BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Factory farming should be banned

Defense & ConclusionLet me restate my position. Governments should not ban factory farming. Factory farming is the most cost effective method we have. Governments should not ban factory farming. Government"s role is not to ban effective and efficient business practices so that the "little guy" can keep his job. It is to everyone"s benefit for people to work where they are most effective and efficient.Defense of PRO"s round 3I want to thank PRO for conceding points 3 and 4 from round 3. That saves some time. These points were: 3. Farms that are not competitive may lose work. . . . This is not an argument against factory farming. It is an argument for small farms to become more efficient. 4. Factory farming is very effective. That is why small inefficient farms are not able to competeThis leaves me to defend point 1 and 2 of my earlier argument. 1. Factory farming has no more "environmental cost" than raising the same number of animals with low efficiency methods. In response to this Pro asked me to read a newspaper link and a wikipedia article. The majority of the Guardian article seemed to be about deforestation in Paraguay as they plant soy beans as a cash crop. (To sell to European Factory Farms) Soy is often purchased as a feed crop. PRO, is it truly your argument that we should ban factory farms because farms in Paraguay plant soy as a cash crops? That argument is absurd.2. Factory farm workers are not abused. Assuming we are talking about North America, there are many national and local employment laws. If workers are abused they can seek legal action. The courts are open and lawyers are happy to help you with a lawsuit. There is no systematic abuse of factory farm workers.In conclusion, PRO has given no valid reasons for his claim that governments should ban factory farming. Governments should not ban factory farming. Governments should not ban factory farming for reasons around practical farming. Governments should not ban factory farming for reasons of the scope of government.
Factory farming should be banned

I would like it better if Con had read my sources CAREFULLY."1. Factory farming has no more environmental cost" than raising the same number of animals with low efficiency methods."See http://www.theguardian.com..., http://en.wikipedia.org... (Controversies & criticisms part)"2. Factory farm workers are not abused. It was difficult to find anything about this claim. The closest thing I could find was a claim that “ it is a common practice for those farms to hire either underage workers or illegal immigrants.”[2] Since these people choose to work at a factory farm, and there is a very low level of job vacancy we can assume there is no significant abuse."Just because it is common practice doesn't mean that it is okay.I acknowledge Con's No.3,4 but.."PRO seems to think that the role of government is to prohibit the profitable methods of factory farming and subsidize the inefficient small farms. This is not really the role of government. If we are worried about environmental issues of factory farming then governments can set new standards or enforce existing standards. If the issue is the closure of unprofitable small farms we might choose to help these small farms with tax breaks or other help."I had defined factory farms as the way they are now and by saying factory farms can be improved by government regulation, CON IS CHALLENGING MY DEFINITION.LASTLY, I DID HAVE SOURCES FOR MY CLAIMS (The 'Sources' list?)THANK YOU
This Church would Proclaim: Jesus and Hitler: a romance is divinely inspired

AyyYou don't believe yournewswire is a good source? Yeah bruh, I don't believe any of yours is good. I would lask con to PROVE hitler is dead. I cited my sh1t bruh, why is my source bad? Posting theories claiming hitler is dead doesn't mean he is too. None of those sources were direct eyewitnesses. What about my eyewitnesses testimony?"this time travel would take place around 4000BC"No dude, there is no BC distinction. 2025 is our date -70 some years. 70 years is gained by taking into account leap year and solar winds. That gets it to around the supposed death date of hitler.Jesus increasing in wisdom shows he has a man nature. You admit he was a man but was sinless. Sins are directed by God, so if the gospel of phallus says homosexuality isn't a sin then it isn;t. indeed God himself engages in homosexual sex with Jesus and hitler in chapter 2 so how can it be a sin? The bible is talking about man lieing with man. One, its dobutful that its really objecting against homosexuality and two Jesus was also a GOD. Where does the bible forbid a man f*cking God? God banging a man isn't a sin. Leviticus uses the term "abomination" that refers to a ritual. Is only wrong to bang man when you are doing it in some pagan satan ritual. FTL is faster than light travel. I have proven its possible by many sources. Hong kong physicsits? Dude theyr asain. They can't see a thing. Youre going to trust them one something like this when they cant even see?"Most of your collaborative evidence can be disproved by the fact that Jesus was not a homosexual."Circular reasoning. You assume jesus wasnt gay to prove he wasnt gay. It still doesnt answer all of the collaboritve and eyewitness evidence for the gospel of phallus."What is the gospel of Phallus "read round one bruh. "why is it credible?"Uhhh, same reason the bible is crediable.Con asks for more evidence Hitler loved jesus. I have already proven he was a Christian. Con will keep asking for more and more and more and more evidence. None will satisfy him. He will forever remain unsatisfied. Im not a Freudian or anything, but I think him not liking evidence links to his sexual frustrations. He is unsatisfied in bed and therefore unsatisfyed with everything else.Hitler said ""I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..""I can quote the Quran all the time, but that does not make me a Muslim."He quoted the bible favoriably bruh. Read the evidence before you proclaim your unsatisifcationartion.Con dropped my eyewitness testimony. I have another argument that proves The gospel of Phallus is trueDivine revelationwhen I read the gospel of phallus, I get good feelings. Niiiice feelings. Hot feelings. I have never felt this divine reading anything else other than the bible. The gospel of phallus has touched me in many ways. How can it not be divine when it gives this clear revelations? "The phallus of Christ compels you!"Jesus/Hitler Vape Naysh V/\
This Church would Proclaim: Jesus and Hitler: a romance is divinely inspired

ayyResolved: The Church would Proclaim: Jesus and Hitler: a romance is divinely inspired FornificationThe prophet Angkras wrote a story called "Jesus and Hitler: A Romacne"(henceforth the gospel of Phallus). I first believed it was herecy and was ready to bring up my tourch and burn down and kill and go into moral panic and kill and rage and poop and scream and cream but then I realsed the book is true.It actually happend and ought to be added to the bible. You can read it here https://www.fanfiction.net... Con will argue that this book isn't divinely inspiried and I argue it is.Jesus/hitler 4 ever <3
This Church would Proclaim: Jesus and Hitler: a romance is divinely inspired

Pro has forfeited the round.Since he has failed to counter my arguments I would like to reinstate my points.The "prophecy" claims a few different things.1.Hitler was alive in the year 2025.Counter: Hitler died in the year 1945, so it would be impossible for him to be alive at this time.2. Hitler had a time machineCounter: I showed in my arguments how time travel is impossible according to the worlds greatest scientists.3. Hitler was a devout ChristianCounter: I showed how various historians who have extensively studied Hitler disagree with this, he was a materialist and hated Christianity4. Hitler would have "loved" Jesus. Counter: Actually Jesus was Jewish, and Hitler hated Jews. It follows that he would have hated Jesus.5. Jesus was a homosexualCounter: I showed how this is impossible, because the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin and Jesus was sinless. It therefore follows that Jesus couldnt have been a homosexual.I countered all these claims, proving the prophecy false and therefore by our definition NOT divinely inspired.Thanks,Max Lamperouge
The US should hire death squads to root out terrorists

I think both sides can make really good arguments and so I am looking forward to this debate. First things first, my opponent has not clarified in the opening round what a terrorist is. However, I am sure he will not have a problem to define a terrorist as a person who engages in terrorism. Where Terrorism is defined as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". (1) Now terrorists have been involved in some horrible acts in the past such as the World Trade Center attacks, The Munich Olympic Massacre, Boston Bombings, London Bombings, The IRA terrorist attacks in Ireland and England from 1969 to present day, ETA terrorist attacks in Spain and multiple more groups around the world. The most recent example to spring to mind is ISIS in Iraq. As such I do not think its necessary to point out more specific examples as its pretty obvious that everyone understands the basic concepts of terrorism. In this debate I plan to show that Death Squads should be utilized by the US to get rid of terrorists that threaten the countries peace. Importantly, as we are talking about the US I hope that we do not enter the hypothetical question of these death squads acting as world police death squads. I hope we can rather only debate about death squads acting in the interest of their own country. So why death squads? Simply put its the only way to get to the root of the problem and make it go away. In 1983 before the terror attacks that brought he world trade center down their was the bombing of the world trade center which killed 6 and injured more than 1000. (2) The brain behind this attack, Ramzi Yousef, then escaped abroad and was involved in multiple other terrorist attacks/attempts around the globe. Some of these were religiously motivated, while others were directed at the United States. (3) Now while this person was not directly linked to Al Queda, his uncle Khalid Shaik Mohammed was the master mind behind the 9/11 attacks and they apparently worked together on the Philippine Airline Flight 434 bombing and other terrorist plots. (4) From this we can see that there is a link in this terrorist network. In all probability if Ramzi Yousef had remained free he would have likely maintained the link with his uncle and been involved in the 9/11 crimes. Now I maintain and there is no way to deny the following logic. If death squads were employed then Yousef and his colleagues, i. e. Khalid Shaik Mohammed, would be dead. The direct result of these deaths is that 9/11 World Trade Center attacks would not have happened. I plan to expand on these types of arguments in future rounds showing the link between terrorists and terrorist attacks. This will surely demonstrate that death squads, while not palatable in many ways, would be highly effective at rooting out terrorism. I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals and counter arguments. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) . http://edition.cnn.com...(3) . http://www.nytimes.com...(4) . http://www.historycommons.org...
Slytherin is the Superior Hogwarts House

Slytherins have everything you could ever need to get ahead of the rat race: intelligence, cunning, ambition, self-preservation and a belief that the end justifies the means. Slytherins help their own when prejudice keeps the other houses from wanting to help and because of this Slytherins have some of the most powerful connections in the Ministry which most are willing to share if it benefits them or just out of the kindness of their hearts (which they do have, by the way). They do not pursue reckless adventures like the Gryffindors, whose bravery often gets them into fatal trouble. They do not focus entirely on gaining new and often useless information like the Ravenclaws, they instead focus on educating themselves only in the things that will help them in their futures. And unlike the Hufflepuffs, whose undying loyalty can get them drawn into needless conflicts, Slytherins are only friends with people who either are like them or who would not expect them to risk themselves in something they would not want to do. Slytherin has been proud to house some of the greatest wizards and witches in history, including the great Merlin who is credited as being one of the most powerful wizards in history and who established the Order of Merlin, an organization that originally promoted muggle rights. Even the Slytherins who have turned out to be "dark" were often exceptionally powerful. The house is famed for it's students who come from "old money" but they are merely a tiny portion of the demographic. In reality, Slytherin is made up of students from a colourful mixture of backgrounds ranging from disadvantaged children who built themselves up into something great to advantaged children who use their advantage in life for the benefit of themselves and others. Slytherin is superior simply because Slytherins strive to be the best they can in every single aspect of their lives. And they succeed.
Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

Details:The BoP is on me to demonstrate the resolution is true. My distinguished opponent Mykeil may either refute my arguments (so I fail to meet my BoP), or provide stronger arguments of his/her own for the antithesis (that Strong Atheism is an Unsound Position) to win. Definitions:Strong Atheism: The belief that there is no god(s) God: An intelligent being that is an omnipotent, omniscient cause of the universeNote that omnibenevolence has been omitted from God's qualities (I don't intend to use arguments from evil etc).
Gay Marriage: Legality

First and foremost your opening argument does little to prove or be in favor of the legality of gay marriage. You're very brief synopsis of homosexuality in Ancient Rome and "throughout history" (that's a very long and unspecific time) is very misleading. There is very little evidence of homosexual couples or love connections between two of the same sex. While it may be true that dominant males in these societies were able to go to places to seek out other young and old males for sex, they often had wives to go home to. No homosexuals were getting married or being in an open relationship during these times. These people would be killed. Rather, male on male sexual activity often included a strong, wealthy male, who had a wife, and a weak and submissive younger male. Furthermore there is very little conclusive evidence of lesbians during these times. Since we've gotten that out of the way let's try to understand your argument as a principle. Let's pretend your opening argument about the Roman Empire and "throughout history" was accurate and had anything to do with the legality of gay marriage. Does it make sense, on principle, to look at the actions or norms of past societies as a template for our own? "The romans used to have sex with men so therefore we should legalize gay marriage? " How absurd does that sound? Very, right? Just because a past society did something, it does not justify doing it in the present society. The romans used to kill christians, should we do that today? The romans were an extremely patriarchal society. Should we do that too? Pedophelia was also rampant during this time. .. does that justify legalizing pedophelia today? The answer to all these questions are rather obvious, I'm just pointing out the absurdity in the argument. It is true, God wants us to love everyone. Telling homosexuals that they cannot perform the sacred tradition of marriage does not mean that the society or any individual does not love gays. It is possible to have a gay friend, who you love, and also not believe in gay marriage. The if one believes in the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean that individual MUST hate homosexuals. Also, telling someone that they cannot perform in the sacred tradition of marriage does not mean you are telling gay people they cannot love one another. It is possible to love people without getting married. We are also assuming that everyone getting married is doing it out of love. However marriage is much more than that. Arranged marriages are still widespread throughout the world and "throughout history. "
Gay Marriage: Legality

If and when you accept, please use proper grammar and spelling in the English language; I find it rather annoying to decipher misspelled words and incorrectly arranged sentences. Throughout history - from ancient Rome to present day - there have been homosexual couples everywhere. The rulers of the Roman civilization understood that love is love, either between a man and a woman or any combination, and had little - if any - restrictions on homosexual relations or citizens. Why is it that, even when God tells us to love one another as we love him, that so many scorn those who are attracted to the same gender? I understand that not every religious person feels this way. But to even think about discriminating against someone because of their love interest - whether it be marriage rights or otherwise - is perturbing. (Apologies for the short beginning argument. I have small amounts of extra time.)
Sherlock Holmes theory

Pro says that realistically not, but again it's a Sherlock Holmes book/movie/show, in which there are crazy cases for Sherlock to solve, in fact, Sherlock himself is unrealistic. Then my opponent says that he could learn it, then forget it again, but the things is that still proves my case since he had to know it for a case. We are arguing "Holmes wants to say that the knowledge about it wouldn't make a difference", but even if he forgets it, it still made a difference. And it also doesn't have to be as ridiculous as going out to space, maybe someone is pointing a gun at his head and he says if Sherlock doesn't answer this question right he dies. And the question of course would be does the earth go around the sun or the moon. Therefore I have proved it could affect him, therefore it does matter that he knows it. Thanks to my opponent and voters for this debate.
Sherlock Holmes theory

My opponent is arguing that Sherlock doesn't need to know if the sun goes around the moon, or vice versa. But then my opponent says "And it is extremely unlikely he will be handling a case of space scientists wherein this info will help him." When Pro says unlikely, it means that there are situations in which Sherlock would need to know, therefore my my point that it does make a difference if Sherlock knows or not, is achieved.
Sherlock Holmes theory

Knowledge of the solar system doesn't help the common or rare detective, it should be obvious. Not every man is an astronaut or space scientist, only they need to know about solar system. What will a detective care whether it is summer or winter, whether there is solar radiation or not. So long as it doesn't significantly affect him or his work, he doesn't need to know about it. And it is extremely unlikely he will be handling a case of space scientists wherein this info will help him.
Donald Trump (pro) vs Rahul Gandhi (con)

I think about four hours but it was mostly to procrastinate doing other stuff. Those are just some bars for a good ending: I drop my lines like bombs down the trenches of Iwo JimaLife curls up on its back as the grim reaper stands supremerThe mushroom-could expands but it ain't what it seemsThat's the penis of Rahul Gandhi up the skies of Hiroshima. Heck my family name is Gandhi and I support violence and crimeThat's like being called Jesus and getting locked up serving timeBut one thing I know for sure as a Christian to the boneIf they brought me to Jesus he would have thrown the stone. I try to focus on one story but go in tangents and different directionsTo elephants and beehives and Venus' velocity and interjectionsBut to effectively summarize my counterarguments and objectionsI'm so controversial and dumb I'm no longer winning elections.
Donald Trump (pro) vs Rahul Gandhi (con)

Firstly, awesome speech. Secondly, he doesn't know that much English. Third, Donald Trump may still have a chance of winning, but Rahul Gandhi failed this year's elections, and considering everyone thinks of him as extremely foolish, even more than Kejriwal. Donald Trump actually has some die-hard supporters, plus, he seems to be serious about his claims to reduce immigration and destroy ISIS. Donald Trump is a pro, Rahul Gandhi is just an amateur. Rahul Gandhi was only allowed to come in the Congress due to his mother Sonia Gandhi. Trump has rose for himself and is doing good. Trump's few sayings "My parents came all the way from Germany to America not to see it overtaken by immigrants." "Crooked Hilary Clinton" "extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a fraud" "Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man. He made a good decision." "I will build a great wall and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." "One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. "Its freezing and snowing in New York, we need global warming!" "I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." "I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I am more honest and my women are more beautiful. "My IQ is one of the highest and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault." http://www.marieclaire.co.uk...
Donald Trump (pro) vs Rahul Gandhi (con)

Hello there Mr. Trump, I'm here to say my greetingMy name is Rahul Ghandi and I'm honoured by this meetingI'm here to teach you "controversial, obnoxious and depleting"Show you true assholery from the land of the Curry-eating.We all know a common truth that comes with mental healthThe poor are poor because they're poor at managing their wealth."Poverty is a state of mind" I have claimed and won the electionsIn a country full of poverty, diseases and infectionsHeck I'm so controversial I'll give Mrs. Trump erections!!I'm a half-blood fuckin Muslim but I fuckin hate IslamI'm also anti-Hindu in a Hindu majority, bammmm!That's like winning the US elections and turning out to be SaddamOr Hilary Clinton man-spreading showing dick not showing clam.I trump you in my controversy, Mr. Rahul is the GhoulI pump more controversy than Muslims pumpin terrorists and fuelBut I got to admit one thing I cannot outmatchThe controversy of a Pakistani doggy-stylin his mule.Oh, and Mr. Trump, get rid of that Orangutan-hairPeople here are thinking that is Hilary's crotch up thereYou might think you're noble and high class but I don't even fuckin careThe man makes his own position, he's not made by his chairAs the French saying goes,Wherever you are sitting you are sitting on your "derrière!"