BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ted Cruz doesn't brush his teeth

It seems quite clear, to the evidence I have gathered that states that Mr. Cruz doesn't brush his teeth. In this youtube video, Mr. Supreme, a big advocate for toothbrushing worldwide encounters Mr. Cruz, and in the start, Mr Cruz clearly is avoiding the toothbrush in which is in Mr. Supreme's hands and starts shying away. He claims that the government shouldn't be your "nanny" telling you to brush your teeth, but if he brushed his teeth in the first place, why would he care? Has he something against his own, and all of American's dental health? If he did brush his teeth regularly, why does he shy away from such a serious issue? More evidence: Here, during a republican debate, Mr. Cruz actually loses a tooth mid debate, which is most likely due to his poor dental hygiene and lack of toothbrushing. This basically proves that this man is nothing but a whitening strip scammer and not a toothbrushing politician!
Ted Cruz doesn't brush his teeth

Definitely some very good points on dental health put up in your response. Thanks for accepting debate. The issue on toothbrushing is very widespread between politicians, and Mr. Cruz hasn't been up to snuff. He has turned down the opportunity to defend mandatory toothbrushing and many other dental reforms. To me, this is a clear flashing red light that to Mr. Cruz, the dental health of the American people, especially his own, doesn't truly matter to him. Back to the broccoli... If he does eat broccoli, that is a win for Pro because it is a very dental- friendly choice, while the youtube video posted says a different story. Broccoli is green, and the object in his mouth was white. And also, if the piece of broccoli was lodged in Senator Cruz's teeth, from all the debate talking it would have fallen out earlier. Also, the size of the tooth that fell out was in relation to the rest of his teeth. Noting that Ted Cruz would have brushed his teeth because of his parents, that statement is dead false because his father didn't even have adequate teeth. Quoting Ted Cruz's book, "They bashed in (Ted's Dad's) front teeth until they dangled from his mouth." Therefore, Ted never had proper dental role modeling. Also, many people with intellect brush their teeth, but more of them use WHITENING STRIPS which would perfectly defend the dark truth of Ted's dental health on the campaign trail. And sometimes, the truth is quite bias.
sex before marraige is wrong

Honestly, if sex before marriage were deemed wrong by all of society the world would be a better place. That is not, however, the reality. We live in a world where having sex is as common as having tea and biscuits, and both behaviours begin at about the same age. First we must set up and define what "wrong" is. Wrong in terms of whom or what? If we are to discuss the ethics of sex before marriage then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Are you hurting someone? No (well...the first time it will :D) Are you hurting yourself? No. Because it is futile to discuss this in terms of ethics the better question to ask is "is sex before marriage wrong in society's view?" I can assure you that while many will say yes, a good number of these practiced the very action they condemn. It is a fallacy to argue something based on the fact that it is what has happened and is the norm, but I will do it nonetheless since for this topic it is applicable. Society will accept sex before marriage more and more as it becomes common. Because of this, you could say it is not "wrong" per say.
sex before marraige is wrong

honestly, i'm not sure where i stand on this issue. my religous upbringing has messed me up. i could see saying fornication, even when it's done as responsibly as possible, is inherently bad. the feelings of permanency that one has for another, indicates we're to save ourselves for that one other person. and the guilt associated with fornication, is also an indication that it's wrong. of course, these are just my feelings, and i could see a rational statement being put otherwise. given both are rational, it'd seem i'd defer to "feelings". i want others' feelings. i want them to say they honestly do not harbor those feelings i have. i especially want others who think it's not feelings, but the right answer to be against me, logically, or at least most probably.
sex before marraige is wrong

Are people lying to themselves? Some are, some are not. Do people honestly believe that sex before marriage (hereinafter "SBM") is wrong? No. I have met many a proud, conservative, morally sound person who will admit religion is sometimes a shield for a person's true beliefs. In the context of SBM, it holds true that many people really believe it is right while they say otherwise. Why do people have sex? Because it's fun! I can assure you that killing and/or committing crimes might have a certain "rush" but generally they are not committed for just fun. Thus, your alikening of committing crimes and SBM as things people lie to themselves about it rather flawed. But really, look at it this way. Do YOU really believe SBM is wrong? Sex is a healthy part of any relationship. Yes, it is true that sometimes having SBM is too soon (emotionally that is), but for some couples it is not. Society is distancing itself from the traditional values of yesteryear, it is not decay but evolution.
sex before marraige is wrong

i suppose the only real question then. do you think the majority who thinks it's okay honestly believes it, such that they're not lying to themselves? the majority would probably rationalize stealing or lying from time to time, or whatever crime just for example, but i doubt it makes it okay. if you think they're lying to themselves, is it more than just guilty that they've been brought up with? is it a feeling of lying to oneself, that say, someone who's never been brought up religously would feel? are you even capable of answering those questions? wouldn't studies need done?
sex before marraige is wrong

I was speaking from a practical perspective. It's impossible, like you said, to speak of this issue on an objective perspective: this isn't math, you can't be sure what is right or wrong. I spoke about the practical aspects of the issue (mostly physical) to highlight the fact that from a practical standpoint it is not wrong. From a religious standpoint, it really is subjective upon one's views (and religion for that matter). The underlying question I'm trying to pose is: what's the judgement? What should we go by to decide right and wrong? I choose to use society as a whole for that medium because it should be representative of people's beliefs. In this paradigm (the societal one), you can be sure that a majority of people find it acceptable. Can we be sure that it is morally right and that society is not corrupted? No. Simply because there is no reference point to guide is as to what "morally right and wrong is." This is a futile discussion unless we can decide upon what the deciding factor for "right" and "wrong" is.
sex before marraige is wrong

you say if it was deemed to be wrong, it'd be a better place. doesn't that indicate that you harbor some sort of inherent feeling that it's wrong? or are you talking more from a practical perspective? also, i'm sure society persuades people's beliefs. how are you sure that the beliefs people have that it's wrong are simply misguided, and not objectively right? i mean, i know you can't be "objectively" sure, but subjectively, how do you know? what are your personal feelings towards it? do you take those practical points about it... that it doesn't physically hurt anyone etc... to mean that you think it's not wrong?
Resolved: Todays music has a negative effect on the youth of America

My opponent had full Burden of Proof, but has failed to uphold their burden.To prove that "Today's music has a negative on the youth of America" PRO would have had to make arguments regarding the very effect of music on the populace. Minor counter examples suffice to disprove the resolution. The resolution is a universal claim, yet I have provided examples of music with a positive message for it's young listeners.
Resolved: Todays music has a negative effect on the youth of America

PRO has made several universal claims, with no support offered. A single counter-example is enough to disprove her claims." Country music promotes drinking and the degrading of women". " Wine drinkers have a 34 percent lower mortality rate than beer or spirits drinkers." [1] Further, the country artist Blake Shelton's songs "Doing what she likes" and "God Gave me you" disagree with PRO's claim of degradation of women. [2] [3]Regarding metal: "[At the Left Hand of God] explores...the ‘Left Hand Path,’ which rejects religious conformity while embracing...magic, sexual liberation and the shattering of societal taboos." [4][1] http://tinyurl.com...;[2] http://tinyurl.com...;[3] http://tinyurl.com...;[4] http://tinyurl.com...;
Resolved: Todays music has a negative effect on the youth of America

Burden of Proof rests with PRO to affirm the resolution. PRO must offer sufficient warrant to believe that today's music has a negative effect on America's youth.First and foremost, a clarification is in order. There are several different genres of music, yet PRO's contentions seem to primarily reference rap and hip hop. If these are the contentions to be offered, PRO cannot affirm the resolution, as rap and hip hop are only 2 of dozens of genres.To say "today's music" is to say "all music produced in this era", likely referring to the 2000's. So, PRO must offer reason to believe that music, taken as a collection of all genres, is negative for America's youth. Simply mentioning rap and hip hop is not enough, as these are not all music.
Resolved: Todays music has a negative effect on the youth of America

Today I will be affirming the resolution that states that todays music has a negative effect on the youth of America. I will be providing three arguments/ examples to support my case. Contention 1: Nicki Minaj's music is influencing young boys to be mainly attracted towards a womans body as opposed to other important features. Cont. 2: Most songs of todays artists talk about drinking, smoking, and having intercourse. I don't think this is a positive influence on teenagers, or anyone for that matter. Cont. 3 It influences kids to have almost backwards priorities and allows them to show absolutely no respect to people because "their favorite celebrity does it". A boy in my school slapped my butt in the hallway. his favorite song is Anaconda.
The United States should intervene in the Syrian Civil War

"The United States simply needs to stop the massive loss of life in Syria." 1) Why does the US HAVE to be the one who stops the massive loss of life in Syria?2) For that matter, why does the US have to stop EVERY loss of life anywhere in the world? We are not the police of the world, nor are we the designated lifeboat for the world either. The US isnt obligated to stop every world conflict, nor should the US be required to fix the worlds mistakes when they happen. "Wouldn't if you lived in Syria want someone to stop this horrible killing?" Yeah but I wouldnt ask only for the US to intervene, Id ask for ANYONE to intervene, which is what I am arguing. Why does it HAVE to be the US who intervenes and not anyone else?"I know a lot of people agree with me on this topic and I'm sure they would want it to stop too."A lot of people agree with me that the US doesnt have to be the only one who should intervene on this either, but ive given actual arguments why they shouldnt have to (many of them uncontested too). Point is, you cant just say that people agree with you and use that as an argument, you need to use actual arguments and reasons to make your case.
The United States should intervene in the Syrian Civil War

With thousands of innocent civilians being killed in Syria, now is the time for the United States to launch a peacekeeping humanitarian mission to Syria. Everyday people wake up and are under attack by artillery bombardment, tanks, air force bombings, and snipers. The United States needs to launch a peacekeeping mission first to establish a ceasefire for both sides, the government and the rebels, to negotiate an end to the conflict. After peace has been established, the United States can allow such health organizations as the Red Cross to enter and treat the injuries of the civilians and provide medical supplies to hospitals and clinics. The United States can remain neutral in this conflict if they would like. We need to prevent a possible repeat of conflicts such as the 1993 Bosnian War and the 1994 Rwanda conflict. The United States is a beacon of freedom and peace. The US is the perfect country for establishing a peace agreement in Syria while remaining neutral.
Open Topic

You haven't been debating for a year on this site... Your profile only says 4 months. Anyways, challenge accepted.The topic will be "Gun Rights should be restricted", so Pro has to argue that access to firearms must be reduced, while I argue that firearms remain available for people over the age of 18.I also want to make a few rules, since everyone in the site does so.1) BoP will be shared. Lyksina has to argue that firearms be reduced in availability, and I have to argue that guns should remain accessable to most people.2) No kritiks, semantics, or trolling of any sort.3) Running out of time to post counts as a loss. (There are 48 hours for posting arguments)With that set, let's begin!
Abortion should be stopped

I believe that abortion should be stopped! Some may say that abortion isn't killing a child because it it is not living yet. A question that pops in my mind is, what is a cell? The definition of a cell is the smallest living unit of life; a single cell can be living all on its own. Therefore when the child is forming in the mother's womb it begins with a single living cell, meaning weather the baby is a cell or not, it is living. Some may ask, if abortion isn't the murder of a child what is it? I read an article on why abortion isn't murder and it told me it's not because the fetus is attached to the mother; if the mother dies the baby dies. The fetus may be attached to the mother, but it is still its own person. Why do I say that? For example, say there is a twin, and its other half, instead of being separate it is attached to the other twin. What would people say about this? Now they aren't going to say that they are one person, they are going to tell them that they are two different people. The same goes with the fetus and the mother. Sure the fetus is attached to its mom, but it is its own person, therefore it has rights. I believe that abortion shouldn't have ever came to be and that it needs to end now!
jesus is a zombie virus, part 2 reincarnated

but you have no evidence, where's your facts. none, another debater that cant debate at all. I'll fix this, now depending on how you look at this argument, if you think Jesus is a zombie, your thought is that he has risen from the dead, then I see your thought process about that. I would like to think that he is a ghost instead because his soul risen, not that he has taken a physical form of a zombie to kill people, if you consider the religion spreading like a plague, that's true, it spreads because a lot of people are starting to believe in him more and more every day
jesus is a zombie virus, part 2 reincarnated

nah brah, I accept. As a roman catholic, I my own opinions but lets start with a bible story, in the beginning of time, there was nothing, then god said let there be light, he saw the light and said it was good, he then made earth. that's enough to start. You want to read the whole thing go here http://www.catholic.org.... Now I do believe in science a bit but science making the earth sounds like a bunch of bs to me.
jesus is a zombie virus, part 2 reincarnated

emotion is the truth or false moon of belief.. the "knowledge" obtained through a false body.. sight of the blind even a blind man sees the possible fear=when a solid rock statue of a dragon breathes fire and claws at me=god of nightmares it is a false body by the sight of the movement of a solid rock figure Jesus=following the rules of christianity, unbound by truth of reality..
If God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust

In my round 1 argument, at the bottom are a list of sources that correspond to brackets. I say this because it seems my opponent did not see this.A.The Killings of God I would like to state that my sources give a plethora of verses, but he still says, "I would say that three examples of killings by God with Pros choosing would suffice this argument." In my sources I not only give more than what is asked, but I also give a graph that counted the amount of people killed by God. B.God Endorsed Slavery God basically says that you can beat and own people as long as they're not your race, which in this case was Israelites. We know today that slavery is morally wrong, so why would would God allow it in the first place?(Again my sources are all in the round 1 argument).C.God is not just, nor does He have a heart My opponent says, "Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ. The ultimate goal is finding Jesus and asking Him to forgive you." This is just plain illogical, no offense, if Jesus did not care about "living morally", than why does he teach the word of God, this includes what Gods finds morally fit. Besides it isn't Jesus who decides Heaven or Hell, its God's.D.What's The Point of Hell? I would understand, if God released them after a certain amount of time because this would teach them to believe in God, even if it was through pure fear. Sadly, this is not the case, it's kind of like me saying, "A teenager smoked so he gets life in prison." The teenager knows he has done wrong, but he can never apply these teachings. My opponent says, "I think hell-fire and lake of fire is just a description of the feeling and appearance it will be without God your Creator." I don't disagree with this I think the Bible does mean I will feel and see eternal Hellfire if I don't believe.
If God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust

Resolution revised: If the Christian God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust My opponent gave us no rules or structure to go by therefore I will provide one. The only rule is that the Last Round be only for closing arguments and rebuttals no new argument can be added. My opponents claims that the list provided shows that God is unjust and unfair but it does not show that quite yet. A. The Killings of God My opponent must approach this with a realistic amount of choice verses here. I would say that three examples of killings by God with Pros choosing would suffice this argument. B. God endorsed slavery God really never endorsed slavery but simply put rules and regulations on it for Israel. Slavery was a world-wide practice in those days of the Bible and standards needed to be set. C. God is not just, nor does He have a heart My opponent offers us here a quote from the Bible with no book, verse and source. I have never read this verse so I am interested in reading it. Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ. The ultimate goal is finding Jesus and asking Him to forgive you. D. What's the point of hell? The point of hell is giving those who do not want to serve God their place without God. I think hell-fire and lake of fire is just a description of the feeling and appearance it will be without God your Creator. I hope my opponent gives us three examples from 1A and offers us more in Round 2. I await my opponents response!
If God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust

Christianity says that God is "just", "fair", and "benevolent",but this list evidence completely contradicts that. A.The Killings of God God has killed a little over 2 million people and the Devil, the embodiment of evil, has killed a mere 10. [1] Not only that, but That's against Gods sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." [2] Also, God orders many people to kill in his name. [3] B.God Endorsed Slavery God, the "benevolent", says, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." [4] C.God Is Not Just, Nor Does He Have A Heart In the Bible, it states, "the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." [5] So I'd like to raise the question, who could truly feel good living in "eternal bliss" while others, that may have acted better than you morally but didn't believe in God, must "burn in eternal hellfire". D.What's The Point of Hell? The only logical use of discipline, is to either use someone as an "example", or to teach someone/something not to do something. We can not see people in Hell from Earth, only after death when it does not matter, so being an example is illogical, and we are never released from Hell, making any possible lesson taught pointless because the disciplined are stuck forever in Hell. Sources: [1] http://www.religico.com... [2] http://biblescripture.net... [3] http://www.evilbible.com... [4] http://www.evilbible.com... [5] http://forums.catholic.com...
Are vampires evil? (Select "pro" if you think they are. Select "con" if you disagree).

I may have forgot about it. Either that, or I could have been asleep at the time I live in the UK, by the way. Anyhow, even the old legends are not without their good vampires. The Stregoni Benefici are a race of Italian vampires that help sick people and are mortal enemies with evil vampires. They were not invented to appeal to teenage girls. Like most myths and legends, they were probably first thought of or dreamt up as an early explanation for something. Also, before we start bashing them for what they have supposedly done to humans, think about what humans have done to them. Throughout the years, according to movies, legends, books and other stories, humans have used Holy water to burn vampires, as well as tricking them and/or somehow keeping them in the sun, locking them in coffins and allowing them to suffocate, staking them through the heart and otherwise torturing, maiming and killing them. Think about it this way. You are a vampire. You are of the type that have vampiric traits in your appearance, such as pale skin and red eyes. You cannot go into any public place without experiencing persecution and having everyone else there afraid of you. You want to make friends, or even just ask someone something, but you cannot get near anyone without them backing away, insulting you and trying to ward you off, even though you have no intention of harming them. They just think that, because you are a vampire, you want to kill them. All you want to do is just ask them something or befriend them, and/or mind your own business, but you cannot do this because are so feared and persecuted. Everyone thinks that you just want to drain their blood, but you don't.
Are vampires evil? (Select "pro" if you think they are. Select "con" if you disagree).

Really? What type of vampires are these? These are vampires that signify if my say a kind of coward like behavior. These are vampires that will appeal to young girls, not everyone in general. Give me examples of vampires who portray heroism that don't include an appealing sense to the teenagers out there. Again, they stand for evil and satanic type of behavior.
Are vampires evil? (Select "pro" if you think they are. Select "con" if you disagree).

Vampires are portrayed as good in loads and loads of different movies these days. There are "Dark Shadows", "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant", the "Twilight" movies, "The Little Vampire" and "Underworld", to name only a few. In the TV world, there are good vampires in "The Vampire Diaries" and even in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", to name only two. Also, there are countless good vampires out there in books and in other literature as well.