BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cartoon network is better than Disney channel.

case 1: Almost their sows are based on one preference. Main character gets love interest. They go out. They break up. Que new love interest. It just gets boring after a while or singing. Cartoon network has a more diverse concept. There is also romance too. If you have a eye for romance, you watch Mordecai and Margerat's romance grow for seasons. Then the crushing ending on steak me Amadeus is probably one of the best parts of the show. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Case 2: Shows on cartoon network teaches lessons too. On regular show, Mordecai and Rigby want to go without rules. They learn in the end life without rules can be chaos. " Disney channel is good education for the little kids in the morning since they have Disney Junior on until about 10am. " That's nice. Nick jr has way better kids shows. " Regular Disney teaches important life lessons to the people that are watching." Show me one " Disney Channel also had commercials like try it (when they ask you to try it if it's new to you), they also have friends for change when they talk about helping the environment to get better or unite against bullying, and a lot more stuff. " So does cartoon network. http://www.cartoonnetwork.com... Friends for change is nice and all, but face reality. Do you really think those are real kids that actually did all of that or actors getting paid. How many kids actually get up and do something. To me, it is very boring. Most of the stuff they try on try it for yourself food wise, I would never eat if you paid me 20$ bucks. It also misleads kids that eating healthy will change them so much when working out is actually what does it. In fact, that is probably doing more harm than good. " Cartoon Network isn't all that great unless you love Teen Titans, Tom and Jerry(which is one of my favorite tv shows), Hole in the Wall and a lot more show too" You really do not watch cartoon network that much do you? They also have Adventure Time and Regular Show. Which are way better than Good luck Charlie and Austin And Ally. Let's also not forget than Cartoon Network is actually for adults too. At night they have Family Guy, King Of The Hill and my personal favorite, Robot Chicken. This also appeals to adults and not just kids. Ladies and gentleman. I have proven that: Cartoon Network has more diversity Cartoon Network appeals to both adults and kids while Disney is mainly kids Disney shows don't teach good lessons Thank You.
Cartoon network is better than Disney channel.

Disney channel is good education for the little kids in the morning since they have Disney Junior on until about 10am. Regular Disney teaches important life lessons to the people that are watching. Disney Channel also had commercials like try it (when they ask you to try it if it's new to you), they also have friends for change when they talk about helping the environment to get better or unite against bullying, and a lot more stuff. Cartoon Network isn't all that great unless you love Teen Titans, Tom and Jerry(which is one of my favorite tv shows), Hole in the Wall and a lot more show too
The legalization of gay marriage

I will not debate against you because I have reason to believe that you play dirty and don't follow the rules of this website. I see how you went through all my debates and voted against me in all categories on all of them so that I would lose all of my debates. I bet you didn't even read my arguments. For example, on one of my debates my opponent was trying to prove something that is simply not factual, and I proved that beyond a doubt (Everyone is born either a boy or a girl). You have some vendetta against me because your beliefs don't intersect with mine. You are not an honorable member of the website. Good day.
I Exist

I thank Con for their reply. The Uncertainty theoryCon says "Uncertainty Theory, which states that if something cannot be proven, it cannot exist. "The uncertainty theory is self refuting, seeing it cannot be proven, by its own rule it cannot exist.1) Only something that exists can question its own existenceCon says "Just because my opponent claims he exists does not mean he actually exists. "Non existent things can't question existence, thus you need to exist in order to question existence.2) I am questioning my own existenceEven if I was a computer pretending to be human, I would still have to be a computer and thus exist in the first place. The argument doesn't make any claims about what "type" of existence I has, only that I exists.3) Therefore I existThe conclusion logically follows.
I Exist

DefinitionsI = The instigator of this debate, known as Illegalcombatant on DDO.Exist = To have actual being. http://dictionary.reference.com......1) Opening ArgumentsI am curious if anyone will argue against this. Last time I debated on this my opponent did not finish. Anyway here is my opening argument.........1) Only something that exists can question its own existence2) I am questioning my own existence3) Therefore I exist"I think therefore I am"I look forward to Cons response.
Gay Marriage should be legal

What is most popular is not always right What is right is not always popular If so, all of those 28 states are breaking the federal law If the law says it is illegal to love another person, that is no law I wish to be under We are denying a group of people basic civil rights Intolerance is the only reason for apposing gay marriage Marriage is the bonding of two people who love each other, gay or straight. We shall not deny basic freedoms and we should not discriminate against anyone That is why gay marriage should be legal
Gay Marriage should be legal

Not all straight men and women can have children, what if you are sterile? Does that mean woman who have their tubes tied should not be allowed to marry? The primary objective of marriage is happiness, how can we deny happiness from anybody? Another point is adoption. Gay couples can adopt children and make the world a better place for a lonely child. A child is a young one you care for and raise, not blood. A partner is someone you love, not based on gender.
Noam Chomsky should be shot for treason

Anarchism is not related to satanism, worshipers of sataniam, or people bent on world destruction. More importantly, it is not related to the necessary components of the U.S. law regarding treason: "Levying war against the U.S.; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Anarchism is defined as a political philosophy whose followers believe that government is an unnecessary burden on society. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) A political philosophy cannot be inherently violent. Some of its adherents might be, but the philosophy itself is not. As such, most anarchists do not violently oppose the state. Noam Chomsky is among these. I will again reiterate Pro's burden. He must show that Noam Chomsky has actively levied war against the U.S., or provided and and comfort to her enemies; or has conspired to levy war against the U.S., or conspired to provide aid and comfort to her enemies. Good Luck.
Noam Chomsky should be shot for treason

First, I will get some key definitions out of the way. Treason: The U. S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) defines treason as levying war against the U. S. ; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. (Source: U. S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3 - . http://www.constitution.org...) ===== Application to Noam Chomsky ===== Pro has not met his burden in this debate, which is to show that Noam Chomsky's actions are applicable to treason law (defined by the constitution as stated above). Pro will have to show that Prof. Chomsky has levied war against the U. S. , or has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the U. S.
Cam Lucas has three testicals

Polyorchidism: a condition of having more than two testes The fact that you think cam has three nuts is a little creepy. My opponent has lacked the technical word of what he calls "having three balls". The term is called Polyorchidism and it is a condition is noticed at birth and usually taken care of after the birth, so if Cam did have this condition, I think it would've already been taken care of.
Cam Lucas has three testicals

Ah. You make a good case. However, you over look something. Last Friday, when you sir; Carlos Ortega and Cam Lucas were present at my house last Friday did too much home work. And it was here were Cam had the opportunity to tea bag your face. And it was here, where Cam relieved his "Tri-Sperm Genitalia". .. Plus! Lets not over look the evidence that's in front of our eyes shall we? . Cam is horny all the time thus most be intoxicated with the power supply of a 3rd nut. As well cockiness.
Cam Lucas has three testicals

The information about Cam's mother giving you photographic evidence of Cam's so called "three testicles" is also invalid, due to the fact that you cant prove me or show me the three testicles that you think cam has ( I wouldn't want to see them anyways) and plus there are less then 100 cases of this in the world, so this condition is really rare. It is also very rare for a teenager to live his life without noticing that you have three balls, but some people dont notice it till a doctor's visit.
Wage Gap

Thanks for the debate. It has been interesting. Con says in his final round that he “IMPLORE(S) PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOS I LINKED BEFORE VOTING. ” Apparently con would rather have you watch someone else’s argument than his own. It is not sufficient to post links and expect your opponent to refute there content. Sources are to cite to your argument to add credibility. The videos linked are not part of your argument. Your arguments must be posted within your character limit. I can in no way be reasonably expected to refute all points made in the videos. That’s 15 mins worth of commentary. ( In perspective, this whole debate read aloud is maybe 5 mins. ) Con must know this because he says “If you would've looked at my sources, you would've realized this. ” He also said “Now watch the videos and read my arguments. It should be clear after that. “ If I have to look to your sources to complete your argument, then your argument is incomplete. I Implore voters to ignore any content not in the debate, if the content is sourced great but the debate is to be judged by the content therein, not all content linked. Final Overview: I have clearly met my burden in this debate.
Wage Gap

I mentioned in my opening argument that unless Con can somehow demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” than I will win this debate. Let’s see how he did. 1: The Study From AAUW Con’s only refutation to my source is that “It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky.” This is an appeal to motive, a common logical fallacy and is unsubstantiated. Perhaps con could attack the content rather than the group. Con ignores my examples of higher paying jobs and only addresses my first source. This is a huge oversite as the other source demonstrates the wage gap is present when job field and experience are equal. Thus my sources stand. 2: The Wage Gap is Substantial Con asserts that women work less than men and that “Women, on average, work seven percent less hours than men even when they work full time.” He says this is due to longer leaps of absences. It should be noted that if on balance women work 7 percent less perhaps they would be paid 7 percent less, rather they are paid 23 percent less on average. Men are paid more than women. The data shows this difference to be substantial; certainly more than 7 percent. Con’s only argument that is sourced argues that perhaps 7 percent difference would be explainable. We see that the wage gap is substantial. Overview: Con has a disturbing view that women are paid less than men because “They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man.” Neither my sources nor my opponents implies or substantiates such a conclusion. I have clearly met my burden in this debate. Con has failed to demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” thus at this point, I am winning this debate.
Wage Gap

Konichiwa! Thank you for your argument. I would like to assert that women work less than men. For instance, women are more likely to work part time. Women, on average, work seven percent less hours than men even when they work full time. Women are more likely to take long leaves of absence; normally to start a family. (3) If we factor that in, your argument that women make less than men in the same field stat to make sense. Note that you never provided their actual wages. I've looked at your other source. It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky. None the less, I will refute it. Women are more likely to work part time or spend less time at work. They're also less likely to go into higher paying specialties. Let's look at the claim. "In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007." Note! This is women in general who work full time in many different fields. Men tend to work in higher paying jobs. Now factor in that women work less. On top of that, factor in long leaves of absence. Doesn't everything make sense? Women make as much as men. They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man. Arigatou! Anime Op: A Certain Magical Index 1 OP: Date A Live Season 1 OP: 1. 2. 3.
Wage Gap

Welcome to debate.org! Thank you for issuing this debate challenge and good luck. The Wage Gap“In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.” (1)This shows that generally men are paid more than women in the U.S. The typical response to this is to ask are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs.Consider,“Earnings are high for both women and men who work as computer and information systems managers. But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over $98,000, median earnings for women were around $86,000. Likewise, aerospace engineers tend to earn a good living. But while a typical male aerospace engineer took home just over $100,000 in 2011, his female counterpart was paid $83,000.”(2)This shows that Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work.“Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000.” (2)This shows that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such, is indisputable.Con has outlined my burden stating “Pro's stance is that women, in the same field, make substantially less than men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances.”I have clearly met this burden. Unless Con can somehow demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” than I have won this debate. Sources:(1) www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/gender-wage-gap_n_3941180.html(2) http://www.aauw.org...
Wage Gap

Hello! I would like to debate this topic with you. If this goes well, I may debate other topics regarding feminism. Even if you aren't interested, please reply to let me know whether I should expect to debate you or not. Pro's stance is that women, in the same field, make substantially less than men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances. Con's stance (Me) is the opposite. Women in the same field make just as much as men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances. First round is for acceptance. Good luck!
public schools should sell kosher foods.

My opponent has not responded to any of the arguments which I've provided, thus you are to see these arguments as having been conceded to. As for what she says in her second round, I'm sure there are benefits to eating Kosher food just as I'm sure there are benefits to attending youth meetings (even for those who aren't religious), but that doesn't mean either should be instituted as a part of our public schools. The fact of the matter is the policy my opponent is proposing clearly violates the establishment clause and would no doubt be a great source of controversy. I have provided an alternative that not only doesn't violate the establishment cause and would not trigger controversy, but allows citizens less of a burden from taxes (particularly, those who aren't using the school cafeterias and are buying lunch for their children).
public schools should sell kosher foods.

Greetings and many thanks for starting this debate. Since my opponent demands that I respond ASAP, I'll get right down to it. My opponent proposes that public schools ought to be required to sell Kosher Foods. In order to do this, such an policy should be able to withstand the scrutiny of the lemon test: http://en.wikipedia.org... In order to pass the lemon test, the policy must not oppose any of the prongs listed below 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Ladies and gentleman, if you'd be so kind as to take a gander at what I've quoted from my opponent's case above, you'll see that her proposed policy clearly violates #1. =========================================================================== "at public school cafeteria's don't know what religion some of the kids are . . ." "most parents my not have food in they house that the time because they have not ran out to the supper market to get food of their following religion such as Jewish kosher foods." "so why don't they make foods that every kid can eat and not have to worry if it follows their diet of they religion they chose or was born it to." =========================================================================== Based on my opponent's own words, she is insisting that this policy be upheld in order to cater to peoples' religion (particularly those who uphold the Jewish religion). Although there are some cases where the test is rightfully criticized give that it's difficult to determine the intent or specifics of certain policies, my opponents position is simply not the case. She has made it quite clear that the intentions of this ruling are religious. Also, in response to: "most parents my not have food in they house that the time because they have not ran out to the supper market to get food of their following religion such as Jewish kosher foods." How do we know this? More importantly, getting Kosher foods at the super market is a relatively simple task even if most parents don't happen to have the food inside their homes. Thus, the solution to this problem is rather clear. First, PRO's proposition fails the lemon test. Even if she argues otherwise and it were to somehow succeed, there would be a great deal controversy as there usually is when religious policies somehow make their way into public schools. Since the alternative is for parents to SIMPLY go to the grocery store and BUY the easily accessible Kosher foods themselves, it's rather clear as to which option is the more logical. Second, parents who buy their own food for their children at public schools could even receive a tax write off as an incentive (since part of tax payment no doubt goes into public school cafeterias). And I'll leave it at that for now. :)
public schools should sell kosher foods.

at public school cafeteria's don't know what religion some of the kids are (most kid's that go to public school are most likely to be catholic or Jewish) so why don't they make food for every one to eat? most parents my not have food in they house that the time because they have not ran out to the supper market to get food of their following religion such as Jewish kosher foods. so why don't they make foods that every kid can eat and not have to worry if it follows their diet of they religion they chose or was born it to.
Ban All Tobacco Products

Anyway, the damage done by tobacco products is three-prong:1) The body count of those who consciously choose to consume tobacco products. About half a million people die in the United States annually from tobacco exposure -- 420,000 of these deaths are from smoking-caused diseases of individuals who elect to consume tobacco. This makes tobacco the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, and means tobacco consumption-related diseases account for nearly one in five U. S. deaths per year (Centers for Disease Control). 2) The body count of those who don't consciously choose to consume tobacco products. Roughly 41,000 Americans are killed by secondhand smoke every year. Note the use of the word "killed" instead of "die from" -- these individuals often have no choice in their exposure to said secondhand smoke. This means that more individuals are killed by secondhand smoke annually than firearms. (Centers for Disease Control and FiveThirtyEight). 3) The economic costs. Smoking-related diseases cost Americans in excess of $170 billion per year in healthcare costs alone. This figure does not include the estimated $156 billion in lost worker productivity (Centers for Disease Control). Further, this impact is not equally distributed among socioeconomic levels. The impoverished are, by far, the population subset with the highest tobacco-related mortality rate, a result of a smoking rate among those making less than $35,000/year in the 30% range, as opposed to rates roughly one-third of that in wealthy individuals making in excess of $90,000/year. Therefore, a ban on tobacco product consumption would save nearly half a million lives a year, 41,000 of which would otherwise have no choice in their exposure to tobacco products, save Americans $170 billion per year in healthcare costs, along with $156 billion in lost wages, while helping most significantly the impoverished, who are most negatively impacted by the availability of tobacco products. Sources:. https://www.cdc.gov...https://fivethirtyeight.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...