BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public colleges should be fully funded by the government

You have broken the rules of the debate, and that counts as a forfeit usually. I'll let it go if you agree to take the burden of proof in this debate, as you were the one that started arguing first.Onto my argument:53% percent of students take 6 years to graduate college:No, no they don't. 53% percent of students graduate within 6 years. That does not mean those people would waste public funds however. My father took 12 years to finish his Bachelor's and another 5 to finish his Master's because he had to keep quitting his studies to find work to pay for them. In my father's case, at least, it would have significantly reduced his time in college if he had his studies paid for by the government. Even people that drop out might be motivated to do so because they have no money. ...It will take 20 years in taxes for the student to pay back his debt to society...:That is true. Let's look at the whole picture now. The high school graduate will pay taxes for about 37 years: 37*4195.05 = 155,216.85. The college graduate will pay taxes for about 33 years: 33*11,836.25 = 390,596 - 150,000 = 240,596.25. Your own argument works against you, unfortunately. This doesn't even take into account how many handouts from the government will be evaporated once everyone can fill the high tech jobs not enough people are trained for:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...I suppose that there will be people that drop out of college and waste the taxpayer's money, but a lot of things that are less important waste taxpayer's money. Subsidies to large companies and sports teams for example. But that's a different story.Conclusion: This might actually raise tax revenues for this country. And even if there is a slight loss because some people freeload, the investment in making sure every American has access to the education they need to succeed is far worth it. The government pays for 13 years of schooling for a child, why not add another four?
This sentence makes no sense.

First of all, I don't recall agreeing to your definitions, in fact I said "sorry but neither of them work." how you somehow gleaned that I agreed with them is, quite frankly, beyond me. "gist |jist| noun [in sing. ] 1 the substance or essence of a speech or text : she noted the gist of each message." (Apple dictionary) When looking at your use of the word gist I am forced to question if you truly have a grasp of the words that you are using. I am sorry if this is insulting, however, when looking at a sentence in which the understanding and grasp of words is pivotal in the comprehension of the meaning, I have to question whether you are capable of understanding my arguments and what you are arguing over. More over, a definition should be able to replace the word: ex: The understanding of the sentence is fundamental to his/ her argument. "fundamental |ˌfəndəˈmentl| adjective • affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue : the fundamental problem remains that of the housing shortage." The understanding of the sentence is affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue ("his/ her argument" would replace "about an issue" because it is the issue) My definition would be: "make sense: be intelligible, justifiable, or practicable." ("is" is a conjugation of the verb "to be") This sentence makes no sense: This sentence is justifiable This sentence is intelligible This sentence is practicable If the sentence is able to be justified then it is wrong and cannot be justified. Because it is self contradicting it cannot be understood, because the meaning shifts from wherever you look at it. Because it cannot be understood and is unjustifiable it cannot be used and there for is not practicable. And finally there are a few last points I wish to highlight. 1. "Now clearly Pro is desperately clinging to a semantics argument" a. I think this is overly hostile, it has the wrong connotation for a person who was acting apologetic for being rude just a little earlier in the argument. b. This is a semantics argument. 2. "so there is no reason to vote affirmative" a. I don't think it is appropriate to try to haggle for votes and appeal to the people who are reading, this is between our two brains, not between you and the audience. 3. "Pro's own arguments therefore ct against him." a. Please use the spell check before you submit, I can't understand what you mean to say here. (ct, FYI, is not a word unless it is an abbreviation meaning carat, cent, etc.)
This sentence makes no sense.

First, I'd like to extend my apologies to Pro who clearly misinterpreted and misrepresented the conduct and meaning behind my words. In no way, shape or form was I insulting to my opponent or his intelligence in any way. Noting that one who can read and understand English will understand the meaning behind something was in NO way a direct insult or reference to Pro. I was speaking very generally with a point that is an integral part of my argument. So let's get back to the debate... My opponent begins by eliminating the word "sense" from his original statement and replacing it with other words, such as meaning or gist (which he agreed properly defines the word 'sense'). Pro's mistake is that he thinks the definition of something must automatically verbatim fit the definition, instead of recognizing that the definition of something is something (a word OR phrase) that describes the meaning of the word. Moreover, Pro's assertion is further incorrect when you realize that the definition we agree upon actually is interchangeable with the words "meaning" and "gist." For instance, saying "This sentence makes no sense" is essentially the same as saying "This sentence has no meaning" or "This sentence has no gist." Of course you change some of the words around it to keep it grammatically correct, but the word in question (sense) remains the same part of speech as the words we use to define it. Now clearly Pro is desperately clinging to a semantics argument; however, any way you look at it favors the Con. Pro acknowledges that "This sentence makes no sense" is referring to itself (the sentence describing the resolution). For that to be true, it would have to mean that the sentence contains no meaning or gist. However, since it contains meaning, then it makes sense (again - to those who understand the English language and can comprehend the sentence when they read it) so there is no reason to vote affirmative. In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that the sentence "This sentence does no make sense" does in fact not make sense. However, because Pro apparently understands the sentence enough to debate it, then clearly it DOES make sense and Pro's own arguments therefore ct against him.
This sentence makes no sense.

This sentence makes no sense. You said that sense means: "the meaning or gist something [1]" so lets replace sense with the meaning or gist of something. This sentence makes no the meaning or gist of something. Sorry but neither of them work. "So, the sentence "This sentence makes no sense" describes an observer's observation to not properly understand the meaning behind a sentence." You are misinterpreting "this." Because there is no other thing it could refer to then it must refer to it's self. (it occurred in the topic of the debate and therefor could not be referring to anything else.) Please read the sentence and try to understand it before you lay down some irrelevant definitions and lay down a translation which doesn't apply. Lastly, I am quite insulted by your etiquette, i will be polite and ask you to not be so insulting, because whether you meant your argument to be insulting or not, you have implied that i cannot read properly or do not understand english (as can be seen in this quote: "Because those who can read and understand English realize that, then the sentence, in fact, makes sense.") Thanks for accepting my challenge, and i hope we can have an intelligent and non vulgar argument.)
This sentence makes no sense.

The sentence "This sentence makes no sense" makes perfect sense to the ones who understand its meaning - presumably those who can read and understand the English language. The word 'sense' has several definitions, including the meaning or gist something [1]. For something to make sense means the observer can understand the meaning behind it. So, the sentence "This sentence makes no sense" describes an observer's observation to not properly understand the meaning behind a sentence. Because those who can read and understand English realize that, then the sentence, in fact, makes sense. Thank you - I now await my opponent's rebuttal. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

Yeah, I will take this on as many levels as I possibly can. I've been waiting for a debate like this to show up. So first I am going to bring you personally into the round from what I have gathered through your profile. That being that you are agnostic and that you believe in saving endangered species. Therefor I will be avoiding god throughout this entire debate, I have no desire to go there. But I do need to ask you a couple questions and I'm going to use this round purely as cross-ex (considering this is a 5 round debate). 1. "Eating meat is the way to live." Specify this one for me a little. Does eating human meat count to you? Do you have a problem with that? 2. I see a minute contradiction between saving endangered species and eating meat as sometimes eating meat has been the result of endangered species. Notice the word "sometimes" in my sentence. Can you explain your justification to me? 3. What is your rationale behind "eating meat is the way to live"? Do you mean that literally in a "you can only live if you eat meat" way? Answers these three and I will give you my first speech. Thanks.
Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.
A Bill to lift the Cuban Embargo

These are my reasons why this bill should be lifted: Before I began I'd like to state my resource: comondreams.org 1)"Washington's embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry". *If they can't get cured at their own country due to lack of money or the availability of medication, than why shouldn't they be able to come to America, to receive the proper treatment*. 2)Due to the Cuban Embargo," it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical product for treating brain tumours in children. "TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce therapeutic vaccines against cancer. " "This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out. " *why should we restrict Americans of these treatments that will benefit them?* More people will be cured, why should we let the civilians suffer due to a this absurd bill?* " millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a unique product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations" *If this bill is passed than millions of people will not be suffering from such diseases. It'll save lives and sufferings.* "The restrictions that Cuba calls a blockade and the U.S. an embargo have cost this Caribbean country 86.1 billion dollars in total damages throughout the period, including four billion in 2005 alone, the document says. " *Why should we let a country and it's civilians suffer? It's economy is already bad! how does this look in Americas part, looks as if it's a self-fish careless country. Other countries look up to the United States, it's sup pos ably # 1, now what will other countries think?Why ruin Americas reputation?* "The report states that the ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565 million dollars per million U.S. tourists who are prevented from visiting the country" *United states is also suffering from this bill, were losing a lot of money when we could be gaining money from tourism to help this economy* "In addition, the U.S. imports about 148,000 tons of primary nickel and some 10,000 tons of cobalt annually "from distant markets. But If the blockade did not exist, it could purchase these raw materials from Cuba, only 200 kilometres away, the report notes. " *why purchase and exchange good from further countries when we can save gas and money by going to Cuba*
Dog meat shouldn`t be banned.

"Dog beat shold not be banned. because this is their culture."This makes no sense at all its who's culture?And how come killing humans for their meat is banned but killing inocent animals should not be.They feel pain and emotionss like us they can love like us why would we kill them why end a life for one meal when i can just make a salad.I would understand eating dog meat when theres nothing else and we have to hunt for living but why end and inocent life when i can walk up to the store and buy a salad and nobody's hurt.Use a bit of your mind before you speak nonsense...
knights where the best ancient warrior

one warrior who can defeat the knights? well then ancient indian (bharat) warriors can defeat the knights because ancient indian warriors have these weapons which are more powerfull than the weapons of a knight:1] elephants: a knight is usually a horseman. he cannot kill a giant elephant with his crossbow, sword and axe.but an elephant can crush many horsemen.2] chariots: a knight did not have one. the benefit of chariot is it cannot be destroyed by a poll axe or crossbow or sword. but a horse can be killed by those weapons.ancient indian warriors have chariot so they are in a better position than knights.3] fire arms: ancient indian warriors use fire arms which knights did not use.source:http://www.hinduwisdom.info...4] war machine: ancient indian warriors used war machines to fight which knights did not do.source:http://www.hinduwisdom.info...
knights where the best ancient warrior

if my opponent means that knights are the best among ancient warriors, then i think that he perhaps did not consider other ancient warriors. the weapons you have mentioned i.e. sword, crossbow, poll axe etc. was used by all over the world by warrior in a variety of forms.since weapon used by knights are used by other warriors too, i am unable to find why knights were the best warrior and others are not.morover my opponents did not define the term best warrior.source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Secular Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage

Some background: I am an atheist, So I will attempt to keep religion out of this. I have changed my stance on homosexuality multiple times. Now however, I believe homosexuality should be discouraged because of the following argument: Homosexuality causes the spread of the HIV virus much more frequently then straight marriage. Https://www. Hiv. Gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics states that 1. 1 million people have HIV within the US. This is about 1/300 Americans. It also stated that homosexuals account for about 67% of the all diagnosis, Or about 730, 000 diagnosies. The site also stated that the HIV infection rate among gays has been about stable, While it has been declining overall. Gays make up about 2% of the US population. This means that a gay person is about 33x more likely to have HIV then a straight person. It also means that there are about 6 million gays in the United States. If 800, 000 of them are HIV+, Then it means that 13% of gays have HIV/AIDS. This is more then the rate in Sub Saharan Africa, The birthplace of the disease. Summary: -Most HIV diagnosed and current infections are from gays, While they make up only 2% of the population. -Gays are 33x more likely to have HIV -13% of Gays have HIV, About the same rate as what is in Sub Saharan Africa, The birthplace of the disease. If Homosexuality is encouraged by society, Then more people will be gay. As a result, The HIV rate will skyrocket and life expectancy will decrease. Source: -https://www. Hiv. Gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
Secular Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage

Before we begin, I would like to state that I strongly support same-sex marriage and the reason that I am debating against it is because I am taking a class in school that involves being able to debate both sides of controversial topics. I would like to practice this by debating in favor or against many different topics, Whether I agree with them or not, So that I will be well-versed in different possible arguments and counter-arguments for a debate. Anyways, As the title states, My side of this debate will not involve religion. Please only accept if you agree to be respectful and to handle the topic in a mature fashion. Thank you.
Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

I would happily debate him again, and I applaud the intellectual endevours of one as young as he. In this debate we have seen pro put forth some considered arguments in attempt to demonstrate that sexism exists and is a prevalent problem within society. I feel that pro has just lacked a little experience in properly tying down his argument so that it fully demonstrates the point he is trying to make. For instance, his argument about wage disparity is just floating, he hasn't managed to tie it down to being caused by unjust prejudice on the basis of sex. He had no response to my argument that men a: have higher peak IQ's which b: tends to afford them the top jobs on merit, and c: the top jobs are always paid inordinately larger sums than the "second best", jobs, accounting for the disparity in average wages between men and women. We've seen how his "ladies first" stereotypical argument doesn't demonstatrate that this behaviour is sexist because it is not prejudice against women, and could merely be indicative of kindness and well-meaning, and of-course, men also hold the door open for men, and women often hold the door open for men. We've seen how his argument for sexism against transgenders was refuted because transgender is not a sex, and descrimination against transgenders can have multiple causes, such as religious beliefs. Lastly, we have not seen any rebuttal from my opponent to my argument which showed how legislating against this so-called sexism would actually undermine the functionality of human society, and leave all of us worse off. Final WordUltimately, because none of my opponents arguments successfully demonstrated sexism as existing, much less a problem for society, I think he has failed to win the motion. Again though I want to thank him for being a great host and making the debate enjoyable, and commend him on his high aspirations. Thankyou.
Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

ConclusionI read my opponent's rebuttals with great enthusiasm. However, I did roll my eyes a few times. I do concede to the notion that my main argument was weak, but his rebuttals show he misunderstood me. Some things I truly do not need to argue or source. Some things happen to be common knowledge. I have no further rebuttals in this debate. I believe the voters know why. Everyone who read this debate knows why. They know that I have the correct stance and that refuting my opponent's points would be a waste of time. Instead of stating final rebuttals, I will write a paragraph below defending my argument and my stance:In the second round, I defined "sexism" as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women." Contary to my opponent's belief, I stood by that defintion for the entire debate. I do acknowledge that some of my points were unsourced, but some things do not need to be sourced for they are common knowledge. The next time I debate this issue, I will need to elaborate and make my argument more complex and sophisticated, yet I believe my performance in this debate was satisfactory.This debate was full of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, yet it was enjoyable. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and choosing to discuss this very important topic with me. I will need to improve my debating skills before I start a new debate, but I believe I did well. I praise my opponent's performance in this debate. Now it is time for the voting period to commence. My opponent will write a final statement and then the voters will decide the outcome of the debate. I hope the votes are fair and perhaps I will debate this individual again in the future.