BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Final Fantasy VII's storyline is the best in gaming

I Zeratul believe that FFVII changed the history of gaming storylines. It has every element that would make you want to play it more and more. It has been the basic influence for fantasy based video games and has not been touched by any Final Fantasies to date. The Characters have the perfect personality and charisma that make the story better than nearly any movie i've seen as well. It goes from the broken down hero with no hope left but all his friends telling him to keep going to the Villian who was once everyone's hero then turned to a life of hatred to everyone.
Gay Marriage is an Abomination

Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with being gay. People are always going to have their opinions, but this one drives me to anger. Gays are human too and have feelings. Gays are just who they are and will not change. Why would they? Gay oppression should well be frowned upon. It leads to a misleading interpretation of what homosexuality means, it portrays it as a nasty disease and as a plague to fear.
Gay Marriage is an Abomination

First of all, I am not the typical Republican. When I made this account I had thought I was. Looking at my political views I do not categorize myself as any of the real political parties in my country (America). Aside from that of course I am a supporter of Homosexuals. I feel that as long as people don't bother me, I have no reason to be bothered by them or their existence. I feel the same way with other kinds of people. If a Conservative or Homophobic doesn't bother me or spout anti-gay hate speech, I'm fine with their existence. Maybe you can come up with a good argument and explain to me why gays are so wrong, eh? I mean, gays are also not allowed to fight in the military. Gays are not allowed to be married (in some countries), and in other countries, gays pretty much can't live freely. None of this is right. And what I think of most when I heart these conditions is Nazi Germany. I mean, limiting the rights of 'subhuman' gays and sending them off to camps just for their sexual interests. And also oppressing their rights, not allowing them to go cinemas or anything. I simply do not see a reason to hate gays. Give me a reason--present a good argument. I will not be moved from my position but I will consider the views of your side if you just come up with good factual evidence or some logistical reasons.
polution is a worldwide issue

I wasn't aware that the world is full of cannibals. Anyway, to answer your question the strong eat the weak because those that were once strong will become the new weak until we become infinitely nearer to the perfect human being and kill off the weak fools such as myself for the strong geniuses to survive.That's life. :)You did not supply sources for any of your statistics and the only relevant stats were only for America.Lack of drinking water isn't due to pollution, that's due to lack of irrigation. it's a financial issue of funding, not an issue of polluted water (the water was already polluted naturally). Imagine how packed the world would be if those birds and sea mammals didn't die!I win. Good game. Well played.
polution is a worldwide issue

Pollution is killing the weak, yes I agree. But when the weak is gone what will the stronger things eat? What will the animals that eat those things eat? And so on and so forth. Polluted water and polluted air are causing poisinous plants, and killing animals in the area. So there is going to be nothing left for us to eat. Pollution is also directly harming us. Over 1 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water. 5,000 people die each day due to dirty drinking water. Approximately 46% of the lakes in America are too polluted for fishing, aquatic life, or swimming. Over 1 million seabirds and 100,000 sea mammals are killed by pollution every year. No it does not JUST effect the weak, it effects us too.
polution is a worldwide issue

1) What is polution? Do you mean pollution?2) Pollution isn't an issue, it assists with natural selection[1] as the weaker die off faster. And since our world is currently overpopulating, killing off the weak is pretty useful.3) If pollution is an issue then it's only an issue in countries that are not overpopulated and don't need to kill the weak off.Best of luck, opponent.Sources:[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] http://www.overpopulation.org...
We are threatened by the development of the technology of cloning.

If were being realistic, the best were going to get are biological clones, meaning birth clones, they wouldn't be neurological clones, they would have different memory's and experiences and as a result there brains would develop differently, and every time you would try to make a new clone, the DNA is going to have shorter and shorter telimeres if your using the DNA from every clone to the next, so in regard to humans, cloning isn't a threat.
animal testing should be allowed

First, I said animal testing FOR COSMETICS IS WRONG. BoP for me is not to prove all animal testing should be allowed, but some, in this case medical testing on animals. Rebuttal"if it was by medical reasons we all have different blood cells and tissue." Rats have 99% same genes as humans. [1]Chimpanzees are 96%-98% the same has humans genetically. [2] ArgumentsAnimal testing has led to more understanding for malaria, eradication of polio, development of insulin, vaccines, and other cures. [3] ConclusionAnimal testing is needed for medicine. Not all animal testing leads to abuse. http://www.nature.com...;[1]http://genome.cshlp.org...;[2]http://www.pro-test.org.uk...;[3]
animal testing should be allowed

well if i was lying well it is known as that happens mostly all the time. second if it was by medical reasons we all have different blood cells and tissue. in that case the testing can also end up wrong. also the animals have different structure. now the medicines that we eat are not all animal tested. if you go down it says that Advil is not animal tested and that is all around the world. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... also you agreed that animal testing is wrong. well if you know debate rules you don't do that which just decreased your chances of winning. animal testing is also done for cosmetics. now ask your self; do we really need cosmetics? i don't think so. animals are dying in so many ways
animal testing should be allowed

Rebuttal"99% of the animals that are tested are dead and thrown in the garbage"I highly doubt that is true at all. You have no source backing your statement. For all we know, you made up that statistic. "now imagine someone tested perfume on you."You made it unclear whether we are talking about animal testing for cosmetics or all animal testing. I agree that testing cosmetics on animals should be banned, but does not merit animal testing for medical purposes being banned. Argument[2] medical progress requires animal testing. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1] http://www.amprogress.org...;[2]
animal testing should be allowed

your website says page not found?!!! Also animal testing is cruel!!! they have a life for a reason. they want to live. also who are you to decide that these animals get tortured to death? well animal testing hurts them. 99% of the animals that are tested are dead and thrown in the garbage. now imagine someone tested perfume on you. you get a eye rash. then they spay it again. it will get worse and eventually you will die!!! also pro this is not a BRING IT ON. it is a simple debate on animal testing. this is the before and after effect: after : http://www.independent.com... before: http://www.santabanta.com... if you want that to happen then okay well it is not okay
animal testing should be allowed

Con did not really specify what kind of animal testing, therefore, I am going to assume that ALL kinds of animal testing should not be allowed. I will be arguing that some forms of animal testing should be allowed, specidically for medical purposes. Why is the character limit 750? !? !I have only one point that I will develop in both rounds. Arguments Medical AdvancesTesting on animals has led to numerous medical discoveries and successes that have cured diseases and cancers for humans. For example, if animal testing was banned, small-pox would not have been eradicated. [1]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1]
Minimum Wage

The two points of this debate are does no minimum wage allow for worker exploitation and does it hurt bussiness. As for worker exploitation, that means that countries with no minimum wages will have higher poverty rates.Germany is one of the only countries without a minimum wage. Their poverty rate is the exact same as ours. In fact, new Mexico and California have minimum wages higher then the rest of the country. The national average is 15%. Calafornai has a poverty rate of 18%. New Mexico's is 21%. The city of San franisico has a the highest minimum wage in the country and it has a poverty rate of 23%. So places with high minimum wages can also have high poverty rates. Not having a minimum wage lifts people out of poverty because it makes it easier to find a job. As for making it more expensive more bussinesess, that's comment sense. You can have less of something that cost more. Any one in us who produces less 7.25 an hour is unhireable. You will not make a profit. With no minimum wage you could pay a worker that produces 7 dollars an our 6 dollars and they could learn job skill and eventually earn a higher wage.
Minimum Wage

First, lets consider what the minimum wage is intended to do. It is intended to prevent bussineses from "exploiting" workers. If we don't have it, workers will be paid next to nothing. This is simply not true. Very few workers even work the minimum wage, this is because the more they work, the more value they gain and there wages will rise. People have a choice of were to work, if they want a very low paying job, its because they feel its the best choice. Also, if bussinesses start paying people barely anything, people won't work there. Bussinesses will try to offer the best wages possible to compete for workers. They will also raise the wages of current workers or those workers will find higher paying jobs. The minimum wage harms people in areas where their is high enemployment and the ecomy is bad because bussinisses cant pay minimum wage. In areas of high enemployment people are desprete for work and will work for far less then the minimum wage. The minumum wage keeps them out of the workforce. If you don't have a skill that is worth the minumum wage you are also shut out of the economy, no one will pay you the minimum wage if you are an unskilled labor who isn't producing enough. It stops bussinisses from expanding and hiring others because they must pay minimum wage. In general it is governments attempt to fix what the free market does fine.
Minimum Wage

I feel that, under the current system, the minimum wage is beneficial to society, for it maintains the just compensation to workers. I am not endorsing any specific line; but if I were forced to give a range that I feel is reasonable to set the minimum wage at, I would argue that at least 25% of the worker’s productivity or profit in addition to a minimum survival wage needs to be directly paid back to the worker in order to maintain balance. This of course, is not absolute. Definitions: 1. “Minimum wage” shall be defined as a minimum reimbursement that an employer is required by a government to pay an employee relative to a certain reference point. Whether this system is a flat hourly dollar value or as a percent of profit is not what I’m concerned with here. This does not apply to situations where having a minimum wage is impossible, such as when a company is bankrupt. BoP will be shared. I shall argue that having some sort of wide spread minimum wage system is in general beneficial to society under the current situations, while my opponent will argue that having minimum wage will in general be bad for society.
is video game having a bad influence on teenagers

=== EXTENSION OF ARGUMENTS === (1. a. Con has not proven his point) I reaffirm this argument (2. a. Video games are harmful to health) I put forward more sources to extend this point: b: http://tinyurl.com... c: http://tinyurl.com... d. http://tinyurl.com... e. http://tinyurl.com... f. http://tinyurl.com... g. http://tinyurl.com... h. http://tinyurl.com... i. http://tinyurl.com... I reaffirm. (3. a. Video games cause violent behavior) Con has not challenged this point. I reaffirm.
is video game having a bad influence on teenagers

===DEFINITIONS=== Bad: Not achieving an adequate standard, disagreeable, unpleasant, unfavorable, injurious in effect; detrimental. [1] Influence: To affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify. [2] ===ARGUMENTS=== 1. Con needs to provide evidence to support his assertion. a: He has not done this so far. 2. Harm to health fits the definition of bad influence. a: Video Games are harmful to health. [3] 3. Causing violent behavior fits the definition of bad influence. a: Video games cause violent behavior. [4] ===SOURCES=== 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...
Bachelor's Degree

The topic for today's debate is " is it right to advocate for completing an Associate Degree as fast as possible and go out to work as soon as possible? " My opponent didn't define any terms which are important which are important for a debate, so I will define the terms we will be going by for today's debate. I define Right as fair I define Advocate or Suggest as a person who argues for a cause I define Completing as to finish I define Associate Degree as an undergraduate program requiring 60 credits to complete I define as soon as possible as the earliest possible moment Since my opponent didn't give a criterion, I will give my own. The criteria the judges should be using for today's debate should be: Encourage a stable life financially ( since finance decides a lot of things like whether you eat or not) So my opponent's first contention is that work experience isn't as important as being educated. This is simply is not true. Since we're talking about being financially stable it's obvious that work experience is highly preferred by employers that you need to be financially stable. according to a 2013 report by High Fliers Research, they concluded that college graduates without work experience had "little chance" of getting a job. This proves that education isn't more important when talking about financial stability. My opponent's second contention is that people like Bill gates and Steve jobs have dropped out of college and had great success and they treated education as more important. This is not representative of what the majority of people who drop out of college can expect nor do we see it happen right now. The median income for a college graduate is around 51,000 and the average income for a high school graduate is 27,000. That is a huge difference. A reason a lot of college students don't graduate is because of poor preparation, and Bill Gates says himself stay in school. My opponent's third contention is going to work early is not a good way to do. I would like to argue that internships count as job experience and job experience is very important to employers, and to financially stable you need to have a good job to pay back whatever loans you took out. Now I will provide some counter contentions 1) My first contention: Finishing college as fast as possible means that you save money. For example, The University of Kentucky's tuition is 24,000 a year. If you can shed 12,000 off the total cost by graduating a semester early and take 12,000 off the final total then it's well worth it and it would be completely right to advocate for that kind of financial responsibility. 2) My second contention: Graduating early means you get to live in better dorms at whatever college you attend, because after you accumulate a certain number of credits the school sees you as a sophomore and you get to stay in upper-classmen dorms. This provides for a better college experience on top of saving money. For all of these reasons, I would urge a strong vote for affirmative side.
Bachelor's Degree

Hi everyone! So here come my first debate! In my society, especially my college, my classmates argue that bachelor's degree is not so important for people who study IT and majors that related to computer. They suggest people to complete their associated degree and go out for work as soon as possible! Do you guys think this is right? For me, education is important and with knowledge, people can make something new! But when people from my class argue about "work experiences", they said it is far more important!!! I disagree with this! Although we see some 10% people who have dropped out and success in life like Bill Gate, Steve Jobs,... I think they learned and educated themselves in different ways! They never treat education as unimportant! So how do you think about this? For IT, is bachelor or master degree important! My stand is "Yes" and I don't think go to work early is a good way that my teachers always said! I think people should prepare enough knowledge and skills to work!
we should fake an alien invasion, To unite the planet and leave earth.

the unity of a group of people can only exist in opposition to another. Therefore in order to unify all humans on the earth, We must band together against a common opponent outside of our planet. there are various methods to go about doing this, However controlling the media would be unattainable so i propose simply pulling off a Dr. Manhattan and simply forge an alien transmission of their intent to conquer the earth in all earth languages, Then systematically detonate nuclear bombs and EMP's in a few large human cities. other details would have to played by ear but i suppose we could achieve it with the backing of at leas 30% of the more powerful countries.
we should fake an alien invasion, To unite the planet and leave earth.

I'm just gonna say what we are all thinking. Humans are a terrible species and all our political boarders were drawn not to say, This is where our people live - but to say this is where your people can't live. Therefore I propose we pull of a huge reverse psychology move and lie to the planet that aliens are coming to invade the planet, Kidnap our women and children yadda yadda yadda, Then form the first planet wide human empire and spend 1000 hunting down aliens.
George Bush is a good president.

George Bush has destroyed our nation. 1. He implimented No Child Left Behind, overcrowding our good schools and still leaving our bad schools to be bad. 2. He created the Iraq War for the purpose of finding weapons of mass destruction, stopping terrorism, and promoting democracy. They vote, they have no WMDs, and terrorism will NEVER be stopped, and Iraq has nothing to do with it. 3. He lowered out economy significantly, lower than most African nations. 4. He raised gas prices, making transport difficult. 5. He created the Patriot Act, making our constitution invalid and thereby creating a catalyst to destroy our entire constitution. If the terrorists threaten our free speech, then we will revoke that, etc. Who is to say that we will get rid of freedom of religion and convert everybody into muslims after the next 9/11. 6. He failed to do ONE good thing for America.
DOUBLE DEES

Well i cant say i agree or dont agree with you on this matter. For me at least it has a lot to do with the person, but i wont deny that a "nice pair of big bahama momas" arnt bad. Let me ask, is it all double d breast that you dont like? Because really im thinkin that this debate is more of a opinion than anything. In your rebuttle, id like you to answer the following questions: 1. What is it about large breast that you dont like? 2. Would you immediatly turn away a women(who you could be compatible with along the lines of personality) if she had large breasts? 3.When judging the women with large breast, do you consider that it is their choice and that may make them happier and in no way is to please you? Thanks for the debate.
DOUBLE DEES

I regret that this is more of an opinion debate but ill try to make it not. "but any size above that "i believe" is just extreemely over the top."- Thegreatdebator. Your point of the debate is to prove that Breast I think this debate cant be solved because not everyone can agree on how big they like theyre "hooters". One man may say " i like them small" and another may declare " i want them as big as my head". If you believe that and thats your only evidence of breasts attractiveness being lowered by size than i declare in reality nobody can be right in such a debate. One can only make his/her opinion and move on. Thanks again.
Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

My opponent's last response consisted of four points of contention that he had with my proposition. I will assume that if these points of contention are resolved, then my opponent will admit that the resolution is negated in favor of my proposition. "1: Slavery is illegal and frowned upon. Taking medical decisions on behalf of the mentally handicapped is not. " There is nothing in the resolution that limits arguments to what is or is not legal. My argument is that Theresa Winters deserves a punishment that is currently against the law. Besides, there are many instances of the government forgoing civilian rights as a decision for the common good. This situation should definitely be one of them. "2: Her children are wards of the state/under the care of new legal, who have done nothing to warrant such a punishment or removal of their freedoms. " In that case, I then propose that all children which are not permanently adopted into a household be subject to this proposition, whereas those who are be exempt. I myself could find no data but am willing to make that concession. We need to set an example that the government can no longer provide for bottom feeders under the pretense of natural rights. Feeding 16 mouths without them contributing anything else to society violates the rights of all other members of that society. This is not a removal of their freedoms, but a way for them to redeem the debt they already owe. Once the children have paid their debts, they may leave. However, neither the mother nor the father may ever leave the freak show. "3: The 'family' does not appear to be interesting enough, or 'freakish' enough to provide the basis for a commercially viable freak show. Thus I do not feel that this would successfully recoup the costs incurred to the state. " "4: Traditional freak shows are highly unpopular in modern British society. " In America, "Octomom" generates a lot of publicity and has been offered enormous sums for participation in reality shows and even a pornographic movie. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Of the offers she received was one from the UK, showing that there is legitimate interest. If the issue is with the traditional freak show, that is not the issue. The most important point is that she be kept generating money so long as she keeps generating children.