BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Masturbating should be made illegal

your arguments are well stated, however, this topic is not about masturbation for women. As you have already stated, women don't talk about masturbation as much as men do. Which leads to my next point. Masturbation is extremely unhygienic and unhealthy for the 'person in crime'. do you realise how much mental damage this does to our psychological status? When a person is masturbating, a sensation is vibrated around the body, making the person feel extreme pain or rush. This is very bad for he human body and will well put us into risk. For example, vagina disease or Penis pain. (sorry for the language). It will also send millions of germs into the human body, for example, the finger germs or plastic germs when women use fingers or dildos to masturbate. this can not be avoided, due to the lack of self consciousness during the process. Also in the bureau of statistics, it stated that washing will only kill a shocking 50% of the germs. Thus, this proves that it will cause major risks for those who do. PS. if I don't get to, good game to you Panda! Thank you for participating in my first debate. I feel obligated and privileged to debate with you. once again, thank you
Masturbating should be made illegal

I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree. When someone masturbates, they make the same noises they would when having sex. Which we need for humanity to survive. And at this website http://www.menshealth.com... it shows that masturbation has health benefits as well as feeling good. Here http://www.vice.com... it states that women don't talk as openly about masturbation than as men do. So if you were in public you probably wouldn't hear anything about vaginas unless it was from a guy. And if you feel uncomfortable, just walk away. If parents talk about sex/masturbation in front of their kids, that is their choice. Plus according to http://www.parenting.com... kids don't truly understand sex until 11 years old. So even if a parent talked about cuming in front of the kid, it probably wouldn't understand. And I would like to add that how would the cops know if someone is masturbating? And would they come and arrest them while they are doing it?
High School schedules should be more based on helping career choices.

When a student in high school is set on a specific career, oftentimes the student eventually changes his or her mind. Students should have to have a well-rounded schedule in order to keep their options open. Also, by making students take classes in a large range of subject areas, schools are exposing them to new ideas. Perhaps a student who once wanted to be a gym teacher could take a class in biology and now to wants to be a biologist. This exposure would not happen if students were not exposed to a diverse range of subjects. Lastly, school is not all about career-oriented training. It's also about simply instilling knowledge into the minds of youth. Although an education in Chemistry would not help a gym teacher's career, it would make him or her a more well-rounded, educated person, and that's what it's all about. Thank you.
High School schedules should be more based on helping career choices.

If a student knows what they want to do when they grow up (IE;teacher) they should have schedules more based towards helping them. For example Algebra will not be required if a student wants to be a lifeguard when they grow up. or a student will not need Gym for if they want to be a librarian. They need to become more self dependent and be able to make the right choices. If you know what you want to do when you finish school you should set up your schedule. For example someone who wants to be an athlete should have multiple gym classes. or someone who wants to be an artist should have multiple art classes and less science classes.
Abortion is wrong.

I will start of this debate right away. I believe it's wrong by the following reason: that the act stands equal to murder. Even though the fetus hasn't fully grown yet it still is a life form in the making and it counts as murder. The decision has been made to start this process and by that the initial thought of the end is not to be disturbed by second thoughts. For the justification of the act and relinquishing the responsibility. The cases were this is mostly presented is what if scenarios. What if she got raped and pregnant? What if her situation changed after being pregnant and can no longer provide for her unborn child? In those cases it is very unfortunate and a difficult situation, but that doesn't mean it is right to kill your child. Based solely on the fact that murdering your child is wrong because of the form it will take later on. May it be a living being at that point or not, it will be. This debate stands on the balance of is it a living human being or not? I believe it both cases it doesn't matter. Still the promise of life or it is already a life form, either way murder. The matter keeps coming up because I think that for reasons of lack in responsibility. You can have sex and if you are pregnant well you can get rid of it. It keeps the idea that there are no consequences to sex and should be mostly for pleasure. Sex is for creating off springs. Any other use is because of human emotion that wants to use it for other purposes (pleasure). Within that is tries to find reasons to justify it.
Electoral College (America)

Thanks. Well, smorfy, to answer your first question regarding the balance of population: not necessarily. The most recent census data is from 2010. According to it, America's population is 324,420,000, therefore a majority of the population would be any number greater than 162,210,000. We can combine the top 10 most populous states in 2010 to create the majority of 169,631,184. 10/50. 1/5. Not exactly a split down the middle. To answer your second question: we first need to acknowledge that there are 538 electoral college votes. The number 538 is the sum of the senate, its parts being: 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 3 electors given to the District of Columbia. Each state is given 2 senators regardless of population, so in that respect, each state has a fair representation in the Senate. California has 2 senators, Utah has 2 senators. When it comes to representatives, each state is granted a number of seat which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of America. At the last apportionment (or the allocation of representatives based on share of aggregate population), California was calculated to have 53 representatives and Utah was calculated to have 4. This made their total electoral college votes 55 and 6 respectively. And to address your last point, electors can rebel, but they face hefty fines for doing so. Rebelling is certainly not encouraged in the electoral college system. I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect, it has flaws, anybody who denies that is crazy. What I can say is that it is the best system for a republic hoping to remain free from one of the many forms of tyranny out there. America without an electoral college just isn't the America that it was created to be. P.S. Thanks to you too. It's been a good debate in which you've raised some good points.
Electoral College (America)

I absolutely loved some of your arguments, but surely all the people of the U.S. outside of the major population centers combined are, at the very least, the same amount as people inside the major population centers. Also, how does giving a set amount of votes to each state depending on the population ensure everyone has a fair say in how their lives are governed? If they got one vote for each person, everybody would have an equal say. Instead, in Utah for example, there are 6 electoral votes. Then, California has 55 votes. How can Utahns have an equal say in policies? Finally, electors (representatives of each state for the electoral college) can vote for whoever they choose; it doesn't have to be who the popular vote of their state technically chose. There is no way the electoral college ensures everyone has a fair say in how their lives are governed when all of these things are a part of it. Thanks again for debating with me!
Electoral College (America)

The United States was a nation founded in opposition to tyranny. The people who founded United States did so to remove and protect themselves from tyranny. Tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes and one of the first books I read of my own accord - not because my parents or school wanted to, but because I did - was a collection of essays by John Stuart Mill. One of these essays was "On Liberty" in which, amongst other things, Mill uses to popularise the idea of a tyranny of the majority. So what is a tyranny of the majority? One of the fundamental flaws of a direct, or pure, democracy - a democracy in which all laws are created by a general vote of society - or even a representative democracy which utilises the popular vote is that a government that is democratically supported by a majority creates laws and effects change for the majority without taking into account the rights or safety of the rest of the population. In the United States, the main population hotspots are New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and Detroit. In a direct democracy, or a representative democracy with the popular vote, these cities would form a majority and would hold the keys of power over places where the population is only a few hundred or a few thousand. In your opinion, is it just, fair and reasonable that the laws made by and for these population centres should affect the lives of those who have no power to oppose those laws? Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States, didn't believe so. He said: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". The electoral college is a defence against tyranny. It ensures that everyone has a fair say in how their lives are governed - from the big guy in New York City, to the small guy in the midwest. It ensures that no one is left behind in, or harmed by, the democratic process.
Electoral College (America)

The electoral college is not good for our country. It keeps the people from choosing who they want in government roles. Many election results would be different if we substituted popular vote for the electoral college. The electoral college stifles democracy. According to Noam Chomsky, Aristotle once wrote that a democracy poses the problem that lower class people would band together and vote against the upper class. America's solution to the problem was the electoral college, where rich people naturally have the advantage, being able to post more advertisements in their favor. Aristotle's solution, however, was the opposite; he proposed that we give the people more freedom and reduce the upper class. Then, the people would not need to band up against the rich. If we got rid of electoral college, we could do what Aristotle proposed, and give everyone a voice for sure. Thank you.
Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Hi, It will be a pleasure to debate you on this topic. Now lets begin. For my first point I would like to say that the planed parenthood started out as a racial thing. Margaret Sanger, founder of planed parenthood, wrote an unfortunate sentence in a private letter about needing to clarify the ideals and goals of the birth control movement, "we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Next, abortion is also unsafe. Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973. Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters." Thirdly, abortion causes mental anguish for the mother. Women who go through an abortion have to always carry that thought with them. They often wonder what their child would have looked like, acted like, and what type of person he/she would have been. No matter how strong a woman is, an abortion causes mental anguish that never truly goes away. At least with adoption a mother or father has the chance to see what their child has become. Finally, we are killing humans. Life starts at the moment of conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen. For these reasons listed, I strongly suggest that abortion be illegalized.
Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Definitions for this debate shall be as followsAbortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.Illegal - To place a Ban on or to completely remove the practice ofPro is not arguing for the removal of abortion in certain situations but rather a complete ban on the practice all together. He has the BOPRoundsMe(1) Rules(2) Opening Arguments/ Contentions(3) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing points, Closing Remarks. Adversary(1) Opening Arguments/Contentions(2) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing Points, Closing Remarks(3) Shall Type "No round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point FF due to my adversary having an extra round(2) FFs or Multiple FFs will result in the loss of a conduct point and possibly a full drop at the discretion of the judges(3) 10k Words(4) Votes shall contain a valid and proper RFD.
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

I already pointed your flaw but it seems your hard headed head is too ignorant to listen to my conclusions, very well if this is the only way to get your attention, i just bash your arguments. "I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends which is not fair and smart" I say we should not pamper them at all. We should make them work for their crime. If we make the prison look like a paradise, it would raise the amount of crimes as everyone would want to get in this "paradise". We shouldn't pamper the prison as most criminals in the prison will then finally feel guilty about his crimes and will think twice before committing another crime. Also, allowing them to play cards and all that things should be reduced to only sport at breaks as allowing card games would make the prisoners feel home. Mind i remind you, prison is a building where all criminals are stored. Criminals should be punished because of their crimes, not to enjoy their prison sentence.
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

My opponent obviously doesnt understand his own topic. The topic is "Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat the inhumane. Then my opponent says that how do I then side with pampering. The question is not "Do u think we should pamper prisoners or treat them badly" its do u think we do that or not. I defended my case by saying that we do pamper tham and how we do it, my opponent needs to read his statement more clearly and his topic because otherwise this is a landslide win for me
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

No, you are wrong and you seem to overlook your own argument. Im gonna point it out for you now just to be nice. I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends "which is not fair and smart" Note the cited section above this sentence. You clearly say here that its not smart to allow them to have fun, smoke, play cards and make friends. How is it then that you are siding for the pamping? Clear all those doubt up and i make sure i refute every last of your argument.
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

My opponent therefore has no clue what he is talking about because in my previous statement I stated that prisoners are given alot of freedom and are allowed to smoke and play cards, make friends and participate in events in the cell. THIS MEANS THEY ARE BEING ALLOWED ALOT OF FREEDOM. If I were talking as if I was against it, I wouldve said that no the prisoners are not allowed to do anything or participate in anything. The only thing they could do is stay in their cell the whole day without doing a single thing. My opponent has not responded to my claim, therefore I should be declared the winner
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends which is not fair and smart
Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane

I wish us both good luck xD Sadly, you cant get away this time by not providing the first argument. You are the PRO, so you should start the starting arguments as this represents how this debate will end. For example now, the subject is "Prisons, Do we pamper criminals or treat them inhumane". You have to chose which side you're on as you are the creator of this debate.
is battlefield 3 better than modern warfare 3

Well.. Battlefield is strategic and more balanced, therefore it must be superior Admittedly Battlefield is a far more strategic game, but to the vast majority of gamers are interested in just having the quick thrill of shooting some loud mouthed squeaky ten year old, rather than the long winded 'hardcore' gamer strategic approach. The maps on battlefield are enormous compared to that of MW3. It takes a good couple of minutes in battlefield just to get into the shooting, the running and the shouts of 'TAKE IT YOU ******* D***head' Now to address the balancing 'issue', you state that battlefield is more balanced and then go on to say that this makes the game better. The two are sadly unrelated. In my own experience, and of those around me a more balanced game leads to a slower, less action packed game play. My example being COD: BlackOps, the most balanced COD game but arguably the most boring. Lets be honest now, who buys a shoot'em up for slow, infrequent gun fights. That's right. No one. Essentially, what underpins this strategic advantage battlefield has over MW3, and the overall more balanced game play is that battlefield is aimed towards the 'hardcore gamer' Someone who wants to put in the time to learn the controls, master the strategy and gain the satisfaction of become a virtual killer. But for the average joe and vast majority of those who play games, the accessible controls and game types of COD, make for an relatively better experience. It is the fact that MW3has an affinity with a much wider audience than Battlefield, that makes me and hopefully the voter believe that MW3 is a better game than battlefield. Now, I really do need to go to bed so I will rush my next points and pick up the broken pieces in the next round. Vehicle's do indeed rule, but only work due to the large open spaced maps of Battlefield 3 which as I have already explained is factors for Battlefields 'slow' game play, I will only make one point in my rebuttal: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://stickskills.com... http://playstationlifestyle.net... Servers are shocking, and I would like Con to provide examples of MW3 servers crashing and large amounts of people complaining about errors preventing them from playing the game. Much Love, Big Boy Olly.
is battlefield 3 better than modern warfare 3

good luck! I know that battlefield is better because of the following reasons. Reason 1: Battlefield has a demand of team stratagie. No matter what game mode you play there is strategie that has to be completed. Reason 2: Lets face it. VEHICHLE'S RULE! You can do just about whatever you want using vehicles! Reason 3: There is a counter for every wepon. Snipers there flash allows you to counter them. Land mines you have the EOD robot. RPG's you have blow torch to heal your vehichles. For helicopter and Jet planes there is a built in fire extinguisher which supstains all injurys untill you can fix them by landing.
Atheism is a sad approach to life

This is actually an outstanding subject, and I am happy to discuss it. One thing that is very hard about this specific issue however, is to make empirical arguments using empirical sources. Who is really to say who is unhappy " and who is to say why? I do not want to make this too personal, and I do not want to diminish anyone"s spiritual experiences. With that said " I am an atheist " Atheist (noun) "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism" (1). As I understand it, this debate is about happiness without religious beliefs (no matter what religion those beliefs might belong to), but I still want to point out that the non-believing and "doubts about the god formula" can be found anywhere. For example, I doubt my opponent (or anyone else) believes in Thor or Poseidon as spiritual authorities. It"s important to keep in mind that denying the existence of a god is not strictly an atheist business. Once again, thank you Uhuhu for bringing this question for discussion and thank you for letting me participate. I understand that this subject is personal and maybe sensitive, so it"s truly wonderful to get to debate it and I hope we will do so respectfully " the last thing I want is anyone to feel uncomfortable. (1). https://www.merriam-webster.com...