BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Toronto Maple Leafs are losers and they will lose again because they suck!

The Toronto Maple Leafs are losers. They have been losers for 52 years now. They have not won the Stanley Cup since the NHL had only 6 teams in it. They have not even won 1 round of the playoffs in 15 years yet their fans cheer this team on and have the most fans in the entire NHL. This is the richest hockey market in the NHL with the most expensive ticket prices and most sellouts in hockey. So why do people pay $50 for parking, $22. 50 for a beer and $500 for one ticket and do it for 42 games every year for a loser team that has done nothing since last century? Because the fans are morons who are brainwashed and fed the propaganda from the Leafs Nation about how great this team is. When in reality they are the worst hockey team in history of the NHL. Out of the original 6 teams everyone of them has won a Stanley Cup in the last 50 years except the Maple Laughs. The Maple Leafs and their fans all suck and they are pathetic like the Chicago Cubs fans who waited 108 years to win a championship. The Maple Leafs are losers and they suck, Prove me wrong. By the way they will lose again to the Boston Bruins in the first round of the playoffs starting tonight. LEAFS SUCK!
The Toronto Maple Leafs are losers and they will lose again because they suck!

First off, The Bruins had more points in the regular season than the Leafs, Therefore they are better as shown by the stats Bruins 107 points Leafs 100 points The Bruins top line had more points than the Leafs top line, Therefore the Bruins are better After tonight the series will be tied 2-2 going back to Boston where Boston will take a 3-2 lead, Come back to Toronto for game 6 and lose forcing game 7 back in Boston where the Bruins will win with a score of 2-0 and you will be crying again just like last season. Jake Gardner -5 in 2013 loss to the Bruins, This year Jake Gardner -2 in game 7 Toronto loss Get your tissues out now because the Leafs will lose tonight LEAFS SUCK LOSERS FOR 52 YEARS #LOSERS #LOSERFANS #LEAFS SUCK #YOU SUCK MIC DROP
The Toronto Maple Leafs are losers and they will lose again because they suck!

So lets get to the next round. I would like to start by mentioning that you are the target audience of the Toronto Maple Leafs/ Bell Media and why the Maple Leafs will always suck and will never win anything. The low educated, Profanity laden people from Oshawa from the south side of the trailer park. The people who are easily manipulated and swayed in their opinion. The type of person who buys into all the hype, The drama and all the propaganda that Bell Media the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs spews out about the Leafs being great, When in reality they have SUCKED for 52 years. So now lets get to the REAL facts. The last 3 years the Leafs have lost in the first round. In 2013 they were up by 3 goals with 10 minutes left in the game yet still lost to Boston with a 3 goal lead and 10 minutes left in the game. The Leafs have not won a round of the playoffs in this CENTURY! The Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup in 52 years! Yes the Leafs are up 2-1 in the series, But by Wednesday night they will be tied 2-2 when Boston wins. Boston had more points/wins this season and they play a bigger tougher game. Meanwhile the Leafs are wimps who will fold under pressure. Zdeno Chara will kill Nylander, Kapanen and all the tiny Leafs like Marner. When the Leafs can actually win a round of the playoffs then come talk to me. Just because you are up 2-1 you think the Leafs are great? The Leafs SUCK and they have for the last 52 years. They are losers and this year will be no different Anyways by the time the Leafs lose and are out this round, We won't hear from you on here, You will be hiding out in your meth house in Oshawa, And I would bet you but your welfare check won't be out in time for the Leafs exit out of the playoffs AGAIN! LEAFS ARE LOSRS, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE. KEEP CHEERING FOR LOSERS Hope to not hear from you after the Leafs lose in 6 games
The Lego building block toy brand is for little kids.

The way I described them as being used for businesses, is how you sometimes see diagrams or tiny structures in store walls. And have you ever been to Lego land before? They have TONS of theses structures, life size, and scaled down all over the park. What some people would do is they will make dioramas with the green base plates, and they can pose the minifigures on the dioramas and make them hold and do all kinds of things. The fact that they are marketed towards children won't stop older people from buying or using them for several things. Sure someone can say Nerf blaster toys are for little kids, but many older people use them in organized "Nerf wars" on college campuses. These people beef up and paint them so they look and function better. They even buy specially made gear for the activity. WHY can't the other above reasons for Legos work for you if it works somewhat for Nerf toys. Try rebutting that!
The Lego building block toy brand is for little kids.

The stop motion videos are usually not very good and made by older children (there are exceptions, of course). Businesses and architects generally use a 3D program, which is more precise. Lego do not follow a very coherent scale and are not detailed enough to actually build something complicated (for example, for house, you can't build the foundations under it... A house made just from a lego blueprint would collapse).
The Lego building block toy brand is for little kids.

I don't think you understood what I was talking about in the second part of the argument. People can use them in very creative ways to help a business, build a model, or even make videos. Besides, if someone wanted to build an Empire State Building replica, than it would be better to order bricks directly from the company, and this in't marketed towards children. They also have been used in learning programs for schools. They have more potential than a kids toy.
The Lego building block toy brand is for little kids.

Legos are bricks that are for building small sets that the company designs, and sometimes with the consent of other brands. The bricks don't have to just be used in sets. Most kids will pull them apart and use the parts they like. (This is what I did). Although the box recommends about ages 4-10 years, a recommendation isn't always the best choice to go for. They can be ordered specifically from the company for usage in building projects. Also, many of the Lego mini figures can be customized and used in stop motion videos, displays, or even scaled down replicas of cities and buildings. Although a kid may not be able to build more than a little block with wheels, this only applies to them, and others with better abilities can build much more realistic portrayals. They can also have business abilities, such as having entire video games based of of the franchise. Many Lego games would intrigue the older side of the age limit (around 9-11 years of age). This proves they are not just meant for young grade schoolers. I am interested to see your argument next this round.
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

Pro will keep this argument brief. Claim: Vaccines save lives. Warrant: "Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [1]. Warrant: "The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003"[2]. Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Links 1. http://www.usatoday.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised and/or patients with contraindications would be exempt from compulsory vaccines in the entire world. Regardless of faith or opinion. contraindication ": something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable " [1]. immunocompromised "having the immune system impaired or weakened (as by drugs or illness) " [2]. Compulsory "required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education. " [3]. Vaccine "Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. Vaccinations, or immunizations, work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body."[4]. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.medicinenet.com...
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

I sincerely apologize about this, but a glitch is not allowing me to post my arguments. I've tried a few times and refreshing to get my arguments to post, but they are continually being erased with only the first few hundred characters (600, roughly). I've noticed there are other glitches happening with DDO right now, and hope my opponent will accept to leave this debate as a tie. I had all my arguments typed up, but they keep getting deleted and not allowing me to post. I apologize. :(
Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications.

Con makes three arguments against vaccines. First, and foremost religious exceptions. Second, a change in the status quo. Third, vaccines aren't totally safe. Pro's claims about the effectiveness of vaccines and vaccines saving lives are uncontested thus far. Looking at the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [3]. The first amendment swings both ways. No laws to prohibit free exercise, but also no laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pro will argue that religious exceptions to vaccines violates the 1st amendment. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [3]. By giving an exception to vaccines on religious grounds congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Furthermore, there are many religious who employ human sacrifice. Obviously human sacrifice rituals are not honored in the USA. This is because of the way human rights work. Person A can swing his or her arms as much as he or she wants until he or she hits person B in the face. At that point person A has violated person B's rights. The same goes for human sacrifice. If a group following a religion decides to sacrifice an innocent, that group has violated the innocent person's rights. The same goes for vaccines and herd immunity. As seen in the Disneyland measles event. "The growing number of cases illustrates two things: it only takes one person to start an outbreak, and the best protection against an outbreak"s growth is herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a population has a high level of immunity, thereby ensuring a disease can"t travel very far within the community."[4]. Since people can die from diseases Pro contends that failure to vaccinate is similar to religious human sacrifice rituals. Although humans strive to maximize freedom, in order to protect the innocent, certain freedoms must be restricted. As for the status quo, the status quo is not self justifying. Lives are at stake. Vaccines aren't 100% safe is true. Yet, Con has failed to demonstrate that the negative outweigh the positive. Pro contends that the positive outweighs the negative. Summary, Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications should be enforced worldwide. With various modes of fast travel at human disposal, it seems silly to have inconsistent vaccine laws from country to country. Pathogens don't respect nation's borders. Pathogens are a world problem that can be solved by vaccination and herd immunity. Thank you for the debate, thank you for being respectful Con. Links 3. http://constitution.laws.com... 4. http://www.forbes.com...
WAR DEBATE: The United States of America (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

Thank you, United Kingdom.The Invasion on southern FloridaOkay, my opponent has decided to avoid my navy, which was a very smart tactic. Unfortunately, he bombed all of the cities in southern Florida, which means major civilian casualties. However, because he bombed the cities, they will have little cover against another bombing run, which I plan to do. 400 attack helicopters will try to take out infantry, while 2,000 attack aircraft bomb buildings and enemy armor. They will shell the cities on the peninsula, considering they are already damaged. Now, because they have little troops, only 40,000(if I'm not wrong), I will send a army of 100,000 troops from the South and 2,000 AFVs. Because the army has already been bombed, they will have casualties. My navy from the Gulf of Mexico will come around, and basically set a barricade of 5 frigates, 10 destroyers, and 15 submarines. We will also have 2 aircraft carriers shelling the cities as well. If their navy is still there, we will fight them and have some casualties, but I think we can overcome it since we have more overall force. Some of our navy will sit in the Gulf of Mexico, waiting just in case of a counter-attack. Here's a map I created to show how it looks. (might be blurry): http://www.debate.org...US/Mexican BorderOkay, my navy did not see the United Kingdom's small navy moving to Mexico, so here's how the US and Mexican border is set up, with my troops. http://www.debate.org... the UK and Mexico have agreed on UK military moving around in Mexico, I have to put 30,000 troops at each tunnel.Military expansionI have decided to spend some on military considering my budget is high. I will give $300,000 dollars to recruit more people into the military, they won't be trained, so I will give $1,000,000 more to the training programs. This should recruit about 10,000 troops in a month or two.Over to you.
WAR DEBATE: The United States of America (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

I realize that choosing the UK was a newbie move, I'm new at this after all. I also realize that going off trained military against USA was also a bad idea. Nevertheless, I will try my best. Since USA severely outguns and outnumbers me I must be careful where I deploy my troops. Initial Position ============== Since my opponent has stationed patrol craft on the east and on the Gulf of Mexico I can do this. I will move my only aircraft carrier at the moment, 5 frigates, 2 destroyers, and 2 submarines through the Atlantic. The aircraft carrier will have 30 fighter/interceptors and 20 fixed-wing aircraft. In the entire fleet there will be 40,000 troops and about 20 AFVs (sorry if my numbers are a bit weird, just make an exception if it is wrong). Their route will make them head west until they reach about the middle of the ocean, then they will head south to avoid conflict with the US navy. They will head west again when they reach the level of where the tip of Florida is. Since their troops are patrolling the Gulf Of Mexico I am free to position my troops south-east of Florida. With the destroyers, frigates, and subs protecting the carrier, the carrier would send fleets of fixed-wing aircraft and fighters to bomb the cities around the southern part of Florida. This whole thing would take approximately 1 month and a half. Then I would send helis and my navy in to drop off troops and AFVs in the bombed area. Since the area is bombed I am free to move my troops in. We would set up camps and occupy the buildings of southern Florida. We have therefore captured this area. We would set up defenses for the inevitable attack. I will also be moving in 5 frigates and 3 destroyers with a total of 25,000 and 30 AFVs troops on board. I will then move the fleet and deploy the troops in Mexico (on the way I will avoid combat with US navy). Then, my troops will move toward the border between Mexico and the US. I will then station my troops behind the border of Mexico. Meanwhile, the naval fleet will fall back to the UK for further orders. This is all the aggressive moves I can accomplish in this turn. Military Expansion ======================== Considering that the UK has a small navy and army at the moment I will be expanding my military. Since carriers take a long time to manufacture and cost about 5 billion dollars I will only be constructing 3 of them. I will also be building 1 billion dollar destroyers, I will manufacture 7 of then in the time allocated. Finally I will be expanding my ground force, I can assume that about 60 people will sign up for the military per month, since it takes a while for them to train, the newly recruited forces will not become active until later, they cannot be deployed yet. Your turn.
WAR DEBATE: The United States of America (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

No problem, you never know, it might be your favorite type of debate after this. It is really fun. Good to try it.Even though we are allies, you never know, something like this could happen between the USA and UK. The alliance has been broken, considering we are going to war.Alright, United Kingdom, lets prepare for war.The Numbers (source: http://www.globalfirepower.com...)Okay, using the source I have decided, I will compare the amount of troops we both have.Active Military Personnel:USA: 1,430,000UK: 205,330Because my opponent and I have decided to go off of only trained troops, we will not use Fit For Service, or Manpower Available. Only Military Personnel.Reserved military:USA: 850,000UK: 182,000I will be pulling all my reserves out for this war to defend. So I have a total of 2,280,000Aircraft(all types):USA: 13,683UK: 908AFVs(armored vehicles):USA: 25,782UK: 6,245Fleet strength:USA: 473UK: 66Debt:USA: $15,930,000,000,000UK: $10,090,000,000,000Military budget:USA: $62,500,000,000UK: $53,600,000,000So, as you can see the USA beats the UK in everything except for debt. Because my opponent and I agreed on no allies, we will not be able to reach out for other help.(http://www.hydro.org...) Here's a map of the USA's regions. Since my opponent and I have agreed on him using a military agreement with Mexico and Canada, I have to spread out my amount of troops.Midwest:6,000 AFVs500,000 troops2,000 aircraftNortheast:7,000 AFVs500,000 troops4,000 aircraftSouth:8,000 AFVs700,000 troops4,000 aircraftWest:5,000 AFVs500,000 troops3,000 aircraftIf I have any math errors, please tell me.I will also have 100 ships patrolling the west coast with 2 aircraft carriers, 200 patrolling the east coast with 5 aircraft carriers, and 173 patrolling the gulf of mexico with 3 aircraft carriers.Over to you, United Kingdom.
WAR DEBATE: The United States of America (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

This is my 3rd war debate, I have gone 1 win and 1 loss so far. One was due to concession, and I wish to have another.Rules:1. Use this source ONLY, (http://www.globalfirepower.com...) due to the confusion on the amount of troops, AFVs, etc. that I have had in the past with people. You can suggest another source, however, but I will need to look it over.2. Each country's turn will be about a month to three months long, so please take in consideration of how much you do in a turn, make it reasonable. (example: in my other war debate South Korea vs. North Korea, my opponent did all in one round what would be done in over a year.)3. Morale is a KEY factor.4. You may produce more military, but it depends on your military budget and industry of your nation.5. I am defending. You will invade and try to end the war.6. NOTE: If you destroy/liberate the capital, this does not necessarily mean you win the war, I could take it back.7. No nuclear warfare.I have challenged Hylian_3000, we will see if he accepts.
[Your preferred theory of ethics] is tenable when examined closely

Out of the offered choices, I know the most about Utilitarianism. I'm personally an existential Nihilist on the side of Con. Utilitarianism shall be defined as the subsect of consequentialism that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). . http://www.iep.utm.edu...The way that this is commonly done is to observe what results in the most number of people benefitting in a given situation but what is not commonly realized is that a Utilitarian can also justify harming the majority of people in a specific scenario for a greater good. For instance if we had 10 infertile people and 2 fertile ones, the Utilitarian would slaughter the 10 before the 2 because the 2 could produce future people. This is one of many examples of the flexibility of Utilitarianism that many miss. It's not always 'majority wins' in a case by case basis. Con has the primary burden of proof as he has to attack my chosen code of ethics and I have to defend. :)
[Your preferred theory of ethics] is tenable when examined closely

I will ask that my opponent represent a popular ethical framework, and I have given some options below. If you wish, you may represent an alternative view, however. Pro: Representing Mill's Utilitarianism, Kant's Formalism, Locke's Rights Ethics, or Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, present an argument that supports the validity of your position. Con: I will be arguing that not only are all systems of ethics irrational, but that they can be easily applied to opposing sides of a number of modern moral issues.
Should parents not alow kids to play roblox

Parents should and alow kids to play roblox. Many people think that there are "pedophiles" on roblox but thats not true. Most of them are 8 year olds that want to be grown up and watched a bit too much porn. The roblox community calls these people ODer (online daters) and as long as you stay away from games like boys and girls hangout you should be fine.