BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War in Iraq

I told you in my R1 that if he provides no warrant for his arguments, you cannot vote for him, since he has the burden of proof. Let's look at his points. "We need to settle business with the middle east and Iraq. " - He never tells you what exactly this business is. - Or why it needs to be settled. So this point is null. "George H. W. Bush fought them in the Gulf War, and we have yet to settle business. " - He never tells you who "them" is. - Nor did he tell you why George H. W. Bush matters. - And he still doesn't say what the business is. So this point is null. "We took care of Saddam, and now we must help rebuild this tarnished country. " - He never tells you why we must. - He never tells you the significance of Saddam. - Rebuild? We're in there for the FREAKIN OIL. - REBUILDING is not what you do in a WAR. So this point is null. "Giving lives for others is worth it. " - He never tells you why that's true. - He never tells you why this is better than, say, NOT "GIVING AWAY" LIVES AT ALL. - Since when could you "give [away]" a life (I'm assuming we're not talking about sex makes babies here)? It's not like a napkin; life has uncountable value. - Under the point of view that "giving lives for others is worth it", then pretty much ANY AND EVERY WAR is justified, since the government can ALWAYS say "ITS FOR YOUR SAFETY". Well, we saw what went on in Vietnam didn't we? Killed all those Vietnamese and all those Americans for no reason. Safety. People think it's suddenly only an issue that America has to face. The only thing we have to see in Iraq is terrorist cells, and the only thing we're doing by sending troops over there is 1) Killing them, since they'll be under fire by insurgents and terrorists 2) Killing them, since there will be suicide bombers every now and then 3) Killing their lives, since plenty of them come back with PTSD 4) Killing them faster, since high stress levels of knowing you're going to be under fire but unsure of which direction it's going to come from wear out cells faster Oh yes, and to get the oil. The only justification my opponent has provided is that "we have unsettled business". He doesn't tell you what the business is, and he doesn't tell you why we NEED to finish unsettled business. He also doesn't tell you why it's suddenly justified to start "giving lives" for the cause of unsettled business, so he hasn't fulfilled any of the basic burdens of even just making an argument.
Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy

You most certainly used the ad populum fallacy. "If belief in a deity was no different than belief in a tooth fairy, Then there would be far fewer people who believe in deities. " This is your quote in which you quite literally made the claim that god is different from the tooth fairy simply because more people believe in him. The ad populum fallacy is when someone claims something to be validated because of how many people share that belief. So yeah, You did use ad populum. "Definition of evidence : an outward sign : indication : something that furnishes proof : testimony" Thanks for defining evidence for me, I really needed that. Moving on. "There were individuals who wrote different parts of the bible, Were there not? Were parts of the bible not historical writings? Perhaps you consider the bible poor evidence/testimony. But it kind of looks like evidence/testimony none the less. " Right, But you see, I believe that the people who wrote the bible were mentally ill. If someone nowadays went around talking about how they see things that aren't there and talk to magical beings that no one sees but them, We would throw them in a loony bin immediately. Unfortunately, Loony bins weren't a thing back then so we just let these people go around spreading their fairy tales and people were stupid enough to believe it, And thus religion is created. Every person that believed that god was speaking to them while they were writing the bible was crazy. They were completely nuts. That's it. "I don't recall meeting any adults who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. " Right but you know plenty of adults who believe in the magical fairy man who lives in the clouds and grants you wishes or whatever it is you people believe. His name is God and adults all over the world believe in him, And he is basically a glorified tooth fairy. "Do vast numbers of people not believe in deities because they can find evidence for them still? Far more evidence than they find for Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want? " Well, No. That's actually the whole point of this debate. I'm not here to argue about whether or not god exists, I'm just saying that god has no evidence, Much like the tooth fairy. With all the theories of God's creation, You could just as easily say "a wizard did it" and it would make just as much sense.
Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy

Hrm, I don't think I made an ad populum fallacy, But ah well. Definition of evidence : an outward sign : indication : something that furnishes proof : testimony specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter : one who bears witness especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices in evidence : to be seen : conspicuous Definition of testimony : a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official : firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence : an outward sign : an open acknowledgment : a public profession of religious experience : the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law : the ark containing the tablets : a divine decree attested in the Scriptures https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/evidence https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/testimony There were individuals who wrote different parts of the bible, Were there not? Were parts of the bible not historical writings? Perhaps you consider the bible poor evidence/testimony. But it kind of looks like evidence/testimony none the less. I am unfamiliar myself with what types of reasons deists other than Christians have. But perhaps that will be delved into later. I don't recall meeting any adults who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. Well, At least any current time period adults. Then again, I've know a few people here and there to claim to believe in Big Foot. Hmm, Anyway, Do vast numbers of people not believe in deities because they can find evidence for them still? Far more evidence than they find for Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want?
Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy

When I said they are the same thing, I didn't mean in the literal sense. I meant, As far as logic goes, They are no different. The point I made was that they both lack any sort of evidence, Therefore believing in a god is equally as foolish as believing in the tooth fairy. And it doesn't just have to be the tooth fairy, This argument can be made about most anything for which there is no proof. You can say it about Santa Clause, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. Also, Just like a couple people said in the comments, You used an argument known as "ad populum fallacy". Just because more people believe in a god than the tooth fairy, Doesn't make a god any more real or provable.
Yo mama jokes

This is a yo mama jokes! Let's see who's better...Rules-10 jokes per each round. max.1. Yo mamma so fat I took a picture of her last Christmas and its still printing2. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her3. Yo mama is so fat, she got arrested at the airport for ten pounds of crack4. Yo mama so fat she's got more Chins than a Hong Kong phone book.5. Yo mama so fat she wore a yellow raincoat and people yelled Taxi!6. Yo mama so fat you have to grease the door frame and hold a twinkie on the other side just to get her through.7. Yo mama so fat when she wears one of those X jackets, helicopters try to land on her.8. Yo momma is so fat, that when she steps on a scale it says to be continued.9. Your mums so fat she doesn't need the internet; she's already world wide10. Yo mamma so fat she broke your family tree.
Yo mama jokes

Yo mama so bald even a wig wouldn't help! Yo mama's so bald her hair looks like stitches. Yo mama's so bald she curls her hair with rice. yo mommas so bald, we thought the sun was rising when she got up Yo mama so bald, I can tell fortunes on her head. Yo mama so bald, I thought she was Mr. Clean. Yo mama so dumb she got locked in a grocery store and starved! Yo mama so dumb she got hit by a cup and told the police she got mugged Yo mama so dumb she thought a quarterback was an income tax refund. Yo mama so dumb she put lipstick on her forehead, talking about she was trying to makeup her mind.
Yo mama jokes

Yo mamma so fat she breaks crane lift Yo mamma so big when you were born the doctor said were is it Yo mamma is so big shes bigger than the Empire State Building Yo mamma so big that she won 1st in a pig contest Yo mamma so fat that when she fly by plane it can't get off the ground Yo mamma so ugly at her birthday she looked in a mirror and it broke Yo mamma cold she get frost bite just by breatheing Yo mamma so dark the weatherman said we have some dark clouds today Yo mamma is so fat she is use as a blanket Yo mamma is so dumb when they asked her for directions she said which way is down
Yo mama jokes

1. Yo momma so fat when she fell no one laughed but the ground started cracking up2. Yo mamma so fat when she goes swimming the whales start singing We are Family3. Yo momma is so fat that she uses the Great Wall of China wall as a belt4. Yo mama so fat when she burped New Orlean thought Katrina came back to finish the job 5. Yo mama is so ugly that the government moved Halloween to her birthday!6. Yo mama is so ugly that her birth certificate contained an apology letter from the condom factory.7. Yo mama is so dark that when the police shot at her, the bullets came back for flashlights.8. Yo mama is so ugly all the makeup in the world still couldn't get her pretty9. Yo mama is so ugly, even the world's ugliest man laughed at her10. Yo momma is so fat, all the food she bought at the store, she ate it before it ever got home.
Yo mama jokes

ok Yo mamma so fat at the gas station they say fill that tanker Yo mamma so fat when she walk everybody says EARTHQUAKE Yo mamma so fat when she gets in a car it falls through Earth Yo mamma so fat they use her for target practice Yo mamma so fat when she fart she kills 3 million people Yo mamma so fat when she high fives she jiggles Yo mamma so fat if you were an egg shed crush you
Indoctrination and brainwashing are not the same thing.

[1] Indoctrination: teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically. [2] Brainwashing: a form of mind control. As we see in my definitions indoctrination is teaching and brainwashing is mind control. My BoP has been fulfilled. [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... REBUTTAL: As I stated in rules the 2nd round is for cases, but he stated some random thoughts in round 1 hat had nothing to do with the topic. It sadly has been pointed out to me that Con has plagiarized these thoughts from this website: . http://right2think.org.... Plagiarizing is a criminal offence and it is against the debate. org terms and service, it is an extremely serious thing to do.
Indoctrination and brainwashing are not the same thing.

I accept the rules. My argument: In the world today, the relevance of religion to our modern society is a highly debated subject, and one of the most common topics of the subject is that "Should children be indoctrinated". My opinion? In laymen"s terms, no. I think that it is abhorrently wrong that people brainwash children. The reason that children believe in religious views, is that they will believe most things they are told. They don"t make the rather obvious connections between mass killing and being a bad-tempered and indiscriminate ". that any adult would when told the story for the first time. But then we tell children all sorts of preposterous things and they lap them up. There are two very good reasons for this: firstly children don"t have enough experience of life to see how crazy some of the things we tell them are and secondly a capacity to accept to see the other side of the argument.
Indoctrination and brainwashing are not the same thing.

I will be arguing Pro, that indoctrination and brainwashing are not the same thing, con will be arguing that indoctrination and brainwashing are the same thing. This is not a troll debate, no defining terms to change the context of this debate resolution. One forfeit will equal loss of conduct, two will equal 7 point loss. If you need something defined PM me before you accept and I will define it now, if not I will save definitions for second round. *First round is for the acceptance of rules. **Second round I will define words and we will both bring up our cases, no rebuttals. ***Third round rebuttals. ****Forth round over view of case and voting issues. Hope you accept. *^.^*
Donald Trump should be the next US president

Ok so I was in fact not told this by someone else but anyway sorry if this is brief as I am on an IPad. 1. Con then concedes that the database on Muslims is a ridiculous notion. 2.,Con has not provided a source that any of these things has happened much less because of illegal immigrants and has not refutes that it would be a massive waste of tax dollars and he has not stated how Mexico would pay for it. 3. I'm concede this point if con can provide a source to prove ALL of these presidents had no prior political experience. Con has not actually refuted the arguments about separating people from their families and has not provided an argument or a source.
Donald Trump should be the next US president

Okay; pretty solid points but I'm sure if my rebuttal can keep up. 1 - I'll give it to you there, Trump's idea of a Muslim tracking database was absurd, ignorant, misuse of government powers and a violation of equality & liberty 2 - Again, that is Trump's PLAN; Not all of this will come into action when he's elected (Specifically Mexico paying for the borders) But I do agree with Trump on this issue of illegal immigrants from Mexico because they're the biggest nuisance in American history; they destroyed our economy, implanted state socialism, and raised crime, no other group of Immigrants was able to do so 3 - George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln had no prior political experience and they were great presidents, why would Trump not be a great president when those guys were? Please no more emotion based arguments, I can tell you were told this by someone else.
Donald Trump should be the next US president

Ok so on the sources please ignore the ads and comments but anyway here is my argument. 1. Donald Trump would create a database on Muslims in the US similar to nazi Germany. (http://www.nbcnews.com...) and he doesn’t even deny that it would be comparable to Nazi Germany. Also according to your claim he is libertarian. I ask you, since libertarianism supports a small government and doesn’t like government overreach, how does this show libertarianism, it seems closer to fascism. This is also unjustified because Muslims don’t even commit most of the terrorist attacks http://www.thedailybeast.com... 2. Donald Trump wants to make a border fence, make Mexico pay for it (though they wouldn’t as there is no reason to) and deport all illegal immigrants. He says his immigration policy would have prevented 9-11 though it was committed in planes and have no proof of the ability to stop them beforehand. https://www.washingtonpost.com.... Also there are around 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the US (http://www.nytimes.com...), how would he be able to deport them all without deporting legals or native borns, not to mention what would happen to kids that were born to two illegal parents and would have to go to orphanages. Also if one parent was deported that could tear a family apart. Also illegals who have been in the country for years or even decades would be forced back to where they came from. 3. He has no prior political experience and is going to do his reality TV show among some other things mentioned in this source. http://theodysseyonline.com... not to mention he will be busy with his presidency while the apprentice is being done. I will be making more arguments in the next round and I await my opponent’s rebuttals.
Why the New York Yankees will be World Series Champions in 2018

The New York Yankees have just acquired Giancarlo Stanton, the reigning 2017 NL MVP. Stanton hit 59 Homeruns last year, Aaron Judge who is already with the Yankees hit AL leading 52 Homeruns last year. Between these two players they hit a combined 111 Homeruns!!! last year. Then you factor the rest of the team with young stars like Gary Sanchez, Bird, and Gregorious and this team is poised to win it all in 2018. Eat your 2017 Commissioners Trophy Huston Astros because here comes the evil empire, The New York Yankees, in a hitters park like Yankees Stadium, the balls are going to be flying out of there like a launching pad. Stanton and Judge will hit 75 each, not since the days of Maris and Mantle or Gehrig and Ruth will we see such dominance in the Bronx!! Bring it on Red Sox, Astros, Indians, who ever, you will all be crushed hahahahahaha
Prostitution should be legalized in the US

Mikal said in a PM he's conceding the debate because some stuff came up. We'll probably try doing this another time when Mikal's got the time. For now, I'll accept the concession and also just say, after doing the research, I've convinced myself that prostitution should be illegal. I hope you guys are convinced too, because it's one of those issues that's easy to ignore if you haven't done the research. And it's something that's important, because it's easy to talk about in this "academic" setting, but prostitution is real for the women who are prostituted, and legalizing it has real effects on them.
Prostitution should be legalized in the US

This debate is for Four TroubleResolved - Prostitution should be legalized in the USThis is a shared BOPProstitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for moneyLegalized - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.US - United StatesRules1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. No K's of the topic7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions8. The BOP is shared9. First round is acceptance. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. If you find a way to accept the debate without me approving it, you will FF the debate. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire FF of the debate.
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

The instigator is insisting that discussing definitions amounts to semantics, when defining terms is so core to debate that it is the first of the timeless Socratic questions. [1]He continues to assert that it was clear what he was arguing, while providing no support for his definition of "concealed carry handgun laws" and dropping all my analysis. Please flow over my logic, in particular the following:"Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed."I urge you to vote for concealed carry and vote CON.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

"This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. "Au contraire, definitions =/= semantics. Definitions are the framework for this debate, and essentially are what this debate has boiled down to. Furthermore, he says that "other sensible people agree", however, it appears that there are only 2 of these other people. This is not a significant number or a compelling reason to vote PRO. "Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. "And as stated, it was not clear at all. There are good laws and bad laws, restrictive laws and freeing laws. When he says "concealed carry handgun laws" he leaves it up in the air to decide what laws he is talking about, and what they do. "As paradigm lost said:"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued. ""Again, just because there is another DDO user who agrees with the instigator, doesn't mean that "any voter would vote pro. "On the Definition:Throughout, my opponent has not defined "concealed carry handgun laws". I provided a reasonable definition in the 1st round, which he rejected out of hand, labeling it as "semantics". He has dropped my logic and analysis that which demonstrates that any law pertaining to concealed carry must either (a) do nothing, or (b) impose restrictions on concealed carry. Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed. In close, my opponent has accused me of derailing this debate, but he has in reality derailed it from the beginning by picking a resolution that is highly amiguous. He has then proceeded to drop my reasonable definition without proposing an alternative.
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

Let me show a few things. "He [pro] defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate." ~ My opponent This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. As paradigm lost said: "Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued." [1] With this information, any voter would vote pro. Vote PRO, extend arguments. [1] http://www.debate.org...