BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

I am not using caps to emphasize. It is the shortest way to reply to points and easiest for other readers to read, as I stated. -------------------------- " that statement I gave above is a complementation that manliness lies both in the inside and in the outside- it's a paradox anyways. Kindness and honesty of a person can lie both inside and outside of the person itself." THEN, THIS DEBATE WAS POINTLESS. --------------- "when I said that having no beards is having an appearance of a woman? It's not worth much saying that because people can discern easily I am not referring to it as a literal meaning and applying a metaphorical understanding of the sense." THEN, THIS DEBATE WAS POINTLESS. -------------------- "Those who say that respect is earned are not understanding the true nature of respect, respect has been mainly in us and been in other people before we or them have done anything that worths our honour to them. Even I respect those people who aren't much deserving of earning respect at all. Respect ain't earned, it's a given gift for us." THIS IS A SLANG INTERPRETATION OF "RESPECT". RESPECT IS EARNED. POLITENESS IS GIVEN. FORMAL SCHOOL IS OF USE ON THIS POINT. SO ARE ETIQUETTE BOOKS ------------- "facial hairs are more than a style, it's a sign of our manliness as we begin the transition from a boy to a man- it's about adopting a new way of understanding things (understanding like an adult not a child) and maturing properly according to our age." SINCE REMOVING FACIAL HAIRS, AT THIS POINT IN HUMAN EXISTENCE, IS A CHOICE, THEN, THIS IS ALL ABOUT STYLE. LESS-HAIRY CULTURES HAVE PLENTY OF WAYS FOR A BOY TO PROVE THAT HE IS A MAN BECAUSE BEHAVIOR MEANS FAR MORE THAN FACE-SPROUTS. -------------------------------- YOU MIGHT STAND ON YOUR POINT AND GO FARTHER AND SAY THAT HAIRY BACKS ARE THE ULTIMATE OF MANHOOD...THAT IF A MAN IS NOT GROWING HAIR ON ALL OF HIS SKIN, WE MIGHT AS WELL TREAT HIM AS A SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN OR A CHILD. LOWERED INSURANCE RATES FOR YOUNG MEN AFTER AGE 25 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR APPEARANCE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR BEHAVIOR. NO INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO SAY, "WELL, THIS GUY HAS A BEARD AND WILL, THEREFORE, DRIVE HIS CAR WITH ADULT-LIKE RESPONSIBILITY". APPEARANCE MEANS NOTHING. YOU CANNOT SPOT A BAD PERSON BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WEAR A BEARD OR BAD SHOES. THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE DOE NOT REVEAL THE PEDOPHILE OR THE THIEF OF THE ONE WHO HURTS ANIMALS. YOU are DISCUSSING, ONLY STYLE.
Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

Right, then though I should present my case why wearing not facial hair is not manly: 1: The wearing of facial hair is a sign and the start of a transition from a child to a man. Beards are a sign of manliness and of a natural adornment of what a man should be. Body hair and facial hair is what separates a man from a boy and what asunder a man from a woman. Body hairs and facial hair are the confirmation of manliness and affirmation of a masculine identity for male adolescents beginning their transition from a boy to a man. Beards are a natural feature of the masculine sexuality. 2: Facial hairs are a symbol of respect, status and honour. Too facial hairs are a sign of ferocity and fierceness expected from a man. it is a representation of embracing the "inner animal" of the man. in ancient times, ancient Egyptian pharaohs, though clean-shaven, wore false beards as a sign of imitating the god Osiris' divinity and divine reign and was mainly associated with religion (http://mentalfloss.com...). Throughout history, the wearing of beards by men is commonly associated with virility, masculinity, manliness and everything associated of what constitutes a man and even common in middle Eastern peoples, times during the Old Testament and even on Europe with the celtic and gallic tribes (http://www.academia.edu...). 3: Wearing no beards is commonly seen as being associated with effeminacy and having an appearance of clean-shaven implies of having an appearance of a woman. Though there are cases of beaded women, this has more to do with genetic anomaly and is not frequent among most women. Having no beards is a sign of meekness, weakness, gentleness and being soft. In the Old Testament times, cutting off a beard is a disgrace (2 Samuel 10:4) and cutting off a bird along with rent clothes was a symbol of mourning (Jer. 41:5, 48:37). 4: Now many might contend that true manliness lies in the intents of the heart and thoughts of the man, I doubtlessly agree with this but it does falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is "not manly". It might be contended too, that what you expresses outside of your character means of bringing out of what is inside you. Beards are just merely of an expression of the true manliness you're concealing inside you- respect, honesty, love, patience, truth and virtue. Now, my opponent here might now show his expressions of what he thinks and probably his rebuttals too.
Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

2: No insults or put down or any fallacious arguments e. g. appeal to majority, authority, circular or straw man arguments. 3:This debate will not start until on round 2 with the Pro starting it off and Con finishing off. 4: Cited sources can be listed on the last round of the debate. 5: A person cannot contend with the instigator unless he or she accepted the aforementioned rules of the debate. 6: Winning is certainly not the main point here- it's about to learn and to teach one another. The debate starts officially on round 2 with Pro, for not the Con must reply and adhere to the rules of the statement above. Good luck to the person who decides to participate in this debate.
Chocolate milk is healthy.

Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a "feel good" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...
Chocolate milk is healthy.

Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.
Abortion

I accept. My opponent has not provided an explicit resolution, but defaulting to the title, as is standard operating procedure, and from what I can glean from his initial statement, he will be arguing against abortion and I will be arguing in favor. He says that everyone should be give the opporunity to live, which implies that he would support banning abortion. Therefore, our discussion will be two-fold: is abortion morally justifiable under any or certain circumstances, and should be it legal? Because we are each arguing for separate claims, I think it justified that we each bear an equal burden of proof. Con's burden is to prove that abortion is categorically wrong and shouldn't be legal or tolerated, whilst mine is to prove that abortion can be justified and therefore should be legal. Of course, this makes his burden slightly higher than mine, for if I can find even one instance where abortion can be morally permissible, his remark that "everyone should be given the opportunity to live," which is his central thesis, falls apart entirely.
Polygamy

Do you know that one of the global problems is overpopulation? Day by day amount of people is rising. Do not forget that, in families where polygamy will be more children. So number of people will rise for several times faster. Can you imagine what will be after 50-100 years after legalization of polygamy? It may lead to the SERIOUSE problems with ecology and hunger. Because it will not possible to provide with food so many people. So to sum up, polygamy should not be legalized, because it will disturb the balance. The population growth will be too high, the society will be amoral and so valuable word "Family" will worth nothing.
Polygamy

"Peers will laugh at them and embarrass" If polygamy is legalized, people will have different attitude on it. It will be normal. So It should be legalized because: Firstly, according to the statistics, in many countries there are much more women than men. Due to there are many unmarried women. I think that each woman deserves to have a family and be happy. But the number of men and women is not equal. So in such cases it becomes impossible. But polygamy can solve this problem. If it is legalized many women will have opportunity to have a happy family. Secondly, there will be less divorces and children will not suffer. Everyone knows that the most popular reason of divorce it treasons of husbands. They may fall in love with other women. In such cases there will be no needs to divorce. The lover just can be the second wife. And everyone is happy, children have a father and wife has a husband. To conclude, I would like to say that, if someone wants to be the second wife or husband, why not? Nobody will force you if you do not want.
Polygamy

I do not agree with you. Polygamy should not be legalized, and there are many reasons of it. First of all, it is amoral, because how can you imagine family which consist of one father and two or even more mothers ( or one mother and several fathers). What would be with the psychology of children who are growing up in such kind of family. Peers will laugh at them and embarrass, especially in such society, where teens and children are very unfriendly. Secondly, it is evidence that person who has several partners, loves one of them more than another. So just imagine what would be in such family. There will be many quarrels and disagreements, because of it. And each member of this family will suffer.
Vietnam War era "The Draft".

I will begin. "Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21 years old. 11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old. Of those killed, 17,539 were married. The average age of the men killed: 23.1 years."https://www.uswings.com... Many people during the late 1960s soon began to grow opposed to the war. "Although students were exempted from the draft so as to keep their support among the middle class, they still remonstrated and demanded the people’s right of self-determination whether they wanted to fight for their country or not. "https://thevietnamwar.info...;No one should be f0rced to serve in a war, the draft was stupid and violated the Americans's right to serve in the military. Thousands arrested, fleeing to Canada or elsewhere, draft card burning, they were signals of rebellion towards the corrupt U.S government, forcing unwilling people to go fight, then later ending up as one of the dead, it was terrible. With all the movements, the draft should have not been used in bringing in unwilling people to fight for a cause they don't believe in.
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art

Rules: 1. No semantics 2. Both sides have a burden to prove their side 3. All arguments must be organized with postmarks prior to argumentation. (i.e. no huge chunks of text that are all over the place) 4. No semantics or arguing over definitions 5. The moment a rule is broken, the violator will lose the debate. 6. Forfeiting a round does NOT mean that person looses, but if some-one does forfeit a round they will lose a conduct point. Round 1 is for greeting/definitions Rounds 2 and 3 are for argumentation Round 4 is for closing statements and voting issues (No new arguments here.) Definitions- 1. Digital art: Art made by digital means, or enhanced through a digital platfom (Pixel art, digital paintings, edited photography etc.) 2. Traditional art: Art made with-out any kind of digital medium. (Painting, colored pencils, copic marker art, etc.)
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art

Rebuttal overview- First; My opponent has not upheld his burden by offering any constructive arguments for Traditional Art; thus the maximum benefit he can hope to achieve is a tie. Second; My opponent's refutations also does not refute the argumentation behind my own constructive claims. that said, I will now move on to my opponent's refutations Traditional art is expensive- First my opponent makes a very general and vague statement in refutation of this argument. First; this debate's realm is not solely quality, but whether or not Digital art is lesser than traditional art, thus since price is a huge part of this (as many artists are not rich) price is a huge factor in determining this debate. Traditional art is limiting- First my opponent offers a logical fallacy here. he claims that if something takes longer to make, then it will be of a higher quality. This is utterly not true! If it took me three hours to make a pizza; but it only took a master chef 30 minutes, my pizza doesn't taste any better because I took longer on it. Ultimately it comes down to the skill of the artist to which is better. That said, the undeniable truth that traditional art is limiting (which Pro never denies) is still true Digital art is cheap- My opponent extended his attacks on this contention (and utterly ignored what I was saying here) so I will simply extend the same defense as on my first point. Digital art can emulate traditional technique- Again, this debate is not solely about quality (yet another logical fallacy of my opponent). And even if it where, his backing behind this argument is flawed because it make the claim that digital art is not real art by comparing it to counterfeit money. Digital art is difficult to master- The attack my opponent makes here is non-viable. First; the limitations are different, thus not comparable. Just as an apple and an orange are different and not comparable Second; Here I'm talking about mastering the style, not fixing a mistake. Just because a person knows how to use an eraser (Fix a mistake) does not mean that becoming a Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Picasso, or Monet is easy. My opponent's attacks here are based on faulty assumptions. Now going down, my opponent presents no counter arguments for me to attack; thus if even one of my points remains true I must win by default until my opponent makes a case for traditional art.
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art

Traditional art is expensive My opponent's first point is that traditional art is expensive while digital art is more cost efficient, therefore the two form are equal. However, something being less expensive does not make it better when speaking of quality. Therefore this argument should have no bearing on the resolution. Traditional art is limiting My opponent's next claim is that because it is easier to fix screw ups with digital art then it is for traditional art, the two forms are equal. This point might be useful if the resolution was that it is easier to make digital art. But the easier it is to produce something, the lower the quality will be. The quality of something which took me a minute to make will of course be less then the quality of something that was worked on painstakingly for months. Just because it is hard to make a piece of traditional art does not mean that digital art is on par with it. Traditional art being hard to make just forces the artist to become more skillful and careful in producing the art. Digital art is cheap This point is just a reitterating of my opponent's first point that traditional art is expensive to create. I will negate this contention like I did the first. We are debating on whether or not digital art is a lesser form of traditional art. Price should not come into the question of quality. Digital art can emulate traditional technique. My opponent's next claim is that digital art can be made to look like traditional art. This does not being on par as far as quality goes, just like a counterfeit dollar bill is not worth the same as a real dollar bill. Digital art is difficult to master My opponent now claims that digital art is difficult to create. However this contradicts one of his points in which he states that traditional art is too limiting in that it is harder to fix mistakes made when creating a traditional art work. Either it is easier or more difficult to create digital art. My opponent cannot keep both positions.
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art

I look forward to this debate and very much enjoyed our last debate. Good luck! If it would be okay with my opponent I would like to further clarify on a point in the resolution. The word 'lesser' has not been defined and might be a source of confusion coming up in the debate. I felt this term needed to be defined as my opponent set aside the first round for definitions and so it would be a violation of the rule for my opponent to define this term any later in the debate. Therefore, I would like to define that term here. Lesser: Smaller in amount, value, or importance, especially in a comparison between two things[1] I sincerely hope that this definition is satisfactory to my opponent in that he specifically made it a rule that we can not argue over definitions. I await my opponent's opening arguments and look forward to an interesting debate. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The theory of evolution is fact

In this debate, I will argue that evolution by natural selection is a fact, while my opponent will argue that it is not. Things that will not be debated: -the meaning of the word theory. -abiogenesis (how life got started). The theory of evolution provides clues to the origin of life, but is not ultimetaly about the origin of life. Arguments on the origin of life from either side should therefore not be considered. Rounds: 1st round = Acceptance. 2nd round = Opening statements (no rebbutals). 3rd round = Rebuttals. 4th round = Further rebuttals and closing statements. Rules: -no name calling. -arguments should be organised into coherent paragraphs for clarity. -correct spelling should be used as much as possible. -statements should be backed by sources.
Morality is relative.

It is commonly argued by theists (and other like minded groups) that morality is an absolute; that there are natural laws that exist unconditionally. These are usually your run of the mill rules and laws: Don't Kill, Don't Murder, Don't Steal... And as where these are common, debatably universal, i argue that they are not absolute. Common morals are the product of social contracts- a compromise, if you will, to allow us humans to live together, and nothing more.
Skittles are delicious

My opponent asserts, and it seems to be their only argument, that because there have been prophecies of the creation of Skittles, Skittles must be a good thing. I could not disagree more. Like most omens, these signs foretell something horrible, cataclysmic, and dangerous to society. Similar to weather balloons that "prophecise" the coming of hurricanes, these signs, such as the rainbow, were not signs of rejoice, but warnings. Warnings to the people of the human race what damaging effect allowing Skittles into our society would have. Similar to Hurricane Ike, Skittles have caused families to be torn apart, houses to be destroyed, millions of dollars in property value lost, and I could go on. I pray that people, unlike my opponent, will not fall victim to the fallacy that because by the grace of God we were warned about the coming of Skittles, they must be a good thing.
Skittles are delicious

Prophesy has decreed since the dawn of man that the long-awaited pellet of many hues shall arise to bring humanity to great heights of divinity. 'Twas nothing short of a miracle that day in 1974, when Mars Inc. underwent the most significant ventures it has ever taken upon itself to overcome. And overcome it did. That miracle they achieved that day is the pinnacle of human achievement, but it is more than simple human achievement. It is all that is holy.Its radiance should not come as a surprise to us. The signs of its coming have been cropping up everywhere in recent decades.Here are some sightings: It has all manifested into this: (Doesn't that look delicious/The girl's smile is indicative of the supreme bliss which Skittles brings upon the mortal soul. Behold her Skittle-induced smooth, unblemished skin) Skittles are so delicious, the its image is reflected in the world as rainbows.Skittles are so good, cakes have been made in honor of its radiant glory. (Yum) Alcoholic Skittles, enough said.
Skittles are delicious

My opponent claims that the candy "Skittles" is worthy of worship, asserting that "skittles are delicious. " Unfortunately, this is just not the case. Skittles, a small tab shaped candy that are supposed to taste like artificial fruit, are an abomination to the human race. Not only are their taste disingenuous and fraudulent (which ruins the pallet and leaves an unpleasant aftertaste on the tongue for no less than a half an hour), but the consistency of these "candies" is nothing short of satanic. Not only is it hard to chew, but as you bite down on this calamitous confectionery, it splits and clings to your teeth like a fragment grenade exploding in your mouth. Only the victim is not some obscure army cadet; the victim is you. After engulfing your teeth in a sticky and almost impermeable casket of doom, the victim must reach into their mouth with their own hand, throwing us back evolutionary thousands of years to the status of a Homo Erectus, with the animal like incivility or a pig. Skittles are NOT delicious, as shown by arguments aforementioned.
Should girls play football

Good debate ;) But before I end this argument I would like to sum up all the points I have made in the course of this debate. ..1/ Girls already play professional football and are watched on tv.2/ Their stadium isnt less than any other stadium in the world3/ However they shouldnt be playing football with men for some reasons, among others, that they don't have the same muscle formation in the body as men do, thus causing many more severe injuries. The guys on the team would have a hard time concentrating in the sport while also focusing on not hitting a women by mistake.