BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The South was right in the American Civil war

The south was not right 1. First off, I would like to ask you to not use a biased source, and esspecialy not one that condones slavery.2 . The war was over slavery. The states seceded as soon as they were outnumbered, and many political leaders were vocal about that. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...3. In a democracy, you don't secede just because you don't get your way. You work it out. You don't run away from your countries problems just because the majority disagrees with you. Then, they go even farther, and bomb their former countrymen.http://en.wikipedia.org...4. No where on this page, which is edited dozens of times each day, that the war was over taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
The South was right in the American Civil war

Lets all see about that I believe that the south had the right for secession. Like if your were in apart of country that was against what the country was doing you would want to leave, and our country was built off of freedom for the people and the North was taxing the South and maxing every farmer in the South poor as dirt. The thing is no one could except that their money was being taken away and they couldn't leave because that meant leaving everything except their shirt on there backs. So in every slave state expect Delaware the secession movement striked. States became to leave and the new nation was founded of agriculture and how the founding fathers imagined It. I hope you look at these links: http://knowsouthernhistory.net... http://knowsouthernhistory.net... http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net... http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net...
Religion is a force for Good in the world.

Seeing as my opponent made one two three four forum posts on the same name, I think it's obvious my opponent wants to discuss this issue. Simply put, I am stating religion is not a force for good in the world. My opponent has to provide reason for why religion is a force for good in the world. The burden of proof is shared.My opponent must post their argument first, though. This is to stay in line with common convention of PRO being allowed to start their argument first.
Books Are Better Than Movies

20 bucks is not bad Movies allow for relaxation, Not requiring you to put any effort in whatsoever. You don't have to imagine whats going on because you can see it. As for quality control, This is only obtainable in movies, As the price gap nowadays filters out bad movies. And it's not just the price gap that acts as a filter, But series. People enjoy marvel movies because they are good movies. Most people don't go to see a movie that they have no background for, So most people don't end up seeing bad movies in the first place. Good debate.
Books Are Better Than Movies

Yes, There may be more bad books and movies, But that is because there are many more writers than moviemakers! In fact, More good books are released per year than good movies. Imagination is exercised by books, And it helps people to visualize better. It also allows you to put the face of whoever you want on a character, And so in some manners, It becomes molded around your own thoughts. Movies are constrained to one interpretation (besides conspiracy theories), But books can be flexible, Which is why they are much better for books talks and what not. This is a good thing because it leads to intellectual discussions that bring people together over a shared love of a topic. Another thing is that if a book is bad, You can simply put it down and move on with your life. If you go to a theatre, And the movie is bad, You've wasted a lot of money and time on a terrible experience.
Books Are Better Than Movies

Good argument! Although books may cheaper than movies, There are a lot more bad books than bad movies. To explain this, Think of this: since books are cheaper to create, This will allow more bad writers to create multiple books, Thus leading to more bad books. Movies on the other hand, If the scriptwriter makes one awful movie, He is done. It motivates writers to make the best movies possible. In one way for books the bar is set low, So the unskilled can jump it, While with movies the bar is high, So only the skilled can jump it. Whenever you read a book, You have to imagine what is going on, The scenery, Characters, And all other aspects of the story. This could explain why the books are always better than their movie counterparts, Because when one person imagines it one way and makes a movie of it, Than all the other people who read the same book will say "I imagined it differently. " Thus causing confusion. While when movies are original, Its totally new and better described than any book could.
Books Are Better Than Movies

Books are better than movies firstly because they can be released much faster than movies. A book can be written in just months, While movies take years to finish, And even longer if they're animated. Second, Writing books cost much less than making movies, And there is a much bigger base for them because there are so many more. Third, Books use language that is just not possible in movies, and therefore have much more emotion in them. Finally, Books are almost always better than the movies. The Hunger Games is much better than the movies, As is The Chronicles of Narnia, The Giver, And pretty much every other one.
All religion is made up and is obviously fake. Science can prove this

You claim I'm the child when you can't spell "off" and since when did I not use a full stop? You need to actually read what has been put. Anyway, you're side tracking me. In which part of the bible are dinosaurs mentioned? No where, I mean science's only proof of them? Only fossils, what a bad piece of evidence. How is religious war good? Thousands of innocent people die just because some group think what they're doing is right. P.S who's Einsteine? and that quote surely backs up my point? "Religion without science is blind"
All religion is made up and is obviously fake. Science can prove this

"Adult Sites" - you probably don't even know how to turn blocked sites of from your parental restrictions. Any ways, as Einsteine said " Science without Religion is lame, religion without science is blind". If science was the way forward we would all be dead. Ironically 'God' has some what set religion as a barrier to other religions. They argue over 'God' and kill each other. This action of killing each other has made science be halted AND means that the world isn't becoming overpopulated and polluted from human waste. Religion being made up is your opinion. Many areas in science are only backed by theories and Religion has historical evidence to back up certain things. ANYWAY, your debate is to broad and isn't directing any certain areas of society. You are simply here to trigger people. You didn't finish your sentence with a full stop. Just like science hasn't finished of its evidence for said 'Facts'. Religion is a belief and doesn't need facts. I believe cheese is tasty. It doesn't need facts that statement just like religion does not.
All religion is made up and is obviously fake. Science can prove this

AS stated, there is not or very little evidence for most religions. Science has prove for the stuff that it claims and at no point has there been evidence for a "God". I feel that all devout religious people are limiting their own lives and their children. They indoctrinate them and this causes them to be as bad as their parents. This is only because they know no different. Of course this has been going on for thousands of years. I think the only reason religion was made out of self guilt- someone to feel sorry to without owning up to yourself.
Judaism (Pro) vs. Islam Con:

Hello, my friends! Glad to meet y'all. My team is comprised of me, myself, and I. A little bit about myself: I am a student of Comparative Religions and I have been so for the last 4 years. I have had many fruitful conversations with people of different backgrounds and Religious affiliations, which has taught me many great things. I will be taking the side of Con, which is according to the instigators, the side that represents Islam. This round will be only for acceptance given that the instigators have not provided any opening arguments for me to respond to. Please note that, just because I have taken this side, it does NOT mean that I look down upon Judaism nor do I view Islam as a superior belief than Judaism. If the instigators would have taken Pro to be Islam, I would have glady taken Con as Judaism. The titles of these Religions are both Divine in origin, where a Message was shared to our human family by God through His Messengers, Moses and Muhammad, respectively. I pray we have a great debate, whatever this debate may be on, and I hope we can all learn from each other as brothers exploring the Messages of God. God Bless ;)
Judaism (Pro) vs. Islam Con:

I would like to say that I am deeply sorry for referring to the Aboriginals as Savages in my argument. I do no imply that they still are or were, I am merely showing how advanced the Aboriginals of the time were in comparison to the Pre-Islamic Arabians. Once again I apologize Here is the argument...Hope you guys like it haha :) https://docs.google.com... y'all are champs!
Judaism (Pro) vs. Islam Con:

Alright! We finished our argument! But first, I will ask our opponent to get himself 2 other members, otherwise it isn't a team debate, if you are having a hard time getting people, here are a few suggestions: Esocialbookworm XxMelissaxX Arnes ssuet.khan fazz Mclaren Please chose 2 of these for this debate to continue, if we wanted a one-on-one debate we would have chosen one, not to be rude. now without further adue, here is our document: https://docs.google.com...
WW3 part two

Now I am going to give some history facts. Have you ever heard of Hannibal? If so you would know he took about 40 elephants and 40,000 troops across the Alps to attack Rome. This took him about 2-3 months. Russia is moving motorized vehicles and can move much faster. They have roads instead of dirt paths like Hannibal had to trek so they would be able to move so much faster and be able to get their. Also not all troops are stationed past the Urals so with the troops stationed near Poland would be a good fighting force and when the other troops get there it would be an easy task.I don't agree with you Iraq claim but will let you keep it. They have been at war for 8 years and are only finally wearing them down since they destroyed their leaders but more will come but I will let you have it. Just gives more support for Germany.True. But Russia would have a larger army that will bound to have some setbacks. Remember about the Asians. They will be closing in on the Western part of Russia.I agree. Iraq is out....So with only one country in their way Russia with German help would be so quick that their would basically be little to no resistance for themWhile the Asians do their number on the Russian Navy and while the Americans and The UK finish off France. France still has their armed forces though.Let's have another History lesson. Napoleon, French Dictator. He thought he could take over Russia but as we all know that never happened. He lost almost all his troops to the harsh winters and with Russia knowing they couldn't stop Japan and S. Korea forever they would go through with the same tactics and destroy their cities, even though this would be costly to them they would have to warmth of their cities when they retreat and not have to deal with the Siberian winters which are some of the coldest in the world.It was because the French was ill ready for the winter. The Allies could have just attacked them in the summer. It was a small problem for Hilter.
Death Penalty

You are listing people who were guilty and walked the streets. I agree with you in terms of the fact that their sentence wasn't harsh enough. I, however think that a life sentence would do it, instead of the death penalty. In my opinion, legal murder and killing makes us as bad as the people like Pol Pot(A Cambodian dictator who had a vision of ultimate world power, and rewriting history.)possibly even worse, because legal killing is twice as bad. I found a website of people who were killed by the death penalty,presumed innocent, and now we can never make amends to. Here is what the website is called: http://listverse.com... If you don't feel like going there, then here are the people killed. 10: Carlos de Luna, executed 1989 9: Larry Griffin, executed 1995 8: Ruben Cantu, executed 1993 7: David Spence, executed 1997 6: Jesse Tafero, executed 1990 5: Ellis Wayne Felker, executed 1996 4: Leo Jones, executed 1998 3: Cameron Todd Willingham, executed 2004 2: Joseph O'Dell, executed 1997 1: Lionel Herra, executed 1993 These people were murdered by our government in unspeakable acts of medieval barbarism. It is not deterring crime, and is viewed as our government murdering people they THINK are guilty. In short, the possibility that one man is innocent is enough to do away with the barbaric venegance that our government seems to want to use.
Death Penalty

Saddam Hussein seems to be your only piece of evidence for this debate. There are plenty more that have killed innocent people and even got out of jail and walked the streets again because they were not given the death penalty like they should have.John McRae -- Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending on 2 other counts in Florida. --------------------------------------- John Miller -- California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder, 1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975. --------------------------------------- Michael Lawrence -- Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term, 1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990. --------------------------------------- Charles Crawford -- Missouri. Life term in 1965 for murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994. --------------------------------------- Jack Ferrell -- Florida. Committed Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982. Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993. --------------------------------------- Timothy Buss -- Murdered five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned 1996. --------------------------------------- Dwain Little -- Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975. Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980. --------------------------------------- Scott Lehr -- Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other than death. Later released. After release, between Feb 91 and Feb 92 lured 10 different female victims, between the ages of 10 and 48-years-old, into his car. Raping and beating them unconscious, stripped and adandoned them in the desert. Three of his victims died in those acts. --------------------------------------- Michael Murdaugh -- Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other than death. Later released. After release murdered David Reynolds. Beating him to death. When 'dumping' the body, Murdaugh severed Reynold's head and hands, pulled out his teeth, and buried the body parts. --------------------------------------- Charles Daniels -- was convicted and sentenced to Life for the 1965 rape and murder of a Louisiana woman. Later having his sentence commuted, he was release. And he again killed another woman, 32-year-old Debbie Tatum. These are just some of the people that have been on a life sentence then paroled or let out of prison and killed or raped again. This is why people should be put to death row. I am not saying that everybody should be put on death row just that there should be a death row. *I am confused on the topic. It just says death row. Does that mean I am trying to prove that everybody should be put on death row or just that a death row should be in place?*
Death Penalty

People like Saddam Hussein killed millions of unarmed children in a genocide. What you are saying is that we should give them the easy way out. Like I said before, if we execute an innocent person, we can't take that back, and that is plain wrong. If they are jailed, then we can release them if their innocence is proved, and try to make amends. If we kill an innocent person, doesn't that just make us murderers? Back to my argument about the heavily guilty, how does the death of one scumbag like Hussein make up for the millions they killed? I think that a life sentence in jail is justified. Now let's say that you say that it costs innocent people money to keep prisoners alive, like you did. I think jailing and killing an innocent person, and having the average Joe say"Well, he's dead, but I'm not losing money anymore, so who cares about that dead guy?" is just selfish. Complaining that we are keeping innocent people in jail alive costs them their luxury suite money is stupid and selfish. If their luxury suite is more important then an innocent person's life, doesn't that feel wrong? Doesn't that make it seem like the person outside of jail is superior to the one within? I think people should be willing to give a little bit of money to keep possibly innocent people alive.
Death Penalty

Some people are responsible of murder, genocide and other horrible acts but there should be a death penalty. It cost around $22,000 dollars to keep one prisoner in jail for a year and around $1.5 million for a life sentence. All that comes out of tax payers' money. So, if you are against this argument, you are basically costing the ordinary joe more money to keep killers and and cold-blooded murderers alive. People are paying for criminals' food and water. With the death penalty, we are getting rid of the very worst criminals and doing it in a humane way. If we do not give murderers the death penalty, they are free to live and if they are nice enough and say that they have changed they have a chance to get out of jail and walk the streets again. Also, we have a justice system and we are not giving people the death penalty for nothing. There is only a slight chance that we ever give innocent people the death penalty.
Death Penalty

In a word-no! The death penalty is a quick way out for people like Saddam Hussein! People like that don't deserve a quick way out! A life sentence in prison would be better, because these guys are guilty of genocide, murder, assassination, you name it! Also, in the case of innocent people, if we kill them, we can't take it back! If we sentence them to prison, then we can release them. You can't release a person from death. There was a boy in England who is the reason they don't have the death penalty anymore. He told his buddy to let the cop chasing them "have it". The Friend took it to mean to shoot him, but he really meant to give the cop the gun. The speaker was 18, and he was hung, before it was discovered he had meant the gun, and the Parliament was so ashamed that they got rid of the death penalty. How many times have Americans hung innocent people? Isn't it time for that to stop? Should the people like Saddam Hussein get a quick way out of what they have done? I think not!
Pornography exploits women

exploit verb |ikG2;sploit| [ trans. ] make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource) : 500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology. " use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way : the company was exploiting a legal loophole | accusations that he exploited a wealthy patient. " benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them : making money does not always mean exploiting others. -The second college edition of The American Heritage Dictionary It all comes down to if she wants to do it. We live in the greatest country on earth where you have a choice on what you can do or not. Thank you you are a great debater and I wish you the best of luck. Bye I-AM-AWESOME 2014!
Pornography exploits women

Rebuttals "If she agrees to it and wants to do it then it still isn't exploitation by definition"The definition of exploit is "to take advantage of[1]". So, I will use my example again (And don't confuse example with definition; example is simply context): say, the man initiated (Asked for consent from partner (Woman, in this case), and did so) sexual intercourse for the sake of her different characteristics, relative to the man, thus being exploitation, even if the woman consented to it.I await your next set of arguments! :DSource [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pornography exploits women

Rebuttals "but if they are getting paid to do it and they agree to it ( and they are not drunk or high.) and it is legal (by legal I mean over 18) hen i isn't exploitation."Ah. But like said, say, the man initiated (Asked for consent from partner (Woman, in this case), and did so) sexual intercourse for the sake of her different characteristics, relative to the man, thus being exploitation, even if consented to my the partner.I await my opponent's next set of arguments! :)
Pornography exploits women

Rebuttals "If the woman is fine with it than it isn't exploitation. She has a choice. "Yes. True. The woman consents to it. Same with her partner. However, it can still be exploitation. Say, the man initiated (Asked for consent from partner (Woman, in this case), and did so) sexual intercourse for the sake of her different characteristics, relative to the man, thus being exploitation. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Pornography exploits women

Rules 1. No plagiarism. In other words, don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.3. The BoP (Burden of Proof) is shared.If you fail to comply with the rules listed above, 7 points will automatically be deducted from you.Presentation In pornography, it is intended for one's sexual arousal/excitement, not for making love. When there is sexual intercourse between two, both have consented to it, thus not being considered (And rightfully so) rape[1]. If either one hasn't, it would be. However, one may have initiated it to their advantage. However, he/she, the initiater, is not to blame, seeing as his/her partner consented to it.Also, to those people (Like feminists), why are you sexist? It doesn't only exploit (Take advantage of[2]) women. It can also exploit men. Your fraudulent accusations are surely pitiful.Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
me = you

Key:= means the same as+ means added to- means subtracted from∴ means therefore/ means divided by* means multiplied by[] means non-mathematical explanationRebuttal:Con states that I am just a projection of his thought and light on his screen but this is wrong. I am actually Con because without me this debate couldn't happen and without Con this debate couldn't happen.debate - Con =/= debatedebate - Pro =/= debateCon + Pro = debateeach side has half the role in the debate sodebate/2 = Pro = Con∴ Pro = ConAs for the bot argument, if Con is a robot he wouldn't debate as only humans debate. It is an activity unique to our species.Con states that i=me but i =/= me"will u f*** my i" = "will u f*** my eye"but "will u f*** me" = sex and f***ing someone's eye is rape and abuserape+abuse =/= consensual sex∴ i =/= meFurther Proposition:What I am about to prove: me = youProof:me + you = "hey man" = hey + man ∴ me = (hey + man) ∴ hey + man = me + you - you human = hey+you+man [say it out loud and you will know] ∴ human - (hey + man) = you [but without 'me' there who will you say 'hey man' to? exactly so we realize that I am equally important to you in the hey man quantity] ∴ human - me = human -you[If there is no human without you and me and we are both human then without me you are not human but since you are human it means that I am necessary for you to exist and vice versa]∴ me = you