BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today.

Conclusion: My opponent does not seem to recognize my arguments about the attraction of pedophilia being as bad as the act, where as someone who views child pornography and then develops the attraction actually has an excuse for the condition that is not a pre-existing mental condition. Also the assertions that having pictures from a young age can trigger the condition and make people unable to control their sexual urges; pedophiles who watch child porn are the ones who already want to molest children; and that pedophiles 'struggling' with their urges may be likely to act, despite them also not watching child porn. These arguments to me do not hold up to closer inspection. I do not dispute my opponents arguments that there is a mental condition where there are pedophiles that do not act or view it. I do stand by my argument that the amount of those people that have this rare disorder and are not influenced through the societal problems that exist, such as pornography, are a minority and can only prove they didn't view it by saying they didn't which I doubt many would admit. There is nothing to normalize due to the condition causing harm to others, but to treat and better educate to prevent it from even being a thought. People who get urges to kill are treated as needing treatment, so are pedophiles, the goal is not to accept their condition as a non stigmatized problem, a normalized attitude in any way would endorse it. I may have broken the rules there I'm not sure, although there a fallacy arguments I could make also if I were being pedantic lol, I do not believe sources were required for my arguments due to the argument only requiring me to show why "Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as they are today." is a false statement. I leave it up to the reader to decide. Thanks for the debate!
Religious people and gays are both fueled by emotions, deceit and wishful thinking.

Since my opponent has not set in place any ground rules, I’ll start off by saying my opponent has generalized two communities by asserting they use deceit and emotions to gain support and that our beliefs are fueled by wishful thinking, not reality. Since my opponent is Pro, he has the BOP and must back up his assertions. Because of this, I’ll wait to refute his assertions till he actually provides any evidence. Good luck! Let’s keep this civil but impassioned!
We should torture animals for the benefits for humans.

Yes, I would test an animal if they had the cure for cancer. But I would also find a good way to do it, one that doesn't hurt the animal. Just because animals are not human does not mean that they don't feel pain, or have at least some basic intelligence. I've seen dogs, for example, that understand over 1000 human words, and they(dogs) communicate with each other as well, mostly through body language but their growling and howling has meaning to each other to. I'd like to see a human that can understand 100 sequences of dolphin "speech" and imitate right back. You also said "If I have to painfully stab a[n] animal but it will get us one step closer to solve world hunger by god I will do it." We already are. We kill over 56 million animals a year in the U.S. alone, not even including fish and other sea creatures, which measure in the TONNES. But we aren't giving much of that to solve world hunger, are we? We just send it to our nice, expensive restaurants to fill the bellies of fat rich people. As well as all this, you decided to write: "A man won't die if [he doesn't] they don't have a pet." But what if it is one of those bomb-sniffing dogs? Or one that will detect cancer, fire, or when he's about to have a stroke? Pets can be very necessary to people's lives, I know from someone that visited the White House that they have gun/bomb sniffing dogs in security, which probably save our president's life daily. So what right do we humans have, besides evolving faster(which is really no right at all) to torture and kill animals, ripping them apart at birth so kids can dissect(translation: utterly destroy) them, or stab them for fancy restaurants? Are we really better than them, when we kill for sport and riches while they hunt for food for their young? Are humans so superior?
We should torture animals for the benefits for humans.

To start of this is not a joke. This is my belief. This is 100% passion. I hope my opponent feels as much passionate as I am doing this debate. Now what if their is a situation in which if we torture Animals it can provide benefits for all humans. For example if we cruelty test and torture a animal but they have the cure for cancer would you do it? I certainty would. We can use that information to save millions of humans lives of constant suffering. Let's look at this way. If both a animal and a human is getting tortured and feeling the same pain who would you save? I would choose a human. This is not bias a human's life is much more important than a animals life. For one we live longer compared to animals. Humans experience more pain than animals due to our longer lifespan. A animal is not expect to do great things. A human's life is much more valuable due to our ingenuity. A animal isn't gonna construct large buildings but a human can. This is why a human's life is much more valuable than a animal's life. It might seem immoral here but the thing is we are human. They are not. We are far more superior than animals. This is not subjective this is a fact. If there is any situation in which if you have to torture a animal that gives every human a benefit by god I will do it. If I have to painfully stab a animal but it will get us one step closer to solve world hunger by god I will do it. On balance the pain of one animal is bad compared to a benefit for every human on earth. I am seem like a evil person here but we really don't need animals other than hunting purposes. Yes I understand pets but they are merely emotional comfort than they are really needed. A man won't die if they don't have a pet. So yes I say we are far more superior than any other of those animals. Look I understand you animal lovers. I love animals too but they are really not needed in today society's. What if we kill every animal my opponent might say. To that I must say if I can't eat meat I might as well eat plants. Animals are a lot like us. Both humans and animals do things that will benefit their species only. Animals attack other animals for their family. We kill animals to feed our family too. If a animal has to make a choice to torture a human to benefit all their species they would do it in a instant. Am I no different for suggesting a action that will make our species live much more longer than usual. Survival of the fittest. As I said we are much more superior to animals. If we have to kill animals or even torture them to improve our species we will do it. Many people have done it. Am I no different for suggesting something that will again advance our species. No I am not. This is about our species advancement and survival. If we torture animals because it benefits us we will do it. In conclusion I am not different than animals. This is about our survival and advancement for human kind.
Resolved: In the United States, Plea Bargaining undermines the criminal justcie system.

1.) Do you know what, legally, most occur for a plea bargain to take effect? Yes. However, I assume you are going to take this to mean coercion doesn't exist. However, your response to coercion is abusive and blipy. You are redefining plea bargaining so that it only includes the situations in which it supports your side. However, when you look to your definition, clearly, a "verdict and sentence without a complete trial" can be negotiated with coercive elements. So, in that respect, your answer was abusive. Second, it is a blipy response. Rather than try to argue against it, you dodge it and provide no counter evidence. 2) How many people are falsely convicted for plea bargaining? An exact number is unknown. However, according to the economic reviewer, "approximately 240 people who were convicted of a crime have been exonerated using DNA; of these, 25% involved some form of false confession." Clearly, even in cases when the defendant knows there is DNA evidence exonerating them, they are still coerced to plead guilty. Back to Dowden, he furthers that prosecutors charge two people for the same exact crime, and that in some cases, two people plead guilty to the same crime. Although exact numbers are unknown, it is clear it happens. 3) Who benefits out of a plea bargain? Who suffers? The beneficiary is the prosecutor who has strong incentives to plea bargain as outlined in the constructive. The defendant and victim suffer. Innocent defendants suffer because, well, they are punished for doing nothing wrong. Victims suffer when the defendant is guilty because they get no say in the procedure. I could show you numerous times when a sentence has clearly been too lenient and has elicited an emotional response from the victim.
Resolved: In the United States, Plea Bargaining undermines the criminal justcie system.

1.) Are you putting a price on justice with your efficiency argument? No, I'm putting a price on maintaining plea bargaining. If we were trying to attain justice, then money should not inhibit our efforts. However, we have a just society. There is a 70% conviction rate, a 1:450 police officer to citizen ratio, and the strongest legal system in the world with equal rights and privileges for all, including an extensive Constitution and accompanying Bill of Rights. 2.) Do you agree that people should be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt? In a trial, yes. However, the entire notion of a plea bargain is that it is a bargain. By accepting the bargain, the defendant is intentionally waiving some of his or her Constitutional rights in exchange for a lighter sentence. 3.) Although the Supreme Court ruled coercion illegal, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist so why is this point relevant? You are trying to say that coercion exists in plea bargaining. However, as proven in Machibroda v. the United States and furthermore in Boykin v. Alabama, by definition, a plea bargain cannot be coerced. Put simply, if there is coercion, it is not a plea bargain. Any examples of coercion must be dropped in this round for that reason. 4.) Why is your contention 2, subpoint A relevant? Something can be Constitutional and not undermining? As the negative, I simply have to prove that plea bargaining does not undermine the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court has commented on and has ruled that plea bargaining does not undermine the criminal justice system. If you want to contest the Supreme Court of the United States, be my guest. As to the Constitutionality, because the criminal justice system is defined and structured by the Constitution, if it complies with the Constitution, it complies with and therefore cannot be undermining the criminal justice system. 5.) Do you think your entire Contention 2, but especially subpoint B is a little defensive? No, I don't. As I mentioned in the answer to the above question, the Constitution is the defined set of rules and limitations by which we live and the criminal justice system operates. Plea bargaining is Constitutional, so therefore it is an active and necessary part of the criminal justice system, that cannot be undermining it. 6.) Where in your case do you supply a warrant for either of your subpoints in you contention 2? The warrants are in plain sight. The two Constitutional court cases listed and the very Constitution provide evidence that support and enhance my case. Now to ask a few questions of my opponent... 1) Do you know what, legally, most occur for a plea bargain to take effect? 2) How many people are falsely convicted for plea bargaining? 3) Who benefits out of a plea bargain? Who suffers? I will raise more points in the next round.
Ultimate Debate #2: Summer Olympics (pro) VS Winter Olympics (con)

Ultimate debate #1 is this: http://www.debate.org... This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this, comment. I will accept someone from the comments I would like to debate. If you wish to debate, say so in comments, message me or comment on my profile. Also, should there be any, ask any questions in those three places about this debate. We wil be debating this, though: "Ultimate Debate #2: Summer Olympics (pro) VS Winter Olympics (con)" We will be Pro. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments (max 3) Round 3: Arguments (max 3) Round 4: Arguments (max 3) Round 5: Rebuttals. You may NOT write rebuttals in any other round than the fifth. CON may NOT write rebuttals on my rebuttals in the fifth round. You may NOT bring up any new points in round 5. NO SWEARING OR RACIAL SLURS! No semantics. Any breaking of rules means forfeit of debate. Good luck, DDD
Religion on a level

isnt it amazing to see so many different religions and so many different beliefs and terms & then we have agnostictism, athiesm both skeptical yet agnostictism believes that one does not know for sure so one should not try and provide false unproven evidence. I would like to believe we are here for a purpose but I DO NOT KNOW, therefore if all people did not know and didnt try and provide evidence believed to be true by creationism and religion we would not have war or any conflict in life.=D
Religion on a level

Thanks for responding to the debate. I would like to remind everyone of the statement that this debate is actually about: "if all people did not know and didnt try and provide evidence believed to be true by creationism and religion we would not have war or any conflict in life. =D" That is the debate topic; in simpler terms it is this: If there was no religion, there would be nor war or conflict. " My opponent listed a few wars that supposedly were based on religion. However, she provides no proof of this, or any additional information besides the name of the war itself. A list of wars is not an argument. It is a list. She does not give a reason why my Civil War example is religious, nor does she disprove the Revolutionary War. My opponent then goes into racial stereotyping. For one thing, 80% of all Indians practice Hinduism, not Islam. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) For another, there is no proof that religion is the cause of racial hatred; my opponent only made an unproven conjecture, that I say is false. Racial hatred originated from many different things, but of all reasons given in the list here (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), religion is not one of them. "I agree with my opponent when he used an example of 'greed'" Well, if we're in agreement on a statement that disproves the thesis of this debate, then I guess you've already conceded. "this was stated in wilkepedia it also says 'greed is a deadly sin as seen in christianity' so when people label each action as a vice or 'sin' it becomes incapable and grasps more power, christianity is good on some level it distinguishes each action ' lust' 'greed' etc but people like to take advantage of each of these sins and so religion also becomes a mockery" Greed does not stem from Christianity. If Christianity did not exist, Greed would still exist. Religion does not create Greed; it identifies Greed. My opponent then gives examples of conflicts stemming from Religion. However, just because some conflicts are because of Religions, doesn't mean that all of them are. Here are some examples: 1. I am driving my car down a road. Another guy accidentally crashes into me due to a brake failure. Now we are in a conflict of deciding who has to pay for the damages done to my car: me, the other driver, or my insurance company? 2. I am practicing my knife-throwing. My friend comes up and stands in front of the target without realizing that I am practicing my knife-throwing. I throw my knife, and it kills him. Do I go to jail? 3. I am practicing my knife-throwing. I am mad at my friend because he beat me in a board game. He waves "Hi" to me. I throw the knife at him, killing him. Do I go to jail? How will I be caught, now that I am on the run from the secular law? In conclusion: Even if all religion was abolished, there would still be war and conflict in our lives.
Religion on a level

Thanks for accepting this arguement(: i apologise for not completing the second round i had work I would like to reinstate what my opponent had stated he implied that not everything is religion based (true) && that not most wars are based on a religious aspect. i would like to intervene there and say yes they all are The civil war world war 1 world war 11 etc etc. 9/11 religion also comes from a stereotype race for eg.. if you saw a indian person most people would "assume" that person is muslim, same goes to someone who is white or asain. Race or colour comes from people who suddenly establish that person on a religious level thats why there is so much racial hatred I agree with my opponent when he used an example of "greed" but thats the social norm, greed comes from alot of things not bieng able to provide yourself with the inner strenth not to feel greedy. Greed is the excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of money, wealth, power, food. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins ... ^^ this was stated in wilkepedia it also says "greed is a deadly sin as seen in christianity" so when people label each action as a vice or "sin" it becomes incapable and grasps more power, christianity is good on some level it distinguishes each action " lust" "greed" etc but people like to take advantage of each of these sins and so religion also becomes a mockery Islam & christianity have varied similarities yet both religions differ and without people trying to compromise on there own beliefs people judge out the differences and this becomes " a racial war" and people forget the similarities and focus on the hatred that each religion has. Also in conclusion i dont want to go into each organisation or church but my arguement holds as " religion DOES ruin todays society and if people chose to " be agnostic , peoples views in race would change and people would not look upon eachother as what the steretype religion would be, peoples views would change the hostile social norm would change, I admitly agree that growing up as a christian it is god to believe in a higher power, but it comes a time when people need to realise and say " look at the 100s of religions they are, without looking at a minority , why dont we consider each religion as it is and not focus on one bieng the higher or most superior and look and see the SIMILARITIES and research or accept the differences" i thank my opponent and respect his arguement sources http://plato.stanford.edu... http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk... http://www.lifesitenews.com...
Religion on a level

"I would like to believe we are here for a purpose but I DO NOT KNOW, therefore if all people did not know and didnt try and provide evidence believed to be true by creationism and religion we would not have war or any conflict in life. =D" Alright, I disagree. Religion is the root cause of most conflicts, but not all of them. After all, some wars are fought between groups that even share the same religion. The American Revolution was fought because of mercantilism, not religion. . http://www.historycentral.com... The American Civil War was fought because of autonomy, not religion. . http://americanhistory.about.com... If religion did not exist, those wars would still have been fought. Also, conflicts are even more unavoidable. If I steal my friend's car, it's not because of religion. It's because I just damaged my car in an accident (even more accidental conflict) and I need new wheels. No religion. Just greed. I await my opponent's response.
Goku vs Batman

Dang it... I was hoping you weren't a GT fan(I am not but I grew up watching DBZ) Batman didn't die Bruce Wayne died and he was replaced by Grayson. Then later...ill get to that " All it'd take was is a kamehameha and Batman would be dead. Goku is also very fats(you mean fast I think) so Batman would be dead before the fight even begins." You can't say all it would take is a Kameha because we don't know how powerful they are. We know how powerful they are against their own kind but it could not even affect batman. We do not know Goku is fast either. A) nothing earth bound to compare him to on the show. b) We assume because were he travels to he is fast. c) we don't know the distance so we can't decipher speed. We do know though that our projectiles (bullets or other missiles) will effect him because physics states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so our bullets we KNOW would have some effect on him...whether it takes a 9mm or a large missile is irrelevant. Just like we can't assume a Nuke would effect Goku because the shock wave might not effect him and the radiation probably doesn't. Also guns don't take charging like kameha. The only attack that we KNOW would effect batman is the literal beating the crap out of him but since we don't know how fast or any physical trait to compare to Batman. Goku is 5ft 7in that is all we really know....making him quite small btw. He could be ripped and weak. The gravity could be low were he is at we just have no facts. But it doesn't matter because Goku is immortal...but not his body. His spirit is. Physically he isn't immortal. Immortality Immortality (不死, Fushi) is the concept of living in physical or SPIRITUAL form for an infinite length of time. As in reality, fame itself appears to be the only biological method of "achieving immortality" in the Dragon Ball franchise, however there a several outside methods in the series which can be sought after in order to become immortal, the most common being to make such a wish to the Eternal Dragon, Shenron, using the seven Dragon Balls.[1] Therefore yes he is immortal but we don't know if that is a physical or a spiritual form. if it is spiritual then Batman is immortal to because he goes back in time and clones and a bunch of crap in the new series [2]( I hate new crap that's why I didn't like GT) so technically they are both immortal. So to make the fight not stupid then we would have to have them die. [1]http://dragonball.wikia.com... [2]http://www.comicsalliance.com...
Goku vs Batman

Goku has died, batman has not. Therefor in their own series batman already has an advantage....mainly because Goku is already dead. I win. Then he gets brought back. Then he died. Then he gets brought back. Goku is good at dying. So I vote another Law....Goku can't just keep coming back to life that isn't fair. Batman on the other hand has never died. Except from old age but not in his story. All Batman would have to do it shoot him with a single projectile. He has all the technology and weapons at his disposal. He can run him over, blow him up, shoot him, stab him or even light him on fire. How would he kill Batman. He has no weapons that can pierce Batman's assortment of armors. We don' t technically know how powerful his blasts would be either. They could be no more than a large hammer like bullet or they could be nuclear. We just don't know. So if we assume they are pretty powerful...say RPG strong than he would have no chance. He would have to get lucky and hit batman when he wasn't paying attention. More or less they both would kill each other but Batman has more ways to kill Goku so batman will kill Goku more often then not. We have to do this like that show Deadliest Warrior and assume if they fight 1000 times Goku would win 423 times and Batman would win 577 times. Not because Batman is more powerful, he is a mere human. He has the technology to protect himself from Goku. The money if need be to get new technology if he can't be protected by Goku. That and he has already many means to kill Goku, like that Batmobile. Throw on top of all that if Batman gets hurt he can go to the doctor and we don't know If humans know how to fix Goku. Also Batman gets extra points just because he is plausible to our knowledge in this world and Goku as of right now to our knowledge isn't plausible (completely plausible just not here)