BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man

Curiosity- No human is actually curious enough to research individual topics, but yet would read that article in the newspaper? No, I think people read newspapers when they are bored. Opinions- Pro says making an opinion is our duty. But Pro doesn't justify how making an opinion helps the common man. Suppose I just make an opinion "I am pro child labor". What will the common do about it? Nothing. Read parts- This debate was about reading the full newspaper. I can just read the date of the newspaper and thrash it and say"newspapers are useful because they remind me of the date" Utter nonsense. Social media- I believe that social media is a more accurate and fast method of delivering information than the newspaper. We must give up the newspaper and start using social media. This will save trees and ink as well. Social awareness- While we may form an opinion about terrorism, child labor etc., the common man usually doesn't take action on it and sometimes may not even voice their opinion. Furthermore, no common man can express their opinion on the newspaper without money, while on social media we can easily comment. Sport section- Sport section is for entertainment, which isn't practically useful.
Reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man

It's human nature to be curious and to explore beyond our immediate surroundings. The 'awareness' argument which Con so easily dismisses is a part of what it is to be human. If you aren't curious about the world and what's going on, then what are you really doing? Con questions "why form an opinion on something you don't care about?" Well, we are all citizens of a nation, and it's our duty to formulate an opinion and make sure we contribute. If you really don't care about politics and the country and world you live in, then that's you. The topic is "reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man" and I'm sure the common man does care about the world. The common man has a lot to gain from reading newspapers and just because Con thinks the information in the newspaper is useless, doesn't automatically mean everyone else does too. Furthermore, Con suggests that the knowledge gained from newspapers can't help us. However, you don't have to read what doesn't affect you. There are many parts in their that are relevant to us, to the contrary of what Con suggests. There are certain categories in a newspaper where we can access the information and knowledge that we want to and that's relevant to us. For example, there is business, opinion, sport and many more sections of a newspaper. We don't have to read the entire newspaper if we're only looking for certain parts. A newspaper helps to create social awareness about various subjects such as abortion, child labour and more. We are urged to take action and and voice our opinion, which is one of our greatest rights as citizens. Newspapers are very useful for the common man and are read, and utilised by many people.
Reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man

Pro gives me the awareness argument which I already rebutted. While it may be useful for job applications, there are far more ads online and job applications are only a page of the newspaper. It is better to gain knowledge about politics by reading first-hand speeches of the candidates or going to their rallies rather than relying on a biased, edited, censored media opinion. Pro argues we must make and express opinions on current events. Isn't that what debate.org is for? Furthermore, why form an opinion about a subject you don't care about? My argument as that we have finite memory, and we must utilize it efficiently. Filling it with thrash will block out useful knowledge and all we will remember is unuseful stuff. Pro says to read parts that relate to you, and not read it daily. I say that it is rare to find parts relevant to you, and therefore not read it at all. And anyways, the resolution accounts for the the full newspaper. What do I care if some jet crashed into a mountain somewhere around the world? The common man doesn't do much charity, and I don't see what other action we can take on such things. What do I care if the taxes moved up 5 percent? When I am buying stuff the shopkeeper would tell me anyways, then why read it from a newspaper? What do I care if an endangered lizard died? I hate lizards anyways. Newspapers are filled with irrelevant and unuseful knowledge, and therefore we must not read them unless absolutely bored and useless. I hate it when they come up and say "knowledge is power". I say "RIGHT knowledge is power" Suppose if I am a rocket scientist and I know about all the endangered species, will that help me? No, it won't. As Sherlock Holmes once said "What do I care if the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun, so long as it doesn't make a pennyworth of difference in my work" While it of course would make a difference, he meant that the knowledge about the Earth and Sun didn't make a difference in less work. Same case for the newspaper.
Reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man

Newspapers provide information about what's happening around you, and around the entire world. "Why should I fill my head with useless knowledge? " Who says this knowledge and awareness has no use? The articles published in a newspaper can affect you, to the contrary of what Con is suggesting. We need to have a sufficient understanding of what's happening around us, which can be achieved through newspapers. We can't just go about our daily lives with no care for the world and its events. If we do this, we'll be like young children, where the street we live on is all we know. The information contained within a newspaper can be practically useful. You can keep up to date with politics, find a job you may want to apply for, and many more. I'm not talking about reading the entire newspaper daily, as that wouldn't do too much good. I'm talking about reading parts of it, the parts that relate to you and can benefit you. It's also not a good look to show little interest in the world around you. We all have opinions, and how can we share them if we don't know what's happening in our own country?
Doesn't Every Religion Almost Believe In One Person

I see that Pro's new to this site, so I'll go easy on him. By "person", I believe Pro means "god". I believe I'll save my arguments for round 2. Let's hear Pro's side first, shall we? I'm curious how Pro came to this resolution. Also, is there any limit on the religions we're debating? Are we allowed to bring up any religion, or is it limited to just American religions?
Doesn't Every Religion Almost Believe In One Person

This is the final round, so I might step it up a notch. Rebuttal: "To be very honest, who in the United States believes in Zeus and gods such as them." We are not the Greeks, but that does not mean Greek Mythology isn't a thing. "Many people are leaning more to the monotheistic side on religions." This could've been backed up, but Pro didn't do so. "Ancient Greeks had believed in many gods and comparing it to the modern day world is just very different." Pro didn't show that Greece religion still isn't a thing. I still assert Greek Mythos has multiple gods in their religion. And with that, choose who you think won.
Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

You continue to disregard the KEY word in the argument here. VOLUNTARY. "When someone sees the only way to their family's acceptance or as a way to God is to fundamentally change a key aspect of themselves, then it is not the individual who has the problem. The problem is a society in which the individual cannot accept themselves and feels the need to do so." You make the argument they see the only possible way is to change a key aspect of themselves, yet, this still implies they WANT it. If you are comfortable with being LGBT+ then stay that way, I have always referred to those that feel this way, but do not want to be this way. Even then, they clearly do not want their current state of being and want to change it, and you are essentially encouraging them to develop conditions that, again, they simply don't desire. "The problem is not in the patients, it is in the environment around them." And are they wrong for wanting to live comfortably, without having to fight for their freedoms? Yes, the people around them may be biased, and discriminatory, yet, they still WANT this therapy. This is the same arguement, in principle, as many of this time. "Smoking ban" "Junk food in vending machines at school", others as well. Where the side that wants these things to remain, (My side) is promoting free choice and personal responsibility. If these practices harm the individual, yet, they choose to do this, it was their choice. People smoke, and they made the concious choice before addiction to smoke. I've had a cigarrette, and I've never had one since. You can argue this is a different manner, but it's the same as many. Freedom of choice. People come to this country because of our superior system, and western values. They flee from societies that have been ruined by exessive old world values (Traditionalism, Far right, Theocracy) as ones ruined by new world values (Progressivism, Socialism, Communism). We should always allow people to pursue what they want, so long as it doesnt harm others. That is what makes our country great, and banning things, simply lowers stability, and encourages illegal, underground practice that will be worse in all aspects than the legal one. I don't believe we should force anyone to do anything, I just believe we should have a choice. You can choose to do moral things, immoral things, healthy things, unhealthy, etc. as long as it's legal.
Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

While there may be a group of people who wish to change their sexual or romantic identity, because of the culture that they live in to fit the expected mold of what they think they should be. I have no problem with you going to therapy so you are no longer a furry if that is what you wish to spend your time and money with. However, having a fetish is very different to your romantic identity. Normal therapy is not the same as gay conversion therapy. Voluntary Gay Conversion Therapy should not be necessary. When someone sees the only way to their family's acceptance or as a way to God is to fundamentally change a key aspect of themselves, then it is not the individual who has the problem. The problem is a society in which the individual cannot accept themselves and feels the need to do so. The fundamental problem with your argument is that you assume that it is okay for the volunteer to want to change themselves. It is fine to change yourself, as long as you are not hurting anyone, INCLUDING YOURSELF. The problem is that conversion therapy hurts the patients. No, I am not just as bad as someone who enforces conversion therapy. I am not forcing a person to hate themselves, I am not forcing someone to live as a person who they are not. I am not standing in the way of someone being comfortable, I am standing in the way of serious effects on the mind. I am not forcing my beliefs on others by keeping others safe from mental damage. I am against conversion therapy because it is severely damaging to the individual. This is backed by world Health Officials, as well. "The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, has stated that these practices "lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people""(2017 NCL). Gay Conversion Therapy shouldn't be allowed because it is a horrible practice that has "little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation"(American Academy of Pediatrics). Also "Research shows that lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were more than eight times more likely to report having attempted suicide"(American Academy of Pediatrics). The problem is not in the patients, it is in the environment around them.
Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

I apologize for the bad sentence structure, and sloppy writing, I was writing it on-the-go. I don't wish to be perceived as someone without an adequate understanding of language. I never referred to it as a disease- I was simply stating, there is a group, that after feeling a sexual or romantic connection to their own gender, wants to sever that connection. Although many consider this decision horrible, others see it as a path to god, or into their families acceptance. As long as old world values exist, just as you have the right to change your public and self-image, AS A HUMAN, to embrace your sexuality or preferred gender, you should also have the right to change your image to live as a social norm. I'm not encouraging this idea, simply stating. Also, you had stated that they should not have changed who they are as a person, yet this is VOLUNTARY therapy, meaning- they don't want to be that person. By implying that their sexuality is fixed in place, and they cannot change it, you are, in a way, the same as the traditionalists who enforce involuntary gay-conversion therapy, in a sense that you are practically forcing them to live in denial and in struggle with their own instincts, and desires, which can be quelled, or changed, if they so desire. You, or others ensuring they don't, is forcing your own lifestyle upon them. You also make the claim it damages its patients, which may be true in some cases, but if you stand in the way of them feeling comfortable, you are just as bad as anyone who enforces involuntary conversion therapy. It's their identity, and you, in a sense, are denying it, and/or warping it to your progressive values. I have dealt with this myself- I won't go into much detail. I was exposed to some sick people on the internet as a young child (Namely, furries), and I noticed I was a lot more intrigued by certain things than others. (I don't wish to go into detail, as that was a dark place in my life.) After years of counseling, I was able to diminish these disgusting thoughts (Not homosexual thoughts, fetish thoughts.), and feel safe with my sexual life.
Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

First off, my good sir, your argument is flawed and took me a couple of readings to understand what you were trying to say since you worded it so poorly. I believe that you are trying to convey that getting conversion therapy is morally wrong but if a person wants to change they should have the right to by the use of conversion therapy. This would be fine, except you are comparing being gay or not straight to having a mental illness or a physical disease. People shouldn't be allowed to want to have gay conversion therapy because the conversion is not necessary, it is harmful to the patient, and it can lead to lasting physiological damage. "Changing your self-image" is perfectly okay, but a person should not feel as though they have to change who they are as a person. Gay conversion therapy itself is a terrible practice that was created out of fear of the unknown and out of fear of people that are different. It is not a medical process, it is not based on science or any scientific studies of the brain. Voluntary gay conversion therapy should not be allowed because it is damaging to the patients it claims to "heal" or "fix".
Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

Many people have foreign thoughts, strange thoughts to them about friends, or people at work/school. Some, dismiss them, only for these thoughts to resurface years later. Some, embrace it. But many don't like it, they just want them to go away, and want to be straight. Involuntary Gay-cure therapy is understandably, in some cultures, a violation of rights. But what about voluntary? What if you WANT Gay-cure therapy? I believe that if you want to change your self-image AS A HUMAN (so no animal garbage), you should be able to. This goes for Euthanasia as well, for the Mentally ill, cancerous (As in, has cancer), and Physically abnormal
Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten.

The history of mankind has been fraught with obstacles, tragedies, and ambiguity. Today, my opponent and I attempt to answer the question "should Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten?" In beginning to defend the stance that Bieber should not be killed and forgotten, I list a few main points that will clearly convince any rational observer that this fate should not befall JB. 1. JB's songs can be remixed with other songs to be pretty good. Case in point, the Slipknot-Bieber mix "Psychosocial Baby." http://www.youtube.com... 2. Lesbians who look like Justin Bieber. http://lesbianswholooklikejustinbieber.tumblr.com... While certainly quite funny, this website serves other purposes. In keeping butch lesbians occupied with looking like Bieber (maybe to impress other lesbians?) it also keeps them away from: a) Stealing girlfriends. b) Making stupid comments in class about patriarchial oppression and hetero-normativity. c) Shows normal girls (who like men, not little boys) that guys are clearly better than these Bieber knock offs. 3. Justin Bieber gives midgets and 13 year old boys the hope that they can get laid. Lets face it, it would suck to be a midget but Bieber is only like 5'3 so smaller people can look to him for some source of inspiration, even though Bieber is a virgin it's clear he could get some action from any number of 12 year old girls or gay men (duh). On a side note, like, what is with you and KFC? I think the skin is pretty good because it's crispy, but I don't really understand your infatuation with it. Now that I've looked a little further into it, it makes even less sense to due the facts that a) You live in Atlanta, therefore you're likely to be surrounded by poor black people at a KFC (unless you live in one of those gated communities where there are no black people) and b) You're a conservative, white* male. So, it's led me to 2 possible conclusions 1) The KFC you're going to is located in your gated community, and is not a genuine KFC due to the lack of an "urban vibe" 2) The KFC you go to IS in urban Atlanta, and granted it makes no sense a white, conservative boy would want to be surrounded by poor black people while he eats UNLESS......he likes black cock. Therefore, I conclude my argument and would like to remind the audience that Pro's hatred of Bieber may actually be motivated by his own closet homosexuality and repressed desires. Thank you. I welcome a rebuttal. *I'm not 100% sure you are white, but I reasoned it due to: 1) There are basically no black people on the internet. 2) You're conservative, there are no black conservatives.
Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten.

Argument:1. My opponent admits that Justin Bieber is using our resources, she then goes on to say that we all are using resources. Straw man. While this is true, it has nothing to do with the resolution. It would be overall better if we had more resources, therefore it would be overall better if there was no Justin Bieber. Morals of other people have nothing to do with this point. Argument extended.2. My opponent also admits that Justin Bieber creates hate. She then says that this is okay because he creates love. I would ask my opponent to explain what she means, and also show me some proof to back it up. If you go on a Justin Bieber youtube video and look in the comments, you will not see a lot of people saying how much they love each other. Instead you will see hate comments, people hating each other. This shows that there is more hate than love. My opponent also says that Justin Bieber being killed would cause people to go suicide or become depressed. I would ask my opponent to refer back to the resolution. The resolution does not only state that Justin Bieber would be killed, but that he would be forgotten. If no one remembers who Justin Bieber was, there would be no one to morn over his death. Therefore, argument extended.3. My opponent again admits my point is correct, but then states that women don't need to know how to spell. This is wrong. With the world advancing in many ways, all people should advance with it. If women don't know how to spell, this would contribute to sexism. Where men will say they are smarter than women. Please show me some proof that women don't need to spell. Also remember the resolution states that this debate is about the overall good of the world, and women learning to spell is for the overall good. Argument extended.4. Again, my opponent needs to refer back to the resolution. There would be no checks and balance system if no one remembered Justin Bieber. It is true that Justin Bieber is not done growing. However, this argument would only be a good one if Justin Bieber were six years old. Justin Bieber is already seventeen, and it is clear that he is not going to be a strong link in the evolutionary chain. Argument extended. What my opponent says about other songs not sounding as good mixed has not been be proven. Not everyone likes the same kind of music. Closing:There are many more points I could go over, however I feel that they are not needed to prove my point. The resolution has not been negated at all, and my opponent has agreed with me on every point.
Donalt Trump delusional train will derail before 2020.

I would like to close this debate by being brief. Since it is obvious I'm debating with a clueless subservient. 1. I gave a definition of scandal for clarification purposes. A scandal generates public outrage. It has anything to do with people being charged of a crime. So far the many allegations (** Stormy Daniels, Russian collusion. . . ) against Trump have have spring boarded into scandals thus creating public outrage. Because of the seriousness of some of the allegations in these scandals. A criminal investigation procedure have been established for the purpose of Fact finding the truthfulness of the such, 2. Morality. . . ? The allegations of extramarital affairs, If she said and he said why pay hush money. Those constitute immorality. 3. Chinese and European tariff agreements. Do your research on the following issues. A- Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. B- (H. R. 4444 ) China trade Bill. C- World trade organization. Hopefully once you gain the knowledge from researching. You'll come to the realization of how much you've given up. At the same time there may a be possibility that your mouth and brain will be in unison when you speak. Because right now you're just talking out rear end. 4. Tea baggers. We live in the 21st Century. The advent of Information technology has open the flood gates once controlled by Government censorship. News and information is on a World Wide scale. No longer can the establishment filter down the information they only want you to know. Lets say a third political party doesn't come to fruition within the next 2 decades. The Republican and Democrat political parties will not be what they are today. Many will agree with me when I say "they're not today what they were 50/40/30 years ago". 5. I have till November 2020 to be proved wrong. Till then you'll just have to wait ans see If I " talk the talk and walk the walk ". One thing for certain Now and Then I ain't voting for no Trump no Clinton and for sure no son of a Bush.