BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facial Hair is a Significant Factor in the Rise and Decline of Civilizations/Empires

My opponent said: "Well as the foolsh mortal that you are we made sure that the documentsthat you stole made it look like we had no facial hair. secondly the presence of facial hair shows that there is a high presence of testotorone in the body which is used by many men to fight in wars." So does that mean my opponent's with the Illuminati? What a scary thought. But how would my opponent know what the Illuminati look like, since they only communicate through Twitter? (More specifically, an expensive Twitter app called "Twitter Elite.") Testosterone causes wars, yes. But war is manly, is it not? This makes beards even greater! A clean shaven population is a submissive population that will obey the government mindlessly. The Ancient Romans were clean shaven, and the mobs obeyed the government like sheep being led to the slaughter. A beard means independence and reliance on no one. That is why beards are awesome.
Facial Hair is a Significant Factor in the Rise and Decline of Civilizations/Empires

My opponent said: "Even though every pharoh had an artificial beard it was often not made of real hair. Also many illuminatii members had facial hair so your argument that i am brainwashed is flawed. finally many gay men still identify as men and do no harm to society. and as my final point shreck when attacking someone first as to push the unshaved chwbacca out of the way." Rebuttal 1: Pharaoh's beard may not have been real, but it was still a beard. A golden beard at that. Rebuttal 2: I alone know who the Illuminati members are (because I stole some of their classified documents), and none of them have facial hair, not even eyebrows. Rebuttal 3: I looked up several gay people and none of them had beards. (Clay Aiken, Barney Franks, Jason Collins, Michael Sam, David Yost, George Takei etc.) As for your claim about "shreck" and "chewbacca," I don't know what the heck that meant, so I'll just ignore that remark. However, I can say no more about gay people because the LGBT community has strong ties with the Illuminati and if I continue, a large army of gay guys in tutus will converge on my home. See ya until the next round.
Facial Hair is a Significant Factor in the Rise and Decline of Civilizations/Empires

Even though every pharoh had an artificial beard it was often not made of real hair. Also many illuminatii members had facial hair so your argument that i am brainwashed is flawed. finally many gay men still identify as men and do no harm to society. and as my final point shreck when attacking someone first as to push the unshaved chwbacca out of the way.
Facial Hair is a Significant Factor in the Rise and Decline of Civilizations/Empires

My opponent started out with the following statement: "however you see Grover Cleveland who did nothing significant to helping or hurting the us had facial hair." Before I continue, I would like to contest this statement. Every US President had some kind of impact on the country. That being said, Grover Cleveland only had a small mustache. Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, well, he also had only a mustache, but he was one of our most famous presidents. Abraham Lincoln had an outright beard, and everybody remembers Honest Abe as (arguably) our best President. Critics who have been brainwashed by the Illuminati will point out that the Egyptians didn't have beards. However, the Pharaoh almost always had that artificial beard thing, which counts double because it was made out of expensive materials. Critics will also point out that the clean-shaven Romans conquered the bearded Germanic and Celtic peoples, but the Romans were exceptionally brilliant. But even then, they were eventually conquered by the people who wore beards. Also, must I point out that Jesus, Moses, the Sikh "Guru Nanak," Brigham Young, and Muhammed all had beards? Hitler and Stalin both had facial hair, and their were great conquerors. There is historical evidence (evidence that was suppressed by the Illuminati) that Queen Elizabeth I founded the "Society of Bearded Ladies." Famous members of this group include Queen Elizabeth, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, Queen Victoria, and Margaret Thatcher. Of course, before having their pictures or portraits taken, all of these women shaved. It was their beards that made these women great, though very few people know (or knew) about their beards. Gay people are detrimental to society because they shave their beards (and their legs) and thus they harm society with their shaved faces (and legs). I challenge my opponent to prove me wrong in the next round. Of course, my opponent is also brainwashed by the Illuminati, the elite who control the Media (except for Fox News hardy-har).
Facial Hair is a Significant Factor in the Rise and Decline of Civilizations/Empires

Note: This is a troll debate. To name just a few examples, the European settlers to the Americas had beards while the Indians were clean shaven, and the Native Americans are a minority in their own land today. Hitler had a mustache, and he almost conquered Europe, but he lost because: A. He was betrayed by clean shaven members of the Nazi Regime B. He killed all the people who had the longest beards (Jewish Rabbis) Joseph Stalin had facial hair as well, and the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany and established Soviet control over Eastern Europe. There are plenty more examples of this, if you're willing to debate me. However, the Illuminati (they rule the world, you see) consist entirely of clean shaven people and for the past 150 years or so they've been covering up the truth about the significance of beards to the rise and decline of civilization. I am trying to let the truth be known so that America can rediscover the wonder of beards and regain its superpower status.
To be Explained

My topic, (to be explained) is that whether someone says the glass is "half full" or "half empty" is not related to an entire mindset, although it may be related to parts of the mindset. What I mean by that exactly is that when someone says the glass is "half empty" or "half full", its does not necessarily mean that they are a negative or a positive person. Keep in mind that I am talking about the figure of speech, so don't try to find a rebuttal in the topic itself. If I put the words half full and half empty in different order throughout this topic, assume I am still talking about the same thing, because I am. The second part of the topic, pertaining to "parts of the mindset" basically means that the person evaluating the amount of water in the glass at the time may have said that it was "half full" or "half empty" because they had a good or bad day. This second part also means (in the context of this debate) that the glass being half full or empty could be related to most of someone's mindset, not all of it Although people are not normally evaluated on this question, this is the topic of my debate and it is what I'm staying with. Now that you know what I mean by the topic I have chosen, it's time to bring up my points. When someone says whether the glass is half empty or half full, they could be keeping the truth from you in order to not be judged a certain way (or for any other reason you may come up with). This would mean that if they said the glass was half empty, you might accuse them of being pessimistic, whereas they could actually be thinking the glass is half full, which leads you to an optimistic conclusion. But you would still be assuming the pessimistic mindset, because you can't read that persons thoughts. But in this situation you are only ASSUMING that the glass comment (which is what I will refer to it as from now on) is related to pessimism and/or optimism. Besides, this person who is really optimistic on the inside (hiding the truth) may be pessimistic about some things, like jobs, projects, relationships, I could go one. This falls under the "parts of the mindset" concept. Getting back to the last paragraph (sort of), your assumption of the relation of the glass comment to an entire mindset is, by all certainty, wrong. In a person's life, there will always be some pessimistic parts and some optimistic parts, regardless of what others say their entire mindset is. It's just natural. By the way, here's how pessimism and optimism are entire mind sets. http://dictionary.reference.com... (definition one) http://dictionary.reference.com... (definition one/three)
To be Explained

This all seems to fall back on the point of my first argument being confusing. Sorry if it is, but once again, I suggest you read it again, or at least try to understand it. I don't really see how it isn't understandable. As for your point, I know they're not referring to her as a glass with liquid in it, that's completely off topic. Sorry if I can't provide references, but it's hard to find references on these things. So according to you (and partly me), we both have no convincing arguments. So why vote either of us? I still think the first argument of mine isn't really that confusing if you go over it again, though. Vote whoever had the most convincing arguments, that's all I'm saying.
To be Explained

I apologize to those whom it may concern that my rebuttal was to short but really, there was nothing in my opponents first two paragraphs that I could rebut against. I failed to see any points. Fails to make an understandable case as the comments have implied. So this time i will name my points and I will give you a reason to "VOTE CON"! Point one: They are used only to indicate these outlooks; "man she only see's the glass half full. " No my dear opponent they don't think she see's an actual glass of a drink half empty or half-full. .. The girl i refer to see's it her way and only her way not being open minded or being a pessimist. It is possible that my arguments have nothing to do with his topic, but I see no evidence backing it. .. Pro says his words are backing it. I wouldn't trust that. Maybe if there were references, criterion.
To be Explained

What I am failing to understand in your rebuttal, is your lack of explanation. Why don't I understand this metaphor, and what indicates this? I know the expression is used to indicate those outlooks, but that is not the topic. The topic is not that they are USED to indicate these outlooks, but that they do not relate to these entire outlooks. I really don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence. I'm glad you have so short a rebuttal with pretty much no backed up points, it makes this much easier. Now according to the comments, I'm pretty confusing. I suggest you read it twice, or at least try to see my thorough explanations. Sorry if you can't understand the paragraphs. So far I am the only one in this debate who has backed up their points with examples and explanations and has created thorough points. My opponent has not. It's a very short round one rebuttal that is under explained. V O T E P R O
To be Explained

First my opponents resolution is quite hard to follow and does not really understand the metaphor "half-full/half-empty". Half-full/half-empty is an expression, rhetorically used to indicate an optimistic/pessimistic outlook. But also used as a litmus test, to identify and individual as such. And as my opponent pointed out whether the person is willing to think outside the box, responding to such half-full/half-empty.
Hot button issue

"You established ONE part of patriotism. Not both. I got at the other part in my argument." Patriotism: love for OR devotion to one's country Only one part matters. So I win. "I contend that voting is not necessary. What if you don't like either candidate? Does that make you a bad citizen?" I was using voting as something that most people do. You can do other things to be helpful, but they are all patriotic. If you don't do anything then you are bad. "So the only helpful thing you can do for your nation is vote? I disagree. This makes Aristotle's quote false." First, just because you disagree, Aristotle is not proven wrong. Second, I was taking some liberties, I was again using voting as an easy example of patriotism. Aristotle just means having any beneficial association with politics, this is necessary. "From MW: "Main Entry: 2care Function: verb Inflected Form(s): cared; carï¿½ing Date: before 12th century intransitive verb1 a: to feel trouble or anxiety b: to feel interest or concern " Notice definition b; to feel interest is to care." That's caring, but it is passive caring. The kind of care I speak of is the second part of def 2, to be concerned about. If I am concerned about my country, I will help it, otherwise, I am worthless. "I already answered this: '...they will ask their parents...'" Okay, so if we take that model, then why bother teaching anything, why don't we just let the parents teach them? Exactly. Originally someone had to learn it in school, and we can't be sure they will pass it on anyways. To extend this point I provide the People's Republic of China. According to Philip Pan, expert on China, the reason they are so successful as a nation is because they have patriotism everyday in their lives. China could be considered one of the most patriotic nations ever. They are very successful. Since the resolution did not say the US, I will say that China should teach patriotism in schools, otherwise, the people will rebel, and chaos will ensue, which will make the Chinese a much weaker nation. China must teach patriotism or else they will fail as a nation. "You misinterpreted me. I said that we shouldn't teach patriotism in schools because those children are already exposed to patriotism. For example, if you have passed Algebra 1, why would you bother taking it again?" But the examples of their exposure come from, guess what, school. Not teaching patriotism would mean never saying anything about loving or devotion towards the US. "Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide." If you encourage it, they will most likely be more patriotic than not. Why I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. My opponent CONCEDED two essential points. 2. My opponent CONCEDED the debate. 3. My opponent CONTRADICTED himself. 4. My opponent's points were based on misinterpretations of my argument. 5. I have REFUTED all of my opponent's arguments.
Hot button issue

"There I show that anyone who wants good for our country is a patriot. Thus, a major point, that has been CONCEDED. " You established ONE part of patriotism. Not both. I got at the other part in my argument. "Unless my opponent would like to contend that voting is bad, he has CONCEDED another essential point. " I contend that voting is not necessary. What if you don't like either candidate? Does that make you a bad citizen? "In CONCEDING the John example, he shows that he views John as good. .. " Did I say "concede"? No. Besides, I can think John is good for a different reason and it would have nothing to do with your argument. (Way to be vague) "This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation. " So the only helpful thing you can do for your nation is vote? I disagree. This makes Aristotle's quote false. "Just because I go to cnn. com to find out about the Georgian war does not mean I care at all about Georgia. It only means I am interested in it. " From MW: "Main Entry: 2care Function: verb Inflected Form(s): cared; carï¿½ing Date: before 12th century intransitive verb1 a: to feel trouble or anxiety b: to feel interest or concern " Notice definition b; to feel interest is to care. "My answer to this is that not teaching patriotism would mean not answering any of the questions that my opponent mentioned, and not teaching children what the US stands for. " I already answered this: ". .. they will ask their parents. .. " "Basically my opponent is saying we shouldn't be doing something because we are already doing it. This is a CONTRADICTION. " You misinterpreted me. I said that we shouldn't teach patriotism in schools because those children are already exposed to patriotism. For example, if you have passed Algebra 1, why would you bother taking it again? Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide.
Hot button issue

"So, if someone does not have devotion to their respective country, then they will be a worthless citizen, I win." This is based upon your earlier quote by Aristotle. And just because he said it, it's correct? The rest of his argument stems from the line, "if no one cares about their country..." and like I said earlier you can care about your country without being patriotic. You can bet on the Superbowl; even if you don't love or devote yourself to it, you [most likely] care about the outcome. My John example isn't really important and doesn't help anyone, so I'll let it die. Despite my opponent's flawed argument, he failed to address the resolution: "Patriotism should be encouraged and taught to children in schools." I negate the resolution on the basis that these children will already be exposed to patriotism. They will have questions about presidents whenever they are mentioned, and they will ask their parents about voting. They will also learn about the history of their nation in school. They will learn what the U.S. stands for, and will agree with it. Patriotism does not need to be taught to children in school, because they will eventually stumble upon it themselves.
Hot button issue

More MW definitions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Devotion: the act of devoting, devoting meaning: giving over or directing effort to a cause So, if someone does not have devotion to their respective country, then they will be a worthless citizen, I win. Just to use more space to look cool, I'll refute your John example. "John is 18 and favors Barack Obama because he wants change in his country, so he votes for him. He doesn't particularly love the U.S., though, nor does he devote himself to its political affairs. Is he a worthless citizen?" First off, right off the bat we can tell John is a terrorist. He doesn't love the US. That means he hates us, that means he is a terrorist. Just kidding, obviously, I'm not stupid. Really now, first, I will infer that he wants change for the better (although why is he supporting Obama? Anyways...). This means he wants good for his country. MW defines love as "affection based on benevolence" benevolence, the key term means "disposition to do good." Because John wants good for his country, he is loving his country, that's one part of patriotism. Also, you say he doesn't devote himself himself to political affairs. That means he doesn't vote. Therefore, if what you say is true, his love for his country is worthless, so yes, he is worthless. But, if you mean he isn't a politician, then you are simply misinterpreting me, and that means that John is devoted to his country, as seen through desire for good, and inferred action (voting) to try and bring about that good. In short, he is loving and devoting himself to his country, in his own little way. John here is actually a patriot, not a terrorist. If you think John is good, than I win.
Hot button issue

It's from Dane Cook. My opponent's argument rests on this quote: "Patriotism, defined as "love for or devotion to one's country" by the good men at Merriam-Webster is necessary for an effective country. If nobody cares about their country,, we will have mass apathy, and nothing will get done." However, he misinterprets "love for or devotion" as "caring". You can care about something without loving or being devoted to it. Obviously, American citizens do care about the U.S. But they do not have to love or devote themselves to it. "If you don't, then you are pretty much worthless as a citizen." John is 18 and favors Barack Obama because he wants change in his country, so he votes for him. He doesn't particularly love the U.S., though, nor does he devote himself to its political affairs. Is he a worthless citizen? Back to you.
Hot button issue

Holy man? Resolution 2 I guess. Here's my argument: It's simple, if you love your country, you'll do what's best for it. If you don't, then you are pretty much worthless as a citizen. Patriotism, defined as "love for or devotion to one's country" by the good men at Merriam-Webster is necessary for an effective country. If nobody cares about their country,, we will have mass apathy, and nothing will get done. Aristotle once wrote that in order for one to be a valuable citizen, you must get involved in the political mechanisms of your nation. Now, if no one cares about their country, either they will only be involved for power, which will just hurt everyone, or they won't get involved, and just stay home on Voting Day. An effective nation needs patriotism. We obviously want to be an effective nation, right? Your move, heathen man...
This debate is very difficult

Arrogance and understatement are two of the greatest paragons of tragic flaws, which as we know, bring down heroes in tragedies. Do you think I failed to realize I was using an untrustworthy source? Do you think, I, 9spaceking, as the one who invented the "genius debate" which was about itself being stupid would have made this errors accidentally? You have all been deceived. Of course I capitalized easy and did all the little itsy-bitsy grammatical errors on purpose. In addition, does anyone really think I actually am 15 year old? I could be a 37 year old woman, or I could be even a 87 year old man. Furthermore, just because one likes childish books and movies does not mean one is immature. My opponent made the fallacies of over-generalization and attempted to use ad-hominem combined with straw-man to weaken my debate down along with my debating skills. Those are not her biggest errors, however. My opponent's biggest error is in the fact that he or she is far too arrogant. Not to be mean, but to be truthful--con believes she can win simply because of my errors in round one and the fact that she is a student in "one of the best high schools in Chicago". What high-school is con in that could possibly be better than mine? I go to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, known as the best high school in the United States, in some occasions, number two best. I am in many athletic teams, I get high scores within all the classes and I receive many awards in different competitions. My opponent has failed to state how studious she was in her school. As you can see, my opponent has really been far too confident in herself. I told you I would have a twist and a more complex topic in round two, and I predicted correctly. Con still has this round to counter me, but she has already lost in conduct through her hubris during the first round, making it very hard for her to win. Good luck in your rebuttal statement and conclusion, all in merely 2000 characters.