BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Did the US betray Israeli by not using it's veto on the anti-settlement UNSC resolution

This refers to the 2334th resolution on the 23rd of December last year that stated Israeli settlement in occupied territory (the boarders of which they concluded were outlined by the 1967 boarders) is a violation of international law. While you can take geopolitical implications into account in your argument but I'm mainly arguing on the moral side of things so mainly only use geopolitical effects to the extent they result in harm or benefits to people that could cause the actions to be seen as moral or immoral. By betray I'm taking to mean a serious breach in your moral obligations to the betrayed that were previously established. I am willing to debate all conclusions and assumptions made in the resolution. My first point ,the US's alliance with Israeli has always been in the interest of ensuring the survival of the country of Israeli and the safety of Israeli's. The Resolution did not compromise either of those thing. The Resolution had no physical affect as was a vote to show that the members of the council disproved of the Israelis actions not a vote designed to force Israeli to destroy Israeli settlements in occupied territories. Even if the resolution is used as president to later make a second resolution that more forcefully orders Israel to stop making settlements in occupied territory this may harm Israelis interests to some extent but it would not seriously put Israel at risk of destruction or harm the majority of Israelis. In summary the US is not obliged to ensure Israeli can create new settlements therefore its not betrayal to abstain in a vote that shows that the UNSC nations disapprove of settlements.
Poem about a 10 year-old girlfriend

Poem about a girlfriend If I had a 10 year-old girlfriend I would never let her go I would keep her in the basement Like a dirty little hoe I would teach her to suck a dick Like the little slut she is I would have sex with her every day I would have sex with her every night She would be my girlfriend and I would own her I wouldn't let other men have her I would be inside her, Inside my girlfriend I know I am a selfish demon, A fiend But that's just who I am And even if what I do is wrong It will not stop me, I will not stop Because I always believe that What I do is right, I am always right Even when I am wrong, I am right That is because I like to have fun
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

I'm proud of you! You learn faster than any the students I ever had ;-), and I really mean this. In this round I just want to re-capitulate: The title of the debate mentions “insulting” and not just “provoking”, because the rules of debate.org forbid to insult each other but also because insulting makes the debate more funny. Not all kind of insults are adequate, but just to provoke the opponent to make him/her to make mistakes. Answering your paradox, yes, you can win a debate even defending the wrong position. I think is more challenging to argue in favor of something you don't agree with, because then is when you show intellectual strength. It is useful for life to understand dialectics and how to make logical fallacies because people usually argue against themselves and usually convince themselves using logical fallacies, which is very sat. In a debate is not sat, it is nice to win a debate playing dirty, but between relatives or thinking in your own is very sat. That is why it is good to train debating. Insulting is not a logical fallacy, but is part of debating in a dirty way, and that is why it is worth learning. By the way, when I attend a viva-voice debate at the university I can see that politicians provoke each other with great glee, and islamist even make hate speech agains us. So why we use a different set of moral rules in a debate? OK, I know what are you thinking, maybe your opposition will hate you so much after the debate that after a while you may have no one to debate with. Maybe I was too rude in my previous debate on “kids looking up porn should be illegal” by suggesting that the guy at the preposition is probably a teenager who just masturbate himself for first time, ok I can apologies publicly for that, but I still think it was a funny provocation, and humor is a key issue in a debate, the important thing is not to be right but to look right by showing confidence, humor, etc. I'm enjoying this debate. :-)
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

My magnificent opponent is absolutely right and correct in all his arguments. Obviously he is the greatest debater who ever lived. We clearly are in the presence of complete amazingness. There were two arguments that I saw in my opponent's excellent case. The first is that opponents in debates will sometimes take pleasantries sarcastically. Who could possibly disagree with such a compelling argument? I guess if my opponent says so it must be true. We agree in this debate that you can insult people without meaning to do so. So by my opponent's infallible logic, any benefits he can give you of insulting also accrue from being nice. Recall that my fine opponent also has the burden of proof in this debate. He needs to demonstrate the harm of not using insults to win this debate. I thank him for graciously conceding there is no benefit to his model. Secondly, my opponent said voters are more likely to vote for you if you insult your opponents, because the great professor Arthur Schopenhauer said that your opponent will become mentally retarded as a result. But of course! It's so obviously true! All hail Arthur Schopenhauer, who knoweth all about how everyone reacts to insults! This presents an epic paradox though. I was the first to insult my opponent in this debate according to my opponent, and therefore my opponent should be making stupid arguments and losing by his own logic. This is, however, self-evidently false because my opponent is obviously demonstrating a most elevated degree of erudition in his points, so either my opponent is making this point as a show of humility or stupidity. However, if I win by insulting, doesn't that prove my opponent's assertion? So the statement is, in light of the context of this debate, apparently both self-defeating and self-proving. My meagre brain is unfortunately not up to my opponent's standard, so I wonder if he would generously resolve this paradox that is puzzling me. The question in this debate is what we should promote. Sure, it may be possible to win over voters by turning your opponent into a dumb idiot, as all moderate insults self-evidently do because Arthur Schopenhauer obviously is right about everything and worthy of our worship. This is also possible without insults as my opponent has also proven in the first argument, so it doesn't prove the harm. I can only assume my opponent is saving the meat of his great case for us as a surprise in later rounds, so I'll do likewise (it's obviously a good strategy because my omniscient opponent is using it). Even if the argument is true that insulting helps you win (which it no doubt is), my opponent has not said that the purpose of all debates is to emerge victorious. That's because it isn't - sometimes, people debate just to get more experience, or just for the thrill of it. My opponent, blessed be his name, did mention moderate insults being useful for real life. He did not tell us how they are useful for real life, so I'll wait for this argument to be completed. I have a feeling it will be true though.
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

The great professor Arthur Schopenhauer already explain in “the art of being right” how important is to insult/provoke the opponent, when your opponent feels insulted, start to behave in an irresponsible way looking bad in the eyes of the audience, plus when you feel insulted you lose capacity to think properly. It is true that you will not convince anyone by calling that person idiotic retard, but this forum is not conversation.org, it is debate.org, here we don't talk to convince each other, here to talk convince the audience to vote in our favor. People should to understand dirty strategies to win a debate, not only for using it, but in order to live in earth and don't full themselves with dirty arguments. To end my answer I want to publicly applause you, for arguing against insulting though using an insult. Here is your last sentence: My wise opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. As we are debating you can't really admit that I'm a wise person. Therefore the word wise should be a sarcasm, consequently you are calling me stupid in front of the audience. This is something that I honestly welcome, because I though we can't debate at this web site before meting you.
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

Greetings! I cordially accept my learned opponent's brilliant challenge. In this fine debate I shall humbly advocate that one ought to address one's opponent with nothing but pleasantries, insofar as they are able to do so. In fact, I will argue that one ought to get bonus points for being really pretentious. Furthermore, saying an opponent's argument is wrong should be banned because it implies your opponent is stupid. My wise opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. Once they have presented their no-doubt excellent case, I shall respond responsibly.
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

Insulting each other in a moderate way was always at the core of a debate. Most of viva voice debates I attend as soon as my opposition realize they can't win the argument in a clean way turn into a dirty way, and they declare me a stupid guy which is not worth listening. Declaring your opposition stupid is part or the art of debating, and we should be able to do it online as well. There are no rule in this debate, but to present your self (age, sex, and geografical location)
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

I was right. My widely-read opponent did post the greatest round ever. I think there remains nothing more to be said on that topic. Once again, back to the debate. My humble soul cannot comprehend how my brilliant opponent met their burden of proof. They've definitely won a lot of side debates, for instance with their brilliant proof that the terrorists are right earlier in this debate (and then humbly admitting to all in the comments that a vote for me is a vote for terrorism, logically meaning that I must be right, although he has already humbly shown that I could win even if I'm wrong). His case is clearly beyond comprehension of us mere mortals, and he should clearly win. As if to demonstrate that he is a greater jerk than I am, already having proven that better jerks are better debaters, he has posted the incorrect argument in the final round. Anyway, I have dealt with all of the remaining points in my case. Please judge me not too harshly for even daring to stand up to the pure radicalness that my opponent represents. The time has now come to stop, cease, desist and refrain from continuing this rather silly debate. Thank you.
Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

We don't agree in homosexual = bisexual.If yo never have a heterosexual sex, then you can't reproduce, but if you do both, then you can reproduce, and that is very well observed in nature.Bi sexuality is natural and we can argue about if it is as frecuent as heterosexuality, pure homosexuality is not that common and it doen't make sense from a biological prespective. Finally I just want to recomend to read:Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections On Being Human by Jesse Bering It bring lots of interesting details about how homosexual relations work and why it is that frencuent.It also mention that canimalism is natural and it is reproducible in laboratory conditions, aparently a Japanesse lab manage to get permission from the etics commity to put monkeys in conditions in which they start eating the dead bodies of the othrers. I don't think I have anythink else to say for this debate.
Banning guns will lower down crime rate "U.S."

Vash arhument tyzhdenE7; i nerehulyarnosti . Vasha lohika yak skrucheni v yakosti spotvorenoyi chlena. Pistolet vash yedynoyu formoyu zakhystu ? Doslidzhennya pokazaly, shcho u vas bilE7;she shansiv , shchob strilyaty chlena sim'yi , a potim porushnyk. Shcho na zemli zahartovuyuchy ? Vy ne mozhete navitE7; hovoryty po-anhliysE7;ky pravylE7;no, vy vrodzhenyy pikhvu. Povtornyy amnedment ye zastariloyu perhament napysanyy korumpovanykh pikhvy, ale stavytysya do nE7;oho yak chortiv Bibliyi. Vy shkoda. Vy monstr . Vyplodok pekla . Sortuvannya lyudyna, yaka trakhaye poviyu , a potim zalyshaye yiyi pomyraty v kanavi z kolotoyu rany v hrudyakh. Vy te, shcho tse nepravylE7;no z zemleyu. Laska, svoye vlasne zhyttya , persh nizh vy vidtvoryuvaty i porodzhuvaty inshi , yak vy. Laska , pozbutysya nashoho sebe zemli , zarady vsikh nas.
Banning guns will lower down crime rate "U.S."

Welcome, I'm going to representing "CON" Banning guns will not lower down crime rate. 1. A gun is used for self protection. If do not have a firearm in your house you are taking the chance of being killed. 2. Most guns are illegal in crimes, that or have been stolen. this will rule out the fact of steeling guns from civilians but doesn't rule out steeling from police stations, jails, and etc. If banning guns means that self protection is gone. Ever heard this quote "Who brings a knife to a gun fight?" Yep i have or something relatively close to this, this would resemble the murderer with the gun and you with the knife, all because guns are banned. 3. U.K. is an island same with New Zealand and more! That means America has a boarder! If you have not put the pieces of the puzzle together you can easily smuggle in guns into America and sell them to gangs and criminals. Unlike U.K. the only way you can transport these guns will be expensive and very difficult. 4. Law! It is against the law to ban guns in all this would be going against the Second Amendment, which is part of our foundation to America. 5. When they banned gun in Australia CRIME RATE WENT UP! Yep it went up not down, and Australia is even an island. 6. Gangsters, gangsters do not obey the law same with criminals so banning the gun will only stop them? No it won't if they can get there hands on a firearm when guns are banned they can just shoot loads of innocent people, because we will have no protection, and the police can not just teleport to the scene. 7. Chicago, The city Chicago has the strongest gun laws of all times, I don't think you can even buy a gun in the city, so represent America as the city Chicago, you cannot buy guns at all and only police have weapons. Well did you know Chicago has an average fifteen people dying every week! WOW and you cannot even buy a gun in the city. On Debate.org 75% of the people say banning guns will not lower down crime rate and 25% say yes. 8. So then if we ban spoons will it make people less fat? Nope, so banning guns will lower down crime rate? Nope it will not in America, "Hypothesis speaking" It was raise it up, this is an advantage to gangs and criminals. 9. Why ban the gun when its someone choice to steel, that or smuggle a firearm and go find loads of innocent people and kill them all. You cannot stop that the only way to stop them is knowing before hand and thats practically impossible to do that. "So ban the person not the people." 10. It will be harder to kill loads of people will a knife but it can be just as hard to defend your self only with a knife and these people really want to murder people they can just find a gun or buy in black market. Here is my Facts... P.S. Wikipedia is an unreliable source... http://www.city-data.com... http://www.theherald-news.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://usfinancepost.com... Hope can you prove me wrong?
Abortion

Thank you Con!Alright, first off I will begin by rebutting his argument.Con's main argument is that Abortion is murder.[1] Murder- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought As you can see, murder is killing of a person. Not a fetus. Abortion is not murder if done before 10 weeks, the child dosen't have a heartbeat. Therfor, the baby isnt alive yet, thus not a person. [2] Your caregiver will usually be able to find the heartbeat with this method around 12 weeks, but in some cases they will do so at 10 weeks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Case; The Right to Abortion. Section 1. of the 14th ammendment clearly states that [3] "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that, the state shall not deprive someone of life, they can't take away a individuals rights, nor can they deprive them of life. [4] Deprive- deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something. If a women wishes to have an abortion, she should be able to because it is her right. As stated in the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," A women's body is her own property. The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans. Well-Being of the Mother Studies have shown, women whom are denied abortions suffer long term health and or mental problems. [5] "A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. The goverment promises not to deprive someone of life. Women are deprived of happiness. Instead, they live with regret and anger. They are unable to live a healthy life, because they were denied of their rights. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]https://www.google.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...... [5] http://abortion.procon.org......
Abortion

I will argue that Abortion is not at all okay. A reason for this is that in an abortion what you are doing is essentially killing a human being, taking away a life. The reason for unwanted pregnancy may or not be negligence, rape, simply unprotected relations. None of these cause justify that taking away of a life in any way. The most arguable cause would be rape, but you could give it to abortion, considering that giving a life is better than taking one away.
Abortion

Thank you Con for challenging me to this debate! I always love debating on Abortion. Since there isn't really a resolution established by Con, I will be arguing that Abortion is okay and a women has the right to do so. Con will argue that it is unaccountable. I will use this 1st round as acceptance, then define Abortion. [1] Abortion- "Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy." Again, thanks to Con for challenging me, and good luck! Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Animal testing does more harm than good

Yes, in some scenario's, animals will react differently to substances than humans, however; scientists study the traits that these animals hold, and they are usually able to counter these obsticles. Even if they cant, what other things can they test on? The idea of testing on models is utterly rediciculous. Models cant biologicially react to medicines or test vaccines that might be used. Even if they could, an actual organism would be much more accurate. My opponent says that living animals may mislead human research, however; models will mislead research even more. Humans and animals both have one thing in common; their alive. In some ways, humans and lab rats have similar biological traits, and because both are mammals, it is easier to test on them. We have so much of an abundance of these lab creatures, that we can use so many in our experiments, and in many cases they are successful! My opponent also says that animal experimentation My opponent says that it is cruel and imhumane to experiment on animals, however; the one thing that is cruel and inhumane is letting people die. It is inhumane not to try to stop cancer, ALS or to help amputee's, when we have the ability to do so. One of the most succesfull ways to do this is by scientifically testing our medicines on other creatures, so we dont end up accidentally giving wrong substances to humans. We need to know whether or not a medicine works or not, and if we arnt sure, scientists could un-intentienallty spread a medicine that doesnt even work or has negative side affects. My opponent also says that animal testing creates dangerous interpretations of the value life, and that it imply's that life has no meaning. If my opponent believes this is true, why is the intentions of animal experimentation to help the survival of human life? Yes, to most rational people, human lives are valued more than that of animals. Obviously animals do not have rights. That is simply stated. Thousands of years ago, humans conquered earth as the dominant species. Because animals can't think as rationally as humans, it is irrational to say that these creatures should have the same political and social abilities as humans. Yes, their is such a thing as animal abuse, however; animal experimentations do not hold that title. The reason why experimentations have been legalized is because it is a necessary factor for human health and advances in technology. p.s sorry for the forfiet, things got stuck k