BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Columbus Day

Good morning, noon, or evening!My name is arrowjaw. Today I will be participating in a debate in which I am the Pro, or the Affirmative. I am for the resolution. It is my burden to prove to you, the voter, that the resolution is true or should be carried out. It is also my burden to refute the arguments of the Con, or the Negative, who is against the resolution. Similarly, the opposition must prove to the voter that the resolution is false or should not be carried out. This debate has the following resolution:Should Columbus day be a national holiday in the United StatesMy opponent has set the character limit to 3,000, so I cannot structure an adequate debate. I will, thus, respond to my opponent only. My opponent begins by saying that Columbus day is a holiday because "he was Italian and Catholic". Italians and Catholics first lobbied for Columbus Day to become a federal holiday in the United States. This is in no a way a detriment to Columbus day. African-Americans were proud to be of the same heritage of M.L.K., and the rest of America admired him for his achievements. Columbus is the same. Just because his holiday was first urged on by members of his heritage does not mean that it should not be a federal holiday. My opponent says that "[Columbus] did not discover America...there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed". When people say 'Columbus discovered America', they are referencing that he discovered it for the more civilized and more technologically advanced part of the world: Eurasia and Africa. This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant attempt to discredit Columbus for a monumental achievement. My opponent said that "[Columbus] never touched down in the modern-day United States". How can you blame him directly, place only the blame on him for all the deaths of the Natives of the Americas if, in your own words, he never even landed there. He paved the way for the colonization of the New World. He is not, however, responsible for the disgusting way in which the New World was conquered and colonized. My opponent then goes on to consent that "his exploration led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas." If that is not an achievement worthy of a holiday I do not know what is. My opponent has contradicted himself and consented, in his own words, that Columbus completed a monumental achievement, which is obviously worthy of, at least, a federal holiday. The Spanish Conquistadors may have killed millions in their conquests of South and Meso America, but that does not mean that Columbus is responsible for those deaths. Just as Karl Benz created the car but is not blamed for automobile-related deaths, Columbus should not be blamed for the horrific actions of others whom he had no control over.
Columbus Day

This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. In this country, we should categorize men like this as a murderer instead of a national hero. Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not "discover" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you "discover" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. To give credit where credit is due, his explorations led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas. However, that is not how Columbus is perceived is most parts of our society. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES!
This surreal love poem has great imagery

Pro seems to thinks that "cool" = "great", but gives no evidence or definition that proves such an assertion.Pro has given no arguments to support his resolution that the imagery contained in the poem is great, so I have nothing to rebutVote Con.Off the Record: Pro, if all you really want is to have your poem critiqued and reviewed, I suggest you try a poetry or creative writing community, such as allpoetry.com. Or, at least, try the forums.
This surreal love poem has great imagery

This debate is whether this This surreal love poem has great imagery con admits he found the line cool Thus he loses by admitting that he thinks the imagery is cool con says ""I will start by saying that, yes, I have read the poem, and I do think that line is kind of cool. However, that's irrelevant to the debate. I am not going to concede the debate without argument." I thank con for his honesty -even though it meant that he lose the debate
This surreal love poem has great imagery

I will start by saying that, yes, I have read the poem, and I do think that line is kind of cool. However, that's irrelevant to the debate. I am not going to concede the debate without argument. My opponent has the BoP in showing that the referenced poem has "great" imagery. If I can show that my opponent has not fulfilled the burden, I win the debate. Some definitions of "great", from http://dictionary.reference.com... : 1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions. 2. large in number; numerous. 3. unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc. 4. wonderful; first-rate; very good. 5. being such in an extreme or notable degree. Unless my opponent can supply proof that the poem's imagery fits at least one of these definitions, the resolution is negated. Good luck, Pro.
This surreal love poem has great imagery

I argue that This surreal love poem has great imagery -by Australia s leading erotic poet colin leslie dean http://www.scribd.com... if you dont read the poem then it is pointless debating example breasts rounded like ripe fruit bring me thy buttocks round like these dunes that shimmer in glittering light oh come beloved bring thy breasts soft like twin hills of rose pink petals flower petals of translucent fire like dry yellow straw am I consumed in fiery light my lips desire my limbs desire the groin of I burns like a red kiln of fire ripples of roses flashing burning flames of transparent yellow light exfoliate along the flesh of I
Should the SOLS be mandatory in middle schools

your are wrong. it should not be for every kid. It should not exist because it can defect your grade. people like you do not under stand the Sols can defect your grade. you little spastic. It doesnt matter whether or not it affects your grade, its the kids responibiliy to study and know his topics in school such as science and english. if they do know they could get into better colleges and get a great career.
Should the SOLS be mandatory in middle schools

I think that SOLs should be required for every kid in LCPS. The reason why is because it covers most things and tests how much kids know about a certain topic, such as, math, reading and science. Usually kids don't really take tests seriously so this will prep them to study more and to succeed. the SOLS are a big part of your grade so kids will have to study, motivating them and helping them to move on to the next grade.
Should the SOLS be mandatory in middle schools

Should the SOLs be mandatory in middle schools. I think the sols shouldn't be mandatory but be banned in middle schools because the SOLs could hurt the feelings of student who did bad on it. The SOLs affect your grade and if you do bad on it, your GPA will drop and if you have a 1.7 GPA and then take the SOLs and do bad on it, your GPA could drop to a 1.5 GPA. That is a D+, the grade can defect your chances of going to college, and most colleges require a 1.7 GPA or a 2.0 GPA, even know your GPA may go up in high school, middle schools GPA is a big factor in determining your classes in 9th grade. if you are a 1.5 GPA your options are limited other teens seceded in high school get to go to Harvard or Yale or William and Mary or any other good schools your stuck with community college which is not fair at all. All because you got a bad grade on the SOLs. Plus, It is hard. That is why SOLs shouldn't be mandatory but be banned in all middle schools.Thank you
Eastern Europeans Should be Purged

EconomeyOk there would also be another major promblem is you nuck eastern Europe. The people who are poor, are the ones who are the backbone of every nations economey. If you kill of the poor then those nations economeies would fall, into even more choas then it allready was. Plus if you use nucks to kill them more then just the poor would die. For one radiation would spread to the cities. Once thay happenes most humans would in those countries would die. Plus once that happened every can not eat avything made in that country for years. Those countries would be wiped off of the map if you nucked them the way you want to. If you nuck them it would hurt every country that used to trade with them. Now this was a great debate, I wonder who won.
Eastern Europeans Should be Purged

First off let me say that I would not be completely against a purge. But going about it in this way, is just wrong on so many levels. If you really needed a purge it should only kill those who did something wrong. Such as Criminals, or corrupt goverment officals.First of for one it is just moraly wrong. If you did this then it would kill millions, if not billions for no good reason. Think about it if you did this, then people would start to turn on you. They would think that they would be the next ones on your hit list. That in it's self would start a major war. On top of all of that you would be killing everyone in East Europe, that means the woman, the men, and the kids. Second many of those countries are in allances. So if you did do that then, they would be a war world 3 afterwords. Some of those counties that you would kil off are in a allance with the USA. That allance is called NATO, so after you killed those people you would be faceing off aginst the USA, and western euopean powers. On top of that China would enter the war due to you attackin Russia. So if you did this the world, might be trown into a nuclear war. So if that happened then there would be no winners.Third it would cuase major distrust within you own people. Many would see you as the next hitler. So they would try to stop you in every way possable. So you would be killing your own people to future your own agenda. Now yes you might have a ok reason, but doing that would make you no better then mass murders, or dictators. The world would also fall into choas, people would be schoked and they would want reveage on the one who did this. So yes it my be a good or great reason, but it would not save the world. In fact I think it would be the cuase of our downfall.
Eastern Europeans Should be Purged

Debate Premise: - Full resolution: Eastern Europeans Should be Purged.-72 Hour argument period. -10,000 character max. -Due to the nature of this debate, there is 3500 minimum ELO requirement for voters. -Whoever takes the position of "Con", will be arguing that Eastern Europeans should not be purged. -Shared BoP. Rules: -Round one acceptance.-Round two opening argument[s]-Round three rebuttals.-Round four closing argument[s] Definitions: 1. Purgeda. Remove (a group of people considered undesirable) from an organization or place in an abrupt or violent way. -By "Eastern Europeans" I mean the general populace living in Eastern Europe--all countries within this geographical location will apply. -Note that I will not be arguing for removal from the E.U or anything alike, but rather an actual purge as according to the definition above that I've provided.
People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to procreate

We should indeed worry about other people's feelings, no matter what the situation is. We should avoid hating people themselves. We are all humans, we all make mistakes, and we can all get back on track with each other's help. I am sure of that. For example, I would not hate the murderer, but hate the act of murder itself. I would not hate rich people, but hate the process of downfall itself. I very strongly disagree with your second paragraph. I will admit that IQ does have some contribution to a person's success in life, but not to a point of degree where your fate is basically dependent on your IQ level. Even if this was true, instead of blaming them for their low IQ, we should try to help them. Now, I looked up the definition of stupid, and here is what I found: lacking intelligence or common sense. What the definition is implying is that "stupid" people are basically disabled people. Saying that people with very low IQ's should not be allowed to procreate is similar to saying that crippled people should not be able to procreate (which I hope you don't agree with). Again, instead of restricted disabled people's rights, we should help them in any way we can. I always like to end with a little futuristic dream. Imagine this: a world where technology has advanced far enough where any disease or other problems with the human brain can be cured (including unnaturally low IQs). That would be pretty cool ;)
People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to procreate

If I said, "I hate murderers, they are the scum of the earth", should I be worried about hurting their feelings? Or if I said, "Rich people are the downfall of the American people" (not saying this is true, just an example), should I be worried about hurting their feelings? NO! Very low IQ people contribute to the worst societal conditions for both themselves and others. For example, I don't know any genius homeless person. It doesn't exist (well maybe on VERY RARE occasions). If they weren't allowed to procreate then in one generation there would be no more stupid people, and the world would be a better place.
People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to procreate

I don't mean to call you a bully, but that is very capable of hurting other people's feelings. By a "very low IQ", I will assume you this would go as low as half of an average person's IQ. If someone like this exists, we should be doing our best to help them by tutoring him/her, not discriminated them and taking away their rights as biological beings. Discrimination has been proven immoral and harmful throughout human history. Taking away someone's right to reproduce because of his/her IQ level is a form of discrimination. I believe that the biggest benefit of studying history is to learn from our mistakes. Discrimination is cruel, and we should not be launching other forms of it.
Religious people are obsessed over God

'One reason religious people are not obsessed with God is because many religious people don"t even believe in God. One example of this is Buddhism; followers of Buddhism (376 million) do not hold any belief in God.' Two things. One, Buddhism is sometimes thought of a code of conduct rather than a religion, and Buddha himself was considered an atheist. Two, there is a sect in Buddhism that worships him as a God, and Buddhism is not yet a large religion. 'If more than half the population believes in God, then it is rendered normal. Since more than half of the population believes in a god, then believing in god is normal. According to definition, religious people are not obsessed with God' That way I could just spread an absurd idea but if half the world believes it, will it be right? Moreover, it has become 'normal to be obsessed' so it still counts. 'In a study done on black business owners (4), the owners were asked, "To what or whom do you attribute your success?" Out of all who were surveyed, only 13% attributed their success to God. This defeats my opponent"s arguments.' But at that time the questions are being answered logically. Also, even in school you are taught to 'thank God for everything he has given you' but God has just given us the Earth that we refined. Therefore comes in play the obsession. 'As a fellow atheist, I know what it feels like to be mocked for not believing, but I do not see how this relates to the topic. In the future, if you are to present something in the debate, please make it about the debate; abstract topics like this should not be included.' I just wanna say how believers retort to excuses if they fail to provide convincing arguments. They have reached the limit of mocking a person that very much exists for a person that they have never saw. Again, ain't that too much? 'Conclusion: In my arguments, I have successfully proven that religious people are in fact not obsessed with God. I have done so by proving it though the definition of obsession, and through examples of religions that don"t even believe in God. I have also defeated my opponent"s two arguments (really one) using evidence and statistics. I look forward to my opponent"s next response. Thank you!' Far too quick. Wait 1 round at least before concluding.
Religious people are obsessed over God

Well then where is your argument? Signs in human work- Anything good that happens to a believer, they give the credit to God, even if they may have achieved it with their own abilities or someone else worked hard for it. Ex. If a believer wins an award for science, he'll thank God in his mind first, even though it was his hard work. Even if he had a tutor or some other help, God gets in between first. Thank him for materialistic things- If a believer wins a lottery, he would be thanking God, but that was his own luck. God wouldn't waste time shuffling boxes, now would he? Also they say to thank the God for everything, like shelter, food and water, but if only that guy paid his bills and thanked the grocer for the loan rather than praying. Evidence- This is just on personal experience. I had an argument with my friend who believed in God, he gave up when my questions continued but he still believes in God. Even on this site in one debate the person failed to provide evidence and just mocked me for not believing. I await con's rebuttals.
Gay Marriages

Once again I am shocked of your lack of understanding about religion. I have already proven you wrong about your opinion that "MOST do not believe in God" even though there are many polls that prove you embarrisingly wrong. Now you continue to admit that same-sex marriage would destroy the foundation of what a marriage is but all Americans should deal with it?? Why should the majority deal with it? And how exactly would you let the votes count, seeing as it has already been put to vote in many states and was strongly rejected? Point 2 is I never said people woke up and started saying,"I'm gay now". That has nothing to do with the debate. My biggest point are that we live in a democracy where votes do matter and the majority don't want to allow same-sex marriages. Also in the Bible it does say being straight is the right way.Genesis 2:18:25 ,Romans 1:27, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 to name a few verses. Let me ask you this. What is the reason the goverment bestows so many benefits to two people that decide to marry? Why does it promote the idea of marriage? What common good does marriage provide? Is it because the goverment wants to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals? I don't think so. Granted everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness, but the goverment does not provide happiness. It is not the goverments responsibility. The reason the goverment gives these benefits is for many reasons. The states has stock in marriage because it provides an almost definite method for ensuring the future of the country through NATURAL procreation. Marriage in its natural form does not provide the next generation through artificial means or adoption,while same-sex relationships are sterile and must use these unnatural methods for children. Human anatomy has not changed in a natural way to allow homosexual couples to produce children. While the goverment endorses traditional families because of the obvious benefits it provides, why would it for same-sex marriages? Like I previously stated, the goverment was not established to give you your happiness. Are you saying that same-sex couples cannot be happy without the benefits of goverment? Another problem with same-sex marriage is what it does to the family. When Scandinavia passed laws to allow same sex marriages 10 years ago the results have been devastating. In Sweden where it is legal to marry someone of the same sex divorce rates for gay men are 50% higher than heterosexuals and for lesbian women 170% higher. I really hope you fully address all the issues I brought forth. I respect peoples right to their own sexuality, but do not see why we should allow them the benefits of marriage considering my previously stated points.
Gay Marriages

There are many religions out there and not all believe in God. There are different creators out there for everyone, or some dont believe in it at all. Yes it destroys it but we should deal with it because everyone is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. The votes should mind, but what harm would it do for not allowing it, and murder and being gay are to totally different things. Not everyone has plans to get married and have children. It is not like they woke up one day saying, "I'm gay now". It foes not matter if the child is adopted or not just as long as they are in a loving home and family. Not weather it was test-tubes or not.
Gay Marriages

First, they believe in a Creator but not God??? WHAT?! That makes no sense. Actually from the poll it said God not Creator so, sorry. Also, you admit that it will destroy the foundation of marriage, but say we should just deal with it?? Did you only slightly ignore my question about this country being a democracy and the votes should decide. It sounds like you completly ignored that question. Why should the majority have to live with something only to appease the minority. Not saying homosexuals are murderers, but since the majority of the country believes murder is wrong should we have to live with it because some people think its right? You also fail to address my point about the unnatural aspects of homosexuality and what life would be like if everyone choose this lifestyle. The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center have stopped their longtime position HIV and posted on billboards throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease". Obviously nature agrees with me. The sole reason behind marriage is family. This is to include children. Obviously with same-sex couples, if the child is not adopted then that means that one of the "parents" would not really be related to this child. The use of a surrogate or test tube would have to be used.