BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games do not Cause Violence

I will do a quick argument this round because I am running out of time. This is basically a repeat/ rebuttal. So you said something like if you break your spoon and punch someone, it is your fault the the spoon. But think about it like a source, an item, and an outcome. The spoon powered your anger. Then your anger created a punch. So though the spoon didn't directly cause the punch, it was still one of the causes. The same goes for the video game. Since such a scenario is possible, the videogame created violence, thereby proving my point.
Video Games do not Cause Violence

OK, I guess a better title for this debate would be "Do video games influence violence" but semantics isn't that important to me.Counter: Your contention that people getting mad at video games and then doing acts of violence means that video games cause violence is false. People's reactions to video games can cause violence, this is a definite fact. This does not mean that video games cause violence. Say, for example, I am using a spoon to scoop ice cream and then the spoon bends slightly, and then I punch my brother in the face. Should I have reacted so badly? No, I shouldn't have reacted like that. People aren't going to blame the weakness of spoons for me punching someone in the face, they are going to blame me and the incredibly bad temper that I have. When people in completely sound mind get mad at a video game, they don't become violent. If video games did cause violence, then wouldn't everyone who got mad at a video game become violent? It is more correct to have the cause of the violence on the person committing it then the video game they were playing.
The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community.

The police can and should purchase military equipment to protect their citizens from threats of global terrorism, domestic terrorism, and highly organized criminals. America has been fighting a war abroad in order to prevent any terrorist threats from coming to its shores. The radical extremists are determined to attack at the soonest opportunity possible and the best way to respond to an attack or threat of terrorism is to have actively ready personnel and equipment that is specially designed to handle the situation. The local police have had to become those personnel, not by choice, but by them being the only available option in most cases. While it is the main job of the FBI to handle domestic terrorism and organized crime, they do not have the personnel at every local jurisdiction to take full control of such a situation as quickly, so the responsibility again falls to the police. However the FBI soul responsibility is to handle federal crimes, each with its own specialized department and personnel, and the average police officer is responsible to respond to a much wider array of problems. The police get called into action for domestic disturbances, assault, theft, suicides, murders, suspicious activity, and much more. They don't respond with military force for every situation even though there are no rules in place saying they can't. Since there are no rules about when they can and cant use the military force or equipment it is unclear when it should be used oppressing a threat from people, or protecting them from one.
The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community.

The police are here to enforce the laws of the court, but new laws are made every day, and some are changed. These policies are put in place by the elected officials of the community, some everyone agrees on and others are still up for great debate. But without question the police must do their job or be subject to termination. With the militarization of the police how, when, and where should they could they use this equipment? Having no laws against the police using this equipment at any time they see necessary is a dangerous path to take because when a person commits a crime and the penalty is based on a monetary value it gives cause for the police to come collect. Either it is a scare tactic or plain intimidation the police will be able to come find you, knock down your door, throw you on the ground, tie you up, and haul you away even if you are and never were a threat to anyone. If any new law was passed that took away the civil liberties of the people then the police are already well equipped to round up all those who may oppose such laws, making them criminals in the process and their voices would be unheard. The police could be deployed to take down a lemonade stand in the neighborhood, bust down doors to arrest suspects with pot, and shoot suspects of retail theft worth only $100.
The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community.

The argument that there is never a valid reason for a civilian police force to possess military technology is na"ve. The problem lies not with the equipment but rather with judicious use thereof as well as with the quality of the our civic officers. I am not arguing that Keene, NH needs a tank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but not all militarization in the police force is bad or unwarranted.
The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community.

The police have an obligation to protect the community but how far? When the police receive military equipment for use against the citizens of the community, they are betraying the trust and disrupting the harmony of their citizens. The civil liberties of every citizen can be taken away without any intervention due to the high capabilities of the militarized police. The police have built a system so as if any or every citizen wishes to express any new ideas or ideals he/she or they will be easily managed, arrested, and dealt with swiftly. The police have been gearing up for war with training, equipment and shoot first mentality.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, please don't fool me twice.Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist.Standard LD debate. All the usual arguments and cases associated with LD are fine by me.Standard debate conventions (lets try to be civil, even though I'll probably break this one >.>), no new arguments in the final round, etc. etc.Sources and citations may be posted via an outside source (either in the comments or in some other method that you can link to us) if you need the extra characters. I plan on utilizing this, so I might as well offer the same curtousy to my opponent as well.I'm gonna take a risk and make this open to whoever can snatch this up first. To whomever accepts, please do not make me regret doing this. I was totally and 100% buttf*cked by doing this last time and the debate was....awful. Please don't subject me to this again.First round will be for acceptance only.Second Round for cases and rebuttals for pro.Third round for rebuttals and defenses.Final round for conclusions and such.
Recreational Marijuana should be legal

This is my first time soooo, whatever, lets begin. There is a lot of evidence that some of the compounds in the cannabis plant, which is where marijuana comes from, can help people with certain illnesses. But for healthy people, using marijuana causes a number of bad side effects and negative health consequences. Short term marijuana effects include: Sleepiness and depression, an increased heart rate (which can cause a heart attack, anxiety and panic), and delayed reaction times. Long term marijuana effects include: Over the long-term the drug suppresses the immune system, causes growth disorders, lack of motivation and lung damage, changes mood and personality and lowers libido.
A random atheist is likely a better individual than a random Protestant

I would first like to point out out that depression is in no way delinquent behavior. Depression has no relation to being morally right or morally wrong. While the act of committing morally right or morally wrong decisions can affect ones amount of depression, it still makes no sense to call someone who has depression a "delinquent". Depression affects more than 19 million Americans. This is close to 10% of the United States population. [1] Surely not all 19 million of these mentally diseased people are delinquents. Such high esteemed people like Diana, Princess of Wales, and Winston Churchill, suffered depression yet had the highest of purest of morals. While Princess suffered from eating disorders, and Churchill had alcohol abuse problems [2], these issues outweigh their positive influence on society; after all, it was Winston's determination that helped destroy the Nazi Empire. My opponent has stated that with all things equal, any random atheist would have better morals than any random Christian, in a secular sense. But if we look at things from a secular sense, we are discluding the fact that Christianity has a positive moral impact on individuals. This means we must look at a random Atheist and their morals, and compare them to a random Christian who has no moral influence from his or her church. This is almost turning this random Christian into an Atheist by removing the Christian's morals of faith and gives them a disadvantage. With their religious beliefs, a Christian is more likely to donate to the poor, or not participate in "delinquent" affairs. Therefore, compaing a secular Christian to an Athiest is the same as compaing an Athiest(or agnostic) to another Athiest; they are the same, therefore, both can have equal morals. References: [1] . http://www.allaboutdepression.com... [2] . http://depression.about.com...
A random atheist is likely a better individual than a random Protestant

I am new here, and not sure how much time I will have so I am setting the character limit quite low (2,000). I think this will be better for a quicker succession of arguments. I wish to argue that all things being held equal, an atheist individual is likely more moral than a Christian individual. I am defining morality here in a secular sense. I do not want to see statistics on porn or victimless crimes. The definition of morality for this debate will be the net amount of observable good person X does for society. This also includes the net amount of observable burden person X puts on society, and delinquent behaviors such as divorce, heavy drug addiction, and depression are fair game. I am opening this up to whoever wants to debate me, and hope to see an interesting argument.
Notwithtanding modern technology and given the fundamentality of reproduction.

What is normal? I f by normal you mean antural, Then the question isn't can homosexuals reproduce, Thats not why gays do it. Another question to determine whether it is "normal" is to investigate whether and to what extent it occur in nature? Homosexuality pre dates the bible so its been around since day one. Are there gay animals, Do homosexual encounters occur in the world of the animals? No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, With the exception of species that never have sex at all, Such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, A part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, Truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
Notwithtanding modern technology and given the fundamentality of reproduction.

Is it therefore fair to describe homosexuality as abnormal. Of course, Technology negates the fundamentality of reproduction. So I would therefore assert that this is would seem to be an evolutionary certainty. Are evolutionary certainties therefore better defining principles than temporary conceptualities? Though concepts, Intangible as they are, Are real enough to the conceiver and as far as we know that is really all that matters. So where does the notion of abnormality lie within a constant confusion of collective thoughts and evolutionary certainty. I would propose that the realism of conceptuality is enough to affirm an individual judgement, Despite any weight of opposition. Therefore realistically rendering abnormality and/or normality for that matter, As not being truly definable.
funny poems contest

My opponent chose fried chicken for my poem. I am really impressed (and envious) with my opponent's ability to rhyme, because i have no talent at rhyming whatsoever. Plus the poem was funny. Oh well, here's a shot: The Dilemma Fried Chicken: Hi! I am Fried Chicken You know, the one with the hot, crispy skin? Today I present a dilemma, and I promise you'll be the one that wins. Now see kind sir, I wouldn't be opening my mouth, if my fate wasn't so miserable, I'd never squawk so loud! But listen please as I tell you the awfully despicable. Everyone loves fried chicken, everyone loves me. They gobble up my golden skin, tear away my tender meat sing odes to me and wrap me up for breakfast, lunch, and din-din. But really, I'd be happier to pursue the things I want. My dream is to be have a band, touring the world around. Yet because of humans' love I am forever on their plates never out to achieve my dream, having to wait and wait. But consider all the calories, the fat in my tempting skin! The heart disease I 'll bring upon you; eating me is a sin! Or else you'll be as fat as me, and I know you don't want that! It's better if you drink some tea or dine on some scrumptious veggies! You are my savior! My greatest oppurtunity! Oh, pity me, gentle monsieur, I but a mere fried chicken! Left to suffer an unhappy fate, please, have sympathy! Boy: CRUNCH. Mum, can I have some more fried chicken, please? I choose beans as the topic for my opponent's poem, and apologize for the length of mine. Thank you, and good luck!
funny poems contest

Mummy Slept Late and Daddy Fixed Breakfast[Daddy fixed the breakfast.He made us each a waffle.It looked like gravel pudding.It tasted something awful."Ha, ha ," he said, "I'll try again.This time I'll get it right."But what I got was in betweenButiminous and anthracite.*"A little too well done? Oh well, I'll have to start over."That time what landed on my plateLooked like a manhole cover.I tried to cut it with a fork:The fork gave off a spark.I tried a knife and twisted it Into a question mark.I tried it with a hack-saw I tried it with a torchIt didn't even make a dent.It didn't even snorch.The next time Dad gets breakfastWhen Mummy's sleeping late,I think I'll skip the waffles.I'd rather eat the plate.]
funny poems contest

Hi! Here are the rules of this debate. -Write a funny poem. The first debater will provide the topic for the opponent's poem(he'll need to write about that topic), and vice versa.(just keep the subject relatively clean, please) -Poem does not have to rhyme (though it could be funnier,I suppose.) -minimum of three stanzas -Poems need to be well written and easy to understand. -Can add pictures, links, videos for further humorous effect. :) -Whoever has the most entertaining, well-written poems wins. The topic that I choose for my opponent's poem is: Burnt waffles Looking forward to an amusing debate! Thank you!
funny poems contest

My Hamster Has a Skateboard[My hamster has a skateboard.When he rides it, though, he falls.He takes off like a maniacand crashes into walls.He screams, "Geronimo!"and then goes crashing down the stairs.He's good at knocking tables downand slamming into chairs.He'll slalom through the living roomand then you hear a, "Splat!"which means that he's collided withmy mother or the cat.He plows right into cabinets,and smashes into doors,I think he's wrecked on every bedand every chest of drawers.It's fun to watch him ridebecause you're sure to hear a smash.He doesn't skate so well but, boy,he sure knows how to crash.] --Kenn NisbittThanks to my opponent for having this contest with me. :)
funny poems contest

Food Du Jour Waiter: Good evening sir and welcome, we have rotten eggs today. Green and black and slimy, cooked perfect every way! Would you like some fried, an omelette perhaps? Green Eggs and Ham* with real green eggs, so good you'll collaspe. Man: Excuse me good waiter, I can't quite believe my ears. (How sickening, ugh, really?!) But I would only like a beer. Waiter: I tell you our rotten eggs are good! They're stinky as pig manure. You'll love them, that's for sure, there's really no way for failure. Oh, but I would recommend, a delicious Eggs Benedict. It oozes around and down your plate, (with lots of benefits!) Man: Actually, my dear waiter, I'd hate to interrupt, I'm certain your rotten eggs are great, but I'd love to have a beer. (I'm relieved I already ate!) Waiter: Oh, but you must try them! Our rotten eggs are the best! Friccassed, deviled, poached, Put them to the test! And if you want it simple, then boiled you will have. Behold the greenish beauty, with slushy yolk to match. Man: Honestly, dear waiter, I'm really quite bewildered. But anyways, I want a beer, so would you please go get it instead of standing by my chair? (!!!!!) Waiter: Perhaps you'd like something healthy, well our egg salad's just for you! Creamy as putrid cheese, and slightly acidic too. You would certainly be pleased to know, the chef's selling "Rotten Egg Glaze". Sweet as honey and greasy, soupy, zingy goo, it's worthy of your praise. Man: THAT'S IT, SHUT UP PLEASE! (I would like to call you something rude.) But before I really lose it, I'm leaving this place for FOOD! Bye bye, repulsive restaurant, we won't meet again someday. But my TripAdvisor review, will have quite a bit to say. [Leaves] Waiter: Well, what a man he was, so rude and stiff and mean. We'll never really make rotten eggs! It's all just cheese and cream. Thank you! I'm getting the hang of rhyming. The topic for my opponent's poem-Hamsters. Have fun! * Reference to the book Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss. (book tittle should be underlined)
funny poems contest

That was an amusing poem! Anyways, my opponent chose bananas as the topic for my poem. Beauty Contest "Looking for one with a ripe yellow peel, no age spots, please, please! And must be strong as steel. Tall and curved, that's the type liable to win. But no brown stripes or dots running down the skin! Oh, but also, don't forget, the value of the flesh! must be sweet and creamy, soft and white and fresh. Nutrition is important too, minerals should be there. calories only a little bit, definitely no fat to fear." So Mum searched and searched and searched combing the yellow bunch, looking for the right one perfect for Junior's lunch. Finally she found the best, a banana squirming with glee. "Oh boy, oh boy I've won the beauty contest! Now I'm the honoree!" And thus the good banana went into Junior's lunch, later down his mouth without so much a crunch. The topic I choose for my opponents poem-Broken plates.
Gay Marriage should be legalized soon but Straight Marriage should be illegalized immediately

1) But it's like this. If gay people learned from straight people that marriage sucks, then they should prevent themselves from endless torture, wasted money and plenty of money. We should spread the horror of marriage to raise awareness2) Same for straight people I guess3) Then we can save gay people from them too! Straight women according to my dictionary of stereotypes also love weddings but that doesn't discourage the fact that weddings blow hard4) If you're married I'm thinking you would have to go to those awkward dinner a lot more often. And yes it's also because parents are crazy as f*ck5) Spread awareness about how much marraige sucks so that gay people won't have to endure the painful endless suffering and torture that straight people had to deal with 6) Sounds like personal problemss. .. ..7) No being civilized for me just means to be polite, well mannered and humane. I for one wear whatever the hell I want and express myself the way I want to, but my mannerisms are still polite because I like treating people kindly.
Gay Marriage should be legalized soon but Straight Marriage should be illegalized immediately

1) No if they are married and they are treated with the same benefits as straight marriage than they shall have a nightmare too. Marriage will be a "sexless" nightmare regardless of sexual orientation2) But....there's not point in that3) LOOL my opponent here is clearly mistakenJonas Brothers does not equal the Joneses philosophy And Justin Beiber does not equal the Jonas Brothers (There is a difference between one little queermo selling sex to little girls and three little queermos selling sex to little girls) But I feel a little bad for the JonA$$ Brothers because Mickey Mouse forces them to be stupid and beats the sh1t out of them!!! 4) Yes all family dinners are awkward which is why no one should have to pay to have one!!5) Well then that should go for straight people too6) Lool I'm sensing some personal problems....oooh SHIIITTT7) Well....obviously I'm much more sophisticated and classy.... I think that that Santorum comment should be better worded as "I have a thought that maybe perhaps that Santorum should obstain from critisizing homosexuals until he attempts to insert a sex device up his rectum." I think that sounds a lot more pleasant...DON'T YOU?? :DNo being civilized just means you look cooler8) Lool well I guess i just worded that statement retarded. I meant that you saying that girls would f*ck guys that hang out with gay guys has nothing to do with gay people being married, you can hang out with a gay guy without them being married, so it was a non sequitur9) AND GAY PEOPLE10) Also for straight marriage: tell them you're gay and that will solve everything 11) I am going against the premise by saying that "no I don't agree that gay marriage should be legalized and straight marriage should be illegalized, I think that neither gay marriage nor straight marriage should be legal"
Gay Marriage should be legalized soon but Straight Marriage should be illegalized immediately

Response to:1) Why not? I'll tell you why not! Because marriage in general whether you are straight or gay is almost always a bad idea. Marriage causes all these annoying legal obligations and finances on property that you can avoid by simply living together. Weddings also cause the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy because if you're a husband and your wife has like those annoying gossiping friends who brag about how much money they get their man to blow on them, then of course your wallet is going to start hurting really really badly. .. .Exp:Fiance: "Hey Mary I heard you got engaged"Mary: "My husband got me an 10,000 dollar wedding ring! Oh how much did yours cost? "Fiance: (All of a sudden feeling embarrassed) "Uh. .. it cost 11,00 dollars! (lying)You see what happens? And all this shallow nonsense could be avoidedThis is typically how those annoying friends of your fiance would look like 2) No, neither sexual orientation should have the option of marriage for it is like having the option to pay to have an awkward family dinner with your girlfriend's/boyfriend's parents 3) No certainly I don't give a f*ck what "the Conservative Douchebag Handybook" says either but instead of looking at gay people not being able to marry as a bad thing look at it as lucky. Straight people are jealous of gay people not having to face that awkward question of their partner wanting to marryGay people exp:Frank: "I wanna marry you! "Joe: (Uh-oh) "We can't! I would love to but it's against the law! "(See how it worked out)Straight people exp:Jenny: "Let's marry! "Tom: (Uh-oh) "Straight people can't marry! It's against the law! "Jenny: "No it's not! "Tom: "Sh1t! "(Poor Tom)4) Yes it would be fun to see homophobes hide in fear but we have to pretend we are more refined and civilized than that5) See point 46) Well you see getting laid doesn't have anything to do with marriage. You can hang around gay guys to get you laid without having them get married. And also, saying that you want to get married to have sex is like getting on an airplane for the free packet of peanuts they give out7) Well what if they can't stand that guy they are married to either8) Well that can apply to straight marriage tooWell for the latter I agree that straight marriage should be banned too. So anything that you say that is sh1tty about straight marriage can also apply to gay marriage. So I can't really argue against these points.