BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

Contrary to what my contender has said there are ways for which gays have safe sex. From what I am seeing my contender is making many assumptions and stereotypes. If you could begin citing sources which back your claims that could add maybe a little more evidence. You are making it seem as if safe sex just does not apply to the gay community which is just plain wrong not only gays get STD's. "Half of all sexually active people will get an STD by age 25" that includes straight, bisexual, and gays. Ways to prevent the possible spread of HIV and other STDs are to "Get to know someone before having sex with them and talk honestly about STDs and getting tested"before you have sex" also "Use a condom correctly and use one every time you have sex." Condom breaks or lies about condoms can happen to everyone who is sexually active. There are 6 major ways gay men can avoid getting STDs and HIV. "Condoms and Lubricant, Negotiated Safety, Strategic Positioning, Withdrawing, Serosorting, and Undetectable Viral Loads." The stats do show that gay men do have a much higher HIV percentage but with the help of education such as this and actually carrying out these practices could lower that percentage greatly. Also my Contenders statistic that 75% of gay men is more than inaccurate "MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available(http://www.cdc.gov...)" Now I am not saying those number are good by any means but it shows gays shouldn't be discriminated because of it. For the argument that all gay men have to wear diapers or the assumption that most have to is ridiculous. I am sure some do for ease or other reasons of their own, but if they are wearing a diaper because that is there only option, then they are lacking crucial information. Gay men or anyone conceding in anal sex have many ways to help fix that issue such as; Solesta, Secca, Interstim, and kegel exercises. With that being said I believe you and many others should educate yourself before making assumptions and stereotypes on gays. Thank you. (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://www.gmhsa.org.au...) (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://health.clevelandclinic.org...)
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

There is no safe way to have male-to-male anal sex. Nothing else explains why gay males are 75% of all new HIV cases. Obviously, they're engaging in a behavior that causes them contract the virus.Condoms slip off, burst, are forgotten, not wanted, told they're being used when they aren't. The bottom line is "safe sex" although a great concept, is not working. And then there's all the other health hazards associated with male-to-male anal sex. The anal/rectum substructure were not designed for the heavy pounding the vagina gets. After frequent anal sex the anus becomes dysfunctional; it can no longer sustain its fecal seal. The gay community doesn't want you to know how many young gay men wear diapers.None of this is mentioned when gay speakers go to our schools and tell children how wonderful the homosexul experience is. The border-line boy is not told chances are he'll have HIV before he reaches 30 and will be wearing diapers before he's 25.
It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions.

"Some women aren't ready to mother children, or go through the pain of childbirth. Abortion is a good alternative, no matter how brutal it may be." They aren't ready for children and the responsibility but they are ready for intercourse followed up by an abortion? "Birth control is 99.9% effective, and many people use condoms to prevent pregnancies. Accidents DO happen, and if they do, it's good to have a logical alternative besides childbirth to fall back on. An accidental pregnancy is a pregnancy which was not planned. So instead of a married couple planning a baby, which would be a planned pregnancy, a woman may be raped, or a condom may break which leads to an unwanted baby, which is an accidental pregnancy." Abstinence is 100% effective. Also, the topic we are debating is late-term abortions, therefore your comment regarding a woman being raped is off topic and should be disregarded as this wouldn't require a late term abortion. As far as a condom breaking, there are morning after pills in this case. "Sometimes a person is placed in jail for a crime which they did not commit, but cannot prove they didn't commit the particular crime. If you have ever seen the movie "Shawshank Redemption," the main character is an excellent example of this." The Shawshank Redemption is a fictional movie therefore no events can be used off this film as this never actually happened. Fictional movies are not to be used in a debate to prove a point. Also, in America, we have a policy called "Innocent until proven guilty" which means you do not have to prove you didn't do it in order to be found innocent. "Being pro choice and anti death penalty is not contradicting however, because they are two separate things. Abortion is an alternative to childbirth, it is not mandatory, it is optional, and the option should always be there for a pregnant woman. The death penalty kills the innocent and guilty alike, and therefore is morally wrong. My views on abortion would be different if it were mandatory, but it isn't. It's the womans decision, body and it should be respected." The difference between late term abortions and the death penalty is that late term abortions only kill the innocent by the decision of one person while the death penalty only kills those found guilty through the decisions of many individuals based on proper court procedures. Another question for you, is if a man is required to pay child support why can the man not make the decision to force an abortion as he is just as financially responsible for the child as the mother? So if he isn't ready but she is, it is just his loss? That seems to be a form of sexism as only females can choose abortions, what happened to equal rights under the law regardless of gender, nationality, religion, etc.?
It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions.

"By your statement above, abortions are a way of post intercourse birth control. Rather than giving that child up for adoption, we might as well just stick as scissors into the back of it's skull and suck the brains out before tearing the unborn child's limbs off for easier extraction. (Please see Dr. Martin Haskell's procedure as he wrote the process on late-term/partial birth abortions) http://www.priestsforlife.org...... ." Some women aren't ready to mother children, or go through the pain of childbirth. Abortion is a good alternative, no matter how brutal it may be. "By this statement, you are saying that when a female engages in sexual intercourse she believes there is no chance of becoming pregnant. The only way to "accidentally" become pregnant is to have intercourse. The only way to "purposely" become pregnant is to have intercourse. The correlation I am getting to, is if you have intercourse, protected or not, the female may become pregnant. The only way to become pregnant is to have intercourse. I do not support abortions in any form but in order to have a late-term abortion which is the topic of this debate, the female must be pregnant for 7-9 months. What made this female decide in the 7th month that she became pregnant by "accident"." Birth control is 99.9% effective, and many people use condoms to prevent pregnancies. Accidents DO happen, and if they do, it's good to have a logical alternative besides childbirth to fall back on. An accidental pregnancy is a pregnancy which was not planned. So instead of a married couple planning a baby, which would be a planned pregnancy, a woman may be raped, or a condom may break which leads to an unwanted baby, which is an accidental pregnancy. "Accusations alone do not place people on death row." Sometimes a person is placed in jail for a crime which they did not commit, but cannot prove they didn't commit the particular crime. If you have ever seen the movie "Shawshank Redemption," the main character is an excellent example of this. Being pro choice and anti death penalty is not contradicting however, because they are two separate things. Abortion is an alternative to childbirth, it is not mandatory, it is optional, and the option should always be there for a pregnant woman. The death penalty kills the innocent and guilty alike, and therefore is morally wrong. My views on abortion would be different if it were mandatory, but it isn't. It's the womans decision, body and it should be respected.
It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions.

"Abortions could help an unexpected mother by getting rid of a Baby that they are just not prepared to have, for a number of reasons" By your statement above, abortions are a way of post intercourse birth control. Rather than giving that child up for adoption, we might as well just stick as scissors into the back of it's skull and suck the brains out before tearing the unborn child's limbs off for easier extraction. (Please see Dr. Martin Haskell's procedure as he wrote the process on late-term/partial birth abortions) http://www.priestsforlife.org... . "As a teen, I know many other teenagers that are in Jail, and and quite a few who have accidentally gotten pregnant at a young age." By this statement, you are saying that when a female engages in sexual intercourse she believes there is no chance of becoming pregnant. The only way to "accidentally" become pregnant is to have intercourse. The only way to "purposely" become pregnant is to have intercourse. The correlation I am getting to, is if you have intercourse, protected or not, the female may become pregnant. The only way to become pregnant is to have intercourse. I do not support abortions in any form but in order to have a late-term abortion which is the topic of this debate, the female must be pregnant for 7-9 months. What made this female decide in the 7th month that she became pregnant by "accident". "16 year old mother, who now has to get a job to support the baby because she had not wanted to put the baby up for adoption." By this statement, abortion is a better alternative to adoption? This mother to be didn't want to put her baby up for adoption so she had an abortion? "It blows my mind that some of my friends could be killed depending on the severity of the crime of which they are accused, wrongly" Accusations alone do not place people on death row.
It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions.

Standing against the Death Penalty and supporting late term abortions does make sense, for a variety of reasons. For instance, the Death Penalty could condemn an innocent man to death and Abortions could help an unexpected mother by getting rid of a Baby that they are just not prepared to have, for a number of reasons. As a teen, I know many other teenagers that are in Jail, and and quite a few who have accidentally gotten pregnant at a young age. It blows my mind that some of my friends could be killed depending on the severity of the crime of which they are accused, wrongly or the thought of a 16 year old mother, who now has to get a job to support the baby because she had not wanted to put the baby up for adoption.
It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions.

I feel it is intellectually dishonest when people argue against the death penalty but are in favor of late term abortions. It makes logical sense if someone supports both or argues against both. I am not sure how someone can stand by while one person makes a decision to end a life that has had no time to make a mistake but fights against a punishment of the same result when many people need to have irrefutable evidence in order to sentence this person to this penalty.
Homestuck vs. (Insert Fandom Here)

While other shows, movies, and books all have interesting plots and diverse characters, I believe that Homestuck is one of the best examples of a humorous, charistically diverse, and complex storyline in a web series. I open this argument to anyone who dislikes the Homestuck fandom or the webcomic itself, and would like to argue another show's dominance. While I am not saying that Homestuck is the best of the best, I simply invite others to debate on this topic, and possibly outnumber the examples on why Homestuck is such a good story.
Mobile phones should be banned in schools!

Thanks, Naweedyosofi for instigating this debate.As a student myself, banning phones should be the top priority of schools. 1.) It's mostly used for entertainment that leads one to be least interested in school. A student with a cell phone is an uninterested student, one with a short attention span who cares more about socializing than education. Come the end of the term, a handful of students would fail the class and far too many would drop out of school. The onus for failure should be placed on distractions in the classroom, specifically cell phones.2.) 'For emergency' Is the most used excuse in this kind of topic. Parents think of cell phones as a connection to their children in an emergency. But I wonder what the last situation was that genuinely called for an immediate phone call to a child. In most cases, contacting the hospital or the police would seem more urgent. And parents can always call the school's main office to reach their children. I have read dozens of articles about this, and some authors say that,"If cell phones were banned from school grounds, even just during school hours, how would the kids contact their parents afterwards?" We can all agree to this, but let's face it: phones do more harm than good when it comes to bringing it to school. That's a great excuse, I must say. If students have activities such as sport or a club that they participate in after school hours, they must have been told the day before so students can tell this to their parents or guardians so they don't need to contact them.Cell phones are status symbols for teenagers because when their phone rings while the teacher is talking, everyone laughs. Because playing video games on their cell makes them look cool. Because text messaging their friend in the next room is more fun than learning about topic sentences. 3.) They cause disruption and distress Mobiles are the curse of the modern age – in restaurants, on trains and, most of all, in schools. Pupils are texting when they should be working; they use social networking sites to bully fellow pupils.These are just opening arguments, and will post the following soon.Sources:http://teacher.scholastic.com...http://www.theguardian.com...
Mobile phones should be banned in schools!

I know that almost every schools or universities out there ban phones inside the class. But isn't banning it in school also a must? Classes are held in schools, so banning it in only inside classes is almost useless. We wouldn't be completely sure if students actually left it in their lockers. They could possibly still use it to cheat. When I was in 6th grade in a public school, the teachers banned phones inside the classroom but we can freely take it out of our pockets when we're outside. One time, the adviser left the class for us to copy everything written on the board. The principal wanted to talk to her. While the teacher's out, everyone took out their phones from their bags and started to take images of the board so they wouldn't have to copy everything down.This was a perfect example of why we should still ban them not only in class but also inside the school itself. It only promotes sluggishness and laziness.I believe Con agreed that phones are a total distraction, a cheating tool, and is used for texting and to surf the web. Again, prohibiting it in classes is as useless as not banning it at all.Students still bring it in class. Children are getting more and more intelligent these days (because children today know how to control a tablet or a computer while we didn't when we were the same age as them), and this means that if we let them them bring it to school, they could hide their mobiles in their handkerchiefs or in their bags so advisers or the teachers wouldn't find them out. But we can prevent this if we ban them to school.I think the parents would agree to this if they know that the school is just doing their job to make a better community. My younger sister's school banned phones and at first my mom and dad totally disagreed to the idea. It made a bit of chaos with the parents and the school decided to arrange a meeting for the parents or the guardians of the students. After the said meeting, the parents themselves told their children not to bring it to school. Prevention is better than cure. Think about what would happen if this generation wouldn't learn anything from school. It would be a waste of time and a waste of money. But with phones banned, everything would be better.Giving the best education is the school's top priority. So let's put our phones away for now, for it leads to better future._________________Man, that was kind of deep. It was exhausting, yet exciting and fun.I enjoyed it overall.Vote Pro! I'm glad it ended well and no souls were harmed in the making of this debate. Con and I are good friends. LOL
Mobile phones should be banned in schools!

With due respect i would like to conclude the debate with following points; The topic was about "mobile phones should be banned in schools"; 1. As the pro stated that it is destruction in educational system, i would like to add few comments on this; it is a destruction but it does not mean it should be banned in school, although it should be banned inside the class, and or either it should be turned off during classes. 2. Mobile phones are tools for cheating, it was stated by the pro. Almost everyone know that students are cheating during exam times, perhaps no where in the world, schools allow mobile during exam, therefore this point is totally rejected and that can not be a logical reason for banning mobiles in schools! 3. Mobiles are used for texting/social networking, the pro stated that mobile phones should be banned in schools because students are texting to each others during class and it is destruction for educational system, although pro had forgotten about the topic, that banning mobile was in school though schools can not stop students to not to use social networks or should not text each others, we have to think of both sides, negatives and positives too, and unfortunately she thought of negatives only which are very less compare to positives of mobile phones in schools. 4. Mobiles are used as ease of contact, yes it is ease of contact, and pro has also agreed to this point. 5. Mobiles are tools for saving lives which pro has also agreed on this. 6. Mobiles are used as Library; i appreciate what the pro stated that; false information are posted in the internet, though i would like to ask if the sources which you got your argument materials are false too? there hence; mobiles are used for searching and getting info in only seconds, hence the mobile can not be substitute to libraries but they can play the role. And a lot more small points were debated; the final conclusion for this debate is; Mobiles phones should not be banned in schools,, :) Thanks to pro for the nice debate! Now let's go to voting round! Guys!
Five Night's at Freddy's Is a Mediocre Game

I am arguing that the Five Night's at Freddy's game is a mediocre game, and that it isn't all the "hype" people seem to believe it is. At best, it's a mediocre game.BoP is on me to prove this. It will be Con's goal to prove the opposite.R1: Acceptance from opponent.R2: Opening Arguments.R3: Rebuttals.R4: Rebuttals and conclusion.
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

"I agree, but this is a democracy, and what the majority says goes. People against the global warming theory should have a voice too." Okay, but I think that is completely wrong and backwards. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That if the majority believes something completely false it becomes true? Yes, everyone should have a voice, even people who don't believe in the global warming theory. "I know money doesn't fix Global Warming, but that's exactly why we should focus on the economy. The government should focus on the economy because they can do more for the economy than they can for the environment." So because it's easier to do A, B should be ignored or take second place even though it is more important? Just because something is easier doesn't mean it's priority. ********************************************************************************* "Even if it helps lower crime to profile the individual?" YES. Absolutely. It is always more important for the government to protect the rights of the people that have not been convicted of crime than to protect us. "I go to school every day in Brooklyn, I know that. But if those black people weren't search, white people would. You'd rather harass 1,000 white people to catch 2 criminals than to harass 1,000 black people to catch 10." I'd rather not harass anyone, to be honest. The means to an end must always be moral and right, before the end is ever either. If you have to discriminate to solve crime than you should be spending your time finding a better way to solve crime. "Police profiling isn't just about race, it's about seeing a guy on welfare with a $5,000 chain and riding in an SUV making stops on random street corners to meet other guys full of jewellery. Some guys are just obvious drug dealers and 90% of them just happen to be black." That's not profiling, that's evidence. It's not enough that an individual is black and wearing jewellery and hanging out with their friends. If you can provide evidence for their lack of taxable income, then arrest him for goodness sakes, otherwise, leave him alone. I enjoyed our debate as well. Look forward to hearing from you about another debate.
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

< > I agree, but this is a democracy, and what the majority says goes. People against the global warming theory should have a voice too. < > I know money doesn't fix Global Warming, but that's exactly why we should focus on the economy. The government should focus on the economy because they can do more for the economy than they can for the environment. ********************************************************************************* <> Even if it helps lower crime to profile the individual? < > I go to school every day in Brooklyn, I know that. But if those black people weren't search, white people would. You'd rather harass 1,000 white people to catch 2 criminals than to harass 1,000 black people to catch 10. The police runs the biggest gang in the city, but rules like police profiling allow criminals and gangsters to get away with a lot of stuff. Police profiling isn't just about race, it's about seeing a guy on welfare with a $5,000 chain and riding in an SUV making stops on random street corners to meet other guys full of jewelry. Some guys are just obvious drug dealers and 90% of them just happen to be black. Thanks for the debate, I'll be looking forward to another debate with you, I liked this one. Maybe we can discuss Obama vs. Hillary.