BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joke Debate

Blonde jokes: There was a blonde, a brunette, and a red head. A man came up to them and told them that their was a slide that when you slide down it whatever you said on the way you would land in a big cauldron full of it. The brunette went down and said “money”, so She landed in a couldron full of money. The red head slid down and said “make up” so she landed in the cauldron full of make up. When the blonde went down she shouted “wheeeeee!”. __Q: What is the difference between a smart blonde and a UFO? A: There have been sightings of UFOs. __ There are two blondes. One’s a cop and ones driving a car. The blonde cop stops the blonde driver and asks for identification. The blonde driver looks all around in her purse and can’t find her license. “I must have left it at home, officer.” “Well, do you have any kind of identification on you?” asks the cop. The blonde takes out a pocket mirror and says, “I do have this picture of me.” “Let me see it,” says the cop. She holds up the mirror and looks in it. Then she says, “Sorry. If I had known you were a police officer, I wouldn’t have stopped you.” __ A blonde and a redhead met for dinner after work and were watching the 6 o'clock news. A man was shown threatening to jump from the Brooklyn Bridge. The blonde bet the redhead $50 that he wouldn't jump, and the redhead replied, "I'll take that bet!" Anyway, sure enough, he jumped, so the blonde gave the redhead the $50 she owned. The redhead said, "I can't take this, you're my friend." The blonde said, "No. A bet's a bet." So the redhead said, "Listen, I have to admit, I saw this one on the 5 o'clock news, so I can't take your money." The blonde replied, "Well, so did I, but I never thought he'd jump again!" __ A blonde was cruising down the highway at breakneck speed when a cop pulled her over. “May I see your license and registration, please?” asked the cop. Miffed, the blonde said, “I wish you guys would get your act together. Just yesterday you took away my license. Now today you want me to show it to you!” __ How do you keep a blonde busy for hours? Scroll Down. ---> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <----- Scroll Up. __ A blonde, a brunette and a redhead are running from the cops. They hide on a potato farm. They crawl into some potato bags. The first cop pokes the bag with the brunette in it. She says, "Meow." The cop confirms that it is just a cat. The second cop pokes the bag with the redhead in it. She says, "Woof." The cop says that it is just a dog. The third cop pokes the bag with the blonde in it. She says "Potato." Yo mama: Yo mama so fat when she steps on a weight scale it says “to be continued.” Yo mama so poor when I saw her kicking a can down the street, I asked her what she was doing, she said "Moving." Yo mama so fat she had to come back from the dead because God told her he had no room in heaven and the devil said there was no room in hell. Back to you pro.
Joke Debate

O RLY? Yo mama Yo mama so fat her clothes come in three different sizes large, extra large, and oh my god its coming! Yo mama's so fat that when she fell in love she broke it Yo mama's so ugly when I took her to the zoo they said, "Thanks for bringing' her back!" Yo mama's so cheap, she's on the dollar menu. Yo mama's so stupid she thought a quarterback was a refund. Yo mama's so ugly, American express left home without her. Yo mama's so fat, she got Baptized at sea world. Yo mama's is so stupid when she went to Walgreen's she said "hey, these walls isn't green. Yo mama's is so ugly that she entered in the ugly contest they said, "no professionals" Yo mama's is so old, when god said let there be light she flipped the switch
Democracy

You made the debate topic broad, So you don't get to qualify it after the fact. It logically follows that we, As a people, Are forced by necessity to use the best system of government that we have available. So if you can't propose an alternative, This debate is over because democracy wins by default, Plain and simple. If you want to dodge that and say no government system at all, Then your statement is vacuous and impractical. We can't have no government because it would cause anarchy which would be filled by some authoritarian power. This has been demonstrated historically so I'm not saying anything new here. I don't care what Murray Rothbard says, That's an argument from authority. A good argument should be logical and stand or fall on it's own merits. Such arguments don't require an authority. You seem to be against the idea of representatives as well. I don't see why because you're handing the same amount of power over in the end anyways. My math is accurate because the representative are elected, There in choosing who to give their power to. This is fair because communities that agree on things can elect like minded representatives and this work great for their town. Their city, Or their nation. You talk about the will of the people being immoral. That's irrelevant, Any system has a chance of producing an immoral power holder or holders. That just brings you right back to anarchy again. That's the problem with not suggesting an alternative, Every criticism you make just bring us back to anarchy. If all you want is anarchy, Then I win this debate by reductio ad absurdum because anarchy can be shown to be absurd.
Democracy

"Democracy is Illogical, Debunked" My math from earlier refuted this. Unless you can propose a system that divides the power better, Then this argument falls. You say that division of power doesn't matter, But that is the whole point of the system, So if you want to die on that hill then we'll have to change the name of this topic to "blah blah blah" "Democracy coerces dissenters, Debunked" There are ways to give voices to minorities and America is a great example of this. There is nothing about majority rule that is immoral, Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral. You're making this sound like more of a problem than it actually is. Once again, Unless you can name on system that is better, Then you can't prove that this isn't the best system. If your argument is that democracy is not good enough, But you don't have an alternative, Then you're being vacuous and arguing for anarchy which just leads to fascism which is worse than democracy. So what's the alternative?
Democracy

Politics is not my strongest area, So I apologize if I use improper political terms. For starters, I accept your definition of the topic at wholesale value. Glad that's settled. I have to admit, Your argument is pretty good. But I think I have some wiggle room here. I am here to demonstrate that democracy is a sound form of government. Here are my opening points. 1. Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system. Democracies have a flaw in that we run the risk of being driven by the majority. But what's the alternative? A monarchy? No, Giving our power to one person is flawed. Maybe a dictatorship? No, Giving our power to one regime is flawed. Maybe Anarchy? Nope! Now we have a flawed power vacuum that could be filled by any government? Maybe a Tribunal? Well wouldn't that just be a group of people with our power instead of just one? Still seems flawed. So what's the bottom line here? It seems like no matter what system we assume, We're still just handing our power over to someone. Oh wait, Except in democracy, We're not. We're all voting! Tell me this I have a country with 100 units of power and I give all the power to the dictator? What's the power per holder. 100! What if I give it to a tribunal of 10 people? That's 10 power per holder. What if I give it to 1 million people? That's 0. 0001. Seems to me that democracy even holds up in math as well. The biggest take away from this is that for all it's flaws, It's the most fair system. You can't fight math. 2. Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all. Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. I'm not sure I can say much more on that point. 3. Democracy comes in many forms. Since democracy is simplistic in nature, There is a lot of room for practical additions. We can mix democracy with other political systems that denote what happens after the voting process. We can form constitutions to support them on. We can make restrictive rules to stop itself from being voted out of itself. Etc. Your rebuttal
Democracy

Well, You provided no alternative to democracy, So I can just throw out everything you said wholesale. I'll just establish why you can't win without an alternative and then maybe tie a couple of things down for completeness sake. My argument that you need an alternative is not moving the goalpost nor is it a shifting of the burden of proof. I didn't shift the burden of proof. I presented a proof in the form of a valid and sound logical argument that there must be a system of government in place. This is my proof because without a government in place, We have anarchy which leads to a power vacuum which leads to authoritarian regimes. All of these points have logical entailment and can be demonstrated in objective reality, So how did I shift the burden? You must understand in a debate, That if I provide a sound and valid justification for my claim, It becomes your burden to rebuke the claim do to the fact that your side of the argument has been disproven by the impossibility of the contrary. If you don't believe what I'm saying, Then research and will you understand the nature of rebuking arguments. So your job was to show the absurdity of my claim, Which you can't do. If you remove democracy you get a vacuum. That NECESSARILY follows that you have to then provide an alternative. It's not just a claim you have to provide it. The logic dictates that you must. I gave you several chances to do this and you wanted to try to simply dismiss my proof, So that is your fault. I made no arguments from ignorance that I'm aware of. I compared democracy to other forms of government because that is the only way to quantify and qualify it. Without other systems, The whole debate becomes moot because you're arguing that we should throw out something that is our only solution. That would be like saying that we don't need oxygen and then going on to say that you don't have an alternative to oxygen. You see the absurdity of that. It's not my fault that you didn't want to stand on a logical point. That's the problem with passively neigh saying. That's why presupp apologists sound crazy when they talk. You're just trying to tear down the best form of government and then walk away without building a new foundation. Next time you debate a topic of this nature, I would suggest you be ready to refute people's proofs. I could re-refuting the details in here, But it's honestly not necessary because you didn't provide an alternative. So democracy wins by default on these two premises 1. We must have a form of government. 2. There is not a clear alternative to democracy C. We must accept and utilize democracy until we find a better system. It sucks too because if you posited an alternative, You probably would have refuted me easily. Good debate.
locker checks

All schools should have random locker checks. The lockers are the school's property and they have all rights to do it, because students should know better than to bring contraband to school, such as, drug's, gun's, knife's, and any other thing. The main source of this stuff being brought to school is because, the school cut's too much slack. Schools should cut a little less slack. Lockers are school property. The school used their money to buy those lockers. According to, http://quotesgram.com... "We know that to compete for the jobs of the 21st century and thrive in a global economy, we need a growing, skilled and educated workforce, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. Americans with bachelor's degrees have half the unemployment rate of those with a high school degree. So, the locker checks would stop bad kid's." Said, Mark Pocan. The locker checks would also build student character.
being gay isn't bad

"So, That source actually proves my point, Thanks. " your welcomenot saying all of us will be gay just saying its happening more for some reason. "The evidence shows not that more people are becoming gay but that more people are coming out as gay. "more people are becoming gaymore people are coming out as gay^ Same thing. "vitro fertilization" are you referring to artificial insemination? Or are they two different things. People being gay perhaps not lead to death of our species but it is defying the purpose of life, Reproduction and population
being gay isn't bad

"The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed. " Org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve So, That source actually proves my point, Thanks. Your third point is a non sequitur because there is no proof that all of us will become gay. The evidence shows not that more people are becoming gay but that more people are coming out as gay. Also even if everyone became gay as unlikely as that is there is still vitro fertilization and sperm donations. People being gay will not be the death of our species.
being gay isn't bad

there is evidence of adam and eve proof: wikipedia. Org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve it is good that more people are born those same ppl who are born could change the world for the better they might be great doctors, Great lawyers, Good politicians etc perhaps gay ppl don't decrease the population but they will make it at a standstill when reproduction is needed. Hypothetically speaking if every person in the world were gay it would cause extinction. It seems now that more and more people are gay nowadays
being gay isn't bad

First of all there is no evidence that the first man and women had names, Much less that their names were Adam and Eve. Your point that gay sex can't produce children but that isn't bad. True that is the purpose of sex but who is it harming? Our planet is already overpopulated so isn't good more people aren't being born? Your other point is that gay people decrease the population. I'm sorry but that isn't founded in fact, Majority of people on earth are heterosexual so it's not like allowing gay people to live their lives will cause our species extinction.
The prison sentence for attempted murder should be the same as murder.

I would like start by rebuting Charlie's point bcause people that have these problems and get carried away and try to commit murder can be send to mental asylums where they can be treated and the will be taken care off. We wouldnt benefit from that person going to jail. We would benefit from that if the person learnt their mistake and could be send back into public. Also in these cases the judges will have to take into consideration of what the man has gone through and what diseases he has etc. Te public people pay from their monthly or annually (in some countries) tax. Some of this money goes towars these places where the sick minded are kept. Your parents pay these taxes and we do to. These places treat the person and help them get better. Attempted murder is different in this someone is not killed but tried to be killed so the punishment shouldnt be the same. But if we give the same sentence what is the point of these places that thye government and us are paying for. They are of no good. So instead of sending these people to jail they shuld be sent to these places where they can be treated. It is for their own benefit and our too these will actually help decrease the cime rate. As well as that the robbery example doesnt really fit in because you will most probably be dead and if the case is even severe the robber will be charged with death penalty in most likely cases or given a life sentence.
The prison sentence for attempted murder should be the same as murder.

I'd like to start by saying that I am not suggesting that we throw every attempted murderer in prison for life (uk) or in the us kill them because I am saying they should get the same punishment as they get in murder and they should like in murder trials be given a fair trial. You may have seen in the news that people like you said can sometimes be affected by emotions and disorders this is why in trials some people are given tests to see if they were affected and there sentences are adjusted accordingly. If your wife was cheating on you and you tried to kill him but failed your intention was to murder him an by doing this your intention was to break the murder law. If they are intending to kill them they will try again and need to be punished to change this. Once again I would like to imagine That you walked into a bank only to find a armed robbery going on and in there surprise the robber turns round and shoots you. You are paralysed for life and the person is caught whether you are in the us or uk this person could be back on the streets in 12 years to who knows try to kill another person. The difference between 12 and 21 is so much the changes people can make in that time are amazing and we need to ask any one who commits this crime and there must be something wrong with them so is 12 years enough time to change ?
The prison sentence for attempted murder should be the same as murder.

Hello and thank you for letting me debate with you. It is my first debate. I would like to start off by saying that the prison sentence for attempted murder should not be the same as murder due o few simple reasons. Firstly, the murderer in question could have been carried away by emotional problems or personal reasons. For example imagine yourself and your wife are happily married, but then you find out your wife has been cheating on you. I am sure that everyone will be overwhelmed with emotional feelings and have a strong desire to harm this person to teach him a lesson and may people with for example OCD might move to the idea of murder. Secondly, the person may be wrongly accused or framed. This has happened in many cases and it is later found out that person in question is not the real one but it might be too for the decision to be overruled. In conclusion, I would like to say that these murderers could be framed and not the actual com-miters of the crime and may be overwhelmed with emotions etc.
The prison sentence for attempted murder should be the same as murder.

Attempted murder when a person try's to murder someone but fails is it really different from the real thing? Murder is so much different for the victim and his family but for the murderer it only mean s a shorter prison sentence and this means they are just out on the street again faster. Moving on these people are arrested because they have planned out to murder someone who says they won't do it again ? I know if someone attempted to hijack a plane they would get the same punishment as if they did and if someone was caught and stopped robbing they would be charged with robbery there's no such thing as attempted robbery. The opposition will say it was just a attempt but they set out with the attempt to murder someone just like a murderer would. I would like to finish by saying that if you were stabbed through the chest but only after a long painful hospital ride. you find out the offender will be out within only 12 years or in the us will not face the death sentence. ~~sources/extra info~~ for a spontaneous attack on someone which involves grevious body harm
The Electoral College is outdated

I will reserve most my time for the next round. There are so many decisions made during the founding of our nation that still work today. The wisdom of the founders is shown in the Constitutional amendment process. Throughout the years, many changes to the constitution have been offered ( I believe around 3,000) yet only 27 have been approved. The electoral college is not one of them. The indication seems to be that it still works well so there has been no need to change it.
The Electoral College is outdated

"Yes our votes can influence the E.C., but they make the real choice. When will we really be able to elect our leader?" If one is 18 and a registered voter, he will be allowed to vote in 2016. I am starting to believe that we are discussing the problems with the current electoral college instead of debating whether it is outdated or not. I think we agree on the fact that our votes DO count in the election of a president. We have been electing presidents the same way for the entire existence of our nation. That has not changed. The electoral College was designed as a method to represent the popular vote (which it has accomplished all but 4 times) in a nation that, at the time, had limited communication. The electors represented the states. Today the Electoral College, though not perfect, still represents the people. The election process today has changed with technology and the ability to communicate quicker and easier. The voting results are counted much faster and we know the next elected president. We have many issues with the process like multiple voting or not getting all the absentee ballots counted but those kind of issues would remain even if the Electoral College was removed and we used straight popular vote. The bottom line (for round 2) is this: 1) We do elect our own presidents as a nation through an institute that has effectively worked for more than 230 years. 2) Most of the issues in the election process are not a result of the E.C. being outdated. 3) I have to assume that my opponent should have selected the "Pro" side of the debate?
The Electoral College is outdated

I believe my opponent meant to take the "Pro" stance for this debate based on his argument. With that in mind, I will react to his arguments in the first round and then allow him to clarify his position in the second. The people of America are represented through the electoral college. The popular vote ( the people) of a state dictates where the electoral votes fall for an election. As for presidents who lose the popular election and still take the prize through the Electoral college, probably not a strong argument for this debate. Out of the 44 presidents elected over the last 230 years, only 4 have accomplished this (John Q. Adams, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, G. W. Bush).
It makes no sense that medical marijuana is not legal yet opiates are.

first off medical marijuana is legal under certain curcumstances but the reason alot of drugs now that were once legal that are illegal now is because people are irresponsible. Just like one person said about gun control "Guns dont kill people, people kill people", and thats true, people are the problem and thats the reason you cant have certain things in society because people are the ones who ruin it for people who might actually do whatever it is that they do in a responsible way so yes the current system is fine. But if you to they should ban all opiate based Rx pills because one people get addicted and drug dealers get of hold of them and sell them to adults , teenagers, and kids.In closing in you look at the bigger picture drugs are always going to be here and we can stop them we can contain so if people can learn to be responsible than maybe you can see changes come about.