BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hannah Montana is a rip off

People WILL buy the tickets. All of these shows are sold out. Think of it like oil, it is priced very high, but companies are still selling it! There are people who buy these tickets obviously, or else they wouldn't keep the prices at skyhigh. I'd agree that Hannah Montana is just a teen pop star who is getting her 15 minutes of fame, but to the 8 and 9 year old girls, they love her.
Causes of homosexuality

FULL RESOLUTION: Evidence among HUMAN subjects (twin studies, brain, HUMAN gene etc. ) on balance shows homosexuality is genetic. ==> Clarification <== I am not interested in animal homosexuality, only what studies say on human homosexuality. Argunments saying "animals are gay" are irrelevant. My opponent argues based on the evidence amongst humans, homosexuality is likely genetic. I argue other factors are likely the main reason (non-genetic factors are the main reason). We do not need to argue the one reason is ___. But the main reason is ___. ==> BoP <== BoP on Pro (my opponent). This is non-negotiable. ==> Definitions. <== Homosexuality: human sexual attractions to the same sex. ==> Rules <== No trolling or semantics. *** I am doing this debate as the forums have had many argunments on this, and I want to defend my "bigoted" views.
F*ck is a bad word

My opponent has accepted the challenge. He has very lively participation and good statistics. So, I look forward to a great debate! Now onto my agument: Simply blurting the word f*ck out loud is not a bad word. As I defined, a bad word is a word used to make someone someone feel or look bad. If you only blurt the word f*ck out loud, you not only not have the intent to make someone feel or look bad, but it will not make anyone look and feel bad. Now, there are times whenever the word f*ck is used directly against people. That would be bad because, although it might not do so, you have the intent of trying to make someone feel or look bad. However, as you can infer from the title, I am talking in general about blurting it out loud. I await my opponent's arguments.
F*ck is a bad word

A few jokes in between are acceptable, but that is it. - Both Pro and Con must share their BoP (Burden of Proof); Both must reason why they think what they think. - Bad words: Words that are said in order to make someone or something look or feel bad. Failure to do so will result in an automatic loss. NOTE: Remember that by accepting, you agree to abide by the settings I have set. If you accept, but then go on to rebel against, say, one of the rules I have set, it is an automatic win for me UNLESS you are willing to deal with it anyway. If you have any doubts or you feel that one of my rules are unfair, however, feel free to speak your mind in the comment section.
Should water be sold as commodity? (Central Asia)

Yes, of course, these two republics if they didn't have water, in general would appear in a difficult situation. Above I resulted examples to answer your question why water to equate to the goods. It is known that in some countries water sell is sold for irrigation of the earth. For example, Turkey sells water to Bulgaria, Canada sells to USA. I will repeat, for an irrigation of fields. The upper course countries should arrive reasonably, for human need they implicitly should give water free of charge. For example, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan receive water to free of charge, but they sell it to uzbek farmers. We have huge stocks of fresh water, in the country we sell it for irrigation of the fields and for drinking. This means that we equate water to commodity without realizing it.
Should water be sold as commodity? (Central Asia)

To save up and submit water, a lot of money also has been spent. I will give an example. When the main water intake in Central Asia - Toktogulsky, has been built a lot of arable earth was flooded and some countries had to be replaced. Expenses were huge and now are. There are also expenses for inhabitants of republic. For example, as you know, the most important line of republic, which connects the south and the north, passes round the Toktogulsky water basin. If it was possible to pass the given site for 15 minutes (7-8 km) before the opening of basin, now drivers do a detour in 90 km and more than hour is spent. It's on the average 10 liters of gasoline for one car, multiply thus amount for 1500 – 2000 cars a day. It's a huge amount of money.
Should water be sold as commodity? (Central Asia)

But there were also opponents of the given idea, including me. How is it possible to sell water whereas human life and, in general, life depends on it on the earth? We don't sell air, do we? In Uzbekistan, in particular in Fergana valley, live more than 12 million people, and every year this number increases. If they're not provided with water, they'll simply remain without work and will starve. I think, your justifications in this case purely humanly aren't pertinent. The quantity of the compelled immigrants will increase and it will lead to humanitarian accident.
Whether the NEA should be abolished

As my opponent has forfeited another round, I will write my conclusion. On balance, the NEA should be abolished on the following grounds. First, they are taking government money, no matter how little or much, from things such as education, military, e.t.c. Second, all the organization is doing is taking money from hardworking people's pockets and distributing them to artists who want an easier way that doesn't involve them taking money out of their own pockets. Third, there have been so many successful artists who have raised money for themselves and have proven themselves time and time again.
This house would abolish the Electoral College

Re: CostIn my opinion, this is by far con's best argument. Although amending the Constitution is indeed a timely procedure, I would argue that anything that will substantially improve U.S. democracy and give the people a greater say in the government is worth the time and cost. In 2013, a Gallup poll reported that over 60% of Americans favor abolishing the EC (1). What would it take to get Congress to pass an amendment to abolish the EC? Perhaps a loss in the Presidential election if their candidate got more votes, but lost in the EC. The last time this happened was in 2000 and, as I cited in the first round, this has happened a total of 4 times. Another possible way this could happen is if we see a 269-269 tie. In almost every election, there was a very real possibility of a 269-269 tie. In the current 2016 election, there are at least three ways in which the EC could end up as a tie (2). Because of the way the EC is set up, the Democrats have a signifigant advantage in the EC (3). If the Republicans suffer a loss in the EC, as the Democrats did in 2000, we could very easily see a bipartisan call to repeal the EC. Re: FederalismCon argues that the EC maintains Federalism. The problem with this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of Federalism. The EC does not maintain or enhance the power or soverinty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress, not on the EC. Federalism can be maintained with or without the EC.Con also argues that abolishing the EC would be detrimental to the interest of small states. Ironically, bigger states already have a slight advantage in the EC as opposed to small states because candidates focus on the states that give the biggest payoff. Consequently, they ignore states such as Alaska and Wyoming that have such small popuations (4). But the bigger issue is with the one-person-one-vote principle. Although the EC may be more or less favorable to big states, a vote in smaller states is worth far more (see my arguments in round 2). Is it really fair that a vote in a small state is worth far more than one with a bigger population?Re: RisksIn my opinion, this is con's weakest argument. Cons argument is essentially an argumentum ad antiquitatem - appeal to tradition (5). Although the EC has been intact since the Constitution was ratified, it is time to move on from an archaic system. In the original Constitution, Senators were elected by the state legislator, not by a direct election. This changed with the ratification of the XVII amendment in 1913 (6). The old system no longer worked and increased corruption and deadlocked Congress. Likewise, the EC is outdated and should be changed. Thank you con for a good debate. I look forward to your reply! Sources1. http://bit.ly...;2. http://bit.ly...;3. http://wapo.st...;4. http://bit.ly...;5. http://bit.ly...;6. http://bit.ly...;
This house would abolish the Electoral College

1. Abolition would be costly Abolishing the EC requires a constitutional amendment. Amending the American constitution is difficult. [1] Such an undertaking requires the consent of two thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention upon the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states. After that, such an amendment isn’t effective until it’s ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states or by conventions in three fourths thereof. [2] The EC is a politically contentious issue. The last time Congress seriously debated abolishing the EC, the proposed amendment was filibustered in the senate. [3] An amendment to abolish the EC would not pass easily through Congress nor state legislatures. Much debate and political wrangling would occur, and while our lawmakers would be focused on abolition, other matters would be left unattended. Legislative time is not free. It is a valuable resource which requires a compelling justification to allocate. 2. The EC maintains federalism The United States is not a direct democracy. The United States is a federal constitutional republic. There are good reasons for this. Our nation is large and culturally diverse. Local control through state governments and power sharing through equal voting in the senate helps keep the smaller states safe from an overbearing centralized government. Abolishing the EC goes against of our federal system and would be detrimental to the interests of the smaller states. 3. There is risk associated with abolition Whether we like it or not, the EC is the method of election with which we are familiar and has worked in our country for hundreds of years. Abolishing the EC would significantly change our political system. We can foresee some of the consequences of abolition, but there may be adverse impacts which only present themselves upon the use of a new method of election. This is a risk which is difficult to measure and, without a compelling justification, we should stick to what we know has worked before. 1 - http://goo.gl... 2 - https://goo.gl... 3 - http://goo.gl...
This house would abolish the Electoral College

Full Resolution:This house would amend the United States Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. Structure:Round 1 - Acceptance onlyRound 2 - Opening arguments onlyRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - Rebuttals/closing statementsDefinintions:Electoral College: "The Electoral College is the name given to the process by which the American President is elected. Rather than a nationwide tally of votes being made, votes are counted state by state. States are allotted a certain number of ‘electors’ according to the size of their population. The candidate who wins the majority of votes in a particular state wins all the electors for that state with the candidate who has won over the most electors becoming President. " (1) Rules:1. The burden of proof is shared2. Images are permitted but videos are not3. The character limit is 10,0004. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments or on a blank debate. 5. No Kritiks.6. No semantics7. No trolling, serious debater only! 8. All sources should be available for free of charge online. If you use a journal source that is behind a pay wall, it should be available to access at sci-hub. cc or be available for free elsewhere. Voting shall last 1 month and is open to any voter with an ELO score of 2,000 or more. Upon accepting this debate, con agrees to the definitions, rules, and structure that is provided. Violations of any of these rules shall result in the loss of conduct per minimum. Sources:1. . http://debatepedia.idebate.org...;
there is no afterlife

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there an afterlife? We must all admit we don't know thats because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to the assumption on the issue. Now to my arguments I will present throughout the debate. I think it is obvious that the concept of an afterlife is a man made idea constructed for a number of reason I shall discuss. The first being consolation and wishful thinking; it's obviously comforting if your child just died but your are told not to worry because he/she is going to a better place, which in my view is a slightly immoral idea because it's to say any thing that makes you feel better is fine, drugs can also make you feel 'better'. The other is control and power as for centuries the afterlife has represented a claim by humans to be able to interpret the divine thus give themselves power by doing so. Now on to the point of eternity the afterlife represents, sure the first 100 years or so may be enjoyable in heaven/ other religious equivalent, maybe even the first few hundred but what about after 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1000 000 and ad infinitum things would surely start to seem repetitive and mundane and would start to look alot like hell. We all know the party of life is going to end, eventually you will be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave; the party is going on without you but you must leave. This is where the afterlife comes in, you are told you go to another party but someone comes and tapes you on the shoulder but this time tells you you can never leave and what's more demands you have a good time. This cannot be believed by a thinking person. Also who determines what beings gain access to the afterlife is it just the human species, how does one determine this; via DNA? Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (1). So apes to maybe then you must go down the gene pool to squirrels, rats, fish and bacteria. and if animals are not allowed in the afterlife what happens to them? Closing point I think It is fairly obvious that the state/ non state after death is parallel to what you experienced before conception/birth. source: 1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
The Writers are right.

"Granted that different things are being streamed online is out of the hands of the people that work at the networks" Some of the content is out of the hands of the networks and the writers. This is no different than the problems that the music industry had with illegal downloading. Notice that there has never been a musician's strike however, they only threatened and followed up on litigation. This means that there must be some difference. Legally downloaded songs that are paid for by the customer do pay out royalties to the artists. This goes for ringtones as well. Musicians are benefitting from the digital age while writers are being given the middle finger. Networks do have control over the content that they offer on their websites, and content that can be found on yahoo, etc. Comercial advertisements can be found in these online shows and represent serious revenue for the networks and potentially for the writers as well. Furthermore, they recieve direct payment when customers buy television shows from sources like itunes. It seems pretty simple that the writers should recieve either royalties from these sales or their flat wage should be adjusted accordingly. The networks have refused and that is why the industry faces the mess it is in today. "The fact is, if you don't want to write for a company because they don't pay you enough wages, quit and find another company." This is a union thing. All the union writers for every network are on strike. It is an industry wide-problem that needs an industry-wide solution. "Another idea is the fact that people get royalties. For example, people who write a commercial can either opt to get a flat rate, or opt for royalities whenever their commercial is played. The same idea should apply here." The world of television and movies has changed a great deal in the last few years. The internet represents a huge stream of revenue, from which the writers of the very content being sold, are not seeing a dime. The point of the strike is to change this so that the writers are adequately compensated. The same idea that you mentioned does apply here. However the writers have contracts with the union and the studios they work for. Now that it is time to negotiate those contracts, the writers are asking for compensation for new revenue that was non-existent years ago.
The Writers are right.

The writers have no reason to be striking right now. Granted that different things are being streamed online is out of the hands of the people that work at the networks. In addition to that, Writers are being paid a flat wage. This compensates for it as well. The fact is, if you don't want to write for a company because they don't pay you enough wages, quit and find another company. Don't agree to work for a certain company, then don't do it. Don't sit there and complain about it. Another idea is the fact that people get royalties. For example, people who write a commercial can either opt to get a flat rate, or opt for royalities whenever their commercial is played. The same idea should apply here.
If God doesn't exist, morality isn't objective

that is acceptance god is subjective, morality is objective, like math.. are you arguing that we should eat the rotten apples to stay healthy? so you argue it is moral to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushroom to keep them healthy if god says so so eat rotten food the rest of your life.. its not bad, dont mind the fuzz and colored mushrooms so because god dosnt exist you will not die from eating a deadly poisonous mushroom.. there you go
If God doesn't exist, morality isn't objective

My opponent gives an example as to why morality is objective. What my opponent needs to do is argue that objective morality isn't contingent upon God's existence. I am arguing that since objective morality is true, God must exist. God is defined as the arbiter of humanity and supreme moral authority. If there is no arbiter or supreme moral authority of mankind, then mankind is inherently not a means towards any end. What we ought or ought not do (good and bad) is undefined. If what we ought or ought not do is undefined, morality can't have objective principles about what ought or ought not be done. Therefore if God doesn't exist, objective morality cannot either.
If God doesn't exist, morality isn't objective

God: "Arbiter of humanity and supreme moral authority" "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true" rationalwiki. com "Good" is behavior that ought to be done, desired, or approved of. "Bad" is behavior that ought not be done, desired, or approved of.
Javert is the truly the best guy in Les Mis

First for the priest. He did not request Valjean to return the silver as soon as the guards were gone, he had given them to Valjean, whether or not Valjean had realized it. Also there is no reason to believe that the priest knew who Valjean was previously or had any knowledge of his breaking parole. Javert's investigation was flawed as it gave the blame to the wrong person, I see no argument as to why this bears no fault. To say that Javert's perfection is based off of Javert's own views and Javert himself sets the standard as the best guy in Les Mis would end the argument before it ever began. It is circular reasoning making the argument lacking in any soundness. It's like saying "if Javert is the best guy in Les Mis, then Javert is the best guy in Les MIs". This assessment must be based on common outside principles of law, morals and ethics. Javert does indeed indicate in his words that his ethics and morals are one and the same, however his actions indicate otherwise. In his final moments, Javert has the chance not only to capture the parole breaking criminal Valjean that he has chased for so long, but also to catch Marius, the rebel who he is legally obligated to capture or kill. Ethically, Javert should take them both into custody, however, he knows that he is morally obligated to let Valjean go since Valjean let him go earlier on. Valjean has in no way enslaved Cosette, in fact quite the opposite. He does seem protective, however when considering they are in pre-revolutionary France, such measures would seem necessary. Also, without Valjean, Cosette would still have been sweeping the floors for the innkeeper, or possibly dead frozen in the woods getting water. Valjean gained nothing by taking her as a responsibility, but followed his conscience and did so nonetheless. As for Valjean Breaking his identity, Javert has himself mocked the law and done the same thing, and for less Justifiable reasons.
Javert is the truly the best guy in Les Mis

I would argue that ethically the priest is corrupt as well. In this argument, so far, we assume that ethics is the equivalent of law and morals is the equivalent of religion. The priest breaks both. The priest breaks the law by lying to the soldiers that bring Jean Valjean to him as well as aiding him in breaking his parole. In his lying especially he breaks his moral code. Also, the fact that Javert does not follow up in an investigation is his perogotive and cannot be counted against him neither as an ethical nor moral shortcoming. Also, Javert spying is not a shortcoming in any way either. This is because he declares that he "is the law, and the law is not mocked." This is the only referance we have as to the legal system in Les Mis (the movie). One must always assume that the physics of a movie universe work differently than the real world since people don't break into song in real life. Under this statement, Javert declares that he is the epitome of the Les Miserablian law. Thus, he is the epitome of ethics. He furthermore goes on to explain in his monologue-song "Stars" his moral compass which is based off of law and justice. Therefore, because his ethics and his morals are one and the same, he cannot retain morals and lack ethics or vice versa. You previously said that he would compromise one value and retain the other, but in actuality, he retains both. Under the same thinking of religion equates to morals and law equates to ethics, Valjean's redeeming moral traits that you alluded to are nonexistent. Prior to breaking parole and changing his identity, which is unethical, he has no religion and therefore no morals. Then afterwards he seemingly converts to a Les Mis Christianity. He sins against his own religion by not sacrificing. He takes Cosette into his "care", which is more of a type of slavery. She must follow his every whim because he did the wrong thing in the past. Because he enslaves Cosette, he is not moral.