BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bitchy contest

Okay, this debate shall take place over three rounds for each player. It will start on either the first round (bitchy acceptance) or second round (regular acceptance first round, rule modifications), but if my opponent chooses to start round one, they may not post anything condescending round 4, but may give a conclusion. A forfeiture of round four if my opponent begins round 1 is acceptable, as there is nothing he/she may post of use round 4 anyway. The goal is to be as obnoxious and condescending to the other person as possible. Excessive profanities will result in a forfeiture of the points categories sources and grammar and punctuation, but not arguments. Occasional profanities are acceptable only when the ENHANCE the meaning of their insult. Originality of insults shall not be judged. No sources (unless fake, or further the insult) may be given. No specific information may be requested (or sought) by either party about the other party. Assumptions about the other party may be made from previous posts, or completely fabricated. I understand that this site censors. Therefore starring out letters, replacing 'i' with '!' and 'a' with '@' and upper case 'i' with lower case 'L' will be permitted, and you may not hold it against either side if they do so. My opponent may choose whether he/she wishes to begin the insults round 1.
The Following Character is Immoral and Undeserving of Respect.

I'll keep this short and more or less limit myself to responding to my opponents arguments here: My opponents only refutations of my arguments in the 2nd round are that 1- important doesn't define worth, and 2- importance doesn't mean you deserve respect. My responses are as follows. 1- Throughout the round you'll notice that my opponent favored "dictionary. com" as his source for definitions, so when going into the third round I used the definition of worth from dictionary. com, that being "usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose". It is almost comical that my opponent simply switches sources when it suites him because, no doubt, he checked dictionary. com first and realised that using that definition I was right. Rather than actually reply to my arguments he decided to shift the focus so he didn't have to respond, as he has done this whole round. 2- My opponent made several remarks about being important in a bad way not earning you respect but you'll note that I never manipulated this loophole in the definitions, although I could have. I understand that some important things don't make something deserving of respect, but I only quoted good things when saying the character was important. This argument was simply a generic response which my opponent used to avoid having to reply to my individual responses but unfortunately it was not applicable. In conclusion my opponent has done nothing but shift away from the actual debate and pick on technicalities rather than debate the actual morality of the issue. He has dodged many arguments because of syntax errors and has totally ignored others. In the last round he totally ignored some of my sub points about the correlation of importance and respect. I believe at this point it is obvious that from a moral and ethical point of view he does deserve respect, in some way shape or form, which opposes my opponents suggestion that he deserves no respect at all.
The Following Character is Immoral and Undeserving of Respect.

For the following debates I will use the definition of respect "to refrain from interfering with" from http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] Too assume that said character does not deserve any respect is the epitome of hypocrisy. To say that because one has done bad things to x degree bad things should be done to said person on and infinitely larger degree is to say that thieves should be killed or murderers tortured. I will show through several philosophies why said character does in fact deserve at a bare minimum "some modicum of respect" but first it is necessary to clarify that if one is not given any respect that means everything which could be defined as the antithesis of respect. If absolutely no respect is given that means anything which could be considered disrespectful would be done to said person. These actions would be far worse than the acts of the person himself. By not giving "any modicum of respect" everyone would have to not even in the slightest refrain from interfering with the goings on of said persons life. If people do not refrain at all then it is acceptable to assume that all forms of interference would be used against said person. No living thing, regardless of what it has done deserves some of the things which would be done if the suggested punishment were used. I will now show that even with a philosophy which many people consider rash being used to define appropriate punishment for said character he still deserves some amount of respect. John Locke's philosophy regarding the death penalty states that when one infringes on someone else's right to life, liberty, or to own property they them self give up said right. Throughout history many people have disagreed with this saying that an eye for an eye policy is too rash and unjustifiable. This alone proves that with even the most harsh of accepted punishment policies disapproves of the suggested punishment, which could include unimaginably worse impacts than those of the crimes committed by said man. According to Locke's policy the man deserves the equivalent of what he himself delved out. I will leave it to the judges rationality to understand that these things pale in comparison to other things which could be done. A more commonly accepted policy than the aforementioned is that rather than punishment society should be protected from the individual or the individual should be rehabilitated. I think we can all agree that the person is obviously beyond saving, and protection of society from said person would be as simple as killing him, an act which would not allow the horrible things suggested by my opponent. I have clearly proven that the person does deserve some modicum of respect.
Midna vs Fi

... I do hope you read the debate. This is the 2nd time someone accepted Midna vs Fi, but didn't know what that meant. Rule #2 states "I've decided to argue for Fi winning the battle. The Contender will be arguing for Midna. (If you want to debate for Fi, tell me in the comments before accepting.)". I think my opponent is either conceding Fi's victory, or just likes the character. Again, we're wondering who is more powerful, not which one is a better character. I'll give my opponent a 2nd chance. Tell me how powerful Midna is when you post again. Popular opinion would say Con has the better stance; the more powerful character. So how does Midna even defeat Fi?
Midna vs Fi

Fi. I found Fi to be a likable character, and she comes in handy. But why I don't like Midna as much is that I hated her at the start, and first impressions do kind of hand on to you from time to time. After her Desperate Hour, I began to appreciate her as a character, but not a companion. She's borderline useless and gives the worst advice of the 5 3D companions. Fi, despite being robotic, the scenes with her singing the messages from the goddess are very beautiful. In truth, Midna is my 3r favorite companion, behind Fi, and honestly, Navi. I like Navi's little voice and all, I think Navi's really cute. :)
Midna vs Fi

Light and Dark, tools that were used by Link in order to save Hyrule. But which element is more powerful? Midna, the Twilight Princess, and Fi, the Spirit of the Goddess Sword. Who would win in a fight? Does Light overcome Dark? Or will Twilight prevail? Let's find out.Rules:1) This debate will be about comparing certain stats; Strength, Agility, Durability, Abilities, and Equipment.2) I've decided to argue for Fi winning the battle. The Contender will be arguing for Midna. (If you want to debate for Fi, tell me in the comments before accepting.)3) No arguments from bias (Like if someone said Mario would beat Mega Man because there's so many Mario fanboys). Such arguments will be ignored.4) No new information in the final round, since I'll be unable to repsond to such. Doing so will count as an instant loss.5) Attacks from Hyrule Warriors will be valid. However, mechanics from Hyrule Warriors (Weak Point gauge, Focus Spirit, etc.) will not be valid.6) No outside help. However, if the character is able to summon clones, that is allowed. But no more than 3 clones out at a time.7) The battle will take place in a 100ft x 100ft x 75ft arena, so no homefield advantage is present.8) No trolling of any sort, or you lose. If I notice you either aren't taking the debate seriously, or are doing some bull, I am free to call you out. Ultimately, though, it's the voter's opinion that matters.9) Make sure you want to do the debate when accepting. Running out of time counts as an instant loss. (Because of this rule, you must have completed at least 2 debates in order to accept)10) First round will be confirming your acceptance, and arguments are optional in Round 1. But when posting Round 2, you have to have some kind of argument. (48 hours to post)Stats:These are the stats we're going to discuss in the fight:Strength: How powerful the character is.Agility: How fastand nimble the character is, as well as aerial capabilities.Durability: How much damage the character can take.Abilities: Projectiles, summoning wolf copies, teleporting, etc.Equipment: What equipment the character has, if anything.You can use the first round for acceptance or arguments. With that, let's get into this Death Battle.
Pop should be offered in highschools

The difference between going to Subway and getting pop (I like that. It's kind catchy) and going to school and getting pop is that Subway doesn't preach to you about the dangers of obesity and then sell you soda. While they may try to appeal to a healthy group of people, they never explicitly teach healthy decision making the way a school does. Once again, voting for me does not mean students can't drink pop at school. It just means that the school itself should not be selling it. I'm still allowing the students to bring their own pop. The school sends out the wrong message to students when it sells things that it speaks out against. My opponent never really said what's so bad about having to bring your own soda, so I guess you can vote for me there. Thank you. It's been a fun round!
Pop should be offered in highschools

Yes i understand. Students may interpret the fact that pop is healthy for them because it is offered at school. But, that is no different then going to subway and being offered pop at the same time. What we drink is clearly the choice of the individual not that of who is providing what we wish to recive. If anything unhealthy for you is to be taken because of what older indivduals think maybe the student body should be asked first. Like i've clearly stated, students are aware of what is good for them and what isnt; especially as far as our eating habits are concerned. And as you've complied, students of the age 13 and 14 do attend high school but even the they know whats good for them. Just because they are younger does not make them oblivious to health concerns. We are to make choices based on our own decisions and we are to deal with the outcomes. And this isnt even to mention the fact that there are so many other things proided as well. Such as juice, milk, water, tea, coffee. What we want shouldnt be decided by someone else.
Pop should be offered in highschools

On a side note, 13 and 14 year olds do attend high schools, so if you want a really easy place to vote for me, you can do it there. Second, I never suggest that schools should offer double cheese burgers or fries. I believe that schools should offer the healthy meals that they encourage. It would be hypocritical for schools to criticize a certain style of living and then offer their students the very types of foods that they discourage. While they shouldn't impose their views on students, they shouldn't encourage things that directly contradict the healthy decision making that they teach. For example, if a school discourages cursing but then supports a fan club that allows cursing, they are basically invalidating the very message that they're trying send out. You raise a good point about being doing "half the job", but remember: I do not want to impose viewpoints on others. I just do not think schools should sell things that they speak out against. They should respect the student's ability to evaluate all the information they give them and make a rational choice. However, on the same token, by offering soda, they take out their own point. This makes it easy for a student to cop out of healthy decision making. What we don't want is the mindset of, "If the school sells it, it can't really be that bad for me.
Pop should be offered in highschools

By the age of 15 a student is aware of the circumstances that may attribute to what they eat. Offering soda in school is no different then offering a double cheeseburger meal or fries. Schools already tell students what is good and what isnt. Schools even show video's such as "supersize me" to help us realize the choices we make affect out body and all outcomes of our choices. We should still be free to make them, however we choose. Also, i'd like to point out. You say that students should be allowed to bring it into the school. if pop is banned from being sold at schools they also ban it from boundrys, if schools choose to stop something should they not stop it complety instead of half a job?
Pop should be offered in highschools

High schools should not encourage their students to drink soda. I'm not suggesting that students shouldn't be allowed to bring their own soda if they choose to and I agree that high schoolers can make their own choices. However, when high schools offer their students soda, they encourage a style of living that we are trying to move away from as a whole. Caffeine addiction and obesity are two major problems that affect teenagers today, so by offering soda, the school simply makes it easier to obtain access to a product that can lead to either of those two problems. There are no benefits to the school itself offering the students the soda.
Liberalism Or Conversativism: The Future

I am assuming this round is simply acceptance, so I will wait to explain my arguments. I would consider myself far right, bordering on libertarian. I am conservative both fiscally and socially, so I should be qualified to defend the conservative perspective, although I do not speak for all conservatives. I generally believe conservatism is both a more moral system, and a more practical solution fiscally and socially. In order to give you a platform to debate, I will list some of my beliefs. Extremely small government No subsidies for businesses Reduced (but not eliminated) welfare Low taxes (both corporate and individual; for rich and poor people) Reduced regulations No redistribution of wealth Privatization of education Privatization of healthcare No government scholarships Free speech Possession, concealed carry, and open carry of guns (including assault rifles) Freedom for business (up to and including the abominable freedom to refuse service for any reason) No abortions End of gay marriage (by getting government out of marriage entirely) End of "social justice" Equality of opportunity for all people regardless of race, religion, gender, or orientation A secure boarder (including, but not limited to a wall or fence) Feel free to pick any of the above topics to tear apart or we could additionally talk about the underlying themes of conservatism vs liberalism such as freedom of opportunity vs freedom of outcome, or a small government vs a large one. Also, when you defend your position, please elaborate on how liberal you are.
Two Equals One

Seems like one of those mathematical anomalies that people tend to bring up every so often. You can try to prove something. It doesn't mean it's right. In 1984, they say that 2+2=5, but that's wrong. Math is a very rigid art, sir. You can't break it, no matter how hard you try. With math, there can be no error. I'll try to dissect your formula. I assume those carrots mean exponents. First, I suggest you specify what the variables a and b represent. You really shouldn't have made this only one round, sir. You might think you're a hot shot at algebra, but I'm good at algebra myself. I suggest our next debate be a math debate too. I like math. Your formula seems like a bunch of scribbles, but you never include the numbers one or two, only the variables a and b. Can you tell me what a and b represent? They have to MEAN something. Your proof is sorta all over the place. You're trying to prove something impossible, sir. Just tell me what those two variables represent in the comment section, and I'll plug them in and see if the formula works. Even if the formula does work, you've just discovered some sort of algebraic anomaly, it does not mean that two equals one.
Two Equals One

Look: 2 = 1, and I can prove it: Let a=b. a^2 = ab a^2-b^2=ab - b^2 (a+b)(a-b)= b(a-b) Dividing each side by a-b, we get (a+b) = b But since a=b... b+b=b 2b=b Dividing each side by b, we get 2=1.
Co- Ed Professional Teams

Like I said before, I don't mean to be sexist. But there are lots of disadvantages out on the field...... Some teams have a hard time finding the required number of players from the opposite sex to be on the field and end up loosing the game by default because of that. When Co-ed teams don"t have enough players of a specific sex to rotate from, the few players available are obliged to play a lot and are sometimes very tired by the end of the game and the team in question suffers from that. Most men who are usually faster and stronger than women can be frustrated to slow down when they face women and end up not enjoying and expressing themselves fully. Some women can be frustrated for not being taken seriously during the game by some men who are afraid to hurt them or overpower them. The fact that Co-ed players try to be gentle to each other can affect the game in a negative way and some players might end up not enjoying the game as they would love to. Injuries that occur between weaker and stronger players from opposite sex can be dangerous. The potential attraction from players of opposite sex can sometimes create conflicts and jealousy from other players that can affect the game negatively So, we also already have different teams. Why can't we just stick with that?
moronogles

If reality is absolute then al least one side of any possibility is absolute truth, so not the entire possibility is false. "Those tests and observations are done by others" This is sometimes, but not always, true. When it is true you can repeat these tests yourself. For example, if I say that touching boiling water causes burns I can test this by heating water until it begins to boil, touching it, observing whether I am burned as a result, and making a prediction based on these observations. . On your end, if you do not believe I really did this test or you believe that I lied about the results then you can repeat the test for yourself (I highly suggest you don't). If you get the same results you know my conclusion was valid. Belief = possibility = testable Observation = Physical experience
moronogles

Possibility has at least two sides, yes. We can hypothesize (not predict) which side is true. Then tests and observation of results tells us if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. That is how the scientific method works. If you touch a hot cup then you know the cup is hot (observation) If you know the cup is hot then I don't know if the cup is hot is false. Observation makes I don't know false for whatever you observe. You can believe more than what others tell you. If you see a yellow banana you believe it is yellow without anyone telling you. Your reason for believing this is that you see it (observation). If the astronomers observations are consistent then the scientific method can be applied as described above.
moronogles

I have not proposed to test a belief with a belief, I have proposed testing a belief with the scientific method. Ah, but why trust the scientific method? Belief=Random=cannot trust. Random chance < scientific method Therefore, Scientific method = can trust In other words, the scientific method has provided predictions in the past. These predictions have matched observations more often than random chance would suggest, so we know from these observations that the scientific method is a useful basis for determining truth. Observation = Truth = 1. Do you agree?
moronogles

A blind man can test scientifically to know that there is light. One way this is possible is to use a device similar to a light powered calculator that beeps when buttons are pressed. If he hears beeps when he presses the buttons, he knows he is in a room with light. As for the banana man, he is blind in a dark room and believes there is light, but refuses to press the button to test his beliefs (metaphorically speaking).
Mario is un-Buddhist

Before getting into my refutation, I must know how well the Con is versed in the lore of Mario. I do not need to know too much, just a few facts. Have you played Mario games on the following systems (list all that apply please): NES GAMEBOY SUPER NES SEGA GENESIS GAME GEAR NINTENDO 64 SEGA SATURN GAME BOY ADVANCE GAMECUBE SEGA DREAM CAST X-BOX SEGA LEVITICUS WII WOO-WII WII-U SEGA CORINTHIANS VIRTUAL BOY (extra points for this one) No need to list individual games. The reason I ask is because Mario has indeed become more Buddhist over the years, and I fear unless one has a grasp of Mario in his early days, it may skew perception. Often times people settle down as they get older, like Jack Nicholson. Now to address the Con's rebuttal: 1. The Con writes "It has never been confirmed that Mario is a Buddhist!" To this I reply, Mario is both a Japanese national and a plumber, though of Sicilian ancestry. Therefore, he is either Buddhist, Catholic, or a Catholic-Buddhist. The Con must concede this point, and note that all my arguments against Mario Buddhisticity can also be lodged against his Catholicism (didn't see that one comeing, did you?!) 2. The Con writes, "It is said that gaming makes us curious, energized, focused and optimistic, all of which are similar to the virtues we (as Buddhists) associate with being enlightened, and enlightenment. And super Mario, in a way, guides us with these virtues, and could help us find enlightenment." I must say I did not consider this angle. However, the Con is ignoring the frustration that results from playing games in the Mario franchise. To cite a personal example, here are my normal symptoms during a game of the Mario franchise: I. Swearing II. Cursing III. Condemn all of existence IV. Blaspheme the Norse Gods V. Generalizing all of Japan, Italy and Norway as "buffoons" VI. Blame Obama VII. Hit myself VIII. Hit others VIIII. Break costly items VIIIII. Lose sleep VIIIIII. Lose integrity VIIIIIII. Lose my emotional center VIIIIIIII. Insult Mario (even if I am playing as a different character) The Con, I hope, is not seriously suggesting that these are beneficial to Buddhist practices, are they? And if this is true of most Mario-franchise-afficianados, I would say that Mario does more harm than good, as a whole, which is clearly against the words of Buddha. But I must ask the Con to also address the points I raised in my initial argument: a. Do you agree that Mario's typical Sicilian penchant for violent outbursts demonstrates a lack of Buddhist equanimity? b. Do you agree that Mario's typical Sicilian use of the black arts is contrary to the Buddhist faith? c. Do you agree that Mario's typical Sicilian creationist stance clearly denies the Buddhist tenant of universal evolution? d. Do you agree that Bob Hoskins played Mario in Super Mario Bros (1993)? 9. Do you agree that Val Kilmer has plumped up a bit? I will await your reponse on this, but I must point out that if the assertions I am making are correct, then would this not outweigh the curiosity, energy, focus and optimism that Buddhist enlightenment bestows? http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...