BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The alphabet doesn't have a true order.

Before I conclude my debate, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the debate was trolled. I am more confirming the fact that I know that it was. It didn't really seem evident. What a way for your first debate to go. Anywho, I am going to stick to the point that I have been making these past two weeks. We have basically been, and are continuing to be, taught to use the same method that doesn't really have a viable purpose anymore. If we have to resort to using a print dictionary, and therefore have to use alphabetical order, due to a lack of access to the internet for whatever reason, then it serves a purpose. But the fact of the matter is, we almost always have access to the internet anymore. We can pretty much type it into that Google search bar, whenever we please, wherever we please. Need a plumber? Type in plumbers near (zip code). Need to get a survey sample? They perform that online as well, perhaps with even more success. Alphabetical order serves no purpose as long as technology is here to help us. And if technology can survive Y2K, it can survive anything. I rest my case.
The alphabet doesn't have a true order.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, there is no answer how the alphabet came about. The alphabet derives from the Phoenician alphabet. The Greeks used that and added vowels. The Etruscan alphabet derives from that. The Romans adopted that, and since they got so popular, so did the rest of the Western world. The Phoenicians, therefore, were the creators of alphabetical order. Everybody just uses their order. Guess it just made life easy. I do admit, in previous eras, the order of the alphabet was of the utmost important. But in the technology era, it is not necessary.
Great Evil is Alternative to Nature

Morality is balance of good and evil, which can be shifted in various ways dependant on species-set. Good morality is what's beneficent to existence, and evil morality is what's not. To proper understand morality we must ponder the question "how nothing becomes something?" The question is stupid because starting from nothing is equally as crucial as starting from something, but a sense of the moment is good. Nothing without a something is immoral because there is no existence and nothing with a something is moral because there is existence. It's a paradox. The law is that the moral outweighs the immoral, a case where nothing exists is more improbable; there is a trinity of good against a single evil. Good with duplication, good with knowledge of evil, and good as a trinity are the primal formula. Evil is nothing, or nothing to something. Therefore, good is greater than evil and it's more probable for something than nothing. A life as a human is complex enough to force moral decision, your eyes without any input, are nothing to something - or are nothing empirically. Good is a defining element to all, and can exist in all life forms. Evil is not good, and can exist in all life forms. A human is either good or evil all of it's life. Morality Primal existence was a great learning nature, it created something from nothing because after it would learn more somethings from its creation.
Great Evil is Alternative to Nature

Going by your argument that good morality benefits existence and evil does not, it is impossible for humans to be only good or only evil for their entire life. If someone helped prevent cutting down trees, that would be a good action, because it benefits existence, as it allows trees to exist for longer. However, if the same person stepped on ants intentionally, that would be evil. But the person is neither good or evil, as they have done good and evil things. The argument you made that I mentioned earlier also directly contradicts your argument that nothing without a something is evil. Although nothingness doesn't contain existence, it also does not harm existence, therefore it is not immoral. Because nothingness isn't immoral, and without nature there would be nothing, the alternative of nature is not immoral or evil.
Gay Marriage

So far Pro has said that he is against gay marriage because marriage is a religious term and the Bible condemns homosexuality. Unfortunately this is completely false. Marriage is not only a religious term but a legal term, and carries with it a lot of legal implications to protect rights and establish certain privileges for married couples. To be married refers to a legal procedure that bounds two people and their assets. Even when religious people get married in the church, it only counts in the eyes of the law if it is sanctioned by the government. As such, to award monetary and legal privileges to one group based on sexual orientation is a blatant civil rights violation considering its ignorant and discriminatory nature. Whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not has no bearing on this discussion considering we are supposed to live with a separation between Church and State. The church does not and should not have to recognize the marriages of homosexual couples, but the government does. It's irresponsible and unfair to suggest that civil unions replace marriage for gay people. As it stands, marriages currently have grant over 1,049 federal and state level benefits while civil unions provide merely 300 state benefits alone [1]. I could name innumerable discrepancies. For starters married couples receive A LOT of tax exemptions, gain access to medical decisions, can transfer assets to partners without tax penalty, get a lot of legal protection in terms of parenting, etc. Marriage grants a lot of protections that gay people have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees on to ensure the same protections of their partnership. Furthermore marriage must be acknowledged everywhere in the country whereas recognizing civil unions is conditional by city. I could continue, but the point is simple: civil unions are blatantly inferior to marriages in terms of protection. In conclusion, marriage is not only a religious relationship but a legal one. While "civil unions" might be able legally become equivalent to marriage (even though they are currently FAR from it), marriage as an institution is fostered by society as a whole and has become a social construct -- not just a religious one. Atheists get married and have the lowest divorce rates in fact [2]. You cannot stop atheists from getting married, so saying marriage is a "religious" institution is simply and utterly not true. You cannot say gays shouldn't be married because of what the Bible says, considering the separation of Church and State (and marriage as an undeniable legal institution with legal meaning). Basically you simply cannot deny the equal right of homosexuals as heterosexuals to marry. Banning gay marriage has not been justified. [1] . http://gaylife.about.com... [2] . http://www.barna.org...
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks

Cons of wearing a wrist watch Appearance. Many wrist watches either appear to look dorky or are excessively bulky. If you want a wrist watch that looks stylish, you have to be willing to pay a ridiculous amount for it. Tan lines. If you do wish to wear a wrist watch at all times, good luck in the summer time. Watches can create really really stupid looking tan lines. Comfort. When it is really hot outside, you sweat like crazy where the watch is around your wrist, causing discomfort. The watch can also be either too tight or too loose on your wrist, causing either a feeling of losing circulation in your hand or turning around on your hand so you can never even see the watch anyway. This can lead to annoying the heck out of whoever is wearing the watch Size. Whereas wall clocks are very easy to read, wrist watches can be difficult to decipher either because of their smaller size or because of a glare caused by the sun when you're outside. Bottom line, wall clocks are easier to see. Pro of wearing a wrist watchThe only real advantage of wearing a wrist watch is the portability of the watch. Wall clocks can't be carried around with you like a wrist watch can. However, cell phones have a clock on them. Some 85% of adults overall own cell phones overall (. http://www.enterthenet.com...). Why use a wrist watch while you can just pull out your cell phone and check the time if you need it? Cell phones do not provide any of the cons a wrist watch does. ConclusionA wall clock is better overall than the wrist watch. The main function of both of these devices is to tell time. Both the wall clock and the wrist watch serve this purpose. When the wall clock and the wrist watch are compared to each other, one discovers that the wrist watch brings a lot of hassles and disadvantages to the table that the wall clock simply doesn't. Wrist watches can look dorky - wall clocks are not worn personally by people so the appearance of the wall clock becomes irrelevant. Wrist watches can cause stupid looking tan lines - wall clocks do no such thing. Wrist watches can be very uncomfortable to wear - wall clocks are not worn, therefore they do not cause discomfortWrist watches can be difficult to read, either because of size or because of glare from the sun - wall clocks are significantly larger than wrist watches making the clock easier to read, and wall clocks are positioned inside, eliminating any glare from the sunThe only advantage the wrist watch has over the wall clock is portability, and I have already shown that the cell phone can easily eliminate this advantage. Even if one does not have a cell phone, the cons alone to the wrist watch are sufficient enough to ensure that wall clocks are in fact better than wrist watches.
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks

Again with the cell phone, and again with all my . My inexperienced opponent has no advantage to prove over the wall clock. all he can use is so can a cell phone, which again and I repeat over and over is specifically irrelevant."The stop watch which is a huge advantage"Cell phones have stop watches"Some watches has a light which, of course if you are surrounded by darkness you can turn on the light to see the time."Or I could use my cell phone to see the time, and guess what! It lights up by itself!"Rarely but surely some watches can make phone calls."Silly me. Those watches SURELY are more common than cell phones right?"Some watches has a calculator"So does a cell phone... Just out of curiosity, how many times have you absolutely NEEDED to use a calculator and wished you had a watch for it??"Most has an alarm"*yawn* so does a cell phonethese are the points my lousy opponent made, he is defending his case on the cell phone, WHEN THE DEBATE IS ON WRIST WATHES AND WALL CLOCKS. this is the lack of research, experience and thought which my opponent lacks to show by repeating all my comments and made points. He has no advantage over a useless wall clock, which simply displays time in a boring matter. Reasons for voting pro1. Con was excessively using the term so can a cell phone.2. Con, throat the debate used all my points to debate his case because he did not have the research3. Con was saying my advantages was not unique while the wall clock has none.4. Con did not show any advantage except the tan lines, and the infect with the sun light on the watch.5. Con lacked research
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks

What really urges me is that you use all of my main points to support your debate, this lack of support and reasoning show your weak level of debating. Moving on, like I stated I like normal watches, my brother likes the big face watch, this shows that some people will wear Whichever watch suits them. By using the word dorky this is your opinion, not reality. For the tan lines, they can easily be removes without trouble, and it depends on your skin color. All right there are different materials a wrist watch can be made out of. .. .. .. .. .. what point does that prove? Ok you can wear a wrist watch outside. But once again you have a clock on a cell phone that basically everyone carries around with them anyway, making the portability of the wrist watch irrelevant. By reusing the fact of the cell phone is very irrelevant, which you do not seem to understand. Stating the fact that while outside you can just use the clock on your cell phone, but this debate is specifically on the wrist watch and clock. There will never be a watch that is to small in size to read all watches if hand or digital, will be readable. So my opponent says that the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate, and then tries to use the cell phone to support his case. The cell phone is relevant in this debate because it effectively removes the ONLY advantage the wrist watch brings to the table - portability. Even if you don't factor in the cell phone and give the wrist watch the advantage of portability, the wrist watch still has so many disadvantages that do more than cancel out its only advantageThe cell phone which my opponent fails to understand does not remove the only advantage to the watch over the wall clock. Advantages The watch has many different designs. The watch is a very popular fashion trend and goes good with formal dressing. Watches come in many different colors and shapes. If you have noticed the watch brings out a huge x factor to your whole look. watches fit almost every occasion, formal, classic, casual. Pros of watches Some can be worn under water Others are shock resistant. Most can produce the specific dateSome can show times world wide, For example some can show the time in New York, while you can be millions of miles away. The stop watch which is a huge advantageSome watches has a light which, of course if you are surrounded by darkness you can turn on the light to see the time. Rarely but surely some watches can make phone calls.
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks

"appearance of a wrist watch does not have to be dorky or excessively bulky, which ever appearance or style suits you. "It doesn't HAVE to be dorky or bulky, but it CAN be. Take a look at this watch - (. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...) Who would wear this? "Most wrist watches are not really expensive there is a variety, like I stated whichever suits you. "Sure you can get a dorky velcro watch for $15 but if you want something stylish with a good brand name, you can end up paying at least $100"Watches do not create, tan lines. there is a huge difference from create than support. Usually you can wear a rubber clip watch which does not cause hand markings. "Ok I don't think you understand my point. Wearing a wrist watch consistently in the sunlight will eventually lead to tan lines. It's like sunglasses. If you wear the same sunglasses consistently outdoors in the sunlight, you will get tan lines on your face from them. "Like stated previously there is different watch clips. rubber, steel, aluminum, act. Outside is one of the main reasons to wear a wrist watch, because there is no wall clocks outside. "All right there are different materials a wrist watch can be made out of. .. .. .. .. .. what point does that prove? Ok you can wear a wrist watch outside. But once again you have a clock on a cell phone that basically everyone carries around with them anyway, making the portability of the wrist watch irrelevant. "There are some digital wacthes which tell the time straight forth without reading the times. "Digital watches display the time in numbers rather than a traditional watch, but reading the watch can still be hard to do when you take into account the size of the watch and the glare caused by the sun. This debate is on the wall clock and wrist watch, the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate. so basically since you stated, "Why use a wrist watch while you can just pull out your cell phone and check the time if you need it? Cell phones do not provide any of the cons a wrist watch does. "Then this also means you could just check your cell phone instead of wall clock. .. point concededSo my opponent says that the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate, and then tries to use the cell phone to support his case. The cell phone is relevant in this debate because it effectively removes the ONLY advantage the wrist watch brings to the table - portability. Even if you don't factor in the cell phone and give the wrist watch the advantage of portability, the wrist watch still has so many disadvantages that do more than cancel out its only advantage. My case has been successfully defended from my opponent's attacks. My opponent will supposedly provide more info in the next round, so I await my opponent.
Wrist wathes are better in general than wall clocks

Regardless lets begin. Counter Examplesappearance of a wrist watch does not have to be dorky or excessively bulky, which ever appearance or style suits you. Most wrist watches are not really expensive there is a variety, like I stated whichever suits you. Watches do not create, tan lines. there is a huge difference from create than support. Usually you can wear a rubber clip watch which does not cause hand markings. Like stated previously there is different watch clips. rubber, steel, aluminum, act. Outside is one of the main reasons to wear a wrist watch, because there is no wall clocks outside. There are some digital wacthes which tell the time straight forth without reading the times. This debate is on the wall clock and wrist watch, the cell phone is irrelevant in this debate. so basically since you stated "Why use a wrist watch while you can just pull out your cell phone and check the time if you need it? Cell phones do not provide any of the cons a wrist watch does. "Then this also means you could just check your cell phone instead of wall clock. .. point concededAll the pionts you have made are disregardedMore indormation in later rounds
Anyone who sings Gucci Gang should be banished

Me? Jealous of Lil Pump’s butt ugly chains? Oh please.His chains are straight fire and you know it. I admit he was probably referring to a woman, not a dog, but either way the lyrics are still disturbing. How does having sex with multiple women make you a ladies man? He doesn’t even remember their names!He has to remember so many other things, thus he sometimes forgets their names. Calm down! Lil Pump lives the fast lifestyle, there is no way he’s going to settle down and marry someone! My problem is that he is such a liar. He says he can’t buy a wedding ring but then he buys a jet?Lil Pump only speaks the truth in his songs. He can't buy a wedding ring because he is to young to settle down with someone. Wow!Anyone who meets Lil Pump will be scarred for life. Just listening to his songs has nearly scarred me. Fortunately, I’ve taken to Nickelback therapy to ease the pain.So your therapy involved listening to the most overrated band of all time? Sad! Lil Pump is 1000x better. If Lil Pump is a nerd, then I am the Queen of France. What rubbish? Comparing him to nerd is an insult. I am offended by your rhetoric once again!Calm down snowflake, you might melt! Lil Pump has hidden money somewhere that he is not revealing. You wait, soon Lil Pump will take over the entire music industry! Lit!This is NOT an example of fair market exchange. What he’s doing is illegal! Capitalism is not about illegal practices. What are you, a dang anarchist?You sound like one of those statists my teacher was telling me about. If so, stop telling Lil Pump what he can and can't sell! Sad!Based on the content of his previous lyrics, it’s pretty obvious that he does not take headache medicine to cure his headaches. The only reason Lil Pump would be taking headache medicine would be to get high which is a waste because he’s taken so many drugs that it probably doesn’t give him a high anymore anyway. Lil Pump does not take drugs, just check his instagram where he said something along the lines of "No drug gang" in one of his most recent posts. No respect for him. Tutory is gross. (Blech).You're just salty. L Again, catchy does not mean good. Would you argue that the Bubonic Plague was good? For anyone? At all?What's that?Stop listening to Gucci Gang. Listen to higher quality artists instead.Are you saying someone else is better than Lil Pump? That is the most offensive thing I've heard in my entire life! Why?! Gucci Gang is not the greatest song ever just because it was remixed. The reason people remixed the song is because it was BAD! It was such a terrible song that they felt the need to change it to try and make it better!No, these artists loved the song and remixed it to bring themselves attention by remixing the greatest song ever. If you like Gucci Gang and Lil Pump, you’re insane. I hope you enjoy outer space. :)I would happily go to outer space if I could listen to Gucci Gang on repeat. Apologies for the short response, I was busy trying to contact Lil Pump while listening to Gucci Gang over and over and over again. Next time I promise I will really lay into this Nickelback bandwagon!!!
Resolved: The United States should take on the debt of the entire world for nothing in return

My numbered points are going to match up with ima's bolded statements from this round. And for all of you wondering what the kryptonite to imabench's trolling is? It's a serious debate. 1. How do we get a clean slate by taking on debt? And how does taking away someone's debt help them to be mindful of their spending? If someone took my credit card debt away I'm going to spend more, not less. They have to learn a lesson by suffering through and solving their own debt problems.Pro dropped all of my points about the financial system gaining no benefit from moving debt from one place to the other. This was a main point and was conceded. 2. We didn't invade Cuba...3. I didn't blame Russia, I just pointed out a fact about their behavior.4. Canada was being used as a staging ground to provoke and attack the US during the late 18th and early 19th century, they were involved.5. The fact we paid the losers of a war anything was generous on it's own and the land is only worth that much more due to inflation.6. You can't prove that the US has "screwed up" more stuff than all of those countries in the past 2000 years. Japan raped Asia alone in WWII and left deep lasting repercussions. Nice try though, no evidence here.7. Our debt seems large but we also have the largest GDP in the world. Our debt is roughly now equal to our GDP when compared on a year by year basis while countries like Japan have debt at 180% GDP. 8. Our government functions it's just not fast or efficient, it was designed to be slow and deliberate in order to promote carefulness and bipartisanship. 9. Wrong, the US tanking and making all that debt vanish with us would cause the geopolitical world to erupt into chaos with possibility of war very large and the financial system would completely collapse leaving us to figure out a new system of salvage the old one. I'd rather take it slowly with a possibility of finding a solution rather than rushing to the end just because we can. That's not a rational action model.10. Boys and girls was my best attempt at being nonserious in a debate.11. Our days are not numbered, there's no actual evidence to support that claim.ConclusionThere's no logical reason why the US should take on the world's debt. Their debt is their responsibility. They have to figure out fiscal lessons just as we do. The financial system would collapse if we did that as debt needs to be paid in order for lending and spending to continue, since we can't pay all the world's debt banks would go under due to the lack of money flow. Our days are not numbered. We don't owe anybody anything. Your case, imabench, was resting before we got started because it's asleep at the wheel.