BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My Little Pony FiM is a well written show that is entertaining for audiences of all ages

My Little Pony is a well written show in many respects. First off the show is constant in each character. Each character plays a roll and are always in character. This does not mean a character does not change over the course of a time. The characters evolve as the show progresses. Much unlike other shows such as family guy, new episodes of the Simpsons, everything on cartoon network for the most part ect, in MLP episodes build off each other. For example, when we look at rarity in the first few episodes she was one of the most uptight characters imaginable, very neat and very proper. Although she still can be quite dramatic, she has learned to get over things such as getting her hooves messy for a friend. Each Character goes through an ARC in which they must realize their shortcomings and have to grow as a character with help of their friends. I will admit, the story is kinda cheesy, but overall it does spread a good message that a person of any age can appreciate. Besides the obvious moral of the story which is recited at the end of the show, there are other elements of the show that reflect the real world in a nice way. Such as kid's are pricks and that you shouldn't try to fit in with other people if they don't like you for who you are, and instead you should be friends with people who accept you. (blank flank episode) It is a well known fact the viewers of the show are well outside the range of the targeted audience pulling in the 16-35ish male audience. This is due to no simple feat, the writing and the jokes of the show are both witty and fresh. The show references many different movies such as the ending of starwar's a new hope.
My Little Pony FiM is a well written show that is entertaining for audiences of all ages

"I will admit, the story is kinda cheesy, but overall it does spread a good message that a person of any age can appreciate." You acknowledged that the story is cheesy, meaning that the show is not very entertaining to watch. Entertaining refers to the joy throughout watching the show. If the only enjoyable part is at the end of every episode, it's not very entertaining. "Besides the obvious moral of the story which is recited at the end of the show, there are other elements of the show that reflect the real world in a nice way. Such as kid's are pricks and that you shouldn't try to fit in with other people if they don't like you for who you are, and instead you should be friends with people who accept you. (blank flank episode)" An adult would obviously know not to hang around people who don't like them. It would not be in their interest to watch a 20ish minute cheesy show trying to get that point across.
Voluntary Abortion is Immoral - 2nd Attempt

Zak forfeited his last round. (He doesn't get to post anything significant in round 4 because the debate was instigated by Con, and Con gets to go last. See the terms in the opening post for details. ) So, in fairness, I'm not going to post anything significant here. I've already gotten to have a significant post after his last significant post. I will say, "Extend all arguments," not because I know what it means, but because people at this web site keep saying it for some reason: Extend all arguments.
Voluntary Abortion is Immoral - 2nd Attempt

I am assuming that I will argue this round and the third round? Abortion is murder. When you perform this operation, a human must die. But how do you justify this? 1. Rape: Even if a woman has been raped it does not make it morally acceptable to kill a human. It is as if a woman is raped and show she can legally kill a human being. 2. It would get in the way of the mother's way: Well what if a 6 year old began to get in it's mother's way, costed her money, etc. Does it make it morally acceptable to kill the six year old? The same rule applies to the unborn. Please give me any other reasons a mother would perform the terrible operation of abortion.
Voluntary Abortion is Immoral - 2nd Attempt

Zak is Pro. He'll argue that abortion is immoral. I'm Con. I don't see anything wrong with abortion. As Pro, Zak will argue first. As Con, I'll argue last. So Zak will start right in here in round one, but he won't post anything significant in the last round. As Con, I'll argue second and last, posting significant argument in the final round, but not having posted anything significan in this first round. Zak/Pro has the burden of proof. He has to persuade us that voluntary abortion is immoral.
Debater's Choice

If this was about mandates, why in the world did you put 'health insurance' and not 'individual mandates' in your original proposition? It looks more as if you are trying to slink away from fulfilling your obligations. I do not accept my opponent's retreat and urge a strong vote for con. If my opponent had truly meant this debate to center around individual mandates (meaning health insurance was only a potential supplementary example/premise), then his original resolution should not have said: "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." As such, I do not believe a word of his claims. Sorry for being harsh, but I feel such deception cannot be ignored. I wish my opponent well in future debates and urge a victory for CON. NOTE: A CHANCE AT SELF-REDEMPTION! Develop your case in round 4. Rescind the attempt at withdrawal and take up the case against government-required health insurance as explicitly stated in your original proposition. All rules still apply. Anything other than that will be considered an implied forfeit, resulting in an automatic victory for CON. Have at it! :)
Debater's Choice

There appears to be some misunderstanding involving the resolution of this debate. My opponent has misunderstood the purpose of this resolution. As mentioned previously, the resolution is, "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." This refers to a concept called the "individual mandate", which is a mandate included in several health care packages that requires citizens to buy health insurance or face a penalty. The debate, then, would be centered around the rationality of the mandate and whether its positive or negative merits outweigh one another. Unfortunately, my opponent has misunderstood this, and stated that I have tried to convert the resolution. Yet, this is exactly what the resolution is referring to, the individual mandate. I was not attempting to change the resolution to saying that nothing should be forced on citizens. In hindsight, I should have provided a source showing what I was saying was true, but alas I failed to do so. Because it's so late in this round and because of my opponent's misunderstandings, I am going to step away from this debate and ask for a tie or no vote from voters. I admit that this result is almost entirely my fault. I should have tried to clarify the resolution and made it more specific beforehand. I apologize to my opponent for the missteps I took regarding this debate, and I wish him the best regarding his future debates. Thank you.
Debater's Choice

A couple of starting clarifications: The official debate resolution is: "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." This resolution is, in essence, discussing a concept known as the "individual mandate", a requirement included in several state and international health care packages, including in the infamous "Obamacare" package. The resolution is not necessarily discussing the mandate as defined by Obamacare, simply a requirement for all citizens to have insurance, or pay a fine, nor the individual mandate as specifically defined by any other package. Each side of this debate may discuss the effects of statewide/international mandates, however, but this debate is not specifically tied down to one mandate. Each side will be discussing the merits/effects of the mandate, and whether or not it is rational to implement. In basic terms, I more-or-less agree with the sides as underlined by my opponent--the affirmation (myself) will be stating that the individual mandate brings more negative than positive effects, with the option of using previously implemented mandates or hypothetical impacts (such as stating that the mandate violates the Constitution--it isn't necessarily a hard impact), with the negation (my opponent) stating that the individual mandate brings more positive than negative impacts, using the same impacts as I just stated. This resolution does place a burden of proof on the negation--the negation must show that the individual mandate has significant benefits--but the affirmation will be providing arguments/a case as well. In other words, I won't be simply rebutting my opponent; I'll provide my own arguments that aren't simply rebuttals. Definitions are the same as before, with the added addition that the resolution doesn't specifically talk about any individual mandate in particular; just a requirement to have health insurance or face a penalty. As previously mentioned, the effects of the individual mandate as done by states or international countries can be discussed and accessed, along with the effects of the Obamacare mandate, but this debate doesn't specify one or another form of the mandate. It should be noted that we are not discussing the whole of the Obamacare (or any other healthcare) package--thus, neither side can access impacts relating to the Obamacare package, only specifically the individual mandate. If my opponent has no other qualms, we can start this debate next round with opening arguments! I look forward to an awesome debate!
Debater's Choice

Good topic. I will accept under certain parametric conditions. I would also like to revise some of the provisions my opponent has set for this debate. I do not, as a general rule of thumb, like to assume full burden of proof for anything. It creates a situation in which one side elicits thought-out arguments while the other picks at every little chink in the armor through a variety of assaults. An example of a round riddled with sheer refutation: "As China has shown the world through the destruction of its 5000 year old dynastic system due to a crippling spread of opium, drugs are extremely detrimental to national culture, work ethics and, subsequently, an aggregate economy when given free reign." My opponent cited a document of questionable authority to point out a singular case example of drugs' potential harm to society. However, this is still not proof enough that opium was even a cause of China's destruction. The sequential nature of events doesn't necessarily give said events causal status. You're only assuming that opium was the cause. If I were to cough and fart at the same time, would coughing be the cause of farting? No it would not. This case is anulled (*Thought*: Bullcrab) "Drugs reduce work-place productivity and, if given over to free commercial reign, will do more harm than benefit to our economy" Since I've already negated the case leading to this conclusion, I no longer need to provide any further refutation in this area. These are simply not true. (*Thought*: Bro, make some cases, don't just refute my cases, you suck!) Yes, it's a roundabout way of telling my opponent to create constructive criticism, but I needed to drive the nail home. (It also means I don't have the entire burden of proof. That would be abusive in my opinion.) Also, I believe my side of the resolution to be something along the lines of: "Individually mandated healthcare [as outlined in the Obamacare package?] will effect more good than harm to our nation's people (possibly the nation in whole)." My opponent's side: "Individually mandated healthcare will bring about more harm than good and has no substantial practical or theoretical benefit to back its implementation. It, therefore, should not be implemented." All definitions have already been provided by Mr. Awesome PRO If my opponent agrees, we can start the debate! My opponent can either accept the conditions and have me post the first round, or he can start constructing his case (implying his acceptance of the above-outlined conditions). If my opponent disagrees, the debate shall result in a tie. I look forward.
Debater's Choice

I accept the rules and regulations for this debate. As someone has competed successfully on the national and local circuit in public forum debate as well as on other online debating websites, I feel I have the experience and skill to accept this debate. The resolution I propose to Beginner is, "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." For this debate, I will be taking the affirmation (or Pro), leaving the negation for my opponent. Note the wording of this resolution: the negation will be for health insurance, while the affirmation will be against. Definitions/clarifications are as follows: "The United States" is referring to the (obviously of the United States of America) government on a federal level. "Should not require" refers to what is known as the "individual mandate", the requirement for citizens to have health insurance or else be penalized. In essence, this resolution is referring to a portion of the "Obamacare" health care package, which requires American citizens to have health insurance or else pay a tax or fine. Thus, this debate should be discussing the merits of the individual mandate as defined by "Obamacare", and whether implementing it on a national level is beneficial for the United States. Please note with this debate and wording of the resolution that the burden of proof is on the negation to show that the individual mandate should be implemented and can be implemented successfully i.e. that there is a significant net gain in the status quo. Should the negation fail to show a significant gain in the status quo, the affirmation should win this debate. If my opponent intends to offer any additional definitions or clarifications, he may do so in the next post. I look forward to a intellectually stimulating and thoughtful debate.
Debater's Choice

Rules: 1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules: 2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind. 3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i. e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments. 4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debate: . http://www.debate.org......) 5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that. 6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications. 7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible. Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc. I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion. ) .. .. .
Debater's Choice

I refuse to accept my opponent's atrocious attacks on my character. I think my opponent is being over-paranoid and is over-reacting to this circumstance. I have tried to be as respectful as humanly possible when it comes to this debate, and yet I have been attacked again and again and again. I have tried my best to work with this resolution, yet my opponent still seemed to misunderstand, so I shied away. I have tried to be diplomatic; I am not trying to shy from responsibility. I am not trying to leave. I am trying to end this sad experience with as much dignity and respect for both me and my opponent as humanly possible. Just don't vote.
Debater's Choice

"The resolution I propoise to Beginner is, "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance""I'm sorry, but this is much too explicit to ignore. What youa re doing is akin to this:Example: Resolution I propose to me is: "The United states should not put a ban on smoking cigarettes"Bad interpretation 1: PRO position: The United States should not put a ban on smoking, This does not have to have anything to do, specifically with cigarettesPosition imposed on CON: The United States should put a ban on smoking.Analysis of bad interpretation 1: Why in the world did you put cigarettes in the resolution? Whacko..Stupendously Horrible interpretation 2: The United States should not put bansPRO position: The United States should not put bans. This has little or nothing to do with smoking or cigarettes, but these are potential outlets for argumentationPosition imposed on CON: The United States should put bans. Again, little or NOTHING to do with smoking cigarettes unless PRO or CON choses to use it.Analysis: Wait, wait, wait, didn't you just write 'smoking cigarettes' in the resolution? So.. it has nothing to do with smoking cigarettes. What you're saying is, bans may apply to smoking or cigarettes but it isn't part of the resolution. But it is.. (just look at it, it's a blaring pixelated coding sittting right there explicitly indicating its status as part of the resolution!) What???????????Application to current debate: The example resolution is synonymous to the one presented by PRO. I seriously hope PRO understands how hopeless his case really is. It is made even worse by his ignoring the redemption opportunity and digging further into his argumentative grave. Upon viewing the link PRO has provided, I've come to the verdict that, indeed, the resolution was worded correctly. The mistep happened in round 2, when my opponent attempts a contradictory recant by dropping health insurance completely.I'm very sorry for the condition of the debate at this very moment, but I feel violated in a sense. As such, I request a full 5 point victory from the obvious misconduct, lack of any contention or premises whatsoever, and lack of credible premise-augmenting sources.
Debater's Choice

I really have no idea how to react to my opponent. I have tried as diplomatically as possible to leave this debate, but my opponent's attacks on my character have left me rather dumbfounded. I feel I have made it rather clear that this debate was about the individual mandate, and I think it seems rather clear that there was some sort of misunderstanding with my opponent. My first round post spells out rather clearly that this debate was about the individual mandate. I felt my opponent had slightly misunderstood the resolution so I clarified the resolution further in my next post, basically using the same language as before, showing what this resolution was about--the rationality of the mandate. Yet my opponent somehow felt I had changed the resolution in his next post. I'm not entirely sure how he reached this conclusion. That it is the reason why I tried to leave--because I didn't feel he had an adequate understanding on the resolution at hand. I feel that I could have done steps to make it more clear, but alas, here we are. I want to mention I do not blame my opponent for the way this debate has wound up, but I feel that my opponent's demands and attacks on my character are unfounded. I just wish we can go our separate ways and end this debate fairly. If you are still curious as to why the resolution was worded the way it was, I refer you to http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com.... I again request a no-vote from judges.
Cloning

I agree with your statement about there is a risk with natural birth but there is greater risk with cloning because the egg is electrified to think it is fertilized and it may not even work. Also the chance of a successful clone birth is low with out many failed attempts before the clone is born. You say technology will get better to the point where there is fewer deaths before a successful birth. But who knows how long it will take for technology to improve to the point where it is safe to clone and the number of deaths few to none. In the time it will take technology to reach the standards you stated may take to long and the couples and LGBT couples might give up on the clone for it taking so long and all the deaths. In conclusion I feel that cloning should not be aloud to continue for all the risks that go into it. Also what gives us the right to play god and create humans when things should be done naturally not technologically.
Cloning

You are correct that there will be some risk once cloning is perfected but I feel that there will be just the same amount of risk as having a normal child. The second argument you made about clones being less healthy than normal humans are is only true now. By the time cloning is perfected and humans are being cloned the clones will be just as healthy as normal people or even more healthy. In my closing words I would like to say that there is no reason for cloning not to be used once it is deemed safe and reliable. It can help many couples who have fertility issues and LGBT couples have children who are genetically related to them. Most of all it should be your reproductive right to be able to have a clone. Thank you for your time.
Cloning

So if I am correct you do agree that even if cloning was perfected there is still a factor of failed attempts and deaths of said clones? Interesting. You also say "every medical advance in technology has its own risk" which is true considering there are risk factors not only for the clones being still born or dying early but also risk to the woman who bear them. I also completely agree with your statement about no one is 100% healthy but the thing is clones are less healthy than a normal human which could result in them becoming very ill or dying at a young age and no parent should ever have to deal with the death of their child.
Cloning

In response to "How would you feel if you had the conditions you said that didn't allow you to have kids and you tried cloning but sadly had to see each failed attempt result in death of the clone? Would it really be worth it in the end?" I think that every medical advance in technology has its own risks. Cloning will eventually be perfected in mammals to the point where there would be very few failed attempts and deaths of the clone, it would then be safe to make human clones . So yes, I do believe that it would really worth it in the end because there wouldn't be the stress of deaths and failed attempts . I would now like to answer "What about when the clone dies because no clone is 100% healthy how do you think the "parents" would feel losing the only "child" the had?' I think that clones would be like normal people in that no person is ever 100% healthy and clones would eventually die just like all humans eventually die. A clones death would be just the same as a normal child's death, the parents would be just as emotionally impacted as if a normal child died.