BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Freedom of Speech Does Not Give the Right to be hateful towards others

Arguing on if an insult could be a tough thing to do. Alas, insulting someone could be considered defamation of character. An example would be if one student is in class and in front of the entire class loudly proclaims "You smell like s#!t". This would be a great example of what hate speech is, in fact, this could also be categorized as slander and this could ruin the students' reputation which this type of speech is not protected in the constitution. Next you claimed what legally defines a threat BUT, you stated the definition of a generalized crime. The term threat covers a large group of things including harassment which puts saying "I'm going to kick you in the face!" illegal. It isn't a felony but it is still a crime. Although this is not a strong argument to end on, this does in fact disprove both of those statements previously made by yourself.
My fish are better than yours

do your fishes even lift? i will leave you with that question, because to me personally this does not seem the case. My fish are personally trained by me and i have a team of the best nutritionists at my side. With this combination no fish tank desktop can possibly top my own. Plus mine is mac air.. what more do you need then that, fish that are so light i think they would float in air. To conclude my point, heavily backed up by ibrahim is that your fish my have some looks, but they do not poses both the spirit and physical strength needed by desktop fish to survive. More peace and Love. D
My fish are better than yours

Mate my fishes are dominant. I've got a good number of big boy sharks which could bit your fish up. To quote Bryony Spensley: "Fin, why are there so many more fish on yours than Danny's?". This point (well made by Bryony) really sums up my argument, and shows that my fish DOMINATE your fish, who are shockingly bad at looking cool, or indeed doing anything. I saw a fish with a buggered fin on yours a minute ago, what's up with that? My fish are all about the gains, which is what having fish is all about. Peace and love, F
My fish are better than yours

Dear Sir, I believe that this nasty looking specimen is no match for my Great White Sharks, as they are rated the most sick freaks in the animal kingdom. This very photo was taken from above my tank, in fact. http://www.google.co.uk... I believe that your fish are measly, flea bitten, and probably smell bad. My fish are peng, get all the gash, and don't care what people think, which is what it's all about with fish. If my top fish and your top fish had an arm wrestle, it would end up like this for your fish. http://www.youtube.com... Your fish are, to the best of my knowledge, pathetic little vermin with no gonads, as they were removed by my fish in the last epic battle of 1985 (May the fallen rest in peace). As shown in the Great Fishy Fish War of 1885 to 1906 (the longest Fishy war in European history), my fish are dominant on the battle field, and have been since the mid-eighteen hundreds. The problem with your fish is that they lack the will to lift. They don't squat, they don't curl, they don't work chest; the most I've ever seen one of your fish doing was cross training and even then he was useless. Please allow me to show you a clip of the last time one of your fish tried to flex. With my best fishes, Fin (like on a fish)
My fish are better than yours

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com... I not only found a couple of these bad boys looking dench at the back chillin but also spotted some Dragonfish... these are not only rated one of the most violent, aggressive fish in the world but they are also the most diabolical and will rip your fish up... My fish speak for themselves..Even further i ve got some defences featuring the fire sea urchin... it will even spit in your eye, yes it will go that far....Physeter macrocephalus, sperm wale to be more general.. i have one of these, its even got the word sperm in it... the coice is up to you my friend. BACK out! Muchos love xx
My fish are better than yours

My fish lift bare. I've got them lifting sea anomones left and right, mofo. I'm pretty sure that if we had a roman-style battle between our fish armies, mine would be like Sparta, and yours would be like some crazy wimps. There's only so much help a nutritionist can help your fish when they're up against mine. By the time my fish are done with yours, they will look like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Battered with tartar sauce, fool
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god according to the bible inwhich nobody can prove exists

Alright, that was a lot of reading lol. I will start off by saying this: although there is no definite way to prove that there is a God, there is also no way to disprove His existence. God today is more a symbol of hope and a reason for people to behave in a humane manner, mostly in areas of life in which law does not dictate. I would also like to argue that science has been able to prove multiple scenarios that occurred in the bible, such as Noah's ark, the parting of the Red Sea, and more. God means many different things to many people around the world, to me, a practicing Roman Catholic, the existence of a God is not some bearded old man sitting up on a cloud, but He is merely a force that is a greater power of the universe. Something that explains the scientifically inexplicable.
Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

I accept, I will be arguing that Bernie Sanders will make a good president. I propose we do not compare him to other candidates as whether he is the best candidate or not is a separate argument from this one. Good luck, also just as a warning, I often use up all ten thousand characters and every letter/space/punctuation counts therefore my spacing will sometimes be a bit weird, as in between paragraphs (and there may be a couple paragraphs merged, but just ignore that!).
Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

IntroductionThis debate is concerning whether or not Bernie Sanders would make a good president when elected. I will be arguing that he will not, while my opponent will be arguing that he will. Most of my arguments will be based on economic factors, though there are a few other factors as well.RulesThe first round is for acceptance only. The second round is for arguments only; no rebuttals in the second round. The third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals.Forfeiture will result in a loss of conduct points.
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

Resolved: My baby is cuter than your baby.My opponent shall be the proud parent of a young child. I shall through video evidence prove that my baby is cuter. We know the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words." This debate will not be judged by words but by posted videos of my and my opponent's children. The only words used will be brief descriptions of the videos presented. My opponent and I shall share the burden of proof.Definition of terms:Baby-A child whose age is less than 36 monthsCute- Exhibiting mannerisms that are charming and attractive in a childish way.Debate OrganizationRound 1: Acceptance (words)Round 2: Opening Argument VideosRound 3: Rebuttal VideosRound 4: Rebuttal Response VideosRound 5: Closing Argument Videos
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

In fact when I told him someone thought that their baby was cuter he didn't say anything just looked at me like this: . http://www.flickr.com... In fact he told me to show you this picture . http://www.flickr.com... And for you to show your daughter these pics of him . http://www.flickr.com... and . http://www.flickr.com... And if she's available in 18 years, he'll make room for her.
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I want to thank the reader/viewer for reading this debate and for watching these videos. I would like to also thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and for helping me bring a really positive debate to ddo. Now to conclude the debate, my first video will show the reader how intelligent my baby is. The second and final video will prove beyond reasonable doubt that my baby is definitely cuter! Note to reader: Parenting is wonderful!
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

My opponent has proven himself to be a great father to a very cute young girl; however she comes up short of the cuteness that is Deondre. This first video is him just talking politics with me. His thoughts ok the debt ceiling and the 2012 presidential race. You might be wondering why there is epic music playing in the background. That music plays whenever he speaks http://www.youtube.com... This second video is him trying to figure out a spoon. He would much prefer to use his hands or a home made spear http://www.youtube.com... We await your admittance of defeat
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

Once again, my opponent has shown his baby boy to be a cute young man; however, he must show his baby to be CUTER than the beautiful Miss Jahzi you will see here. The first video is her action hero video where she flies through the air fearlessly!http://www.youtube.com...The second is of her playing with Dad (me).http://www.youtube.com...As is evidenced by these two videos, my Little Miss Jahzi is much cuter!
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

My son has yet to learn to stand let alone dance but I was wrong when I called him a warrior in my last post, for he is a warrior poet. This is a picture he calls "Consumerism" http://www.flickr.com... And another he calls " That chick has an amazing butt" http://www.flickr.com... I tried to tell him that looking at women isn't poetry and he said "trust me dad, that butt was poetic" This picture is a metaphor for how he feels about the auto industry and pollution http://www.flickr.com... This is him driving an suv http://www.flickr.com... http://www.flickr.com... BTW he was so impressed with Captain America, he decided to get his own Nazi killing device
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

Well, I must admit that my opponents baby is cute; however, my baby is much cuter. I shall rebuttal his last video below: Rebuttal Ia http://www.youtube.com... Rebuttal Ib http://www.youtube.com... These videos are of my baby at 15 months, talking and dancing. I would say it doesn't get cuter than this, but the reader will see even cuter videos of my baby in future rounds!
My Baby is Cuter Than Your Baby!

Allow me to show you a day in the life of my 7 month old son, Deondre. Keep in mind my son is a warrior. His day begins with training. His rule, not mine http://www.youtube.com... After that we head to the mall where he asks me "Dad, let's go watch Captain America" http://www.flickr.com... I reply "No son, you are too young to learn about Nazi Killing." He says "I wasn't asking" http://www.flickr.com... I again say no causing him to make this expression http://www.flickr.com... and call me "Nazi McBitchface" I give in to his demands and he flashes his victory look http://www.flickr.com... Again I say he is not even a year old however he is seen here eating his own popcorn and sitting in his own seat cause he don't give a fvck http://www.flickr.com...
Smokers' Rights

Thank you for a quick response. :) My opponent begins by pointing out that already existing facilities could add special smoker sections in order to segregate them from the non-smokers. However, as mentioned in the previous round, cost is an issue. Even just to renovate a home costs thousands of dollars(. http://www.ontariocontractors.com...). Adding to and restructuring every public facility would not be very cost efficient although more so than building new facilities altogether. Regardless, both options would cost massive amounts of money and it would just be way more practical to enact specific laws against smoking in public places. Secondly, the heath of people, especially children exposed to second-hand smoke was an issue. Banning smoking in vehicles with children is a particular issue, with the second-hand smoke being 27 times more toxic than that in a home(. http://www.guardian.co.uk...). As mentioned in the previous round, this smoke can lead to many health problems and the smoke exposure in vehicles is more severe thus leading to a higher risk. As for homes, there is a simple solution to that. The parents can smoke outside while the children are inside the house and vice versa. Most parents who smoke already do that anyway so it would be very little change for them.
Smokers' Rights

My opponent believes it would cost more to make more places, I am not saying make more places, I am saying edit existing places and when new places are built build them differently. If one wishes to smoke at an outdoor bus stop they should be allowed to do so away from the general public, and in a designated smoking area clearly marked. They would not have to stay there after they get done smoking, but would not be allowed to smoke in that crowd. As far as public places such as resturaunts it would just be smoking/non smoking with a door, not seperate buildings. My opponent argues about the safety of kids, but really any number of thing can add to kids being unhealthy. I would say that banning parents' or any one else's right to smoke would be about as silly as banning them from buying their kids food from a fast food place. Most of the time when people smoke in the car they have a window open so little/no smoke actually affects the children. The way it would be would actually hurt the kids more because telling someone they can't smoke outside because someone might not like it would force them inside. Smoking inside a house with children even which would force the children to live in second hand smoke. Giving them public freedom will help it cause less harm.
Smokers' Rights

Good luck to both of us! :) As I stated in the earlier discussion I feel that smoking should be banned in all public places. My opponent opposes this and brings up a few points against it. One argument brought up by my opponent is the segregation of public establishments into smoking and non-smoking sections or even separate facilities. however, this could be seen as problematic as it would require twice as much space and/or twice as much money to build. For example, one special energy-efficient bus stop in Alaska is estimated to cost about $875,000 to build(. http://www.adn.com...). This is for one single facility and even then it costs much more than the average bus stop. Having to build two would just double this high price. This is not cost efficient and would likely be paid for through taxes. Secondly, if smoking is banned from public places there would likely be fine in place if you tried to smoke in public. This would be incentive so there would be little need for constant reminders from law enforcement to stop. Also, smoking on one's private property would be permitted just as my opponent suggested. However, measures would have to be taken to avoid unwanted contact to the second-hand smoke. Unlike many public places where people don't really have a choice to be around other people, a person could choose not to enter somebody's house if the homeowner was smoking. Thirdly, my opponent mentions separate smoking sections in public places. Again, building separate facilities isn't very cost efficient and most places would be better off by just banning it altogether. Another issue is vehicles. Oftentimes there are people with young children who smoke while their children are in the car with them. This can also be problematic as second-hand smoke can effect a child's development. It can also lead to illnesses such as asthma, ear infections, pneumonia and bronchitis, or if it's a really young child, SIDS. . http://www.epa.gov... Of course, this isn't limited to only vehicles where children are present, but any public place where children are present. However, due to the limited and confined space of a vehicle it is where children could especially be at risk. Now to my opponent. Good luck, once again!
Smokers' Rights

There should be no law against smoking while walking down the street or in ones vehicle/home, or in some/most places. Unless marked as a non smoking place people should be allowed to smoke there. If a place is marked non smoking and one smokes there then there should be three steps to get them to stop before police notification. 1) Politely remind them of the rules of the place. 2) Make a public announcement/reminder that smoking is not permitted. 3) Politely ask them to leave. If they refuse to stop then the police will be notified and actions would be taken. The rules of who can smoke when and were should not be up to the government but up to private entities. If you want your house to be smoke free just put a sign in front or in plain view in your living room. It wouldn't be that hard for the non-smokers that wish not to be affected by smoke to avoid it under this situation. INH has the worry of a public bus stop, and I had the idea of having a smoking wait area across the street or something. It would just be a smoking area, perhaps a canopy that marks it as such and it would be effective for keeping those that don't want smokers too close away from them. I believe restaurants should keep the smoking/non smoking areas, and just make them separate rooms. People can either choose where they wish to be seated or if they don't really care can be seated wherever has the most room. Under this system people can keep their rights, while not infringing on others as much as criminalizing public smoking, or making it 100% legal.
Smokers' Rights

My opponent feels that it should be up to the particular business and places in question to decide whether to allow smokers in. However, in this case those who don't want exposure to the smoke are still being exposed as long as smoking is allowed in that facility. If places become more and more smokey less non-smokers would want to go to those places. To protect everybody, it's much more effective if the government just enacts non-smoking laws everywhere. Another important point to factor in is the annual cost of treating smoking related diseases. It is estimated to be about $73 billion a year(. http://www.megaessays.com...). Less exposure to second-hand smoke would cause these massive figures to decrease. Lastly, smoking in vehicles and homes was mentioned. I will like to point out that when I made the point about being able to smoke in your own home that does include the yard. It's still on your own property. With this rule applied and less people wanting the smoke left behind inside their houses, would encourage smokers to go outside. This would leave the children/pets/etc. safe from the smoke as they could stay inside the house. As for the ban in vehicles, it could be regularly enforced by road blacks, similar to what is done to detect drunk drivers and people who aren't wearing seatbelts. If you're seen smoking you could be given a fine. The smoke would probably still be visible outside even if the windows were closed too. Now to the voters, please vote fairly! :)
none

I would like to say that I have huge problems with the pro side of this argument. They are fascist, fictional god-fearing, hippie, white-supremacist, liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, flag burners, minority-supremacists, religious fundy, atheist, homosexual homophobes who are the first to wave the flag and declare freedom while suppressing peoples rights to social freedoms. www.fakecitation/sarcasm.org www.if_you_needed_to_read_the_first_link_to_know_I_was_being_sarcastic_than_you_are.stupid/html
tom brady is better than peyton manning

Since my opponent brought up past achievements, I presume we are discussing their skills over their lifetime vs at this current moment. == Team Effects == We are comparing too great athletes, and as such, we need to compare their skills, and avoid as much as possible the effects of other players. That can be difficult, since no matter how great a QB is, the receiver has to catch the ball, and a great WR will make catches that an average one won't, and thus inflate the stats of the QB. It can be difficult to see a team's effect, but the best way is to look at how well the team does if the player is removed. Normally this cannot be done, as teams aren't going to bench a QB for an entire season just to see how well he really does. But these two players are wonderful examples of this. Tom Brady missed the 2008 year [1][3], while Peyton Manning missed the 2011 year [2][4]. We can see that in the year without Brady, the Pats still went 11-5, scoring 410 points [1], while the Colts fell from 10-6 down to 2-14 with only 243 points [2]. This clearly shows that Brady was on a better team that was able to help inflate his success. Winning Super Bowls is a team effort and a team success. It is not an individual accomplishment. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Stephen Gostkowski was the best kicker because of his Super Bowl rings. Lets not also forget the fact that the Patriots have a bad history of cheating [5], which came out right after their almost historic 2007 season. While Brady was not directly involved in this, it was his Head Coach which indirectly helped Brady's numbers look better than he actually is. == Individual Stats == If we stop and look at the actual stats of the players, Manning blows Brady out of the water (most stats will be from [3][4]). With 491 TDs for Manning to 359 TDs for Brady. That's 37% more TDs for only being in the league for 2 years more. When it comes to passing yards, we see Manning has approximately 65,000 to Brady's 49,000 (33% more). Manning is also more accurate, with 65.5% career completion to Brady's 63.4% (and Brady has, until just this last season, much better targets to throw to). This all goes in line with Brady being on a better team. He puts up worse numbers, but finds more team success. I'll leave this as is for now so that it is not too much for my opponent to address in their 1 hour. Thank you, [1] . http://www.pro-football-reference.com... [2] . http://www.pro-football-reference.com... [3] . http://espn.go.com... [4] . http://espn.go.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Libya was better under Qaddafi's rule

I can take pro or con depending on what you want. No forfeiture, semantics or trolling please. First round will be acceptance and final round will be conclusion (no new evidence/arguments just a summary of previous ones.) Choose whether you want pro or con in the first round. Resolved: Libya was a better nation under Muammar Qaddafi's rule (September 1969 - October 2011) The values we will be debating in this debate are: 1. Libya's economy (as a whole and relating to the people of Libya) 2. Libya's path forward (under Qaddafi versus now) 3. Libya's state of society (Unrest/Stability, Rule of Law, State of Government, Popular satisfaction with the state of Libya) 4. Libya's formal/informal international relations (Libya's allies then v.s. now, foreign investment, Libya's power in the world) 5. Libya's development (Equality, democracy, freedom and liberty) I look forward to a good debate :D