BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Miley Cyrus is not a good role model for young girls.

Today I will look at 2 points to support my position that Miley Cyrus is not a good role model. First, I would like to draw attention to the various photo scandals in which she has been involved. Second, I will refute my opponent's arguments. So on to my first point, her photo scandals. The photos taken by Ms. Cyrus should not be emulated by our youth. The seductive "shoulder show" must be stopped. There are also various photos of her that show her doing things very unbecoming to a well-adjusted, wholesome, young lady. If you will please look at my definition again: good and role model so as you can see when we look at the 2 together she should not be considered good or a role model. Ending with my second point, My opponent has stated thus: This point can be easily dealt with. Think of how many carbon emissions she creates every time she plays the song that is supposed to be stopping this very thing. In recording, promoting, and performing this song live, she has used more electricity than most American families use in a year. As we can see, this song is both hypocritical and an insult to the American people by telling us to do something about global warming when she herself is a larger cause of environmental damage. I would like to know where my opponent got the quote "Helps deprived children across the U.S. by providing improved health care, education and community support." as far as my research showed it was a one time auction about which Ms. Cyrus said she would be auctioning off some of her clothes, however she had this to say about the clothes, "I would love to have some of them… Even if I can not fit [into] them." Obviously it's not much of a sacrifice if she cannot even fit into the clothes she is auctioning off. I have written an autobiography; does that make me a role model?
Miley Cyrus is not a good role model for young girls.

My opponent has provided no proof as to why Miley Cyrus is a bad role model for young girls. I will provide evidence that proves that Miley Cyrus IS a good role model for young girls. •Miley Cyrus had released a song entitled "Wake Up America" which urges people to do something about global warming and to protect our earth. •Miley Cyrus has her own charity foundation, The "Pappy Cyrus Family Foundation", Which " Helps deprived children across the U.S. by providing improved health care, education and community support." •Miley Cyrus has written an autobiography about her life and her rise to fame. To conclude, I believe, for the reasons above, that Miley Cyrus is, in fact, a good role model for young children.
Miley Cyrus is not a good role model for young girls.

Miley Cyrus is not a good role model I would like to see some reasons my opponent thinks she is. I will define my words, role model  –noun a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, esp. by younger people. http://dictionary.reference.com... good –adjective 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health. 3. of high quality; excellent. 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good. 5. well-behaved: a good child. 6. kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed. 7. honorable or worthy; in good standing: a good name. 8. educated and refined: She has a good background. 9. financially sound or safe: His credit is good. 10. genuine; not counterfeit: a good quarter. 11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons. 12. reliable; dependable; responsible: good advice. 13. healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you. 14. in excellent condition; healthy: good teeth. 15. not spoiled or tainted; edible; palatable: The meat was still good after three months in the freezer. 16. favorable; propitious: good news. 17. cheerful; optimistic; amiable: in good spirits. 18. free of distress or pain; comfortable: to feel good after surgery. 19. agreeable; pleasant: Have a good time. 20. attractive; handsome: She has a good figure. 21. (of the complexion) smooth; free from blemish. 22. close or intimate; warm: She's a good friend of mine. 23. sufficient or ample: a good supply. 24. advantageous; satisfactory for the purpose: a good day for fishing. 25. competent or skillful; clever: a good manager; good at arithmetic. 26. skillfully or expertly done: a really good job; a good play. 27. conforming to rules of grammar, usage, etc.; correct: good English. 28. socially proper: good manners. 29. remaining available to one: Don't throw good money after bad. 30. comparatively new or of relatively fine quality: Don't play in the mud in your good clothes. 31. best or most dressy: He wore his good suit to the office today. 32. full: a good day's journey away. 33. fairly large or great: a good amount. 34. free from precipitation or cloudiness: good weather. 35. Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs, being conscious and comfortable, and having excellent appetite, mobility, etc. 36. fertile; rich: good soil. 37. loyal: a good Democrat. 38. (of a return or service in tennis, squash, handball, etc.) landing within the limits of a court or section of a court. 39. Horse Racing. (of the surface of a track) drying after a rain so as to be still slightly sticky: This horse runs best on a good track. 40. (of meat, esp. beef) noting or pertaining to the specific grade below "choice," containing more lean muscle and less edible fat than "prime" or "choice." 41. favorably regarded (used as an epithet for a ship, town, etc.): the good ship Syrena. I would like to debate this please accept.
The death penalty should be legal in Texas.

Anyone who votes on this debate please take notice on my opponents conduct. "I can't wait for what illiterate remarks you have to say next." ~ caitlynreily. It allows closure for the families of the victims that were murdered.I would assume that you meant to say provides, not allows. Is killing someone really the best way to gain closure? When someone you know and love is killed, wouldn't you rather know why the person did this rather than just killing them? If the family truly wants closure they should look to healthier alternatives. The best therapy for the family of a murdered love one is to sit down with the killer and ask questions that have been weighing down on them. Maybe it wasn't as black and white as they thought.Holding a grudge against someone is your own fault. True forgiveness is the only way to relieve the pain and hatred you feel against another person. You can be as angry and crushed as you want, but killing someone who has emotionally harmed you won't relieve your pain. No matter how long it takes, forgiveness is the only way you will ever truly move on.http://tinybuddha.com...Getting people back on their feet might be a good suggestion if they weren't convicted of murdering, raping, etc. I personally wouldn't want a rapist or murderer living right next to me or being my co worker.http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_law)At the end of your argument you state, "Kill and be killed." So according to you, any degree of murder should be punished by death. If you kill someone in a car accident do you really deserve to die? What about if you get into a fight and kill someone on accident, is this also punishable by death? Now don't get me wrong, if you kill someone you do deserve a punishment, just not as severe as death.http://www.guardian.co.uk...We also have to look at the fact that every now and then an innocent person is sent to death. This is absolutely unforgivable and should revoke the death penalty right away. A mistake that big shows how flawed the death sentence is. Even if only one person is innocent for every million killed on death row it's still to large a flaw. This plan that was supposed to protect the innocent backfired completely.When you give humans the right to judge others and end their life on these judgements, you are saying those people are greater than ordinary people. It's barbaric that we have people send others to their death. We do not live in a world where some people are greater than others, we are all the same species. Giving some of those people the right to sentence others to death based on assumptions and decent evidence is absurd.
The death penalty should be legal in Texas.

I completely disagree with everything you have to say. First of all, the death penalty solves a lot. It allows closure for the families of the victims that were murdered. Getting people back on their feet might be a good suggestion if they weren't convicted of murdering, raping, etc. I personally wouldn't want a rapist or murderer living right next to me or being my co worker. Another point, there are many county jails that enforce their inmates to participate in community service. However, when you are in a state penitentiary and you want to be allowed to work within the prison or be able to go outside and socialize with other prisoners, you have to either behave well for a long period of time within the prison or your crime isn't very heinous. When people are born, they have laws they must abide to. Last time I checked, committing crimes typically resulted in some sort of punishment. When your crime is bad enough, you must pay for it. Death row is NOT murder. If you want to live, it's simple- abide by the rules and laws. When people are born, they should not have to worry if a person is going to come and take their life from them. Like you said, "...we should not end their life for something they were born with." If you're born with your life and it's taken by some human, why shouldn't they be punished for it? Kill and be killed. I can't wait for what illiterate remarks you have to say next.
The death penalty should be legal in Texas.

I'll just state a quick argument. The death penalty should not be legal anywhere. There is no reason for it it doesn't solve anything. Our jails should focus on trying to get people back into the real world, we should stress things such as therapy, community service, and getting these people back on their feet instead of killing someone for a huge mistake. I understand that some people are sick and twisted but we should not end their life for something they were born with. Prisons should be focused more on helping people rather than hurting people.
The overall purpose of philosophical argument should be to answer the question of how best to live

How to live ones life when restrained by philosophy becomes problematic. Jesus Christ says, "The law creates sin." When confined one seeks to escape. When bored one seeks new thrills. Philosophically the actual advantage to living ones life is not what is taken into consideration, the less obvious aspects of those things are examined. Such as, Philosophically one does not come to the conclusion it is best to exercise, that is fact, but philosophically we determine the benefits to such a thing are preventing incapacity and enabling ourselves for future events, since the actual joy and experience is debatably not worth it. This is proven with various examples from reality, including my friends, and depressed people. However the philosophical aspects which are not concrete, because they are philosophy remain the same. Through this we can argue that Pro is correct also, and that philosophy is used to determine a more clear path. That through philosophy we can open the right doors by examining and closing the wrong ones to make the right decision easier. However, Pro can also be concluded to be wrong because he seems to indicate that philosophy is not the function of determining a better way to examine life: Pro, " -argument "should" be to answer- " + " How do we live best in this lifetime " The solution is this, Philosophy has dealt with how we live best in this lifetime, we avoid things and present ourselves with opportunities. So even as my debate is to argue that Philosophy is not for the purpose of prescribing actions, Pro is somewhat wrong in the grammatical structure of the debate. However, this debate is clearly given over to the discrimination of the voters { I may believe myself, but that does not make me right. Being right makes one right. ] With one last consideration. Telling one to not poop in the water is not philosophy, it is reason or science. To tell one to not cut the grass with non-renewable resources is not philosophy, it is reason and logic. To tell someone to exercise is not philosophy, because it is More close minded than open, and does not apply to all conditions. Telling someone to do something, is rarely a philosophical statement.. However one can state philosophically that being Chaste is a great happiness. As Krishna, said to Arjuna the Prince of an Indian Country, "You are the chastiest of warriors. You are my friend." and in this we see that the entire philosophy of Hinduism, which is monotheist through Krishna who is the All-mighty God-head, who Is, is a philosophy of humility and chastity, which is as best an answer which is possible to answer the question, "How to bets live ones life."
The overall purpose of philosophical argument should be to answer the question of how best to live

As a final dispute: Wisdom is Objective. What si right is right, whetehr what is right is known or unknown, the truth remains the truth. IN this way Science and Philosophy are very co-existing. As one is a determined law, and one is an undetermined law. To subjugate humanity to a law, is as Jesus says, the creation of sin; and Muslims exemplify this perfectly. The reality of wisdom is not tell a person which way to go, but simply lead them on the right paths so that they do not become lost or stumble. Philosophy, which is the reasonable mind of a man/woman whom loves wisdom, is not for deciding a better path, it has already concluded one. Philosophy is used to help people find their own ways to live life, not to show them what that is. In this case. I will regrettably remain silent in my abundant examples of how Philosophy has been used throughout the Monotheist Greek empire prior to it's collapse, to illustrate how the negative things are truly negative, and the positive things are most pleasing. (* As Jesus said, "You cannot know me, nor can you know my Father, for only the Father can know which comes from him, and Only the son can know that which comes from the Father: None can know Chaos, who alone created all things. Until Man subdued the earth as God had prescribed to him; conquering the elements of the universe.*) It is simply as so.
The Mongols would have conquered Europe

Full resolution: The Mongols would have conquered all or most of mainland Europe if Ogedei Khan had not died. Definitions:Mainland Europe: . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Most of:" About 80-90 percent. Mongols: . http://en.wikipedia.org...Their invasion of Europe: . http://en.wikipedia.org...Ogedei: . http://en.wikipedia.org...We all know about the Mongols- they connected Eurasian trade, spread religious freedom, and brutally murdered over 40,000,000 people. Their major accomplishments include destroying Baghdad and ending the Islamic Golden Age, being the first ones to conquer China, spreading the Black Death in Europe, and making the largest contiguous empire in history. So could they have changed history and conquered Europe? We will find out. Rules: (1) No semantics or trolling. (2) Debate rounds must be readable and coherent. Rounds:(1) Opponent's opening argument. (2) My opening argument + clash. (3) Clash.
Re-incarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis.

That is very humble of you, so I will request that this debate be a tie instead, I have no interest in gaining a win without a proper debate, also I would love to debate another topic but as I have stated already I will need to give my full attention to the debate I already have going with Thett3.... Thanks anyway.... I think we should continue this debate by posting the words, both voters have agreed to tie this debate.
Re-incarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis.

And as much as I fully appreciate your reply, I have already chosen my opponent in the comments section, as Thett3. .. .As I am willing to debate Thett3 on this topic, and I have to delve deep to establish my case against Thett3, then taking this debate with you will only hinder my progress. .. I am sorry but you failed to notice the rule I established to begin with.
Re-incarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis.

Reincarnation is the belief that one will rejuvenate oneself after death into a different life form. This is pretty simple to refute. When you die your cells decompose and scatter variously across the earth. Science has already proven that your brain creates consciousness. And different products of your brain (speech, personality, etc..) are in located in different parts of your brain. So if separated, you will not be you. Psychosurgery has proven this since the beginning of lobotomies hundreds of years ago, and it will not change. So on a basic rational basis even if your brain (which is what makes your conscious) is separated, as it does when you die. You will not come back or "re-incarnate" as a new organism. So rationally, scientifically, and philosophically there is no logic in re-incarnation.
Re-incarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis.

I will argue that re-incarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis, meaning it is more rational to believe reincarnation is more likely and it is irrational to believe it isn't likely. .. .. .. I am talking about re-incarnation of humans although it applies to all living entities this debate will focus strictly on humans beings being reincarnated, and I will not have to prove the basis of animals also being re-incarnated.
I am just needing some help with a public forum case I am writting for next week

Aight. Point number 1: The primaries are the only feasible system. While people might gripe and moan about the idea that they are undemocratic they don't suggest viable alternatives. This is because there are not any viable alternatives to our current system, it is in fact as sound as it can be. Without viable alternatives the current system upholds the greatest amount of democracy. Point number 2: The process actually increases the spotlight on all of the possible candidates which allows for an informed population. An informed population in turn leads to greater voter turn out for fear of the wrong politician being elected. Point number 3: Primaries allow for a greater choice of possible canidates. Some would argue that this is not true on the basis that the people with less money will get less attention. This is obviously not true, look specifically to how many candidates were in each of the primaries at the beginning this election. Point number 4: The presidential primaries in no way infringes on life. They have never killed anyone. Point number 5: The presidential primaries in no way infringes on liberty. They in fact allow for the greatest amount of liberty as there is no other viable solution. Point number 6: The presidential primaries allow for many many debates which in turn lets the voters know just who they are voting for. This actually leads to the best pursuit of happiness.
I am just needing some help with a public forum case I am writting for next week

The presidential primaries allows everyone to vote on delegates who are "bound" to vote at the state or national conventions for the popular outcome. This allows everyone to have a vote if they desire it, much like a true democracy. While this system has defected arguably 5 times in history it has supported democratic values the vast majority of times. Thus as there is no viable alternative and it does commonly support democratic values it is a democratic system. Cross apply point number 6.
Abortion

Con, I see where you are coming from. But not all women want to go through that discomfort and pain that you speak of. That's why abortion clinics offer pre-abortion counseling; to help the woman make sure that she is making the decision she actually wants. But what I mainly argue here is choice. It's not yours or my choice if "so and so" wants to have an abortion. It's also not our duty to make them feel bad about it, either. Unfortunately though, abortion is just an option that some women want to take, and if that is their choice, we should leave it open to them. I enjoyed this debate with Con, and I give my thanks to her.
Abortion

I was not implying that only teenage girls get abortions, but that teenage girls are probably less likely to look up the facts. As for choice, I do believe that God would want us to have a choice, but abortion is not the only choice. For those who are raped, killing the baby is not the only choice. What about adoption? Would you not go through 9 months of discomfort and pain to give someone a chance at life? We don't know if the fetus can feel it, but what if it could feel the pain. How could you take away their life before they even get to live?
Abortion

Look, to start this off, I would like the Con to know that I myself do not believe in abortion. But the one thing I do believe in is the freedom of choice. I'm not sure what religion the Con believes in, but the God of Christianity would not want women's freedom of choice taken away over such an issue. I know for sure though, that if your amendment rights were taken from you, that you would get a little angry. (Who wouldn't, though?) For one, abortion is not always because a teen girl has unprotected sex. Though that is a contributor, it is not the leading cause for abortion. When thinking about abortion, you also have to consider those who were raped. And no, people don't get chose to get raped. Should a woman have to pay the price if SHE is the victim?? Another thought, if abortion was passed as illegal, then all the abortion clinics would be closed, leaving the women seeking abortion to call for desperate measures. Don't be surprised if "DIY Abortion for Dummies" is established if abortion was to be made illegal. My main point is to show the Con that I can understand what point she's looking from, but that she also has to look from other point of views as well. The God of Heaven wants everyone to have the freedom of choice, even if they make the wrong choice; without that choice, we're all just robots following the Lord. Even if you don't believe in a God, you can see what's morally wrong with abortion, but just take a turn at the tables and look at it another way. Maybe you'll see things just a little differently.