BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kratos [God of War I-II] versus Dante [Devil MayCry I-IV] Would be a good fight!

lol oaky first of all I wasn't expecting an anti-videogame-violence crusader to be arguing with me on this topic. Secondly I really would at least expect that my opponant would at least try to stay withing the grounds of the debate. Though I'm guessing I wasn't entirely clear on the matter, when I said "Kratos versus Dante would be a good fight!" I was expecting my opponant to provide an argument that would state the that the fight wouldnt be good by saying that one would eaisly defeat the other, or that these two games werent to his liking to begin with. I'd also at least expect my opponant to know who Kratos and Dante were. Judging from the way he/she presented his/her argument I'd say my opponant knows nothing of these tow videogame charecters. Though these tow games are VERY violant, my opponant wouldn't even know this because he seems to have no knowledge of God of War II or Devil MayCry IV. For all he knows I could be talking about pokemon, which if you ask me isnt too violant at all. Well since my opponant seems to have almost completely turned the topic of debate around, I'm begining a new debate concerning videogame violance and its social effects in our society. Because you have caught my interest with your none violant videogame state of mind my new topic of debate will be "Negative social behavior in vid-game-players cannot be blammed on videogame violance." I look foreward to your reply.
Is Homeschooling Good (Pro), or Bad (Con)

I believe that homeschooling is beneficial to the student, and by extension, the family, the state, and everyone else. Homeschooling is useful for those living in very rural areas, as it would be a waste of taxpayer money to establish a school there. By necessity, all education there is homeschooling. I'm lumping the hiring of a private tutor with homeschoooling, for the sake of the argument. Homeschooling is useful for those who wish to take more classes than their brick and mortar school will let them take, due to usage of timed class periods. Homeschooling lets me blast loud music in class and get away with it. I am homeschooled, and I found the k12 curriculum nothing less than satisfactory. Homeschooling saves on commute time. Homeschooling, especially with the k12 curriculum, has classes more challenging than the AP classes offered at a brick and mortar school, applicable in Capo Unified. To wit: The AP English Literature and Composition course offered at k12 has students going through such works as Hedda Gabler and A Streetcar Named Desire within two months. Capo Unified, to the best of my knowledge, does not offer these works in the first semester, or at all, for that matter. Homeschooling offers a far more flexible schedule, in terms of class times. If there are any live class sessions, that may be offered through the curriculum, or third party sources such as Blackboard, the student can be sipping soda while typing. No dress code. Wear pajamas to school day... every day. You get to wear headphones to class. No schoolyard bullies. You know what's in the food. I will freely admit that there are some drawbacks to homeschooling. You don't get out much. This can be remedied by such activities and groups as Scouting, varsity teams, youth groups, and the Internet. Building on the above, it's hard to be a good boyfriend/girlfriend to somebody in a brick and mortar school because you can't always be there for them. This crippled me when I was having a bad case of hormones. Building on the above again, it's hard to have friends that you don't see a lot. The youth groups and such go a long way to alleviate that. You may become distant from people you once knew. You stand a good chance of being some sort of villain later if this happens. This may or may not be a bad thing, because you probably get all the cool costumes, good lines, and an army of fans who think you're awesome. In short, homeschooling is an excellent alternative to brick-and-mortar schooling. While it is not for everyone, it is a net benefit to all involved. Thank you, good night.
Is Homeschooling Good (Pro), or Bad (Con)

Hi. This is a 3-round, 72 hour, 10,000 word limit polite conversation whether homeschooling is beneficial or not. If you believe homeschooling is detrimental, then I want to hear why. If you've been around enough, you know how this goes. For the new guys, welcome, and the pattern is traditionally "The first round is the challenge and acceptance, the second round consists of the main arguments, and everything else after that is rebuttals." This is my observation from this very site. If it is done differently for anyone else here, no problem.
Rape should be legalised

Rape is good. You're pathetic, you don't even understand the good that it could do for our society. You sir are the sick little man. Wank into a sock? That's you're idea of a good debate, right. Good work man, you've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this standpoint of yours. Thanks for a weak attempt at a good discussion. Do yourself a favour, delete your account and enjoy the rest of you're worthless life you uncultured swine.
Rape should be legalised

So let me get this straight. Your reasoning behind the legalisation of rape is that the world is run by horny businessmen, who, if they do not rape innocent women, will run this world into the ground. Wow, A+ on logic there mate. "Which sounds better to you?" Is this a joke? I'm not sure if rape sounds good to anyone, except sick little men like yourself. Go and knock one out into a sock you creep.
Rape should be legalised

Today, our society revolves around sex. TV, Magazines, Video Games, our entire economy is controlled by sex. And this is all due to the fact that our world is run by arrogant, horny businessman. And this is negatively impacting our society. The majority of these horny businessman are married. And if you're married, or know someone who is, you'll know they won't be getting very much, potentially none, in the bedroom "action". So instead these sex depraved men need an alternative to release their sexual urges. Imagine this: A stock broker is frustrated with his situation at home. His wife is on her period, won't do anal, and his two kids constantly barge in whenever they go to do something. He goes to work angry and horny, and buys the wrong shares, ruining his business and getting himself fired. If rape was legalized, this man could leave his house, have a quickie with a random girl in the train station, and arrive at work, happy and refreshed ready for a full day on the stocks. Which sounds better to you?
idiot republican VS idiot democrat

I. Tax the WealthyI call for a 99% tax on any income over $250,000.00/year. You don't need all that money when we have people living in poverty. Let's spread the wealth around. All what these filthy rich people do is control the banking system to force people into poverty and sell our homes when they lose money. Shame on them. Once we force the wealthy to start giving up some of their uncanny money, then we can have true prosperity and equality. II. AbortionKill baby kill! People like my opponent and Mitt Romney are just a buncha men trying to tell women what to do. Ladies, if you want to go back to the 1900's where you couldn't even vote, go ahead - vote for my opponent. Women voting Republican is akin to a Chicken voting for KFC! III. Gun ControlWho the heck needs guns? BAN ALL WEAPONS NOW! You don't need guns! That's what the government is for. Don't worry, we will protect you. All you gun-loving nuts are members of the KKK that wants guns to terroize minorities and kill a buncha innocent children like we saw in Newtown, CT. As Obama Christ stated, "Shame on us if we forget newtown. " IV. HealthcareHealthcare is a fundamental right. We should take money from the rich and have a single-payer universal health care. Side effects may include long waits, higher prices, and in the best case death. But who cares? Everyone has healthcare, right! V. UnionsEveryone should be able to join a union - those who don't should be FIRED! Shame on my opponent for wanting us to silence the workers and chain them to their plantations! VI. Big OilI propose a 100% tax on the big oil companies (who, by the way, make over $4 million dolallars per hour) while their workers are suffering and make next to nothing. These greedy poluters pollute the land and burden the middle class with their $4.00/gallon prices. This tax shall remain effective until the oil companies bring their prices down to $0.10/gallon. VII. Gay MarriageI am gay and gay marriage is a fundamental right. The GOP is a buncha gay-hating, bible-thumping, westboro baptist bigots who protest funerals and want to lynch gays! I rest my case. Vote democrat or you're a racist!
idiot republican VS idiot democrat

first I would like to say I cant do that. Obama already took all my money. I will start off by giving examples of why Obama is a bad president. 1.) he is a communist dictator. 2.) he is the anti-Christ. 3.) he was not born in the U.S. 4.) he is not a Christian like he claims to be. 5.) he's black. 6.) he put our country in bankruptcy.
idiot republican VS idiot democrat

1.)How much of other people"s money do you deserve? 2.)This is the only situation I think a woman should listen to men. It involves a life, not someone working in the kitchen. And yes all women should work in the kitchen. 3.)We will never forget Newtown. Want to know who else needed guns? Us when this country was first created so we could become a country in the first place and not live with those people with those cocky accents. Every situation where guns are taken away, a revolution or war breaks out. 4.)Agreed 5.)Shame on you for wanting workers" rights. 6.)Their business, their business. 7.)Marriage is for a man and a woman. God created Adam and eve. Not Adam and mike, or eve and Britney. Vote republican or you are a communist evil person who is against freedom of speech, the second amendment and the constitution.
religious symbolism should be removed from America's courtrooms

I really don't understand why con doesn't see it. State and federal buildings, like courthouses, + religious symbolism and practices = violation of separation of church and state. How is that confusing? As to his assertion that swearing in on the bible just isn't a big deal to non Christians is just untrue. Even as an atheist it is offensive to have to use the Bible as though it had some kind of value when it comes to truth. I can only imagine what its like for someone who actually puts faith into what they believe.
religious symbolism should be removed from America's courtrooms

I did not contradict myself. There are two separate statements that people shouldn't mind who they have to pretend to believe in and the fact that swearing on the Bible doesn't mean you are saying you believe in the Christian God are two separate statements.Additionally, it is not illegal nor wrong to maintain the tradition of the courts of a Christian country and separation of Church and state has nothing to do with what religion a court may choose to follow.
religious symbolism should be removed from America's courtrooms

I would like to start this round by apologizing for how long it took to post my argument, but I've been pretty busy lately. Before I begin, I should point out that con contradicted himself. In round one, he said "If you want to prosecute a murderer, then the least of your worries should be what God you have to pretend to believe in to bring such a justice." In round 2, be said " Second of all, the court does not require a person to state they believe in the Christian God." These are obviously two opposite statements that are a clear contradiction. With that out of the way, I would like to address what my opponent said about " if it offends you, then look away." It's not about the commandments offending anyone, that's what my issue with swearing in on the bible is about. The problem I have with the commandments on the wall, the pictures of Moses, and the nativity scenes some put out around Christmas is the clear violation of separation of church and state. Swearing in on the bible is not necessarily banned, but by using it as a medium to swear truth you are inherently saying that it has value when it comes to truth and honor. As an atheist I wouldn't want to claim that, much less someone of an actual opposing religion. Courts might have had these symbols for a while, but if people accepted things they were and left well enough alone, then there would never be any progress and the human race would never learn anything new. These are both rooted in change. As far as democracy is concerned, public opinion means nothing to legislators or politicians outside of elections. If it did, marijuana would be legal and abortion would be illegal. I might not agree with the second one, but I am willing to admit being in the minority on that one. With the rebuttals done, my only remaining point is the same as it has been. Since it violates the separation of church and state, it is unconstitutional and therefore technically illegal.
religious symbolism should be removed from America's courtrooms

My opponent seems to think that my issue is with the commandments themselves, but this is not the case. My issue is with religious symbolism itself being in a public courtroom. As to what con said about American law being based on the Christian faith, this is also also untrue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"-Article 1 of the Constitution. Sorry that wasn't a link, but the Constitution is on my phone, so I couldn't link it. Even though the individual commandments aren't my concern, I will still rebut some of what my opponent said on 2 of them. On commandment 1, my opponent said "Well, if you have a god before the Christian one, then is it that much of an effort merely to abide by a false statement of belief...". Actually, if you do believe in another god, then being forced to deny that god is not only the most insulting thing you could ask of that person, but in most religions it is also a deadly sin. As to what my opponent said about number 10, "This is basically about theft and to be honest theft is a crime". In actuality coveting has nothing to do with theft. It can actually be a good thing. If a person has something that I want bad enough, I will break my back working to buy one. Coveting is the number one financial inspiration that there is. As my final point for this round, I will simply say that we have as many religions in the world as we do countries. In a nation that claims religious freedom, then no favoritism should be shown in a government building.
You choose the topic

Pro made a format that was hard to follow. I then made an attempt to follow and Pro forfeits me. Thus, I am a victim of unfair conduct by Pro. And since it is so, to save the debate I showed you a good time. Why should you vote Con? 1)Pro told you that you couldn't vote Con.(You can prove Pro wrong.) 2)Pro is trying to strongarm you into voting Pro. You don't have to take that kind of abuse. 3)Pro has done this exact debate many, many times. Here is an example debate of Pro attacking another opponent. http://www.debate.org... Pro used obscure wording and confounding rules to get an easy win in the debate. Example: Framing a. If I can show that Youtube is better than Netflix on a consumer level, then the vote in this debate deserves to go to the Pro. Con could show that Netflix is more profitable, but that has no impact on consumers such as me or you. Your vote should be reflect which platform is better for you personally b. This debate should be voted on-balance. The debater who best presents the advantages of their platform deserves the vote. If both platforms are shown to be equal, no vote should be cast. * In this debate Pro used the "F" word towards Con at the bottom of round 3. Con did not respond in the next round. http://www.debate.org... * In this one Pro said, and I quote, "All of the topics con offers are frankly awful. We are now arguing about coffee www.debate.org/debates/You-choose-the-topic/20 * And yet another. Ambiguous wording was used once again by Pro to attempt to get an easy win. Con dropped out from confusion of the rules and regulations or even what the topic "really" was. http://www.debate.org... * The point? This is Pro's strategy. Pro doesn't want you to understand the format of the debate. This is Pro's attempt to get easy forfeit wins. I did not forfeit, thus, Pro is frustrated that I made an easily defined topic and format. My way actually fit by definition of the name of this debate. "You Choose the Topic". I did, and Pro did not rebuttle. Pro scampered off into a bed of weeds. The end.
You choose the topic

I'll take that as a pretty solid concession. The only part of Con's prior round that warrants a response is the argument that since the topic of this debate is 'You choose the topic' that he can change the topic at any time. First, this is a wildly unfair reading of the debate's parameters and any reasonable person would understand it to be a last-ditch effort to get the win. Second, this is a dick move - that is a reason to vote Pro unto itself. Allowing that kind of reasoning degrades the activity and encourages future poor etiquette.
You choose the topic

I'm not sure what Pro is talking about, so I am changing the debate topic. The name of this debate is "you choose the topic". Thus, I am changing the topic to "I'm in Your Brain and You Can't Get me Out". * I'm in Your Brain and You Can't Get me Out- Point #1 Num num num num num num num... The Num Num Song- http://youtu.be... * I am in your head, and you can't get me out. You know you like it so don't make a pout. Break it down. Afro Circus- http://youtu.be... * As a finale of this round, I will sing you this song to blow your mind... http://youtu.be...
You choose the topic

That video was quite inspirational, quite inspirational indeed. It is not a reason to vote Con. First, Con concedes the entirety of the Pro Framework. This means the analysis of can is a voting issue - Pro does not have to show that I will *always* be more inspiring than you, just that it Can be more inspiring than you. At the point con never contests this, he loses. *** The self is motivated by the force that is within, The burning inner fire that has surely always been. Release your inhibitions - feel the rain on your skin! To thine ownself be true rather than to your kin. Oh pish, oh posh another loss, but what could be expected? When one centers their motivations on the derelicted?
You choose the topic

You(Another) is more inspiring than I (the self). A person could try to find inspiration within themself, digging down, and searching deep for what they need. Or...they could get it quickly from outside of themself by hearing someone else who is inspiring. Let's do a test. Sit for a moment and try to inspire yourself. Okay. Now watch this short video. http://youtu.be... Which inspired you more? Yourself or the video? If you inspired yourself more, then "I" was more inspirational. If the video inspired you more, then you got more inspiration from another. * When one is down the self looks to another, and in some cases it might be their own mother. The self gets weak, so it looks outside self. Santa Claus might look to an elf. Self might get down and look to foods like cheez its. A Christian might look up and look up to Jesus. There are things in this world that Con cannot know, so Con might try to get inspired by Pro. Pro might have all kinds of goodies all up in his brain, that if told to Con would keep Con sane. Inspiration givest me Pro. There's inspiration in you that I Con must know. You could be an angel sent down from Heaven. If you'd share with me, my IQ'd go up by eleven. Inspiration in thou Pro resides. From you Pro my gloom all subsides. Con needs another for inspiration and strength. Others give it in droves of much breadth and length. We can muster it up on our own if we can. But how much time would we waste in that span?
You choose the topic

I can be more inspiring than you *** Definitions- I - A pronoun used to refer to one's self https://en.wikipedia.org...(pronoun) You - A pronoun used to refer to the person or people one is speaking to http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Inspiring - Verb: To fill with an animating, quickening, or exhalting influence http://www.dictionary.com... Framework- 1) In this debate Pro is not attempting to argue that he can be more inspiring than Con, rather that the self can be more inspiring than another. The use of 'I' or 'You' should be understood as referencing the concept of self, and the concept of another respectively rather than the Pro or the Con specifically. 2) If Pro can show that I can be more inspiring than you, he deserves to get the vote. In order to do this, Pro does not have to prove that I will always be more inspiring than you, only that I can be more inspiring than you. If any instance of I being more inspiring than you is upheld throughout the course of this debate, Pro has won. Case- 1) Self Preservation- One has a natural desire to ensure that she or he stays alive. In the mornings we wake up, get out of bed, use the bathroom, maintain our personal hygiene and eat because we have an inherent desire to sustain ourselves. If one has an itch, she scratches it; if one is tired, she rests. The driving force behind ensuring that we stay alive doesn't come from you, but from I. One may understand the importance of their life beyond themselves, but in a moment of danger the driving inspiration to take care of one's self comes from within. 2)Boredom and entertainment- When one becomes bored, she does not seek out entertainment for the sake of others, but for her own sake. We don't play with straw wrappers to stack items on our desk in order to satisfy another, we do so because our own brains drive us to find ways to keep ourselves entertained and occupied. This argument is important as it shows instances of spontaneous play as being motivated from the self rather than from another 3) Mental illness doesn't undo self preservation- If one lacks any desire to take care of themselves, that doesn't disqualify those who do have an urge to take care of their own needs. Pro does not have the burden to show that everyone will always be more inspired by the I rather than the You, only that I can be more inspiring than You. Although it has no direct bearing to his advocacy, Pro also wants to caution against disablist rhetoric when it comes to those who are unable or unwilling to satisfy their own biological needs. If this happens he has no qualms with kicking the topical debate in favor of a kritikal one. Conclusion- The argument rests. Pro will expand in future rounds as necessary, but under the above framing and the two arguments provided I can be more inspirational than You. Self-preservation and boredom satisfaction show this to be the case, and instances of mental illness or You being more inspiring than I do not undermine the arguments.
You choose the topic

This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Whoever accepts will offer three silly topics (Ex: macaroni is better than spaghetti, we should all wear bowler hats, pokemon is better than yu-gi-oh, etc.) in their first round And I will choose the one I like best. If all of the topics offered by con are offensive, overly serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely. There are no hard line rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to. Just be a decent human being, and let's have a fun round!