BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Easter Bunny Has Rights Too

Greetings to my opponent and all viewers! Let me relate a saddening tale filled with woe and despair this past Easter. The Easter Bunny generously left chocolate rabbits to all of the good people of the wealthy Democratic nations whom celebrate both the Christian and secular holiday. Anyhow, I received one of his (The Easter Bunny is currently a male named Easter Alphonzo CLXXIVX) gifts from a certain perpetrator who shall go unnamed, lest that person's infamy is recorded in the annals of inhumanity. Anyhow, this uncouth individual handed me a chocolate symbol of Easter Alphonzo CLVXXIVX, but this chocolate bunny was decapitated! The head was severed from the neck. Upon my protests at this blatant barbaric act against animals, all I received in response was sardonic laughter. Hence, it is now my crusade to ensure that the Easter Bunny's rights are upheld! The Easter Bunny, who currently lives in New Zealand (* "Miracle on Thirty-Fourth Street", referenced by Santa Claus, who plays a round of golf with him periodically), kindly gives chocolate symbols of himself at Easter. And then these symbols are sadistically devoured in a callous manner. Many people take delight in cannibalizing these poor chocolate symbols, and it should hereby be stopped! The Easter Bunny clearly does not intend for this inethical behaviour, as chocolate is bad for the health, and the Easter Bunny would never endorse anybody to become obese (as Ronald McDonald purportedly does). He likely intends that these icons of himself be hung up on the wall to be visually enjoyed by all, rather than being digested in manner of a hellish fate. Should we abuse and disregard his intentions in such manner? Furthermore, if such murderous practice must be maintained, should legal steps not be enacted that prevent his symbols from a barbaric manner of ingestion. Rather, the execution must be enacted in an ethical manner before the rest of it eaten en masse without prolonged agony. The Easter Bunny Has Rights too!!! I wait in anticipation for my opponent. Cheerio
Bernie Sanders should be the Democrat nominee

The issue still stands that the mass part of the pro side's argument is opinion based. I speak from facts. Sanders has support. He has won state primaries. But he does not have delegates. "Winning" a state means nothing. What matters is the delegate count. The difference is 2293 for Clinton and 1533 for Sanders. The difference shows that Sanders lacks broad support. The pro side sits upon a high horse that some how thinks he knows best beyond the general public. The system is in place and Clinton is winning fair and square. She has the most delegates and will reach 2383 needed soon and thus "should" be the democratic nomination. I do not see why we must assume that the majority of voters are wrong instead of the alternative: you are wrong. The stance to elect someone to have nothing done is not "good." Clinton has one of the most impressive resumes in presidential history. She shares many beliefs as our current president while Sanders has criticized Obama on several occasions. Also, Obama had to work with democratically controlled Congress. Over his administration, politics has polarized and the next president needs to be able to work with both sides. All the great presidents in history has a majority in Congress siding with them. That is not the case today so we need someone who is not to radical. Clinton has shown she can work with republicans and shares many of Sanders views but moderates them. She has more experience and skill to do this job. Sanders is a legislator. Keep him in Congress where he can do some good. The presidency is not for him.
Bernie Sanders should be the Democrat nominee

This debate is on the question of who would be a better or more deserving of the democratic nomination. As I states in the comments, Mr. Sanders lacks establishment and broad support. He is trailing in the delegate count and mathematically cannot win. The main point of the pro side is simply that all the voters are wrong. This is a statement holds no real backing besides opinion. I will bring the facts. Bernie is a nice guy. I like him as a politician. I voted for him in Ohio, I donated to his campaign and have a "Bernie" sicker on my car. I know his policies and support him. But it was clear to me right when he announced he was running: he would not win and he would be bad for the country. It seems that the pro side is a UK citizen but has good understanding of US politics. So I hope I hope he understands my view on my Sanders would not get anything done. Congress and our government as a whole has been divided by Republicans and Democrats. Spending bills always end with threats of shutting down the government. The whole political system hurts compromise. Sanders, for many Americans, is too far to the left for comfort. He lacks broad support of the public, and establishment republicans and democrats alike. If he wins the nomination, he will be representing a minority of voters and not the majority of democrats. If he wins the presidency, he will face a uncooperative Congress that will block all he wishes to do. Josh Quincy Adams, the 6th president, wanted reform and internal improvements of the nation. He wanted the betterment of everyone but was blocked at every turn by Democrats that were better from the Corrupt Bargain. Tyler, Johnson, Grant, Carter all shared the same fate of gridlock. Sanders could not get anything passed by Congress. Clinton is the definition of establishment. She has connections and allies on both sides. She has experience as first lady, secretary of state, and Senator of New York. She can work across party lines to pass policy that pleases both sides. The president is suppose to represent the people. Sanders only represents the loudest voices just like Trump. If we want change, Clinton is the way to go. People know this. This is why she is winning.
Texas is better than California

1. Natural Attractions Texas may not be known for famous natural landmarks, but it certainly has many of God's works of art. Here are a few. 1. Longhorn Caverns State Park: This one is my personal favorite natural landmark of Texas. Its walls eroded by billions of years of water and rock formation are amazing. These caverns are also a historical site given that they have housed Comanche Indians, Confederate Soldiers, and maybe some outlaws. 2. Fossil Rim Wildlife Center: I went to this one when I was a really little kid, but still have vivid memories of it. In Glen Rose Texas, the Fossil Rim Wildlife Center provides a stable environment to over a thousand species of wildlife, many of whom are endangered. It also is fun site for tourists to take a miniature safari right here in the United States! 3. Dinosaur State Park: Also located near Glen Rose Texas, this state park is truly unique in its features. It has fully preserved fossilized dinosaur tracks sitting exactly where it was found. Tourists can also see small and large fossils that are millions of years old. http://gotexas.about.com... I'd also point our that the beaches that my opponent mentioned are not natural. The ocean is natural, but most American beaches have sand added to them and are not directly man made. This is not to say that nothing my opponent said is true, but it is to challenge some of what he said and to challenge the statement that someone with of a choice of seeing nature in California and Texas would choose California. My opponent also brought up some studies about state accents and food quality. Texas was voted one of the weirder accent states and California was voted to have better food. First of all, I don't think weird accents are necessarily bad things. They are weird and in many cases funny, both of which can be good things. As far as food goes, this was a study based on popular opinion and not food critics. So we can't go ahead and say that California has better food than Texas. I have been to both California and Texas and both certainly have good food, but I think Texas has better food. Examples include chicken fried steak, barbecue, chili, a wide variety of Mexican food, and lots of others. http://www.dallasnews.com...
Texas is better than California

Thank you for accepting. I will now lay out my argument. 1. Natural Attractions Lets take a look at some of our states natural wonders. For now I will focus in on beaches. In the following link there will be a list of really cool and amazing beaches in California. http://www.travelchannel.com... I'm going to specifically focus in on one of the best beaches in the that list, and just all of California. Venice Beach is a very fun location to be at with all sorts of things for everyone to be entertained by "Venice Beach No beach in the world is like Venice Beach. Sure, other California beaches have sand, surf and sunshine. But they do not have a 3-ring urban street circus, complete with philosophizing artists, trash-talking hoopsters, preening weightlifters, barefoot sand sculptors and more. All of this frenetic activity happens on Ocean Front Walk, a 3/4-mile concrete boardwalk with stores, fast-food spots, flea markets and artists." Cclearly is this not only a beach, but also somewhat of a cultural center, with various attractions. If your into beaches, come to California. And you may say "What about the Padre Island National Seashore?". Well yes if your into quiet and rather barren beaches, that may be a good option. But also included in this list is tons of beaches like that, perfect for the type of man who doesn't like noise and prefers peace and wants to be able to relax without noise. And moving on from beaches we cant talk about natural attractions without including Yosemite the following link includes pictures truly stunning. Viewer discretion advised. http://www.debate.org... Overall I think a man choosing between going to California for its natural beauty, or Texas, would choose California. And Moving on from just Natural Beauty here's a poll about U.S. States from BusinessInsider. "We asked respondents — 1603 of them — to answer each question with a state that wasn't their own. The poll was carried out using SurveyMonkey's Audience feature, which was more accurate predicting the 2012 election than numerous traditional pollsters. The following maps show that data. Look under each map for details when it comes to the color scale. The darkest color had the highest number of votes, the whitest color had next to none. Massachusetts has the weirdest accent. Trailing close behind are Louisiana, Alabama, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey. Walter Hickey / BI, Poll by SurveyMonkeyMax: Massachusetts, 264 of 1603 votes, 16% New York scored around 20% of the vote for best food. California and Louisiana get honorable mentions. Walter Hickey / BI, Poll by SurveyMonkeyMax: New York, 305 of 1603 votes, 19% Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com... " As you can see here, Texas clearly had a weirder accent than Californians. And California had much, much better food *cough cough, "Napa County" cough cough* also *cough cough "Wine in Napa" cough cough* I will expand my argument in the next round.
Nothing is Perfect

Imperfectadjective 1. of, relating to, or characterized by defects or weaknesses: imperfect vision. 2. not perfect; lacking completeness: imperfect knowledge.Ah yes. I have heard the term, "That's perfect!" But is it really? If someone is building a house, and they say that it is perfect, I can imagine that they think that the house will hold itself. Which it will. But will it forever? As I said in my first argument, sharks live to be 40,000,000 years old. You and the definition of perfect, said that perfect means to have all the required elements. It also said all the DESIRABLE elements. A blind person desires his sight back. In his mind that is a factor that would make him perfect. A deaf person desires to have his or her hearing back. In that mind, hearing would make them perfect. True there are machines that can give back hearing. But are those machines perfect? Don't they break just like anything else? A person can have deirable elements. However thay do not always receive them. So in their minds they are not perfect. Also an unavoidable yet tragi fact, I that we all die. If we were in fact perfect,, death would not be a factor anyone would have to worry about.
Nothing is Perfect

Thank you for giving me the definition. It also means "having all the required elements". Now that gets me thinking. There are no official "required elements". In everybody's mind, they have their own set of "required elements". They are all different. For me, the required elements may be "they must have blonde hair, a loyal companionship, four legs, and they must have a fuzzy black nose." Thus, to me, perfect would be a golden retriever. And that's what I consider perfect. But everyone has their own set of "required elements". And if there's anything or anyone that fits all of those elements, to that person, the thing or person is deemed perfect. So, while there is not a universal "perfect", there is something perfect for everybody, and perfect exists.
Nothing is Perfect

perfectADJECTIVE having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be: "she strove to be the perfect wife"synonyms: ideal · model · without fault · faultless · flawless · consummate· Nothing can be perfect, simply for the fact that nothing has "all the required desirable elements, qualities or chracteristics, we all die. Everything breaks, (watches, books, etc.) nothing stays forever. Even some sharks who live more millions of years die. Nothing is in fact perfect. A synonym for perfect is flawless. I think I speak for everyone on earth when I say that everyone and everything and every anmial, has a flaw. Nothing can be perfect.
Should facebook be allowed in school

1. I'd like for any type of benefit of letting kid's be on facebook 2. Extend that students would abuse, if you gave them access, they would find a way to get through all loopholes 3. Also, my opponent lists that we should make them sit apart from the class. Why waste time and effort to let people blog 4. school is for work. (Yes I know the irony of this situation) but believe me, while in school, people need to work. 5. Also, Facebook is proven to cause lower grade . http://thevibe.socialvibe.com... . http://voices.washingtonpost.com... 6. Also you can do it at home.
Should facebook be allowed in school

Shoud Facebook be allowed in school, I will provide 5 reasons why we should not allow Facebook in school 1. students would abuse, if you gave them access, they would find a way to get through all loopholes 2. It distracts students from their work 3. It's the same as talking in class 4. No benefit 5. as the instigator, he requires Burdon of proof, he has provided no evidence for Facebook in school
Cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer

My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, you can extend all of my arguments made in the previous round. Since the pro has raised no objections to my arguments, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thus, I urge the audience to vote on my case for these very reasons (and for no reasons that concern personal opinion towards the topic). With that said, I thank you for taking the time to read this debate. Until next time, bye! :D
Cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer

My opponent states that cousins and beer nuts induce death and cites an example a personal experience to support his claim, but this is an obvious example of the post hoc ego propter hoc fallacy, as the "person" in his example merely ate bear nuts and socialized with his/her cousin before crashing to his deaths. By the same logic, one could very well conclude that merely getting inside a red car induces death as well. Now can bear nuts and cousins be the cause of an individual's death? Quite possibly. However, to directly associate it as being THE means of inducing death is absolutely absurd. Not only that, but there are a plethora of means in which a cousin could grant someone a slow and painful death through the usage of bear nuts. I will not illustrate these methods as they are rather gruesome (too gruesome for those with a weak stomach D=). At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above). I now await my opponent's final rebuttal.
Cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer

well see bustah brown actually cousins and beer nuts are better than death because they like indeuce it. see last morn i was travelin down south with my ex wipe and i heard on the radio that someone was travelin up west with their cousins and partyin in their furraree and eating sum beer nuts when they turned left instead of right and flew through the guardrail and went kaput on the rockies. as you can see the death is quick and painless, and is actually quite peaceful. on the other hand, colon cancer, which white-african-americans are most prone to (3% die from it), not only spreads horrible pain through your anus, but slowly catorts itself into your breasts, thighs, and derierre. The disease takes its final blow out the hole of your dick (or, for the more disintelligent people-i hate this word-"penis"), by shooting a .44 caliber bullet at 50 MPH out the hole. This leads to imminent suffucation and death. If i were to get this right now it would be very untimely because in two days im going to be the best man at my own wedding.
Cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer

To tell you the truth, I took this one up by accident. I meant to decline the challenge (and I'm not sure why I got this challenge), but oh well. Talk about playing devil's advocate. Yraelz, I think this will top you winning the argument where you had to prove that you were an idiot. :D Here goes nothing: First, my opponent committees the fallacy of false dichotomy by implying that colon cancer always kills people. This is not true as it can easily be cured during its early stages. Second, death may seem like the ultimate evil to many, but it's absolutely necessary in order to maintain human life on our planet. Environmentalist estimate that the earth will reach its maximum capacity when the population is within the range of 10-12 billion. For a better understanding, take into account my chart below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Population Chart: 1804: roughly 1 billion 1927 (123 years later) roughly 2 billion 1960 (33 years later) roughly 3 billion 1974 (13 years later)roughly 4 billion 1987 (12 years later) roughly 5 billion 1999 (12 years later)roughly 6 billion The rest is what is pure estimation based off of the above increases: 2013: 7 billion 2028: 8 billion 2050: 10.7 (high) or 8.9 (middle) or 7.3 low) billion projected ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now what happens when the population overshoots the earth's carrying capacity? I'll tell you. Our resources diminish and mostly everyone ends up dying. Something needs to be done to keep the population at its current level and death through means other than old age is necessary. Since Colon Cancer is beneficial to keeping the population in check, it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) outweighs the good which my opponent brought up in his opening argument. Yes, the "good" that comes from eating beer nuts and having a "hoot" with your cousins. Thus, I strongly urge that you vote in negation of the resolution. With that said, I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.
A Sentient Alien Species, if they exist, will likely look humanoid

I apologize for forfeiting like that. Anyway, my opponent is right. My argument was based off the assumption that all environments would have an Earthlike land environment, where the humanoid form is the best. My opponent showed that in other terrains, such as water, other models may be better suited for survival and the development of civilization. I forfeit. Vote for Bsh1.
A Sentient Alien Species, if they exist, will likely look humanoid

Burden of Proof is on me. Last Round is for rebuttals only. No profanity, no sexually explicit language, no violent threats, and no trolling. By humanoid, I mean a life form with anatomical symmetry, two arms, two legs, and upright stature, as well as perhaps some other human features which I may include later. Let's be flexible enough to allow for slight deviation from this this definition, as long as overall the lifeform is humanoid. May the better debater win.
God Exists

A personal god is a form of mental weakness created by early man. The same early man who believed the earth was the center of the universe. Just because a bunch of ignorant dirtballs manipulated early man with stories of a god who came to the most illiterate parts of the world, doesnt make the probabiliy of a god any more likely than zeus, or any other childish belief. Evolution by natural selection is a well substantiated theory. Another well substantiated theory is the theory of gravity. Anyone who needs help appreciating a scientific theory canb test the theory of gravity by jumping out of a 10 storey building and then writing their opinion of scientific theory. The reason for the Fibonacci Sequence, evolution by natural selection, the beginning of the universe, the power of our gravity, the mandelbrot set, and all the stars and galaxies is currently undefined and undetermined. Choosing answers to these questions from any holy writings is like choosing a recipe book for answers to fractal geometry. Spliiting hairs with religious doctrine to define the reason for everything, is nothing short of delusional. When mankind as whole, is suffieciently intelligently evolved, a paper airplane maker and a religious leader will have the same level of respect. Until then, suckling knowledge and wisdom from a holy binky of anykind will be our achilles heel :)
is the bible just a way to delude are self into believing in a life after death

you make a fair point and I'm not saying not to believe what they want I like how it hives people hope but is it truly okay to go through life worshiping these gods and sacrificing so much for them. plus there are hundreds of religion in the world how could someone e so nieve as to believe that they are right and all the others are wrong isn't it better to have them go through life knowing that the sis there only one and there no afterlife plus don't people know that christian was voted into exeistance by the roman church and also jesus was devoted a divine begin and all manuscrips documenting his human behaviours were detroyed they fused chrstianity and pagnisim
is the bible just a way to delude are self into believing in a life after death

1) You have said that it gets young men to join army's when I doubt that that would be the only reason. 2) Saying it is a false hope is not right as people have different beliefs and if that gives them peace then let them believe in it. My first point is that it gives people peace of mind and everyone thinks different things. Also no one knows if there is or if there isn't and so to say it isn't when you don't know isn't a fact but an opinion.