BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

Alex Jones is a public figure who, like Howard Stern, Glen Beck, Steven Colbert, & Rush Limbaugh, must find a way to carve out a niche in order to attract listeners. In fact, this very debate and the videos provided in Con’s opening argument prove the old adage: even bad PR is better than no PR. While Alex Jones may make offensive statements at times, this is not proof that he lacks reason as a person. Also, I submit that we should take Mr. Jones seriously in what he says. For these reasons, you should support the resolution in its entirety by voting Pro. Con has not proved that Alex Jones is irrational, only that Alex Jones provides controversial remarks on his radio show. Con provides information gathered from the Alex Jones Radio Show to assert that Alex Jones as a person is deprived of reason. But, how does Con determine that Alex Jones’ conduct crossed the line? In fact, where does such a line exist? And, how did Con come into authority to draw such a line of permissible conduct? What qualities did Alex Jones portray that now merit irrationality as judged by Con? Con declared that Alex Jones is irrational based on Con’s instinct. We cannot allow an individual’s intuition, absent appropriate medical expertise, to become the sole and deciding factor in determining another person’s rationality. Such actions set dangerous precedents on how we treat those who hold a disagreeing viewpoint. A Pro vote aligns you with a long held standing that individuals are reasonable until proven unreasonable and that we must use logic and facts to arrive at conclusions about people. While Con has argued that Alex Jones may say & do things in the public eye that cause some disagreement, Con has not proven that Alex Jones as a person is unreasonable. Therefore, I ask you to vote Pro on this resolution. We should always take individuals seriously, especially when they talk about guns. Con argues that we should not take Alex Jones seriously. I respectfully disagree. Regardless of how we view someone’s opinions, we should be mindful of what they say. Alex Jones recently said on Piers Morgan Tonight that “1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms. ” . http://swampland.time.com... Such a comment should not be ignored and we should take comments like these very seriously. Alex Jones should consider some media training. However, his TV & radio performances are not a basis to determine that he lacks the ability to reason. We do not have enough information to make a claim that Alex Jones lacks reason. We should also take Alex Jones seriously, especially when he makes comments about guns and/or violence. I’m afraid that Con has not, nor cannot, provide sufficient evidence to refute the resolution as posted.
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

With that I suppose we should get the show on the road. For those of you who don't know, Alex Jones is an American talk radio host from Texas, who has made a name for himself by becoming involved with a variety of controversial topics that often if not always revolve around conspiracies towards the U.S. government. Irrational: "Without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason." Some of these conspiracies (there are a lot of them) Jones rants about to his listeners over the airwaves and to his very dedicated followers on the web are the fallowing.. 1. 9/11 was an inside job http://www.slate.com... 2. The government is trying to encourage people to be gay (In order to fight overpopulation) http://www.youtube.com... 3.The Government is and has been launching a covert eugenics operation http://www.youtube.com... 4. The biggest one of them all.. The New World Order conspiracy. Alex Jones believes that the world is being ran by a small elite or a composed corporate-world government, that is essentially hellbent on enslaving the earths population by secretly destroying nations' sovereignty, taking away personal freedoms under what he deems the"hoax" of terrorism, ah and to poison people with aspartame and sodium fluoride. "It's amazing, they admit that they're establishing a global corporate government, to carry out genocide covertly through vaccines, through sodium fluoride, through sterilants like Bisphenol-A, aspartame!"- Alex Jones, New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen (18:28 on youtube if you wish to look it up) Alex Jones plays the convincing and convenient role to many impressionable young minds over the internet by exploiting real world problems (Such as the military industrial complex, issues with "big pharma", freedom vs. security debates) and then injecting his own paranoid New World Order narrative along with them. Now I will admit that being wrong doesn't inherently make one irrational. However in this particular case I think we could all agree that content of which Alex Jones conveys to his audience, and the implications of that content are very serious. Call me an idealist, but I wish to live in a society that denounces the kind of ridiculous paranoid nonsense Jones frequently releases over the internet via his authoritative conspiracy documentaries and his notorious two websites. Rush Limbaugh was called a sexist and a hate monger during the whole slut remark fiasco with Sandra Fluke. I don't see why calling a man that believes there is a "covert genocide" going on right now to be irrational, to be completely off base.. References! 1.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... 2.http://www.infowars.com... 3.http://www.prisonplanet.com... For Fun..... http://www.youtube.com... 42 failed conspiracy predictions :)
The Sex Offender Registry is ineffective in combating child sexual abuse.

Your sentence that I must prove that there is a compelling" state" interest . The States and the Private sector have equally important compelling interest in maintaining the registry. The registry is a timely viable tool for Law Enforcement when a child goes missing. The Private sector has the ability to access their registry and the information provided allows the public to gauge many aspects that effects them personally. It's a birds eye view of the correctional system, the increased or decreased security of the neighborhoods, the effectiveness of local law enforcement, the direct impact of property values in relation to those who have a vested interest in those values. Most important, it allows those who are most targeted by these crimes the ability to determine the proximity of those who have been convicted of sexually based crimes. It has been determined that only 38% of the general public have accessed their immediate registries. Of those who have and who do it on a regular basis, they have implemented two or more security measures for either their homes and or their children's habits.
Should we have a kid president

No underages should be governing a country, and yes you might be right, you cant do anything about it exactly because you are a kid, a few reasons for you not being able to: 1. Adults frequently know way more than kids when it comes to politics and economics, so the ways of helping the poor you mention might just be doing harm to the country's economy in general, and then basically everyone will be poor because you helped the poor, kinda ironic. 2 . Underaged people are often filled with bias created by their parents and that stuff, it takes time for you to create your own opinions and actually challenge your parents' opinions. 3.
George W. Bush is a good president.

So according to all of you...insults yield no relevance. But what if they're true? What if it's true that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are ignorant/stupid? What if it's true that you're all sitting at your computer typing nerdy sentences about Superman George W. Bush and how great war is, when you've never experienced a war whatsoever? Doesn't that make it relevant? Nerdy, your initial argument included the following line: "Anti-Bush advocates are ignorant people who can't form legitimate arguments and thus ride the bandwagon." Sort of sounds like an INSULT to me. Run your ethics radar through your own BS before running it through mine. "The oil claim is a bandwagon argument." You wanna talk about bandwagon? Did you know that at one point after 9/11...the majority of Americans still thought Iraq had something to do with the terrorist attacks? That's odd. Bandwagon, perhaps? Wanna talk about bandwagon? How does a man who has the IQ of a piece of notebook paper get elected? Bandwagon, perhaps? Oh and you can't argue against facts. If you read the link, it clearly states that we were very interested in Iraqi oil BEFORE 9/11 even happened. It's not an extremist opinion. It's a qualified fact. I also find it humorous that you find this war inevitable. It wasn't. Terrorists attacked U.S. buildings...and about 3 weeks later we were dropping bombs on Iraq, who had nothing to do with it. And actually, Bush's #1 justification for entering the war was "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So...where are they now? We entered Agfhanistan, we entered Iraq, killed 80,000+ innocent people, and caused the world to hate us even more...yet somehow this war was "inevitable." Wow. Oh and many people thought the same thing about Vietnam. Let's fly to the rescue and kill these evil communists! And yet...what did Vietnam accomplish? Well...hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers were killed. Thousands of Vietnamese civilians were physically tortured by U.S. soldiers. That's about it. So what's your justification for Vietnam? That it was "inevitable"? Hmmm.... Oh and believe me...I know a Utopian world will never happen. That's not what I'm saying. But to argue against wars that have accomplished basically nothing but death...is that naive? And like I said...you can't combat violence with violence. Yes, Hussein was an evil tyrant...but 100,000 innocent lives were taken before getting to him. Suffering only increases with more violence. "America is probably the only country in the world who cares about the wellfare of humans." Is that why we lead the world in murder, divorce, and teen pregnancy? Is that why we have a health care system that basically only helps people with lots of money? Is that why we drop bombs all over the globe? Is that why everyone hates us? Yeah, America is a land of Christ. Oh...and your topic of debate is that "George W. Bush is a good president." Ha...you've really done a great job at proving that.
George W. Bush is a good president.

Hi, I think George W. Bush (our current president as of Dec. 6, 2007) is a good president. He may not have been the most articulate or intellectual individual elected as president, but nonetheless he has made a genuine effort to better the world we live in. Today, so many Americans blindly oppose Bush without ever paying the slightest attention to the matter on hand. They don't really understand the concepts, yet they argue against him since so many others are. I think it's safe to say that a majority of the anti-Bush advocates are ignorant people who can't form their own legitimate arguments and thus ride with the bandwagon. Often times his good deeds are easily condoned, whereas his mistakes are over-scrutinized and deprecated to the point where it becomes a form of propoganda.
Are there any recent examples where America has shown progression or disregard for the ideals outlin

Hello, and thank you for starting this debate! This is a very interesting topic! First, I would like to provide a selection from the DOI. "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" Already just in this selection, we can see that the American government has at least followed these. Now, recently, the government thousands upon thousands of trials by jury. A this month case would be U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - October 2014: Balfour v. Howes There is nothing special about this case, however, it does prove my side of the argument. Thank you, I am finished. http://law.justia.com...
Ford is better than Chevy

I accept. PRO bears the entirety of the burden of proof, and must demonstrate that Ford is objectively superior to Chevy. Since this is often a matter of subjective opinion, he must in the process both (a) evidence the individual points he's making and (b) establish a framework by which to establish objectivity superiority. If he fails to do that, you default to a CON ballot. This means that PRO must prove: Ford > Chevy If, by the end of the debate, the following two options are still on the table -- Chevy = Ford Chevy < Ford -- or there's considerable uncertainty, you default to CON. Now, read PRO's opening remark: he says Ford is "better quality." This, my friends, is circular: he's presuming the resolution via merely restating it. He needs to explain *why* this is the case. He thing brings up two features: there's no comparison, there's no elucidation of these features, there's no objective criterion. These points do literally nothing to advance his BOP.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Thank you, I am enojoying this too!!!!"It is human nature, however, (and you may argue that human nature is wrong)"Human nature isn't wrong, but rather neccesary. I just down think in this specific example (of the soap) that it is wrong. I am fine with reasonable human nature, like maybe two different soap brands, instead of 150."Please stop posting pictures. It's not fair for my case."It is completley fair for me to post pictures, and you can, also. I need it to prove some points for my case, even if it seems unfair. Sorry about this."There are SO many different types of vaccines out there, and they're all very necessary."That is true. But vaccienes are not availible to all parts of the world; so the people it does save can't quite make up to the amount of animals killed. I see it likes this:If a person is a type of animal,a type of animals should be seen as a person.Sorry for the lousy debate, I've just stated everything I can. We should debate sometime again! Thank You!
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Please stop posting pictures. It's not fair for my case.Before turning back your new arguments, I would like to point out a flaw in an old one that I noticed. Using criminals for testing is unconstitutional; it could be classified as 'cruel and unusual punishment.'"Yet we can’t figure out a way to make good products without harming people."more suggestive language. You called the animals people, something that they are not.How do you suggest that we test our useful products without using animals? I have already shown why it is not logical to use criminals. Even if they are not on the death row, these tests could kill them, giving more punishment than they were assigned."Also, how many brands of hand soap do we need?!"I give you credit here. It is a bit unnecessary to use that many animals. It is human nature, however, (and you may argue that human nature is wrong) to want to compete and conquer the competition, and need to have room to do that. Not the best point, I know, but it's what I feel."300 years. 3 billion animals killed/tested. Let that sink in."Yes, but the answer why is obvious. 300 years is not a short period of time. it is reasonable that we should have to use that many animals; and you make it sound like the only reason we use it is for hand soap and eyeliner. As previously stated, it helps modern medicine develop. There are SO many different types of vaccines out there, and they're all very necessary. and, you say it like vaccines are the only reason we use animals.By the way, take the time to read this article [1], in which he states that "I think animal research is a necessary evil. It’s not an ideal tool, but it’s the best one we have, and it does more good than not." I agree completely. It is not like I want to kill animals, but it is important. The website also gives many reasons why. Check it out."We might as well literally say that to their faces right before we kill them."It's not like we just "kill them." "You are so far lower than us that we have to test highly dangerous shots and inject them into you because our mighty race of 7 billion people are so much better than all of you bunnies anrats combined." No, it's not like that. Do you think that people do this for enjoyment?Anyway, thank you for my first debate. I am enjoying this! :)[1] http://elm.washcoll.edu...
Animal Testing Should be Banned

I am sorry for the short time period."Both hand soap and food ingredients are practical and useful."Yes, they are useful. But are they useful enough to kill well over a million animals? We just need to be able to do it without harming the animals. Our scientists are likely one of the smartest people on Earth. We put a man into space. We put a man on the moon. We've had a spacecraft check our Neptune. Yet we cant figure out a way to make good products without harming people.Also, how many brands of hand soap do we need?! I am looking at brands of soap on Walmart.com [1], and 170 search results just showed up. Say we used just 5, and more than a million, perhaps even ten million, animals would be saved. What I'm saying here is, I'm fine with VERY small quanities of animal testing. But only when it is absolutley neccesary. And 170 Walmart brands of hand soap are not neccesary!"Not enough to replace the amounts of animals that are used."That is true, but thanks for giving me the link to how many animals have been used for animal testing. I've been looking all over for that.•270,000 animals are tested per day. [2]•Thats 3 per second [2]•The first vacciene was made in 1796. According to the site [2], that's about... 300 years. 3 billion animals killed/tested. Let that sink in.So it is not enough to replace the amount of animals used, but it is an upgrade. 4,000 people to finalize tests in."In bullying, it is normally for no good reason, but this is different. As evident in my previous link, and in my first post, we have a very good reason for doing this."Here are some common bullying reasons: "You're fat, ugly, etc." To animals: "You are so far lower than us that we have to test highly dangerous shots and inject them into you because our mighty race of 7 billion people are so much better than all of you bunnies anrats combined. Therefore, you're going to die because we are so much mightier than you and we need to save ourselves. Thank you for participating!"Ok... that was a bit dark. But we might as well literally say that to their faces right before we kill them.We should stop animal testing and stop it before we hurt even more. Stop Animal Testing.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Hello. Thank you for showing me your arguments. This time, my post will be very short; I had a lot of stuff going on today + tomorrow, so I have to hit the sack soon. Also, try to make the next debate longer than 1 day per round; I don't think it's enough time. First off, another quote demonstrating my points [1]. anyway, here are my positions." In a way, aren't we "taking away the animals free will," or in other terms, bullying them?"This is a bit true, but for this we have purpose. In bullying, it is normally for no good reason, but this is different. As evident in my previous link, and in my first post, we have a very good reason for doing this."Why can't we do this to ourselves?"In all honesty, it is because there are not enough volenteers. Of course, you said that we could use people from the death row, but the fact is, there is not enough people there either. in fact, there are only about 3000-4000 people in the death row. This is not nearly enough to replace the amounts of animals that are used [2].Now for your own reasons.1. I don't really understand. Can you be more clear?2. Both hand soap and food ingredients are practical and useful. Yes, eyeliner seems a bit extreme, but you get the point (sorry time pressed)3. Like what? give me a few examples.4. Seriously? You would let a product that killed animals with 90 % simaler genetic code come into our stores? That is the very REASON that we use animal testing (refer to [1]).5. A "single pesticide" could improve and even save many human lives [3]. [1]. http://www.ox.ac.uk...[2]. http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...[3]. http://www.croplifeamerica.org...Very very sorry for the poor debate. As I said, I am pressed for time. I will give valid arguments for round 3. Thank you.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Hello! I accept your challenge. I guess I will be taking the CON side for this. Okay. First of all, this subject is very subjective. By this I mean that it relies heavily on your own opinion, so there may be a lot of back and forth. This may sound a bit cruel, but your argument uses a lot of words that invoke pity, such as this: "we are hurting poor, innocent creatures" "We're locking poor, innocent animals". I would like to stay on a purely factual basis. Also, your second reference is of no use to your argument. Anyways, On to the debate! :) In your round, you did not address why we need animal testing. Most people don't even consider that. There are many reasons why we need it, including purposes such medicine. You may argue that many mice and such get cancer from these testings; the cruel truth is, that is the reason that they are used. To detect wether or not it would cause cancer. Animal testing is the main reason why most medical discoveries are discovered. Without it, we would not have many necesseties in life today, such as ashma inhalers. See http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk.... Thank you for the challenge.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Fell free to debate ANY WAY YOU WANT (as long as it is serious :)) Animal testing has been a long-time argument between many people. Should it stay or should it be banned? I think it should be banned. Humans are very intelligent and evolved creatures. Why do we need animal testing? Why can't we do it on OURSELVES? We're hurting poor, innocent creatures to do things that are unlikely to succeed. In fact, we are abusing, hurting, and even BURNING over 100 million animals a year [1]! Some people would willingly accept a testing job (even though the consequences could be dire.) When you think about it, humans are animals. We're locking poor innocent animals in cold cages, like a jail. If anything, human criminals should be used for testing. A homicide was committed on 11/06/13 in Los Angeles [2]. When the culprit is caught, he will have already killed a person. He had taken someones free will, and his should be taken also. Usually, a death penalty would come into place. But instead of a death penalty, he should be put up for dangerous testing that we use on animals. A person would be punished and something good may come out for humanity. That is called SAVING two birds with one stone. [1] http://www.dosomething.org... [2] https://www.crimereports.com... Good luck to anyone who accepts this challenge!!!