BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW ban boxing

My worthy opponent,In your future debates, I advise you to read the rules first as you have not followed the rules in this debate. Rule number 9 states: "Not following rules is an automatic loss. "You have not followed the rules as the structure says: Round 2: Arguments not rebuttal. Another rule you didn't care to follow was rule 4 which states: "Cite sources in 'Sources' Category" You didn't do that. You have automatically lost in this debate as you haven't followed the rules. My condolences. .. Hope you better debates in your future.
THW ban boxing

Terms1. THW: This House Would2. Ban: To forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something.3. Boxing:The art of attack and defense with the fists practiced as a sport Structure1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.2. Arguments.3. Rebuttals+ defence.4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.Rules1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits2. No trolling3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it. 4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.8. BoP is shared in this debate.9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate! I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
THW ban boxing

If my opponent really had a good case to make, he would have posted his argument instead of harping on the rules. The "rules" are frivolous guidelines. They do not protect the integrity of the debate. In this case, cancelling the debate based on silly rules is what is ruining the integrity of the discussion. Pro is not interested in serious discussion but boosting his ELO and winning on semantics/rules instead of actually putting forth a better argument. Once again I would like to apologize for breaking the rules by doing the awful thing of posting my round too early in a way that did not affect the debate whatsoever. Sorry guys!
should we be able to be listen to music during school

Well, there's ALWAYS somebody in school who will listen to the wrong music and sneak in less you have some kind of accountability system. In order to listen to music you'll need a phone or Ipod and there's always temptations. The teacher wouldn't be able to get our attention very easily because she would have to tap you on the shoulder. The point is; the teacher wouldn't be able to get your attention very easily and it wouldn't be worth it. Although you are able to in the library or after school studying. Thank you.
That this house would ban alcohol

1. Alcohol is harmful a. Pro implicitly presumes the legitimacy of the status quo inasmuch as she accepts the ban on drugs like heroin, marijuana, and cocaine. The question becomes whether these drugs should be banned at all; however, an argument of mine entirely unaddressed by Pro is the moral argument, that a drug's ability to harm someone or cloud their judgment in no way constitutes a justification for placing a ban on it. At best, my opponent is relying on the naturalistic fallacy: drugs are dangerous, therefore drugs should be banned. The value judgment, that all dangerous substances should be banned, remains unjustified. b. Even presuming that the grave effects of consumption which Pro lists are typical for every person who consumes alcohol, we can look back to the empirical argument and note that a prohibition on alcohol is entirely ineffective. The relevant evidence here was provided in the first round. 2. Brain development a. Her argument here is irresolutional. As Pro, her task is to support a blanket ban on alcohol. As soon as she makes the argument that people aren't ready to drink until the age of 25 (when their brains finish developing), she completely destroys the credibility of the Pro position. She's suggesting that the drinking age be raised, not that alcohol should be banned. b. The fact that child abuse, or any crime, is made more plausible by alcohol is immaterial to whether it ought to be banned. As I noted in Round 1, being upset or angry can also compromise one's judgment; however, that doesn't justify a ban on negative emotions. Similarly, impaired judgment doesn't justify a ban on alcohol, or any substance causing similar effects. Punish individuals for the crimes they commit - not for the substances which may have contributed to their decision. Recall the situation I outlined in the first round - the two drunk men. One is arrested, the other is not. They are both inebriated; the only difference between the two is that one committed a crime. The legal system, knowing that inebriation isn't intrinsically criminal, ought to make the same distinction during the trial by not tacking on the "under the influence" charge as an afterthought. 3. Drops a. Both the empirical and moral arguments, the likes of which preempt many of Pro's own arguments, have gone unaddressed. *Points Breakdown* Conduct: Con - Pro forfeited a round. S/G: Con - Pro failed to put spaces in between paragraphs, resulting in an unpleasant-to-read wall of text.
Gay Marriage should be Legal

Gay marriage isn't hurting anybody and therefore should not be illegal I don't think i can stress enough about why this is even an issue when nobody is harmed at all, Con would need to present how keeping a victim less preference on who you love be kept banned. What will the effects of gay marriage be? It will mean that two people of the same gender who love eachother would be able to get the state to recognize there commitment to spend the rest of their lives with eachother. I would like to here from Con what is so bad about this happening and why it should be banned. For right now Con needs to show why loving people need to be barred from getting married. The reality is thousands of gay couples have been basically married just without state recognizing it they have been together for years now and just want to be treated like equals to straight couples. 2. Marriage is always changing and you have to look at history to see that this is true. Con i assume will bring the question of "Why should we change the definition of marriage since we always had it between one man and one woman, why change it now? " The fact is that we need to define one man and one woman, plus in fact in the 1960's people were against interracial marriage but now its legalized! Used to be one white man and one white woman now that's not true. Used to be that you had to marry based on your social status or how much money you made or job you had but that is not true anymore. IN fact in the past we had non consent marriages such as "Arranged marriage" where the parent decides who you marry but we gotten away with that but why is it that two same gender couples who want to be together and truly love eachother should be barred from getting married? As society evolves marriage evolves and we are now in a civilized 21st society society where we don't bar two loving people from marrying eachother. . http://www.listland.com... . http://www.livescience.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Denying gay marriage is a form of denying civil rights and a form of discrimination In the USA we are all equal under the law and no one should be treated unjustly discriminated against. By law makers making laws strictly prohibiting and discriminating against gays. Under the Constitution in the 14th amendment we are under Due process of the law and because a set of consenting adults can get married but another set can not is seen as the denial of gay people's constitutional civil rights and is a form of discrimination. Con needs to show why denying consenting adults the same rights that other adults are already doing should be allowed. No adult should be disallowed from doing something that other people are allowed to do. No lesbian or gay person need's to be treated less than full citizens when it comes to their legal and civil rights. . http://www.teenink.com... . http://www.shmoop.com... . http://www.slate.com... I have some other arguments i will present in my next round for now i will present Con with these three arguments for same sex marriage. Good luck and have fun :)
Feminism is a useless movement in the U.S. in todays political landscape

I am arguing that feminism is a dumb movement and serves no valuble purpose in the modern landscape. I am refering to the dictionary.com definition of feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. My reasons are as follows: 1. There is NO legal right that women have over men 2. Women get full custody rights over a man in the case of a divorce 3. If a women steals a mans sperm, she can sue him for child support 4. Feminists shut down a male suicide convention 5. Feminism only helps women 6. 75% of suicides are male 7. 84% of homocides are male 8. 99% of war deaths are male 9. Serious issues women face are ignored by feminists (women not being able to show their face in public in some 3rd world countries is one) 10. The wage gap is a myth that has been debunked many times for the following reasons: men take less time off, competitiveness, ask for raises more often, work higher paying jobs (no this is not sexism, this is good life choices), hours in the office, etc. 11. The term "mansplaining" is a sexist term 12. The majority of body shaming is by women 13. Feminism endorses movements that are terrible (fat acceptance is one) 14. Feminism rejects facts 15. Feminists will complain about the STEM field even though women have a 2/3 acceptance over men 16. The 8% rape claims is false statistic is from a 1996 FBI paper that also says 33% have a lack of evidence (which means they are likely false) 17. Male children are mroe likely to be abused than females 18. Mothers are twice as likely to abuse children than fathers. If you do accept this debate, please, DO NOT say that I'm sexist or that I'm stupid. Win the debate with facts and statistics. That being said, hit me with all you've got.
Native Americans should be called brown and not red

My opponent has forfeited his closing argument, which is arguably the most important round of all. He appears to believe he doesn't have a chance at finishing me off, and has instead done himself in. I choose to state my closing arugment nonetheless. philadam states that Native Americans should be called 'brown' rather than 'red', because their skin tone is more brown than it is red. However, if he retains this belief, than I would assume he also retains the belief that other races should follow the same rules; take a look at your typical african-american, classified by color commonly as 'black'. While some blacks retain a rather dark, coal-black skin, many of them have more of a medium, light, or dark-brownish skin tone, as opposed to black. Therefore, 'blacks' are now referred to as 'browns'. Native Americans also are now referred to as 'browns' rather than 'reds' Then, we have the 'whites'. However, many people classified as 'white' are not the pasty color we all see as 'white'. Some 'whites' have tans, or are just tan regularly. The most related color to tan is its darker shade; brown. Therefore, about half of the 'whites' are now referred to as 'browns'. So now, we have a skin tone that encompasses African-Americans, Native Americans, and some Europeans. Do you see where I'm getting at? We need these different names for skin colors so we can distinguish between them. Not for derogatory purposes, but for distinguishing purposes. Native Americans should remain to be referred to as 'red', rather than 'brown'.
Native Americans should be called brown and not red

philadam, Your rebuttal is made up of solely criticizing my evidence. You did nothing to support your argument, not elaborate on why I am wrong. Your arguments are incomplete and can be classified somewhat as fallacies, which might correspond with your 0.00% win rate. "if you want a better america, it starts with more accurate profiling thank you" philadam, this argument does not pertain of America's current state, which, I must agree, is a dismal one. Stay on topic, please. Yes, while one of these photos was an illustration, the skin tone was not completely brown; it had more of a brown-reddish tint to it. Yes, a brown-REDDISH tint. Why would the illustrater have portrayed the Native American with this kind of skin tone if it was not conclusive to what some Native Americans really look like? What alterior motive would the illustrator have for painting (or oil pasteling, I'm not sure what the illustrator used for materials) the Native American with a reddish skin tone? I really don't think anyone's paying him on the side to fix his drawings for racial purposes, honestly. Same goes for the picture of the reenactor; why else would he apply that makeup to his Native American impersonation attire if it did not represent the image of the Native American, the "Red Indian"? I await your final rebuttal.
Native Americans should be called brown and not red

philadam, Your opening argument is short and brief, stating that Native Americans should be called 'brown' and not 'red'. The reasonings behind your feelings on this topic is simply what we see from the naked eye; you claim their color takes on more of a brownish tone than a reddish tone. This is not entirely true. Yes, their skin is somewhat brown. However, it is not entirely brown; there are some light tints added. Although it is not clear, fire engine red, it is the next closest thing that represents their tone. Here is an illustration of a Native American: http://www.filebuzz.com... Here is another link that displays an actual photo of a Native American. Look at this and tell me he does not have a reddish tint to him: http://www.brokenenglish.com... Brown is too much of a set color; differences in the tones of color need to be notified. I will elaborate on this in the next round. Also, the use of the word "red" to describe a Native American (or, in Columbus' case, Indian)'s skin has background to it. The color of chestnuts is a medium brownish shade of red. The color, "Chestnut", is also referred to as "Indian Red", which is used by some to describe the skin tone of Native Americans. Personally, I think that the description fits. I await your first rebuttal.
Security vs. Law: Torture (pro is for law, con for torture)

At no point did I mention or argue that the detainees remand was illegal or anything else. I am talking about torture, degrading treatment, the wireless tapping, and the Patriot Act. The supreme court already ruled that the detainees must be given trials and charged. There is no sense in argueing a point that I have not even brought up. The above issues are what I am looking to debate. I think its a clear and simple debate that I have posed. Lets not get off course with debate about things that are not the issue.
Security vs. Law: Torture (pro is for law, con for torture)

I don't beleive in warrantless wiretapping or the patriot act. Your debate topic says nothing about that. As con, it is torture, not invasion of privacy. Don't try to twist your argument. So anyway, you have never given any alternatives. If there are so many good ones as you said, why didn't you list any. I'll go out on a limb here with a crazy theory of why you didn't- You didn't have any so you just said there are a bunch of them knowing that it was the 4th round and you wouldn't have to answer to it because it was your last argument. Now you'll put a crying comment with maybe 2 or 3 crummy alternatives and say thar you DID have alternates.
Security vs. Law: Torture (pro is for law, con for torture)

I think your rhetoric about "punching mr. terrorist" is misguided. There are plenty of interrogation methods that are far more successful, and efficient in getting ACURATE information that do NOT involve any level of torture. We are fighting this war on terror on the basis that they are attacking our freedom and our democracy. How can we still claim this if we are going to employ the types of behaviour that we criticize them for? You should ask France how well torture worked for them in Algiers. Ended up emboldening the resistance movement and in the end the information proved flawed and inaccurate. We are supposed to be the MORAL and JUST society, so how could anyone make any positive argument for the use of torture? It's only people like you who have no understanding of the military, history, or of torture itself who would advocate its use. Sen. McCain who himself endured years of brutal torture has spoken out sharply against its use. History has shown us that it does nothing more than enhance the recruiting for, and cause of the resistance (terrorist) movements. So in essence you claim that it will prevent somehow 1,000's of lives being lost may be true in the short term, but in the long term you have created a new class of terrorists drawn to the cause by the methods you advocate. Hence more fighters equals more potential for death, and destruction. By the way you can't have it both ways. If it's OK for us to do, then you should have no problem with them doing it to our soldiers. Your argument would be similar to saying, "hey the German's shot 100 of our guys surrendering, so we should do the same." No matter if they employ torture or not, that should not be the basis for you advocating its use. International treaties prevent it, international morals prevent it, and rational thought by intelligent people prevent it. -Also what do you think of warrantless wiretapping, and the patriot act?
Security vs. Law: Torture (pro is for law, con for torture)

I don't beleive in beheading them. Killing without a trial is immoral and stupid. Killing the guy who knows where the bomb is doesn't make sense, and is WRONG! Nobody criticizes Iraqi surgeons who torture our men, they run the country, but aren't elected. Just because our people run the country, yet are elected makes it wrong? Nobody understands how irrational Middle Eastern politics truly is. We must level the playing field or else we will have tons of innocent troops die because nobody would punch Mr.Terrorist in the head.
Gun Control

I accept and will start my arguments this round due to only allowing 500 characters. . . "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" [1] Kids have the right to bear arms. By the 2nd amendment they have the right to play with toy guns. If a child is being attacked by a wild species such as a racoon, he or she should shoot it. . . . . [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Fun. is better than One Direction

OHELLNO I'm sorry, I'm just used to calling people bro. Okay I'm not trying to be mean but...the only reason why One Direction is more loved than fun. is because of their image. It's just that. I mean, what teenage girl wouldn't love a bunch of teenage guys who can sing great, look hot and have awesome accents? fun. has original songs that you don't really see anywhere else. One Direction's songs are mainly for girls and not every gender can all sing along to that while fun. has almost any song for occasion and any gender. fun. has more than just image and that is why I believe that fun. IS better than One Direction or at the very least in the same ranks. I'm not saying that fun. is the next The Beatles or anything but they are something like it. I'm sorry if I talk kinna weird but it's hard to not talk Moke when I've been growing up in Oahu.
Fun. is better than One Direction

First things first, Ima Newbie just to let you know. For all you Directioners out there, I swear I am not a Directionater. I actually like 1D just not that much. Personally, fun. is way better for me. To be honest, I am pretty stubborn so click over here if you want a good somewhat clean fight. I'm sorry if I start offending anyone but hey, it's a debate.
A pregnant mother 21 shot and killed - yeah right- yet again another reason why god cannot exist

Looking forward to this debate! I want to clarify that I am not going to be arguing whether God exists but rather I will be taking up the argument you proposed; I will be arguing: “A kind God CAN exist despite all the evil occurring in this world” I will assume that the following statements are the resolution:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) “There is absolutely no possible way that god according to the horrific bible exists unless you believe in pure 100% hate and evil.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The premise of your argument relies on the fact that death is a punishment to a human being. As such, you argue the fact that since God allows murder, He punishes the innocent and rewards the murderer. I would accept this premise if the idea of Afterlife did not exist. The Afterlife is a place of either eternal torment or paradise. Those who have done well in the eyes of god will enter Paradise and as such, dying will lead to the greatest reward. Those who have sinned will enter hell and as such dying will lead to eternal punishment. If an individual does believe in an Afterlife, they can believe in a God without believing in “pure 100% hate and evil”. God allowing murder of innocent lives can simply be seen as accelerating a person’s journey to the Afterlife.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) “Oh and oh yeah with a very big "duh" sign pinned to those who believe - there's 0 to prove that your god even exists.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This argument is an appeal to ignorance and is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have intentionally left out your argument for gun control because I do not believe it adds to your point. Gun control will not disprove/prove existence of a non-evil God.