BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers

Please don't insult my intelligence here. I know the difference between Psychopaths and Sociopaths actually i Happen to be one, yes yes i know what your Thinking i'm Fibbing but i'm not. I was born a normal until something that changed my way of Thinking and the way i see Life, we psychopaths see the world as Instrumental and this happened between the ages of 14-15 that's usually when it develops and i was so bewildered on why this was happening, so i researched my Condition thinking i was Sick, i'll show you what i read- http://www.mayoclinic.org... http://www.smh.com.au... Okay i hope you read both of those Links proving we just don't believe in Rules and we do whatever we want and we have so much Apathy and Boredom towards Life we need Constant Entertainment also what i Think is all Psychopaths are a Disgrace and i'm 85% Right because we Ruin people's Lives and cause havoc and no matter what happens to us we resume doing it, WE DON'T CARE, we also don't have Personalities so we Fake all kinds to get what we want or need, but never have i got close to killing someone; actually i have Killed animals but that's Different Correct??? Now of course we as a humans species get angry and want to hurt maybe kill someone, oh yeah i also have a a lot of vagary realities. Uh there are so many things that us Psychopaths do i can't remember and not really trying, so i'll move on to Sociopaths, my Stepfather happens to be one he is a Angry Hot-Head who is a Pessimist and he has threatened people before, they get edgy with him and sometimes he shows them he has a shotgun in his Car but he lives in the South where that's allowed. Perhaps us Psychopaths shouldn't be on Earth i guess i don't know really what ever happens to me happens, i do remember getting into an Argument with another guy who said all Psychopaths should be killed off but that's something else i don't want to get into. I'm Pretty sure that's enough Proof that we don't Kill i Hope i didn't scare ya oh wait i don't care hehe.
Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers

I will say your wording is really really....different here are some definitions killer-a person, animal, or thing that kills Psychopaths-a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. synonyms:madman, madwoman, maniac, lunatic, psychotic, sociopath; More informal an unstable and aggressive person. sociopaths- a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience Someone who lacks moral values or has violent behavior is dangerous to society and many of them DO eventually either harm or kill other people for anything such as enjoyment, sport, just cuz, money, advancement, or even food. And believe it or not many horror movies have a basis on a real killer (granted loose basis but basis none the less). And unlike some other killers they may not even see it as wrong or out of place.
The Bing Bong Theory is the best show in the universe.

"First u said Bingo Bongo Theory.Not big bang theory." I'll take this comment as an acceptance to my terms. Point 1: Das Boot Boot Theory contains top of the shelf humor. What name comes up in every conversation when you think of knee-slapping heart-pounding barrel-rolling humor? That's right, Sheldan. This hero has single-handedly reinvigorated the tired formula of the sitcom. His comedy persona is so finely crafted that it makes comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld mold their own material around it. Did you ever wonder where Jerry Seinfeld came up with the idea of his own show "Seinfeld"? That's right. Point 2: Bazingle! Who doesn't like a fun catch phrase? I'll tell you who, someone who smears the good name of Emerson by insulting a finely crafted piece of media that Ralph EMERSON himself would probably tout as being the highest of brows. I'll tell you who else, someone who smears the good name of Ed HELMS with this garbo, when Ed has on numerous occasions, stated that, "..I don't know where I would be without The Bingy Bangy Theories. I owe everything to it." Point 3: Peni Pasta The group involved with Bin Band Teenies are strong proponents of affirmative action. Not only do they have minorities represented, they also have Peni, who is a strong independent woman who don't need no man. This forward thinking has spurred many social changes in our society, and has impacted my people and movements for many years. Point 3.14: PIE! LOL Point 4: It's only logical. If those points are not enough, I will present a sound, logical, and reasoned argument for my claim with facts. Premise 1: Bing Bangs exist. Premise 2: BAZBONGA! Conclusion: BAZBONGA! The Bing Bangs Theories is the greatest show in the universe. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals to my points.
The Bing Bong Theory is the best show in the universe.

I would like to put forth the idea that the Bingo Bongo Theory is the greatest show in the universe. I have the burden of proof in this debate as I am arguing for the motion. Round 1: Agreement Round 2: I will put forth my logical and sound reasoning for why da Biscuit Basket Tongo is the best show in the omniverse. Roudn 3: I will dismantle any rebuttals against my position and accept a full apology from Con for ever considering that dra bag bag ting is not the greatest show in the world. Thank you kind m'sir or m'mam in advance.
Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

Oh, the irony, I can almost swim in it. Pro extols the "rights of the worker", while simultaneously chastising those workers for not being "smart enough". So, lets boil pro's argument down.*Pro, does not agree with a free market solution.*Pro, has little concern for higher prices, just a concern for jobs lost from outsourcing.*Pro, feels it's the job of the government to protect the poor from the rich, and vice versa.*Pro thinks the workers "aren't smart enough" for a good education.*Pro thinks " there are only a limited number of jobs".*Pro thinks a 35% tariff will keep jobs here!! Well, that's the perfect set up for an American caste society. Manufacturing jobs stay here, producing at a higher cost than foreign companies, and higher costs only further entrench us into our respective earning brackets, especially those "not smart enough" workers, who will keep thier mouths shut because they got thier meager jobs, while the white collar workers will be safe from competition for thier limited number of jobs, and from blue collar criminals, and everybody just falls in line, and knows their roll in society! I'm surprised you don't come right out and say that we belong to our jobs, and the jobs belong to the country. It's a modern day Serfdom scenario. I fail to see how the United States will benefit from this twisted idealism. Only those in the highest earning brackets (who will now become the ruling class) will benefit, while any hope of climbing the economic ladder will disappear!
Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

Con provides extremely lackluster rebuttals. First, he goes on to say that the government's job is to protect our civil liberties, not from "mean nasty business savages." Actually, the government's job is to do both; con assumes that protecting civil liberties and workers' rights are mutually exclusive, which of course they aren't. Then con brings up the point about automated machines replacing unskilled labor and how tariffs can't save jobs from outsourcing. What con fails to understand is that this argument isn't about whether or not tariffs can save manufacturing jobs; rather, it's about whether or not threatening to impose a tariff is BETTER or WORSE than doing nothing at all. What con fails to realize is that automated machines will replace jobs in BOTH scenarios, thus making it an irrelevant point overall. He criticizes Donald Trump for not having a policy. What con doesn't understand is even IF trump DID have a policy, he would be absolutely stupid to talk about it in his campaign. Anyone who is even minorly educated in politics would know that is a major faux-pas. Why would a candidate bring up something which is doom and gloom if he doesn't have to when he is projecting a message of hope and change? Con then goes on to say that unskilled workers should just "further their education." What con fails to grasp is that there are only a limited number of jobs available and that this number is only going DOWN due to automation. Unskilled labor is unskilled for a reason. Sure, some may be unskilled due to lack of education, but most are unskilled because they just aren't smart enough to get a GOOD education. There is a HUGE difference between a diploma mill 4th tier college and a respected university. To close, con brings up a point that was already rebutted, which either indicates a lack of reading comprehension or logic. Con fails to realize that having american's lose their jobs also burdens us with having to pay for their social welfare paymen
Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

That was an impressive, eloquent post, damming the ideals of our civil liberties, and arguing instead, for a tribal, national consciousness, disreegarding our freedom for the sake of "protection". Trotsky would be proud!!! Sorry, I wasn't aware that the job of our president is to look after the interest of all Americans, and the job of our government is to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich. How daft of me to think that the true job of the President, and our government is to protect our CIVIL LIBERTIES, not protect us from mean, nasty business savages with golden fangs. My bad!!! Boy, have I been barking up the wrong tree. There is one question I have with this new found collectivist bandwagon we're all on now, like: Does a tariff on American companies actually help manufacturing jobs from disappearing? in 1980, on average it took 25 manufacture workers to make a million dollars in a quarter, whereas now it only takes 5 workers to make a million in that same time frame. LIke it or not, automation is more of a threat to American manufacturing jobs than outsourcing is. Good ol Ronnie Trump has no policy propositions for domestic companies who layoff workers in place of machines, and if he were to impose regulations on said companies, not only would it further infringe on our civil liberties, but it would stiffle technological progress. And what of the companies who make the manufacturing machines, do we just tell them to go out of business? Perhaps, a better option for the unskilled workers, would be to further thier education. i'm not against government loans to help poeple not only gain skills, better suited for todays economy, but also increase the quality of thier lives. My opponent fails to see the problem with any depth or logic and oppts instead for a reactionary policy that only covers one aspect of a larger issue. A policy that burdens us all with higher prices for the sake of a portion of the population, and tramples our freedom as well.
Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

What con fails to understand is that a free market solution does not work for labor, especially in the effort of unskilled labor. That's why we have a government; to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich, and to protect the rich from crimes against them by the poor. Having no minimum wage is one of the examples of protecting the poor from the rich. One of the reasons "labor" is cheaper in other places is because people are so desperate that they are willing to be exploited for pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but a lot of the labor laws here that protect workers from unsafe worker situations do not exist there. http://www.bbc.com... is one of MANY news articles describing the situations abroad. Con argues he doesn't want the price of his goods to go up, but ignores the fact that if people lose their jobs, more of his tax money will be used to subsidize their living. Moreover, as poverty increases, crime increases as well. This should be obvious, but to people who need sources: http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com... Con also doesn't understand that it's the president's job to look after the interest of ALL americans, not just to look after him. He also ignores the negative externalities of outsourcing jobs and merely focuses on how it affects him, when that was never the argument. The argument is how it affects america as a whole, and that is clearly negative.
Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

The collectivist ideals of protectionism, represent a threat to some of the basic principles indoctrinated in our constitution. It is a socialist sentiment, disgiused as "patriotism", with the intent of controling the means of prodution. The constitution garuantees us our right to private property, and it extends that right to private business ownership, because it views our business to be private property as well. You, as an entrepreneur, possess the right to higher or fire who ever you feel fit, that means, without consequence, or reguard to the labor force. A tariff on American companies, is just a case of treating the symtom, but neglecting the underlyng problem of high labor costs. If labor is cheaper elsewhere, than as a competitive labor force, we should ease or even get rid of minimum wage restrictions, to make our labor force a more competetive prospect. Yes, my heart goes out to those who lose thier jobs to other countries, but when the price of goods go up, my concern falls drastically. My hard earned money is for me to support my family with, not for spending on overpriced goods for the benefit of those who refuse to work for lower wages. Protectionism, communism, socialism, national socialism, are all born of the same eggs of the same collectivist insect. This is unacceptable for our individualist society, and is better suited for stalinist russia or nazi germany.
Hedonism is ethically consistent

The debate is about whether or not Hedonism is ethically consistent. This debate is not about if Hedonism could inspire a code of ethics.My case is tha tHedonism actually supports every single code of ethics except ones that involve suffering as the end-goal or pleasure as insignificant in their equations.Hedonism does not explain how you can giv eup imjmmediate pleasure ofr future pleasue or how likely it has to be tha tthe future pleasure will come in order to gamble with current suffering for the sake of the future pleasure. Conversely, Hedonism fails to address how important immediate pleasure is as well as the avoidance of immediate pain and suffering especially when it's done in direct opposition of future pleasure.Any scenario that involve procrastination, doing chores, working in a job you dislike to get the money to survive the day at the expense of pursuing the business you enjoy all leave Hedonism totally murky on the matter as it gives no consistent framework to go by in order to answer 'what should I do?'To be more frank on the matter, Hedonism is also very strange in how it addresses the issue of 'pleasure' and 'pain'. For instance, Hedonism could potentially make BDSM immoral as subs tend to enjoy things that Hedonism say they never should (pain, humiliation, temporary enslavement etc). Aside from that, even if we extend the definition of pleasure to include masochism and submissiveness as indirect paths to pleasure, there comes much more confusion on the other side of the equation. What I am saying is, sadistic individuals (especially those that are as extreme as serial killers or severe bullies of any kind perhaps with a rape fetish) are completely at a loss in Hedonism in how to justify being 'ethically considerate' to others since this will reduce their pleasure and increase their suffering while not directly pleasing anyone else but merely avoiding their pain. So, Hedonism begins to become very ethically incosistent when it comes to abuse of all kinds where the abuse is done directly to please the abuser or even indirectly to please the abuser while also disciplining for other reasons.Hedonism also is confusing in matters like the death penalty and prison in general. How do we go about punishing when punishing is morally wrong in Hedonism? It's almost as if in Hedonism everyone feeling pleasure at the sake of no one is the imaginary utopia but this just doesn't happen.
Hedonism is ethically consistent

Unfortunately I do not have much time for this round and i apologize for that. I will not be talking about the ethics of hedonism but rather how i will be defining it. Feel free to contend this definition. You state that hedonism is pleasure vs pain. I do not disagree with this assesment but i would like to broaden these concepts further to support my argument later on. Pleasure can be percieved in a variety of ways that are seemingly contridictory. For example, some people enjoy the sensation of pain and derive pleasure from it. Some people derive pleasure from the sense of danger. Pain can also be percieved in many different ways that seem contridictory in much the same ways. When talking about pleasure vs pain I find its more useful to generalize these terms into a discussion of benifit vs detriments. More specifically, percieved benefit vs percieved detriment. Hedonism views true pleasure as a result of obtaining a percieved benifit and true pain (or suffering if you will) is a result of encountering a percieved detriment. These benifits and detriments occur within an individuals reality and thus are dependent on their perception of their respective minds. You argue that pain and pleasure are interchangeable to a point of incoherence when employing a purely hedonistic philosophy. I would argue that this may be the case in reality, independent of the perciever (as no one can predict whether thier actions will certifiably have the outcome one hopes they would), but not when it comes to the percieved reality. We can only act on information we have, if this information leads us to conclude one action to be the most pleasurable with the least amount of suffering then we will act on this information regardless of its actual veracity. I belive this definition of hedonism resolves any inconsistencies you pointed out, please correct me if i am wrong. I will be discussing how this definition of hedonism is ethically consistent and correct in the next round. I, again, apologize for not being able to respond to all of your points and promise to do so in my next argument. Thank you
Hedonism is ethically consistent

I believe, like Hedonists, that pleasure is UNDENIABLY the better outcome than pain when both are viable to get. I agree with this basis of Hedonism and I got not issue with it at all.What I'm going to do is explain that if you do not add another layer to your system, in other words if you stay 'Hedonist right-wing psychopath' or whatever you want to call a pure Hedonist, you end up contradicting the idea that pleasure is superior to pain in so many situations where it becomes far murkier what is pleasurable or not as gambles begin to enter the equation where you give up immediate pleasure for avoidance of future suffering and vice versa.Since Pro has initial burden of proof, I'll let them try to prove that it is ethically consistent or even that Hedonism has any ethics at all. See, it's easy to say 'pleasure is better than pain' but there's countless scenarios where your many options to take include paths where pain and pleasure are being traded, such as being a good hardcore nerd to have a great, blissful career in the future or the delinquent because you could die tomorrow or don't really think it's even sure pleasure to have such a career and to get good grades.There's almost no situation where Hedonism can even tell you which option is the better one purely because 'pleasure' is present indirectly in any path you take in the exchange or at the very least pain is reduced to some degree meaning everything starts to become a 'good' idea.
Pitch Perfect is an awesome movie!

First of all Anna Kendrick was amazing in this movie. The only movie of hers that I have to compare her in was the Twilight series, but I think this movie was her best one yet. Rebel Wilson playing "Fat Amy" was hilarious. She is such a funny person and her character had me laughing throughout the movie. Having a character like her in the movie makes it interesting. I also love how everybody in the group has their own personality. They are not all conformed robots who do the same thing over and over again. Giving all the members a chance to sing is always as good thing as well. I like when movie showcase more than just the main actors. Plot The whole point of the movie is for the Barden Bella"s to make it back to the National Competition that did not go so well the year before. The now senior Aubrey had a puking incident the year before at the competition that has made them the laughing stock of the campus since then. She is neglecting to change her known ways when it comes to singing and really butts heads with new girl Becca. She is a modern girl who likes to make new kinds of music and that is not what Aubrey likes at all. Most of the movie they are trying to both push their ways into the routines that they compete with. That"s what makes this a good movie. In the end everybody gets what they want and the music ends up being the nest part of it all. Songs I love the new and older song selections that are used; it gives the movie a nice twist. Most of the songs nobody would think to do as an A Capella song but that"s what makes it work. Having to expand the range of music is a good thing when it comes to making movies. For these reasons and many more that"s why Pitch Perfect is an awesome movie!!
Batman could beat Superman in a no-rules fight

Counter Argument I will take an exact quote from you to show that you were still referring to Gold Kryptonite. "As my polite opponent has said, Batman would not be able to even posses gold kryptonite. This is a valid argument, but as Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt, he could just reach in and grab some kryptonite. As gold kryptonite would demolish Superman's superpowers, he would be extremely vulnerable." You refer to gold kryptonite instead to green kryptonite which Batman would have. Also your argument completely ignores my previous arguments. I said that all Superman would have to do is fly out of Batman's reach and use his Heat Vision super power to burn a hole in Batman's head. Superman does not have to be able to read people's minds, his senses and reflexes are so fast that even near superhuman humans like Batman would seem to be moving in slow motion. For Superman to be affected by Kryptonite he has to be hit by it, which Batman would be hard pressed to do considering Superman can move faster then the speed of light.Conclusion: In round 2 I gave a scenario for how Superman would beat Batman. My opponent did not address any of the points I made in this scenario and did not prove how Batman would be able to win the fight. Since nothing I said was refuted I stand by my previous conclusion that Superman would beat Batman.
Batman could beat Superman in a no-rules fight

My opponent obviously did not understand what I meant. When I said this is a valid argument, I mean that it would make sense except for the fact that Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt. My opponent obviously missed this and did not understand what I was saying. Now, Superman does not have the power to read minds. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...Since we know this, Batman could easily open that pouch with the kryptonite, thus the lead outline would be of no good to Superman and would stop him in his tracks. Then Batman could fight him and since Superman does not carry any backup with him, Batman would easily be able to defeat the Man of Steel.
Batman could beat Superman in a no-rules fight

As my polite opponent has said, Batman would not be able to even posses gold kryptonite. This is a valid argument, but as Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt, he could just reach in and grab some kryptonite. As gold kryptonite would demolish Superman's superpowers, he would be extremely vulnerable.As for the multiple versions, Earth One is the default earth, therefore since I did not specify this, it is happening on Earth One.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...;