BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death penalty

Since I have nothing to refute, I will address my opponent's first argument. I would like to note that it seems like my opponent simply added some "smart" sounding words to buff up her argument. "The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill" I do not see how killing someone allows the defendant to control his own destiny. "But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west." I agree, but this argument does virtually nothing to support the death penalty. My opponent has, in reality, done almost nothing to support the death penalty. I have no more to say, so I will sum up my arguments: 1. Death penalty is very expensive 2. Death penalty is unnecessary 3. Death penalty can be regarded as mercy, putting the guilty "out of their misery" instead of making them sit in jail 4. Death penalty goes against many religions 5. Death penalty does not "scare" criminals out of doing bad things 6. Death penalty is used randomly. It depends on the court, not the offense or crime that was committed 7. Innocents have been executed wrongly 8. There are no benefits to death penalty and my opponent has failed to convince me otherwise by providing very vague arguments Thank you for the debate.
The Cybermen are the best villains in Doctor Who

While my opponent argues that Cybermen are scarier, look better, are more powerful and the Daleks are overused. I will argue that the Daleks are superior in technology, are more evil, more powerful than Cybermen, and can arouse intense emotions of hate and disgust from the Doctor. Something the Cybermen can not do.1. Superior in TechnologyIt is true that the Daleks look like over sized pepper pot with a plunger and whisk, but according to the cult of Skaro member Dalek Thay, "Daleks have no concept of elegance". The Dalek race is capable of hiding in the void between dimensions, conquer entire galaxies, and Exterminate all life forms not of Dalek origin. They are similar to the cybermen in that they are cyborgs, but that is only where they are similar. The Daleks can levitate while the Cybermen can not. The Dalek creator Davros can create other Daleks from other species, while the Cybermen can upgrade their victims. However, the Cybermen can not guarantee that an "upgraded" cyberman is loyal (Doomsday season 2 Doctor who 2006), whereas the impure Daleks have shown fanatical loyalty similar to extreme religious fervor (The Parting of Ways season 1 Doctor who 2005). The Daleks have near impenetrable shields as witnessed in the videos, and most of all they brought the time lords to their knees when they destroyed the Time Lord Homeworld. Even the 9th Doctor admits that the Time Lords lost the Time War . http://www.youtube.com...2. Are more evil"Real life analogies quickly fail when applied to the Daleks. At times they're compared to the likes of Nazis, but in truth they're literally lacking in humanity. Even "conquest" as we generally understand the term doesn't really interest them - sometimes they put foes to work as slaves (as in Death to the Daleks), but this is almost inevitably in the interest of facilitating new atrocities and exterminations. The point is that one can (and should) hope to use reason against real-world governments, but there is virtually no chance of diplomacy succeeding against the Daleks. . .. Basically, the Daleks collectively remain united behind one goal: kill everything that isn't a Dalek. "-Lance Parkin . http://tardis.wikia.com... 3. More powerful than the Cybermen. http://www.youtube.com...Also according to the Doctor who site, the Cybermen's Weaknesses are that they are susceptible to electromagnetic bombs and Dalek fire power . http://www.bbc.co.uk...4. Arouse emotions of hate and disgust from the DoctorBehold the vehement response from the 9th Doctor as he meets the "last" Dalek. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
The Cybermen are the best villains in Doctor Who

DefinitionsCYBERMEN - The villains from Doctor Who, including the Mondasian and Pete's World Cybermen, in both the classic and revived series of Doctor WhoBEST - Scariest, most awesome, most popular but NOT most iconicDOCTOR WHO - As specified before, both the classic series, running from 1963-'89, and the revived series, running from 2005-presentRulesFor Debaters1. PRO will be arguing that the Cybermen are the best Doctor Who villains in accordance with the definitions above. CON will be arguing that another race are the best Doctor Who villains. Specify which race you wish to argue for in Round 1.2. BoP is shared as both debaters are arguing for a different race.3. The round format is as follows:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments, no rebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements, NO new argumentsThis cannot be changed throughout the debate.4. Forfeits result in all 7 points going to the other debater.5. No insulting or offensive remarks and no trolling.If you wish to change any of these rules, inquire in the comments before PRO has submitted their arguments for Round 2. If either debater breaks any of these rules, all 7 points should be awarded to the other.For VotersConduct: This field should remain unvoted unless either debater breaks rule 5.S&G: This should not be voted on unless either debater's argument is completely incomprehensible.Better arguments: This should go to the debater who presented the best arguments.Sources: This field should remain unvoted unless either debater forfeits a round, in which case all 7 points should be awarded to the other.I look forward to a very interesting debate!! Please inquire in the comments if you wish to accept.
LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant

I would like to say that LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant because even though they both came from high school, Lebron ranks #1 in minutes played, field goals made, points, Total Efficiency Points, ranking, and also ranking in 48 minutes. Even though Kobe went to the NBA when Michael Jordan was still playing and has the second most points scored (81) behind Wilt Chamberlain (100) and even though they beat them at last year's Conference Finals and won the NBA Finals and won NBA Finals MVP and also won co-MVP at the 2009 All-Star Game with Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe is kind of a selfish player but LeBron James is not that selfish, I have proof, LeBron had 323 assists and ranked sixth in the NBA And that is why I believe that King James is better than The Black Mamba.
Is anime inappropriate

The standard point that a show becomes innapropriate is when children under the age of 13 can not watch it. I believe the vast majority of anime is rated pg 13 or higher. The majority of the most well known shows are certainly rated pg 13 or higher. For this reason I believe that anime is inappropriate by our culture's standards. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that most anime has some adult themes. The higher the rating, the more room the show has to work with.
Legalize Shrooms in the US

Jedi: Dude, you cant argue for shroom legalazation in the USWSA: Do you see any police around?Jedi: No.WSA: Then take so shroomsJedi: Ok*both do lots of drugs then make love to each other*Mys main argumentArgumentum Ad IanuaLegalzation of shrooms willl cause a shroom culture. People will become hippies and listen to the doors all day. Now, the doors aren't bad, one of their songs reminds me when it's time to turn out the lights because I'm always forgetting when to turn out the light and i never get to sleep. But a shroom culture will cause people to only listen to the doors and nothing else which will cause them to be hippies that sit around and do shrooms with pink floid on and we'll have the god damn 60s all over again. This scares the sh1t out of me and I dont even live in america. http://www.youtube.com...Thems IdeasShrooms will cause your mind to open wide and cause new ideas to penatrate thru it (phrasing). This can prevent you from rationally thinking. Shrooms will make you believe tons of bullsh1t stuff like homeopathy and the existence of Ireland. You're screwing with your mind, and mushrooms aren't artifically intelligent, they are just some plant. They dont care about you they will just alter your mind. How can this not f*ck you up?Thems gatewaysMaybe shrooms once or twice won't f*ck your sh1t up it can cause your mind to expand so far you can belive other drugs are the sh1t which will cause your sh1t to get f*cked. Shrooms aren't drugs that will give yous the "awwww yiss" feeling. They are for spiritual insight and sh1t. Some peopls will want that "awwww yiss" feeling which will cause them to take up other drugs. Thems other drugs will f*ck up your sh1t.Those are three arguments why it should be illegal in the USA. We must regulate it for the greater good "ALL: THE GREATER GOOD"
Legalize Shrooms in the US

Resolution: Psychedelic mushrooms should be legalalized in the United StatesRules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.Rounds:(1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments.(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.Definitions: Psychedelic mushrooms - mushrooms containing psilocybin and psilocin, most commonly in the genus psilocybeLegal - permissible under law to cultivate, transport, sell, and possess United States - A federal republic in North America [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Burden of Proof: I haz the burdens of proof! I can typing!By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. Only people with at least 5 completed debates may accept.Kittens!
Legalize Shrooms in the US

Main Arguments Pro: Shrooms are safe, non-toxic, non-addictive, mind-expanding drugs that should be legalized for reasons of public health, recreation, and morality. Shrooms improve the well-being of individuals and the compassionate connectedness of groups for years after a single trip. Shrooms are used to effectively treat depression, cluster headaches, PTSD, improving mental health, reducing fear of death in terminally ill patients, and treating addiction to cigarettes and alcohol. It is immoral to violently prohibit the use of something that harms no one else, because to do so would be to claim a higher right to someone else's body than their own. Now every drug has risks, for shrooms it is rarely eliciting dormant psychological problems; however, we don't ban peanuts because 0.6% of people are allergic; we don't ban cars because 40,000 people are killed per year in them (in the US alone). We realize life itself is dangerous, each activity with its own risks, and we don't treat people like child slaves, using paternalism to take away their right to choose for themselves. Banning shrooms produces black markets, which allows for lower quality mushrooms and more dangerous purchasing a reality. Enforcing a ban has a large financial and personal costs on society. Finally to reiterate, it is immoral to initiate violence against peaceful people for choosing to put a beneficial fungi in their bodies. Main Arguments Con: Con argued that shrooms will make people lazy (an assertion without any proof provided), which I demonstrated is false, while the opposite is true. Con argued that shrooms will alter your mind, rendering you incapable of rational thinking (another assertion without warrant). This is demonstrably false when you look at the current research: shrooms stimulate the growth of new brain cells and improve short term memory. Further, mushrooms can improve psychological health over the long term. Con argued that shrooms are a sort of gateway drug. This is another assertion without proof. There is proof that alcohol is a gateway drug while it is legal, leading to a double standard. Even if mushrooms were a gateway drug, this would not be sufficient reason to ban it, as doing so violates the non-aggression principle and self-ownership.
It's time Disney World cracked down on crooked cripples

I used to be a resident of Florida so I know what Disney is like. And regardless of what you say, physically disabled people should not be described as "when was the last time you saw a roller coaster towing a spastic in a wheelchair?" You are clearly referring to actually disabled people. And handicapped people are allowed to go to the front of the line because they are disabled, meaning that they cannot walk, alt of them are born that way. They can't help it, it's not their fault that they are unable to walk. Furthermore, you cannot use a few isolated incidents as an excuse to punish everyone handicapped child. The LARGE majority of children in "wheelchairs" are not faking it. They are allowed to go to the front of the line and bring friends for two reasons.1. It may be difficult to follow in those massive lines and it is a safety hazard to them and the people around them.and 2. At Disney or "the happiest place on earth" handicapped people get to bring friends and have an extra bump because they are handicapped, it's just a simple way to forget the world around them and help them actually have fun for a change.But to conclude, I don't think waiting an extra five minutes to ride your favorite roller coaster will kill you. I mean after all, you are a grown man. Thank you.
It's time Disney World cracked down on crooked cripples

However, I should like to clarify my opening argument by clearly stating that there was never any suggestion that the cripples rich New York mothers were hiring to jump the queues at Disney World were anything other than genuine spastics. Furthermore, I did not suggest that handicapped people, young or old, should be prevented from visiting Disney World, just that they should not be allowed to go to the front of the line for rides. The fact is that local handicapped people in Florida have been hiring themselves out to wealthy families for big money and this fiddle cheats decent, honest families of their valuable time at Disney World, and the practice should be stamped out forthwith. Thank you.
It's time Disney World cracked down on crooked cripples

First off I would like to start by saying I can see where you are coming from. But describing physically disabled people at theme parks like "when was the last time you saw a roller coaster towing a spastic in a wheelchair?" is a bit offensive. You need to realize that the majority of people in wheelchairs or that have such disabilities are not faking it. Having said that, all across America in nearly every parking lot there are spots specifically designated to the disabled. These spots are put specifically closer to the front because people who are in wheelchairs do not have the luxury of being able to walk to where they want to go, they are restrained to that chair. It is a demon to them. And it is more dangerous to park farther away because of the off-set chance that they are hit by a vehicle as they do not have the necessary speed as a person with fully functional legs does to avoid the car or incoming danger, or that it may be tiring to have to push such a far distance. And the rules regarding Disney world are in place because kids with disabilities do not function as well as kids who do not. In your article it describes how "some wealthy parents" are doing this. Incidents like these are isolated and should not be taken seriously. Kids who are handicapped can bring that amount of friends because shouldn't they deserve to have fun on the happiest place on earth just as any other kid would? Don't get me wrong faking a disability is cruel, but imagine Disney security guards asking a little kid with a disability (such as cancer, diabetes, birth complications) to stand up? How do you think that would make his parents feel? Or what about a war veteran who is disabled or someone caught in a car accident being asked to stand up and prove that they are really disabled? People go to Disney world or "the happiest place on earth" to forget about all the stressers and major complications of life, not be reminded of them. And as for the isolated incidents of people faking their disabilities should be dealt with by security and Disney executives when caught, but not pick on everyone for their wrong doing. It's pretty sad that you want to start profiling handicapped children just because you don't want to wait an extra 5 minutes to ride a roller coaster. Thank You.
It's time Disney World cracked down on crooked cripples

Let's say you have been waiting in line for a ride at Disney World in Florida for nearly two and a half hours and you are now at the front of the queue and just about to board when a family of wealthy English aristocrats barge in front of you. "Get out of our way, you filthy peasants." the father, Lord de Cadent-Farquhar, barks loftily as you attempt to protest, "Can't you see that we are considerably richer than you? You should know your place and have some respect for your betters, and offer your places with good grace but you colonial savages have no concept of social deference, do you? Of course not. Now push off you snivelling little proles." You'd be aggrieved if that happened to you, wouldn't you? And you'd expect Disney World to stop arrogant rich people who consider themselves superior to other people and too important to wait in line from pushing in, right? And so they do, but some wealthy mothers from Manhattan have found a way to jump the queues with impunity by hiring black-market Disney cripples who pose as family members for $130 an hour, or $1,040 for an eight-hour day. "My daughter waited one minute to get on It"s a Small World - the other kids had to wait two and half hours," boasted one rich Manhattan mom who hired a spastic in a wheelchair through Dream Tours Florida so her children could go straight to the front of the line. "This is how the 1 percent does Disney," the mother sniffed haughtily. According to the New York Post: "the woman said she hired a Dream Tours guide to escort her, her husband and their 1-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter through the park in a motorized scooter with a 'handicapped' sign on it. The group was sent straight to an auxiliary entrance at the front of each attraction. "Disney allows each guest who needs a wheelchair or motorized scooter to bring up to six guests to a 'more convenient entrance'...the consensus among upper-crust moms who have used the illicit handicap tactic is that the trick is well worth the cost." This restricted mobility racket means that ordinary kids have to wait even longer to get on the rides because all the posh kids with their disabled fake family members go straight to the front. It's not clear to me why Disney allow people in wheelchairs to jump the queues anyway. I mean, is their time any more valuable than every one else's? No. Also, while everybody else is standing, they are having a nice sit down, aren't they? Furthermore, the rides tend not to be accessible to people with restricted mobility issues: when was the last time you saw a roller coaster towing a spastic in a wheelchair? No, come on Disney World, you owe it to honest guests to close down this scam, it's time to crack down on crooked cripples. Thank you. Full story from New York Post: http://www.nypost.com...
God Exists

Though you can not prove that evolution wasn't caused by God, and things like death can also been caused by God. Also your own site says that we don;t know if it was proven. To add on, I would like to state that omnipotent beings are still omnipotent when non-existant. For example, an unexistant orange is still orange, despite it's unexistance. There's a whole philosophy concerning non-existant objects, which supports my point. Objects, or at least non-existant objects, all exist. In fact, every language that I know of calls unexistant objects existant. Words like "something" or "someone" allow us to create unexistant objects and use them in reality. In the sentence "Someone ate my lunch", that someone doesnt officially exist, yet we think he does. Lets use Santa as an example. Santa (MAJOR SPOILER) doesn't exist. And so nobody could argue against the fact that Santa is an unexistant person. Deriving from that is the statement: "There is an unexistant person, namely Santa". And so Santa (MAJOR SPOILER FOR ADULTS) technically does exist, but as an non-existant person. But let's think for a minute. How does the real Santa, if he existed, differ from the non-existant one? Well, the real Santa is exactly the same, except he exists! He has the same traits as the non-existant one, and the same job! Back to God. If God does not exist, we can safely say that God is an unexistant person (or is he an object or place?). And if God is an unexistant person, that means that there is an unexistant person, namely God. But, since God is omnipotent in his unexistant form as well as his existant form, he can create/de-create himself and freely travel between the barrier of existance. This means that he could have created the bing bang, being omnipotent and unexistent, and made himself.
best charecter in teen titans go

why the crap is there an Eminem video on here, that is irrevalent to the topic, :P. Robin is funnier because he's sometimes kind of stupid when it comes to love and reality and crap like that. He sees him and Starfire as "more than friends" and tries to get past the friend zone with her, and, it creates awkward moments for him, and, he can get down a beat!http://www.youtube.com...