BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

Jepther Morris Con argument in support of Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. This argument tries to prove that the contract signed between Williams and Walker-Thomas was not unconscionable. 1. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company is a leasing operation of furniture and other household equipment in the District of Columbia. (511.1.1) 2. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store rent to own Furniture items to Williams as a regular customer over the past 5 years. (511.1.3) 3. The furniture company clearly stated in contract that the title would be transferred to the buyer when the cost of the items was paid for. (511.1.4) 4. The contract stated that in case of default on any of the payments the company could repossess the furniture. (511.1.5) 5. Williams did default on her payments, thus it was lawful for the Furniture Company to repossess the items. (511.3.4) 6. The Walker-Thomas Furniture Company sold Williams a stereo system at competitive rates. (512.1.70) 7. Because of the nature of the furniture business and the ability of its products to depreciate quickly, the furniture company had to repossess previously bought items on default in order to remain viable. (511.3.4) 8. The Furniture Company was not responsible for the fact that the appellant had to support seven children. (512.1.7) 9. The Furniture Company took great risks in leasing items; therefore the company had to protect its investment. (513.6.5) 10. Therefore from the above stated premises the contract was not unconscionable and the court should make a ruling in favor of the Furniture Company. (513.5.) The agreement entered into by the Walker-Thomas Company and Williams was based on mutual understanding of the rules laid out in the contract. At no time did the parties express any dissatisfaction with the wording. Williams had been doing business with the company for over five years, therefore she knew what to expect. The company had to charge competitive rates on furniture as it could depreciate quickly in value. In addition the company is in the business of making profits and as such would not turn away customers. The contract was entered into by two willing partners who both benefitted from the transaction. This contract was not unconscionable as the furniture company did not use any form of misrepresentation or duress in order to gain the appellant`s business.
Please give me assistance

People have mistaken that religion and science is mutually exclusive. God has created this reality under a law of physics. Our information is limited to what we can perceive. My theorem is both the love of God and of the purest logic. If you wish to assist me, then go and bring others. Bring the people to me who will do those feats and we will start building. Know this that I am not only starting a new religion which is very similar to Neo-orthodoxy, but a movement as well. We shall be called Neo-Christians. Find the leaders the of this movement and tell them I have come.
Please give me assistance

I'm still learning how to code and stuff. I'll give you tips, but I probably won't do work (I'm bad at work). But I'm worried as to what you mean by "God's way". And you might be mistaken in a few other parts.You merely said "assistance", I didn't think I'd have to do work (well, maybe I should've). Getting help online is easy, though some people may not take things as seriously. I'll help where I can.You did say "I need people to believe that I do want what's for Humanity even if they can't understand my reasons. I need for all of my arguments to be passed on and discussed which will in turn open peoples hearts to the possibility that we no longer need to think about race or sex or sexuality.", and I'll help you this way, since I'm good at teaching. However, I can't teach what I don't know. Tell me your opinions and reasoning, and I could make debates on them.And how does ego get in the way of Christ? Sorry, I'm not too informed."We are on the brink of over populating and you create the argument that we need to procreate." While I disagree that we should stop populating completely, we can control the human population to around 7 billion. Overpopulation seems to be a problem, so just control the population. Don't let humanity exceed what it can hold.After this debate ends, I'll see about spreading your arguments. Am I still missing something?
Please give me assistance

Ok, either you have no intention of helping me or you're mistaken about a few things. It's faster if someone else creates the website, I didn't bother learning code or even setting up a facebook account( yes I do have one, but no, I don't know what I'm doing. I am aware that there are Christians, but what you are unaware is that Man's ego gets in the way of what christ really wants. Most Christians are right wing, which I disagree with wholeheartedly on their moral stances(homosexuality for one). I am going to create new moral rules, just like Jesus did, to conform to this time period. We are on the brink of over populating and you create the argument that we need to procreate. I have been trying for you to see myself as a prophet that was foretold in Revelations. All this stuff is about to hit the fan and you are still fixated on thinking that Humanity's debt will never default. Wow, guys, Jesus was right about you, you won't listen to your prophets. You guys don't even see that this happens every time one of us comes. Your hearts are so stubborn. Fine, I'll do it God's way. I'm now taking authority.
Please give me assistance

You could start a campain by creating a forum on this site. You can create a forum that shows your plans for the future. Or you can make your own website. There's quite a few webpage building sites, like wix.com.I guess I could help further with organization. You could make documents on your computer as well, including folders to put things in (Right Click on desktop background -> New -> Word Document, Notepad, or Folder).Also, you aren't the only Christian. Search online and get more people to help you. However, on debate.org, we don't accept arguments without looking for flaws. That's what debate is.Race isn't important. Sex is required for humanity to populate, therefore keep our species going. I'd suggest keeping our species.I'd also recommend playing Pokemon. It's a great video game series. (Bringing this up because why not? 3 more rounds to go.)
Please give me assistance

I need a website to represent me in addition to creating a wallet. I need a forum that talks about how we are destroying this planet, examples would include, climate change, over population, famine(watch food Inc), things that will cause a lot of problems for the general population of humanity. I also need people to clear up my theorems, not change anything, just organize, I am working on other things and it doesn't seem like there is enough time in the day. I need people to believe that I do want what's for Humanity even if they can't understand my reasons. I need for all of my arguments to be passed on and discussed which will in turn open peoples hearts to the possibility that we no longer need to think about race or sex or sexuality. If you have any suggestions how to get all of this, I am more than willing to hear it. I might have morality figured out, but i'm still taking this one step at a time. And there are so many steps to go
Please give me assistance

This is an argument proposing that if you believe the words I speak are true then I wish for your assistance. Just as the church or government needs resources, so do I. I didn't want to ask this because all I will hear is"so his true colors come out." Anyone is free to prove me wrong, but if you speak against it without doing so then I will eviscerate you for your ignorance. I say that it is a coward who accuses without substance. Do not be foolish enough to try me you hypocrites! I'll take whatever you WANT to give. I can no longer work with people in a job. I will always know what they do wrong, i will always know their thoughts and I will always be scorned for it. Most people are afraid of the truth, I'm asking those who are brave enough to help me. Please help me. These are all the debates I've had to prove my worthiness. Believe we can finally change the world now. Remember I'm autistic, so I will only speak in truth. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Matthew 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.[a] 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don"t follow their example. For they don"t practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. 5 "Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels.[b] 6 And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. 7 They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called "Rabbi."[c] 8 "Don"t let anyone call you "Rabbi," for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.[d] 9 And don"t address anyone here on earth as "Father," for only God in heaven is your Father. 10 And don"t let anyone call you "Teacher," for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be a servant. 12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. 13 "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people"s faces. You won"t go in yourselves, and you don"t let others enter either.[e] 15 "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell[f] you yourselves are!
Please give me assistance

I looked up if Neo-Christianity is an actual thing, and it appears to be another way of saying "Rationalism", which is using logic as grounds for belief.Anyways, not many have visited my forum posts. I don't think the word will spread that quickly... God will need to wait a few weeks. But I do want to know everything you believe in, why you believe in them, and I'll create debates about those. Post your teachings in the 5th round, and I'll create arguments for them.
All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

Ok then. Now, for my arguments. I negate the resolution that states that all members of debate. org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. 1. Due to the format of Debate. org votes, such a proposition would be ineffective and time consuming As stated in the first round: RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made. Now, lets observe the format of a debate. org vote. A vote is worth 6 points I believe. Each point is awarded based on the following criteria: 1. Who did you agree with before the debate? 2. Who did you agree with after the debate? 3. Who had better conduct? 4. Who had better spelling and grammar? 5. Who made more convincing arguments? 6. Who used the most reliable sources? So, the affirmative's plan is to propose that every member of Debate. org evaluates why they awarded points to either side. To my understanding in fact, they must justify ALL their votes lest they be illegit. Yet, what if both sides had perfect spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct? Unable to award a point to either side, the voters would be forced to award ties to all of those points, and their vote would count for little to no points. Also, biased points will still be inevitably awarded due to the first criteria, so how would evaluating a biased decision help the debaters improve? What does all of this solve? 2. The resolution is unfair and cannot be enforced. Such a proposition violates the privacy of voters since it will openly expose their votes and is therefore an insult to the idea of democracy. This can influence votes as well. Since all my friends voted for affirmative and I want to fit in with all my friends, I will probably vote affirmative, even though I wanted to vote negative. This can also encourage people not to vote at all. Also, exactly how would this be enforced? And who has the control over all of this? Some moderator will take extra time to read ballots 1 by 1 and will delete ballots that are "for bad reasons? " Oh, your vote didn't make enough sense, so it doesn't count. Who are they to decide? I seriously doubt they will have to explain themselves. And as for so called "vote bombers", they are labeled by the ones with authority who have the power to remove their accounts without explaining. Whosoever is the moderater will have too much power. But it doesn't matter, if the real vote bombers are smart, they can just copy and paste RFD's from their buddies and they would have nothing to worry about. Well, that's all I have for. I challange my opponent to answer all of my questions. Please vote CON Unless you want to vote pro, which doing so you have to show everyone where you put your points and you must justify it, and I get to decide whether it is "good enough. " Otherwise your vote is illegit and it doesn't count. And you risk losing your account.
All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

I hope this will become a wonderful and educational debate. I accept that rule. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I affirm the resolution that states that all members of debate. org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. My opponent has the burden of proving why all members ought not to provide RFD's. I have the burden of proving why all members ought to provide RFD's. 1. Those debating deserve to know why they are winning or losing. When you debate, you always have a winner, and you always have a loser. The one who won or lost should be able to know why he/she won/lost, so next time he/she can improve, so that he/she has a better chance of winning. When you debate on debate. org, you gradually come to realize what works and what doesn't. BUT how do you find out all this important information? One option is self analysis. I contend that this is great. You self analyze your actions, and figure out how to improve. But you can only analyze so much. At some point along the line, you need someone else to tell you what you did wrong, so you can get better. If no one tells you what you did wrong, then you can't improve nearly as much as you normally would. 2. Its only fair. The voter influences the outcome of the debate, and its only fair to tell the debaters what they did to make you vote the way you did. Look at it this way. The debaters debate. You vote. The debaters bare their hearts to you, in their debate. You don't tell them a thing. .. 3. It will stop some vote bombing. If everyone had to provide an RFD whenever they voted, those who voted for bad reasons (vote bombing) will be stopped, since we can simply tell who was vote bombing, and those accounts can be removed. And vote bombers will be deterred since they will have to post an RFD that explains their vote, but their vote was illegitamate. I await my opponent.
All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

As you have said, I'm not gonna post any arguments until next round. However, to make things clear, for me to accept these rules you give, you must accept them too along with the consequences for not following them. Otherwise, your rules are void and I can violate them as well. To make things fair I only have one rule: You cannot add definitions after this round. It goes nicely with your second rule. Just to make things fair.
All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

I want to begin by thanking my opponent-to-be, for taking this debate. I want to thank the people voting in this debate, and I sincerely hope they will provide RFD's in their votes. This first round will be devoted to setting some preliminary ground rules. These rules are to be accepted by my opponent, and any infringement upon those rules should result in a automatic loss by my opponent. Here are the rules: 1. No semantics. No attacking my use of words, and I won't do the same to my opponent. 2. No definitions debate. I'm going to provide definitions to the topic. Take it or don't join the debate. 3. No posting any arguments during this round. This first round is for establishment of rules and guidlines. 4. Here are the definitions for this debate: All members: everyone who is registered and has an account on debate.org debate.org: the site set up by WebCorp for use of internet debates. ought: has an obligation RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made. If there are any questions my opponent wants to ask, or any rules he/she wants to add, they may be asked in the comments section AFTER he/she has accepted my debate.
To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational.

My opponent in his opening round has failed to address the actual topic, instead he has attempted to attack alternate options, He has not attempted to show that belief in a specific god is rational. He completely ignored the part about SPECIFIC god. Instead he has attempted presuppositional apologetics. While presuppositional apologetics may be fun to debate it is a argument ad absurdum based on a false dichotomy. To attack other options as irrational does nothing. Imagine that you had to pick with combination of lottery balls is going to come out, it is irrational to believe with any certainty that any combination will come out with any certainty. To attempt to argue that one is rational because the other are irrational is ridiculous. Now my opponent in order to understand rational versus irrational has to do with what falls under logic. In this debate logic must be a properly basic or foundational belief. In order to take this debate about being rational you must accept logic. Since we have accepted logic, then we must accept the logical construct of Occam's razor, and since god is a lot of baggage without any evidence it is better to not start with that baggage then to start with it. A completely different way to look at it is like this there are at least this many options: thor, zues, Yahwey(jewish), Yeshua(christian), allah(islam), dionysus, fly spagetti monster, and the invisible pink unicorn. Being my opponent has provided no evidence for any the odds of any given one being rignt if those are the only options( they are not) is 1 in 8 or 12.5 %. So believe an individual god on those options alone is irrational.
To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational.

Rules:In this debate my opponent will have to show that it is logical to put faith in a specific god, I will show it is illogical. This debate is not about arguments for god, but when somebody reverts back to saying, you just have to have faith, that, that very statement makes it illogical. This debate applies to a person who places faith in one god, persay the christian god or the islamic god. Argument:When a peson says that you just have to have fait it is committing the fallacy of special pleading. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) The person is granting faith to their god while denying faith for any other god or supernatural being. For instance you often hear a christian revert back to well you just have to have faith in Jesus, when all their arguments have been beaten. Yet, they don't just have faith in Allah.Now in order to understand that this is illogical we must know that being illogical is to use fallacious thinking or reasoning. Since Special pleading is a fallacy that makes it fallacious thinking therefore since I have demonstrated that saying you just have to have faith is fallicious thinking, the person is admitting to being illogical. To be rational is to use logic for your reasoing since I have shown that the person is not using logic,but instead be illogical, the person is also being irrational.
To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational.

The resolution is: To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational. Pro's rules from round one are as follows:In this debate my opponent will have to show that it is logical to put faith in a specific god, I will show it is illogical. This debate is not about arguments for god, but when somebody reverts back to saying, you just have to have faith, that, that very statement makes it illogical. This debate applies to a person who places faith in one god, persay the christian god or the islamic god. (emphasis added)Given Pro's explicit instructions above, I am at a loss when he opens round three by saying, "So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god…" Everything in Pro's last two rounds is centered around refuting an argument I never made and one he expressly forbade.And so, I will not waste anymore of the readers' precious time. Pro has derailed the debate, effectively pulling a bait and switch. I extend all my arguments and leave the outcome of this debate into the readers' capable hands.
Challenge me

Let's try this again shall we? Come up with an absolutely absurd subject and let's debate about it. ( it may help to be completely insane ). I've allowed an extra round for you to tell me what we will be debating (don't post an argument in round one). I have chosen pro, but you may change this if need be. I tried this some months back and although I did say "any" subject it didn't go quite as planned. Please pick a topic that doesn't make my argument nearly impossible. Look at my other debates and I think you'll see what I mean by absurd. Thank you, and let's make this interesting.
Challenge me

Oh I will explain myself... I will... To start, RESOLUTION: GOD ENJOYS BOXERS MORE THAN BRIEFS. I define god as the monotheistic god of the Bible, Torah and Koran. Alternatively "allah" in place of "god". I define "boxers" as the fruit of the loom type; and "briefs" as the fruit of the loom type as well. "More than" will be defined as... "more than". CONTENTION 1: Will it fit? As we all know, briefs are much less spacious than their boxer counterparts. Don't you think that the creator of the universe need as much space as possible (if you know what I mean. Nudge nudge, wink wink.)? As is such if an all powerful being was restricted to such restricted spaces, wouldn't they get a little irritated. Do we really want the guy controlling everything to be pissed? I think not! CONTENTION 2: Proof. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)" I content that god prefers boxers to briefs because if god was confined in such a tiny space that briefs give, how would he have conceived a child at all? Think bout' it. CONTENTION 3: For every good, there is evil. God obviously prefers boxers because why else would he have bestowed them upon us little people? You may ask why has he also given us briefs then; but the bible states that for every good there shalt be-ith an evil. This verse was obviously written about undergarments. Boxers obviously being the good, and briefs the evil. Good luck---
Challenge me

Being the stalker that I am, I looked at my opponent's profile before accepting this. I learned that he is a 96 year old Spartan. It has been my dream to argue with a 96 year old spartan for quite some time now; so debate on! !! I will bring forward a few resolutions, my opponent may choose one of them. -Vampires can't get AIDS. -Ernie and Bert from Sesame Street are homosexuals. -God enjoys boxers more than briefs. -I win this debate, and you don't. If you would like to put forward an alternate resolution I am up for it. --Good Luck.