BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All terrorist are not muslims.

The resolution is that all the terrorists in the world are not Muslim, so if I can provide one example of a Muslim terrorist, then that is sufficient to negate the resolution. To further captialize on the factual ubsurdity of pro's argument I will also refute the assertion that "every terrorist will definitely hurted by the people or government or some politicians. "NEGATION 1. "All the terrorists in the world are not muslims"C1. Osama Bin Ladin is a Muslim and a terrorist (1)a. Osama Bin Ladin is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in the United States. He committed such acts in the name of Islam and muslim practices. It was his self-asserted claim that his actions were in view with his religion. Bin Laden distorted Islam and made it appear evil when it is not, but he is a muslim none the less and certainly recognized globally as a terrorist. Therefore there IS a terrorist that is Muslim. 2. "every terrorist will definitely hurted by the people or government or some politicians"If I can prove that there is at least ONE terrorist that was not hurt by the people or government, and terrorized purely to proport his religioius views, then the above quote is disproved. C2. The "Christmas Day terrorist" was not hurt by people. a. His failed attempt to bomb a U. S plane was brought about merely because he received instructions from Al Qaida. "The suspect claimed to have received training and instructions from al-Qaida operatives in Yemen" (2)As you can see, there IS 1 terrorist that was not hurt by anyone. RESOLUTION NEGATED.1. www. youtube. com (Video to the right). http://www.youtube.com...2. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
All terrorist are not muslims.

All the terrorists in the world are not muslims. Their names are used for suppressing the rumours. Being an Indian and an Hindu, I strongly say that not all the muslims are terrorists and vice versa. The terrorist activities happen all over the world due lack of love towards the society, those antipathic people turn unfortunately into terrorist as to show the outcome of their anger towards the society. I also want to stress a fact that every terrorist will definitely hurted by the people or government or some politicians.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

"And it's just that. An opinion." Isnt this whole debate a matter of opinion? "The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e" I just about fell off my chair when I read this I was laughing that hard, I cant even make a statement about it. I even had to tell my husband! He said, "oh I guess you had to be there" "The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion." So neither of us can factually proove or disprove that your program would decrease crime rates due to these specific urges. In closing, my opponent failed to fully prove that the population would benefit from his proposed program. Quite the opposite in fact, Pro stated that funding would come out of our own taxes, as if our money doesnt go to enough rediculous causes already. The idea that Pro is defending would also do harm to our environment due to Pro's proposed plan of incenerating the used bodies. My opponent also neglected to answer my question of what would happen if a rapist, or murderer said that they wanted fairness and a chance to legally fulfill their urges as well. People should not be able to donate their bodies to this cause as it would inevitably do much more harm than good. Ill be at your BBQ, but Ill bring my own burgers, made from COWS!
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

"Ok let me know when youre done..." Ahaha, will do. =) "I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent." And it's just that. An opinion. "Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan..." The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e. "What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here." The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion. But if even one necrophiliac or cannibalistic crime is committed this year, that's too much. In conclusion, if we allow people to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs and cannibals, it will have a positive effect on crime rates. Not to mention, if someone wants to do it, who are we to judge? It doesn't concern us, so I think it's best to just let it lie. Well, I thank my opponent for a fun and entertaining debate. Good luck! And by the way, when I die, BBQ at my place. Formal dress attire. Bring your own beer.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

"I'm working on it." Ok let me know when youre done... "That's subjective. You can't tell me what I'm thinking." I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent. "I disagree. The body could be incinerated. By a waste of space, I was referring to how most people get buried. It kills me to see graveyards, because the space they use could be used for more important things, like housing." Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan... "Lack of evidence makes negates your case." What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here. Round 4 done. It looks like final arguements are due. Good luck Pro!
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

"In your first arguement you stated that background checks would be done to ensure people arent profiting from this. In the above statement you are suggesting that registrants would be anonymous. Which will it be?" Both. The government will do background checks, but, it's not like someone can just look up their names and be find out if anyone they know did it with a dead body. "If were going to satisfy one we may as well help them all. According to your theory to satisfy one or two helps the world, how much better would the world be if we satisfied everyones urges? How about we make it a grand system where suicidal persons can go and sign over their bodies to this program (satisfying suicide). Then homicidal people can kill them (satisfying homicide). After that Kleptomaniacs can come and rob the bodies of personal belongings (satisfying theft). And finally all the bodies can be turned over to the cannibals and necro's." I'm working on it. "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That's subjective. You can't tell me what I'm thinking. "Also, the body would eventually become what you call a waste of space because the bodies would have to be disposed. Once there was no more edible parts the body would need to be turned in and most likely buried. When the body began decomposing (which happens as soon as death occurs) it would no longer be safe for sexual intercourse and would need to be turned in and buried." I disagree. The body could be incinerated. By a waste of space, I was referring to how most people get buried. It kills me to see graveyards, because the space they use could be used for more important things, like housing. "So youre proposing that our tax dollars would go toward funding sexual and cullinary disires? I dont think that the number of crimes commited solely to fullfill these two disires is high enough to pass this through congress." Lack of evidence makes negates your case. "I think that 5 rounds was a bit high for this debate. There really isnt that much more that can be said on the topic." Agreed. Let's toil through round four.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

"My system provides a legal alternative which let's necrophiliacs and cannibals get their fill. Because cannibalism is legal. Because necrophilia is legal. But because homicide and theft are not." I suppose theres not much to argue then on the legality of physically performing the acts. "If we can make the program anonymous, 100/100. Same with cannibals. Why? Because, they have no other legal way to obtain a dead body." In your first arguement you stated that background checks would be done to ensure people arent profiting from this. In the above statement you are suggesting that registrants would be anonymous. Which will it be? "No, you're right. But if we can satisfy at least one fetish and at least one culinary taste, we have helped the world." If were going to satisfy one we may as well help them all. According to your theory to satisfy one or two helps the world, how much better would the world be if we satisfied everyones urges? How about we make it a grand system where suicidal persons can go and sign over their bodies to this program (satisfying suicide). Then homicidal people can kill them (satisfying homicide). After that Kleptomaniacs can come and rob the bodies of personal belongings (satisfying theft). And finally all the bodies can be turned over to the cannibals and necro's. Also of course you would have people who simply willed their bodies to be donated to this program. As you can see... you cant just satisfy one or two urges without all others demanding theirs be satisfied as well. As ideal as this program may sound to you, its drawbacks far outweigh its benefits. "Honestly, kind of disturbed. It would be very uncomfortable. But I would be able to suck it up and accept my child's needs because I can realized that they are not my property. It's not hurting anyone, so if they want to do it, who am I to judge? Besides, it's better than having their body be a useless waste of space." I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it. Also, the body would eventually become what you call a waste of space because the bodies would have to be disposed. Once there was no more edible parts the body would need to be turned in and most likely buried. When the body began decomposing (which happens as soon as death occurs) it would no longer be safe for sexual intercourse and would need to be turned in and buried. "Yes, no, and yes. On the tax dollar thing, it would benefit the people by reducing crime." So youre proposing that our tax dollars would go toward funding sexual and cullinary disires? I dont think that the number of crimes commited solely to fullfill these two disires is high enough to pass this through congress. I think that 5 rounds was a bit high for this debate. There really isnt that much more that can be said on the topic.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

Con, I am afraid you have misinterpreted what I was saying, unfortunately. I was saying performing the acts were illegal because to reach said act you must commit other illegal acts. Let me illustrate this for you. How to have Sex with a Dead Body Step one: Obtain a dead body. A) Kill someone and take their body. (Illegal-First degree homicide) B) Steal a dead body from a cometary. (Illegal- Theft, Trespassing) Step two: Perform sexual acts with the corpse. (No laws against this) Do you see what I'm reaching at here? You CAN have sex with a body or eat a body. But in order to obtain this body, you must perform illegal acts. My system provides a legal alternative which let's necrophiliacs and can nibals get their fill. Because cannibalism is legal. Because necrophilia is legal. But because homicide and theft are not. "Pro, you posted statistics on why they have the fetish. You didnt answer my question, I asked: "How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this?" I will re-ask in a different context. Out of 100 necrophiliacs (it seems as if thats what this discussion is REALLY about), how many do YOU estimate would come and register for this program?" If we can make the program anonymous, 100/100. Same with cannibals. Why? Because, they have no other legal way to obtain a dead body. "I would like to ask, if its resonable to you to legalize these fetishes, why not other fetishes? What will your suggestion be when rapists say that its a fetish and that they want rights too? Every human has a temptation or desire, that doesnt mean that they have rights to fulfull them however." No, you're right. But if we can satisfy at least one fetish and at least one culinary taste, we have helped the world. "How would you feel if your mother, child (if you have one), or the closest person to you decided to donate their body to this program? Would you be comfortable knowing that someone were to eat or have sex with that person?" Honestly, kind of disturbed. It would be very uncomfortable. But I would be able to suck it up and accept my child's needs because I can realized that they are not my property. It's not hurting anyone, so if they want to do it, who am I to judge? Besides, it's better than having their body be a useless waste of space. "Also, would this program require a class on proper handling of human bodies? Would registrants be required to have a licence? Who would fund this program? Would our tax dollars go to this fetish?" Yes, no, and yes. On the tax dollar thing, it would benefit the people by reducing crime. Round three is almost over. We are soon approaching our conclusions. I suggest a more aggressive debate.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

Pun appriciated! As an answer to your first two paragraphs (I dont want to post because that takes my characters :)). You said to have cannibalistic or necropheliac tendencies and desires is in fact NOT illegal, but to act upon those desires or "PERFORM" them is. So in theory what you are suggesting is the legalization of these ACTS and furthermore the legalization of donating one's body to satisfy the pleasures of those who would be commiting the ACTS. I would like to ask, if its resonable to you to legalize these fetishes, why not other fetishes? What will your suggestion be when rapists say that its a fetish and that they want rights too? Every human has a temptation or desire, that doesnt mean that they have rights to fulfull them however. Pro, you posted statistics on why they have the fetish. You didnt answer my question, I asked: "How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this?" I will re-ask in a different context. - Out of 100 necrophiliacs (it seems as if thats what this discussion is REALLY about), how many do YOU estimate would come and register for this program? I also have another personal question on the matter if you will accept it. - How would you feel if your mother, child (if you have one), or the closest person to you decided to donate their body to this program? Would you be comfortable knowing that someone were to eat or have sex with that person? Also, would this program require a class on proper handling of human bodies? Would registrants be required to have a licence? Who would fund this program? Would our tax dollars go to this fetish? Thank you for round 2!
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

Pro, this is a very unusual and undeniably unique topic. I couldnt resist. I must alter your definition of "Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead," to read "Necrophiliac: One who posses a sexual fetish of performing sexual acts on or with the dead" as your definition reads like a "Necro" (as I will refer to them) has a fetish simply for the dead. Pro says "However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it." - Both of these acts that said body would be donated to are illegal and morally wrong. There would be a separate debate entirely on legalization of those acts. But to donate ones body would be to encourage an illegal act, which is in turn morally wrong. Pro says "Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law." - How many states exactly have passed a gay marriage rights law? Homosexuality, I would consider, is a pretty normal fetish. If donating ones deceased body to satisfy another's sexual urges whos to say it isnt wrong for people to have sex with animals, or children for that matter? We cant just let people do whatever they want for sexual pleasure. Pro says "Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does." - Necros have the right to have sex as every other human being does already. They dont, however, have the right to commit illegal acts, and should not be encouraged to do so. Pro says "The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money." - How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this? Part of it is the thrill of knowing that theyre dong something wrong, the crimes would still be commited and the registry or "business" would fail. Thank you for your opening arguement.
People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

I believe that people have a right to their bodies. People should be allowed to choose what happens to them after they die. And for the most part, they can. They can be buried, cremated, or donated to science. However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it. I believe that if donated their bodies to cannibals/necrophiliacs, less cannibal/necrophiliac crime would be committed. Also, this would ensure necrophiliacs the same rights that normal people have. Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law. However, several more "taboo" fetishes are illegal, necrophilia being one of them. Many crimes each year are committed by necrophiliacs, but if we give them the opportunity to express themselves sexually, I believe these crimes would be lower. Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does. The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money. Thanks you to whomever decides to take up this rather off-beat argument. Definitions Cannibal: One who consumes human meats and fleshes. Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead. The Deceased: The Deceased will refer to a theoretical person who has died and wants to donate their body to a cannibal/necrophiliac.
Some MENwho listen to explicit music wind up have a different perspective on things

I will begin by defining explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Therefore explicit music is any music that tells a story in clear details. Since I do not think my opponent is trying to argue that songs should be more confusing and lack details I will now discuss music with explicit content as labeled by the FIAA. "Although research has found a correlation between preference for heavy metal or rap music and behavioral problems, drug or alcohol use, arrests and sexual promiscuity, these behavioral problems usually begin before students begin listening to rap or heavy metal, which indicates that the music does not cause behavioral problems or addiction. Rather, it suggests that at-risk youth are more inclined to prefer heavy metal or rap music." Source: http://jennifercopley.suite101.com...
Rap Battle 2!

We may not live in the city of Detroit But on Debate.org you better know not to mess with me, boy Right now I got a really neat ploy To take you outta here, I'll set my decoy... Your fat, your g@y, you don't know what to say you suck, I rule, all I do is get laid (time to stop the play) I'm at the top, I'll stay You can't ever top my way Ooh, you see all my double rhymes? Looks like this bjtch right here is in trouble, (whines) This guys thin, I'll cut a' hole right through his spine, then Nate stumbles, dies. You might've bested the djck-face Brian, But me you can't beat, but you can tip Nate 4 tryin... This fool with a shjt-brain's fightin' but he'll never surmount this great Titan... My weed is smoking hot... this dweeb is quoting rocks Oh please, go vote him NOT... your weak, an open shot OG, I own this lot... vote me for the trophy spot Low key, I broke this thot... you told me "You own this job" H0e please, I know your not what you say you are Unless your on LSD, that stuff can take you far You probably think you're a great a@s star, No. You're not, you work at a waitress bar. Dang, that's hard, you and your mom wear stripper clothes Earn money in shame with your poles And when a djck approaches you, you unzip your holes With a smiley face on, you moan "in it goes......" Minutes flow, and this round closes... no fool, wait, STAY! You lost but don't quit... go duel, straight way Don't cry, you're a boat full, lame g@y I guess you can't expect competition with NoCoolNameNate...
Anime needs to be Banned

Thank you, con, for the debate. 1. My opponent's point on the moral values anime inspires is rendered useless by the fact that he has been instilled with them. Any value judgements he makes surrounding his own values are baseless unless accompanied with evidence. 2. All child pornography must be banned. Some anime is child pornography. Some anime must be banned. 3. A ban on child pornography would have little to no impact on the much less important benefit of anime fantasy. 4. See point 2. 4A. See point 3.