BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Help to prevent the extinction of species

Life is very versatile. While it is true that human domination of the planet kills many, many species a day, the pollution and waste is going to be a self limiting factor. Man cannot beat nature, it is simply unbeatable. Even if we make the planet so inhospitable that human race itself will be near wiped out, other life forms will still thrive, and after humans are extinct, the world will reform itself. Given that, the only reason why we should bother to preserve species, is if it directly affects us. This can reduce even more down to "We should only preserve our own species". Why help prevent the extinction of other species? my opponent uses evolutionary adaptation in his argument. However, he assumes that evolution is not just a teleological process, but a fair process in which all living species have a right to evolve. This is severely flawed. If humans are superior species, why should we go out of our way to prevent the extinction of other species other than for our own personal gain?
Hacking should not be a federal offence

I'm not taking it from the bully side, I am making my point by saying that these so called smart teens soon get over there heads and then decide that they can do that without getting caught and no i dont have evidence on my computer but the girl that killed was a victium of this and this is the reason why i think that it should be a federal offence. and to the people who vote, you dont want people hacking into your computer. If you think about it hacking is like getting your indenity stolen and thats already a crime
Hacking should not be a federal offence

Well I would like some proof of these suicides. Voters have you seen proof this is just hair-say. We are talking about hackers here not bully's. But I will bite. Do you remember before trolls? Trolls are not hackers there may be hacker trolls but most hackers do not troll we are talking about the elite here. Trolls are just bully's and yes a bully can be a hacker but a bully can also be a lawyer. Any one can be a troll not just hackers and anyone can become a hacker with enuf time. Trolls take longer then me and you they to busy trying to upset people Once again I fell you have nothing to say but to stick to your "they are bully's" argument. Hackers are smart kids that just need a outlet for their skill some where they can show they world what they can do! They are not bully's they are skilled young people or sometimes old people that would rather learn then bully. But forget all that lets just lock them up for over five years for being smart and wanting people to know it.
Hacking should not be a federal offence

you keep on saying that trolls and hackers are different but once you become a "troll" you grow into a hackers. and then you said that people have never killed themselves over hackers, dont say never, there was this girl at my school that did! because someone hacked into her friends myspace and said all this stuff to her that made her kill herself, do you think the hacker is in jail because of that. NOPE and they really deserve to be in jail.
Hacking should not be a federal offence

People who vote. I do not mean to be a bad sport but I could not hep in Internet terms "Lol" at your anugment. People who bullie people online are called "trolls" This is different from a "hacker" We are talking about hacking here NOT cyber bullying your off topic! But I keep with it one girl killed herself and their was no hacking involved. It was purely trolling her to suicide. No one has ever killed them self because they got hacked. Once again we are talking about hacking its self not cyber bullying! Up to you voters send a skilled person to jail because he want to show the world what he could do but did not know the right way of doing it? remember federal offence is five years of light that kid will not see!
Hacking should not be a federal offence

Hacking should be a Federal Offence because if you think about it's like robbing someone of there personal things. Hacking peoples Emails and ways of comunation can turn really bad and for an example, when people hack into other peoples Myspace and other ways of communcation they can "cyberbully" people until they want to end there life and somepeople do. It has happened before. If people do do that than they should be put behind bars. And also if you hack into other peoples computers, its kinda like indenity theif. And about what you said about the 16 year old kid, there most likely to bully people online until someone kills themself,you may tell me that, thats nots possible but im in high school and there are so many people that would do that.
Hacking should not be a federal offence

Hacking? Who has hacked or wanted to learn to hack? Is it a crime? What really is a "hacker" Technically, a hacker is someone who is enthusiastic about computer programming. But what about "crackers" Crackers are people who try to gain unauthorized access to computers. This is normally done through the use of a 'backdoor' program installed on your machine. A lot of crackers also try to gain access to resources through the use of password cracking software, which tries billions of passwords to find the correct one for accessing a computer Or though stolen cookies. Most hacker do not do evil mainly do it for frame they will leave a page replacing the index file of the sites main directory. they are just people who want to learn test their skill! So why lock them up like petterfiles get locked up? Because the government is running scared. They do not want freedom of information on their severs they could have their lies exposed. Sure there needs to be some punishment. But what we hacker call "the party van" (F.B.I) really need to put these kids away for 5 years or more? There hole lives and skills gone to waste? Have people break down their doors holding guns in their face because they hacked someone's myspace to try impress them? Would you send someone away for 5 years for messing with your myspace that took you five minutes to make? Well people its up to you do you send a 16 year old kid to jail for 5 years or more or do you find something just a little less harass?
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

Science argument: Refuted.Arguments about appeal to authority: Logical fallacies, uncontested.Argument about "cuteness": factless opinion.Bhu has little to nothing to prove his side of the case. The only decent thing he has is the "science argument" but I explained why that is invalid as well, in R3."The thing is, the sciencs involved in mine shows the weakness to strength ratio. Also Magcargo isn't a starter makeing your reabuttal mute."It isn't a starter, but it helps to illustrate my case that science in a Pokemon game isn't as evident as in the real world. If Blastoise were to use "Hydro Pump" according to SCIENCE, the Pokemon would be...dead. However, this isn't the case, and depending on Pokemon it may not even do that much damage.Simply stating "It's better because of science!" doesn't make it good in the games, and this is what we are debating.My entire argument remains intact. I ask the voters to keep this in mind when bhu replies with "constructive criticism".I have nothing else to say as there are no true rebuttals to make. I have provided evidence as to why Charizard is better; it promotes the entire essence of Pokemon which is exploration and overcoming harder opponents.Nothing else to say. Awaiting R5.
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

R3: My opponents entire argument is saying charizard is better than squirtle but above I have proven by science squirtle is better. This makes my opponents argument completely useless!http://kotaku.com...http://i.kinja-img.com... R4: good job.The thing is, the sciencs involved in mine shows the weakness to strength ratio. Also Magcargo isn't a starter makeing your reabuttal mute. Sorry this is not to the best of my abillitys I have been very busy and tired this weekend... Also I just got 6th in VA state wrestling!!! Thank you P.S. remember no debating round 5 only constructive critisisum.(I'm really sorry about spelling)
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

I accept bhu moving his arguments to R4. But regardless, I shall refute his first argument, which is in regards to science. While true, according to science Blastoise makes the best choice, if Pokemon is meant to be taken in a literal, scientific way, then lots would be extremely overpowered. For example, taken from Pokemon Sapphire, this is Magcargo's entry: "MAGCARGO"s body temperature is approximately 18,000 degrees F. Water is vaporized on contact. If this POK"MON is caught in the rain, the raindrops instantly turn into steam, cloaking the area in a thick fog." If this were true, Magcargo's body would be around 9,982 degrees Celsius, and is almost TWICE AS HOT AS THE SUN. If science truly applied to Pokemon, than anyone near a Magcargo would instantly be destroyed, pretty much. Basically my refutation here is that Pokemon and science aren't meant to be truly connected. Pokemon is a FANTASY game, as such it often is outside the laws of science and physics with its Pokemon. Simply saying one is better "according to science" does not make it the better Pokemon, and, in fact, if I were to catch a Magcargo I would be dead right now, having done nothing. I await bhu's R4.
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

I sorry for the confusion what I meant was: "Oh I pick grass because it has an advantage over water" I belive water pokemon are the best starters because of these points:1: it has been proved by science that squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) is the best starter.2: The Creators of the starters choose Squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) over the other two.3: Water pokemon are the best type (in my opinion)4: In this top ten list Water is ranked Number 2 (only dragon type is beating it by 4%)5: Water pokemon are normally the cutest 1: it has been proved by science that squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) is the best starter.Water pokemon have been proven to be better here is the link for you to look at:source: http://kotaku.com......2: The Creators of the starters choose Squirtle (the water type starter of gen 1) over the other two. Here is an excerpt from this site: (I take no credit for what is writen. this not my own work) "Shigeru Ohmori, on the other hand, states a quite contrary opinion. Ever since the early beginnings of the Pokémon games, he has been the water-type guy. Back inPokémon Red and Blue, he picked Squirtle, while in Ruby and Sapphire Mudkip was the starter he chose. After hearing Ohmori speak about generation 3, Masuda also mentioned his favourite. Coincidentally, it is the only one that got a mega evolution inPokémon X and Y, Torchic. “I’m a huge fan of Torchic. I don’t know if you saw the intro movie of Pokémon X & Y, but I really pushed to get Torchic in there because its one of my favorite Pokémon. And even back with the Game Boy Advance SP, when Nintendo was making that, I actually made a request to them to make a Torchic-colored Game Boy Advanced SP.”Source: http://shinigaming.com......3: Water pokemon are the best type (in my opinion)Water pokemon are the best because look at the way this works: Fire = strong attack/weak defence. Grass = Strong Defence/weak attack. Water = Both attack and defence are good4: In this top ten list Water is ranked Number 2 (only dragon type is beating it by 4%)Link: http://www.thetoptens.com......5: Water pokemon are normally the cutest Water pokemon are always so cute look at piplup, squirtle, totodile, and frookie. They are all so cute!Sources:http://www.thetoptens.com......http://shinigaming.com......;http://kotaku.com......;
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

However, I express my concern over rule #8. I believe that in this scenario, statistically better (in terms of Atk. , Def. , etc. ) should be accounted for. If we are arguing over which starter type is better, I believe a statistically better Pokemon should be regarded as part of judging, as it affects the player's decision, to an extent. In addition, bhu and I have decided to use primarily Gen I, so this includes Charmander, Bulbasur, and Squirtle. My opponent implicitly stated that he would pick Squirtle, so I shall refute accordingly. As well, the type that I choose in this scenario will be Fire, and my Pokemon shall be Charmander. I agree to all other rules bhu has set forth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And that's it!
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

A few things to consider before accepting:1. I have never played the DS game before (My info will come from online and the card game)2. This is not a debate where you pick grass because grass has an advantage over water. (do not match them up in battle)3.You will have to choose a starter type to argue for (grass or Fire)4. Please be fair no trolling5. When voting don't be biased.6. Do not base your arguments off of your own pokemon in your games (i.e. "My level 55 charizard could beat a fraigater easily")7.Please do some research before accepting.8.Please choose the type you favor to argue for. Not one that is statistically better R1:accept R2: Lay out your argumentR3: Attack other person argumentR4: Defend your argumentR5: Final wordsHave fun!
Water Pokemon are the best choice for starters

Constructive Criticism to Bhu:1. Don't use appeal to authority arguments. They will often become considered invalid and they're a waste of your time to write.2. No baseless opinions. My opinion is Fire Types are better, and I give reasons why as to why it is right. You, on the other hand, simply gave an opinion and used it for your argument with no basis or facts behind it whatsoever.3. Try and improve spelling and grammar. You will be counted off if people notice it and it is poor.Those are the main three criticisms I can think of.Thank you for the debate, bhu!
Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

First of all, Con wishes to say that 2-phenoxyethanol is not MonoSodium Glutamate. The scientific name of MSG is Sodium 2-Aminopentanedioate. 2-phenoxyethanol is present in many diptheria vaccines. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the chemical is toxic to infants via ingestion, and "can depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea". According to the now defunct University of Oxford Department of Chemistry Material Safety Data Sheet, 2-phenoxyethanol is classed as "Very Toxic Material". "May lead to kidney, liver, blood and central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Harmful or fatal if swallowed. Effects include behavioural disorders, drowsiness, vomiting, diarrhoea, visual disturbances, thirst, convulsions, cyanosis, and rapid heart rate, CNS stimulation, depression, cardiopulmonary effects, kidney disorders. May also lead to liver and blood disorders. Produces reproductive and developmental effects in experimental animals. " Therefore is it quite clear that 2-phenoxyethanol harmful to children. Although Pro claims that formaldehyde is harmless, its wikipedia page states that "In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.[4] In 2011, the US National Toxicology Program described formaldehyde as 'known to be a human carcinogen'" . Its effects, though suppressed, are still harmful to children. One thing we must all think about is why are we vaccinating even when we know there are so many risks associated with it? Why are taking the gamble for diseases which have not occurred yet? Are we vaccinating children so that they might not fall prey to future diseases? Diseases that might not even occur to our children? Are we putting them at risk because of our own exaggerated concerns? The whole logic of our actions is wrong and baseless. We cannot harm a children's life like this. Putting them at severe risk of nervous damage and other harmful diseases. We need to think about this. If the side effects of vaccines can be so easily cured as argued by Pro, so can other diseases that could occur to us. Point is we cannot put others at risk for something that could happen in future. Vaccinations have too many side effects to consider them to be safe for the general population. Therefore they are not beneficial to humanity. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.novaccine.com...
Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

Pro would like to remind everyone of the current debate we are facing, despite the things Pro said in his first and second round. Pro does believe that vaccination is humanity's best hope of surviving for the future as they will, one day, cleanse the world of all infectious and harmful pathogens in the world. Nevertheless, the debate topic is "Vaccination is beneficial for humanity", not "Vaccination is humanity's only saviour". Pro would like to say that vaccines do not contain toxins, but toxoids, whose toxicity has been suppressed by heat treatment or formalin, and therefore, unable to do any harm to the body. Pro would like to say that 2-phenoxyethanol, or as pro will now like to refer to as Monosodium glutamate, is used in only a few vaccines to ensure that vaccines do not react; pro would also like to add that Monosodium Glutamate is present in food, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand declared Monosodium Glutamate "safe for the general population". Formaldehyde is used to inactivate pathogens in Inactivated Pathogen Vaccines, and is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged and used; therefore, it presents no harm to the patients using the vaccine. Aluminium is also present in vaccines, but in small quantities. If a baby was to receive all of his or her's vaccinations, the baby would receive 4mg of aluminium, much less than the 40mg of aluminium the baby would receive from drinking breastmilk, and 120mg from drinking both breast milk and breastmilk formula. Therefore, the threat presented here is not enough to harm anyone.How does the opponent see vaccines harming human lives? Is it more of a gamble with human life to not vaccinate children? Are we to ignore the fact that the greater good is the embracing of vaccination? There is a clear answer to these questions, and they are all answered in favor of vaccination. Also, I would like to add that the opponent states the opposite: vaccines have been proven to work. In my previous argument, I stated that polio cases have been decreasing ever since the Salk Vaccine was introduced. Although cases were already decreasing, it decreased dramatically with the Salk Vaccine, and was almost eradicated by the Sabin Vaccine. Is this not proof that vaccines have been proven to work? Due to time constraints, I am unable to provide the opponent with a full reply, but I hope this is enough for the opponent to use.Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.chop.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com...;
Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

Good luck to you too. Harmful: likely to cause harm, dangerous. First of all I would like to say that vaccinations do not guarantee "total" immunity against diseases. In many cases, for example, whooping cough, the immunity provided by vaccinations weakens over time. Therefore it is wrong to claim that vaccinations provide total protection. UNICEF has spent $220 million on vaccinations in 2002, 40% of its total budget of $620 million. The prices of vaccines are going on an upward trend. A quote from a Vaccines Policy Adviser: "The two newest vaccines, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and rotavirus vaccine (against diarrhea), account for over 70% of the current package"s cost. While US$7 per dose of PCV (or US$21 for the recommended 3-dose course) may not sound high, it"s a big jump from US$0.25 for a dose of measles vaccine". One cannot simply say that vaccines are cost-effective. Such a lot of money could have been and should be used to develop alternative ways of preventing and treating diseases, especially when vaccination has such a lot of side effects. Con wishes to correct Pro that in 1897, only a test vaccine for Bubonic Plague was created. As to whether it actually worked or not, there is no evidence. Currently, there is no vaccine for the bubonic plague. It is usually treated with antibiotics. Therefore vaccinations would have no impact whatsoever in the prevention of the stoppage of pandemics like the bubonic plague. Vaccination is not humanity's only hope of surviving in the future. There are many other recent developments in medical science like stem cell technology which can play a much more important part in human being's survival.
Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

Vaccines: A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease 2. Beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. 3. Humanity: The Human Race The invention of vaccination has greatly improved society and the general health of the world. Before times of vaccination, there were no ways of granting "total" immunity from the disease without direct exposure to it. Famous Scientist Eziekel J Emmanuel once said "Vaccines are the most cost-effective health care interventions there are. " The first practice of vaccines were brought to prominence in the 1770s, when doctors infected people with cowpox, which would then prevent chickenpox from spreading. Vaccination has come a long way since then, but still the concept is more or less similar. That shall be explained in latter arguments. Imagine a world without vaccines: imagine the Black Death and the Middle Ages, when rationalism was shadowed by theology. Before vaccinations, when a contagious disease struck, there would be no way for anyone to get out of harm's way when they come into contact with the contagious pathogen. The body's main defenses, although tough in name, would fall like cards in a strong gush of win. Many would be infected when coming into contact with a contagious and infected patient. That was a reason why the Black Death spread so rapidly in the world: because no one knew how to stop it. Fortunately, a Bubonic Plague Vaccine was invented in 1897, when the disease was limited to several endemics in parts of the world. Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future, partly because the need to provide humans with immunity from many harmful diseases. There are some downsides to vaccines, and there are many theories that attempt to attack some types of vaccine, but vaccination has saved billions of lives in the world, and they should continue to benefit society.
Vaccination is beneficial for humanity

Welcome to my first debate as Pro! Vaccinations have been a source of huge controversies: theories generally develop from it being the cause of AIDs to it causing autism. Though generally beneficial, some people deeply oppose vaccination. I strongly support vaccination, and I would like to have this debate with someone who opposes vaccination for reasons of culture/tradition, and/or of scientific proof. The Debate Rules: 1. NO TROLLING, please 2. Accept if you could participate in all rounds 3. If you can't make a complete argument, state that at the end of the debate argument. 4.If you forfeit, then you would be expect to provide a return argument at round 5. If you did not forfeit, then you could forfeit Rnd.5, or rebut some of the opponent's cases. 5. HAVE FUNNNN! (Oh yeah btw Rnd 1 is acceptance)