BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
peace is the way not war for independent govt.

Going back to what I stated in my last argument I still find that an independent government would be beneficial to this nation because we need something and someone that would do what they promise . Next Please. I find that the Independent Party would do just that . Also I am still for peace and freedom also justice.This means that I think that on a as you clearly stated a practical note we should vote for those that would be in favor of freedom in all respects. Next Please. Due to the lack of people in the government that share these views , We as a nation have no say in peace or freedom , We as a nation should be more into what our leaders do and say on our behalf that is just a suggestion to the world. As for the rest of the world our leaders should sit down in neutral territory and try to come up with a solution to the real problem which is as I have stated previously is freedom and peace. Next Please. As a result I think that we can come to some kind of compromise if we have an independent president and government. All for now.
peace is the way not war for independent govt.

The independent party stands for freedom and peace . I am strongly in favor of peace and freedom. That is just an opinion . Next please Peace and freedom are just two of the things that the independent party stands for . I think that this world should stand up and fight for these rights. I also find that an independent president and an independent government would be beneficial to the United States. We as a nation should fight for these things due to the fact that we live in a country that does not care about these kind of things. Next please. Now that the issue of what the independent party stands for is settled let's talk about the taxes that they put on us now. I think that the reduction of taxes would be beneficial because of the economy and the people that pay taxes. Next Please. After careful thought I have come to have the opinion that we need to pay less taxes and form an independent government. All for now.
peace is the way not war for independent govt.

I think that we as a society should have an independent government and an independent congress due to the fact that niether the Democratic or Republican party have gotten anything accomplished as promised. I find that an independent party would be beneficial to society, due to the fact that our country needs a change in direction ,due to the finances ,economy and the oil crisis here in America. As a voter I would ask for more of a say in our government . I think there should be more peace in our lands. I also believe in freedom for the worlds , also I believe in opportunity in all of our lands.
If God farted, would it smell revolting or beautiful? (DDO Olympics Trolling Prelims)

My argument stands. If my memory's correct, by the way, Bsh1 says points are supposed to go to the funniest debater. Oh, and Family Guy offers an explanation as to why God's farts are essential. (The guy he's arm-wrestling is clearly Satan if he thinks it smells bad.) http://www.youtube.com...
If God farted, would it smell revolting or beautiful? (DDO Olympics Trolling Prelims)

"Can God make a fart so horribly smelly that even he cannot bear it? Jokes aside, you have not rebutted my definitions. God is a old man with sh!t in his assh0le." I don't need to rebut your definitions cuz I have the cooler avatar. And I had a similar conversation with A341 earlier. How smelly is this fart you speak of? It would have to be of infinite stench to knock out an infinite force. They are a logical contradiction, and is not possible. Omnipotence means everything that's logically possible. Besides, Mythbusters proved gas doesn't kill. Who's to say Al Gore isn't a closet Christian who got his gas from the Holy A$$? But my belief is that as beautiful as the Holy Gas is, it's causing global warming.
If God farted, would it smell revolting or beautiful? (DDO Olympics Trolling Prelims)

NightofTheLivingCats has forfeited this round.lol jk. I believe that if God the holy deity farted, it would be the most beautiful smell in the universe. Can God make a fart so horribly smelly that even he cannot bear it? Jokes aside, you have not rebutted my definitions. God is a old man with sh!t in his assh0le.After all, would it not be out of the power of the One who invented farts to make them smell like a spring meadow? Farts were invented by Al Gore to supplement his Global Warming myth.The farts of our God in Heaven can be used for good if they can be harnessed, since the beauty that exists in the Holy Gas could bring about world peace by odoriferous means. No fucktard. Farts were invented by Al Gore. And who's to say we haven't harnessed them already? Just ask anyone who has a sh!t fetish. They have a shi!t fetish. Not a fart fetish.
If God farted, would it smell revolting or beautiful? (DDO Olympics Trolling Prelims)

We shall go by my definitions. (I have the cooler avatar so I can do whatever I want.) I believe that if God the holy deity farted, it would be the most beautiful smell in the universe. After all, would it not be out of the power of the One who invented farts to make them smell like a spring meadow? The farts of our God in Heaven can be used for good if they can be harnessed, since the beauty that exists in the Holy Gas could bring about world peace by odoriferous means. And who's to say we haven't harnessed them already? Just ask anyone who has a sh!t fetish.
If God farted, would it smell revolting or beautiful? (DDO Olympics Trolling Prelims)

Definitions: FARTA displeasing gas REVOLTINGExtreme displeasureBEAUTIFULSo nice, you'll want to go for seconds.GODA old guy who lives in New York City, who ALWAYS has a peice of sh!t hanging from his assh0le.Pitbull allowed me to pick the definitions. By my definitions, he concedes, because a fart from God is a displeasure.
Hungry Jack's or Mcdonald's

I must admit that what McDonald's does with the Ronald McDonald house program is very noble and that they are convenient with customers with their open house. However, hungry jacks in my opinion does have better quality food that since being flame grilled it is healthier too. Isn't the reason for eating at a restaurant, is to eat quality food for reasonable prices? In addition, hungry jacks isn't open practically 24/7 because they believe in giving their workers time to sleep and replenish, plus they pay their workers more.
Hungry Jack's or Mcdonald's

have 33,000 restaurants world wide, employs 1.7 Million people, in 119 countries and 80% of McDonald's restaurants are franchised. I my opinion I would have to go with McDonald's because their is happy meals for the little kids and hungry jacks does not. Hungry jacks might be cheaper but it is not better and tastier than McDonald's by far. The Ronald McDonald House program is a no cost program which provides a home away from home for families so they can stay close to their children who are in hospital. McDonald's is also open 24/7 for whenever you get hungry for breakfast, lunch, dinner, afternoon snack or even for midnight cravings
Hungry Jack's or Mcdonald's

On the contrary, while eating at hungry jacks I have never embarked upon any foreign objects in my meals. McDonald's may provide their customers with the freedom to assemble their own burgers but does it cost more? Finally, I have previously insinuated and justified my experiences with McDonald's affordability and compared and contrasted it with hungry jacks affordability, and I must say that I have always purchased hungry jacks meals without any problems or issues pertinent to expense.
Hungry Jack's or Mcdonald's

Hungry jacks in my opinion is more scrumptious, affordable, customer friendly, and convenient. Their methods of flame grilling the patties, due to the taste of the patties, this aspect effectively supports my insinuation of scrumptious. Furthermore, as a person who actually works at McDonald's, I must admit that hungry jacks patties are appear far more appetising than than those you would consume at McDonald's. To support my stigma of affordability, hungry jacks constantly provides the public with reasonable coupons for when one may be short of money. Minded that McDonald's does this too, however, their prices never seem to be as affordable - I have also had problems pertinent to purchasing whenever eating at McDonald's - this has never occurred for me at hungry jacks. In terms of customer friendliness, hungry jacks indubitably takes the cake on that one. As with McDonald's, I can count incidences on both hands pertaining to the staff treating me like a second class customer. Therefore, my opinion towards customer friendliness is also justified and supported by the previous committee of words. My final thesis, hungry jacks is substantially more convenient than hungry jacks. Whenever dining at hungry jacks I have always been served quicker and without any hassle in contrast to McDonald's. Despite this, McDonald's also has an adequate service system although it does not hold a candle to the service received at hungry jacks. In conclusion, hungry jacks, in my opinion, is undoubtedly more efficient, sufficient, coherent and less sumptuous than McDonald's.
Cutest Baby

My pictures were of a baby. You even said that people say 1-3 is a baby. Also since you want to point out so-called "errors" in my previous argument, why don't I point our a few in your arguments. The name you provided for your first baby was, Iamsocute Andyouarenot. No parent would name their child that. If I am wrong, send us a link. You also failed to provide the height of your baby, and you have many spelling mistakes. Back to the debate! :) Her name is Luna. Luna is 1 year old. She is 2 feet and 2 inches. She weighs 20 pounds. http://images.newfaces.com... http://images.newfaces.com... http://images.newfaces.com... Thank You! :)
Cutest Baby

That is not a baby, it is a toddler.Babies are 0-2 years of age.Here are some sources for you:http://www.pbs.org...http://babyparenting.about.com...Some even say 1-3 so on those I am closer to baby-stage than my opponent is.Also cuteness is not sexual attractiveness, so remember ot judge on adorability rather than how pretty the little white soon-to-be-anorexic model is vs my well-fed one.
Cutest Baby

http://images.newfaces.com... I was not able to post the ACTUAL picture on my argument, however the link in my argument, will send you to the picture. Her Name is Jordyn. http://images.newfaces.com... Jordyn is 3 years old. http://images.newfaces.com... Jordyn is 2 feet 11 inches tall. She weighs 35 pounds. Such a cutie pie! :)
Cutest Baby

In Round 1 you said I only need to post an image in Round 1. You had no image in Round 1 and have already lost this debate in Round 2 by simply having nothing to compete with my baby. You then attempt to show your pedophile-attracting toddler and then concede that she is not a baby worthy of competing with the fabulous, adorable Iamsocute Andyouarenot! Here I give evidence that Justin Bieber finds my baby adorable and also show you that "my daughter" (no idea where you got that from) is truly the cutest baby. Cooper looks like a monkey trying to be human and in the third image looks like Jason Statham who is nearly bald and looks like an overgrown chimpanzee. You also completely contradict yourself in every Round by the fact that in two other Rounds you just said another baby is the cutest. Okay let's look at how the suffix -est works: used to form the superlative degree of adjectives and adverbs. [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Unless you are saying that all three children were identical, one out of those three must be the cutest and the other two must resultantly not be meaning you just lied to the reader's of this debate 2/3 times. The fact you said Cooper is the cutest means that Luna and Jordyn can't be because that would make Cooper less than the cutest in order for them to take 1st place as the baby representation of the superlative degree of cuteness. I conclude that my opponent has no only contradicted themselves at several points throughout this debate but has furthermore got no image in round 1 which was the only round that this debate's outline, in Round 1, ever stated had to have an image.
Cutest Baby

Until just a moment ago, I did not know that was your child. I thought it was an actual model. That being said, you have not posted pictures for neither Round 2 nor Round 3. I strongly urge a vote for me. Now, back to the debate! :) Cooper 7 months old. 15 pounds. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://3.bp.blogspot.com... http://3.bp.blogspot.com... I hope you post a picture of a baby next round. Thank You for the debate! :)
This House believes child stories should normalize the challenges of life rather than happy endings

It seems you have not read the instructions I gave for the debate, but allow me to clarify: I said that we will commence with arguments and rebuttal in the second and third rounds, but since you have failed to follow this and have rebutted me right off the bat especially when I haven't even given any arguments at all, I have no choice but to call this debate forfeit. Good day.
This House believes child stories should normalize the challenges of life rather than happy endings

The res never clarified what I believe they were trying to say, "childhood". Because of this, any of my opps arguments about "childhood" stories are not valid. There is simply no possible way of telling every single child in the world who writes a story that their stories can not have a happy ending. Thus, if a child has not gone through the challenges of life and decides they would like to write a story with a happy ending it's downright immoral to crush their dreams and tell them that they have to write it in a different way.
This House believes child stories should normalize the challenges of life rather than happy endings

Good day to the House at large. I will be arguing for the Prop side of this debate, which says that childhood stories should normalize the challenges of life rather than the concept of happy endings. The debate will progress as follows: When an Opposing Party accepts my debate, they will notify me in this first round. After which we shall commence in the second and third rounds with our arguments and our rebuttal. I look forward to debating whoever accepts this challenge.
Catholicism proves evolution wrong

Thanks, Pro.My opponent's argument is simple: Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story... The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.Evolution posits that the earliest life appeared 4,000 million years ago [1]. This has been determined through Abiogenesis - the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen [2]. Ergo, there is indeed a scientific explanation of how 'simple organisms' have evolved to create and sustain life on Earth. Now that we've got that settled, let's examine how Evolution is in fact valid as agreed upon by virtually every credible scientist. In order for something to be considered a scientific theory, it must meet certain criteria and prove to be:- Consistent (internally and externally)- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)- Empirically Testable and Falsifiable- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments- Correctable and Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)Evolution meets every one of these requirements as I've outlined and explained in a previous debate [3]. The concept of Evolution was derived scientifically and arrived at by examining nature. This stands contrary to theories that rival Evolution like Creationism which Catholocism supports. Just because we cannot answer every single question about the origins of the universe does not remotely disprove the concept Evolution, which is completely logical and justifiable explanation about human ancestry accompanied by a ton of evidence. The laws of logic explain that a lack of evidence cannot be used to disprove something [4]. Most importantly, there is no noted evidence whatsoever for Creationism. Most theists acknowledge that it is a position completely rooted in faith - not science or evidence. You'll notice that my opponent completely failed to prove or even remotely explain how Catholicism disproves Evolution. All he does is present an irrelevant criticism of Evolution that I have addressed and subsequently negated. It is Pro's burden to prove how the tenants of Catholicism specifically disprove Evolution.Good luck. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Catholicism proves evolution wrong

Evolution The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.). Rebuttal Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.
The Christian God does not exist

I understand that these arguments might be generic in their nature, but they are some of the simply base arguments to denying the existence of a Christian God. If my opponent rebuttals these successfully, then that's when the uniqueness of this debate will start. I. The Problem of Evil 1. The Christian God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (has an infinite disposition to do good).2. Evil exists (Objectively so in the bible (Satin, for example), and subjectively so to the morale of an everyday person)3. The Christian God is completely aware of all evil, and has the power to stop it.4. The Christian God has to do good where-ever possible.5. The Christian God must eliminate evil.6. There is still objective evil according to the bible, and subjective evil to an everyday person.7. The Christian God cannot exist as he is claimed. II. Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive1. The Christian God is omniscient and omnipotent.2. As is such, the Christian God knows of everything that he is going to do.3. As is such, the Christian God has the power to do something he doesn't know he's going to do.4. If the Christian God knew he was going to do X, since he's omniscient, he's going to do X.5. But, the Christian God has the power not to do X, even though he knows that he's going to do X.6. So does the Christian God have to do X? Yes and No if the given is true.7. Therefore, the given cannot be true, as it's contradictory.8. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed. III. Omnipotence and Logic are mutually exclusive1. The Christian God is omnipotent.2. Logic Exists3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible.4. To assert a being can do something logically impossible, is illogical.5. As is such, the claim of the Christian God is illogical.6. The Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed. These are just some of the self contradictions of Christianity, but these are the one's I am most familiar with. If my opponent rebuttals these successfully, I will move on to more self-contradictions. Only a single one of these arguments needs to be valid for my assertion that "The Christian God does not exist" to be valid as a whole.
The Christian God does not exist

I understand that the burden of proof is upon me to prove that a Christian God cannot logically exist. That being said, the opponent must accept logical reasoning over faith. I understand that the belief in the Christian God could lie completely in faith, but for this debate, logical reasoning will be the valid course of action, not faithful reasoning. Definitions: Logical Reasoning - Reasoning that abides by logical laws, the following of evidence over hope in search for the truth, and the most objectively correct reasoning possible. God - The God (LORD) we will be discussing will hold the characteristics exemplified in the Bible, but will also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. He is also a personal immaterial being.
The Christian God does not exist

I will save this round for little more than some closing remarks as it is the final round (and I tend to get pretty lazy near the end of a five-round debate).1. The problem of evil.I saw little attempt to rebut my suggestion that there is some higher purpose for the existence of evil other than the assertion that there is an objective evil: Satan. The problem of evil not only requires the premise that evil exists, but that unnecessary evil exists. And I see no reason why Satan is so special to my opponent's case. It's an objective evil, fine. But is it necessary or unecessary to some greater good? Tyler has not proven Satan (or anything else) is an unecessary evil so his warrant for the problem of evil falls short.2. Omniscience/Omnipotence/Logic.It seems Tyler has conceded these points in light of my kickass rebuttals.3. Contradictions.I feel hurt and betrayed having been given a new argument in the final round of a five-round debate, but that's okay I suppose. He claims that because certain biblical accounts of God's characteristics contradict one another, God therefore does not exist. Of course, this doesn't even logically follow, but again, that's okay I suppose.Suppose we hear a rumor that every night at midnight, someone approaches the fountain in Central Park and throws a half-dollar coin in it. Invesitgating this rumor, we ask the local residents for details. One says he's a five-foot tall black man who wears a hulu skirt and another says he's a woman with a peg leg. Clearly very different testimonials.Perhaps it can be said these testimonials ought not be taken seriously. Perhaps it can even be said there is no reason at all to believe this midnight coin-thrower exists. But that doesn't mean he/she truly does not exist. And that is my opponent's position in this debate: a positive assertion that the Christian God does not exist.Thanks for the debate, Tyler. It's been fun.