BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Twilight is worse than harry potter

Didn't you read the whole series If you are confused I am talking about the whole saga not just the one book Really you are critiquing Harry and Ron friendship when bella meets her soulmate straight away Harry Potter is suitable for all ages unlike twilight who's main fan base consists mainly of teenage Edward lovers Twilight is feminist because it suggests that a girl is hopeless without a man Harry actually got to know Ron well on the train but later events made them best friends and think about hermione they started off hating her but she becomes part of the trio Any way did you give an original reason why Harry potter is worse or did you just disagree with mine I hope no one took offense at anything I said Bye
Twilight is worse than harry potter

Please state how twilight is feminist because i have read it and it didn't seem feminist at all.I don't really get what you mean by a book causing people to kill themselves but it doesn't make sense.In no way is harry potter more realistic then twilight.It has magic and monsters and is a fantasy novel.Twilight on the other hand has a vampire sub plot and is a romance novel.So its not realistic but are you saying that harry sitting next to Ron and then them becoming best friends was realistic too.And what about Ron he was an idiot too.How does he love them if they are dead,also she risked her life for her mom so i don't think you finished the book.At what time does she want to kill herself.
Twilight is worse than harry potter

Twilight is way worse *It is feminist *The first book is accessible in primary school libraries that might lead to children becoming suicidal *harry potters situations are more like real life *Edward is bella first bf and her soulmate How realistic (sarcasm) *bella is an idiot *harry potter loves his parents and bella practically forgets all about her mum *Charlie doesn't notice bella wants to kill herself Will name more in next round
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

Sorry if I did not give enough insight on what I was saying and what was meant. I was given all the same vaccinations while I was a baby. I have survived 23 healthy years and I have plenty in me. I don't care if you have studied organic chem, or epidemiology, I am a Political Scientist, I know how to research as well. I don't research things from blogs and things that people who make assumptions or base judgment on the small adverse affects of vaccinations. Coerced vaccination? After all, it is up to the parent to vaccinate their children. So, like I said before, if you want to vaccinate your children like most people do, then do it, and if you don't then don't, but God Forbid something were to happen to anyone's children while they are still infants or young children, who is to blame? don't put the blame on modern medicine, blame yourself for being vainglorious and making judgment based on some findings. I never said I was a credible source, or said I have a PhD or even an MD, I am just saying when you cite some website, make sure it is backed. I have a question, purely a question for you? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in challenges? Take a scenario. You have a baby, and you decide to give your baby vaccinations and God Forbid the baby has autism in the affects of the vaccination, would you look at it as a challenge and a blessing or do you view it as something damned and disgusting?
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

YOU COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADULTS IF YOURE AN ADULT GET VACCINATED DO WHATEVER YOU WANT I am talking about MASS FORCED COERCED VACCINATIONS OF INFANTS HEAR ME? SHALL I REPEAT MYSELF? AND WHAT MAKES YOU ANY TYPE OF EXPERT AND WHO SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE AN MD TO PROPERLY STUDY AND ASSESS HEALTH ISSUES ? I have studied biochem, epidemiology, and many other subjects and know how to read technical research, do real science and draw conclusions I AM SENDING OUT A WARNING DONT LET THEM DESTROY YOUR CHILD WITH THEIR DO GOODING FROM HELL solarman
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

My fellow debater. I am sorry that I could not rebuttal your very interesting argument for I have been very busy with work and school. Anyway enough of this hog pog stuff, and lets get down to the nitty gritty fun stuff shall we? All though you show a lot of support and interesting tid-bits I do still stand when i started my rebuttal the first time. Just because you are an engineer by training does not give you the credentials to say vaccinations are horrible things that have high counts of mercury and can cause a lot of problems and sicknesses and even deaths. One reason why I say this is; You are not a doctor, two, you are not in the medical field, thus you do not know everything about vaccinations and how good they actually are for society, three are you really afraid of small amounts of mercury harming you and your family? thats great, but i would say nearly 80% of Americans and most people who have access to vaccinations take the opportunity to take them and stay safe. Now Mr. Solarman, I must say, and admit, I have had many vaccinations. I am 23 years old. I have not had one problem with the vaccinations I have had, whether it be for Malaria, any of the Hep A, B, C, HIB, or any other vaccination, I don't have autism and I don't have ADD or ADHD. Most of the diseases and problems you accredit with vaccinations can also be caused by interbreeding. Why don't you ask the hundreds, if not thousands of people who have volunteered in the Peace Corps, US State Department, any branch of the military, and most medical professionals about vaccinations and if they refuse them, I would bet that most people will take them to ensure their safety. The stats that you provide are a very small portion of the overwhelmingly humongous population we have here in the states.. I would bet that the percentage of people affected by vaccinations is somewhere around a maximum of maybe 5%? sorry if I do not have the exact information, but I also do not look up facts from non-profit websites or websites from people who write blogs like you have in the passed in other debates of yours such as debates about Islam.. such as http://www.prohpetofdoom.org... or whatever website you use, please when you want to give credentials and factual information go to the actual websites where this information lies, not some .org website, maybe a .gov would be great. Thanks
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

Vaccinating haha, you are so funny Solarman1969. Lets begin with the idea that vaccinations do actually help. Without the vaccination against Polio we would still be stuck back in the 20th century. In 1952 The United States had it's worse Polio epidemic. Nearly 58,000 cases were reported and of those 58,000; 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with the horribly debilitating disease. What about the smallpox disease? without the smallpox vaccination everyone would easily contract this horrible disease. Even better, what about the MMR or Encephalitis vaccinations? Without those vaccinations college students could contract those diseases, and not only college students, people who work in areas where they are in contact with many people in a small area.. lets think a place like that could be hospitals, dr. offices, colleges, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, the freaking city of New York, any airport, any airplane, any sporting event.. get the picture? What about the vaccine against the bubonic plague, cholera, Hepatitis A? all of those are really bad diseases that not only can cripple a person but can easily kill a person, as quickly as it can be easily treated or prevented by vaccinations. I think maybe your children and you might be lucky, but wait till one of your children, GOD FORBID, contracts Polio or some debilitating disease, then what will you think?
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

I am a father of two Neither of my children were vaccinated When I was a child, I showed signs of being allergic to vaccines and was not vaccinated When my ex tried to give my seven year old a vaccine without my permission and against my will, despite it being "mercury-free" and "holistic" within days she got a horrible condition called ITP the doctors say they dont really understand why it occurs (vaccines of course) but what happens is your white blood cell count drops to like zero from 100-200,000. I took her to Oakland Childrens hospital and she got a transfusion- and they were telling me that it might be a permanent condition Like a MIRACLE, a few days later the condition receded. NOONE was willing to admit the link between the vaccine and the ITP, and they CANNOT explain why ITP happens. Furthermore, the VACCINE INDUSTRY is just that - an 13 BILLION$ industry It is the ONLY THING they try and force you to do to your kids and PAY alot for the Autism rate is not 1 in 150 kids- it was realtively UNKNOWN before mass vaccines the Autism rate among NON-vaccinated children is like 1 in 100,000 or less (I am trying to find the survey I read before on this) the medical exstablishment DENIES anty link between vaccines and Autism and IPT and other auto immune disorders AND SIDS (sudden infant death sydrome) I KNOW FOR A FACT that all of these problems are caused by babies , LITTLE BABIES, with INCREDIBLY FRAGILE systems, being forced to take in like 26 yes 26 different strains of DEAD PATHOGENS, alog with the PRESERVATIVES and other crap that is in the vaccines. they try to FORCE YOU as a parent to vaccinate these are DO GOODERS FROM HELL the facts are CLEAR but they will not listen I would like a PARENT or MEDICAL TYPE to argue this with me this in another VERY IMPORTANT issue that deserves a GOOD DEBATE
Mortal Kombat is too influential.

My opponent/sister took information from Softpedia. She posted information after the following: "They both started to drink and think more and more about the Mortal Kombat game." She skipped a very important detail. They were drinking. That means they were drunk. Drunk people tent to get very irritable and become violent as a result. They happened to be thinking of Mortal Kombat at the time. Thus, the 6 year old's death. If you go to http://news.softpedia.com... then you will see proof in the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph that what I quoted here is followed by what my opponent quoted. You cannot skip something like that! The one sentence I quoted makes a huge diffrence in this debate!
Mortal Kombat is too influential.

My opponent/brother states: "But I think you would have to be insane or on drugs or something among those lines to do something like beat a 6 year old to death. This and many other murders are alike, because the murderers are teens on drugs and/or are insane who play fighting games too much." For one thing, that sentence made hardly any sense at all, but if I get the basic jist of what your saying, it would be this, correct? My opponent's statement: Only insane teens on drugs who play too many video games would beat a child to death. From http://news.softpedia.com... "Eventually, Lamar told Heather that his hands are "lethal weapons" and he's a martial arts expert. Probably he thought he should have been a character in the game, since he started to demonstrate his "skill" by hitting little Zoe. The results are exactly what you could call unbelievable." "A broken right wrist, more than 20 bruises all over the body, bleeding neck muscles and a torn skin flap near the tongue. Lamar said he had performed a back kick on her, then kicked her again as she ran toward him. She fell back and didn't get up. She had stopped breathing, and Trujillo and Roberts waited 15 minutes before calling for help. That was what the 16 and 17 year old Mortal Kombat wannabes did to Zoe." Teenagers, granted, but these people were NOT insane; just normal kids, nor were they on drugs, yet they beat a young child to death replicating the moves shown to them in a videogame; Mortal Kombat.
Mortal Kombat is too influential.

Yes, I play Mortal Kombat. It is my favorite game. Many people think it is too influential. It is. But I think you would have to be insane or on drugs or something among those lines to do something like beat a 6 year old to death. This and many other murders are alike, because the murderers are teens on drugs and/or are insane who play fighting games too much. Everyone accuses Mortal Kombat. But why? Midway has all theese lawsuits, yet they are not the only ones. Namco, Sega, Nintendo, they have all made fighting games that are violent in thier own way. Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. recently created violent special moves that invole things like changing into a monster to annihalate thier opponent among other things which could have contributed to some of those murders. But perhaps not! The SSB series always manages to achive a T rating, so maybe not as much. Many othe fighting games like Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, and many others are very alike. Almost all of them have special moves that are very violent, but probably not as violent as Mortal Kombat. What I am trying say is that Mortal Kombat is not the only violent video game in the world and shouldn't be taking all the heat. Yes, there is the Fatalities which often involve mutilation, decapitation, overall they are unrealistic and fun because the look on your friend's face is priceless once they see what you just did to them. :) Maybe why people hate Mortal Kombat because of all the blood. They also hate it because of the female charecters having almost no clothing and big boobs. This is because Mortal Kombat is targeted towards people 18 and older because of the M rating. No one thought younger people would play Mortal Kombat, despite the M ratings. Sadly, the people who like playing violent games the most are people who shouldn't be. I think I have said enough, but I may have just said the bad things which may result in the inevitable result of me losing this debate. Despite all this, I will still try to win! I will never give up!
Trans people should be able to use the locker rooms/bathrooms matching their gender identity.

You broke the rule. I consider this an automatic forfeiture of all points, and an automatic victory on my part. Nonetheless, I will rebut your statements. However, to those reading this, vote for me due to my opponent's automatic forfeiture. You also broke the debate format: no rebuttals in round 2, another reason to vote Pro. "Regardless of how a person perceives their sexuality..." Sexuality and gender are two separate entities. They have nothing to do with each other. "A person[']s physical anatomy is what it is." Punctuation error, as pointed out. "If a [trans girl] is allowed into a girl[']s locker room to avoid making [her] uncomfortable or hurting [her] feelings, what about the feelings and comfort of the 20 or 30 girls in the room? Why should this [girl]'s comfort and feelings come before their[s]?" Punctuation errors, breaking of rules, and unnecessary apostrophes in this statement. I don't see why there would be any problem with a girl using a girl's locker room, honestly. And, I think the comfort of everyone involved should be taken into consideration, but if we forced this girl to use the boy's room, THAT would be "forcing girls and boys to shower together", as I pointed out in round one. "The same goes for the opposite. I've been a teenage boy and I can tell you that no matter how a [boy] sees [his] gender, a room full of boys will still [wrongly] see [him] as a naked girl. You want to talk about things that may spawn sexual assault..." Breaking of rules in this paragraph. Are you trying to defend sexual assault and harassment of a person if they're trans? Disgusting, in my opinion. "And this is assuming the [girl] really [is a girl]. What if [she's] just a good actor that wants to perv on a bunch of naked girls? How do you know for sure?" I pointed this out in round 2. And, this argument is about ACTUAL trans people. These "pervs", as you say, are irrelevant to the debate. "I've never heard of the laws you're talking about..." Source here: (http://thinkprogress.org...) and here (http://www.chicagotribune.com...). "If, as you say, they just want to... why is it so important that they pee in a room that matches them psychologically...?" I made my point about this earlier in round 2, and in this round. "I doubt if these transgender people are being discriminated against..." Source provided in round 2.
Trans people should be able to use the locker rooms/bathrooms matching their gender identity.

"Transphobic"? That's new. Once again I have to say that reality and common sense have to come in to play again at some point. Regardless of how a person perceives their sexuality, a persons physical anatomy is what it is. And as usual, the PC police have decided to take the feelings of the very few and put them above the feelings of the bulk of society. If a guy that thinks he's a girl is allowed into a girls locker room to avoid making him uncomfortable or hurting his feelings, what about the feelings and comfort of the 20 or 30 girls in the room? Why should this guy's comfort and feelings come before their's? The same goes for the opposite. I've been a teenage boy and I can tell you that no matter how a girl sees her gender, a room full of boys are going to see her as a naked girl. You want to talk about things that may spawn sexual assault.... And this is just assuming the guy really thinks he's a girl. What if he's just a good actor that wants to perv on a bunch of naked girls? How do you know for sure? I wouldn't want my daughter there. I've never heard of the laws you're talking about where they check genitals before they let someone into a bathroom and find it hard to believe. I'll have to look that up when I have time. But the fact is that the male and female anatomies are different and by trying to force guys and girls to shower together over 1 person's alleged gender identity issues is ridiculous and offensive to the vast majority of the people involved. If, as you say, they just want to use the bathroom and/or locker room and move on, then why is it so important that they pee in a room that matches them psychologically instead of physically? People have all kinds of psychological issues. Do we really want to start changing the most basic rules and laws of society based on everyone's perception of themselves? If a man truly believes deep down inside that he's an airline pilot even though he's not, do we let him in the cockpit to avoid hurting his feelings? If a convicted child molester truly believes that his victims love him and what he does, do we let him open a day care? If a 40 year old man truly and honestly believes he's a 14 year old girl, do you let him shower with your daughter? Reality is reality. If a "trans" person cannot accept the reality of what they are, that's their issue that they need to deal with. It is not the rest of society's job to try to accommodate them or make themselves feel strange and uncomfortable to avoid hurting their feelings. And lastly, I doubt if these transgender people are being discriminated against in bathrooms that match their actual physical gender. It sounds to me like they're putting themselves in a bad situation just to prove some kind of point and force their beliefs down other people's throats. No I wouldn't put myself through that just to have an ulterior motive.
Trans people should be able to use the locker rooms/bathrooms matching their gender identity.

I'd like to outline the only rule, since I didn't do so earlier. 1. No transphobic language. Tranny, transvestite, and transsexual will not be used. Trans males (FTM) will be called "he", trans females (MTF) will be called "she". Firstly, by making people use the restrooms that DON'T match their gender, you're actually doing exactly what you're trying to eliminate: putting men in women's bathrooms and women in men's bathrooms. By trapping people in these restrooms due to their sex organs, you're really creating the very problem you're trying to avoid. I don't need a source on this, because it's simply common sense. Secondly, by passing bills such as the one recently passed in some states, requiring genitals to be checked before entering a restroom, you're actually creating more circumstances where sexual assault could occur. This seems to be one of the main concerns about letting trans people use their bathrooms. But, by forcing genitals to be checked (according to some of these bills, even for CHILDREN), it opens the possibility that these people could be raped or assaulted. Trans people should be able to use their correct restroom, and not only that, but they should have a harassment-free environment as well. Really, they're just like anyone else. Their main priority in going into a bathroom is to do their business and leave, like anyone else. In fact, according to this study and survey of trans people (http://thinkprogress.org...), trans people experience much of the discrimination in bathrooms, actually. It even says that one respondent reported they were sexually assaulted. Would you go through all that, just to have an ulterior motive? I sure wouldn't.
Trans people should be able to use the locker rooms/bathrooms matching their gender identity.

I guess I should have paid closer attention to your rules before I agreed. The whole business about addressing guys as "she" and women as "he" just doesn't float with me. In fact, were I to do that I would be automatically giving in to your opinions. Therefore, had I followed your rules I would have given up immediately. I'm not a professional debater but I am quite good at getting my opinions across and making my points without being insulting as I feel I did during this discussion. The occasional grammar and/or punctuation errors happen. I'm not an English professor and really don't see where it matters when making a point. I think I did a ok saying what I wanted to say. In spite of your opinions to the contrary, gender and sexuality are not totally exclusive of each other. As usual the PC opinions are put in place to make everything that fits their agenda seem normal and everything normal seem bigoted. I don't want guys (no matter what you want to call them) showering with my daughter or my granddaughter and I don't want women in the men's room just because they want to pretend to be a man, and I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of voting, tax paying American citizens would agree with me. So you can claim victory on this debate based on your rules and grammar, but I'm pretty sure as far as valid points and reality is concerned, I have won this hands down. I look forward to debating you again. It was fun. By the way, I love Gorillaz.
Trans people should be able to use the locker rooms/bathrooms matching their gender identity.

You've done a really good job of validating all of my points by refusing to address them and instead focus entirely on your rules, grammar errors, and your "he, she" corrections. I did look up the Washington State law that you're referring to and it's not at all how you attempt to make it look. There's not "gender police" to be stationed outside of every bathroom to look down people's pants. It just states that men should stay out of the women's room and visa-versa. The only time this would be an issue or require a "genital check" is if someone is suspected of breaking the law. And sorry, but male is male and female is female. Just because someone says different doesn't change the facts. More PC nonsense.