BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spongebob is satanic

Point 1: there are plenty of Illuminati symbols in the show. Here are only a few of them.1. On the pirate's hat in the opening theme, you can see the symbol of a secret society called Skull and Bones.2. In one episode, Mr. Krabs impulsively sells his soul to the Flying Dutchman for something he got something good out of (which would be utterly pointless in real life,) and that is so he can talk to money. This is obviously a reference to the concept of "selling one's soul to the devil."3. In the episode "Good Neighbors," Spongebob does a poise that apparently refers to Baphomet, who is worshipped by Satanists and is basically Satan himself.4. One episode features a pyramid with a single eye on it that is supposed to be a "lodge" that Squidward likes to go to. The members' uniforms are mostly bright red, the color most often used to depict Satan. There is also a secret handshake that members are required to perform before entering.In case you do not believe me, here is the video I got all this from: http://m.youtube.com...Point 2: Spongebob himself is a reference to the verse in the biblical book of Revelation that says: "...his number is 666." If you look carefully at the front of Spongebob's body, you will notice that he has six freckles, six pores at the front of his body, and six eyelashes. Point 3: On occasion, you will see Patrick hanging upside down on the flat side of his rock. When he does this, he is in the shape of a satanic pentagram. Also, he acts literally as if the devil has possessed him. He is frequently saying things that get him into trouble. For example, in the episode "Texas," he and Spongebob repeatedly insult Texas in front of a Texan. Sub point 3.1: Patrick is also doing absurd things in every episode that focuses on him. E.g., in the episode "Pat no Pay," he goes to the Krusty Krab with no money and orders one thousand Krabby Patties and then has to work for Mr. Krabs until he can pay off his debt.Conclusion: Spongebob Squarepants is full of satanic symbols, Spongebob himself is a reference to the devil, and if you act just like Patrick, then you have been possessed by the devil himself. Therefore, Spongebob is satanic.
THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

No problem. First I am going to attack my opponent's framework. TV and video games distort reality. Just because something distorts reality doesn't make it a bad thing. My opponent must provide substantial evidence that the distortion of reality is bad. The majority of games children play are violent This may be true but this statement counters my opponent first contention that this distorts reality. Violent videogames show an unseen reality. It educates children on a reality unseen to the common person. Just because a reality is unseen does not make it a distortion of reality. it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates First, my opponent needs to provide statistics that prove this. Second, just because something contributes to the obesity epidemic doesn't mean it should be regulated. Food increases obesity rates, however we don't regulate it. Thus, this is refuted. Now to my framework. Freedom of Speech. When you portray messages on television, it speaks a message. Whatever that message speaks, you are entitled to say it, with the exception of pornography, but that is a different reason. It has been proven that regulating what goes on television, with the Citizen's United Versus FEC, is unconstitutional. Parents decision The government is not liable to the parenting of children. If the government was to regulate what they thought was good, it would hamper the individual needs of the child, and for the government to regulate how long and what television the individual child watched would infringe upon 1st and 4th amendments (NSA!). Educational Purposes Many television shows are educational. If the government controlled how much television you watched, children might lose out on educational shows that would benefit them greatly. For these reasons, vote for me.
THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

TV was invented in the early 1920"s and video games were developed in the early 1970"s but both have now become an invariable source of fun and entertainment for children. There is no denying that children love to watch TV and play video games. Some of these shows and games were for fun and educational, but throughout the years of technological advances, they have evolved to new levels creating controversy among society.The amount of children that stare at a TV screen for several hours a day has grown so profusely that it has been labeled an epidemic. An average child watches a total of 28 hours of television a week. The amount of time spent playing video games or watching TV, and the types of games/shows children watch/play will influence their behavior in a major way. By the time a child finishes high school he/she will have seen 8,000 TV deaths. Video games have the most negative psychological effects including: a decrease in social skills, increased aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings and increased physiological arousal. Studies show that a family that has the TV on all the time usually speak 200 words an hour to their child but a family that does not regularly have the TV on speaks about 1000 words per hour. so not only have video games proven to be a complete waste of time but they also have proven to decrease the growth of a child. oh and thanks for understanding the misunderstanding about the pro and con
THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

This House will be The United States. Television will be a screen that is not compatible to a Wi-Fi connection. Videogames will be a virtual reality created by the major platforms: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Contention One: Freedom of Speech Contention Two: Educational Purposes Contention Three: Decision should be made by adults. Please Note: my opponent is the negative, but is making arguments for the affirmative. Thus, we must assume that he is the affirmative and I am the negative. Thus, he has the burden of proof. I accept his challenge.
THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

Extend all arguments made by me in round two. I will go through my opponents main arguments in the first speech and tell you why you should vote for me.TV and video games distort reality.A distortion of reality is never always a bad thing. A distortion is an exaggeration. For example, many of the claims made in global warming videos are a distortion of reality. However, the compelling message persuades people to do a good deed. Thus, the distortion of reality is not always a bad thing. The majority of games children play are violentMost violent videogames my opponent is referring to is rated mature, thus the person who purchased it must have been mature. The sad thing however, is that adults are buying these games for children to play. However, for the government to regulate who plays what videogames at what time is a violation of the 4th amendment. If my opponent advocates the banning of all violent videogames, it is an infringment on the first amendment. However, if my opponent advocates for the control of who plays what, it would be an infringment on the 4th amendment because 1) they would have to know who is in the house playing the game. They would literally be watching who plays the game at what time, which is a violation of the 4th amendment since playing videogames is not a crime. it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity ratesFood increases obesity. Should we regulate that? Computer programmers sit in front of a computer every day for 10 hours. Should they lose their jobs just because they might gain weight? No! Here is why you should vote for me:My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof that the government should regulate internet.My opponent has failed to uphold two of his arguments and provide links to all of his arguments. He has never explained why the distortion of reality is bad. He has never explained why exposure to death is bad. He has never even explained why violent games should be regulated other than the simple fact that someone who killed another was interested in CoD. That is also an example of casuation and not causation. There are many people who were very violent that did not play videogames.My opponent spent the entirety of his speech defending his side, while forgetting to argue any of my points.For these reasons, vote for me.
THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

My opponent and I believe can agree that television can serve both good and bad purposes. However, my opponent has failed to argue that the government should regulate television. My opponent has provided substantial evidence that television is bad. However, that doesn't mean that television is bad. Television is a product that exports media. Thus, if it was regulated, people will find a different way to be exposed to media. They might use their computers instead of tv, a more versatile thing for entertainment. It is the parent's job to regulate tevelvision. This is an argument that has been dropped in the previous speech made by my opponent. An estimated 12.5 million children between the ages of 2 and 19 are obese, according to the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although genetics and diet play pivotal roles in childhood obesity, the CDC also notes that passive media viewing can contribute to this epidemic. This is misguiding because one, it states that it can contribute to obesity, not that it does. Also, should kids be punished under the basic actions of a select population of people. So why not the government regulate television for certain people? Because it is against the 14th amendment. For the government to regulate certain childrens television is discrimination and to regulate everyone would be an infringment of the freedom of speech because the television will be turned off at certain times to keep from the excessive watching of television. But doing this cuts off the message of the director of the show. This is unconstitional, for example the Citizen's United v. FEC. My opponent has provided evidence that shows the government should regulate television. He has stated that television is bad. But television has some beneficial factors to it also: Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, and others. These channels are educational My opponent stated that kids will see over 8000 deaths. He has not stated why that is a bad thing, especially since over 2 million people die in the US each year. The exposure to death is a good thing because it desensitizes them, not so that they don't feel sad for a long time, but that they might have a quick recovery which is not a bad thing at all. All arguments I made were dropped by my opponent. Extend all arguments. Vote for me! . http://www.cdc.gov...
Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico)

What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.
Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico)

What would happen to the young immigrants that came here as babies? Would anyone have the heart to kick babies out of America? Yes for today immigrants are taking our jobs but they need money and places to live and take care of their young ones. Illegal immigrants should have the same rights as us Americans, unless someone like the government see's individuals as a treat the society, I believe that some immigrants move into the U.S.A. because they don't like where they are living and need a better place to raise their children and help the elders who are sick and dying. Shutting them out is like saying no to a hungry homeless child begging for someone to help them. We should start thinking and put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves how would you feel if you were deported and shut out from a better living area. This is not just my opinion but facts and some truth is combined into my debate.
Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico)

Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society.
A brief battle of gaming consoles

Don't get me wrong, The Wii did pioneer plenty of good things, But I just think that the Switch is an improvement to that. I think the Switch did use those that were pioneered in Wii, But I think that the Switch added on to that. Yes, The Wii was the first, And nostalgia and history matter. However, The Switch, I find, Is just better than the Wii. Yes, They explored like many other's, The avatar selection, And Wii took this to a WHOLE new level. They added interaction with them, Which the Xbox 360 didn't do, And the Switch allowed your characters to fight in Smash Ultimate. I think the Wii is great, And everyone should. I just think that the Switch did it, Well, Better.
A brief battle of gaming consoles

In this argument, I am not going to do any rebuttals. I am not even trying to try to actually win the debate, Just to state why the Wii is better in my opinion. If you actually like the switch then enjoy it yourself. I barely play on the switch and thus don't understand you, But I am a real wii fan, And it is important to me. the wii creates a very substantial system that even switch uses. The Mii editor system. It is simply a miime (pun intended) on the internet and being used by a lot of other games, Such as Super mario maker. The wii simply invented that and was really useful especially for profiles. I know at that times 3d isn't too advanced, But even in 2019 we still cherish the mii system for being profiles for many games. the use of the wii is contented. You can literally use youtube on it (or did use) the wii is substantial to the evolution (pun intended) of the gaming history, And the switch only improved on it, Not created it on its own for everything. It may not be the best, But it is important to the gaming evolution consider many new ideas were first proposed in the wii. Games were invented and most of them just jumped from wii to wii u and switch. My opinion is done. You can write whatever you want. But my opinion is here. I love the wii. That's all.
A brief battle of gaming consoles

Because the instruction said that only one at a time is possible, So i will take the side of the wii. The Nes is not involved unless requested. #1: controllers Wii (and possibly wii u) has better controller designs. By that i mean wii has better and iconic designs. The default controller is literally like a remote like the one you use on a TV. By that said that you can possibly use this controller in at least 2 different way: horizontal and vertical. Although it may not seem as convenient as the switch pro, But hey we are talking about defaults. One pair of default switch joycons costs possibly $70 yet it's really bad in terms of control when not portable, Such as on a tv. In contrast enough wii remotes only costs $8. 65, More or less, And yet its main use is on a tv, Which is still slightly convenient, And much more consider playing switch on a tv on a joycon is like inconvenient. moving on to the upgraded controllers. The switch's pro controller is literally a used Xbox design. And that is possibly all other variants on the opened market. All of them are a variant of an xbox controller($25) (technically a pair of joycons are a sliced and reduced xbox controller too). Compare to wii, Its designs are very creative and sometimes convenient. The joycons are just a design fail. By that means of the wii classic/pro controller is the same thing ($11), But there are other usable accessories, Such as the sensor bar ($2) and the nunchuck ($4), And possibly some iconic (and ironic) ones, The wii speak ($9). By in the brackets i listed all the prices for the controller. My claim is that switch pro controller is too boring and joycons are too trash, Not worth it. The joycons are also too small, Making it easy to lose. Thus switch=expensive. Switch is almost the same price of the wii, And plus the normal wiimote and the joycons the switch, The small one is actually more expensive.
A brief battle of gaming consoles

I will do TWO debates (if possible) of the three you asked. If I can't I would like to do them in: Switch vs. Wii, Then Switch vs. NES. I will take the debate on Wii vs Switch, And NES vs Switch (because I play lots of Nintendo) I will take the following stances: Switch Switch That means you take the stances of: Wii NES You asked to tell you your stances, So you will take Wii and NES. I took both stances on Switch because Switch is awsum <3.
Thomas Jefferson should have freed his slaves

My opponent"s argument starts off stating that if Jefferson had a slave less society it would lead to economic collapse. I would point out that America banning slavery in the late 1700s and Jefferson freeing his slaves are two entirely different things, and thus irrelevant. He also makes the statement that the slave trade (which I may remind you is different from Jefferson owning or not owning slaves) is the "glue" that held the union together. This notion is ridiculous because (among many other reasons) it was banned in 1807[3]. As much as I would like to dispel in more detail the idea that the slave trade, or slavery for that matter, was vital to the US economy and was the "glue" that held the states together, I only have 3,000 characters and one round. (This is why one round debates with these characters limits are bad.) In the second paragraph, my opponent makes slightly more relevant arguments, though still gravely flawed. He states that if Jefferson had freed his slaves, he would have been considered a laughing stock and everything he did would be tainted. This is a very curious idea, and I wonder how my opponent arrived at this conclusion. Benjamin Franklin, one of the most revered founding fathers, prominent abolition and all, freed his slaves. [1] As did George Washington, the father of the country. [2] So to say that freeing his slaves would do any more damage to his career than preaching equality while owning slaves is absolutely ludicrous. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not even seem to keep a steady grip on what the resolution is. Halfway through he makes an argument of all the terrible things that would happen if Jefferson sold his slaves, which is not what the topic states. The topic clearly states Jefferson freeing his slaves, not selling them. So again, this argument is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I would like to dispel the idea that Jefferson"s slaves were treated like actual human beings. While Jefferson himself did not beat or torture or starve his slaves, his overseers sure did on par or worse than what the standard was at the time. [4] This, and the fact that he owned human beings, thus degrading their perceived human value, hardly gives Jefferson credit for being "kind." With regards to the final quote my opponent brings up, Jefferson is referring to the wholesale banning of slavery, not the freeing of his own personal slaves, so again, not relevant here. At the very least Jefferson could have done what Washington did and freed his slaves in his will. However, the aristocratic, possibly racist side of him won out over the moralistic side of him, and thus why he did not free his slaves. [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.history.com... [4] https://www.monticello.org...