BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The News Is Dead

Your conservative beliefs are relevant because of the fact that most major news sites tend to lean liberally. That was the point I was attempting to make. Let me ask you this: Where are you going to get your news without "the news? " Social media? What is the difference between Twitter reporting the news and CNN reporting the news? I fail to see how you could receive any information efficiently without these resources. We're not in control of what happens around us, But we are in control of how we perceive it. What may seem insignificant to you may change the life of some scientist or another specialist in a field. If you wish to stay oblivious to what is happening, Then, By all means, Do not pay attention to the news, But I am interested in how else you would get your information.
The News Is Dead

=== Argument 3 === You brought up bias, Which is apropos since it is related to my next point: Ted Koppel. Mr Koppel is one of the major old-school TV anchors. . . Back when The News actually focused on news. In a recent speech at some Carnegie Foundation event, He confirmed two ideas that support my thesis: --- Lamenting that many News organizations (of all types) have jettisoned objectivity he said "We [the media] are not the reservoir of objectivity that I think we were" --- He regrets that many News organizations publish "analysis, Commentary on the front page" (as I noted last round) === Follow-up === My personal conservative point of view can be seen by looking at my profile. I don't see how it is relevant. My arguments are not partisan, Or biased. I feel that FOX News is also 10% news (at best). It suffers from the same problems I am decrying, Just like other cable news shows and print media. (note: I'll be away a couple days, Then I'll post my Round 4 comments)
The News Is Dead

Round 2 Upon reading your argument, I noticed that many of your arguments point to a conservative ideology, Which, While I do not share, I will most certainly not hold against you. This does, However, Bring up the question of whether or not your political views may affect your opinion on news sites that are beginning to lead more and more towards the left. According to Pew, 73% of American Republicans believe that the news does not understand their viewpoints. I definitely see this as an issue and I do believe that the news should be less biased, But I don't think we should choose to ignore the news in response. At its core, The news is here to tell us what is happening in the world, And I believe that that is important information to absorb in your everyday life. Thank you for taking the time to read my response.
The News Is Dead

=== Argument 2 === More people approve of President Trump than The News. Real Clear Politics shows Trump's approval rating at 42% as of today. Gallup's latest polling (with Knight Foundation) on The News shows an overall trust rating of 41%. People don't trust The News mostly because it is not trustworthy. The Knight/Gallup findings say that people mostly complain about "inaccurate or misleading reporting" and lies. == Follow-up === In 2012, Pew found that MSNBC was 85% opinion. More broadly, I have estimated 10% based on TV news I see in the office and the gym: almost all of it is people discussing their thoughts and feelings about current events and future events. For further support, Here are the "front page" articles from today's Washington Post: --- "Awaiting Mueller's findings, Trump allies claim victory and Democrats urge transparency" (not news) --- "Halting new N. Korea sanctions, President creates confusion" (not news) --- "Where the Christchurch attack sparked 'ecstasy'" (not news) --- "Trump team didn't have plan of attack" (not news) Regarding 5th Grade science articles, Here are some from the NY Times website: --- "Why a 50-Degree Day Feels Colder in Fall Than in Spring" --- "Trigger Warnings May Not Do Much, Early Studies Suggest" --- "What Makes a Waterfall? Maybe It Forms Itself"
The News Is Dead

The problem I see in that argument is that it seems to be heavily targeted at the news you find on television, Excluding the last statement. You claim that you find out about all of these events without the news, But plenty of your sources get their information from news websites. Take the shooting in New Zeland, For example. Without the news reporting Prime Minister Ardern's response to the shooting, It would've taken longer for the news to spread through social media. On that morning, I woke up and checked my phone (as most people do, ) and the first thing I saw was a notification from a famous news site that I will not disclose to avoid bias. I agree that if you watch the news you will find plenty of gossip and ultimately unimportant information, But to say that the news has no use to us is, In my opinion, Ignorant. What is the point of the news? The point of the news is to inform you of current events. I would like to know where you read that less than 10% of the news consists of this because I simply don't believe that. Furthermore, Most scientific breakthroughs mentioned in the news could not be discovered by a third grader. If a third grader can tell me the number of moons around Jupiter without having read it somewhere, I will definitely change my opinion, But until then, You're either giving kids too much credit or not giving scientists enough. I look forward to reading your next argument.
I will not win my first debate.

Thank you. ---- Counterarguments ---- "It isn't exactly vote bombing, but if you go onto my friend DieDisneyChannel's video "Dumbass Disney Comment's", you will see that the fans vote bomb. Just replace vote's with comments. " One Youtube video with comments supporting Disney does not prove that you will not win your first debate. In fact, you will because I conceded, thus failing the resolution, thus giving me the vote. "Every Disney debate I've seen usually ends up with the Pro-Disney side winning by mile's. But I've only had an account on this website for 2 hours, so I don't actually know. " Doing a debate search for "Disney" (. http://www.debate.org...), I only found six debates directly about Disney. Of those six, four of them (. http://www.debate.org..., . http://www.debate.org..., . http://www.debate.org..., . http://www.debate.org...) have CON winning. So if anything, DDO has an ANTI-Disney bias. ---- Points that the audience should consider when voting ---- + CON was the only one to address the resolution; his points were not negated. Even if you do not buy CON's argument, they stand because PRO never addressed them. + PRO has made many spelling errors. These include: immediatly, replyed, and alot. Also, PRO's eloquence with the language is not as nuanced. + I was the only one in this debate to thank my opponent and the audience. + I was the only one in this debate to provide relevant sources.
I will not win my first debate.

"Not only does my opponent have to prove that Disney fans have a stronger tendency towards vote bombing than most" It isn't exactly vote bombing, but if you go onto my friend DieDisneyChannel's video "Dumbass Disney Comment's", you will see that the fans vote bomb. Just replace vote's with comments. "He must prove the DDO has a prevalent Disney-Fan influence." Every Disney debate I've seen usually ends up with the Pro-Disney side winning by mile's. But I've only had an account on this website for 2 hours, so I don't actually know. P.S. This debate was made for a joke. It has no meaning, other to say I get flamed alot.
I will not win my first debate.

---- Quick Definitions[1] ---- + DDO - Acronym standing for Debate[Dot]Org, the website's current address. + Phil - President and Lead Programmer of WebCorp, he built DDO. + Voting bloc - A group of individuals who band together to vote another person or group down. ---- Argument ---- As can be seen in my first round, I conceded. Therefore, my opponent will win the debate. Because my opponent will win the debate, the resolution fails. Because the resolution fails, the default vote goes to CON. Ergo, my concession leads to my win. QED. My opponent posted, "I'm always flamed by Disney lover's anywhere. I don't see why I shouldn't be here." However, the burden of proof lies with my opponent. He must prove the DDO has a prevalent Disney-Fan influence. If he does not prove this to be true, the argument must be disregarded. From personal experience as a DDO regular, I can attest that there exists not one DDO regular who is a flamboyant Disney Fan. Therefore, my opponent will win this debate, thus failing the resolution, thus giving me the vote. But for the sake of fun, let us suppose that there is indeed a prevalent Disney fan population on DDO. Not only does my opponent have to prove that Disney fans have a stronger tendency towards vote bombing than most, my opponent also has to prove that Phil has abandoned the practice of deleting the votes of vote bombers and vote blocs. You see, just recently he has made it clear that such malicious votes will be deleted.[2] So of course my opponent will win the debate! And of course the resolution fails! VOTE CON! ---- Sources ---- [1] http://debatefans.com... [2] http://www.debate.org...
I will not win my first debate.

Ok, I don't think I'll win my first debate (which I think is this one). I have just one reason for that statement. If you go onto my Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com...), it will say I support the ADM (Anti Disney Movement). When Disney fangirls see that, they will immediatly vote against me, even if I'm putting forward good points. That's my argument, and I hope to see this replyed to.
Co Education Schools Are Best.

Boys and girls should not go to the same schools for 2 main reasons 1) Distraction It may be obvious to people, but girls are a big distraction for boys, and vice versa. The school environment has many different distractions without the two different genders being together. People might care more about how the other gender thinks of them than to study on their next test. Schools in the United States with only one type of gender tend to have higher averages. Students would be more focused without having to worry about what the other gender thinks of them. 2) Reactions When genders are in the same school, many unexpected reactions occur, especially in boys. Boys tend to fight more over a girl than anything else (in the school environment.) This leads back to my previous argument about distraction. Fights will ruin the concentration of the school, and besides that, those fighting would be suspended and during that time they will fall behind on their studies. I hope my opponent will return for the next round, and I will extend my arguments.
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

https://youtu.be... Don't be intimidated bu TUF's name, cause when you really get to know him, he's as hot as a flame. Ya see, TUF may come off as shy , but when you get to know him, he is just as fly. And oh, how can I forget those beautiful eyes, they're just enough to hypnotize. But what's just as great is that beautiful smile of his, it's just enough to make any man jizz. So, not only is TUF a Teddy bear, but he lives up to his name, he's played all the games, and won duh debates. In reality, there is no dissing here, cause even if you tried, they all would be made up lies. So come meet TUF and be mezmorized but try not to look into those beautiful eyes, or you'll be mezmorozed.
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

http://www.youtube.com... Rosalie is too fvcking cool to even dis So instead of that, I"m just gonna do this The winner still will be determined on who is the best But rather than insult, this is a compliment fest Rosalies so cool but don"t let her try and hide She literally did a debate talking someone out of suicide But if your still not convinced that she"s the bomb She babysits all the time assuming the role of a mom She doesn"t think corporal punishment is immoral And she"s never the one who insults you in a quarrel Trust me this chick Rosalie should be idolized, There"s no surprise in those civilized blue eyes Like Hell, I'm about to capsize with her awesomeness utilized You feel that? We"ve just been hypnotized. Her beliefs on Gay Marriage is that it should be legalized More evidence in this equality she supplies You got beef with rose, then that beef is unwise This girls got a mouth on her, she has no filter Yeah, She throws out cus words like hilter kilter She thinks the sweating filter should be removed Free speaking is cool though, don"t get it confused It takes a real woman to dish out that abuse With a smile so cute it can"t help but seduce. Can"t mess with Rosalie. This chick"s too fvcking cool.
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

Thank you TUF for talking me into this...it as fun! :) http://www.youtube.com... It"s really sad to see this debate has ended, I just have proved TUF in fact descended from Heaven. If Tuf was your math tutor he"d have you dreamin of linear regression causin love depression, afterwards, you"ll be begging for a regression and maybe a "special session" or maybe you"ll lie of TUF obsession. Did you also not know that TUF knows how to fight? I"m sure he doesn"t bite, unless you put up a real fight, he will have you begging to take you home at midnight, and keep you up till the sunlight, if ya know what I mean, he"s a best, and a priest, he will have you begging on your knees, praise Jesus hallelujah. He has those eyes that are enough to polarize and mesmerize any guy. His eyes are enough to make you high, higher than Bob Marley "like wait, is that even possible?" Hell yes it"s possible. He will turn you into a docile, it"s just not even impossible. I"ll volunteer as tribute. You can"t even negate his debates, TUF is the dictate, don"t underestimate, prepare for your early estate. They all try to imitate him, but they all fail, just like a birth pill. What can I say, other than TUF is merely the hottest, and the badest. He is the kindest, and he"s never biased. Oh and I forget to mention, if you"re a women, he"ll surely fix your dryness. ;)
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

Yo im getting the feelin Rose is makin a killing Her flow is chillin As her rhymes are a spillin This girls just so fly And not a day goes by Where I don’t ask myself why Am I even gonna try This babe’s just so hot that I Will take one more rap and die Her voice like a lullaby She is hands down the most cute If you deny it your point is moot Got dem killer baby blues to boot Im cravin her, shoot Her voice like a flute, If I’m a tree, she’s my root Her beauty will remain untame, I can’t complain, this may sound lame, but The type of girl I’d give my last name No else one I could say the same thing Damn its shame that I battled this hot dame Who lives true to her name, I’d shake it but I already came To the conclusion of, she’s an angel from above, when she raps I see doves You can tell this chick loves, Schoolin’ rappers like me Aint no controversy My girl Rosalie Is the best MC Aint a test you see Her Rhymes complexity Turns me on cuz she Causes rappers to flee Got me feelin’ like a Ree Ree Oh Her flow like a faucet She’s a bank I’ll deposit Her rhymes flawless Divergent, she’s dauntless http://www.youtube.com...
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

https://youtu.be... So let me make one thing clear the user tuf is obviously the baddest one here when he challenges anyone to a debate they all run in fear he makes all of his opponents the delused and Confused. When tuf starts to speak it begins to kill and thrill to the point where they want to end their feels because they're just too real to deal with and to hard to conceal. Tuf has the most genuine heart that once you meet you'll want to wed him and never be apart. He is just like a daffodil dam I'm glad sexy looks can't kill. Nobody can match up to his rap skills cuz when they try they die inside because they can't deny that tuf is hella fly. Fly to the point they want to go die you see there really is no competition here I may as well forfeit this round and go drink a beer. I could never match up to test level cuz even if I tried I'd go down to hell with the Devil.
Compliment Rap Battle: TUF VS Rosalie

http://www.youtube.com... If my last round wasn"t enough, this one is This girl didn"t waste time, was just straight biz Showing how amazing she is with her compliment The type of girl you wanna and make an omelette with I mean damn, Rosalie is just so damn fly And shes pro drug legalization so shes probably high On beauty she ain"t lackin" where I am bone dry The choice is simple, you should vote for this apple pie Or the illogical choice in TUF whose a wise guy But let me clarify that your choice wouldn"t dignify Unless it was Rosalie whose hotter than the month of july If you don"t comply, then you"re the bad guy Not only that but she"s a mafia pro If you don"t agree, get the fvck out of here bro I"m like whoa, take it slow, this girl aint a hoe Reppin California like she"s probly got dough And her rhymes be sick, yeah you know she"s got flow Out of 18 debates, she"s only lost one And that was to Beiber"s prodical son And I don"t think she lost, does anyone? She took it easy, was just having fun. This girl works hard, yeah she does retail Working hard every day just to make a sale She"s a trump supporter, but don"t hold that against her She presents her reasons like an entrepreneur But overall Lee has looks that will make you drop dead If I had a choice between two actresses, I"d choose her instead word
welfare promotes laziness

I've already proven my stance in round one (which my opponent has not covered) so please extend all of my arguments as voting issues. I will go through my opponent's last speech and deconstruct their arguments piece by piece. Obs1: This has become irrelevant to the resolution Obs2: My opponent dropped this observation. Ods3: My opponent hasn't presented a single piece of evidence throughout the course of this debate either. Not has he even attempted to cite a source. Definitions Debate: Please reread my opponent's round 2 speech; this argument is a blatant lie. Why Not to vote PRO- + They've made no argument to warrant a vote in their favor. + My opponent has abused semantic arguments to the point of utter ridiculousness Why to vote Con- +Extend my prior argument + My opponent hasn't attacked my only contention; he has only attacked my definitions and sources. Even if my only argument where something ridiculous like, "cashing in all of their government checks keeps them too busy to be lazy" if would have to be accepted. In conclusion: this has not been a debate. Instead my opponent has simply thrown out blatant, and poorly written semantic arguments; he has not stated an argument to warrant voting Pro, and he consistently harped on definitions and sources (which are both bad in their own, prior mentioned regard) Therefore since my opponent has not filled his most basic BOP, there really is no ground to vote for anyone in this debate other than myself. Accordingly please vote Con. Thank you and drive home safely.
welfare promotes laziness

For a brief roadmap i will be covering all of my opponents prior arguments, and proving how my side of the debate should be the one accepted. Obervation 1: My opponent stated that people commit suicide for a number of reasons, but there is one underlining issue left. He never listed a source stating specifically the causes for suicide. So for lack of evidence his argument should be disregarded. Observation 3: My opponent stated that he would decline to be on welfare, well isn't that convenient. The negative side is once again lacking evidence to make his arguments reliable and allow for clash, so therefor they should be disregarded due to lack of warrant. Definitions Debate- I never stated definitions were a voting issue, but to ensure a quality debate the definitions must be made the best possible to ensure clash, and the educational value of debate. As we all know debate is supposed to be an educational activity, and allowing the negative team to take that aspect out of debate makes this pointless. Why vote Affirmative (pro)- My original argument stays intact despite the other teams arguments, and in debate all the affirmative team has to do is carry the burden and they win. Why not vote Con- He says if you choose not to live on welfare then the negative team should win? Wait a second the topic was it promotes laziness, and without a link his argument is completely useless. I would again like to state for all of my opponents arguments he provides no link from them to the topic, and i have fulfilled my burden as the Pro team, so therefor i see nothing other than a affirmative win.
welfare promotes laziness

I'm just going offer a few observations on the round thus far, and then proceed to argue straight down the flow. Obs1: in my opponent's initial arguments, they've laid down the groundwork arguments; and in these very arguments, they've given them-self the burden to prove that all people, given the opportunity, would indeed live off of welfare. Obs2: My opponent's last speech, while not only not upholding the initial burden they give themselves; is full of semantic arguments that do not make any warrant to vote for my opponent. -- Pro- Obs 1- + Redefining a term that is not one's own is completely abusive, and semantic. Ignore the first half of this argument, as my opponent has no warrant behind redefining my term + The suicide argument is weak, my opponent makes this argument as a general argument towards society. Second, many people commit suicide for a multiplicative of reasons. Be it a mental illness, depression, or whatever else; and beyond that my opponent presents us with no evidence to support this argument. Obs 2- + Again this is semantic. My opponent is attack my definitions, not my arguments. Obs 3- + So all I have to do is show a case in which some-one would decline having everything in their life payed for? Fine, I decline to have everything in my life payed for by welfare! I will instead work hard, go to college and get a good job to support my family. + If you as the voter would choose not to be on welfare, this argument is grounds to vote for the Con in this debate. Con definitions- Welfare- My definition had a direct link to my source. Lazy- Again, I had a direct link to my source. Pro definitions- My opponent hasn't even offered any definitions Definitions Debate- We offer definitions in any debate for clarity, and understanding of what the round is about. This is not a voting issue. Why not to vote Pro- He offers no real arguments, and spends a significant amount of time simply focusing on definitions; and then he doesn't even provide any definitions. Why to vote Con- + See my argument on his observation 3, if you choose not to live on welfare; then I have proven my point. there are people who will choose not to live on welfare. + Even if you do live on welfare, if you are one this site you're obviously not lazy; especially if you're reading this debate to vote on it. There is all the more incentive that welfare doesn't make people lazy + My opponent has given you absolutely not reason to vote for him. He has presented absolutely zero arguments in this round Con- My opponent hasn't actually attacked my arguments, so I'll just extend everything.