BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Round Robin Story Debate Tournament

I will be debating YYW. This is Round Robin, so I will debate YYW twice. This time, I will instigate it and next round YYW will instigate the debate. R1 is acceptance and for my opponent to post the TOPIC of the story, not his actual section for the story. R 2 -5 is for the continuation of the story. Voting criteria is posted in the forum for this tournament, for the link message MIG. I look forward to my opponent's response!
Round Robin Story Debate Tournament

Asakai placed his spear on the ground and lay back, groaning. You could barely recognize him anymore. Manhood came with requirements, and sacrifices. A skull had been branded right upon Asakai's forehead, a symbol of his power and prestige. The skull's mouth wide open, beckoning enemies to their death. His hair was grown long and dyed white, just like his father's. Across his entire body tribal tattoos ran, inconsistently forming shapes and symbols. Swirls, loops, dashes, and skulls all adorned Asakai's muscular physique. His tattoo artist clearly had no idea what he was doing. Yet the most startling change with Asakai was his eyes. No longer were they buoyant, cheerful and brown. Now they were permanently flecked with red and yellow, and full of hate. Asakai remembered his coming of age like the back of his hand. The memory had been burned into his memory, just like the skull was into his flesh. He remembered the fragrances, the scent of blood, the feeling of anticipation. The sound of victory. The taste of human flesh. That night, he and his entire village ate like kings. All three men rotisserie roasted over a raging fire. "You smell that, Asakia?" his father asked, indicating the putrid smell of burning flesh. "That is the smell of food, of sustenance, of success!" Hunks of meat were passed around and shared. Beers and tropical drinks slopped down fronts and guzzled by parched throats. Grumbling bellies satiated with strip after strip of meat, human meat. "You taste that, Asakia?" his father asked when Asakia bit into his meat. "You taste that? Remember this taste forever, son. For without it, our village would fail. Look around us son, we live in a barren desert. We rely on a single oasis for water. There is not cattle, no sheep, no livestock of any kind. Our people, we are men! Real men require meat," his father said with relish as he tore into an arm. "Asakia, one day you will lead the raids into the villages. The antelope are too scarce, and too far apart. They come once, every year. When you are chieftain, you will teach the young ones how to hunt the antelope, and then move on to the big game! Humans." Asakia nodded, and returned to his piece of meat. He chewed it slowly, thinking about George and his friends. The meat tasted burnt in his mouth. Fast forward 10 years and Asakia has replaced his father as chieftain of the village. To become chieftain, another test needed to be passed. He needed to kill the current chieftain. Asakai was to fight a fight to the death, with his father.
God does not exist.

In The name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.I Testify that "There is no God worthy of worship, but Allah & Muhammad(PBUH) is the servent & messenger of Allah."I accept this debate and Thank My Contender for Starting debate on such an Important Topic ... There are people to whom it does not matters that He the High Lord Exists or not.. Quran & Bible Describle those people in the following words.."Deaf, dumb and blind of Reason! They will not return to begin their journey in the right direction..." [Baqarah 2:18]"Seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." [Matthew 13:13]but to a person with Ironic belif in Allah, His Prophet(PBUH) and His Message it does matters alot not only for my self but for those also who deny Allah's existence.I liked the BOP demanded by Pro people are telling him silly but Its everyone's right to have complete and logical evidence before he changes his Basic Belief. Obviously people do not change faith daily...I would congragulate My Friend that as being atheist he is more logical then those who blindly follow their religion... and moreover He has already testified that"There is no God!" the second part is "But Allah" which I will Inshallah prove. We see here Pro is not only demanding mere logical statments and theories to say that it proves God... he says He want Evidence beyond Preponderance! that means an unrefutable Proof that God does Exists... Moreover nothing will be spoke about without citing evidence and proof. and I would like to take BOP but you can share it surely!(In next round I will build my case)I am a Muslim, a Pretty Rational One... the intresting thing about being muslims is Islam does not only likes rational thinking but encourages it and encourages people to talk and arge for the truth!"Invite to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided." - (An-Nahl : 125)I Accept the debate and will Prove the Existance of God. not with logics not with Sacred Scriptures only but with Science and Modren Technology!I will request Instigator that we will not present any new arguments in the last round (i.e. Last round only refuatiton) because other person can not refute it...have a nice day and Thanks for readingMy Peace & Mercy be Upon You.I hope you see the truth and revert to it friend. and I pray you are not one of those who act dumb blind and deaf.
God does not exist.

AveThis debate will be about whether god exists. I will be arguing that god does not exist. Con will negate my arguments. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other.The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating. I made this debate 10k characters so that each debater can have a very good reference page for investigation, not so each debater could ramble for a full 10k characters.General expectations of conduct should be followed. God, for this debate, is defined as the rational (conscious), necessarily existing, and external cause of the universe.Vale
People who commit suicide should receive the death penalty

I would first like to start with a bible quote Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " I feel that this exemplifies how the death penalty is unnecessary for the true execution of people who commit suicide as though they are no longer functioning as living beings, they may still serve a purpose in society for example: food, shelter, artwork, and clothing. I feel that my points made here have adequately shown how the death penalty is not needed for people who commit suicide as they could still be useful to society.
people have as much right to switch race as they do to switch gender

I tried to cut out the fluff with that last post to make things clear.Sex and Race are different things. Sexuality is based on hormones and social upbringing. You can be born attracted to one gender or the other, or both. If someone "switches" to the other gender in this manner, it's because they've always considered themselves that gender but have been afraid of the social consequences of admitting it.Race is not real. There is less than 0.1% of a difference between someone of black skin and someone of white skin, and that's down to being from different families. If someone thinks their skin colour is different to what it actually is, and they don't undergo somekind of surgery, they have no right to declare themselves black. If someone believes they can insert themselves into an ethinic group, ie; based on shared cultural and historical background that ties them together, but speak of it solely in terms of skin colour, then they simply expose how little they actually know of that group and think of it in the most shallow terms. See you all next debateDuncan
people have as much right to switch race as they do to switch gender

Hello everyone, and welcome to the fifth sixth draft of this post, now that I've finally gone over my old notes to help clarify everything. I'll try to keep this short and sweet.1; Yeah, I haven't much reason to have mentioned sexual orientation, my bad. When we say gender, we refer to the expectations we have of both sides, making it a socially designed concept based on the stereotypes we associate with each respective gender. When Sex is mentioned in this context; it's a biological aspect, not something you can just redefine about yourself so easily. I mention this again because you have compared the relationship between gender and sexuality with race. Well...2; You might be thinking that there must be the same thing with Race. Well, Race as first conceived is an 18th-19th century idea that is rooted in terms like Negroid and Aryan. It was popularised under Arthur de Gobineau's "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races", which asserted falsely that "Caucasians" were both intellectually and morally superior to "Negroids". The term I think would suit the debate best is Ethnicity, which is the shared culture and history of a group. Your skin colour shouldn't determine if you are part of a group at all, and if you wish to become part of a certain ethnic group, that is up to whether or not you share the culture and background of the group. 3; To change one's gender is to change expected the roles and actions society expects of you. Gender and Ethnicity don't share the ability to switch so easily. Gender is almost universally similar worldwide, and so has less of a historical or cultural background to it, meaning transitioning offends substantially fewer than trying to do the same with your ethnic identity. I would appreciate if you could offer a link to the stories in question; they may help this discussion further. In the absence of such a link; someone who claims to be identifying as black while not having the same culture or background as the people they refer to as black is seemingly just attempting to appear more diverse. I think this debate goes to show that while ethnicity is still an issue we struggle with today, it's something ingrained in our own cultures for centuries, and even using the right language is an issue all in itself. One doesn't need to feel guilty for any passing thoughts that would be considered offensive if they are never put to harmful use, and if one declares themselves part of a race rather than an ethnic group, then they are trying to hard to be part of something they would naturally fall into if they words rang true.See you next round,Duncan
people have as much right to switch race as they do to switch gender

Hello to Dairy Girl, you may not remember me, but you were one of my first opponents on this site. Time flies. Well, on to business. The crucial difference between these two is your use of gender and sex indiscriminately. See, you are born with your sex: your DNA determined that. Gender's a slippery beast though. Gender is how you define your self. Homosexual is not a sex: it' s a gender. You can be a gay man or woman, you can't be a straight lesbian. That would fall closer to bisexuality, which is a distinct gender of its own. Now race: there's a bigger problem there. Race is a biological thing, like hair colour. You can't identify as Ginger. Perhaps you want to identify with the culture of a different race? You are at that point assigning a behaviour pattern to a group based on skin colour: negative or positive, it's a racist argument. Make no mistake, I am not accusing anyone of anything, merely pre-emptively countering a possible argument. See you next round, Duncan
people have as much right to switch race as they do to switch gender

the woman in the news recently who said she was black even though she grew up white, got a lot of flak for it. yet, bruce jenner only got high marks for switching to female. to be sure, skin color is just skin, whereas sex is determiend by DNA. they might have even more of a right to switch race. im lookin to debate someone who thinks gender changing is okay, but not race changing
Should the words "Under God" be in the Pledge of Aligance

I will make a short argument, since it is Pro who is required to affirm the resolution.A1: The First Amendment and its rammificationsIn particular, there is a section in the First Amendment that disallows the government favouring one religion over another [1]. This is in place to allow everyone to pratice whatever religion they so desire. Implicit in the words "under God" is there bias towards a certain religion over others (for example, Buddhism has no Gods). Therefore, with this bias, the government is unfairly preferring one religion over another, and thus the religions that are not receiving their fair share have their believers hampered in their practice. Therefore, the words "under God" should be taken out of the pledge.Reference [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Lesbians' rights should be more widely publicised.

The topic of debate suggests that Lesbians' hold rights that differ from "gays". The fact is both genders' homosexual rights are currently publicised as same. The laws quoted in my opponent's argument attempts to persuade the public that female nudity in public is not illegal, based on the pronoun "he". The fact is the pronoun conveys both female and male genders, intended to convey "a person". As such, the female right to sexually reveal themselves (or any other law listed under "he", including trafficking, rape, drugging, etc) is indeed illegal. Legal discussion aside, while two females engaging in a sexual act may seem more attractive in concept, our imaginations usually persuade us further from the truth. What if it was two fairly rotund, or unattractive females who decide to participate in oral sex in that grocery store? What if it were these four lovely ladies? http://www.zanyvideos.com... While some may find them attractive, it would simply be a disruption to business operations, as they may find themselves blocking the movements of other customers who don't care for the show. Homosexuals have rights as heterosexuals do, and they are well advertised considering our social environment, but at the end of the day, explicit sexuality involving genitalia are simply meant for behind closed doors, be it male, female, or otherwise.
Lesbians' rights should be more widely publicised.

It would appear to me that, in view if the almost complete absence of steamy, girl-on-girl action on trains, in libraries, in shopping malls, in car parks, in museums and in other public places, that most lesbians are unaware that, unlike heterosexual couples and homosexual men, they have the absolute legal right to engage in sexual relations, no matter where they are at the time. http://www.opsi.gov.uk... Consider the following typical scenario: A lesbian couple have just been shopping for a few groceries: you know, cucumbers, bananas, vacuum-packed German sausages, that sort of thing; when one of them suddenly has irresistible sexual urges and says to her girlfriend "Oh, darling, the sun is shining right through your lightweight cotton summer dress and I can see your nubile young body underneath, I tell you what, I'm so hot for you right now, I'm practically frothing at the ****, but according to English law, I can't rip your clothes off in a fit off frenzied passion for fear of being arrested for offending public decency." This kind of misapprehension of the law is the result of the Government's failure to adeqautely publicise lesbians' rights is and it's an absolute disgrace in my opinion. There should be a widespread advertising campaign to highlight the fact that having lesbian sex in public places is a perfectly legal activity.
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

The atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not and never will be morally justifiable. The bomb dropping was overkill as Japan was already on the verge of losing. We had already defeated all of Japan's allies. The Soviet Union joined the Allies, Italy was captured and Germany surrendered. There was no other alternative than to surrender. The Allied forces had already destroyed all of Japans military ships and aircraft. The war was lost. Japan had already lost many resources from fighting in other wars such as WWI and invading other Asian nations. Japan would eventually surrender even if we just waited it out. The US broke numerous international laws. Due to the targeting of innocent Japanese civilians among other things, the United States had broken many international laws involving war. The broken laws include: 1. The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal. 2. Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives. 3. Any attack […] must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations […] are not bombed through negligence. 4. Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited. However, the areas targeted at the Los Alamos Target Committee were: Kyoto; urban industrial area; intellectual center for Japan; people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of weapon Hiroshima; army depot & port of embarkation in middle of urban industrial area; large part of the city could be extensively damaged; adjacent hills likely to considerably increase blast damage Yokohama; urban industrial area; untouched Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial dispersion. It has oil refineries and storage. None of these areas were military bases. Source- http://www.dannen.com...; The bombing was a waste of time, resources and lives. The Pro side said, quote on quote “we had to do it fiercely to stop them from killing our people. that we gave them a grace period shows that we were humane about it to the most extent we could." However, they were the ones dying. We had already won the war, and we chose to makes more civilian casualties by dropping a bomb onto a civilian city. All the US did from that was show their strength in an unnecessary show of power which only made their loss in Vietnam worse. And why is the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians "humane"? The civilians themselves did nothing to us, yet we still bombed them. In fact, we targeted that area knowing that there was no military equipment in that area of Japan. How is that justified?
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

some say we should have just dropped a bomb or two 'close' to japan, or somewhere much less populated, to prove our capacity. however, we only had two bombs ready to be used, and that might not have been sufficient. in fact, when we did drop the first bomb, they still weren't ready to surrender. so that shows dropping them elsewhere would have been a waste of time. they were talking about surrendering with conditions, but weren't willing to do it, even after the first drop. so, the second drop was necessary. even then, when they did surrender, the leader said they wouldnt ever surrender if their social and political systems weren't respected. this shows they were willing to go all the way, which is what was necessary, that we do likewise, if they kept killing our people. we had to do it fiercely to stop them from killing our people. that we gave them a grace period shows that we were humane about it to the most extent we could. the following shows the things i said. http://en.wikipedia.org... it's not like we weren't unaware of the gravity of the situation. "I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb ... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us ... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." "President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

con acts as if we can't value an american life over a japanese. but how can we not if we are engaging in war to win? following con's thoughts... it's not about winning or losing, it's about minimizing the number of deaths. if our enemy wasn't going to kill everyone, it may have been better to just surrender to him as then we have fewer lives lost. and it defies basic intution and logic. if a couple robbers break into your house and threaten to kill your mom, it's well within your rights and proportional to kill them both if you can. they were out of line and were going to do wrong. we don't just tally the total deaths and do what's least. his points here are actually pretty ridiculous. con says the japanese did nothing to us, but it's well established that they bombed us at pearl harbor. con might have specualtion that says otherwise, but that's all it is, well documented evidence v speculation. again this is pretty far fetched and pretty ridiculous. we'd have to get into conspiratcy theries to consider otherwise. con asks how are one american lost to500 proportional. what value does he give? are we to rest on the ridculous stuff about not about what's right or what hapepns but what outcome results in teh fewest lives lost? i cant see that being so and question if con really believes it, so how much? and really that 500 point is beside the point. i showed that in okinawa we lost over 70000 lives. one atomic bomb cased abotu the same death. so that's proportional. that we had to do another one only shows that they wouldn't surrender. how is it better to do another okinawa when we could use a bomb, hwne it's their lives proportioally lost instead of ours? also,if you take con's logic, the bombs could have reduced the overall deaths. con says over 100k japs died in okinawa. well, if we kept doing battles like that, the numbers could have gone well beyond what happened with the bombs. if both side isn't clearly winning or losing, it could lead to that. with a bomb, it shows that there's no way they are going to win.
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

First, I would like to refute my opponents points, and then I will extend my own.According to the pro, American lives are worth more than all other lives. This is not true as all lives should be considered equal. The pro said, quote on quote, " I might value one American lost to 500 to a thousand Japanese. " How are those values proportional?Again, the Japanese civilians did nothing to us, yet we still killed hundreds of thousands of them. This is not "revenge". This is murder. We are not avenging anyone one's death. We are instead, taking it out on the innocent. This is not in the slightest bit"morally justifiable". The murder of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is not and never will be "morally justifiable". How are we better than them if we kill thousands of their people?Even though the battle of Okinawa cause around 75,000 American casualties, the combined casualties of both atomic bomb droppings were 225,000. That is 1/3 of the casualties. Even then, more Japanese soldiers died in the battle of Okinawa(around 110,000). Therefore, Japanese losses heavily outnumbered American losses.Now that I have refuted my opponents points, I will extend my own. The bomb dropping was overkill as Japan was already on the verge of losing.The US broke numerous international laws.The bombing was a waste of time, resources and lives.