BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yo mama debate

Post up to 10 yo mama jokes __ 1 Yo mama so poor when I saw her kicking a can down the street, I asked her what she was doing, she said "Moving." 2 Yo mama so poor she can't afford to pay attention! 3 Yo mama so poor when I ring the doorbell I hear the toilet flush! 4 Yo mama so poor when she goes to KFC, she has to lick other people's fingers! 5 Yo mama so poor when I ring the doorbell she says,"DING!" 6 Yo mama so poor she went to McDonald's and put a milkshake on layaway. 7 Yo mama so poor your family ate cereal with a fork to save milk. 8 Yo mama so poor her face is on the front of a foodstamp. 9 Yo mama so poor she was in K-Mart with a box of Hefty bags. I said, "What ya doin'?" She said, "Buying luggage." 10 Yo mama so poor she drives a peanut.
NonCommercial Sports organizations who dont pay all players 2 be banned as they are creating slaves

Although the last round shouldn't be the place to introduce additional definitions, I don't think including the new one will hurt my case. For reference, here are the two definitions being used for slave [1]:1. A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another.2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influenceIt seems Pro is attempting to argue that anyone who has a job they don't like who makes less money than they want could be considered a slave. That person may be miserable, is certainly subservient to his/her bosses, and probably feels treated like property or like a number. However, this overlooks the fact that people choose to put themselves in this position in the first place, meaning it's not an abject situation. I'm afraid I don't know much about Cricket and cannot understand the third paragraph of Pro's 2nd round argument, so I can't touch on that since there are no remaining rounds to clear things up. Contention 1 defended:Pro has attempted to refute my first contention by stating that players are psychologically forced to play the sports in question, and these new, young players' hopes and dreams of making it big are too strong a lure to resist, thus making them waste away their most productive years for the sport with no real chances of achieving the success they all want. First of all, I'd like to point out that there are no studies suggesting that young sports players are psychologically brainwashed to the point of losing the ability to quit the sport, so I will counterargue this point. While it's true that most of these young players will not become superstars, Pro's claim that "The most productive period in ones life that of teens and twenties is being pursued without realizable goal" is surely false, since there are, in fact, some players that do make it big and become stars. These stars had to start somewhere, and through a combination of their hard work, skill, etc. it paid off. They had no guarantee of success, but that's how the system works. Pro asks "When working for a Company, if it says to the employees, it is your choice whether you stay or leave, we wont pay you, will the Government treat that as fair or invoke employment laws? " There are lots of people, such as interns and volunteers, that get asked this same question, so it's clearly not slavery. Contention 2 defendedIn attempting to refute my second contention, Pro writes "But the system makes it a lottery, only 1:10M could win it. But everybody spends their time. "I would like to point out that these organizations are not lotteries, which are "any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance. [2] Athletes are not chosen by chance; instead they are chosen based on skill and a few other factors. I'm out of space, so vote con! [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
NonCommercial Sports organizations who dont pay all players 2 be banned as they are creating slaves

I add the following definition for slave to that provided by Con "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence". The Non-paying Sports Bodies treat a Player as subservient and influence everything he does in the sports but still doesn't reward him anything. This totally fits with the definition. The definition set by Con also fits; as far as the particular Sports is concerned he is treated like a property wholly subject to the desires of the Sports body rules and regulations, as far as duties are concerned, but about the rights there are almost none. In Cricket when my friend played a reverse sweep over a decade ago,he was banned for 4 matches, but I was thinking that was an innovative shot. Now I am proved right that all twenty20 games appreciate the reverse sweep. So here he had duties and his duties could be faulted and he could be punished, but the sports body has no obligation for any reward - its the one way rule, that decries any social justice or equality. Contention 1 defended: True Players are not forced to play, but the organizations use their system to addict Players. Forcing is physical or verbal. But the worst than forcing is Addicting by psychological means. New unsuspecting players who come in the hope of becoming a Star player are addicted to that game/sports. The most productive period in ones life that of teens and twenties is being pursued without realizable goal. When working for a Company, if it says to the employees, it is your choice whether you stay or leave, we wont pay you, will the Government treat that as fair or invoke employment laws? That perfectly fits into the Slave definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence". Here the employer has employment but he uses to create abject subservient person by that influence. Contention 2: I would somehow reluctantly agree that Participation without compensation is not inherently bad, if totally there are no paid players in the system, no organisational or media beneficiaries. Can Con say a player comes without any hope of representing, this or that at least in future? But the system makes it a lottery, only 1:10M could win it. But everybody spends their time. If it is only money we can say the system just uses the players' greed. But this is physical and productive time that is silently grabbed to advance the interest of the organisation and few players at the top. In apprentice system it doesnt make them work for many many years like what the sports system does. If workers are not talented what would a company do? In contrast if the players are not talented and playing for long periods what would sports bodies do? In the 1st case the no talent will affect the company- But in the 2nd case the untalented players is advantageous to Orgnz- these are fans, these are future low level player families to sustain the top cream. Slaves paying but without reward for generations.
NonCommercial Sports organizations who dont pay all players 2 be banned as they are creating slaves

I will be arguing the Con for this debate, which to the best of my understanding is this:Non-commercial sports organizations who don't pay all players should not be banned as they are not creating slaves. Since the wording of the title is relatively unclear, I take it to mean that the organizations [are] to be banned, or that they [should] be banned. I think it is important to first define the word slave. Here is one definition I will use, since Pro didn't choose one:Slave: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. Contention 1:Since the players are not being forced to play the sports in question (whether or not they are paid), they are not slaves of the organizations. This is important, since if a player isn't under any forced obligation to play a sport for a sports organization, it is his choice to stay and continue to play or to leave and pursue another goal. Contention 2:Participating in something without compensation is not inherently a bad thing. If these sports players were being tied down in a chair for hours with no interaction whatsoever with anyone else or any objects like computers or television, I would agree that they were gaining nothing of value for their unpaid actions. However, playing sports without compensation is similar to working as an unpaid intern. There are other benefits involved beyond money alone, such as experience (which could lead to a future job), productive use of one's time, and getting mental and/or physical activity. Pro has argued that these are comparable, but the difference being that people who are apprentices in "any other profession" have a view of getting a paid job, and will get one in the future, if not immediately. However, no source has been provided to back up such claim, since there is no guarantee that that is the case even for traditional apprenticeships. "The whole organizational structure makes the member players feel inadequate in their talent in one way or the other, psyched out thereby relegated to sub serve the organizational goal even if they stick for long time all without any financial benefit to them personally. This is the way slaves were made not long ago. " While the organizational structure may make players feel inadequate, we won't get into the reasons. For instance, some players are simply not as talented, and thus may always feel inadequate compared to the superstars. However, this does not give reason to the following statement, which is that they are relegated to subserve the organizational goal. Pro provides no sources to give credit to the notion that they are somehow forced to remain in the organization. Due to these differences, there is a huge difference between these players and slaves. Due to these reasons, the non commercial sports organizations should not be banned.
NonCommercial Sports organizations who dont pay all players 2 be banned as they are creating slaves

I think the way non-commercial sports organizations generally operate, creates unpaid SLAVES who are only used to further the interest of: a)the organization b)top few players at the expense of thousands of other playersb)the top layer officials c)create a competing environment without any financial benefit to the members who participate like the Slaves were made to fight like animals in earlier yearsd)mediaMy def.of non-commercial sports organization is:One which pays hundreds of thousands to top players AND doesn't pay its players at all levels.For a comparison people go as apprentice in any other profession with a view to get a job and pay, if it is not immediate, then at least in future, they get it.But sports organizations with the tag of hobby or passion draws millions in to membership with almost for a no chance of making any money at all, just because their structure wants to reward only the top few at the expense of all others creating the same kind of SLAVERY that rich people did when they bought a slave and perpetuated slavery. Lotto is far better because it is equal to everybody it doesnt take your productive time that could be used for income generating vocation.The prizes for winning at lower,middle,lower top levels are just trophies,etc. and not cash payment rewards for the time spent even for the winners. In a world where everything is paid for, this structure sucks the time of the competitors without any real hope of getting anything in return. The media is directly and indirectly benefiting from this and they are party to this slave-making. The whole organizational structure makes the member players feel in-adequate in their talent in one way or the other forever, psyched out thereby relegated to sub serve the organizational goal even if they stick for long time all without any financial benefit to them personally. This is the way Slaves were made not long ago. Voluntary help/service organizations atleast create a pride and satisfaction in the minds of volunteers of participation as mostly they help others. Non-commercial sports organizations on the other hand perpetuate hero worship at the expense of all other member-players. They come initially with a hope of representing at the top level earning millions of dollars, brought in by media and former club members but wither out after few years understanding it not possible for millions to go into the top few places. For a lotto it is legally necessary to tell the buyers the odds of winning is 1:several millions. In Sports there is nothing like that. Organizations take advantage of this system. So the best way forward in my opinion is to ban non-commercial sports organizations unless they agree to treat the player-mmbers as beneficiary-workers and work towards initiating acceptable financial rewards to each player as a work-right. OTHERWISE Sportsworld will remain as it is WITH SLAVES to Sports Bodies perpetually.I am reflecting the plight of players at the lower,middle level.
Popular Vote

The electoral college does exactly what the founding fathers intended it to do. Making sure that the will of one state in the union did not overshadow the will of the majority of states in the union. As is the case with California if we were to let the popular vote win then the last election could have been decided with California. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million and can you guess what state was the one that gave her 4 million more votes over any candidates? If you guessed anything other than California well you're wrong. While in other states including the District of Columbia Trump has a 1.7 million plurality over Clinton according to an article written by the head writer of The Duran, Alex Christoforou. We can't let the will of one state make the decision for an entire country. While the majority of voters are not satisfied with the results the electoral college is doing exactly what it's meant to do. While their was a huge protest from women in D.C people tend to ignore the fact that Trump still managed to get 42 percent of the female vote. That's a lot of women who feel they are being represented by the right candidate. As to why there has never been such outrage for a president elected who didn't win the popular vote we live in a different time than we did in the past. We have phones, computers, tablets and all sorts of technology that helps us connect together with people far away from us within seconds. Most of the protest organized were done through social media and online. These are things we didn't have in the past that are helping the cause as to why we can organize so many people in one place. I believe the electoral college should stay. I'm going to repeat it again we cannot let the will of one state choose who the leader will be for a whole country.
Popular Vote

Yes Trump won the majority of the counties, but did not win the population and lost that vote by one million, no matter what state or part of the country people are in the total population is not satisfied and content with the election and it shows to this day, any action the president takes he is heavily scrutinized and protest continuously continue. However I am not saying that if Clinton had won she would receive an opposite reaction of the nation but rather the majority of the population is content knowing their vote was represented and not by a repsresented who may have not voted for a presidential nominee due to them being forth the gay community, feminism and what not. For 20 states in the U.S do not require a memeber of the electoral college to vote for the party desired by the people as stated by Fair Vote on Faithless Electors, thus failing to repsresent the people since they can just cast their vote in for who was desired. People vote for these representatives having belief they will cast what they desire yet they can do the complete opposite and go against the will of the people. Take a look back at previous elections, has there been such disbelief and protest on this scale due to a president not winning the popular vote there was protest of 3 million plus women going against Trump has anything on this grand of a scale happened before all because the majority of the population is not satisfied. As stated by John Koza a journalist from U.S News on Why We Need Popular Vote "This is why about 75 percent of voters tell pollsters that they want to move to a national popular vote. "
Popular Vote

You speak about the will of the people not being represented; however did you know that in the last election even though Clinton won the popular vote she did not win the most counties in the U.S.. She does not even break the 20%. Our current president Trump won about 84% of the counties. He won over 2,600 of the 3,141 counties here as reported by FactCheck. You speak of the will of the people not being represented but if Clinton had won because she had received the popular vote, then their would be over 2,600 who feel they are not being represented. Even if we were just to put it into states Trump 30 to Clinton's 20. I am trying to rebuttal your last statement but it does not make complete sense, but i think what you are trying to say is that representatives do not represent the people all the time. Which sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact. However you have to remember that these representatives are being chosen by the election day voters as well. Which means they are the ones choosing who they believe will represent them.
Popular Vote

Although the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election the electoral college does not represent the will of the people, such as a president who wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote. For example when president Trump won, people throughout the nation were in disbelief and they decided to take actions and protest because the majority of the population not being satisfied with there president since they only won the electoral college. Also to add on to that representatives may be faithless electors for they state there vote as one yet cast it for the other thus not representing the people.
Popular Vote

Well the presidential candidates may tend to focus on the swing states that would be bound to happen with any state. If we were to have the popular vote win it presidents still would not campaign on states they already know they will win. Such as current president Trump and former candidate Romney. They did not do much campaigning in the South as they knew they would win them. However, since we have the electoral college we can tell that the most informed voters are those in the swing states as reported by Richard Posner in Slate. He reports of how voters in swing states are the ones who may the most attention to the competing candidates as they know they can decide the election. I believe the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.
Popular Vote

In the U.S popular vote should be put into affect for voting for a U.S president rather than the electoral college. For the electoral college caused great unbalance for many of these presidential nominees focus on these swinging states for voting while the other states are not campaigned as much or not at all thus causing a decrease in voter turnout out. As stated by the U.S election Atlas " which may give citizens the feeling that their vote does not matter, encouraging them to stay home instead of visiting the ballot box on election days". Making people outside of the swing states feel as if they are not to be represented with all the power going to the swinging states.
Scooby Doo is better than Snoopy.

Snoopy is far better than Scooby Doo. Snoopy has his own pad (dog house). Snoopy is a writer. Snoopy is a fighter pilot. Snoopy hangs out with Woodstock, who is also awesome. Snoopy has badass dance moves. These are just a few of the reasons Scooby Doo is not better than Snoopy. I would like to ask Pro to explain what is so great about Scooby Doo.
That An Ebola Epidemic in the U.S Is very Unlikely.

Case I: Ebola Spreads Easier Than You Think.To first understand how easily the virus spreads. we need to look at the overall behavior pattern of humans. We have already established from Pro's last case that Ebola can be spread only when showing symptoms. Here are some of the symptoms. (1)Symptoms of Ebola include Fever (greater than 38.6°C or 101.5°F) Severe headache Muscle pain Weakness Diarrhea Vomiting Abdominal (stomach) pain Unexplained hemorrhage (bleeding or bruising) Let's look at the first symptoms provided by WHO. (2) "The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days. Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat."These are the first symptoms. If I came down with something, I would probably check WebMD for anything it could possibly be. None of the possible viruses are Ebola. (3) Thus, I would most likely deem it not serious. Established by Pro's case, Ebola can be spread by contact with sweat, urine, and blood. Sub Point 1: Human InteractionAs we can see from these statistics, married couples have been on the rise. (4) The most recent data from 2007 claims that there are a total of 58,945,000 married couples in the US as off 2007. Now, we all know married couples kiss, hug, have sex, ETC. Once someone in the family is showing casual symptoms, even a little kiss on the check would spell doom for the lover. Even shaking hands with an infected person. If you have a cut on your hand, your done.Conclusion Of Point I; Even though Ebola can be detected, the early symptoms point to something like strep throat. This leaves more time for the infected individual to infect people by contact such as a simple hand shake. The disease spreading is easier than you think.Case II: We can't contain this foreverThis is plain and simple. With Obama sending in troops to Ebola stricken countries, and letting people come back when they are infected with Ebola, it's just a matter of time before a epidemic happens. The airport security for Liberia was way too lenient, and let an infected person back to the United States (5)! All he had to do was simply lie to the airport security personnel and he was home-free. It was that easy. Luck was in our favor this time, it may not be the next time.As of right know, I can't write more than this. Sorry! Good luck!1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.who.int...3. http://symptomchecker.webmd.com...4. http://www.infoplease.com...5. http://www.business-standard.com...
That An Ebola Epidemic in the U.S Is very Unlikely.

Topic: That an Ebola outbreak is unlikely in the U.S.The BoP in this debate will be shared. Whoever fufills the BoP better will win the debate. My BoP is that it is very unlikely that an Ebola epidemic will happen in the U.S. My opponent's BoP is that it is very likely that an Ebola epidemic will happen in the U.S.(a) Very Unlikely: 0.01-10%(b) Epidemic: Infecting 3 million people (1% of U.S pop.) (c) Ebola: Ebola Virus (EBV) My opponent may only and ONLY argue that there is a very high chance of an Ebola outbreak in the U.S (90-99.9%) so the scales are even.The structure for the debate will be as followed:(1) Ground rules, terms, acceptance.(2) Opening arguments only.(3) Rebuttals only.(4) Conclusion, no rebuttals or arguments. I wish luck to my opponent. Also, I'm rusty, so don't expect me to go all thett3 in this debate...
That An Ebola Epidemic in the U.S Is very Unlikely.

Hey man! I'm over-inundated with debates, homework, and life. :( I wanted to give you your first win back. I did that. Unfortunately, I couldn't entertain a full debate. This debate is the one with the least time left, and the one I know the least about. I ask the voters for a tie. However, if Pro is headstrong on making this a win for him, I will find a way to continue in round four. Thank you for your understanding!