BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
S.P.E.W. is legitimate

Haha! I'm still laughing from your arguments...Rubuttals:"He first talked about how I talked about elf rights. Then he said that we are debating whether or not S.P.E.W. is illegal. Elf rights being violated is illegal, obviously, or else the Ministry of Magic wouldn't be as involved (Office of Elf Relocation)."This argument is completely... stupid because of these following reasons:R1: ContradictionThe synonym of right is freedom [1.] You clearly mentioned during your speech that elves don't have freedom (right), and S.P.E.W. would force them into freedom. Now, you want to uphold their freedom (right)? How odd...R2: "Illegal"You mentioned, during your first speech, that elves don't need or deserve rights. They are forced to do labors that people don't want to do (like slaves). This happens in the wizarding "world." And now, you are saying that this illegal because it violates the rights of the elves? Well, that's reasonable (*Sarcasm intended*). Additionally, you have provided no sources that support this claim. Thus, this argument is not credible and invalid. "My opponent, here, is blatantly wrong. Hermione attempted to force the elves into 'freedom,' by covering hats with lint and such, forcing the elves to clean them up, therefore taking the hat. Hermione may not have completely physically stolen the elves, but she still tried to take them from the school's rightful possession, which is stealing. My opponent talked about Dobby... Well, there aren't. Dobby was very unique in that he did not fit in with the nature of his species. Apparently, 'you only brought up elves that were from Hogwarts.' First, I only mentioned Hogwarts elves because that was the sole target upon which Hermione took action. She didn't try to free elves anywhere else. Second, I did talk about Winky, who was taken from the Crouch house. To quote myself, 'Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism.'"R1: Forced into Freedom?I thought you talked about how elves need rights? Are you saying that Hermione is doing a good thing by "forcing" the elves into freedom?R2: Hermione is giving them a choice to take the hats. I don't recall Hermione covering hats with "lints and such." No sources were given. Second, only Dobby picked up the socks and hats. No one else did [2.]. Why? Because they were given the choice to do so. This isn't stealing...R3: This argument contridicts my opponent's other arguments, as well.What's wrong with freeing elves? Violating the rights (freedom) of elves is illegal (according to you). Freeing elves upholds their rights. RTP:1.) My first contention was dropped.2.) Invalid Source- My opponent brought up only one source: "Harry Potter original books." The source is very... ambiguous and vague. After all, this could be considered as "Harry Potter original books:" http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Stone3.) My sources were more reliable that my opponent's. I also brought up multiple.4.) My opponent's arguments constantly contradicted. Sources:[1.]http://www.thesaurus.com...[2.] Harry Potter and the Order of the PhoenixVote Pro.
S.P.E.W. is legitimate

My opponent appears to have merely skimmed my case and not really given this any deep thought. He first talked about how I talked about elf rights. Then he said that we are debating whether or not S.P.E.W. is illegal. Elf rights being violated is illegal, obviously, or else the Ministry of Magic wouldn't be as involved (Office of Elf Relocation). Thus, my refutation was dropped. He ignored my analogy between elves and computers. "I see no link; after all, elves are actually beings with feelings, unlike computers." Although elves may have feelings, it doesn't invalidate the analogy. I provided said analogy to make this easier to explain to my opponent, who seems not to understand. "S.P.E.W. is basically like an organization that proposes petitions." My opponent, here, is blatantly wrong. Hermione attempted to force the elves into "freedom," by covering hats with lint and such, forcing the elves to clean them up, therefore taking the hat. Hermione may not have completely physically stolen the elves, but she still tried to take them from the school's rightful possession, which is stealing. My opponent talked about Dobby. "I'm sure that there are others out there that suffer like Dobby." Well, there aren't. Dobby was very unique in that he did not fit in with the nature of his species. Apparently, "you only brought up elves that were from Hogwarts." First, I only mentioned Hogwarts elves because that was the sole target upon which Hermione took action. She didn't try to free elves anywhere else. Second, I did talk about Winky, who was taken from the Crouch house. To quote myself, "Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism." For these reasons, anyone can see that I am undoubtedly correct, and vote for me.
S.P.E.W. is legitimate

Just to clarify right now, we are using my opponent's second part of his "legitimate" definition. When I started the debate it seemed like it was pretty self-explanatory, but I would still like to thank my opponent for giving them. He talked about the moral purpose of SPEW in his first contention. As I have already described, house-elf minds work differently than human minds. SPEW actually violates elf rights instead of protecting them. His second contention talked about how I claim it is "illegal" to create a club. Though it may seem strange, it is. A house-elf is like a computer. You can use it to help you in your day-to-day activities. It is there to make your life easier. I have already proven that elf nature is to serve, so this is actually not inhumane. House-elves even enjoy working. Now think of the computer as a computer which is, in this case, belonging to a school. The computer/elf certainly is there for you, but it belongs to the school. Hermione tried to take the elves away from the school, which is actually stealing. When an elf is given clothes from their Master, it is no longer working for its Master, no matter if it wants to or not. Hermione was trying to take the elves from the school, both stealing from the school and causing extreme emotional distress for the elves (for example, Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism). In this reason, I have enhanced all of my points and refuted all of my own. It is blatantly obvious that I have won this debate.
S.P.E.W. is legitimate

Definitions (*Definitions CANNOT be changed throughout the debate):1.) S.P.E.W.: Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare [1.]2.) Legitimate: Allowed According to Rules or Laws; Fair or Reasonable [2.]Arguments:C1: S.P.E.W. is considered "Fair" and "Reasonable."The creation of S.P.E.W. has a purpose; "Stop the Outrageous Abuse of Our Fellow Magical Creatures and Campaign for a Change in Their Legal Status." (Upholding the Rights of Others) S.P.E.W has a reasonable purpose; Hermione wanted to provide these poor, powerless elves the freedom that they deserved in the first place. After all, this is actually a form of slavery. Thus, S.P.E.W. is legitimate because it has a moral purpose. [1.]C2: S.P.E.W. is Allowed According to the Rules and Laws.My opponent claims that it is "illegal" for young teenager to create a club regarding the freedom of elves. I'd like to first point out that this club did not cause any crimes, rebellions, and chaos. The rules of Hogwarts do not mention that it is illegal to create a club...Unless my opponent SUCCESSFULLY proves how the creation of S.P.E.W. is against the rules and laws of Hogwarts, I win the debate. Refutations:"1-It's against elf nature:The nature of house-elves is to serve. This is a fact that has been widely accepted throughout Wizarding history. There is actually an Office of House-Elf Relocation in the Ministry of Magic. [1] Dobby was original in that he didn't want to work as a house elf. This seems like the basis of my argument to me, so I'll stop providing evidence here. However, anyone who has read the books can gather that it is in house-elf nature to work."This doesn't prove how S.P.E.W. is AGAINST the laws (illegal). Therefore, this argument is invalid."2-It forces elves into 'freedom'It would've been OK if Hermione had just hung back and let the elves come to her if they wanted to. Instead, she covered hats in junk that the elves had to clean up, therefore forcing them into 'freedom.' This is terrible and just mean."My opponent to explain how freedom is BAD. In order to propose this argument, my opponent must explain why elves hates freedom, IN DETAIL. For all these reasons, please vote for the Affirmative side of this debate. Thank you.Sources:[1.] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...[2.] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
S.P.E.W. is legitimate

1-It's against elf nature: The nature of house-elves is to serve. This is a fact that has been widely accepted throughout Wizarding history. There is actually an Office of House-Elf Relocation in the Ministry of Magic. [1] Dobby was original in that he didn't want to work as a house elf. This seems like the basis of my argument to me, so I'll stop providing evidence here. However, anyone who has read the books can gather that it is in house-elf nature to work. 2-It forces elves into "freedom" It would've been OK if Hermione had just hung back and let the elves come to her if they wanted to. Instead, she covered hats in junk that the elves had to clean up, therefore forcing them into "freedom." This is terrible and just mean. I have a lot more evidence, and await my opponent's response. Sources: 1-Harry Potter original books
My opponent is a female who is not ignorant

If Canada built a wall we couldn't really blame them. If they were a different color we would build it for them. But they still would have to learn English. My opponent may appear to have it all together but sadly she is not where she wants to be. In the middle of a large city, watching Omigod Sex and the City. I rest my case. These caricatures of women make all the wrong choices. They beg to be doormats. Real feminists do not watch this show. Everything is civilization. Even sports: Jet ski. City: New York. My opponent lacks a basic education in math and science and is all right-brained. My opponent should move to Trenton and shop the thrift stores. It's close enough by train. Just don't ever ever tell a New Yorker you're from Trenton. They just won't understand. Actually this http://www.cs.arizona.edu... is where she wants to be. Actually her political views are fairly together except for Pro Border Wall. One wonders why she is wasting time on Objectivism. Here's a good getaway oh too late for this year but a good way to change your mind about the Wall is to go there: http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net... but do it next year. This year http://www.taospeacehouse.org... These are people who know better than waste their time debating objectivism anyway. Or debating anything at all for that matter. A debate is too rigid a format for good communication. http://www.ceptualinstitute.com... The answer to the Jane Austen quote was posted in the comments while the debate was still open so no more about Jane Austen please. And means "and," and anyone who is pro border wall is ignorant. If they looked and acted like us there would be no problem and that is the issue as I see it of course. Your experience may be different and if so then I would like to hear about it. It is Canada that should be building a wall. If they don't learn English pretty soon we may just build it for them. They are taking our jobs. Everyone deported should be allowed to take a stupid American with them. We are sending our economy to Mexico. http://www.cbsnews.com... We are building the Wall in Mexico. http://narcosphere.narconews.com... It's an ecological disaster. http://www.tucsonweekly.com... The well is being built across the sovreign Tohono O'odham and Apache nations without their consent. Seguro que http://en.wikipedia.org... would take care of El Muro bien. Then we could bail out the banks with it too, and Congress as well, and all the police stations and cop memorials.
My opponent is a female who is not ignorant

Fortunately, I had an english teacher in high school who was very fond of JANE AUSTEN. She reccomended some of her stuff to me, including the novel 'Northanger Abbey' which is where the quote is taken from. My opponent contends that a female opponent must only be able to cite the author of said quote in order to prove a lack of ignorance. I have done so. And for those heading down the path of proving that Con's opponent is a female, and/or that I did not look up the quote, I challenge those arguments noting that Con cannot prove that I am NOT a female, and furthermore, there is more evidence supposing that I am in fact female as opposed to male (including the possibility of testimonials from those I may know "in real life," the fact that I have been listed and regarded as a female on the site since the inception of my account, etc.). If anyone really chooses the immaturity of a semantics argument on a topic like this. . . kill yourself. Seriously though, I have countered (or rather answered) my opponen't one contention. Back to Con for now.
My opponent is a female who is not ignorant

... and who already knew without having to look it up, who said: "In justice to men, that though to the larger and more trifling part of the sex, imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms, there is a portion of them too reasonable and too well informed themselves to desire more in woman than ignorance." I should in all fairness point out that I didn't. I didn't even get the gender right.
Liquid soap is of higher quality than solid soap

You mean like the way you had fun losing your cock? I'm sure you giggled when they made the transfer. Surely, no straight male would initiate this kind of debate. You must have been troubled about your sexuality somewhere down the road. Just take your curious little obsessions somewhere else. No one here wants to know about your strange soap fantasies. And now, for the twist finale. Are you ready DATXDUDE? You ready? Okay, here it goes. I am Masterdrave. Hellojohn and Masterdrave are one. It's me you fools! IT'S MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Zidane vs Ronaldo

Zidane was a soccer player from 1988 to 2006 (a period of 18 years) and scored a total of 95 goals along with 31 goals for France in World Cup and Euro Cup Play Ronaldo on the other hand is a soccer player who still plays today but started only back in 2001 (2001 to today is a period of about 10 years) in that time he has scored a total of 170 goals along with 43 goals for Portugal in World Cup and Euro Cup play.... So Ronaldo, in a career that has lasted around half as long as Zidane, has scored almost twice as much as Zidane has in seasonal play and 1.5 times as much in tournament play. Keep in mind he has been in the pro soccer leagues 8 years SHORTER than Zidane yet he already has almost twice as many goals scored as him... Zidane = 506 seasonal appearances Ronaldo = 298 seasonal appearances So now keep in mind that even though Ronaldo has been in 200 LESS games than Zidane has, Ronaldo has still scored nearly twice as much as Zidane has. Goals / Appearances = average goals per game... Zidane: 95 / 506 = 0.1877, or 1 goal every 5.30 games, Ronaldo: 170 / 298 = 0.5705, or 1 goal every 1.75 games, 5.30 / 1.75 = (average number of games Zidane needs to score 1 goal / average number of games Ronaldo needs to score 1 goal) = 3.02 So not only has Ronaldo scored far more goals in half the time Zidane has ever scored in his career, or that Ronaldo has half the appearances in games and has still beaten Zidane in goals scored, but Ronaldo's average number of games needed to score a goal is 3x better than Zidane's was.... Even though that is enough to sink this argument right now, i will bring up one more point. Ronaldo = 0 headbutts of opposing players during world cup play that caused him to be kicked out and then was not available to kick penalty shots in the final game of the world cup costing his team the win. Zidane = 1 headbutts of opposing players during world cup play that caused him to be kicked out and then was not available to kick penalty shots in the final game of the world cup costing his team the win. I'll end for here now. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zidane vs Ronaldo

This debate is for all football fans that use this site. Those who truly love the game of football will know that this debate will not answer the question and only in 10 years time will a consensus emerge as to who was really better - Zidane or Ronaldo. For the purposes of this debate, I will be taking the position that Zidane was the better player, whilst Con will assume the argument that Ronaldo was the better player. By the way, I mean the real Ronaldo.
Zidane vs Ronaldo

You have just exposed the fact that you are not a fan of football. In Round 1, I clearly stated that I meant "the real Ronaldo." Any true football fan will understand that I mean the Brazilian, not the Portuguese one. All you did was see the name Ronaldo and with your lack of knowledge went on wikipedia looking for statistics on the Portuguese Cristiano Ronaldo. I will now begin detailing why I believe Zidane was a better footballer than Ronaldo. 1 -- Zidane scored two goals in the 1998 FIFA World Cup Final against Brazil to win the trophy for France. Not just this, but his performances throughout the tournament were inspirational. 2 -- Won the European 2000 Championship with France, scoring in the semi-final. 3 -- Won the Golden Ball for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, even though he head butted someone. 4 -- Lead France to victory against Brazil in the 2006 World Cup with a silky performance. 5 -- Has won FIFA World Player of the Year: 3 TIMES. 6 -- Is the only player to have won the league's best player for each league he played in: Ligue 1, Serie A and La Liga. 7 -- Has won everything available at club level: 3 top tier domestic championships, UEFA Champions League, Intercontinental Cup and the UEFA Super Cup. 8 -- The Ballon d'Or winner of 1998. French football legend Michel Platini said: "Technically, I think he (Zidane) is the king of what's fundamental in the game – control and passing. I don't think anyone can match him when it comes to controlling or receiving the ball." Franz Beckenbauer said: "Zidane is one of the greatest players in history, a truly magnificent player." Pelï¿½ hailed Zidane: "Zidane was the magician in the game." Marcello Lippi opined "I think Zidane is the greatest talent we've known in football these last 20 years, yet he never played the prima donna. I am honoured to have been his manager." David Beckham has described Zidane as "the greatest of all time" Xavi has stated that Zidane was "the '90s and early 2000's best player" Roberto Carlos has said of Zidane that, "he is the best player I've seen", Cesare Maldini said: "I would give up five players to have Zizou in my squad." In 2011 Uefa.com asked players, journalist and their users to crown the best player in the UEFA Champions League of the past 20 years, Zidane topped the poll ahead of Lionel Messi. This man has been recognised by footballing greats, football lovers and football journalists as one of the all time greats. I ask why wasn't Ronaldo the best player in the past 20 years of the UEFA Champions League? He played in the tournament during that time. His career was almost symbiotic with Zidane's. Moreover, Zidane scored what has been called by some as one of the greatest goals in the history of football. http://www.youtube.com... Furthermore, it is not called penalty shots, but penalties. And one the topic of headbutting, I guess you would allow for someone to call your sister a whore? If you would allow that, then you obviously don't understand a culture where the sanctity and dignity of women are protected.
Atheism Debate

Okay, I suppose that you can copy and paste argument from your other debates. This makes it unfair in my opinion but I am up for a challenge. Your first paragraph describes the improbability of life inhabiting planets. Although it is incredibly improbable, I believe you are experiencing confirmation bias. If Earth were uninhabitable or the universe was not tuned correctly, we would exist somewhere else. There is literally infinite space and it has has existed billions of years with billions more to come. This with the hypothesis of infinite universes makes it more than probable in my opinion. The second half of your paragraph seems to contain lots of word salad. Your second paragraph describes irreducible complexity. A good example from your argument is the flagellum. The flagellum seems to be irreducibly complex but before it was a propulsion mechanism it may have served a different purpose and then was modified via evolution for a different purpose.
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka should unite

Pro (the instigator) will argue that the countries listed should unite while Con (the contender) will argue that the countries should remain separate. This is assuming that the governments of the listed countries CAN come to an agreement for the union. Now for my opening statement: Legacy of Colonialism The countries listed are all part of a former British colony (or princely states/protectorates) called British India. When the colony gained independence, the British divided the countries along religious lines. This has caused tremendous conflict in regions such as Kashmir. The separation of these countries only keeps alive the legacy of colonization and there is no reason why they should still be divided among religious lines (there are Muslims in India who live as peacefully as Hindus or any other religion there so why is there a separate Muslim country?) Culture All these countries are ethnically and culturally very similar, so there will be no cultural conflicts. Even what is now India has many cultures yet they all live side by side with no problem. United we are strong, divided we fall Pakistan every day suffers from terrorist activities from Islamists and drone strikes from the US which both kill a lot of civilians. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, with Nepal not being much better off. Sri Lanka (at least the north) is torn apart by civil war. India, the closest thing in the present day to a united south Asia, is doing well. It is the second fastest growing economy in the world and has the world's third largest and disputably one of the strongest army in the world (not China or US level but strong enough). If all the countries unite then certainly all of the problems listed above will be minimized. The strong united army will deal with the terrorists and can assert their objection over the US drone strikes far more strongly, even to the extent of shooting down such drones. The economy of India can benefit other 'countries' in the union. To summarize - Having the countries being separate keeps alive the legacy of colonialism - The cultures are very similar so the people can live saluting to the same flag without much of a problem - The proposed union will be much stronger economically and militarily which will mean increased standard of living will be higher (since fear of terrorism would be lower and the economy will be better)