BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghan,Iraq,& South Korea

First of all, let me specify that this is a policy debate, please no PFD'ers, or LD'ers. There is a max limit for the topic so, once again the following plan text: The United States federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, & Kuwait. Animal soldiers are not a relic of the past. Troop surges in Afghanistan and de-mining missions in Kuwait, Iraq, and South Korea have lead to a substantial increase in the presence of military dogs. The U.S military has about 2,800 military dogs, the largest canine force in the world. This year, military official expects the cost of dog food to go up from $80,000 to $200,000 from last year. Military exploitation of animals is grounded in widely held beliefs that animals are property and only exist as disposable tools of war. Animals do not choose to join a conflict. They do not understand the basic geopolitical reasons why humans fight. Viewing animals as property is intrinsically wrong and must be rejected because animals are not objects lacking dignity or feelings. Animals are not "things" and a system that treats them as mere property is intrinsically flawed. YOU have an ETHICAL OBLIGATION to vote for the plan. The logic reducing animals to objects is the same logic that has justified the slaughter of millions of humans. Earth is doomed until we stop viewing living beings as property. Rejecting the militaries use of animals rejects the utilitarian logic driving exploitation in the status quo. You are not voting for the plan because it magically solves every instance of animal exploitation. Instead vote for my policy, because it is intrinsically good. Reject the negatives future based disadvantages, because their utilitarian and consequential rational will always recreate human domination over the non-human.
Iron Spider is weaker than Anti-Venom

iron spider can fly, so anti-venom can't even scratch the suit, plus Peter Parker can store the reverse symbiote in his suit, like iron man. also plasma is so hot, that it can easily reach the temperature to sperate symbiote and the person inside there. According to Scinece-Biology, if you reach the temperature, the symbiote can't hold it, that it dies or got sperated.
Iron Spider is weaker than Anti-Venom

Even Peter Parker can make the reverse symbiote, he needs to go to a lab which is in the tri-carrier. Anti-venom contains venom which even you do use it wont work then he turns to venom. It is undeafeatble, plus anti venom is a symbiote in its highest aggresion, where can be controlled making him so strong that he can break the suit easily.
YouTube Should Stop Giving Me NRA Ads.

For your first section:Google always seems to be very bad at choosing ads for me. I do in depth research on adoption because I want kids, and need a loophole in the law to allow me to do it in the next five years?I get birth control and planned parenhood ads. Even the "Don't show me this ad again" didn't really work. I have looked up very little to do with guns as of late. I spend most of my time on the internet learning about rare genetic conditions, mental illnesses and other disabilities.In this case, showing me this ad was neither in the interest of the NRA or me.No need for you to defend the right to bear arms:I already agree with that.That is part of my point. If I already agree with gun ownership quite strongly, they are trying to convince the already convinced.For most of my life I have not cared either way for the NRA itself, however, seeing an ad like that has turned my view negative.Why?It serves no purpose but to stir up more anger in the us.It trys to make out all democrats as evil.And I cannot see it that way.People hate each other enough in this country, so the ad just seemed like a child yelling at another on the playground.There are six things the Lord hates,seven that are detestable to him:haughty eyes,a lying tongue,hands that shed innocent blood,a heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil,a false witness who pours out liesand a person who stirs up conflict in the community.I know that this last part here most people do not care about, but I do, and so do many other people.
YouTube Should Stop Giving Me NRA Ads.

Hello! I'm an individualist anarchist, and I will be debating from that point of view ----The Reason You're Getting the Ad---- Google ads appear based off of previous data they've collected on you, so if you've been looking at lots of gun videos, or political videos revolving around weapons and firearms, that is probably the reason you're seeing. ----The Ad Itself---- The advertisement itself is really stupid. I find conservatives, and liberals alike to be very inconsistent, and contradictory to their own 'principles' So I cannot defend the ad itself, however I can and will defend the right to own firearms, and the NRA (excluding it's conservative BS) ----My Arguments---- The active side of a dispute always has and carries the burden of proof, while the passive side does not. If not, then the passive side would shoulder the burden of proof for everything that is passive, including the things they are not currently doing. Since that would force them to justify an infinite amount of things it is false. Therefor, burden of proof is on the active side. Force is active, therefor those who wish to use force have the burden of proof. Gun control uses force, therefor those who wish to enact gun control have the burden of proof.
There is no Illuminati: Debate.

I would like to debate this round as there is proof for the Identification of what the Illuminati is and does. The Term Illuminati means the enlightened ones, and goes further back in history than 1776 as stated by your wiki link which is biased and demeaning towards people who believe the Illuminati exist calling them cranks and referring to Pat Robertson as having "company among other theocratic media weirdos personalities" where wierdos is crossed out but still left in to identify the writer's contention with people who believe in the Illuminati. The Free Masons are not all considered Illuminati, only the highest level of Free Masons are considered as such.The Illuminati are also referred to as having many sects besides Free Masons and the individual refutation of the Free Masons does not conclude that Illuminati do not exist in another form.My belief in the Illuminati stems from the belief of a secret society that controls world policy and dictates media representations of such. Their goal is not a satanic goal, but rather a self worshiping goal. Ok, that's satanic too.I will present symbolism of the Illuminati used subversively in media. And provide likely evidence of MK Ultra which is a function of Illuminati. Whether or not the Individual Person is or isn't an actual member or pawn of the illuminati, the possibility exists that the person in acting in favor of the Illuminati guidelines and shows an overwhelming likely hood that the 'Secret' society exists.
There is no Illuminati: Debate.

Thank you for starting this debate. It really challenged me to understand the nature of the group, I refer to as the Illuminati. Thank you also for reading my arguments.There is a natural tendency for people to want to understand the order of the world around them. Many people can attribute it to the Chaos theory, but when it comes to social matters, it seems very real that there is a natural order behind underlying causes. It is not loony thinking to believe that the social order is controlled or can be controlled by a small group of elites. Every country is controlled by its government and the people in the government are a small number compared to the people in the country. If there were a government of nations, the government would only need to be large enough to control the leaders of the nations. The U.N. exists, so the probability of a small group of people controlling the entire world is a possibility in that sense. But who is deciding what policies should be moved forward? The people who are part of the organization or another outside influence? Could it be both at times? The Medici's believed in a one world order. The Rothschild family believes in a one world order. They both follow ancient demonic religions. They both have established elite secret societies. They both control vast amounts of the world's wealth. They must be the influencing agents behind world policy. They are the only known families that have the ability to do such a thing. The Illuminati is the name of their secret societies which act on their behalf. At least Illuminati was the name at some time. And illuminati is the term that we have used to reference the secret societies that control world policies. So do the illuminati exist? I say they do, and their existence is proved through their signs, religious beliefs, and symbols currently being used in today's society.
There is no Illuminati: Debate.

So, I didn't think you were referring to that kind of self-worship. I misread and assumed you were talking about vanity. I understand what you meant. I apologize for misunderstanding. But... I have read your argument, have visited some of the sites you mentioned, and I have come to the conclusion that I am right that this is kind of loony. It's nothing about you personally, but I respectfully disagree with you, and I bow out.
There is no Illuminati: Debate.

Thank you for your civility, something that I am not accustomed to in my previous debates, as will be seen if you view my other debate that I have going on right now. Please come check it out and support me in the comment section, if you see fit after reading my argument about the separation of church and state. You are kind, thank you. I can tell that this will be a great debate from this point on because we are both kind. Let's not use Wikipedia unless absolutely needed, because of the current perception of Wikipedia. It will protect us both. Let's next address the definition of the words cranks and weirdos. According to http://dictionary.cambridge.org..., a crank is: "a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs " US an unpleasant and easily annoyed person: She's always a crank first thing in the morning." According to http://dictionary.cambridge.org..., a weirdo is: "a person who you think is strange and who makes you uncomfortable: That guy is a real weirdo." Let's address each of these in turn. A crank is a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs, and/or is an unpleasant and easily annoyed person. These people are generally shunned. They may have a lot of good qualities, but society at large views them with suspicion. A weirdo is a person who you think is strange and who makes you uncomfortable. These people are generally shunned. They may have a lot of good qualities, but society at large views them with suspicion. In society at large, majority rules and the majority is not on the side of what society views as weirdos or cranks. It doesn't pay to be obsessed with one particular theory or subject, nor does it pay to seem strangely off putting or look strange, either by the way you dress, or the way you behave, or your general demeanor. This is why people are labeled as cranks and weirdos. It's saying, "Hey, be careful of these people, they are strange, keep a wary eye on them. It pays to keep an eye on people who might possibly be a danger to themselves or others." It's not always a bad thing. Anyways, I am really enjoying this debate, and I didn't think I would, and I am not enjoying the one debate I thought I would enjoy the most, which is my other debate. Thank you for remaining civil in all your posts, you are an upstanding individual!
There is no Illuminati: Debate.

Thank you for taking up this challenge. I have only one suggestion (notice that I did not say stipulation)...... from here-in, all sources which are cited should be sources that you would be proud to put in a college paper. You have indeed taught me a valuable lesson, kind sir, and I must say, with no small amount of humility, you have indeed scored a point against me! I must confide in you that I am impressed with the fact that you noticed my source citing blunder!! I am impressed with your deductive gifts, how could I have made the mistake of not anticipating that excellent move?? (Sorry, I am told by most of my more worldly-wise debaters that they are neither keen on my overuse of punctuation , nor the what they have come to term my "humble arrogance," or, alternatively, my "arrogant humbleness"). I can, if you wish, go over each paragraph in your statement one by one, and address them to the best of my now hip-checked ability, or, because I am so impressed by your argument, if you absolutely insist, I'll humbly admit a draw and you will have won! It's up to you, to the victor go the spoils!!
In general, women have more privileges then men.

Hmm First off, debate.org isn't a valid source, so any of your points that involve numbers are instantly invalid. Next you dropped the following arguments: 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Please respond to these points. Now for my rebbutals. Name one law that denies men the right to his own body. Men can get circumcised as an infant without their consent. "Women commit less crimes so that is why they get convicted less." I think you misread my points. Women get sentenced to less time for the same crime and they get convicted more for the same offense. "More women are in jail because of what a man did than men are in jail for what a woman did." Source please. "Women produce just as much work but get paid less then men. Source please. Your next part is generalizing men as lazy morons who can't take care of kids. Obviously not all men are like that, so your point is invalid. "Men are leaders when they take charge; women are "bossy" when they take charge." Source please. I know this is anecdotal, but at my school, when girls give directions, boys are happy that someone is taking charge. "Women are poorly treated, by being raped and murdered and looked down upon as weak." So are men. Only it happens to men more and it isn't taken as seriously as when it happens to women. "Why do males vote on women healthcare?! How is that just? Wake up America!" Because they have too. It is part of legislators' jobs. If this is your logic, then why do women vote on laws about crimes men commit? Why should they vote one issues effecting men's bodies? Please respond to my other points. If not, since I am arguing that men have more privileges then women, and I have shown more privileges then you, I should win.
In general, women have more privileges then men.

As far as reproductive rights, name one law that denies men the right to his own body? There isn't any. Women commit less crimes so that is why they get convicted less. More women are in jail because of what a man did than men are in jail for what a woman did. Women produce just as much work as men and still get paid less than men. Why because women have kids to take care of and men have very little obligation to children. When men all men 100 percent of men use condoms or get vasectomies and are forced to do so then lets talk. I get tired of a sex who sleeps around and takes no responsibilty complaining about having to pay child support. If you were actually that concerned you would all take care of business and stop producing children which you have no interest in taking care of. You are less responsible. Less men get tested for STD and have more sex with multiple people and yet they act like victims. I work with men and I have yet to see any of them work harder than me or any other woman. We put in 100% and men are flat out liars when they say women are lazier than men and do not put in as much effort. When 100% of you work 100% of the time at work then go home and do 100% of the work with no help from women then we will talk. 100% of you only work 80% at work and 0% at home. Expecting the slave woman to do all the work and take sole care of the kids. They are the only ones responsible for preventing pregnancy. When men have plenty of options and REFUSE to take responsibility. Men dominate this world although I wish it could be equal, it never will. Men are leaders when they take charge; women are "bossy" when they take charge. Women are poorly treated, by being raped and murdered and looked down upon as weak. This generation of women are proud and strong, and I hope we can have more women in congress. There are many more examples: like abortions most of the anti-abortionists are male and 100% of them will never be pregnant! Why do males vote on women healthcare?! How is that just? Wake up America! Sorry I did not notice the late time limit. My source is debate.org
In general, women have more privileges then men.

Men have the power to make the rules, so many laws have been written by lawmakers, interpreted by justices, and enforced by the police to benefit men at the expense of women. History is written by the victors, so men throughout human history have turned it into a story of Great Men, to benefit themselves at the expense of women. Religion codifies the rules of morality for the majority of people on this planet. The governance the world’s major religions has been the sole province of men throughout history, and the lead supreme beings in the vast majority of religious pantheons have been codified as male. Religion has, over the centuries, normalized the traditional behaviors and gender roles that benefit men, and deemed systems that marginalize women to be both divinely mandated and good. Even the philosophical movement that is the purported antithesis to religion, Atheism, has more men then women. Women are not allowed to be priests due to "not being the ruler of the household" I look forward to this debate and my source is http://everydayfeminism.com...;
Web design competition

First off, I should have clarified on rules 1 and 3. Content meant purely in HTML/CSS code. To further clarify on this, I am okay with my opponent gathering any type of images for things like social icons, etc. Basically, as long as the code is our own, in which I have no doubts both debaters will have integrity in this area, so it should be no problem.I will start off with my first web page design. This is just a basic silly website, with the use of a gradient backround a simple blog post, a side-bar, hover links, etc. A basic CSS design to start the competition off, demonstrating some of the basics.Website:www.future-writers.orgSource Code:http://we.tl...Good luck to Larz in his upcoming round!
Web design competition

I gladly accept and can't wait to see what TUF comes up with. If my opponent needs space to upload their site, I have plenty to spare all over the place. The rules look absolutely fine to me. I might clarify that rule 1 beats out rule 3, so in case any voter was thinking of lawyering by saying "Lorem Ipsum? I've seen that before! UNORIGINAL CONTENT! " I'm sorry.
Web design competition

The resolution says "web design competition" for better understanding for readers and voters. However, the official title I would like to give this competition is "HTML/CSS design competition".How this will work should my esteemed friend Larztheloser, accept:This competition is a challenge for both of competitors to make a better use of coding skills in the design category. Voting for this competition should contain the usual RFD explaining why you thought one members designs were better then the others in detail. Both debaters going into this know and understand that artistic measure and performance is completely subjective, however will ask that the voters view each design and give a quality review to them and their individual content.RULES: 1. This debate will be a design site only, no explicit functionality, additional pages, etc are neccesary. We will not be creating fully functioning website with real content. Competitors are encouraged to replace content are with lorem ipsum text, or random pictures/videos from the Internet. 2. Only HTML/CSS can be used. No other coding languages should be used in this competition. 3. No copyright infringement, copying/pasta of code, using of pre-existing templates, or code from previously uploaded web-sites are allowed. All content should be generated within this competition. While it may be difficult to content moderate this for verification, I ask that we both use the honor system. If any violation of this is found, the loss of a conduct point can be awarded to the opposing side at the voters obvious discretion. 4. No payment for anything is neccesary, including buying hosting/domains. As long as the site is viewable, through screen shot or any other method, it counts. With that said, if the competitors can upload their site without having to purchase anything, it is definitely encouraged as it will best unravel the full effects of certain CSS features.5. The source codes for both the HTML documents and the CSS document should be linked to the round in any viewable document source (IE Google docs, or whatever else one may use) etc. This is for verification purposed. It is encouraged that debaters leave HTML and CSS notes for further verification within those documents, however not required.6. If my opponent seeks to discuss any additional rules or make clarifications, it is asked that he state them in the comments section of this debate prior to accepting. The acceptance of this debate, means the adherence to the above stated rules. SET UPThis debate is set to four rounds, with a 2 week voting period, 10,000 character max (though probably not needed), 72 hours time to argue, with required voting comments. This competition is meant to be a fun and challenging experience for the competitors and an artistic one for the viewers. With the rules in place, my goal is to not require more than a few hours of work into each round so as not to make this too much work. Round 1 is designated for optional acceptance. However, if Larz chooses to start first, then he receives a free pass for a design in the final round. Good luck!
Web design competition

I've been busy writing music and thought I'd make a site about my music for the last round. It's extremely quick and simple because I'm a tad short on time. Hopefully it isn't horrible though. DESIGN: http://lynkd.co.nz... HTML CODE: http://lynkd.co.nz... CSS CODE: http://lynkd.co.nz... While I'm on the subject, if you enjoyed this debate, you might also like: http://www.debate.org... :) I'd really like to thank TUF for organising the first DDO web design competition. I've thoroughly enjoyed it and hope to see more of these on DDO. Good luck with the votes!
Web design competition

Wow that was great larz! I was thinking about doing something with animations this round, but I decided against it as I had already had a plan for what I wanted to do. This is a theme based around Imabench's "the weekly stupid" T.V. show. Some of its features: Static background image CSS buttons Sub navs (like what larz did in his first round). Social Icons Polls and forms Pretty basic stuff. Round 3 design: http://www.future-writers.org... HTML code: http://www.future-writers.org... CSS code: http://www.future-writers.org... Now that this is basically the end of the competition, I wish Larz good luck in the final round! It was so tempting to use ja vascript and Jquery, but I managed to get by without it. Thankyou larz for the very fun competition, let's do it again some time with a different coding language! :)