BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Child porn should be illegal

Exposing a young child to sex has many negative physical and emotional effects on the child. The first and most obvious one is the child being exposed to STIs. At such a young age, The child will not likely survive the infection. Secondly, The child would be treated as a sexual object which may, At times, Physically hurt them. The child is also unable to prevent any of these injuries because they are forced into these acts. All of these combined will lead the child into a state of depression and will leave them with no choice but to either attempt to escape, Or even suicide. They are all reasons why we lock people up for these criminal acts. It is nothing but harmful to the child.
People should stop comparing Roblox to Minecraft and vice versa

First off: Thanks for welcoming me! Second off: Awesome use of the scripture in your answer! Third off:My answers will end up most likely a whole lot shorter than yours because I'm not the most descriptive person Fourth off: I'm REALLY sorry but this is my first debate and I should have been more specific with the title! I meant that people shouldn't argue and debate about the gameplay! Other than this I totally agree with your opinions! I'm really sorry for messing that up and I hope we can continue this the right way! Anyways I'll get a start on my side of the debate! 1.Descriptive comparison If you made a comparison of Roblox towards Minecraft via gameplay, the closest thing you'd get is: "He placed a brick as if he were playing Minecraft", but in every other situation I can't see any resemblances that you could make to Minecraft as a descriptive comparison. 2.Preferential Comparisons First of all, Preferential: http://dictionary.reference.com... If you preferred Roblox over Minecraft, its like saying I prefer apples over steak, if the two things have nothing to do with eachother other then the plate (Or PC in this matter), then what's the point of arguing over it? 3.Hard data that may make the debates objective While I see your point, there's a few flaws. For example you can't compare sales because Minecraft sells the game but Roblox is free (And Builders Club is a different story).And just in my overall opinion, I don't like seeing the two compared and they should be treated as what they are. Anyways sorry for the issue and...well...Your turn!
People should stop comparing Roblox to Minecraft and vice versa

I'll be brief.Conclusion Pro failed to argue why comparisons between the contrasting gameplays of Roblox and Minecraft, let alone any two or more entities or subject that differ from one another, should not be made. He agreed to every argument I made in round 1, namely that calling for a stop to comparing two unlike entites is unreasonable (including contrasting gameplays), and merely resorted to arguing that the two games are not similar. As such, he failed to affirm the resolution.Additionally, he failed to negate my claim that both games are used for the same purposes (that aspect had nothing to do with the resolution anyway) and even affirmed that both are used to develop indie games, further opening topics of comparative debate concerning the two:"Minecraft is a better platform for indie game development than Roblox." Because both games incorporate differing methods to accomplish the same purposes, calling for a stop to debates concerning Roblox and Minecraft is unreasonable. Rather, I have demonstrated that such debates are reasonable.Thanks for the debate.
People should stop comparing Roblox to Minecraft and vice versa

1.Descriptive comparison When you said that ROBLOX is a sandbox game, that is incorrect, Roblox is a platform built to create games that may or may not be sandbox games. Also Minecraft mods are unofficial modifications which should not be brought into this argument because that is not a part of the core game itself. Now I do agree with you that they are both 3-Dimensional, but does that have anything to do with the gameplay? Now, in a sense, yes Minecraft can be used to develop indie games, and the same with Roblox, but to create the your indie game on Minecraft is nothing like to create your indie game on Roblox, therefore you could not compare their gameplay as they work in completely different ways. 2.Preferential Comparisons Now you said that that you had already addressed your reasons to how you could prefer Minecraft over Roblox or vice versa but now that I've contradicted that your statement is pointless 3.Hard Data Does how many more people that play Mario effect the gameplay for the people that play Legend of Zelda? Does hard data about which game is played more effect the experiences you get from playing the game? Does how many players that enjoy to play Roblox and/or Minecraft effect the gameplay? Alright sorry for being a bit short, lets see what you have to say!
The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled.

[1] Your Resolution is not very clear. When you say "benefits", do you mean that the obese shouldn't get Government benefits, family benefits, insurance benefits, or social benefits? Your Resolution is not very clear to me. The obese doesn't get benefits at this moment, but they are no different from the disabled. At this moment, the obese are treated equally as any other person in the world. [2] The obese are hardworking. Many obese people still contribute greatly to the society, as well as the disabled. Many of the obese are disabled. Should they not get the same benefits as the non-obese and disabled? My answer is no. Everybody IS equal. [3] Since when did the obese get benefits? According to my research, the obese don't get benefits unless they are also disabled. Why is your resolution "THe obese shouldn't get same benefits", when there were no obese benefits in the first place? The obese are treated equal as anyone else.
The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled.

In reply to his rebuttal should like to confirm that I agree that everybody in society should be treated equally: indeed, this is the crux of my argument; the obese want to be treated specially and receive extra benefits that other people who have self-inflicted lifestyle issues, such as alcoholics and drug addicts, are not entitled to. Obviously, if a person becomes obese because they are disabled and are unable to exercise, that's different - they should receive preferential treatment, not because they are obese but because they are disabled. Thank you.
The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled.

The Obese SHOULD get the same benefits as the disabled. I will tell you why. As Americans, it is our duty to be equally fair with everybody. It is not right to judge somebody by their looks, size, race, and even what they eat. It is also not fair to judge somebody if they have a broken leg, or if they don't have arm. Everybody is equal, and will get the same benefit in America whether you contribute to the society of not. Just because somebody is Obese, it doesn't mean that they chose to be obese. The disabled don't want to be disabled either. I agree that some obese people are useless and choose to be obese and don't deserve benefits, but you cannot apply that to every obese person in the nation. Some obese people have diseases, and they have to stay obese. It wouldn't be fair to take rights away from the Obese that contribute to society. I am not saying that the disabled shouldn't get rights, but I am saying that everybody shouldn't be judged on appearance.
The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled.

Perhaps he expects us to feel sorry for him, he being the lazy, greedy, salad-dodging slob who is panting like Elton John at a boy scout meeting as he hauls his huge sweating folds of blubber across the car park to World of Iced Donuts, Greasy Burgerland, Deep Fried Seal Pups 'R' Us, or wherever? Perhaps he expects to be allowed to park right outside the shops just like the disabled person are? Perhaps he also thinks that the taxpayer should pay his rent and give him cash handouts so that he can give up working and spend more time lying on the couch stuffing his face, just like the government subsidises the disabled? And perhaps he also thinks that people using public transport should give up their seats for him just as they would for a disabled person? He probably does, because the one thing that the obese seem to have in more abundance than greed is self-pity: as far as they are concerned, the fact that they are idle gluttons has nothing to do with their weight; they kid themselves that they are big-boned / have imbalanced hormones / suffer from glandular issues / are genetically predisposed to obesity (delete as applicable) when the truth is that they simply eat too much and do too little exercise - the World Health Organisation has confirmed that obesity is entirely preventable and is solely the fault of the individual concerned. [1] Still, that hasn't stopped the obese and their sympathisers from lobbying for special privileges for idle, grossly-overweight gluttons. For example, Europe's highest court is being asked to rule that the obese should be treated the same as those unfortunate people with real disabilities. [2] It is my opinion that the obese should not be rewarded for being greedy and lazy by being given the same benefits and privileges as the disabled, especially when there are children starving in the third world because the obese have consumed far more than their fair share of the world's finite food resources. Thank you. [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
War: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

Thank you, Atheist-Independent. (I don't have photoshop, or editor, so I can't really edit maps, so I will try my best)If my opponent doesn't mind, I would like to initiate one more rule.No allies.If that is fine with you, please tell me, if it isn't I will not initiate it.I like the story, and I believe we can use it.Information about the USA:Currently has 1,430,000 active personnel.Has 850,000 in reserves.Now, China clearly has more men, but lets get to the airforce, navy, and other things. [1] (All compared here)Total Aircraft:13,683 aircraft strength, compared to China's measly 2,788.Total Armored Fighting Vehicles:25,782 compared to China's again, measly 4,788.Naval Power:This is a one China wins, with 520 compared to USA's 473.Military spending budget (USD):612,500,000,000 for the USA126,000,000,000 for ChinaSo obviously Con can't spend much on military if he wants to, compared to me.Current GFP (Global Firepower) ranks:1 out of 106 for USA3 out of 106 for ChinaNow onto my invasion:Atheist-Independent states he "has seven air force divisions, each assigned to one military region, and each with about 36 aircraft."If I divide my aircraft strength into seven, I get about 1,954. So I would have 1,954 aircraft taking on 36 for each of these fleets.China's fleets would be overwhelmed. Lets take a look at this map again. I believe since my aircraft and navy combined would have absolutely destroyed all of those fleets, I would have some spare aircraft and navy to go. So I plan on concentrating attacks on the Beijing and Nanjing area's.Because I only have 1,430,000 troops to spare, I would use mostly my spare aircraft (which is a lot because of the fleet's being overwhelmed) and AFVs compared to China's, and concetrate attacks on Beijing and Nanjing. I would then call out my reserves, giving my overall manpower a 2,280,000 force.I will start off my invasion with two battles, then hand it over to Atheist-Independent.Beijing invasion:With the naval fleets of China basically destroyed from the aircraft and navy of the USA, I believe that we would have a clear way of landing in the Beijing area.I send out 800,000 troops to that area, along with 6,000 AFVs, and lets say, 3,500 aircraft.You do have more troops, but notice how you do not even have enough AFVs to compare to mine. You have 4,788.Again, you don't have enough aircraft to compare to mine either, you have about 2,700. So unless you waste all of your firepower in the Beijing area, that place would basically be taken over. I will see what you come up with to defend.Jinan invasion:I send out about 350,000 troops, but I also have 2,000 AFVs, and 1,000 aircraft attack as well.Again, you have more troops, but I will see if you put enough AFVs or aircraft to actually compare to mine.Those are my first two invasions, the beginning of our epic war.Good luck, China.Cites:[1]- http://www.globalfirepower.com...
War: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

You may select any country to go up against my country I am picking, the USA.Rules:1. No nukes, period.2. War will be based off of numbers in manpower, technology, artillery, etc.3. No trolling4. No EMPS (new rule, in comments)Good luck.Atheist-Independent has accepted, and we are both willing to debate. He will defend, I will invade.
Rap battle! Moon truther (pro) VS Flat earther (con)

RAP BATTLE! Moon truther VS Flat earther https://soundcloud.com... Its time for this wannabe to know true ruth! Because when with my theory: its the real truth Ill send ya flying, so see ya soon your bars are a hologram: more than the moon! You have nothing against me: I watch the emoji movie! The earth isn't flat: that wouldn't be groovy Your mocked and made fun of: so watch your back You have no evidence, while I have a stack!
To support the labor or conservative parties in the uk is foolish

I as Con will be arguing that people in the United Kingdom should support the Labor and Conservative Parties respectively. My opponent says: "Both parties have to many ties with corporations." I reply good because corporations have done far more to advance the human race than any state in human history. I will examine the case thoroughly in my arguments. DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS: Corporation:"A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law[1]." [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... INTRODUCTION & PREMISES: My opponent seems to think corporations are bad. I will argue the contrary argument in this case. The Labor Party, Liberal Democrat Party, and the Conservative Party should have ties with corporations in order to improve the economy further. How strong of ties they should have with corporations ia different matter altogether. ARGUMENTS: #1 Corporations are more productive than any other organized body Corporations are organizations that operate based on consent. Consumers give them more power by choosing whom they wish to buy from. Consumers receive the products they like. The corporations, unions, employees, and other businesses reap the profits when consumers purchases from them[2]. It is a consensual agreement among the consumers and the producers. By allowing corporations to function, the Labor Party and the Coservative Party allow the economy to grow and consumers to chose the products they wish. [2]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk... #2 Anti-corporate stances means more coercion To take an anti-corporate stance as my opponent wishes means that he wants more coercion. Rather than give people what they want, people should be forced. I would argue this is anachronistic. People buy the products they wish to purchase from by their own choice. My opponent wants us to revert by to a time when choice was limited by the mob and elites.Corporations are powerful by the choices of the general populace. This is consensual. NOTE: Observe my opponent's insincerity when he states "If you support them and are in favour of a better world for everybody, you are deeply delusional about the political systems that govern your life." How can my opponent want to engage in discourse at the same time while insulting his opponents? My opponent is not even remotely interested in discourse but bully tactics to pressue his opponents to capitulate. He is stating, if you don't agree with him, you are "delusional." This behavior and insincereity should be considered be considered an infantile bully tactic. This is one of the hundred thousand ways to say you are a heretic if you disagree with someone. It shouldn't be acceptable in a literate society.Arguments should stand on their merits rather than superfluous adjectives used to ridicule.
That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win

The resolution is easy to understand. "That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win", as stated above, is the resolution. Round one acceptance. BoP is shared.RoyLatham: debate.org/roylatham"A free win": One free conditionless victory added to the list of RoyLatham's victories, with the addition of some elo of course. No semantic arguments, neither trolling.
That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win

LAST ROUND.I think of it a bit unfair that Uchi has only bought this new argument up now. Nevertheless, I will rebut and conclude.Now, my opponent focuses on how "the voting standards of the time" was conformed by JudgisGod. But there have actually been people who graciously GAVE ALL 7 POINTS TO THEIR OPPONENT. In fact, within this debate: http://www.debate.org...Kleptin gave ALL 7 POINTS TO HIS OPPONENT. Another example is Kleptin giving another 7 points all to his opponent within this debate: http://www.debate.org...Yet again, Kleptin very generously gives all 7 points to his enemy in this debate: http://www.debate.org...As we can clearly see from these debates, some people are actually very fair, just, or generous. Kleptin's votes for his opponents show that in fact Judgeisgod's 7-point vote for himself was mean and not necessarily the true outcome. Roy was being just and fair and didn't even choose to give conduct point to himself, which he could have easily justified. I'm not sure why Roy didn't choose to ask the moderators to remove the bombs and win the debate while it was still new and fresh, but now, we can redo him justice. I have found Roy's unfair loss--based on today's standards--and therefore, with new foundings, I have proved in round 2 already that at the very least Roy deserves the conduct points, and if everyone gave him at least conduct point, he would have won.IN CONCLUISION RoyLatham is a man of political fairness and justice as we can see from his debates and his blogs. He is a very smart, and generous man. He made it to the Hall of Fame, and yet--I believe he still has one unjustified, unfair lost. This lost, based on the very unfair voting system during the old ages, combined with the voters' bias, give sufficient reason why we should now change that loss to a win, or delete that debate and make a new one in which Roy wins. My previous arguments remain unrefuted.It is resolved: RoyLatham is amazing and deserves a free win. Give that trophy to Roy, moderators!VOTE ME.
That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win

Argh, I don't have much time. I'll offer one quick rebuttal to Pro's case: There is no reason to believe that the debate which Pro has cited was actually unfairly lost. Based on the comments section of the debate, it is apparent that Roy had full knowledge of what the voting system was like, including the fact that his opponent was capable of awarding all 7 points to himself. Just like how murder during a war cannot be judged as harshly as murder during peace time, a vote bomb during a time when voting standards were virtually non-existent cannot be judged as harshly as a vote bomb nowadays, at a time when there are very high expectations for vote quality. In other words, Judgeisgod's vote is not necessarily unfair because it was simply conforming to the voting standards at the time; Roy could have chosen to do the same for himself, but he chose not to, for whatever reason. Roy's loss was a result of his own free choice, and thus he must bear the consequences. The fact that such a loss would be considered unfair by today's voting standards is irrelevant. That is all. Back to Pro.
That the User Known as RoyLatham Should be Awarded with (At least) One Free Win

My opponent's arguments are very interesting.Let's see what he says.1. Free win doesn't do justice?Then we can delete this old debate and add the free win. Now he has 14 losses and 222 wins, and bigger change of win ratio, and elo would raise pretty much due to his new win and delete of loss. 2. Opponent suffering a "Free loss".We can have his opponent be the same exact guy who gave him the unfair loss. Therefore Roy will recieve justice becuase he got back at him with his "unfair win". One unfair win deserves the punishment of another unfair win. Only then it will be fair.3. Everyone has few "unjust" losses? Sure, why not? If you lose unfairly, complain, and if the moderators truly believe so, they can change the debate around so that in fact you did win that debate fairly rather than those unfair votebombs. Unless it is this situation, in which the standards of debating were different at that time than at now, so the vote cannot be deleted--but nothing suggests that the debate cannot be deleted and a new debate be created to set Roy as the default winner against thejudgeisgod.4. "Free wins" being meaningless.Incorrect. These medals aren't worthless. You see, you had to have skill in the original debate to begin with so that the moderators be convinced that, indeed, the votes against you were all biased and that you really, truly, in the heart of the debate, definitely, 100-percent truthfully, won. Take the Olympics example. Let's say the contest is gymnastics. You do a bunch of amazing, impressive, right-on, unique, awesome tricks, but no matter what, the judges only give you zeroes and one's. Then, some random amateur just walks up and doesn't even do any tricks but the judges give him 10's, 10's, 10's all around, one judge even cries and gives him a 12. In this case you obviously lost. You unfairly lost. Now, you had good skill in the first, and people noticed. They called it unfair, and the Olympics manager finally agrees under pressure of suing and stress, and agrees to give you the win. See? Although all it took was some persuation for the "Free win", you had to originally, not freely, using your amazing skills, to actually become the obvious winner within the debate in order for people to agree that the judges were unfair to you and that you deserved to win in the original competition.I've rebutted my opponent's contentions. Back to you, Uchi.