M. Cox- Successful Governor of Ohio and a capable reformer who got whupped by Harding John Hancock-Founding Father, 1st signatory of Declaration of Independence Let's face it, some of these guys have f*cked up America, but the others aren't bad. They also provide for plenty of humor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
People with penis-related last names should be banned from holding Public Office

The reason why people with penis related last names should be banned from holding public office is because those same people have an elaborate and extensive history of gross incompetence at their job. Lets just look at some of the most famous people with pen*s related last names in American political history and see how they performed at their job: Johnson - Lyndon B Johnson, created medicare and medicaid, plunged the US into war with Vietnam for no reason, liked to say the N-word as evidenced by the movie 'The Butler' Bush (1) - Took the Reagan economy and f*cked it up, raised taxes when he said he wouldnt Bush (2) - First president to establish a trillion dollar budget shortfall, declared war on Iraq for bullsh*t reasoning, literally one of the dumbest presidents in recent memory Warren G Harding - President after world war 1 who had a sh*tload of scandals during his administration and only served one term before dying in office Anthony Weiner - Took pics of his 2 inch weiner and sent it to numerous women all over the country and continued to do so after being caught Dick Cheney - Though not a penis related last name, his first name couldnt be MORE penis related, and he served under George Bush II of all presidents as well..... Also played a hand in the Iraq war, the economy going to hell, and the budget shortfall. Had people with these penis-related names not been allowed to hold public office, then the US would have rid itself of all of these grossly incompetent presidents and politicians and would be significantly more advanced and more well off then we are right now.
Euthanasia

"my 1st scenario are examples of FAKE voluntary Euthanasia. Where they faked like they had permission. idiot."That doesnt change the fact that its still completely implausible since they could never get away with it as you were insinuating though. The scenario is still completely idiotic and you are still a massive idiot. "a person can say they had permission, or forge their signature to make it seem like they did." They still cant perform the actual euthanasia themselves though, legalized euthanasia requires a medical professional to do that, so your dumb scenario still is not in any way based in reality. "well, lets change that to nice wad of cervical cancer shall we?"No stupid, being diagnosed with something doesnt put euthanasia on the table, you have to be suffering from it for years and years, suffer an immense amount of pain, and be on the verge of death for euthanasia to become an option. Were you dropped on your head as a child a lot or did you just naturally turn out to be a complete idiot on your own?"It's a scenario! Not a guideline how it is all goanna happen!"Your scenario is still something that only a brain-dead aborted fetus could have come up with and thought would be a common occurrence under euthanasia laws. "Again, here are the people who are on the verge of death in my scenarios."Being just diagnosed with HIV doesnt count as on the verge of death idiot. "Again, DOES NOT HAVE LONG TO LIVE!"For the love of all things holy, not having long to live is only one of the qualifications that need to be met for euthanasia to become an option, as I have already mentioned that you once again failed to comprehend. "Now he is on the verge of death."Being diagnosed with cervical cancer does not = on the verge of death.Con has clearly opted to continue being an irrational idiot talking out of his own anus rather then actually research what he is debating about, since he again clearly has no idea what the hell he is even talking about..... The case still stands that con has not presented anything even close to a rational argument against euthanasia.
Euthanasia

Thank you! Case 1: Slippery Slope Scenario 1: Jennifer has hated her mother in law for 10 years. However, her mother in-law is in very poor shape. She is missing a lung and does not have long to live. One morning, the mother in-law wakes up, and finds Jennifer having an affair! She goes to the phone to call her son, but before she could, Jennifer kills her by suffocation. Jennifer then goes to court and says, since the new euthanasia law just past, that her mother in-law didn't want to live anymore, so she helped her commit suicide. the court believes her, and she walks out Scott free. Without an euthanasia law, Jennifer would have been charged with murder, and sentenced to either life in prison, or death. As stated in my scenario, Jennifer got away Scott free because of a law that passed that made euthanasia legal. This would be common if euthanasia were allowed. Case 2: Wrong Diagnosis Scenario 2: Jimmy goes to his doctor for a routine check up. His doctor performs many tests, and thinks he has HIV. Jimmy is very scared and irrational. He asks his doctor to help him by doing euthanasia. Sadly, the doctor helps Jimmy commit assisted suicide. Jimmy then gets taken in for an autopsy, and they find he does not have HIV. The doctor that didn't mean to kill Jimmy, is charged with murder. He is then sentenced to life in prison. This would not have even been an issue for Jimmy and his doctor if the euthanasia law is not passed. Jimmy would have went in for further tests, and would've been shown he does not have HIV. The doctor would also not go to jail. This would be common if a law that allowed euthanasia was passed. Case 3: No Hope Scenario 3: Yolonda is diagnosed with cancer. Over many months, it did not get better. Yolanda's daughter come in to give her flowers and visit her. During the visit, Yolanda becomes depressed, and asks her daughter to perform euthanasia. Her daughter denies quickly! But with hours of convincing, she performs euthanasia. The doctor comes in with her test result to find her dead with her daughter. The daughter explains everything to the doctor. The doctor seems sad. "It's all my fault." says they doctor. The daughter then asks why. He opens the folder to show that much of the cancer has been eliminated, and a few more doses of kemotherapy would have gotten her back to normal. "If I would have gotten here quicker, she would still be alive." says the doctor. This is probably the saddest of the three scenarios. Because she lost hope, Yolanda convinced her daughter to do euthanasia. If a law is not passed, Yolanda would be great and alive. Happily spending her time with her daughter. These are three scenarios that would be common if euthanasia were to be allowed! I hand the debate over to imabench!
I punched & gave a black eye to a guy when I was 15 years old as he abused my parents. I was right!

I would request eunuchs who do not have the guts, knowledge, smartness, rationality and method to debate to not to accept my challenge for debating. Con has forfeited the round again and I am not at all proud of winning this debate against a eunuch who forfeits the round rather than debating.
I punched & gave a black eye to a guy when I was 15 years old as he abused my parents. I was right!

I guess that Con will forfeit the remaining rounds as well. I would request the site users to accept the challenge only if they are truly dedicated to debate else they are only wasting their minutes and effort. Let's see what the Judges i.e. common public have to say. Do they still think that Con is the winner? If it is then perhaps this is not a debate but a musical program where only maximum number of claps and cheers will make anyone win the competition like a crazy democracy nation.
I punched & gave a black eye to a guy when I was 15 years old as he abused my parents. I was right!

Firstly, honourable Judges, I would like to correct my spelling mistake of 'honourable' in the Round 2 of the debate.**Honourable Judges, it should be noted that Con has used broken English as he spoke, "business man" and not "businessman" as "business" and "man" cannot be typed seperately. I also corrected it in comments section before anyone could point it out, if you go through the comments. Therefore, pls do not count this as a spelling and grammar mistake. Secondly, Con has forfeited the previous round. I'm sure that Con will forfeit the forthcoming rounds. It is therefore obvious that who has won this debate. I used to doubt the voting style of the common public but again I have put my faith on common public to act as Judges. Let's see that can you atleast understand that who has won this most obvious debate where almost all the rounds were forfeited. If you still cannot decide, then this is nothing but a crazy democracy. If you are not fully determined and dedicated to debate, do not accept the challenge and waste mine and your resources.
I punched & gave a black eye to a guy when I was 15 years old as he abused my parents. I was right!

"How did he abuse your parents tho?"How does anyone abuse? I think that they verbally abuse by using their tongue and mouth and not through their ears and eye. HAHAHAHA!!! :D LOL!"What does him being the son of a business man have to do with this btw?"If you use your rationality then you could have known that generally sons of rich families are spoilt and hyper. That is why he was abusing. That is the reason that why I mentioned it."If anything you should have said something but it depends on what he was saying. What was he saying?"I cannot speak that in a public forum that what he was saying. If I speak that what he was saying then it would attract censorship from the site authorities and my profile could be suspended for using foul language in a public forum. I think that you should be smart enough to understand that what he was saying when I said that it cannot be spoken in a public forum if you think that you can debate.Why do you think that it is necessary for checking that the abuses were enough to punch him or not?Honarble Judges, it should be noted that Con has used broken English as he spoke, "business man" and not businessman as "business" and "man" cannot be typed seperately.
I punched & gave a black eye to a guy when I was 15 years old as he abused my parents. I was right!

When I was in class 10 (I was 15 years old), in the year 1998, I punched my classmate who was in my class as he was abusing my parents. He was a son of a businessman and I was in a group with him for a science presentation. Suddenly, he started criticizing me without any evidence for the same. He baselessly claimed that I am not capable of handling a presentation and then started continuously abusing my parents. I ignored him for sometime but he kept on abusing my parents. I could not have complained to my teacher as it would look very odd as a class 10 student complaining like a kindergarten toddler. So, I just punched him and gave him a black eye to make him shut up. DID I DO THE RIGHT THING? I THINK THAT I DID THE RIGHT THING. HOWEVER, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME AND THINK THAT I WAS WRONG IN DOING THAT THEN LET'S START A DEBATE.
Capitalistic ideology is bad

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEBATE!!!! Just kidding, I hate it when people do that. It sucks you got cut off. Just reitterate my last post. Also, remember that capitalism isn't responsible for the moral decisions of actors in it. These moral atrocities happen in every economic system, whether its socialism, capitalism or whatever. The actions of the people in the system is independent to the system itself. The benefits of capitalism far outweigh any negatives. We get competition, the distribution of wealth and progress as a society. Money falls from the top, making it OK for us to have rich people. We need capitalism in order to innovate, create opportunity, and keep a functional economy. Thanks. Hope you get back for the next round.
Capitalistic ideology is bad

Let me start by saying that I, in no way, think that capitalism is perfect. That said, I think it is obvious that capitalism is good. I will begin by responding and than extrapolating on my own arguments. First, you argue that capitalism allows businesses to commit moral atrocities. This is not a commentary on the economic system. Whether or not pharmaceutical companies donate large subsidies is not relevant to the companies being in a capitalist system. Maybe you could clarify your argument for me here, but it seems just as possible for any other company in any other system to ignore ethics. Also, capitalism allows these companies to make the kind of profit that make these kind of donations possible. Essentially, capitalism bears no weight of a CEO's ethical decisions as it doesn't attempt to solve these quandries. At the very least, it can be said that capitalism breeds the success that allows the mere possibility of these ethical disputes. Next, the wealth distribution argument. The immigrant example you provide actually functions the other way. Yes, rich white kids like myself have distinct advantages compared to those in worse situations. Yet, it is because of capitalism that they have a chance at all. The fact that your immigrant even has the possibility to work, get an education, and move up the ladder is a direct result of capitalist progress. Incentive is an important point to note here as well. In a non-capitalist system, what is the benefit of becoming a doctor, lawyer, business owner, when wealth distribution will nullify your hard work? The drive that profit provides is the only way to make progress effectively. Why go to school for a decade and become a doctor, when I could drop out and become a janitor (no disrespect) and make equal pay. The fact is, capitalism and the class distribution is necessary because society needs to make progress, society needs to have a reason to grow. Also, you talk about class distribution as if it were a bad thing. The upper level of society gets a bad rap, but it is inherently proven that as they succeed, they take the lower classes with them. As rich people get richer, they spend money, innovate, and start businesses, providing those with crappy jobs better jobs and those with no jobs, employment. This is inherently proven. In short, capitalism breeds opportunity incentive and progress. It bears no weight of the ethical attrocities some people chose to create. Also, it is important to note that the only reason those pharm companies and their pills exist is because capitalism and competition allowed them to be innovated. Without capitalism and competition, the economy would grow stagnant, devolving any chance of the successes we see in our country everyday.
Capitalistic ideology is bad

Hello my name is Alex and I will be serving as the pro in this debate. Capitalism is a bad ideology because it allows for individuals to turn our heads away from the pain and suffering of others only to further our own cause. Take Sub Saharan Africa for example. Millions of indigenous people are dying each year and large pharmaceutical companies are idly standing by watching them die of HIV/ AIDS when a surplus of ARVs are available to stop the mutation of the HIV virus. Giving away doses of free drugs to sub saharan africa will do nothing to these companies except take a few digits off their ten digit pay checks. Capitalism allows for the CEOs of these corporations to turn away from their morals and to function under the idea that they are only working for themselves. To preempt some arguments that may be said, even if one wins the fact that giving away free drugs may collapse an the company, the big pharma can at a minimum allow for these third world countries that reside is SSA (sub-saharan africa) to buy generic drugs that are 1/10 the cost from Brazil or India. Capitalism is also inherently bad because empirically we can just see in the US that the wealth distribution is out of order. How come the majority of the working class gains the least amount of profit when they are the ones doing the most amount of work? People say that we can go from rags to riches, but this isn't quite the case. Can the immigrant who is barely able to pay his rent working at the local store for minimum wage study when hes working all day compared to people like me where my mom and dad provide for me support while i study and debate people online? Who will climb the economic ladder faster? Remember that my burden to win this debate is only to prove that capitalistic ideology is bad and not that i have to prove that socialism is good or bad. I just believe that there is a better system out there other than this one where we mindlessly value inanimate ARV pills over people who are fathers and mothers . can't wait for a response!
Convince me of your god

So many gods... so many ideas... which ones are true? With all these gods come the rules that they would have us follow... and our eternity could possibly hang in the balance depending on what we believe in our short and yet dragging lives. I want you to convince me of your god... that your god is more true than your neighbor's god. I in turn, will do what I can with my current knowledge to show you the errors in your reasoning. Please leave your petty text-based arguments out of the conversation... You're better than that. This is not a challenge for the feeble... I'm not pretentious... I swear. (this is a casual logic event)
are transgenders real

Thank you for taking the time to debate this topic with me. However, I stand by my stance that there only exists 2 gender units, male and female. To say that any gender exist is heresy, for there is absolutely zero scientific proof that one can be transsexual at birth due to genetics. It is arguable that at the toddler age everybody in the world is "cis", and it was only at a later stage that some of us starts to hate our own genders due to certain disadvantages that comes along with the package. As the saying goes, "the grass is always greener on the other side", in such situations one might feel envy towards the other gender, and as a means of "bettering" ourselves, we would resort to changing our gender. Another reason for making such bizarre changes is the idea of "rebellion". In our increasingly liberal society, people who commit radical deeds or hold radical mindsets are often seen as "hip" or "cool". In fact, there are many cases of teenagers today making falsifying claims of either being a "gay" or a "trans" as an attempt of being viewed as "different" and therefore stand out among the crowd. (ironically speaking at this rate where the liberal pandering is going such people will be considered a norm) Being a "transgender" is definitely nurture and not nature. One is never a transgender at birth and as such is only a form of escapism. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that none of the major civilizations in the past recognised any gender beyond the two fundamental ones. The closest equivalent is the practice of crossdressing among young boys. In the largely patriarchal medieval societies, women are not allowed to act on stage and women characters are played by young boys who are yet to hit puberty and hence their voices do not break. Even then, they are not legitimately transsexual as they remain as "cisgender" outside their professional life. The concept of having a third gender was non-existent in the past and it was only adopted in the modern world because it fits into the liberal agender. Don't get me wrong, denying equal rights to transgenders is not what I stand for. They are humans after all, and should be accorded the liberty that comes with being a human. However, recognizing them as a third gender and giving them alternative pronouns is non-acceptable. They should be addressed according to their inherent genders. And no, it is not blasphemy to hold this viewpoint. There exists no such proof that genetics comes to play and it is merely a mental disorder. Also, the fact that you have gone through surgical processes to remove any essence of your true identity truly appalls me. You could not have stooped more low with that decision. What is so bad about your current gender, that it convinces you to go through such radical schemes to eradicate it?
are transgenders real

Really? Are you willing to tell me that the surgical process I went through is "fake". Are you willing to be that conservative and deny the fact that there are NOT only 2 genders? Well I urge you to come and say all that blasphemy you're saying to my face. I urge you to come say different that the millions of transgender people around the world. Be my guest and come prove to me how here are ONLY 2 genders. I. DARE. YOU.