BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should Legalize prostitution

In the Philippines, where there is an increasing amount of prostitution happening and even if it's considered illegal, it is still existing. 86% of the reported cases of prostitutes are minors and most of them are at the age of 13-18. Also, there is an increasing number of prostitutes that were proved to have AIDS and STDs and let's remember most of the prostitutes are minors. However, we consider these prostitutes as victims who were deprive of fortune, well most of the time in they are pick up by sadomasochistic customers. They are maltreated, hurt,battered and black and blue however they can't go to the police and report their customer because their work is illegal. That's why, we in Affirmative side are legalizing prostitution because we want to secure our children and their future from this industry; secondly we want them to be safe while working. So the criteria for this debate are > "WHICH SIDE WOULD GIVE MORE PROTECTION FOR THE CHILDREN AND THE YOUTH?" >"Which SIDE GIVES PROTECTION TO OUR PROSTITUTES" Well, let's characterizes if we legalize prostitution... >Brothels - we are ensuring that prostitutes are in brothel ONLY, that they wouldn't go wandering off the streets without the ensuring their safety form sadomasochistic costumers; lastly these brothel CAN ONLY OPERATE IN THE EVENING >ID system - we are ensuring that there wouldn't be minors working in these brothels >Weekly Check-up - we are ensuring that there wouldn't be an existing STDs (sexually transmitted disease) so that we are instilling safety in this industry >Check and balance professionals - which are to check those who comes in to these brothels, to differentiate who is a minor(18 and below) and who isn't So that we know that their wouldn't be horny boys coming in these brothels >Condoms and Contraceptives - we are giving them FREE contraceptives so that we are secured that the customer and the prostitute would have safe sex! In Conclusion, if we have this kind of legalization we are ensuring the plight of the prostitutes and the protection of our children... To the contender: The debate is in the context of the Philippine, it only means that the setting of the debate is in that country so don't use other places except if for just citing an example of a country which prostitution is already legal.
Pokemon is the most successful, widespread gaming experience

"1.73x10^6+3.228x10^6=50000=5008000 games sold" My opponents calculations are wrong. Once you add up all units sold in different countries, you get a total of 50,000 units sold. How can 50,000 become 5,008,000 units sold. If he means to add 50,000 units of heartgold/soulsilver to the previous games sold then it would be: 186,000,000 + 50,000 ------------ 186,050,000 Even with the release of soulsilver and heartgold, the pokemon franchise is still outsold by Mario games. "-Pokemon are popular for all age categories, as is obvious for any person who uses the 4chan vidya board, where pokemon general threads are on nearly every page. " As I already stated Mario games appeal to as many, if not more age groups than pokemon. In fact Mario probably appeals to more. Young children and adults alike enjoy Mario games[1] whilst pokemon games do not appeal to adults as much. "-Not only is the video game franchise popular, pokemon also maintains a healthy movie and music collection- there are 10 music albums available and 12 movies, not to mention the 3 series of pokemon anime. " The same for Mario. [2] Both have movies and anime however we are debating the success of the games and not other medias so the success of their other adaptations doesn't matter. "-In this respect, pokemon achieves a more widespread experience through its foray into multiple entertainment mediums, as well as its sales making it the most successful. " As I already stated there is not a single entertainment medium on which pokemon is available but not Mario. Plus, Mario has more games on all of those entertainment mediums. "I also contend that those who play the pokemon franchise are a more loyal fanbase and immerse themselves in the experience. While mario is certainly a pop culture icon, Pokemon is of a similar, if nor higher status in Japan. Western countries fail to comprehend the status of 'fads' in Japan. " Against all the other evidence that presented that is not enough to make pokemon more successful. In addition, the games are played all over the world and not only in Japan, although it is the country of origin for both games. To conclude, Mario games have sold far more units than pokemon games. They target a wider demographic than Pokemon games and are just as widespread as pokemon games. In light of this and all the other evidence I presented, I negate the resolution. Vote Con. [1]. http://kotaku.com... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game_series) #Anime [COPY AND PASTE LINK]
Pokemon is the most successful, widespread gaming experience

Good point- However, it should be noted that those statistics were prior to the Heart Gold and Soul Silver editions on DS being available. -In Australia, over 50,000 units were sold in one week. In the United States the games managed collective sales of 1.73 million in their first month, with SoulSilver version selling 1.01 million and HeartGold selling 761,000 units. The combined sales of the two games make them the highest selling games of March. -In Japan, the games sold 1,480,980 units within the first two days of release, topping the Japanese sales chart that week. Within two weeks, the games had sold a combined total of over two million units. As of December 18, 2009, the games have sold over 3,228,000 copies. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) These stats combined, and assuming that the games sold for 50 AUD each, thats 1.73x10^6+3.228x10^6=50000=5008000 games sold, times 50, giving about 25 million dollars in sales, meaning that they outsold the mario franchise, even without the inclusion of sales since then. Money aside, I also contend that those who play the pokemon franchise are a more loyal fanbase and immerse themselves in the experience. While mario is certainly a pop culture icon, Pokemon is of a similar, if nor higher status in Japan. Western countries fail to comprehend the status of 'fads' in Japan. In Japan, pokemon has its own regular TV show- pokemon sunday. Youtube has an episode of the HG and SS announcement- http://www.youtube.com... -Pokemon are popular for all age categories, as is obvious for any person who uses the 4chan vidya board, where pokemon general threads are on nearly every page. -Not only is the video game franchise popular, pokemon also maintains a healthy movie and music collection- there are 10 music albums available and 12 movies, not to mention the 3 series of pokemon anime. http://en.wikipedia.org... -In this respect, pokemon achieves a more widespread experience through its foray into multiple entertainment mediums, as well as its sales making it the most successful.
Pokemon is the most successful, widespread gaming experience

This is an interesting topic. I will be debating that Mario is more successful and widespread than Pokemon. The first mario game was released in 1981 since then mario games have been seen on GBA, NDS, WII, Gamecube, Nintendo 64, SNES, NES and Arcade. There are over 200 different Mario games which have collectively sold over 200 million copies.[1] whilst pokemon has only sold something over 186 million copies.[2] The Mario games appeal to as many, if not more age groups than pokemon. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game_series) [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bosses should be allowed to beat their employees for unconformity and mistakes

Bosses should be allowed to beat their employees for mistakes, Screw ups and if they do not obey orders or miss too much time. After all the employees get paid and costly mistakes can cost a company millions of dollars and missed time also affects the bottom line. Therefore when an employee drops the ball at work, They should be reprimanded with a cuff to the head, Or a beating for big screw ups, That cost the company. Employees are compensated with wages, So when they screw up they should be punished with a severe beating and eventual termination. Anyone stealing at work should be punished with amputation and any serious fraud or theft from a company should be sanctioned with stoning for the punishment of greed.
The American Defense budget is excessive

I have already posted this debate a few weeks ago, but i wanted to do it again. I would ask that the person i debated last time please not accept out of respect, simply because i think it'd be more fun to debate someone new. Hello, I am a Sailor in the USN, and a proud patriot of the United States. One of the most common debates about the American government is our very large defense budget, of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is larger than the next several countries combined. While often criticized for being excessive i hope to prove that it is necessary to safeguard our interest. First Round- acceptance (no arguments here) Second Round- Opening statements, and arguments Third Round -Rebuttals Fourth Round- Additional arguments Fifth Round- Rebuttals to the fourth round and closing statements. I would appreciate if you stick with this format. Please no Ad hominem attacks. Also, one more thing. Since i have started on this website about half of my debates have ended with my opponent forfeiting, and never posting an argument on their turn. Because of this I have set it where you must have completed at least one debate to accept this. If you accept my debate, i would ask that you have the intention of finishing it. There are no other restrictions. Thank you, and i look forward to the debate.
People should stop eating meat.

Your final claim that eating meat is bad for you is unsubstantiated and without proof. Think about it. If eating meat REALLY did make humans sick, and at a fearful rate, wouldn't a lot more of the world be dying of food poisoning? I eat meat almost everyday, and I would probably be dead if that claim was true. Ever hear of the food crisis? The world is rapidly running out of common vegetables. If everyone in the world stopped eating meat like you want, we would run out of food so fast that being well-fed would become a rarity. Forget eating meat; people would start eating each other to survive. "I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people? They'll eat each other." ~Heath Ledger as Joker. And the reason for this is that at our core, we are animals. We like to think we are not, but we are just another part of Earth. We like to think that we are higher beings, but we aren't. We're just ahead of the curve. Let me put it this way. All animals have only two goals: Survive themselves, and pass on their genes to the next generation. We humans go through school, stay fit, get jobs, to survive. We flirt, we love, we find our match to pass on our genes to the next generation. At our core, we aren't different from animals. So your claim that "when animals eat animals it nature," is false. For someone who supposedly "knows the facts" about how animals are treated, you seem reluctant to share them.
People should stop eating meat.

When animals eat animals it nature. We don't need them to survive we have all we could possibly need to survive why torture an animal when you could have something like pasta or salad. We don't just chose to be vegetarian or vegan we know the facts about how animals are treated. Also the animals eat thing that are very unhealthy for them and when you eat the animals you are eating the harmful product it ate. Its not just bad for the animal it's bad for you.
People should stop eating meat.

you may think that eating animals is bad, but actually, it is good for their species. Ever heard of natural selection? In theory, it's basically that if an animal gets hunted down and killed by another animal, then it doesn't live on the pass on its genes to the gene pool. The animals that do live pass on their genes and make their species more fit. "Survival of the fittest," as Darwin puts it. Humans are animals. We started from where they were, but have slowly made our way up the totem pole with intelligence. Now, why do animals eat other animals? For nutrition, for the protein. We aren't doing anything wrong by killing animals to eat them, so as long as we do EAT them. If we didn't eat the animal and killed it just for fun, that's wrong. I am totally against killing animals for trophies or ivory trade. Yes, some people like to be vegetarians because they dislike eating meat. That's totally fine. But it would be wrong to tell EVERYONE to stop eating meat because that would deprive humans of something natural and intrinsic. Besides, if humans hunt and kill animals, we are helping their species by removing an unfit member and stopping that member from reproducing.
if chuck norris in his prime were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

"Alright, firstly in your first argument my opponent implies that because Bruce lee is dead that chuck would auto matticaly win" "the definition you provided is correct in theory and theory alone" I said in Round 1: "My opponent may claim that modal realism isn't necessarily true and he is right but for this debate he has to accept this since you said "Now we are talking real life " and then you said "they are in a octigon ring (UFC)". This is a contradiction because Bruce Lee is dead so we're not talking about the present or the future and they have not fought in the past on the "octigon ring (UFC)". Moreover there is no such thing as "octigon ring (UFC)". " blah blah blah you all know what I meant either the octagon ring or the UFC ring." No we didn't nor should we be reading between the lines for you. "I am sorry for the confusion in the setup" Not confusion but contradiction "where did I say that it is possible for both people to be the best?" You don't have to. Someone else can say this for this to work. I said this ; my argument works. "why do we cancel out the facts if we cancel out the facts then you are contradicting what you said about even made up things being facts and so if we were to do this then we would not be able to debate." I admit, I don't understand a word you said. Why wouldn't we be able to debate ? "once again you contradicted yourself by saying that chuck Norris has more facts when you just said that we have to take away all the facts" I didn't say that, what I did saw was that we should cancel out the facts that would cause contradiction. Cheerio, and I can't believe I won with such a careless argument.
if chuck norris in his prime were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

Alright, firstly in your first argument my opponent implies that because Bruce lee is dead that chuck would auto matticaly win but if my opponent were to read the title "were to fight Bruce lee in his prime...." now dead does not sound like prime to me. Secondly, in your first argument you stated that there is no such thing as an octagon ring (UFC) blah blah blah you all know what I meant either the octagon ring or the UFC ring. as the definition you provided is correct in theory and theory alone and by one man it is not a law of reality it is ones view point on reality and different worlds as this cannot be proved we cannot use it as a basis for this argument and as none of these "possibilities" have been performed by Mr chuck Norris this is a useless statement I am sorry for the confusion in the setup as I assumed my opponent would be smart enough to make sense of what I said I must have been mistaken Now moving on to your second statement: - the equation was refuted earlier in my statement -where did I say that it is possible for both people to be the best? -why do we cancel out the facts if we cancel out the facts then you are contradicting what you said about even made up things being facts and so if we were to do this then we would not be able to debate. -once again you contradicted yourself by saying that chuck Norris has more facts when you just said that we have to take away all the facts
if chuck norris in his prime were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

"thank you for screwing up the debate" 1. The debate had -4 dislikes before I accepted it "using technicality" The fact is that you contradicted yourself. I had to make sense of this contradiction. Apparently, common sense = technicality. Incidentally, there's no such word "technicality". You managed to write only one sentence and yet you made misspellings and careless mistakes. Summary of my previous argument: Many things seemed like errors but I waited for my opponent to respond so that I could explain everything - I mentioned this in round 1. However, he didn't hence my argument is better by default. A clearer equation: 1. In the universe where both rivals are at their prime, all made up "facts" are actually facts. 2. It is impossible for both people to be "the best". 3. Hence, we cancel out the "facts". 4. Chuck has more facts hence he wins due to his remaining "facts". Conclusion: If all premises are true then I win ; if no premise is challenged I win. Result: no premise is challenged Final conclusion: I win
if chuck norris in his prime were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

Without further ado Ill begin. ::Modal realism:: Definition: "The doctrine advocated by David Lewis, that different possible worlds are to be thought of as existing exactly as this one does. Thinking in terms of possibilities is thinking of real worlds where things are different. " Read more: http://www.answers.com... ::Chief Objection:: My opponent may claim that modal realism isn't necessarily true and he is right but for this debate he has to accept this since you said "Now we are talking real life " and then you said "they are in a octigon ring (UFC)". This is a contradiction because Bruce Lee is dead so we're not talking about the present or the future and they have not fought in the past on the "octigon ring (UFC)". Moreover there is no such thing as "octigon ring (UFC)". Hence, for the set up to make sense we must assume that modal realism is true. ::The possible world:: Unlike Bruce Lee who is simply called "best fighter of all time", Chuck has many physically impossible "facts" entailed on him, especially over the last few years: http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... ::Equation:: A hundred "facts" of Chuck Norris that make him invincible - Few "facts" that make Bruce Lee invincible = Chuck Norris wins. I know I have to elaborate and make few things clear, Ill do it in the next round. Take care.
if chuck norris in his prime were to fight bruce lee in his prime bruce lee would win

Now we are talking real life none of that chuck norris is so great crap rules are: -they are in a octigon ring (UFC) -they both are in prime -we are aloud footage if it is a part of your argument -bruce lee is using jeet kune do other than that good luck if there are any rules you would like to set please send notify me in the next round for consideration
Age of The Earth (Team Debate)

Team Debate on The Age of The Earth Affirmative Position (Pro): The Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Negative Position (Con): The Earth is greater than 4,000,000,000 years old. Team Pro: creationtruth, NothingSpecial99, Theist_1998 Team Con: lannan13, ThinkBig, Ramshutu Debate Rules: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments) Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments) Round 5 - Final Rebuttals (No New Arguments, No Defense of Arguments) *No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...) *No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org...) *Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu...) Both teams agree to these rules upon acceptance of the debate. Failure to adhere to these rules should at least result in the loss of conduct point per the judgment of any prospective voters. We look forward to an insightful and informative exchange!
Flag burning during protest is wrong

It's etiquette against the Constitution. The Constitution wins. That etiquette was created for proper respect of the flag by those wishing to respect it, and for those wishing to respect it. Forcing citizens to respect symbols of government forces them to respect the government itself and goes against the US tradition of democracy. The US Flag is a symbol of our nation. I support it and what it stands for; so do you. But for those who do not, I think that it is unfair and undemocratic for us to legislate on them with our morality and feelings. Policy should be based on thought and fact and the Constitution, not on the morality of the people.
Flag burning during protest is wrong

You have my sincere apologies aaltobartok. I did not intend my title of the debate topic to be offensive in any way, next time I will be sure to use the topic to title the debate instead of my voiced opinion. Now to the matter at hand, "No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor". "The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way", If your burning it at a protest, it is being displayed and used in a manner that it can easily be damaged. (These are in the United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1, sub-section 8.) Although these are not laws, they are regulations for flag etiquette and respect, and i'm sure they weren't made to be broken. http://www.ushistory.org... (This is the web address from which I cited this information)
Flag burning during protest is wrong

Please vote on this debate on the debating, not on your point of view on the topic. The United States Constitution clearly states the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of expression; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Burning the flag is free expression and speech. I would never do it, I think that it's reprehensible, but if you want to follow the Constitution than I don't see how it could be banned. "If you are angry, there are other things that you can do to voice your opinion, that is why there are wonderful sites like this." Who are you to tell anybody how they should express their anger? "I believe that there are some things that are not to be tolerated, and this is one of them." Who are you to legislate your own morality? Just a few points.
Flag burning during protest is wrong

I cannot see how someone could tolerate the burning of a United States flag during a protest. I think it should be treason. yes, we have freedom to gather and protest. Yes, we have freedom of speech. Yes, we have the freedom to do whatever the heck else we want, but this is ridiculous. If the American flag is to be burned, then it is to be because it is worn or tattered., not because your angry. If you are angry, there are other things that you can do to voice your opinion, that is why there are wonderful sites like this. I believe that there are some things that are not to be tolerated, and this is one of them.