BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever.

Look like you gave me seven reasons and I'm going to do my best to disprove each of them. Quoted from your round two. "1) She accepted me for who I was on the inside. She didn't try to avoid me because of my disability. 2) She and I both think Taylor's a dumbass 3) She didn't try to avoid me when I told her how much I liked her (which I appreciate by the way Carli :P) 4) She's a very smart girl who sometimes confuses me with her vocabulary usage. 5) She totally OWNED draxxt 6) She knows all the words to the Time Warp 7) And because I love her <3" 1) You never told us your disability. Carli does not always accept people who they are on in the inside. Maybe to you, but not everybody else. 2) "Taylor" is a person, place, building name, college name? There is a Taylor University www.taylor.edu/ Also, there's a city name Taylor, www.cityoftaylor.com/ Again, not everybody on here know who is Taylor and why he is "dumb@$$" Define of that term is: a stupid person; these words are used to express a low opinion of someone's intelligence http://wordnet.princeton.edu... 3) From what I heard, a lot of people who does like her, she's just does not like the person back. If she does not like you back, that would mean she's not an amazing person because she dislike you. 4) She may be a smart girl, but she's always try to make other people confusing about everything. It's called reverse-psychology. That is not always mean the person is smart, she just plays with people words. 5) I would say she did not OWNED draxxt, as you see the other debate between both of them. SexyCracker lost and draxxt has the higher rate of won compare to lost. Define for "OWNED" - Person who has show ownership to any objects. Therefore, Carli could not owned draxxt. She may have beat draxxt, but does not mean she owned him. 6) She may know all the words to Time Warp from "Rocky Horror Picture Show" but you did not say it was from the movie. It could be scientific things called "Time Warp" which we all know it's not real thing. Also, people know the whole song by a singer but that does not mean the person is amazing just because that person know the whole lyrics of it. 7) You may love her for whatever reason, but does she really love you? Does anybody else loves her because she knows time warp lyrics, play "Reverse-Psychology" with people. I would doubt that Carli is the most amazing person.
Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever.

I believe SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever because: 1) She accepted me for who I was on the inside. She didn't try to avoid me because of my disability. 2) She and I both think Taylor's a dumbass 3) She didn't try to avoid me when I told her how much I liked her (which I appreciate by the way Carli :P) 4) She's a very smart girl who sometimes confuses me with her vocabulary usage. 5) She totally OWNED draxxt 6) She knows all the words to the Time Warp 7) And because I love her <3 I dare you to try to disprove me.
Science Vs. Religion

You made the statement, now prove it. Prove that man just poofed into existence. Prove that a supernatural entity poofed all of man into existence.Even if this was the case, it would be a completely useless argument.The argument isn't "did god come first or tools/science". The argument is whether or not RELIGION came first.Religion isn't the existence of absence of existence of a deity. It is the existence of a BELIEF:These are definitions of RELIGION (from Bing):beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human lifesystem: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divinepersonal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives byHere's the Meriam Webster Definition::the belief in a god or in a group of gods: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupIn short, my esteemed opponent is choosing to be wilfully ignorant of the topic at hand, and is consistenly moving the target up and down in order to make his argument more palatable. I believe that even though his original premise was vague, by the 2nd round we had settled on "Science vs. Religion", and not "Science vs. God". He introduced some weird version of a timeline (in about 2 sentences, with no supporting evidence whatsoever), followed by a "thank you and goodnite".Unfortunately for my opponent, none of this is true. We're not here debating metaphysical half-truths and beliefs. We're here debating THE TRUTH. The truth is that people evolved from animals. We inherited our traits from our ancestors, including the ability to utilize tools. There is no indication whatsoever, in all of science, that we grew our brains and hands out of a need for religion, but rather from a need to utilize tools and survive in our changing environments. There is not even a single argument in all of CREATIONISM (!!!!) which would support my opponent's assertions.If my opponent would like to devolve this debate into a "creationist" debate, he should have been honest and plastered his Hovind/Cameron/Bananaman apologism all over the first round so that debaters could have avoided his nonsense. He had plenty of opportunities to do so, but I can see the beginnings of "let's all talk about the Ark" and "Ice asteroids falling from the sky to create floods and ice ages". If you would like me to dissect that stuff, we can go there. I can easily destroy those arguments merely from rote memory - I won't even have to google the arguments (they are THAT sublimely stupid). But hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess.Again: You're moving the target. The issue, WHICH YOU WROTE DOWN, was religion. NOT GOD.
Science Vs. Religion

Before there was religion, what was there? O yes - there were cavemen who put fur skins on their privates (and everything else), rubbed a few sticks together to make fire, and domesticated dogs and cattle in between hunting them with simple tools and weapons. Or in other words: They created science. Then, a few hundred thousand/million years later, when religion finally came along, they wrote down their religious beliefs on stone tablets using WRITTEN LANGUAGE and STONE TABLET TECHNOLOGY. Later, after they killed their donkeys because the poor things couldn't keep up with the 5,000 stone tablets (which weighed like 500 lbs each), they invented paper and scrolls. And then they switched to PAPER AND PEN TECHNOLOGY. Again, none of it the precursor of religion. There simply is no evidence, of any kind, that our caveman ancestors had any preexisting religious beliefs. All that came later, i.e. perhaps once they stopped staring into the woodline to see if a deadly bear was going to eat them; Once they had time look into the sky and see the stars, perhaps then they began to wonder. But clearly, no primates other than man have religious views. Since we descended from a common primate approx 22 million years ago, it only follows that our use of tools came first (even great apes use tools, and they don't have any religious beliefs either). So it's really not a question of "tools or religion first" - it was clearly tools, and therefore SCIENCE. What else do you have?
High school students should wear uniforms.

For this debate, I will argue for a school uniform, although I do not necessarily support it. Your main argument is that clothing is a way of showing creativity, and expressing one's self, which is hard to argue against. However, a school is a learning environment created for everyone to have a safe and positive experience, and as uncertain as it may sound at first, personalized clothing can be a opposition to this. First of all, bullying may occur as less well-off students may be harassed for their clothing, if it does not fit the modern "style". Second of all, some clothing may be considered indecent, and to put a strict line to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable clothing is difficult, and their will always be loopholes. To address your concern about school spirit, the uniform may be democratically "elected", or voted upon by a mix of students, teachers, and parents, to create the perfect costume representing the school in a mature, and fashionable way. I can understand concerns about the censorship of creativity by enforcing uniforms, but the voting should take care of them.
High school students should wear uniforms.

I am arguing that students should not be forced to wear uniforms in school. First, if students have to wear the same thing as everyone else, then there is no way to express your personality. Your clothes are a way to show who you are to others. Next, this would be another thing to buy. People will say that you will not have to buy as many outfits, but although you do not wear these clothes to school, you still need clothes to wear around town and at home. You buy clothes as it is, so why not get more use out them before you outgrow them. You will never wear your uniform after you're done with school, so why not pay for clothes that you can re wear over sand over again. Also, some people may feel restricted and uncomfortable in these outfits that they are forced into. Everyone has a different body shape and type. Why should we force everyone to look and dress the same? Some people also say that clothes can distract students from learning, but if they are uncomfortable in the uniforms, they will not learn. We should allow student to dress in clothes that they are comfortable in. Lastly, I believe that it can draw away from school spirit. If you have to wear uniforms, you cannot wear a specific outfit with your sports team. You do not have the option to show team spirit when you are forced to wear the same outfit as everyone else. I believe that there are some pros to having uniforms, but the cons outweigh them. Your clothing is a way to express yourself and is a freedom that should not be taken away from you.
Gun Rights

I believe you read the title of the article wrong. Https://www. Nbcnews. Com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441 (the same one you used in your argument) says that 80% were obtained LEGALLY, Not illegally. You actually gave some good evidence against your side, And causing me to question how accurate your research is. That being said, I still want to address the other points you made. While the black market would increase if assault weapons were banned, It would not make up for the lack of deaths based on the the new laws. If 80% were legally obtained, There's no way the black market would account for that number. As for the Grandma thing, I'll tell you this: While she would probably not be as safe without an assault rifle, The overall number of deaths would go down. It's not as easy to get illegal stuff as some might think. Also, You stated that people will go higher than the speed limit at varying degrees. But people will still (on average) go slower on a 55 than a 65. They might all speed, But may go 70 instead of 80. Just realize that this argument is about averages. Nothing's going to take away murder, But taking away certain guns is definitely a good start.
Gun Rights

Thank you! For the statistic on mass murders, I am not sure how accurate that is, But there is an opposing startling statistic, Where more than 80% of the items used in mass shootings were obtained illegally. The following is an article, But you are free to explore the statistics in the report. Https://www. Nbcnews. Com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441 This is what I mean by the left trying to advocate for something to be illegal that is already pronounced illegal. There are other, More viable and less drastic solutions, As I have mentioned in the above argument, Including strengthening school security. Also, Let me give an analogy. I am from New Jersey, And state law says that the miles per hour on a highway to be 55 mph. This is already a set law. Yet, People still go over the limit, With cases to do so widely varying. Further, These same folks are the ones that die from car crashes. As a result, "There had been 628 traffic fatalities in New Jersey in 2017 and still rising " the most since 2007 and on pace to finish the year with nearly 100 more deaths than at the recent low point in 2013, When fatalities had dipped to the lowest mark in 91 years", According to http://nj1015. Com/nj-roads-getting-deadlier-traffic-deaths-at-highest-level-in-10-years/. Also, I would like to argue about people defending themselves. I would like to argue that assault rifles, Among others, Are in fact necessary. If you are suggesting that a grandmother with two of her young grandchildren are watching TV at home while three men burglar said home and that this grandmother is well defended enough by a pistol, I find the likelihood of survival here to be minimal. Especially if one is living in Chicago or Detroit. Some kids' parents need that to protect themselves from folks with bad intentions. If you take away guns, You are taking it away from the people that really need it. The people that use it for killing and only killing and not protecting will still be able to get these firearms, As there has been no statistical or comparative evidence that banning guns would do so. Black Market revenue would skyrocket, Which would be terrible considering the fact that more deadly weapons, Hence its place in the black market, Would be found here. I would rather be well secured in my home choosing a rifle over a pistol to protect my loved ones.
Gun Rights

Thank you for being willing to have a reasonable debate with me. I must say, Your arguments made much more sense than most people I talk to about this issue. Anyway, I would like to challenge your credibility when you previously said, "In most cases of shootings we have seen so far, These items are already deemed as illegal. " According to https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/ 72 out of the 100 mass shootings since 1982 were with legally obtained firearms. You also stated that I am trying to make something illegal that is already illegal. I don't understand what you're saying here, So if you could elaborate that would help. As for the examples of Europe (which is a continent not a country by the way) banning guns, I agree that an instant ban would not have a positive effect. The first step is to ban possession of assault rifles. These are only made for killing purposes. While some criminals would get there hands on them in the black market, The numbers would be significantly lower. As for innocent people defending themselves, A regular gun should be enough. No human being needs something capable of spraying two rounds a second.
Gun Rights

Hello! Fellow Conservative Teenager here! Thanks for the debate and also the open-mindedness you seem to have. Anyways, There are some things I want to clear in the air. I, As a conservative, Am also tired of children, As well as adults, Who have gotten killed by a firearm. Yes, These accounts are hard to digest indeed. But let me offer some perspective. I want change to occur as well, But not in the way that most leftists are arguing for. Many want to ban guns completely, Most want to impose restrictions on guns. But, In most cases of the shootings that we have seen so far, These items are already deemed as illegal. Weaponry of that destruction requires high license authority, But most people still get their hands on them. Through the Black Market and Backdoor cuts. If I were to tell you to walk up to a gun shop owner right now and ask for an AK-47, They wouldn't let you obtain it unless you had the license to do so. Folks like Nik Cruz do not have this license, And so do many other gunmen that we have all seen on media. But how they obtain those firearms is through an illegal route--not the common "gun shops sell guns to bad people" stereotype. Put yourself in the shoes of the gun shop owner, Why would you risk your life to sell a gun to someone who walked into your store, Risking crimes for conspiracy, Among many others. Also, Just like any other business, Gun shop owners have the right to deny service, And this does actually happen a multitude of times. The left is arguing to make something illegal that is already illegal, Which does not make any sense at all. Also, There were cases in multiple countries, Including Europe, Who faced a similar issue. The government decided to ban guns, An impulsive reaction if you will. The results were surprising to their opinion. Gun-related crime rates rose higher and murders increased after the legislation was passed and the ban was lifted. I also have other arguments, But I will save it for later. As a conservative, I want armed guards in schools and metal detectors in the front doors. School policy ID should be reinforced, And the standard procedure of preparing for these instances must be increased and often practiced.
Gun Rights

I will start by countering what all pro-gun rights people say: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. " I understand that it takes a person to pull the trigger, But where are we if there is no trigger to be pulled? Yes, There are ways to kill besides guns, But without them the task would be a lot harder. Of course, Many will say that criminals will get there hands on guns, Just as they do other illegal things. However, I'm not suggesting that taking away guns will fix the problem, I'm just saying that it will help. It seems like a tough case to say that more people would be murdered without guns than with. Keep in mind that firearms are made for one purpose: to kill and injure.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

If you are unhappy, so is everyone? Hopefully not! I already talked about this. Selfishness. "If your ex cares about you being happy, it should make her happy. If not, she is not perfect for you?" Really? That's the best you got? No wonder the divorce rate is at 50%! If my wife doesn't like everything I like (not that I'm married) then she's not "perfect" for me. If she doesn't like baseball, then, well, on to the next girl. No matter that she's got a charming personality, beauty, a great character, and likes just about everything else I'm interested in. How about this? If you actually care about your wife (or ex, but saying ex implies the relationship is over) then how about you do what makes her happy instead of just doing what makes you happy and expecting her to agree with you? Goodness. You're expecting the other person to do precisely what you're not prepared to do. Love is about giving and caring, not just about getting. Why would you call me ma'am? Actually, I don't want to know.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

I do all that and Pro just says "say you are unhappy . . . that would make your wife unhappy." That's it? Yes, possibly, but as I pointed out that is not always the case. Anyway, if you really love someone you should do what will benefit him/her rather than what will benefit you with the rationalization that since you are happy the other person will be too. Example: My X hates baseball. I love baseball (not really). I watch baseball because it makes me happy but at the same time I make X unhappy. If I care more about X's happiness than about mine I will switch off the baseball. If I don't, I'll keep watching. The latter is called SELFISHNESS, caring more about your own happiness than that of anyone else. You say: Worry about your own happiness and the other person's happiness will take care of itself. I say: Worry about the other person's happiness and your own happiness will take care of itself. You see, love is all about caring for others. Without love (and, incidentally, God) life is meaningless, or at least depressing. In fact, if you really love someone, doing what they want rather than what you want will be really what you want to do, because you love them so much. Love is not about getting what you can. It is about giving what you can.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

Well that is a good point, but say you are unhappy, over a job, horrible sex, ect. That would make your wife unhappy. So,both are dependant on each other. Love and sex are not the same. Sex usually requires love, but love does not necessarily include sex. I love my gf/bf/other, but i dont have to have sex with them (yes im bisexual,not the debate topic,moving on) and the no one refers to everybody in the relationship.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

I'm probably wasting my afternoon on DDO, but let me post this and then I'll stop!! Maybe. All Pro says (for argument) is: "Firstly, In any relationship, the other persons [sic] happiness is important, because their happiness relies on your happiness,and vice versa. So if you aren't happy, no one is happy. Your move(that is the center of my thought)" Okay. So if I am married, my happiness depends on my wife's happiness? | | | | | | I hope you've thought a little about that. Some arguments don't have to be refuted, they just have to be stated. But, if you still don't get it, I'll refute anyway. Relationships are centered around love. Love as in affection and caring for the other person, not as in sex. If you love that person, you should care about him/her and do what will make him/her happy or what will most benefit him/her. Why? Because what will make YOU happy won't always make the other happy, and what will benefit You won't always benefit him/her. If a husband has an adulterous affair, will that make him happy? Yes. Will it make the wife happy? No. But why not? If the husband is happy the wife will also be happy, right? Nope. The wife wants the husband to be faithful to her. She doesn't want him to be extra "happy" if that "happiness" is at her expense. Doing what will make YOU happy, regardless of the consequences, is stupid selfishness. Doing what will make your wife/friend/neighbor happy, presuming it benefits them, is love, sacrificial love if it doesn't benefit you. "If you aren't happy no one is?" Not. The world does not revolve around you or me, or him or her. If I make myself "unhappy" by paying what I owe to my creditor, he/she will probably be happy. That's just one example. Pro, you need to learn that love is not just about making you feel better. It is about caring for others.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

The debate was about whose happiness was more important, yours or X's. To state that your happiness is more important because you being happy would make X happy would imply that X's happiness truly is more important. Anyway, I've already proven that your happiness doesn't always carry over to X's happiness, so the point is invalid. Instead of worrying about keeping yourself happy so X will be happy, it is more logical to just worry about keeping X happy, and, since you love her so much, keeping X happy will keep you happy. Again, thinking your own happiness is the most important thing is selfishness, which isn't great for relationships. I hope it is obvious who won this debate.
In a relationship, your happiness is most important

I believe i may have strayed back away from my point. Calling someone ma`am shows humiliation, but not the point. If one person is unhappy, in a real relationship with empathetic connection, one persons happiness helps the other be happy, that was the point my argument was built around and unless you disarm it, it is still intact. If you are unhappy, in a relationship,it shows,adding stress to the others in your relationship, so if you keep yourself happy, it contributes to their happiness, and your relationship problem was hypothetical. This would be a point to deploy your Bible. Thank you for the lovely debate,it has been an honor.