BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Titties "ain't all dat"

I mean its obvious guys have an attraction to breasts. That's unrefutable. My argument is that it's still not in our DNA to be attracted to them. That happens within the course of childhood/teen hood through suggestion. It's like kissing, another unnatural sexual occurance in our species. Kissing is equivilqnt to uselessness when in terms of arousel, but since children grow up seeing it as adulterous, brings them up to believing it is an organic sexual act that's always been done. You Made a good point of how physical attraction plays out when in attraction. Again, breasts & kissing, all that is thrown in as described as in my previous paragraph. However, it is natural for males and females to be attracted to physically fit portrayals. This is indeed natural within the animal kingdom therefore an actual natural and logical display of sexual arousal. Or I other sence, muscles in a male or not much body weight on a female is "all dat." And another point to debate yours is that though fascination is the first of comings to hormones, fascination isn't what makes you attracted to it sexually. I don't want to bang the sun.
Titties "ain't all dat"

Everyone has a unique figure to them. Guys like big-breasted girls who have that hourglass look (most guys). Most women want a guy who has the sculpted abs who came out of a Twilight movie. Saying boobs aren't special to guys (heterosexual) is like saying weight doesn't matter to heterosexual women when it comes to picking the "dream guy". I am not saying that physical attractiveness is everything, but it sure means quite a bit! Back to breasts, when ever I see nice breasts I know from personal experience that it is very attractive and I am hooked in! Boobs are like the sun in all regards, you are fascinated by them, but you can't look at them too long without damage being done (or touch them for that matter because you will be in pain alright), so a rebellious side emerges from a man and it makes breasts amazing! They are just like the apple that Eve ate. Curiousity makes something simple extraordinary just like stories!
Titties "ain't all dat"

I agree to the fascination aspect. I think the main attraction is that as we grow up, bewbz are seen to be forbidden fruit which we are taught is a "naughty" thing to think of. No other animals show such hormones for the females breasts. My point is that it's just a naughty not-so-easily obtainable thing therefore making it craved for the male. And on top of that, it is part of the female body, which again at a young age, boys are taught not to experience sex at a young age, so going along with the build up of hormones, the breasts just sort of blend in with the sexual experience - therefore making them not so special.
Titties "ain't all dat"

what turns you on turns you on! Call it a fetish that almost every guy has, I don't know but there is something about breasts that attract males. I think it stems from the physiological term that the first woman a man truly loves is his mother and if you were breast-fed at a young age a boy might find breasts fascinating. I also think it has to do with the opposites attract philosophy too where men are attracted to a female body and women are attracted to a male body.
Titties "ain't all dat"

This is my first debate on this site too! I see the point you are making though about breasts. The difference between noses and ears however, is that every human has them (well normally does). Really, what I believe is that faces don't always give away the feminine look but since only girls have breasts, so that can reassure a man that this is a female! The same is true the other way around. Men don't always look masculine, like Justin Beiber for example. Back in the Medieval times only men played parts in plays. Therefore, men also had to play the female role too. What I am getting at is people don't always know the sex of a person just by looking at them. Breasts really do show the feminist qualities of women. Why else would the Flappers (women who rebelled against traditional women views) wear short skirts and revealing clothing? It was for the attention, and they got it. Back to the sun, breasts just have that special characteristic that draws people in and gets their attention. They are simple yet so different! I can't believe that I just debated this long about breasts! !! Well, I had fun debating with you and to everyone else vote for me if you think breasts are special and deserve some recognition! Go boobs!
Titties "ain't all dat"

With the sun bit I was just aging on your analogy of it of why curiosity doesn't spawn a rebellious nature as you put it previously. Well I can't believe that we finished this in one night! So here are my rebuttals to your last round and then my closer.You made some point of how breasts are important. Again this is unrefutable but the debate spans more in the direction of the importance of them in a sexual nature not organic nature (though most of them are). You also made some humorous points on how they're interesting and that you appreciate them. I'll go along with my sun point I used earlier; I appreciate food and the earth and vaginas, but I don't want to fuc.... Well except the last one. This leads into my last argument. The vagina, without a doubt does have sexual attraction even being an ugly deformed lips of a dog. This is indeed programmed into us to want to have interfourse with. With that being said, I can understand how guys might be attracted to asses for being the acces points to what they crave. Tits not so much. They're just their, and besides providing nourishment as a kid, they don't serve for much use. Just ask any old granny. With my closer, tits are still nothing special. I never fell in to the retarded reasoning of why men do become attracted to them. Even with joking around with them and how awesome they are, I just was always "ehhh." I might raise my kid up telling him that he shouldn't get excited about noses and ears and test my hypothesis and see if I find him with his pants down on the Internet googling ear sex lol. Good humorous debate. Thanks to my opponent for even participating in this randomness. I know I won't win because tits have been programmed into all of your Brian's so Girls vote for me!
Titties "ain't all dat"

Well, yes no one wants to "bang" the sun. I was using the sun as a metaphor. I guess the point you are making is the "ain't all dat" point. Breasts aren't just for a man's sexual desire, but they provide nourishment for the young. In reality without breasts there would be no ice cream or yogurt! Cows make milk, cream, etc. from their "titties" which provide great tasting snacks (and not to mention delicious). I am pretty thankful for breasts because they provide those products. Your rebute will probably say "Well, what about the lactose intolerant?" To that I say well it sucks to be them because they can't enjoy the wonderful goods that "titties" provide us.
DDO Olympics: Science

Resolution: Without intervention, there is a strong possibility that scientific progress will effectively ‘cure death. ’ This debate is about the possibility for a human life not avoiding all biological deaths. Both Con and I agree the preservation of the brain from aspects of the aging process that lead to brain death would be enough to effectively ‘cure death’ and there are options that can possibly prevent this effect of aging. Beyond that we have some disagreement as to what this would mean. I will also assert that sustaining human consciousness indefinitely, without intervention (an explosion etc), would effectively cure death. By allowing for intervention I am admitting that aggressive regulation, wars etc could prevent any scientific progress and would make this impossible (get it together humans). I am not predicting a time frame but I am arguing that we have gotten to the point that we understand this is a strong possibility. I have mentioned what I mean by 'cure death' along with a point of disagreement and standard dictionary definitions should apply to any other wording.
DDO Olympics: Science

I am saddened to have to admit that my opponent has convinced me with his arguments. I now believe that it is possible to end natural aging and cure most chronic diseases, thus achieving human immortality to some extent. I do not think I can even play devil's advocate at this point.Thus, unfortunately, I will be conceding the debate to my opponent. I apologize to my opponent for pre-maturely ending a perfectly good debate which he has evidently put much effort into, and I wish him good luck in the later rounds of the DDOlympics!
DDO Olympics: Science

Thanks to my opponent for his argument.Since my opponent has not stated otherwise, I will assume that the burden of proof is on him to prove that scientific progress has a high probability of eventually achieving human immortality. Thus, my role in this debate is mainly to give rebuttals to his points to show that such a feat has a low probability of being achieved.DISEASENow, if we look at the top 10 causes of death in USA [1], we see that eight of them are chronic/terminal illnesses, including -- Heart Disease-- Stroke -- Cancer-- Lung Diseases (Lower Respiratory)-- Diabetes (type 2)-- Mental Illnesses (Alzheimer's) Many of these illnesses aren't caused much by aging at all, and none of these illnesses have any cures thus far [2]. They cannot be ignored when discussing the topic of "curing" death.The majority of my opponent's arguments deal with (supposed) solutions to natural aging, but very rarely does anyone die of just old age; there is almost always some sort of disease behind it, as shown by the provided statistics.For this reason, I would argue that the accomplishment of human immortality would necessitate the curing of such widespread diseases, rather than simply the termination of natural aging.Now, I realize that some of my opponent's anti-aging arguments tie into disease prevention, but as far as I can see, the only time he went into a detailed discussion on that topic was when he talked about the possible cure for cancer involving telomerase inhibition.However, doing further research into that field reveals that there are several limitations to it as a viable cure for cancer, most notably that it is probably not going to be an efficient treatment due to the nature of telomerase division in cells [3].Sub-conclusion: a necessary component to "human immortality" would be an immunity or at least surefire cures to the ailments which currently are the major causes of death among humans.TRUE IMMORTALITY?I was planning on giving a rebuttal to each of my opponent's contentions to show why they merely slow down the aging process as opposed to actually stop it.Unfortunately, due to time constraints this will not be possible, as I literally have 15 minutes left to finish this up.I will definitely squeeze this section into my next round's argument somehow.CONCLUSIONS1) The overwhelming majority of human deaths are caused by ailments which are often not really caused by the aging process, and for human immortality to truly be considered achieved, we would have to find cures to such diseases.2) The supposed solutions to aging merely slow down aging, rather than end it, meaning that they don't really achieve human immortality (to be expanded upon next round)I apologize for my incomplete argument and hand the debate back over to my opponent.SOURCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://top-10-list.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not

"Yes, In fact they do have a right to reserve their body for other uses, If it didn't want to donate its organs it shouldn't happen. All of my points still stand. " A dead person"s organs should used as a last resort in order to save more lives while retaining consent rights to an extent, Since organ donors organs would be more likely to be used in saving lives. One organ donor saves 8 lives(. https://www. Organdonor. Gov/statistics-stories/statistics. Html). The rights of 8 people"s lives matter more than the rights of one dead corpse. Even if you disagree, Bodily autonomy is only one right, And you said everyone should have rights, Meaning multiple of them. You have yet to state any additional rights that dead people should have.
We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not

Dead people do not deserve rights since these rights infringe on the rights of the living. If someone needs an organ, And no organ donors are available, Then the non organ donor's organs should be harvested because the right to life exceeds the right to bodily autonomy, Especially since 1 human can save 8 lives. The right to life is a fundamental right, The right to have a whole dead body is merely a supplemental right. Even if you disagree with what I typed above, Assuming they deserve the right to bodily autonomy, That is only 1 right. Your question is, "We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not", Not "We Should All Have a Right, Ethnic or Not". Therefore, Multiple rights are needed for this group in order to win on this. The only right dead people might have is the right to bodily autonomy, Which is just one right, And not multiple rights.
We Should All Have Rights, Ethnic or Not

1. Murderers. Yes, Murderers do deserve rights. The should be allowed to reserve the right to a quick and speedy trial, And to help himself get out of jail, No matter what he did, He can reserve this right. Once he gets out of jail, He should be allowed to have his previous rights, Despite what he did. It's giving them a second chance. If he didn't have rights, The person wouldn't be allowed to justify themselves at all, Which isn't fair. 2. People who willingly spread HIV. People should still have right if they do that. I'm not saying it's good to do it, But you're still a person who should be able to vote, Speak publicly, Gather, And more. As I said before, He would need his rights to justify himself, It's not fair if he couldn't. 3. People who escape jail. Yes, Should still have rights as if that person were caught again he should still be able to reserve his rights, Whether or not he committed crime or not. Still. They would need rights for trial. 4. Dead people. They still deserve rights. They wouldn't really use them, But yes they do.
Guns should be banned to the general public

I will first address my opponent's criticisms and then present voting issues. 1) I apologize for not posting sources and for any resulting confusion. Information on deontological ethics may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (. http://plato.stanford.edu...). Further reading on Kant's categorical imperative, which is related to the argument from deontology, can be found here (. http://plato.stanford.edu...). Once again, I apologize for any inconvenience. As my opponent's definition of morality was too vague for an argument and he fails to clarify his form of morality or refute the framework offered, morality shall be defined in terms of deontological ethics for this debate. 2) As the morality of an action in this debate is judged on a deontological basis, the consequences of an action have no impact upon the inherent morality of an action. In fact, people's use of guns does not even enter into a deontological discussion--the argument here is that the purpose of a gun is to inflict harm. I have shown (Round 2 Para. 3) that guns are designed to propel objects into another object--in the context of this debate, a person--that is their primary function. My opponent does not dispute that statement in his rebuttal. In the view of deontological ethics, then, guns are immoral because they are designed to cause harm. My opponent has failed to affirm any of the contentions offered in the initial Con constructive, therefore he has no case remaining, as my refutations of his contentions have not been disputed. Because none of my opponent's contentions stand, he therefore cannot fulfill the Con burden proposed and accepted in the third observation. Of the eight rebuttals or reaffirmations presented in the second round Pro rebuttal, my opponent has only made one attempt at a refutation, which I have addressed above. In this case, all of my contentions can be extended from the initial round, while none of my opponent's arguments can, and I have therefore satisfied the self-imposed Pro burden that the banning of guns is consistent with a deontological form of morality.
Guns should be banned to the general public

I will now dispute my opponents arguments. First of all i dont know where my opponents definition of morality came from but mine came from the dictionary. Second of all my opponent said that "The intent of a gun is to cause harm to its target; in a deontological view guns are therefore inherently immoral. " I disagree, as the saying goes "guns dont kill people, people kill people. " You can not make an object immoral just because of how people use it. I believe that i have proven in all of my arguments put together that guns are moral.
Guns should be banned to the general public

Guns are morally acceptable. But before we continue what does moral mean? Dictionary. com defines it as "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. " So what is wrong? Is it wrong to chew gum in school? Society says so, but is society wrong? Society says that guns are bad and can hurt people. I know that in this case society is wrong. Guns kill less people then doctors. Does that mean that doctors are morally wrong? No, doctors help people and save lives. Guns also do this. Imagine that someone has barged into your house and has a weapon let's say a knife. What are you going to do? If you have a gun you can defend yourself. Is one life so important that it overrides that of yours and your families? In this case guns are morally acceptable. Why are guns morally acceptable in this circumstance? Because they have saved your life and protected your family. Guns are morally acceptable when they are used to survive and to protect yourself, your family and or your country. My opponent has said, "The reason that gangs are in possession of guns to the degree that they are is that there have been only token restrictions on gun sales in the United States. " I disagree. The reason that the gangs have so many guns is because of the black market. Not only that, but the gangs get weapons from the black market that even the average police officer can not get. My opponent said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. " This statement is not morally correct if the person whose nose is about to be hit is causing pain and suffering to the person whose fist is being swung. It is morally wrong to allow a human being to suffer at the hands of another human. You should be able to take up arms (like guns) to protect yourself. My opponent also said "Guns are frequently used by criminals in attacks upon citizens--roughly 900,000 cases annually. Of these cases, 18000 result in death by homicide. " However in 1994 there were 192 million guns in America www. ncjrs. gov/txtfiles/165476. txt and in 2008 the number of guns were over 250 million. Even thought there are more guns, violent crimes are at a 35 year low and murder is at a 43 year low (. http://www.nraila.org...). So the question is, are guns really as dangerous as my opponent says or are they the perfect crime fighter? If you were a robber would you go into the house with the gun or the house without the gun? I would go into the house without the gun. My opponent has also said "Guns are also used in suicides. " While that is true you can use anything to commit suicide. There have even been cases where people have used toilet paper. So does that mean that we should ban toilet paper? Does that mean that toilet paper is immoral? My opponent has said "The general public does not obtain its food primarily by hunting. " That may be true but there is a portion of the United States population that do hunt for their food. Should we just take away their livelihood? That would be very immoral. I now wait for my opponent to respond.
Guns should be banned to the general public

The general public should have the right to own a gun. The second amendment states "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This means that a United States citizen has the right to own and use guns. Owning guns is a constitutional right of all Americans. The peoples' right to own guns keeps the government from becoming too powerful. When the government becomes to powerful then we become a dictatorship. The reason we become a dictatorship is because without an armed population the police and the military will have all of the control. As the quote goes "only the dead have seen the end of war." There are many types of war. Two types of war are the war on terror and the war against another country. The war that strikes home the most though is the war on crime. Crime affects us in our everyday life. For instance, you might not go to a certain mall any more because of gang violence or you might put extra locks on the windows and doors of your home because you live in a dangerous area. The world is a very dangerous place. You do not see people leaving their doors and windows open all the time. Gangs now have hand guns, sawed-off shot guns and Uzis. How are you suppose to protect yourself against somebody with a gun when you do not have any weapon that matches a gun? This is one of the rare times that you need to fight fire with fire. As of January 1, 2010, the US population is 308,405,158. The number of hand guns, rifles and shot guns owned by American civilians as of 1997 is 235 million. The amount of people that own guns in the United States is continuing to rise. Taking away the guns of the United State citizen will fail just as miserably as prohibition. People will not be willing to give up there guns without a fight. There will be riots, and there will be people making there own guns and ammunition. The gangs and the mob will start to have immense power because people will start buying illegal guns. If they don't then the gangs and the mob will be the only people with guns. If there is one thing that nobody wants is the gangs and the mob to have more power like from 1919 to 1933. Also the number of car deaths is much greater. There are 200,000,000 drivers on the road in the United States and the number of deaths in the United States is 50,000. Guns also save people. They save people by protecting them from robbers and people who are trying to hurt them. They also a tool that can be used to kill animals for food. With out food humans can not survive. We do not have claws or really sharp teeth, so we invent weapons that we can use to protect ourselves and our families and to hunt for food. Another use for guns are for sport. Like for skeet shooting or target practice. These harmless activities are great fun, and why should are fun be limited in a free country? These are great activities that are excellent ways to teach gun safety. http://gunsafe.org... http://www.law.umkc.edu... http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.census.gov...