BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible

ArgumentsMy first argument will be about the conditions of anamatronics. In a similar restaurant called Chuck E Cheese, there are similar characters to the animatronics in Five Nights at Freddy's. The employees that built the animatronics in Chuck E Cheese hadto be bolted to the ground, to make them sturdy and balanced, and they needed they're endoskeletons to be attatched to wires underground. This is needed for the assurance that each animatronics will work correctly. They'll need to havemany electronic devices, and metal poles to keep the animatronic stable. This would mean that there wouldn't be enough space for how the animatronics will move or act during the time. In Five Nights at Freddy's, they are able to walk around the whole pizzaria, but the animatronics in real life are significantly stripped of this ability.We can also agree that these animatronics can be classified as robots. First of all, I will show the definition of robot.: "a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command."The games are shown to be staged in 1993, and 1987, shown by their paychecks at the end of the five nights for each game. Many robots had been built before the twentieth century, but none have had the intellegence that the animtronics have in the game.I will first show phone guy's dialogue about how the animatronics used to be abe interact with the children:"So, just be aware, the characters do tend to wander a bit. Uh, they're left in some kind of free roaming mode at night. Uh...Something about their servos locking up if they get turned off for too long. Uh, they used to be allowed to walk around during the day too. But then there was The Bite of '87. Yeah. I-It's amazing that the human body can live without the frontal lobe, you know?"The robots I will be explaining are collaborative robots, which I will define:"A collaborative robot or cobot is a robot that can safely and effectively interact with human workers while performing simple industrial tasks."The animatronics have very advance intelligence compared to robots during their time. Robots such as the Baxter robot-an industrial robot designed to safely interact with neighboring human workers, and be programmable for performing simple tasks." This robot was developed at 2012, and had almost the equivalent intelligence in the animatronics in both games, which take place in 1993 and 1987.They also introduce Topio- a robot that can play competitive ping pong, which was developed in 2009.The animatronics were extremely more intelligent, as shown by my evidence above.I await my opponents arguments.
Resolved: Obama's performance in the White House has not been successful

Resolved: Obama's performance in the White House has not been successfulThis debate will focus on three main topics:1. Jobs2. Energy3. Foreign PolicyLayoutRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttals (Rights are reserved to add in more arguments)Round 4: Rebuttal/Conclusion. To balance out the last word advantage, PRO gets to rebut two points while CON gets to rebut one point. No semantic arguments. May the Odds be Ever in Your Favor!
banning cosmetic sergery

I disagree with everything you say. I can understand the point you are making, but it is unwarranted. I reinstate all my previous arguments to counter your new argument -- you have not made any new contentions. I cited the source of my information at the bottom of my previous argument; however, unregistered cosmetic surgery is highly disapproved of in many countries and is already illegal -- this debate primarily encompasses registered, lawful surgery. I would also like to mention that everything in life comes with the risk of death; travelling to a holiday destination can be dangerous, but the rewards for the traveller far outweigh the risks. The same is true for people who undergo elective surgery. For some people, their self-esteem is so low -- maybe an accident they had, or a birth defect -- that they would rather take a small risk to potentially reap the benefits for the rest of their lives.
banning cosmetic sergery

If not all cosmetic surgery is registered then we're did you get your statistics. We our not talking about what causes more deaths this is not a death compatishan. We our talking about the logistics in putting yourself on cutting table to look batter, it's stooped and selfish for those who love u. Is it worth losing your life for. Excuse me take "slim risk taking a risk to die so you "may" look batter that makes no sense. Don't you think there is something wrong with having a surgery to bust your self-esteem. You won't to lose wait hit the gym, and stop visiting McDonald's . Having a surgery to look good bay be a good I idea I mean hi you look nice on your funereal. Or you can just live a healthy life eat healthy work out etc and if happens that u had bad birth or your breast are small it's batter then having your loved ones cry at ur funeral. Cosmetic surgery should be band.
banning cosmetic sergery

I know cosmetic surgery doesn't kill more people because there are many verified statistics readily available online. All forms of cosmetic surgery (including liposuction and other 'extreme' forms) account for less than 1 in 11,000 deaths. This is including unregistered surgeries and non-certified surgeons. Car crashes account for 1 in 2000 deaths -- almost six times higher. [1] For some people, their appearance can significantly get in the way of their life. Patients are aware of the slim risks it takes to be slim (pun intended, har har), but they choose to go through with it because they would rather take a small risk and gain the potential of bettering their lives through a greater self-esteem. I can see that this option is not for everyone, but I believe the benefits largely outweigh any potential risks, especially when you look at the death rates for other daily activities such as driving. [1] - http://www.sharecare.com...
banning cosmetic sergery

First you say tobacco kills 5 million per year how do you know cosmetic surgery doesn't kill mre. There are maney Un registered cosmetic surgery. Patients being aware of risk doesn't change anything I'd they die same as smoking. As for naturally bad birth is bater then diaing on table to look batter. It may be not new but it's uneasily risk you take for what. Cosmetic surgeries are life treating more than enaph said to banning it
banning cosmetic sergery

Cosmetic surgery should not be banned. - Tobacco accounts for more than 5 million deaths per year (far greater than cosmetic surgery), but smoking is not banned. [1] - Patients are made aware of all associated risks. - Patients may be disfigured and scarred (from birth, or from an accident), causing them extreme emotional distress. - Cosmetic enhancements are nothing new in society; most women apply make-up etc. [1] - http://www.cdc.gov...
banning cosmetic sergery

do people really need surgerary if god made us that way why should be happy with ourselfs. i with understand a surgery that with safe your life like heart seargury. first cosmetic surgery is not needed and people should be happy with the way they look. second any sergury is always dangeres and has posibility of life treating. to put yourself under a scaple to look more like angelina jolie is stuped risking your life for what you apirence, also you may wind up looking uglyer. cosmetic surgery should be banned. we need to luern to exapt people for who they are. casmatic suragery is unnessasery and more inportmintly life threating. i dont see why a mather and a wife with take a chance of living her husband and kids behind just to look nic
Children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones.

Having the arguments extended... 1. Phones Keep Children Safe. 2. Phones Promote Independence From Any Person. 3. Phones Develop Interpersonal Skills. 4. Children Should Be Comfortable With Our Technology It can still be concluded that Children Should Be Allowed To Own and Use Mobile Phones. Thanks to mayachantell for making refutations though. God Bless Us All. Vote Straight, please. :)
Children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones.

I think that children shouldnt own and use mobile phones I understand that you believe that children should be able to cope with the technologies of today but some children abuse technology. There is a serious problem going on in the USA and its called cyberbullying. Cyberbullies abuse technology by using it to torture other children which can result in sucidal deaths. Also children meet strangers online. These strangers can be potential sex offenders and children can meet up with them one day and can never be seen again. You say that children should be taught to be less dependent on technology, but them having these mobile phones actually cause them to be more dependent on technology. If people come up and download applications that can tell them the definitions of things or they can read the newspaper or books, what makes you think that children won't do it. Some parents and guardians do not teach their children right from wrong and they dont teach them home training. If these parents don't do that, what makes you think that they'll teach them the right way to use and operate a mobile phone? If more parents taught children morals and how to handle themselves like young adults there wouldnt be teen pregnancies, teens with STDs, etc.
Children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones.

(I also am new here. I just joined here to practice for our event these coming days. So, Good Luck!) I say that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones. Point 1. Children should be able to cope with the technologies we have and that they should be comfortable with it. This is one main reason why they should be allowed because when these children grow up and barely had encountered technologies in their life, they would become ignorant to technologies. In these situations also, they are prone to be jealous and become envious to things their friends have but they themselves don't. These children would also then have limited sources on whatever they do or talk about and they would have less knowledge about things surrounding them. Point 2. Children should be taught to be less dependent and develop interpersonal skills. Children also should be exposed to environment where they could learn much for themselves and by themselves through these mobile phones. They should also learn to talk more to people where they could practice their language and their being interactive to people. At this point, children should enhance communication skills wherein it is needed throughout of their lives and by their independence, they could learn on their own much more than having no mobile phones at all. Point 3. These phones keep most people safe and informed at most times. Children should then be taught how to use the phone for their own good. It is now up to guardian or parents to teach their child/children the right way towards having a mobile phone. These phones should not then be used incorrectly. It is because children could now inform their parents or whoever their trusted person is on how the child is doing. This is also because the parents or guardians would then know and stay informed about where the child would be going and know where to go if something wrong happens. This is one thing children should have to inform their parents if they needed help or contact friends to finish something up together or contact family members if they're far away from them and needed help or just to greet them. Concluding, children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones. I now let you make your arguments...
Halo is losing its' roots.

I am a longtime fan of Microsoft's Halo saga on the Xbox. I remember paying it when it just came out for the first time at my friends house. I though it was epic and still think it's epic. However, I believe that the series started to go downhill when Bungie sold the rights to 343 industries. Now don't get me wrong, halo 4 was fairly fun, but I think they should just let it rest in piece on a high note. With every new halo game after Reach, Halo has stopped being halo more and more, little at a time. Now it's gonna end up being a carbon copy of Destiny, which, some people didn't like, like me.
Halo is losing its' roots.

Good Afternoon, I will kindly take the side of Con on this Debate. I too am a long time fan of the Halo Franchise. I have been through it through its thick (Halo 2 and 3) and its thin (in my opinion Halo reach and 4). Ever since 343 Industries obtained the rights to this amazing series it has seen some ups and downs but i believe now with the current release of Halo 5, it is heading back towards its roots. Lets take a look at the games and there mechanics. Halo Reach: Halo Reach was Bungie's last Halo game. It introduced the idea of armor abilities and cross hair bloom. This itself gave the game a more Call of Duty feel, which at the time was ahead in popularity. Bungie at this point was trying to compete with its biggest competitor for First Person Shooters and thought that a massive change in game play would win some of there fans back. Halo 4: The first game made by 343, it went one step further towards Call of Duty by introducing its own version of Kill Streaks in the form of Weapon Drops. This was the developers first attempt at a Halo game so of course its only natural to stumble a bit. It showed improvement in design, getting rid of the cross hair bloom which was generally realized as a great move. Halo 5: I am not counting the disaster that was the Master Chief Collection, although it did actually return to its roots by incorporating Halo 1, 2 (anniversary edition), 3 and 4 into its game. 343's newest title has indeed started to go back towards its roots. The aim assist for targeting has been greatly reduced to almost Halo 1 standards. The weapons have started to make a comeback such as the magnum having a scope on it and being one of the best weapons in the game. In closing: I do not believe that in any way shape or form Halo at the point that it is now, is losing its roots, but rather having to evolve to compete at the AAA game industry level. As for the core game play at its roots, it too is making a comeback with this latest installment of the franchise.
Silent Hill; Room of an Angel

This song is about emorose and her mother. Emorose has says that it is like them for antoher reason that I disagree with. I think that this song displays emorose's reaction to her mother's death. Emorose has no love for the woman that will not let her see her father, keeps her practically as a hostage, and uses her as a twenty four hour babysitter. She greatly dislikes her (like the line the in the song that says: It was always you that I despised). The beggining of the song goes as the following: You lie, silent there before me, your tears, they mean nothing to me. Is Emorose's mother was lying dead before her, she would not do anything to help her, despite her mother's tears. She would let her die and not shed tears for her mother after her death. I believe that Emorose would wonder if her mother would remember her as the 'good little daughter' or the vile, nasty, and vicious creature that wouldn't help her, and it would be then that she would give some sympathy to her mother. Such as visiting her grave and putting flowers there. (Like the lines of the song that says: here's a lullaby to close your eyes, goodbye). However, emorose would never tell her mother that she was sorry and that she misses her mother after she died. She would live happily with her father and soon forget about the hateful woman.
Silent Hill; Room of an Angel

So you are saying that you do agree with me? You are saying that you would feel a deep emotion, which could be interpreted as you would be sad if your mother died. I only said it was a reoccurring mental image. I didn't say that you'd be actually singing to a grave. That would be weird. Please do not think that my friend is being lazy because of her lame argument (sorry, emorose). Her hand really is hurt and she's sick today as well. She's seeing a doctor, and I don't think I'm making a very good argument either.
Silent Hill; Room of an Angel

I disagree on how it relates. The chorus: "here's a lullaby to close your eyes, goodbye, it was always you that i despised, i don't feel enough for you to cry, oh well, here's a lullaby to close your eyes. goodbye...." That is when I say good bye to her when I go to dad's. She tries to make it so hard on me to leave that I wont. I am so used to that that I don't cry when saying goodbye. She always plays songs about me leaving the whole time and calls them her lullaby songs. She is almost always what I want a break from when I leave, therefore, despised. The rest goes: "You lie silent there before me." That is when she is quite on our trip to the airport. When I'm leaving to visit my dad. She always sits in front of me, and is really quite. "Your tears they mean nothing to me." I am unaffected by her crying when I leave. "The wind, howling at the window." Is when the plane takes off, and you can hear all the noise at first, of the wind, and all that. "The love, you never gave to me I give to you, really don't desearve it." Even though she tries to make me feel guilty 24/7 I try to make her happy, and do my best for her. But she is never grateful. "But now ther is nothing you can do." No amount of guilt will change my mind. "So sleep, in your only memory of me, my dearest mother." More challanging to exlpain. But, her memory of me would be mean, nasty, and rude. A "Hateful little brat" as she loves to call me. "So insignificant. Sleeping tormant deep inside of me." I am her least favorite of her children, the least significant. A pain is always in me to know that. "Are you hiding away, lost under a sewer?" When it rains and I'm flying it's kinda like that. "Or maybe flying high in the clouds?" When she flew with me when I was young. "Perhaps your happy without me." She doesn't really like me, so she probably would be. "So many seeds have been sownin the feild, and who could sprout up so blessedly if I had died?" Many siblings, I always seem to be their problem. If I died in a crash, they could be so much happier. "I would never have felt sad at all." If I had died, I would have been thinkink about happier times, rather than thinking of misery. "You will never hear me say I'm sorry." For leaving. "Where, is the light?" Are my feelings really right? How can I tell? "Wonder if it's weeping somewhere." I wonder if my conscience is trying to tell me I made the wrong choice, that I should feel bad, and apoligize. That is how I believe the song is about me.
Declawing cats is generally morally wrong.

Is declawing cats immoral? Declawing cats is unnatural, not immoral. It is part of the domestication process. Let's get to the root of the problem. I believe that people may feel it is not right to take away the cats natural right to posess its own claws because it has that natural right. However, the cat also has the natural right to use its claws in any way it sees fits. The cat must be domesticated in order to coexist with man. The cat has undergone a significant amount of domestication since man adopted it as a house pet. Prior to domestication the cat was just another animal in the mild. It could be argued that the cat does not have the right to use its claws to negatively effect the quality of life of man. The cat should not be allowed to eat the man's food and swipe at his eyes. It should not be allowed to tear up man's furniture. In exchange for a domesticated life the cat gives up its natural right to claws. How does this hurt the cat? The cat abandons its natural ability to defend itself or catch food with its claws. The answer to this debate is this: If a man accepts the role as responsible owner of a cat and chooses to take property (claws) from his property (cat) then he has the right to do so if done in good reason. His good reason is that the claws are no longer necessary for the cat to survive or defend itself because man has let the cat into his home and into his survival scenario. All the cat has to do for food and protection is be a tame kitty. Helping the cat achieve this "tame kitty" state by removing the claws actually prevents the cat from getting in trouble with its master. If it is immoral to protect one's own property from itself by changing its nature the problem is really: it is immoral to change the nature of a living creature. Is this so? Perhaps but because of man's desire or love or need for house pets the cat, the dog, even the bird have all been domesticated to be "tame." The bird's feather's are clipped to prevent it from acting wild and flying off. The dog's snout is muzzled to prevent it from biting. The cats claws are removed to prevent it from scratching. It is just unfortunate that we cannot ask the cat how it would rather live: with claws and in the wild or without them and in the homes of men.
Declawing cats is generally morally wrong.

Since my opponent has forfeited his previous round, and this is my last, I will go ahead and sum up my argument as simply as I can. 1. It is morally wrong to harm any creature that can feel pain. 2. Cats can feel pain. 3. Declawing is an incredibly painful procedure that gives no benefit to the animal whatsoever. 4. Therefore, Declawing is morally wrong. All my opponent has said in regards to this is “But we OWN them, so we can do as we please, regardless of morality,” and “The convenience declawing awards the owner outweighs the damage and pain the cat suffers.” My opponent never addressed my suggested alternatives, the risks and side-effects of declawing, my refutations to his arguments, or the moral implications of traumatizing another conscious creature for the sake of mere convenience. I have shown, in great detail, that declawing is nothing short of mutilation. For those who still think that the benefits of declawing outweigh the damages to your pet, here are some anecdotes. http://declaw.lisaviolet.com... Summary: Pepper felt intense pain as each of her ten claws were ripped out during surgery. http://declaw.lisaviolet.com... Felix’s claws (or lackthereof) apparently became infected. He stopped eating, and became depressed. http://declaw.lisaviolet.com... Spice was declawed, and didn’t suffer any health problems. However, after the surgery Spice became aggressive and much less active. The author also worked as an animal technician. "I can not tell you how many times I heard the cats come out of anesthesia screaming after a declaw. They would throw themselves around the cages, banging their faces, bandaged paws, everything against the walls and the bars. They would fly into a frenzy, ripping off their bandages and gnawing on the mutilated limbs. There would be blood everywhere, on the cage, on the cat. And the screaming would last for hours.” “That's why the vet won't let you take your cat home for two days, because of the screaming.” “They would only scream after they'd been declawed.” How any "loving" pet owner can live with themselves after doing this to their companion animal is simply beyond me. I urge the audience to consider both of our arguments, and vote accordingly.
no fixed rules for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

I will defend the Christian faith. But if I fail in doing such, I hope that others will take my place and prove that Christianity is the way to eternal salvation. Your whole argument, (well, your onslaught of questions) comes from this. "i'd ask the fundamentalist "is it enough for them to say they believe that jesus existed?" and they'd say no as demons do that." Correct. I will agree 100% One must believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone's sins. Then, one must be willing to follow Jesus Christ, or at least listen. To understand that he is the end-all-be-all. Action is not REQUIRED but rather faith that Jesus Christ is the savior and that God sent his only son to earth to die for us. Demons know and believe this. But one must have the intent to follow Jesus Christ and his teachings. It all bouls down to belief and faith. - Cheeks