BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
George W. Bush was not one of the top 5 worst president.

! he was a slavery advocate, in the supreme courts Dred Scott case he personally lobbied his fellow Pennsylvanian Justice Robert Cooper Grier to vote with the majority to uphold the right of owning slave property. he tried to push the lecompton constitution of Kansas threw congress in an attempt to make Kansas a slave state, he even went so For as to offer appointments and cash bribes to secure votes. this alone makes him a worse president but I will go on on financial issues he was the president during the panic of 1857 which was the worst economic downturn in US history until the great depression. he was also the first person to finance US debts. now onto just plain bad decision making if you think George bush made bad decision invading Iraq with faulty intelligence Buchanan invaded the Utah territory because someone told him Governor Brigham Young was starting a revolt witch tuned out not to be true. he was such a poor decision maker that when the south seceded e thought it best to do nothing. now onto president Andrew Johnson the first president to be impeached everyone of the governors he appointed in former confederate states passed black codes that gave all freed slaves second class status. worse than that was when the congress passed the first civil rights bill Johnson vetoed it Johnson, in a letter to Governor Thomas C. Fletcher of Missouri, wrote, "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men. "[20]{Wikipedia} I would say he was a worse president than GWB because in a time after the civil war when he should have been uniting a nation he tried to bitterly divide it. now to the infamous Richard Nixon some of the things he did that were found out by the Watergate committee are "campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale"{Wikipedia}
Digital Piracy

Round 2 will be our opening statements and all our main arguments. Round 3 will then be rebuttals. Round 4 is then any final rebuttals, final thoughts and closing arguments. We will be using the dictionary definition of Piracy as defined by both the oxford dictionary and the Merriam Webster Dictionary:"the unauthorized use or reproduction of another"s work:software piracy" "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright"I believe that online Piracy or peer-to-peer sharing of all commercial digital media, be it Movies, Games, Software or Music is theft and is not justifiable.
The BAD argument debate

My topic is "Whether or not Obama is from Africa." I will be taking the position that Obama is not from Africa and is actually in fact actually the terrorist leader Osama Bin Ladin. --------------------------------------------------- FACT ONE: President Obama is a Muslim. --------------------------------------------------- This is the first piece of evidence. As well all well know, all Muslims are actually murderous terrorists. Since the Reverend Franklin Graham says [1] that Obama is a Muslim and he matches the appearance of one it is without a doubt that Obama is a Muslim. For one thing, why would a PRIEST lie? HE'S A PRIEST!!! Second of all, how could 1 in 5 Americans (THAT'S OVER 40 MILLION!!!) be wrong? It's completely impossible. ---------------------------------------------------------------- FACT TWO: He had plenty of time to disguise himself. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is a VERY strong piece of evidence. According to leading plastic surgeon Dr. Nick Riviera's [2] expert testimony: "It would only take a few years for plastic surgery techniques to change the face of everybody, everybody!" Since prior to President Obama assuming the role of Commander and Chief we know very little about his shady history and the fact that there is 8 years between said presidential campaign and the September 11 attacks, it is irrefutable that Osama would have plenty of time to assume the role which lead him to become president. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FACT FOUR: Their names are too close for it to be a coincidence. ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is piece of evidence that will completely convince you. This is what sparked the suspicions that lead me to this realisation. Look at the names… O-S-A-M-A. O-B-A-M-A. It is obvious to me that the fact these names are only ONE letter different could only come from the fact that they are one and the same person. -------------------------------------------- Conclusion -------------------------------------------- Let put this in simple terms, so you idiots reading can understand. Obama is a Muslim: This is proven fact. Muslims are terrorists: This is common knowledge Obama is both a Muslim and a terrorist. Osama and Obama are the same person: I have proven this. Thank you, my opponent need not reply. ---------------------------------------- SOURCES ----------------------------------------- [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The BAD argument debate

I've been reading about Logical Fallacies and I've come up with a great idea! We will have a debate that will not be judged on the strength of the argument but how poorly the argument is framed. In other words, as an exercise of growth (lol) we will construct the worst possible argument imaginable using as many logical fallacies as possible and just plain stupidity. It will work like this... All judging criteria will be reversed. "Who had better conduct?" goes to the person with the worse conduct. "Had better spelling and grammer?" is a bit trickier. We don't want to make the debate tedious to read, so this one is ignored and automatically Tied. "Made more convincing arguments?" is where lulz begin. Whoever can make the most ridiculous arguments for their assigned topic wins this. The more logical fallacies the better! "Used more reliable sources?" goes to whoever can come up with the most ridiculous, irelevant, biased sources they can find. Now, topics will be assigned by ones opponent. My opponent, whichever moron (see, bad conduct :P) decides to accept this challenge will accept my rules and assign me my first topic in their round one. My opponents first topic will be assigned at the end of my round two. I think this should be the source of many lulz.
Abortion, in the first trimester, should be legal:

Oh god I guess I'm going to have to go with your example. Well, in the case of semen, let's be real here, we are talking about YOUR SEMEN. Meaning it only contains your genetic DNA whereas the barely developed grey matter of a fetus is That of 2 humans genetic DNA. There for, semen does have the potential of creating a child but once the process of fertilization occurs within the womb where those DNA strands combine, it's no longer a potential, that there is a GUARANTEED chance that it will be another human being.
Abortion, in the first trimester, should be legal:

Yes and everytime I masturbate I'm spraying seed which could have ended up tuirning into a human that might have ended up commiting the next massive genocide. It gets worse- I wipe it up, and then throw millions of potential babies in the trash can or flush them all down the toilet!A potential, maybe-might have became a baby is not the same as an actual baby- just like my semen is not actual children.
Abortion, in the first trimester, should be legal:

Well, I would like to ask my opponent this, would you look at the seed of a plant the same way? Take the seed of a Rose. The rose may bloom beautiful, giving life and beauty to the world or die. However, you still see it as a seed, but you have the very knowledge that it may be something more than a seed. Very much how that group of cells can be a person. Cells or not, that is human DNA that has the possibility of growing into the person to rule to world or find the cure to cancer.
Abortion, in the first trimester, should be legal:

I am on the fence about abortion but i will play devil's advocate and debate upon this topic. Abortion I believe is wrong and i can assure you this is not come from a religious follower whatsoever. I believe that the idea of abortion is a cruel way to end a possible life that can change this world for the greater good and i'm not going to lie, it could be the next Hitler. Let's focus on the optimistic side though. Not only this, what if it's like someone who sells their body a lot and winds up pregnant, should she be given the right to end the child's life because of her poor decisions?
Abortion, in the first trimester, should be legal:

Well first of all, I, including most Americans believe that life begins upon conception, making unborn children as much as a right to life as those who are alive. Let's also dive into the fact that abortion does have a link to subsequent depression in young women after they abort a child and building off of that evidence, females are 3 times as likely to attempt suicide than men because of an increase in depression. (that's not particularly linked to abortion but that's just the overwhelming affect of depression in general in women.) And if I may ask what's wrong with the consideration of Adoption? Why can't a child be put up for adoption. Hell, put him in a ham basket and wrap him in a blanket movie style and drop him off at the some strangers doorstep. So since this is the last round of the argument, I can conclude that Your whole argument was based around the premise that within the first trimester, it doesn't even have the physical characteristics and development of a child. However, as I stated numerous times, it has the potential to be. Created by two persons and granted unique genes suitable to that unborn child that will help him/her live on for the rest of their childhood. Please also tell me if abortion is humane. It shouldn't be right? If you just google image search "abortion" the grotesque images shown is repulsive. EVEN AS A CLUMP OF CELLS THE PROCESS IS STILL PRETTY REPULSIVE. So that's all for my side on the topic. To restate my stance: Abortion, in the first trimester, should not be legal. It's been great debating.
is master chief better than the arbiter

Well pro has already forfeited round two so I don"t have much to rebuttal but well go on explain how the Arbiter aka Thel Vadum formerly Thel Vadumee. Thel Vadum was a former fleet master of the Fleet of Particular Justice something not easily achieved. Thel has lead 50 ships and has devastated the human systems he has fought against and even went on the ground attacks when launched unlike many fleet commanders showing his will to fight. When encountering the planet Camer a vital planet for producing materials for the UNSC Thel performed a slip space jump well within the human system and penetrating the early warning system before the UNSC could react engaging the planet before they knew what was going on leading the loss of the planet with minimal damage to Thel"s fleet. Thel later went on and lead the invasion force on the planet Reach human"s last world before Earth and Humanity"s military hub and ended with the destruction of Reach and most of the UNSC"s ships and military force. Vadum has been attributed to over one billion human casualties and the loss of at least seven human planets, his forces has defeated all UNSC counter attack at the cost of 123 fleet vessels and 23,000 personal and with the later loss of reach ONI has predicted a 0% chance of victory through traditional means fighting Vadum. And we can later see when Vadum becomes the arbiter he is sent thought many suicidal missions and has come out alive and victorious and has lead the humanity to victory against the covadent and without his help and his ships/ connections the humans would have been whipped out with the firing of the halo rings when the prophets would remotely fire them through the lesser arc. That is all I have for now I wait for pros response. Sources: Halo 2 anniversary terminals
Pop music isn't really music.

So for this round, I must only state opinion. My opinion on the matter is that anything can be music. I believe the definition presented is correct, however without it, pop music is still music. First of all, it is litteraly in the music category. Furthermore, I am assuming you think that real music is music that speak to people. Music that helps people understand, music that people make from their hearts. This also applies to pop music. Though most of it isn't there still is many that are.
Pop music isn't really music.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on the issue, and hope you will accept mine. I'm coming into this debate with an open mind; if you offer a convincing argument, my opinion will change. I just want to outline some rules of how this debate will run: ROUND 1: This was the previous round, just for accepting the debate. ROUND 2: The current round. In this round you must clearly introduce the topic and state your opinion. Please refrain from arguing and providing evidence for your opinions at this stage. ROUND 3: State why you think your opinion is right. Include any evidence you deem necessary. This should be the longest round; you must offer several points for your case in order for the next two rounds to work properly. ROUND 4: REBUTAL 1: This is where we both rebut each other's arguments, claiming why we think the other person is wrong, claiming why we think we're right. ROUND 5: REBUTAL 2/CONCLUSION: Rebut the arguments raised in Round 4 and conclude your debate. This is important, for the voters will probably pay the most attention to the end. Have fun and enjoy! I will argue for the statement "Pop music isn't really music"; the Con will be arguing against the statement. . First I must define some terms: Pop music is a musical genre, consisting of popular music. Some popular artists include Katy Perry, Elton John, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift. The basic definition of music is anything that either consists of melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre. Of course there are other elements too, such as dynamics and tempo. This basic definition is a common belief; it's what most people believe because it's in the dictionary. In my opinion, this definition is incorrect, i. e. there is more to music them just what the definition states (this will be expanded on in Round 3). So in my opinion, I think that Pop Music doesn't fit the definition of what music is (philisophically speaking). In Round 3, I will establish arguments for my opinions and state my phillosophies, brace yourself! Thankyou for reading, I look forward to hearing what you have to say this round (remember, don't argue just yet! )
Omnipotence and Benevolence are Mutually Exclusive

Epicurean Paradox Requires OmniscienceIf god lacks the power to prevent evil because god lacks the power to know everything then god is not omnipotent as god lacks the power to know everything. If god lacks the power to know everything then god is not omnipotent because god lacks the power to do something.Evil is Required"The Epicurean Paradox relies on the existence of evil; the Resolution only concerns Omnipotence and Benevolence."Let's say I give you two pieces of information: Bob lives in England and Scottie lives in California but let's say you know from another sources that they are flatmates that makes the two statements "Bob lives in England" and "Scottie lives in California" mutually as they cannot exist together. In the same sense let's say I give you two pieces of information: God is kind and God is all powerful, now you know from another source that "evil" exists and that makes the two statements mutually exclusive, they cannot be true at the same time.Got to be Cruel to be Kind/Suffering and adversity are required for moral growthThis is the idea of a compromise that is not necessary with an omnipotent being. "Free will"Con has failed to define "free will". This leaves this argument more or less meaningless.A World Without Evil is Impossible/Less ValuableIf god does not have the power to make a world without evil the she is not omnipotent as she cannot do everything.This idea of value is completely subjective and therefore meaningless.
Omnipotence and Benevolence are Mutually Exclusive

DefinitionsBenevolence : "the quality of being well meaning; kindness" [1]Omnipotence: "(Of a deity) having unlimited power:" [2]Mutually exclusive: "of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other" [3]ArgumentEpicurean paradox:"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?"This is usually simply referred to as the problem of evil and the essential part of this debate is that: if a being (who I will from here on refer to as god even though this being doesn't necessarily have to be a god) is benevolent and omnipotent then there should be no negative actions (which I will simply refer to as evil from now on) occurring, we can see that they do from everyday life therefore we can conclude that omnipotence and benevolence are mutually exclusive. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Online relationships don't work

"Firstly, I must be blunt: I think it is dreadfully shallow to only make relationships with people if you're planning to date them*. I'm heterosexual, and if I avoided friendships with certain people based on whether or not their genitals protruded, I would have missed out on a lot of the experiences I cherished, a lot of big and little intimate moments with those that I would never have wanted to date on account of not wanting to rub pub hair follicles with them." I never said that, but ok. This doesn't prove that online relationships work. "It follows if a relationship is sustained primarily online, if you love them for who they are based on how they act online and how they'll continue to act online, it would be essentially identical in nearly every way to loving who they are in person and how they will continue to act in person." It's not. Do you really want to spend your life with someone over the computer screen? Do you want to get married through a video call? Most people in this country probably wouldn't. Eventually, you'll want to see each other in person. I (a rare person) am willing to travel to another state or country if the person i want a relationship with is worth it, but as far as i know, i have not found one person who is worth it for a relationship. Why is that? I take notice of their problems in real life (living conditions, personality, mentality, relationships, etc.) that they probably try hard to hide and see they have fatal flaws. If you invest too much time in online relationships and less in human interactions guess what? Your going to lack confidence, lack trust, probably lack empathy, your communication will be weak, it's just going to ruin your social life. The world is so much bigger than the internet, so go out there and talk to people, spend time with family, join clubs with people of similar interests, practice communication. Expectations change over time and eventually you outgrow the need for online relationships. Online relationships eventually end with people getting bored or just moving on with their lives. By you putting up pics of yourself, you admit that you want some realness to the relationship. Real relationships that require you to eventually pay the bills, help your wife around the house, help your children with their homework, struggle with your wife to find solutions to life's problems last longer than just sharing casual interest online.
Online relationships don't work

First of all, the fact that i opened up with "lol" proves how superficial the online environment is. " Online, you choose what parts of you you want to reveal, and they don't have to be the shallow parts. You can show who you really, truly are. People see you beyond your nice tits, is what I'm saying." And that's a bad thing because in order to make a wise decision concerning relationships, you need to know enough to decide if that person your planning to date/court, etc. is compatible. In person, it's alot harder to hide your characteristics whether good or bad. It's very easy to be straight-forward online because your comfortable with cyber communication, so you can present a superficial image to people, but it doesn't work as well in real life. I can tell whether your confident just by the tone of your voice and the very words you use. I can tell whether your angry, nervous, happy, sad, etc. by your facial expressions and the like. In an online relationship, that can remain hidden. It's quite easy when your in control of your image with the push of a button. Most of my friends are not ok with online relationships for the reason that we can never share an intimate relationship when our significant other is behind a screen. An online relationship should never substitute a real relationship because we as humans were not designed to survive that way. The internet was made for many things especially in this case to transmit information and communicate, but not to create a relationship worth-while. I do not believe that our love can penetrate through the cybernetic world. Love is when you can travel around with your partner and explore the world for what it is. Love is when you can appreciate their artwork with a smile and hug. It's when you can hold the other in your arms and laugh together as you watch a movie. Love is when you can defend them with your own hands both in person and online. Love is when you can mend their wounds, comfort them when they cry physically and emotionally. Humans need physical closeness and online relationships no matter how many video calls you send, pics, etc. can sustain the closeness you would feel in person. Online relationships cannot project any emotions unless the person uses illustrations to make it more direct. To assume would be dangerous as it is open to misinterpretation. Communication in person allows you to see their emotions in an instant whereas online, you must wait for their chat response, so tell me, how many relationships work in person compared to online relationships?
Online relationships don't work

I know i would've posted this when i was younger, but guess it'll have to do lol I argue that online relationships don't work for the reasons that we as humans need physical interaction (face-to-face communication, hugging, etc.) While yes, they might work for an extent, eventually, you will need to see each other in person. Online relationships of any kind can never substitute for real life relationships. Online relationships can get superficial as you both cannot know who the real person is. Just because they act a certain way online does not mean they are like that in person.
People who can count to potato are smart

First debate starts off well eh? Anyways, I am new to this and I do not know the 'standard protocol'. It would be appreciated if Con could teach me along the way, but that's up to Con. I argue that people who can count to potato(or just any words) can be considered smart because they managed to transform numbers into letters, and then word(s). I am looking forward to... I don't know.
There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships

I hold the position that incestuous relationships are socially acceptable, if (and only if) no children are born out of these relationships. This debate should not focus on semantics, as such please accept the following definitions if you wish to debate this topic. Definitions:Incest: sexual intercourse and/or a romantic relationship between people who are very closely related. i. e. brother and motherSocially acceptable: worthy of being accepted in society.