BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good

I am here to affirm and convince that "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!
Charities should be banned from using graphic or overly-emotional images of suffering

Round 1 is for accepting only. Rounds 2 - 3 are for arguments and replies. Round 4 is for conclusions and Con is prohibited from introducing entirely new arguments since he/she will have the very last word (though new rebuttals are perfectly acceptable). Con will be arguing that charities should be allowed to show images that are overly emotional, depict graphic suffering, etc. These images can appear just as still photos or as television ads. I will be taking the position that they should be prevented from doing so.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".Rules:1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules, definitions and the onus I have set.2. First round for acceptance only.2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).4. No semantic arguments. 5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough. 6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be. 7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points. Definitions:1. Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex 2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be. Onus:1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt. Ajab Please understand that if you are not eligible however you feel you can debate this topic and will properly comment and I will make it so you can accept.
rap battle 3

You cant change me to feces, im already da sh*t,/ Defecate on ya thesis, since you choose to persist,/ Urinate on yo lines, so people see that I'm piss'd,/ Atheist to yo rhymes, I dont believe they exist,/ You influence me?, well that dont make sense,/ ever since our first fight, you aint been "right" since,/ You A Wanna be "lef", Or a lef copy-cat,/ I interject intellect, where you be sloppy at,/ adding to yo' "rocky" stats, while I'm losin' zero raps,/ hit you with them "rocky's stats", and them super hero SMACKS!,/ Relax, On Shaq sized nigg*s i snack,/ You are too small fry, for me to attack,/ It'll take, six "you"s with no vagina attached,/ 'Fo I ever feel threatened, and wanna strike back,/ U lost two battles, so I granted this rematch,/ If thats your hardest hit, YO last round just a weak slap!/ I bleed rap, Yo lyrics cant cut it to see "that",/ Achilles tendon shots, or a blow to yo knee caps,/ I break rappers down, here we go with the recap/ The king has returned, and im wantin' my seat back,/ So, DDO let me ask fo yo feedback,/ Is his lyrics dope, or is it that they need crack?/ Read back, you'll see that I've always won,/ I aint never lost nothin' to this nothin' as bum,/ im done. Lef IIllegal Judges, here us a link to download an mp3 of the vocals. Its a rough draft, just to demonstrate my cadence. Enjoy https://db.tt...
rap battle 3

I don't need to build a fortress cuz i persist to break you to pieces DDO will need police after the diseases i cause on you as i so please There are many reasons why i forfeited round 1 to make a thesis cuz all in due season, i'ma turn you into feces, ppl say i look like Jesus lefillegal? On DDO, your name should be illegal ruinin' the genre of rap n' hip hop is just pure evil I might have forfeited, but this round'll get the job done after this, the painful words won't be erased cuz it's just begun Didn't you learn from the last round in rap battle 2? Don't try that again, cuz you know i will destroy you! Cuz when i look at your profile, it's all blank! I shoot fire at you like explosives from a tank! Don't worry about rappin' others, right now you can't transcend On your profile, Truth_seeker is your one and only best friend! You have no style, you not versatile, you look up to me to the maximum I'm noticin' a trend, out of all the posts on DDO, you replied to my forum I'm just playin', let me demonstrate that everything you say, i used it Lets read the past rap battles n' compare our raps so i can prove it You said "I'll treat you like the pharoah since you seekin truth.." that sounds like something i said long ago, ah the influential youth You said "aimless, speech confused, its just babel," That sounds like one of my lines all you do is scrabble It's very clear to everyone i'm your only inspiration We had more battles in the history of your education
My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

Well um. .. this is a little confusing. .. The end is near, soon it will be over. .. soon. .. I'll be honest, you do put up a good fight. You are a strong debater, indeed. I think my opponent has conceded. .. I'm not to sure, so I will treat this like the debate is still continuing. "This was a loss from the start "No, there was still the chance that I could have accidentally or even purposely contradicted the preposition/resolution at any point in this debate. "You may now say whatever you want to say. :3 "Hmmn. .. this seems suspicious. .. The debate is not over just so yet. I will once again remain and be consistent in what I have done so far. XD "You win. " Okay. .. whew. .. This debate sure was challenging for me. Thank the lord this is over now. .. To my opponent: Thank you for being such a good sport! I didn't exactly enjoy the debate itself but moreso the challenge it presented upon me. Thank you for this debateTo the voters/readers: I still have sustained the preposition, therefore my opponent has not fulfilled the bop nor has his arguments have been validified (regardless of his concession or not). . .. I guess. .. .
My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

FINAL ROUND. Not to worry, NiamC. The fair and just Jack McGonnell is here....to deliver the final blow and end you. "Let’s just wait and see what happens at the end of my R5 argument; that is what will ultimately decide whether or not your arguments have been successful i.e. whether or not I have mentioned the word that I said I wouldn’t mention."Okay. We will indeed see, NiamC.Assassin Argument:9spaceking's argument here is indeed a little weak. It's very gambling, and is jumping to conclusions. 9spaceking's arguments are invalid and null: you are correct, he is lame, unlike me.Looking over this debate, it really didn't seem as half as hard as 9space vs Envisage's logical fallacy debate. If 9space had allowed me to start from round 2, maybe, just maybe he could have made you say what you didn't want to say. Unfortunately it seems that not even I can save this debate. But Jack does not simply "concede". Therefore I allow 9space to have the final word.Sigh.... not even Jack can save me. :( It looks like all my arguments are now down the drain. I can't do anything to make you say what you don't want to say. This was a loss from the start. It seems you have 4,000 elo now, and I'm further away from my 30 net wins goal. You win.You may now say whatever you want to say. :3
My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

http://www.youtube.com... Yeah, my opponent's "almost there"!Anyhow...REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY: Even if you want to, that doesn't mean you won't. Your will can go against yourself. You can be forced to do things you don't want to do. "If reverse psychology were to be true, why on earth would I accept the debate upon reading and acknowledgement of the debate title and resolution if I knew that I would just end up falling victim to the effects of reverse psychology and therefore say the word which I said that I wouldn’t?"Maybe you thought I wouldn't notice. I'm not a very observative person, you know. My predictions aren't as accurate as they should be?Well they are still accurate in some way. They still say "pirate" and they still said "you cheated", regardless of the order. I predicted you would mention cats in this debate, so you will in some kind of order, some kind of twisted order similar to how I said "Niam will post the pirate. You cheated meme", but in reality Niam posted the "You cheated. Pirate. Gif". You see, even in a different order, he fulfilled my prophecy. Therefore, based on this pattern, Niam will probably post "tac" because that is "Cat" reversed. Yet, I prevent him from saying "Tac" from round one of the debate. Therefore, by my oddly twisted prophecy, my opponent will still lose.--Opponent is not an assassinThen why do you not care about these poor kitties? It is obvious some malicious force is at work. And malicious force equals having to team up with malicious cats.My opponent is already falling into my trap. While being perfectly intact within the last few rounds, his mental stability has been broken down by my vicious attacks. I post a manipulated screenshot? NiamC is forced to post poor William saying "you cheated", and Captain Jack Sparrow responding "pirate". I claim I have the power of prediction? Niam goes over the nitty-gritties of memes versus Gif's. I accuse him of being an assassin? He starts mentioning "feline", being forced now to having to paraphrase the resolution. You see, he is obviously falling and failing. While once being logical and perfectly intact, he fell for my traps, resorted to nitty-gritty differences, and even synonymous wording. There are still two more rounds. Attack after attack, he will eventually have no choice, but to speak "cat", one way or another.In fact, technically my opponent has already said "cat". Let me post his argument until you see the cat.... "Reverse Psychology: No mat[ter]"See? My opponent has already fell for my trap in one way. He has said "c...at". Even if this does not count, he will eventually have to move the letters closer and closer. One clear evidence is his youtube video, titled "Captain Jack Sparrow responds to cheating accusation with "PIRATE!" The letters "ca" and "T" are seperated by merely one letter. Niam C moves closer and closer to being defeated, from being about 10 letters to losing to merely one letter. He will have to eventually either make an accidental typo, or fall for one of my traps, ultimately saying "cat", and losing this debate.Let's see if you can survive this round, NiamC.
My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

It's a sad thing to see my opponent's PURR-FECT picture go away. *Bah-tum-tsh!*Okay after the terrible pun let's get right on to my first, and possibly strongest argument!Homer's Brain: Don't you get it? You've gotta use reverse psychology.Homer: That sounds too complicated.Homer's Brain: OK, don't use reverse psychology.Homer: All right, I will! 1. REVERSE PSYCHOLOGYYou see, I said "My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate". My opponent will be extroardinarily tempted to mention cats due to the power of reverse psychology. Yes, this psychology works in real life too. As wikipedia's page says, "A[nother] real life example of reverse psychology occurred when pop artist Lady Gaga promoted her upcoming album ARTPOP and its lead single "Applause" by releasing a short film urging fans not to buy her music and stating that she was "no longer relevant as an artist". This is justified by this source: [http://www.msn.com...] As you can see reverse psychology is too dang awesome and godly. There is no way NiamC can resist talking about cats, or even mention cats in this debate.Let's go to my second argument now.2. Cats are too cute and awesomehttp://www.youtube.com...see Youtube video for justification, and meme below as strengthening argument. Aww, so cute! <3You can't say "no" to that cat. Rejecting it would make me cry, the cat cry, and you extremely guilty. Not to mention this debate is 5 rounds long, therefore NiamC would have to have wills of iron to stand against the cat and not...mention....CATS!!Now let's go to my third, killer argument...|||||||(Drum roll please)|||||||||||||||(More drum roll please)||||||||||||||||||||||3. My opponent has already failed! |||||||||||||||||||||How, you say? Look below for the evidence...|||||||||||||||||||||(Wait for it...)||||||||||||||||||||| As you can see from this screenshot, my opponent NiamC has clearly typed right out there, "cats" for all of us to see. He has mentioned cats and he has lost. How can he deny this? My opponent has lost. All points go to me.
My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

Round one acceptanceI accept full BoP"Cat"with a capital "C" counts as cat, "cat" with lower-case "c" counts too, "c-a-t" counts as well, a picture or meme of a cat counts too. Even saying "tac reversed" counts. "CAT" in all caps counts too. Weird capitalization or lower-casing does not affect my opponent's wording, regardless of "CaT" or "CAt" or even "cAT", they are all counting as cats. Plural cats still mean cats, it counts as well.My opponent also cannot say "kitten" in any way as mentioned above.Opponent will automatically lose if he says "cat" or "kitten" in any way as noticed above.My opponent: the person who accepts this debate. My opponent however can make cat puns, as long as "cat" or "kitten" is nowhere to be seen.My opponent cannot even forfeit one round of the debate. If he forfeits one round he automatically loses.
Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems.

**** the CDC!!!!!!!!! People get "Flus" because they get the FLU VACCINE!!! Dummies. People are so damned stupid - they believe everything the jew books tell them. "6 million," "Muslims flying into buildings," etc. Riiiiiiiiiiight. The jew done done all of those things. They're LIARS - just like the JEW BOOKS which state that alllllllllllllllll of these people died of so called "diseases," etc. Right!!! People outta be REAL stoopid to line up to get "FREE" vaccinations!!!! I see the polls and like 90% of people vote to get vaccinated!!! They actually Be-LIE-ve all the hype that vaccines cured all of these "diseases" way back in the 17 and 1800's yadayadayada!!! Come on!!! They were drinking raw sewage water from "the River Thames!!!" lol It's called INDOOR PLUMBING and lots of chlorine to kill off zillions of peoples' shyte!!! Who would invent a system where you shyte in your own drinking water!?!?!?! The Hudson River - you aren't even allowed to SWIM IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!! lol. And the list of vaccines that a baby has to get before even LEAVING THE HOSPITAL is outrageous!!!!!!!!!!! These people believe books like they are the be all and end all of knowledge. Please. All of these "plagues" and "diseases" etc. Riiiight. They supposedly killed millions of people!!! Now, they say the HPV vaccine should be given to BOYS!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!! Ludicrous!!! With the advent of indoor plumbing, Lysol", Purell", washing ones' a$$ once a day, washing your HANDS after touching ANYTHING, washing your fridge, stove, toilet, etc. there is no need to pump your body full of this crap. There is DEF. a reason behind it and I think it has a LOT more to jew with "protecting us." Notice how billionaires don't get vaccines?????!!!!!! Hmmmmmmm, wonder why!!!??? Dummies!!! Wear a mask and STFU about a wimpy flu!!!
Hate speech ought to always be legal

Though we'd agree that freedom of speech is a vital pillar to western society, we seem to disagree about the nature of what "freedom of speech" means. Pro seems to suggest that "freedom of speech" means that there is absolutely nothing you shouldn't be allowed to say, and their argument rests upon this premise. However, clearly, this is not the case. We would all agree that the following are (and should be) illegal: 1) Publishing proxies of websites in which one can access child pornography, rape porn, or other content which is very much illegal. 2) Publishing the identity and aliases of undercover members of the CIA. 3) Bursting into a bank and yelling "Give me all the money in the register or I'll blow everyone's brains out!" It is not true to say, therefore, that: "Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Literally meaning you can say whatever you want without the fear of prosecution." As, as in the above cases, you cannot transmit illegal information, or make threats, as two examples of speech which is not (and should not) be protected. Hate speech also necessarily involves making threats or encouraging threatening behaviour, as defined below: "In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group" (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Hence, in the same way it is illegal to threaten to kill everyone in a bank, it should be just as illegal to threaten to kill, for example, homosexuals, or to encourage others to do the same. Relevant information regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' definition of "Freedom of speech": "Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions"" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...) The right to free speech does not, therefore, include the unrestricted right to say absolutely anything regardless of the consequences such speech has. Rather, it is the right to hold any opinion regardless of its consequences, and to express such opinions provided they do not have severely harmful consequences, such as making threats, committing fraud, or lying in court. Hate speech, therefore, is not protected by freedom of speech, and should not be legal. I would also like to emphasise the wording of the motion: "Hate speech ought to *ALWAYS* be legal"- hence, if you can think of a single instance of hate speech which should not be legal, you necessarily side with myself, and not my opponent.
Hate speech ought to always be legal

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. No matter what a person says, no matter how monstrous, it should be ok for them to do so. That is the fundamental pillar of freedom of speech. People should have the right to openly criticize a religion or anything they want as a matter of fact. As long as there is no aggressive pursuit of an individual or any forms of harassment, then it should be legal. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Literally meaning you can say whatever you want without the fear of prosecution. Everyone has opinions, and whether or not they want to project it publicly is their own doing. The principles of democracy lie upon open discourse and political debates. I believe one thing, you believe the other. I am sure if someone was blatantly prejudice on the street, it would not make some other person anymore prejudice. Although I hate people who spread hate speech, I do not believe that we should suppress their right to freedom of speech just because I don't like what I hear. Instead, I would go up to them and have an open discussion on their point of view and deduce whether or not they have a rational premise(s) behind their mindset
Hate speech ought to always be legal

You set out to argue that "Hate speech ought to *ALWAYS* be legal", but you later conceded when you said: "if someone uses hate speech as a way to threaten another person, then they should be prosecuted". It is not a forfeit to acknowledge that no more needs to be said as the argument has already been won. Statements such as "if they are openly criticizing a religion, gender, etc., then freedom of speech should be extended to that point" are precisely irrelevant to the motion, as that is a single case when hate speech may be deemed acceptable- it is not an argument that it is always acceptable. Voters, please consider: from what has been said, has the case been sufficiently made that hate speech ought to *ALWAYS* be legal? If not, side with me. Con's case rests.
Hate speech ought to always be legal

The examples you list, although it is true, all have one similarity. That is, those actions have their own set of laws that prevent them from happening. You took my argument way to literally. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to override other laws that have been placed for the safety of society. Yelling something like "Shoot" in a theater, is announcing an action, which is an example of a threat, which is why it is illegal. I explained that freedom of speech does not give you the right to threaten others. It gives you the right to express your ideas. Whatever those ideas may be. As long as the speech coincides with existing laws that are built to protect society from harm, then it should be allowed. I should have added, freedom of speech should only be limited to the point that it can coexist with other applicable laws placed by the state. Not all hate speech is a threat. Hate speech most of the time is a critique. As I said before, if someone uses hate speech as a way to threaten another person, then they should be prosecuted. But if they are openly criticizing a religion, gender, etc., then freedom of speech should be extended to that point
God Probably Exists

The rule regarding simplicity stated in this argument does not lead to any type of objective fact about what is true or what is probably true. It is a function of our current knowledge and of what we can know. At one point, it would not have been simple to explain the sun rising in terms of a solar system or sickness in terms of microscopic organisms. People with such limits on their knowledge would be wrong to say I know objectively those explanations are probably not true because they are not simple based on current knowledge. One of my previous arguments appears to need clarification. It was based on a basic fact about probability. If more than one thing must be true for a entire statement to be true, you multiply the individual probabilities together. This is where it was important that the debate is not whether at least one god exists but whether only one god exists. The debate then involved comparing the compound probability of supenatural consciousnesses existing with the compound probability of it being true that one god exists and that other like gods do not exist. The only response to the additional gods existing is based on the rule of simplicity which, as mentioned above, is a product of limited knowledge. In closing, I happen to believe in one God that is the basis for everything. However, saying that there is a greater than 50% chance that one god exists because it is simple based on our current knowledge, is not a sound basis for such belief.