BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney

We all know Walt Disney, right? Mickey Mouse, Aladin, all those things. But if you look on YouTube, you will find numerous videos about Disney and Disney Channel having subliminal messages in their music/products/movies/shows. The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it, The Lion King has a scene where the sky spells out "SEX", I think Hannah Montana teaches kids it's ok to walk all over your friends and family as long as you say sorry, the list goes on and on. There's a huge YouTube battle called the Anti Disney Movement that is going on right now, it's been there for about 8 months. DOWN WITH DISNEY!!
Disney

"You really like debating don't you? ;)" ----> Yeah :D =====Counterarguments===== >>>The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it<<< My opponent, whether known to him or not, has conceded this point. All he states is that at most, there is a "rumor flying around". But of course, this doesn't mean that it's true. Without pressing this point further, I have nothing to refute as this argument seems to be dropped. >>>Lion King<<< "What does Occam's Razor have to do with this? " ----> Just a rule of thumb. Which seems more plausible: SEX is actually SFX (an inside signature for techies), or that the Disney corportation plotted to sneak in "subliminal sex messages"? "Anyway my belief is" ----> In a debate, this hardly matters. "because Disney has alot of examples of sexual messages/ pictures, both hidden and plainly visible" ----> You failed to supply more LEGIT examples of sexual messages/pictures, thus making your point null. My opponent has failed to bring up any new point in refutation of the ones I offered. >>>Hannah Montana<<< It should be crystal clear that my opponent drops this argument. >>>The Rescuers<<< "Removed or not, it's still there. Have you ever had a friend who did something really bad to you and later said sorry after it? The action still remains, and it will always remain. " ----> There's several things to consider however: 1. Further editions removed it 2. You have failed to give proof that Disney corportation inserted these pictures, and not some person who did it behind-the-lines. If this was perpertuated by one person, then Disney shouldn't be at blame. "but subliminal messages are ment to catch you off-guard and subconsiously make you think about something. " ----> And what demonsratable effects have arised from these examples from Disney? =====Conclusion===== My opponent has conceded several of his points,and dropped one of his arguments. He has failed to show why Disney corporation should be shut down EVEN if they were rightly accused of inserting sexual images. He has failed to show they were even inserted by Disney.
Disney

You really like debating don't you? ;) >>>The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it<<< We may never know how it got there, or why someone did it, but there is a rumor flying around about one of Walt's cartoonists getting fired just before production and so he got revenge on Disney by hiding a penis in the middle of the palace. But hey, just a rumor. >>>Lion King<<< What does Occam's Razor have to do with this? Anyway my belief is that it spells SEX, because Disney has alot of examples of sexual messages/ pictures, both hidden and plainly visible. It's wouldn't be a suprise to have one more. >>>Hannah Montana<<< No further notes. >>>The Rescuers<<< Removed or not, it's still there. Have you ever had a friend who did something really bad to you and later said sorry after it? The action still remains, and it will always remain. "At normal speed, it's so fast that most people can't even find it. If you watched the entire movie without previous knowledge of this innuendo, would you really have noticed? " Yes this may be true, but subliminal messages are ment to catch you off-guard and subconsiously make you think about something. Last Thoughts: This is the final round, I would like to thank my opponent again and anyone who sees this debate. Link: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Subliminal message definition.
The legal drinking age in the U.S.A. ought to be lowered to 18.

My opponent has forfeited this round, all of my arguments still stand, all of my refutations still stand, and as my opponent has no further opportunity to post an argument (see the beginning of Round 2), I strongly urge a vote for my side.Thank you for reading, and if anybody who thinks they can go an entire debate without forfeiting would like to challenge me on this topic, feel free to shoot me a message or a challenge and we'll work something out.
The legal drinking age in the U.S.A. ought to be lowered to 18.

I am currently in the middle of finals right now so I will do my best to debate quickly! The drinking age is 21 because of the maturity and accidents that 18 year old drinkers caused. Here are some facts and a website to help anyone understand why the drinking age was returned back to 21. "MADD's "Why 21? "" website touts a National Traffic Highway Administration finding that the raised drinking age policy saves around 900 lives a year. Traffic reports show a 62% decrease in alcohol fatalities among teen drivers since 1982. Raw numbers show that drunk driving fatalities have definitely dropped since the early 1980s; despite an 88% increase in the number of miles driven, 2007 saw over 8,000 fewer total alcohol-related traffic fatalities than 1982. (. http://mentalfloss.com......) "Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible. Alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain's frontal lobes, essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. When alcohol consumption interferes with this early adult brain development, the potential for chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behavior, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide is greater. (. http://drinkingage.procon.org......) " "The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking. Many rights in the United States are conferred on citizens at age 21 or older. A person cannot legally purchase a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or adopt a child until age 21, rent a car (for most companies) at age 25, or run for President until age 35. Drinking should be similarly restricted due to the responsibility required to self and others. (. http://drinkingage.procon.org......) " These are only a few reasons why the drinking age is at a correct age limit and should stay there. thank you.
Internet addiction

So first of all I'm glad that you accepted my offer. I wish you good luck. Now let's debate this topic "Internet Addiction is a serious threat". Thus my point of view will be pro/for, I agree that it is a real problem of todays children, even adults. Definitions Inï¿½terï¿½net noun a vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide (usually preceded by the ). The Internet includes commercial, educational, governmental, and other networks, all of which use the same set of communications protocols. adï¿½dicï¿½tion noun the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma. Nowadays the internet is getting more and more popular and peoples' life have changed since the internet exist. Mainly because it is very convenient, easy and there are lots of fun for instance online games, chatting. But there is one big problem "addiction". According to the statistics we can see that how it has been growing up since 1995.There were 16 millions number of users, while presently it is significantly increased to 2,280 millions. It is therefore aparently seen that almost half of earth population are using the internet, regards with 32% WORLD POPULATION. Although, people are playing online games in the internet, which is lead to be addicted, consequently they are hurting their health, in addition they are wasting their time, while peers are physically and educationally developing themselves. Thus todays youth, living virtually life more than real,instead. They are suffering from shortage of physical inactivity, real social communication, psychological wellbeing, for many depression, self-esteem, loneliness. To sum up, people have to pay more attention to this problem, 'cause it is also associated with dsease type. sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.internetworldstats.com... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.internetworldstats.com...
Internet addiction

Greetings Affirmative team. I have noted that your topic is rather insubstantial and so If I may request that you reword the topic to make it more definite in your opening argument I would be thankful. From what I think the topic is: 'Internet addiction is real.' I'm not sure, it is up to pro to define the topic now. In future, to make things easier, I recommend pro to state a topic in debates that are statements which can be agreed to or disagreed to, like: 'The earth is flat.' One can agree to it or disagree. In this topic: 'Internet addiction.' There isn't anything I can agree with or disagree with, so you will have to state what your intended topic is in round 2. Please be reasonable, I don't wish to debate you if you make the topic something like: 'Internet addiction is the topic.' And secure your win like that. My thanks.
Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, not the back

guys in the bottom saying they affirm, dont and ill tell u way 1) JasonMc is not an actual Mc and has lied to you 2) His toilet paper only flows from the from the back, he wants to screw you guys over with his toilet paper tricks 3) Think of the kids... 4) French people put their toilet paper in the front - do you want to be french - voulez vous couchez avec moi, nope didnt think so - thats not racism ^^^ I am franco argentinian so dont get mad 5) a study has found that you lose weight from putting your toilet paper from the back 6) Aids is very common in front-flowing toilet paper 7) There is a myth that you will die within seven days of using frontly dispensed toilet paper 8) What is front but the back 9) If you dispense toilet paper from the front, your natural instinct will be to wipe your front (wiwi for guys - poochypoo for girls) 9) Jason sells drugs to kids 10) He is a communist As you see, my point is very clear... Vote negative or forever hold your peace ^ This will haunt you in a couple of years youll see DO NOT APPRIVEIT IS AWEB OF LIES TOILET PAPER LIES NOW, whats next, MURDER I am philadam and i approve of this message
Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, not the back

I contend that even if a person was used to the toilet paper rolling out from the back, that they still would be able to accurately evaluate the number of squares that they would be ripping off of the front of the role, if the roll were positioned so that the toilet paper rolled out from the front. I also contend that the majority of people are not used to having the toilet paper positioned from the back, or in any certain position at all for that matter. If people would just position their toilet paper so that it rolled out from the front, it would prevent numerous wiping mishaps, which would therefore decrease the level of anal-retentiveness that society is plagued with today. If society as a whole was less anal-retentive, it may very well reduce the level of sociological tension that contributes to so many of our world's problems today, and make this planet a better place to live. I guess there could be a slight degree of truth to what you're proposing, but answer me this: what if you're wrong, philadam? WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?
Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, not the back

yeah but think about it mankind has been doing things so that it is benefitial to them if the toilet paper is rolled out form the back, its probably becuse they were used to and it facilitated their lives the wiping mishap would have happened if they switched it because it would take over a year to get used to it if your whole life you were used to the back flowing toilet paper, a sudden switch miight just confuse everybody and cause chaos
Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, not the back

By your own standards, you shouldn't have used "shouldn't" in your reply, and should've used could've instead. What I am implying is that people should be considerate enough to the potential visitors of their residences, businesses, etc to position the toilet paper so that it rolls out from the front of the roll instead of the back in order to prevent a catastrophic wiping mishap. I didn't state that everyone HAS to follow me, I am simply stating my personal stance, which you are supposed to be debating. The notion that your toilet paper already flows out the front because you are more advanced than I holds no weight in this argument. Obviously, I am not considering whether or not I should make my toilet paper flow from the front, I am advocating that everyone else should. If you were truly more advanced, I would not have to explain this to you.
Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, not the back

Toilet paper should be positioned on the dispenser so that it rolls out from the front, instead of the back. When it's positioned so that it rolls out from the back, it's more difficult to gauge how many squares you'll actually end up with when you rip a bunch of squares off of the roll. An insufficient number of squares can result in a wiping mishap, so it is therefore rude to position the toilet paper so that it comes out of the back of the roll.
Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible

Pro is committing a logical fallacy by shifting the BOP to the negation. The person making the positive claim always has the BOP. "You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning." [1] [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible

"note con did not prove his assertion that he did not like the poem." For the last time, this is a negative-proof fallacy. The BOP was on PRO. Also, as I pointed out, i have exclusive content to my own mind, so stating that I don't like it is proof. "Con canot/did not give us proof of his assertion B that he did not like the poem This must mean he lied "as he cant give us a proof." I'm not sure if Pro is a troll or simply this misinformed. All he has stated was a binary that I either liked the poem or didn't. This of course if false because there are shades of gray and a continuum. Let's consider that continuum from 1 to -1, with 1 being "like," -1 being "hate" and 0 being indifferent. Pro's burden of proof was proving 1, but he failed to prove 1. If the mere possibility of the solution being anything other than 1 is open after this debate, you vote Con because Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. "hus by the third of the classic rules of logic ie the law of the excluded middle ie of two contradictory propositions only one can be true - by con lying that leaves only alternative A Thus it must mean he must have liked the poem, as he lied about not likeing it-as he canot/did not give us any proof of his assertion." This is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. He falsely asserts that I lied -- WHEN HE HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF and my remarks, as the person without the burden, are true unless proven false because I do not have the burden -- with no evidence, and then provides the law of excluded middle to say that the statement is either true or false. That is true, but the burden was on PRO. What he is saying here is that I "lied" -- he provides zero evidence for that -- so therefore he must be true. First, this is false because he had to prove 1 and didn't. It is true that the proposition is either 1 or not 1, but not true to say that, because not 1, then 1, because it could be 0, or .5, and it wouldn't fulfill Pro's burden. He has not proven logically that I liked the poem. This is quite possibly the most ignorant and incoherent logic I have ever seen which is quite literally an affirming the disjunct fallacy -- either A or B, not A therefore B. Clearly that isn't the case because we're dealing with a continuum. Even if Pro managed to prove not -1, he didn't prove 1. The only logical conclusion is to vote Con. Pro did not uphold his burden of proof and provided positively horrendous arguments.
Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible

in summary note con did not prove his assertion that he did not like the poem My proof that con liked the poem is an indirect proof We have two contradictory alternatives A con liked the poem B con did not like the poem thus Con canot/did not give us proof of his assertion B that he did not like the poem This must mean he lied "as he cant give us a proof Thus by the third of the classic rules of logic ie the law of the excluded middle ie of two contradictory propositions only one can be true - by con lying that leaves only alternative A Thus it must mean he must have liked the poem, as he lied about not likeing it-as he canot/did not give us any proof of his assertion http://en.wikipedia.org... "In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true." Thus by the laws of logic I have proven that con liked the poem Thus I must win the debate
Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible

"quite right and I am going to prove my case by asking you to prove you dont like the poem. " This remark is positively absurd. He CONCEDES that he has the burden of proof, and then says "I can prove a positive statement by asking you to prove a negative. " He, not I, have the burden of proof. Therefore he must be able to prove that I like the translation, and I am then able to rebut. Note that the person without the burden of proof is never required to provide constructive arguments, but only to prevent the person with the burden from fulfilling his or her burden. "so prove that you dont like it then i will prove my case. " Pro is all over the place. He concedes that he has the burden, then asks ME to prove a negative. He is committing and continues to commit a negative-proof fallacy. The full burden of proof is on him, not me. He, not I, is affirming a positive statement. "you proof of your point is going to be my proof of my point. " This is patently absurd for a few reasons. First, I am under no obligation to provide proof because I don't have the BOP. I must only prevent Pro from meeting his burden. Second, the claims of the person without the BOP are true unless proven false by Pro. This is not for Pro's claims because he actually has the burden of proof. So, unless Pro fulfills his case, we default to me. If pro doesn't make a single argument -- and thus far he hasn't -- you vote for me by default because he has failed to uphold his burden. "so just done assert you dont like the poem prove your assertion-and based on that proof of yours I will give my proof. " Once again, I am under no obligation to provide proof. Moreover, merely stating that I DON'T like it is in fact proof -- beyond my role in this debate, might I add -- because, unless Pro proves otherwise, he cannot prove that I like something without exclusive access to the contents of my mind. He has literally no case and no way to win this debate. Pro has belligerently misunderstood burden of proof and provided absolutely zero constructive arguments.
Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible

con says "The person making the positive claim always has the BOP." quite right and I am going to prove my case by asking you to prove you dont like the poem you said "However, I know that I don't like it." so prove that you dont like it then i will prove my case you proof of your point is going to be my proof of my point so just done assert you dont like the poem prove your assertion-and based on that proof of yours I will give my proof
The Existence of God is Improbable

CON uses circular reasoning: 1) The bible says god exists. 2) The bible is true. 3) Therefore, god exiss. Please defend point 2. The Koran says Allah is real, I'm sure you disagree with that. In addition to that, the Vedas says Brahma exists, which you also disagree with. Why is the Bible superior to the other religions? Please extend my arguments.
The Existence of God is Improbable

ResolutionThe Existence of God is improbable (<50% chance). The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.I am affirmative, meaning that it will be my burden to prove that it is improbable (<50% chance) that God exists.The scope of the debate.To prove the probability of the existence of God.The length of the debate, in number of rounds.There will be 4 rounds. First round is acceptance only. The maximum length of each statement.8000 CharactersThe time limit between statements.72 hours (3 days).The starting date of the debate.As soon as possible.Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is shared.____________________________Voters, please read this debate before voting, do not vote based on your biased opinion.The term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence special doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are not relevant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.