BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"It's still wrong." By what moral standard? "If humans were made to have sex with animals, then it would have been so." It is and was so, it's just illegal right now in most places. Didn't someone say this about man flying? "But it isn't. It goes against nature." Maybe Nature should have taken this debate instead of you then? I can show you pictures of animals sexually advancing on animals of another species, would that do, or do you mean God when you say nature? "Humans have no right to forcefully have sex with animals." Ceded “Animals are smart but they don't have the ability to speak to humans in human tongue.” They don’t have the ability to speak any tongue even with each other. And no they can do more than make one sound, there are different types of barking and more for dogs. http://www.whole-dog-journal.com... There is body language: http://www.equisearch.com... http://www.aspca.org... And as I said in my round one argument there are their actions themselves. "You also have to look at the animal's point of view." Ok, what ADOL thinks of an animals point of view: I'm a domesticated animal and there is nothing to do in the world but eat, sleep, play, and have sex; but most humans don't like me to have sex, so much so that they cut off my genitals and lock me in houses and enclosures of all sorts. Boy I wish I had one of those perverted humans who will leave my body parts intact and is willing to have sex with me regularly. Sorry that's probably a bit beyond your average domesticated animal, maybe more like: eating good, humans good, sex good, you can have sex with humans too! yay! "The animals probably doesn't want to have sex with a human." By what power did you determine this for all cases? Are you a telepathic super alien? Didn't think so. "Why would it?" mmm, hopefully I'll only have to say this once. If you do it right, sex is fun. "It wants to have sex with other animals of it's species." Among other things. "This is a human idea created by sick perverts." Check out these photos of sick human perverts who have been transformed into animals, they just can't help themselves:
STALIN is secretly Miley Cyrus

Thanks do responding. I will clarify my reasoning First off, I would like to say that I was not, contrary to your and STALIN's perception of things, on drugs when I wrote this. I had consumed a small amount of Marijuana prior to posting in round one, but it opened my mind to see the "truth" of the matter. Secondly, although this debate isn't a "Troll" debate, it's definitely not a serious one either. Really, if Miley wants to keep her DDO profile private, that's up to her. Just lighten up a little, will you? Weed would probably do you a lot of good right now. :-) As you didn't actually provide any arguments of your own, I hope you won't mind if I bolster mine with a few additional observations. First, however, I'll point out some areas where you could use some clarification. "No, DDO Stalin does not claim to live in Moscow. DDO Stalin lives in California. He moved from Siberia when he was 5." That's not what it says on her profile. But it does make since. Guess who lives in California? Miley Cyrus. Suspicious, hmm? No, I don"t see any similarities, nor does anybody else. That link is just to the twitter homepage. What is Pro trying to prove here? Thant link is supposed to be to Miley Cyrus's twitter feed. I don't know why the link doesn't work, so just Google "Miley Cyrus Twitter", and click on the top result. "Okay? They obviously don"t have similar birthdays. If Miley Cyrus is born on November 23,1992 and Stalin is born on April 25,1997, then obviously they aren"t in any way shape or form closely related. Pro"s argument fails." I wasn't arguing that their birthdays were similar. Also, who puts their real birthday on a debate site? Who believes I'm 100 years old, and still able to write raps about smoking Weed? "Uh Miley Cyrus is not a debater, she is an entertainer".Pro must be high or on drugs. How is Miley Cyrus at all Analagous to Stalin? She isn"t Pro is on drugs and has no idea what he"s talking about." Besides the atrocious grammar present in this passage, Con shows that, while he was perfectly capable of pasting my argument into the debate, he didn't actually get around to reading it. If he had, he would likely notice the disturbing similarities between Miley Cyrus the singer, and STALIN, the debate spammer. For the benefit of anyone who, like Janet here, has difficulty reading and comprehending the English Language, I will make a nice, easy-to-understand Venn diagram of their similarities. Venn diagrams are fun. http://postimg.org... Now look at that, and tell me you don't find it just a little odd. If what you say is true, and STALIN is NOT Miley Cyrus, there seems to be a little too much overlap for this to be a mere coincidence. In my line of work, we don't believe in coincidences. Even if those coincidences are discovered while I'm baked. For the second time, refute THAT, STALIN groupie!
STALIN is secretly Miley Cyrus

Lately, the DDO member STALIN has attracted a large amount of negative attention related to his spamming addiction. He has also been seen exhibiting behaviors similar to that of a Troll, as well as posting up several polls, concerning him and only him. From this, we may only draw one conclusion. The Debate.org user STALIN is secretly the popular musician Miley Cyrus. Please note that, contrary to the oh-so-serious subject matter, this debate may, at times veer into the silly. Please take this into account before accepting. Now come on, let's expose STALIN for the twerking, tongue-flopping attention wh*ore that (s)he really is.
Evolutionists claim we evolved from rocks to avoid worshiping their lord and savior

Well, You are quite entertaining. No, No, I'm not discarding your PhD as being entertainment, I'm stating that you as a PERSON are entertainment. No, I unscrewed some of those screws on my head on purpose. I'm trying to get a new brain. You see, This one isn't new anymore, So I would like yours; one that hasn't been used yet. Right now I have many bids on my current brain from people in the visual/auditory art area as well as from the sports area. I don't expect to be paying much for yours.
Evolutionists claim we evolved from rocks to avoid worshiping their lord and savior

Well, You went around asking everyone "were you there? ", So I, In turn, Did the same. But you're wrong. AGAIN. Seriously, I never knew someone could be so incorrect all the time. I expected more from you. Come on, Really? ! Can you just be right for once? I'm not an atheist; I'm a Christian. Nice try, Kentie. Also, Even if I were an atheist, Why should I take YOU seriously? After all, Your only purpose in life is to be entertainment. :) Oh, I have a question: Were you there?
Map Legend

Since Pro has forfeited the 2nd Round, I shall now set forward my argument. I"ll assume you meant, "set in a normal style" as an equation, as 2+2=4 IS an equation. Definitions: Symbolic: : Expressing or representing an idea or quality without using words : Relating to or being used as a symbol : Using symbols Name: : A word or a set of words by which a person or thing is know, addressed, or referred to. "Everyone knows that set in a normal style that 2+2=4, but did you know that you could put 2+2=5 in a legend, and symbolically this can be true? " I believe this question is internally contradictory, as 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are both equations, be they wrong or right ones. Put equations into a legend, the equations turn into symbols. Symbolically the Symbols are true in a legend? Sounds a bit wrong to me" You could say that 2+2=5 as a symbol is "true", but it"s no longer an equation that is "true" or "false" anymore, only a symbol in the legend in a Map, signifying a place on the Map. There is nothing defined as "true" or "false" anymore, as it is merely something like a name. Vote Con :3 Rebuttal: For example, my name could be "2+2=5". You could say that "it" is correct, but "it" is a name, no longer an equation. I was named after a wrong equation, but that "wrong equation" has turned into a name. It is no longer "wrong", but instead simply a name. While you can criticise a name and call it bad or nice, I doubt you can call it wrong. You could say it was the "wrong decision" to name me "2+2=5", but that is merely an opinion of yours. "2+2=5" is not something you can justify as "right" or "wrong"; leave it to God or the person who named me to decide that. There is no such thing as a "wrong" name, yeah? (Bad on my part to say this, but I hope Pro will continue to forfeit. Should this happen, vote me plz.
Pro Is A Flying Pink Jaguar That Hands Out Mailboxes To Elves

My opponent's first contention. There have never been any scientific signs of jaguars being pink, having wings, and elves existing, and there is evidence supporting it. Luckily, not. Otherwise, we would all be kept in captivity by now. But that is beyond the point. There have been no scientific studies of these. And to continue his point, on these:There have been no studies of jaguars being able to type on a computer very well, no studies of jaguars having wings, and no studies of elves existing. However, in before Columbus, there have been no studies to show that the Earth was a sphere. But was it? Oh YES it was. Before, people have never travelled to Antarctica. They never knew about polar bears. .. . But did those bears exist. Oh yes they did. So why not with me? Just because the science was not there, that does not mean that jaguars can not be pink. Or that they can not have wings. Or that elves do not exist. Perhaps they are lurking (which they are)! Just because my opponent never heard of these or never surfed enough CNN, it does not mean that the things listed are not real. Think about the book Flatland. The 2-d shape did not know about 3-d and the 3-d shape did not know about the tesseract who was laughing in the corner :)He also mentions that if I am a jaguar, I cant type. However, I have managed to obtain a computer. And I type using my claws! !! Finally, my opponent points out that even if these do exist, there is no proof that I am one of them. Is there proof that I am not one of them? No. In fact, I have come across a mirror before and have seen my fur and wings. I have also experienced handing out mailboxes to elves. Clearly. I am a pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves.
Pro Is A Flying Pink Jaguar That Hands Out Mailboxes To Elves

There is a logical limit to what is possible on this universe. There have never been any scientific signs of jaguars being pink, having wings, and elves existing, and there is evidence supporting it. First of all, I must point our that Pro indeed has the BoP for this, and I will rebut their case on Round 3. It is my duty to argue that you aren't one of them, and even if they do exist, that does not mean by default that you are one. There have been no studies of jaguars being able to type on a computer very well, no studies of jaguars having wings, and no studies of elves existing. This entire argument, is basically that, without scientific evidence, something can't be considered possible. And though this argument might not seem like it contains substance, the proof does not rely on me to prove what you aren't, but pointing out that there are obviously no sources that back this up shows that it can't be considered possible.
Pro Is A Flying Pink Jaguar That Hands Out Mailboxes To Elves

Thank you Blazing for accepting this debateLet me begin with some contentionsThis debate will be framed to only the jaguar animal.Contention #1- Anything Is Possible.Anything is possible. Things that may seem impossible or things that seem like they will never happen may happen. Another planet may exist that has tons of magical creatures. Or, you may hit the up coming Power Ball lottery. And who doesnt want 1 billion dollars? Nothing ca be 100% impossible. And I mean nothing.There is a slight chance that that one thing, no matter how insane or unlikely it seems, will happen.I am not saying that there is a very large chance, but that possibility is their.[1] As Miley Cyrus states, "If you believe in yourself anything is possible."As Afrojack states, "For me, it's a great thing to tell people anything is possible. When I was 15, people told me 'You're not going to be a DJ.'"So, clearly, if everything is possible, it is possible for me to be a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailbozes to elves.I confirm that that is true and since I have seen myself in the mirror, I know that it is true.I am sure that many people will not believe me when I say this so in order to be more plausible, I will say a little something about my life.Everyday, I wake up early in the morning. I brush my bleached pink fur and then, go for the daily fly. I really spend the rest of the day relaxing, seeing the planet, basically exploring. I also really enjoy going to this site infested wth filthy human beings titled debate.org. I love to debate controversial issues that concern the human infested planet Earth. Now, I am proving that I am what I am.My life in the summer tends to be fairly easy but in the spring and fall, come the rains. It maked my daily fly quite complicated.The hardest season for me is winter. Meaning, Christmas time. My opponent never specified when I hand out the mail boxes so I will. I only do that in the winter- Christmas time. I collect letters from Santa and put them in special mailboxes. I then give them to the elves who then give them to Santa.I really have to stay in non human infested areas. Otherwise, I will be kept in captivity. Contention #2- How I look likeI look something like this: Only I have wings: I hand out these: TO them: Contention #3-Con has absolutely no sources to prove that I am not a flying pink jaguar that hands out mailboxes to elves.However, in the statenements above, there was proof that I am the jaguar animal. The jaguar car is out of framework.However, I have shown pictures that relate to me, since if the reader is a hunter I can never post real pics. I have also written about my life.Vote pro [1] http://www.brainyquote.com...[2] http://www.solarnavigator.net...[3] http://cache4.asset-cache.net...;[4] http://ecx.images-amazon.com...;[5] http://www.midlothian-isd.net...;
Halt Trade With Nations That Practice Child Labor

At this juncture I feel that our products that are widely produced through exploitation need addressing. Yes there is an argument that is widely thrown about by some that these poor souls would not have any employment or means of substinence if they weren't working or for better words inslaved by these companies. My feelings are that commerce needs to fair and transparent. Companies should not be allowed to exploite people for profit. Why business can't be fair is beyond me. Greed seems to prevail and if our governments can't be righteous enough to intervene when really necessary then we as consumers should be more responsible in the goods we purchase.
Telepathy

Well hello v_spex! Long time no see, we have debated before...a few times. Now, as Con, firstly I am going to argue that there is no such thing as telepathy, which is defined as 'the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.' The only way we humans can actually communicate with each other is through verbal, written or physical communication; meaning that some people can communicate through symbols, signs and gestures. Various acts, such as the act of sex, or act(s) of violence, are also forms of physical communication. However, telepathy, which is basically the act of communicating to another person through *thought* alone, is simply not physically possible and thus has never been shown as such. People do have the ability to gauge certain reactions from one another and understand what the thought processes of another person may be through assessing their current state of being and behaviour, but obviously, this isn't the same as direct telepathy; which again, is the act of communicating actual thoughts and ideas without verbal or physical effort.
The Debate Challenge

Hello there. You must be a very good debater, accepting this challenge? Why?Well I heard some people can still win even if they forfeit one or two rounds. But this has yet to be proved. You have to win against me in this debate, by supporting yourself enough in merely two rounds, forfeiting the second round, (losing conduct) but still having enough argument to win against me. So far nobody has won against me, had they forfeited even just one more round than me. Can you disprove me, 9spaceking? Much effort is required to beat me, if I really try. You can start round one, but you must forfeit the second round. This is a fun social experiment meant to see who can beat me even if they forfeit one round. This is not quite as hard as Rational Thinker's "aBcD" experiment, but nevertheless it is very difficult.If it is not clear to you you have to prove you can beat me (because of your experience, support, my lack of evidence, or whatever you want, as long as it makes enough sense for the voters to vote you) in every other topic (Spelling and Grammar, Convincing Arguments, etc. etc.) enough to beat me overall. (in other words, even if you lose conduct, you win against me in everything else)Accept if you dare.
The Debate Challenge

Haha! See? My argument was so convincing, so amazing, it "drowned the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time". Thank you con for helping me with that information.Now onto the solid argument. Most of my debates which I won, the opponents forfeited. This is actually a result of my badness at debating, however, it also displays that attending the rounds within the debates are crucial. Because my opponent(s) forfeited, it didn't matter how stupid, how dumb, how flimsy my argument was, I still won. One great example is my troll response to the argument "torture is cool", "...Study has shown in the Jail of Azkabam that 90 percent of people agree that Torture is Cool, giving them a new thing to look for. "Boredom is killing me on the inside," Jack McGonnell, one of the soul (whoops! I mean sole) survivors, says, "Torture is much cooler, I can show my jail-mates what I managed to survive!""I mean, that's not even real proof! That's just a funny reference and teasing of Harry Potter and dementors.Another good example is ANOTHER troll response, this time to a shocksite.... "Your video fails to show Barack winning against Mario." (it really doesn't. Seriously. It. Really. Doesn't.)Now, I know you are probably going to lie. You are probably going to "backhand" destroy me with another 8000 character argument. But you'll spend too much time rebutting all the 52 reasons why you can't win to respond to this argument.I know, I did seem to go a little easy on you. I could have put "I have more experience than you, with 36 debates under my belt, and you only have 8", but I didn't. I was nice. I said "no offense" so I wouldn't get flagged, banned, and hated forever by everyone. I didn't want to risk losing the factor that I won conduct.So really--this wasn't a true social experiment. And in reality, this debate in truth doesn't matter. 1,733 can't go much lower. This debate was really just a reminder to the poor noobs or busy workers to only accept debates that they have time to reply to, and not forfeit. Because, people, it is nearly impossible to win a non-troll debate with even only one forfeit.Today you all learned something, and I'm glad of that. If you already knew, good for you. It's just a harmless reminder! So remember, everyone, don't forfeit. Please stop the forfeiting.Sincerely,your faithful debater9spaceking. P.S. this does not mean I concede. This only means con has a heart-warming lesson to counter. :P
Hedonism is morally correct.

Thanks for the opportunity here and great to meet you Redbluegreen! I'm not sure if I can make it fun per say, but I'm sure we'll enjoy this nonetheless. While I suppose that the idea of hedonism is a not a awful way to go about life when we think on a philosophical level (achieving happiness is one of the greatest goals in life, for example), but I disagree with you that it is ethical- rather, I believe hedonism is fallible and inappropriate. Hedonism according to the Cambridge Dictionary: "living and behaving in ways that mean you get as much pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself" The question I want to ask you is simply this: Where is the line drawn? Or, when do we say 'no' to our pleasures? If you've ever read the Portrait of Dorian Grey or seen the films, plays, etc. You would surely remember the character Henry. Henry is a wealthy man who indulges in anything he deems pleasurable. In fact, he persuades the young Dorian Grey this exactly, leading him to do the same. As the story goes on, we observe Dorian and his many wrong-doings as he tries to feel pleasure through things such as the murder of his own best friend, Basil. While he did it to protect himself, we realize that Dorian assumed he was in his way of happiness and pleasure- thus, he had to eradicated from his life. Another action that Dorian took was ignoring and (up to interpretation) abusing his first love. We realize later on how wrong these actions truly are- how his way of life more-or-less threw his conscience out the window. We know that Dorian is a descent gentlemen, as referred to by Basil in the beginning, yet, after learning about hedonism from Henry, we observe the despicable nature of Dorian. In the end, this question is crucial- if we always seek pleasure in life, then what is stopping us from hurting others? From ruining their lives in the names of our? After we ponder these questions, we may help but realize how selfish, disgraceful, and immoral this way of life can become. So, is it worth all of this?
Hedonism is morally correct.

I do not neccesarily believe in this, but i want to see if i can argue it well. When i say hedonism i am talking about any and all forms of hedonism ( except obviously anti-hedonism as that is just the opposite of hedonism). And when i say morally correct i mean that the practice of hedonism is ethical and to go against the beliefs of hedonism is unethical. I expect my opponent to argue that hedonism is morally wrong and to follow the philosophy is unethical. I dont know how this is gunna go but i hope to have fun. Thank you.
In general, women have less control over their love lives than do men.

America is the greatest country in the world! Thats my objective opinion. You can't just say that you are objective, no one really is. While I agree, women don't go out and seek men, this doesn't mean they are any less in control. The only difference is, women are less likely to go after guys that they don't want. Sleezy guys come up and try to pick up a thousand women. Women only pick up men they are legitimately interested in. This is why less women pick up men than guys pick them up. In other words, guys make more attempts, but that doesn't mean that girls are any less able to make a move when they really want to. In order to prove that women have less control, you would have to prove that they are unable to pick guys up as men are. While this may have been the case in the past, the gender movement has made this a moot point. I agree that neither of us can really generate proof of position, but look at the logic of it. Women are mroe empowered than ever and are no able to pick up men just as men pick up women. The only reason we see men as the instigator is because they instigate more often, not because they are any more able. Now, you argue that men instigating more often leads to more control. This isn't true. Women, while not as versed in the world of rejection, still have the ability to approach a guy. This is less dependent on prior experience as it is more so on individual personality. You could argue the opposite as well. A lifetime of rejection discourages men from intigating often. Again, we can never know for sure, but the ability of women to pick up men is equal. Therefore, they would have equal control over their dating lives.