BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That Cyber Rape has become a problem

http://www.terry.uga.edu... Rape is when you have no control, your helpless. In cyber rape, it is roleplaying, it is fun to do. Take for example a actual cyber gang rape. Greg0987: Hold her down, guys. Panther: I got her legs. Robodude: I got her pinned. Greg0987: She wants it bad. Don't ya, *!@#$? Brenda: Give it to me. Give it to me good. Panther: I'll !@#$ you so hard, it'll teach you open. Bigcock: Like it rough, stupid !@#$? Hit her in the face, Greg. Smash her. Pussyeater: Don't move or I'll cut you with this knife. Greg0987: Me first, then the rest of you go. Stop moving or I'll hit you, !@#$%. Barely a minute passed - though it felt like hours - before I broke my silence. Me: What the %^&* is going on here? Greg0987: We're raping her, what do you think? Me: I think this is really sick. Greg0987: Chill out. We're just playing. Me: Playing? Women are raped and beaten every day, and it isn't play. Greg0987: If you don't like it, get out of here. You don't have to stay. Before I could respond, I was assaulted by so many private messages telling me to shut up or get lost. I sat there in front of my computer, feeling shocked and enraged. This is not bad, the woman is playing along. It is beneficial and great in bonding. It is no different then, lots of fun online. I'd ask everyone to try it.
That Cyber Rape has become a problem

Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person's will. It may be defined as forcing a person to submit to any sex act, and is generally considered one of the most serious sex crimes, as well as sometimes very difficult to prosecute. Sexual violence can also be a war crime under international law. Consent may be absent due to duress arising from the use, or threat, of overwhelming force or violence, or because the subject's capacity to give consent is negated some way: such as developmental disability, intoxication or being underage. In some cases, coercion might also be used to negate consent. There is no universally accepted distinction between rape and other forms of assault involving one or both participant's sexual organs. When the term "rape" is used, some criminal codes explicitly consider all kinds of forced sexual activity to be rape, whereas in others only acts involving penis penetration of the vagina. Many restrict rape to instances where a woman is forced by a man. In recent years, some women have been convicted of raping men; this is classed as either rape or sexual assault, or some other legal terminology. In some jurisdictions, rape may also be committed by assailants using objects, rather than their own body parts, against the sexual organs of their target.[1] Some places, such as the state of Michigan, USA, do not use the term "rape" at all in criminal codes. MI uses the term "criminal sexual conduct" for acts which colloquially would be referred to as "rape" or "sexual assault".[2] The rape of women by men is the most frequent form of the assault, with an estimated 91% of rape victims being female and 9% being male while 99% of offenders are male.[3 For rape to be rape their has to be Privacy is not the absence of other people from one's presence, but the control over the contact one has with them." (Pedersen, D. 1997). "Selective control of access to the self." (Margulis, 2003) Control is important in providing: what is needed need for normal psychological functioning; stable interpersonal relationships; and personal development. (Pedersen, D. 1997) In Cyber Rape, you can just click out of the site. Cyber Rape is just another form of cyber sex, roleplaying at it's finest. http://www.terry.uga.edu...
That Cyber Rape has become a problem

I would like to prove in this debate that cyber rape has become a problem. In this first round i would just like to establish some structure and provide a few rules 1)Cyber Raping is allowed during the round to show its effectivness and so we can see if it is a problem or not 2)My opponent must prove how cyber rape is benificial rather than a problem My opponent is welcome to establish some bounderies as well....Look forward to a good debate
Against Firearms

There is an issue that needs to be resolved because of an unintended mistake made by my opponent. He took the Con side of the resolution but argued for the Pro side. I believe this is because while he may actually be Pro to the resolution he is against guns. I will therefore be arguing from a Con position. Since the character limit is close to being used up I'll begin my case with a fairly well known quote: "If guns are made illegal then criminals will be the only ones with guns. " I will continue my arguments and rebuttals in the forthcoming rounds.
President Obama was a good President (economics)

This debate will focus around the economic results of the President of the United States. We will not be looking at global macro economics but instead at U.S economic policyBefore we look at the great economic success of obama we must first look at the mess Bush left him As we can see Bush turned Clinton's 236.2 billion dollar surplus into a MASSIVE deficit of 412.7 billion dollars. We can also see that Bush spiked unemployment rates TWICE.Now lets get onto the great things Barrack obama has done1. Cut the deficit in half 2. Spiked job creation We went from losing 462,000 jobs under bush to gaining over 13,000,000 jobs under Obama3. Unemployment has gone drastically down The rise of unemployment shown in this graph was under Bush until Obama took over and then the unemployment rate went from 7.8 percent to 5 percent.4. Oil Production and exports have gone up 5. Corporate profits have gone up I will get into more points in later roundsIf you have any trouble with seeing graphs you can access all of them here ( http://www.debate.org...;)Back to Con Sources:http://www.factcheck.org...https://www.flickr.com...http://www.dailykos.com...https://ourfuture.org...
Political Conditionality and Humanitarian Aid

It should be fun :)Full TopicPlacing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust. BOPIt is Pro's BOP to uphold the resolution on balance. It is Con's BOP to show the resolution to be invalid on balance. JudgingAs part of a three debate long, on-going experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of judge voting, I have selected a 10 judge panel for this debate. Provided they all accept, these judges are: YYW, Mikal, thett3, Romanii, Bladerunner, Whiteflame, Kbub, Airmax, JonBonBon, and Oromagi. Con is free to add on judges, or to request the removal of any voter on this panel. Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. .. .. .again to Such for agreeing to take me up of this debate. I look forward to a stellar discourse.
Abortion

No. You must have misunderstood,I ain't saying you're racist cause you're a Native American,you're racist cause you're a Republican,and Republicans are racist. You really shouldn't speak negatively of homosexuals,that's not a very nice thing to do. I'm very sorry for what my ancestors did to your people,and I apologize. Anyway,this is the last round of this debate about abortion and you haven't managed to say one word about abortion. And stop accusing me of being racist,I ain't racist,I'm a liberal. And what problem do you have with liberals exactly,we're very nice people.
Abortion

"My username is kkkkatie,not Kate,and my username has nothing to do with this. Nothing of what you just said relates to the abortion issue,if a woman wants to get an abortion,then let her. Who's it harming ? It's her body,you have no right to decide what a woman can and can't do with her body. What if a girl gets raped and ends up pregnant ? Is she supposed to care for the baby that she didn't want and ruin her life ? What if she's a really young girl who has no job and is sill in school ? Is she supposed to waste her time caring for something that she didn't even want. Also,I find it quite ironic and funny that someone of your political party would call accuse someone of being racist." Oh, oh, so now you are accusing of being racist just because I am a Native American, oh you liberals, you don't think the guy who's people OWN THE LAND THIS NATION WAS BUILT ON don't to be offended, but oh the gay guys do. Anyway, conservatism has nothing to do with racism, what president liberated the slaves, Abraham Lincoln the republican, who sued John D Rockefeller in United States vs Standard oil, Theodore Roosevelt the republican, who was going to sue the monopolists original, James A Garfield the republican. who said that segregation was OK somehow, Woodrow Wilson the democrat, who cheated on his wife with his secretary, Bill Clinton the democrat, and the list goes on and on KKK Katie! Anyway, I in no way support the continued genetic material of rapists, we should cleanse the gene pool of these scum bags.
Abortion

My username is kkkkatie,not Kate,and my username has nothing to do with this. Nothing of what you just said relates to the abortion issue,if a woman wants to get an abortion,then let her. Who's it harming ? It's her body,you have no right to decide what a woman can and can't do with her body. What if a girl gets raped and ends up pregnant ? Is she supposed to care for the baby that she didn't want and ruin her life ? What if she's a really young girl who has no job and is sill in school ? Is she supposed to waste her time caring for something that she didn't even want. Also,I find it quite ironic and funny that someone of your political party would call accuse someone of being racist.
Abortion

"Life; the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death- Websters Dictionary" Strange, I do not see "took a first breath" in there, so here are the qualifications of life; 1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter 2. including the capacity for growth 3. reproduction 4. functional activity 5. and continual change preceding death Well, the by is definitely distinguishable from inorganic matter, it will grow if not killed, if said baby it will develop the ability to reproduce, it is capable of functional activity, and it will change until death. Oh, and I see it quite racist to have your username be " KKK Kate"
God exists.

The argument they present is much better organized than most theists I have debated on this issue previously. My opponent begins with a discussion of DNA, which I enjoyed reading, and asserts that DNA contains information. Since DNA contains information, and information requires the intervention of an intelligent agent, DNA must have been created by an intelligent agent. The conclusion that allegedly follows from this is that there is a God with the following properties: they "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure. " First of all, I think the conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises offered. For example, there could have been an intelligent alien with an advanced knowledge of science who came to earth at the dawn of life and engineered DNA. DNA could have been the result of a team of scientists from another planet; it's a bit of a far fetched scenario, but it's worth considering before appealing to God. Another possibility is that a human scientist with a time machine went back in time and planted organisms with DNA in the primordial soup. But even after these criticisms are taken into account, the argument would still leave us with the conclusion that DNA was created by an intelligence, which most in the scientific community would wish to avoid. So it is desirable to criticize the premises of the argument, in addition to criticizing the inference to God. My opponent claims that "Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. " However, this is only true metaphorically. DNA is not literally a language system, because it is not used to communicate between conscious agents - it is just a bunch of chemicals acting according to the laws of chemistry. It could be useful to refer to DNA as a language metaphorically, but it is not literally a language. Likewise, DNA does not literally contain an alphabet, symbols, words, sentences, grammar, semantics, or pragmatics. All of these concepts assume that there are conscious agents who are communicating by means of the language. They can only be applied to DNA metaphorically. My opponent also writes, "Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence. " This renders their argument question begging. If a set of symbols only have meaning when an intelligence ascribes it to them, then in describing DNA as having meaning my opponent has assumed that it was created by an intelligence. If it was not, then it does not have meaning, and does not count as information, because there is no intelligence to attribute meaning to it. The conclusion is built into the premises. I conclude that my opponent's argument is not successful, and that they have not met their burden of proof. Thank you.
God exists.

The proposition is that God exists. Pro will be defending the proposition that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists. Pro can define the God they want to defend, within reason. An example of a reasonable definition of God is "an omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly good being. " An example of an unreasonable definition of God would be "love" or "the universe. " The point of this requirement is to allow Pro some freedom to define what they believe in or want to defend, while preventing people from cheating by using a definition that no one would normally think of as God.
All homosexuals should be grouped together and isolated in the Bermuda Triangle

I stand in strong support of the resolution to move all homosexuals to the Bermuda Triangle to be left in isolation. I think doing this would be in the homosexual community's best interests so therefore, why not? 1. Homosexuals cop a lot of unwarrented crap from a lot of people in this country. You only have to look at some of the people on here who believe homosexuality is evil and is a learned behaviour brought upon by Satan, and a lot of other ridiculous, hate-filled garbage. Plus, there's this guy of course: http://en.wikipedia.org... If homosexuals were all confined to one area, they would never be the victim of hatred based upon their sexuality. This is obviously very beneficial to the gay community. 2. The Bermuda Triangle is a nice place, and homosexuals seem to like nice things. The area bound by what we all know as the Bermuda Triangle varies by author [1], but regardless which area the homosexuals choose to inhabit, you know it's going to be beautiful. Take Bermuda itself for example [2]. How many homosexuals do you know who wouldn't rather live on a paradise like that with thousands of other homosexuals? 3. Homosexuals like water. Observe: http://static.howstuffworks.com... Well, I'll leave it there for this round. I thank my opponent for this debate and I hope I can change his ways. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal

The main reason to vote for me: If a voter votes for my opponent, they would have to explain in the rfd where in this debate did my opponent prove abortion was real. My opponent conceded my observation which said the burden of proof was on my opponent and also conceded the fact that they didn't prove abortion was real. Therefore you vote off the fact that the resolution wasn't ever proven true because my opponent did not provide sufficient reason to think abortion was real. Thus not fulfilling their burden needed to win this debate.
Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal

My case Observation 1: Opponent has the burden of proving abortion should be legal Observation 2: Opponent has to prove abortions exist My opponent has not proven the premise that abortions exist anywhere in their case, therefore we can not proceed to the rest of their case. Conclusion: Nothing has been proven. P.S. no this was not a last second response due to the fact that i totally forgot to respond to this.
Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal

Obvioulsy at this point in the debate my previous arguments have not been rebutted.PersonhoodIs the human organism in the embryonic period a person ? Well that depends on the criteria that one is using (if any), to make a distinction between person vs non person. Suffice to say different proposed criteria get you to different results of where the line is drawn between person vs non person.My first point is that Con has not presented any argument that establishes that the early human organism is a person.Secondly, there is an argument to be made that person vs non person is at least better defined compared to the alternatives on a mentalist criteria. By mentalist criteria I mean that such a distinction of personhood is based on the criteria of whether the thing in question currently has the current capacity for such things as self awareness and/or intelligence.But why accept such a criteria ?1) It's non racist & non sexist.2) I'ts non speciesist (Allows self aware, intelligent non human life to be regarded as persons)3) It's non materialist (Allows for things which although do not possess a material body, if they possess self-awareness/intelligence regards them as a person, Eg God, Gods, Angels, Demons, Ghosts,)The human organism in the early stage of pregnancy has no such current capacities of self awareness and/or intelligence and thus under this criteria of person hood is not a person.I look forward to Cons reply.
Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal

Definitions/Explanations Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
It is not okay to be an adult over the age of 25, and still live at home for no legitimate reason!

1) "Okay, their parents enjoy the company? That's nice." I know! Who doesn't love spending time with their children? Hitler probably wouldn't but thats aside the point here eh? 2) "Maybe they enjoy peace and alone time too? Ever think that people do like to spend time to themselves?" So they leave the house for a bit or go out with friends! We're not talking about a hermit here. My neighbor happens to be 28 and she is rarely home but still lives there. Plenty of peace and quiet if you ask me. 3) "A pet is a choice. Not a grown child living at home, freeloading off his/her family." And a child isn't a choice? Well tell that to my illegitimate child from Botswana. A pet freeloads more than anything too! What pet pays taxes?! Other than scooby doo. That dude is on point. 4) " if your parents were rich, you wouldn't work? That is pure laziness and lack of respect. Why wouldn't you get off your gluteus maximus and make your own living and be productive even IF your parents were filthy stinkin' rich?" Okay mitt romney let's settle down now. If my parents were that rich there is no need to make any money because there would be so much in inheritence i could not possibly spend it all by the time they died and by then ITS MINE ITS ALL MINE!! Mwaahaha. But no seriously im not working if my parents made Bill Gates bank. 5) "Why would you let your poor old mother and poor old daddy do all the work for you? It's called respect." And i respect them for doing all the work for me! Thank you mama and dada! 6) "Apparently some adults just completely lack it for their own parents. Of course if you should ask your mother or father if having you at home bothers them, they would probably say no. Why? BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS." :'( don't hurt ma feelers mama and dada. Look man not all parents kid their kids out nor do they all want them out. Believe it or not some like having their kids around 7) "After all, they are your parents. Obviously they never got done raising a child because one just wouldn't get up and go out into the real world." All the more reason to keep them around! Thank you for conceding to my point.
It is not okay to be an adult over the age of 25, and still live at home for no legitimate reason!

Well, let me start picking apart your "ever so beautiful written" argument. First off, you prove my point for me. I'm saying someone who forces themselves upon their parents. Okay, their parents enjoy the company? That's nice. Maybe they enjoy peace and alone time too? Ever think that people do like to spend time to themselves? A pet is much more different than a human. A pet is a choice. Not a grown child living at home, freeloading off his/her family. if your parents were rich, you wouldn't work? That is pure laziness and lack of respect. Why wouldn't you get off your gluteus maximus and make your own living and be productive even IF your parents were filthy stinkin' rich? Why would you let your poor old mother and poor old daddy do all the work for you? It's called respect. Apparently some adults just completely lack it for their own parents. Of course if you should ask your mother or father if having you at home bothers them, they would probably say no. Why? BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS... After all, they are your parents. Obviously they never got done raising a child because one just wouldn't get up and go out into the real world.