BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justin Bieber caused 9/11

"He is an obvious terrorist"The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism (or terrorist) as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" [1]. What is JB coercing (to restrain or dominate by force) from us?"Bieber fever ... turn[s] kids into homosexual brain dead deaf children"There are conflicting terms within this. How can you measure a braindead child as deaf? Or Homosexual for that matter. I however agree that Bieber Fever is an ugly thing."Former member of al Qaeda and a Mexican-Colombian drug cartel"He's only nineteen years old, and he's been a member of such conflicting groups, I'm quite impressed."He will crash the world to apocalypse ... causing a new world order"Many points here I'm skipping, but basically he's going to destroy the earth; and afterwards bring about a new one? Or was that reference to Apocalypse the X-Men villain? [2] "He used to drink orphan blood from hollow skulls from the victims of the holocaust"His addiction to this is well documented, being the main subject of last summers unforgettable hit biopic Justin Bieber's Beaver, which starred Robin Williams in the title role, and Pauly Shore as the beaver witnessing the young man's spiral into madness. However the relevance to the resolution "Justin Bieber caused 9/11" is just not present.Conclusion:As Justin Bieber could not have caused the terrorist attacks in question (for starters he was too busy drinking orphan blood), nor has pro given any evidence to suggest otherwise; other reasons behind this debate must be looked at.The difference between an honorable Samurai, and a disgusting Ronin, is one faithfully serves a master. Japanese codes of honor include such things as committing evil in your masters name, so that he will not have to give the order and thus soil his own honor. So who is pro's master, as he admits to being a Samurai? Is it possible that this debate was created in an effort to get us to listen to a jailbait teenager, repeat "baby baby baby" about a million times [3] while grabbing his crotch?Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://comics.ign.com...[3] http://www.metrolyrics.com...
Justin Bieber caused 9/11

He is an obvious terrorist ... I mean "Bieber fever" is a mental sickness that uses bi products of AIDS and other STD's to turn kids into homosexual brain dead deaf children yes he was a former member of al Qaeda and a Mexican-Colombian drug cartel that was also responsible for the assassination of JFK and Aberham Lincoln. Its no surprise he will crash the world to apocalypse in an illuminati plot to crash the economy and take america while the crisis happens with america they will cut all supplies and other countries will have to give up causing a new world order in the name of satan I mean he used to drink orphan blood from hollow skulls from the victims of the holocaust...
Justin Bieber caused 9/11

I really don't care for the named celebrity, but for the sake of argument I shall prove it highly unlikely he caused the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks [1].Born March 1st 1994 in Canada, Justin Drew Bieber ([2], henceforth referred to as JB) was seven years old at the time of the terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks began their planning in 1996 [3], when JB was no more than two years old. As individual two year olds are not generally international news, the blame for violent terrorist attacks should not be assigned to babies.Sources (wiki links are included for general overview, and are date set for the current versions when I read them):[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Justin Bieber caused 9/11

"Girls have been 'cutting for bieber'" I'm pretty sure that's a euphemism for masturbation. Which is a perfectly healthy form of stress relief, thereby decreasing the need to commit suicide bombings (in addition to other terrorist acts). If it is actual cutting... "Justin is also an Obama supporter"No contest."Obama is no different then Osama." This would need to be demonstrated (basically you'd need a whole argument for setup, or declare it in round 1). Supporting an international terrorist leader, does not enable them to have carried out past attacks. I accept that this was intended as a troll debate, but where was the humor? Take a look at a current similar debate by imabench [4], he supports his side with twisted evidence and sources. This debate just had a shift of BoP to me, but no follow up to refute my evidence that JB could not have caused 9/11. Perhaps this whole thing would have been better as just "JB sucks worse than a [insert derogatory remark here]."A respected news agency, quoted the Los Angeles police chief as saying this on the subject of JB "Something as diabolical as Justin Bieber, could only have been the product of a remorseless sex fiend" [5]. Sex fiend, as in desiring sex; not a terrorist wanting to kill people.Sources:[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.theonion.com... This one is good for a laugh.
Game of Thrones is better than Prison Break

With all do respect, you probably like Game Of Thrones because it creates a release from your reality. You like the sense of mythical creatures. Me however, I like the relatable characters in Prison Break. How I can relate the feeling of desperation to bust your brother out of prison. Yes I have felt that pain and stress. Perhaps you don't understand because you're too young... You've stooped to maybe believing in the fact that Dragons are real. Well I've got news for you buddy, they don't. Now take your twelve year old, uneducated butt back to school.
Game of Thrones is better than Prison Break

Hang on just a minute little man, Game of Thrones is internationally more popular than Prison Break by a considerable margin. Game of Thrones broadcasts to a population of over 12 million whereas Prison Break barely exceeds 10 million, proving that Game of Thrones is vastly better than Prison Break. Also, Game of Thrones has a larger number of series showcased than Prison Break. In conclusion, you're wrong.
February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage

Here are my arguments.I. Lift many out of poverty and improve living standards (or well-being.)The cost of living in America for a minimum wage earner(for a family of at least two) is too high. They will be in poverty according to Figure A[1]. As a consequence, these families will have greater living standards. Furthermore, the results of SAMHSA's national survey[2] "provide extensive evidence that unemployment and poverty are highly associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness. While correlation is not the equivalent of causation, it makes more sense to be further examining variables that actually are associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness rather than focusing on variables such as chemical imbalances which are not even correlates".[3]II. Reducing inequities in gender- and race-based wages"While raising the minimum wage would benefit both women and men, it would disproportionately raise pay for women. As shown in the pie chart inFigure F, women make up 55.9 percent of affected workers. In comparison, women make up only 49.2 percent of the total U.S. workforce."[4]"As shown in the pie chart inFigure G, the majority of workers who would benefit from increasing the minimum wage are white, non-Hispanic workers, comprising just over half (53.2 percent) of all those who would receive a raise. Hispanic workers of any race make up the next largest share, at just under a quarter (24.3 percent) of the total affected population. Black or African American workers are 15.4 percent of the total, and Asians and workers of other races/ethnicities make up 7.1 percent of the total."[4]It follows that gender- and race-based wage inequities is reduced.III. Increases domestic consumption thus the economy growsin 2013, "an increase to $10.10 would either directly or indirectly raise the wages of 27.8 million workers, who would receive about $35 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period." thus "across the phase-in period of the increase, GDP would grow by about $22 billion, resulting in the creation of roughly 85,000 net new jobs over that period."[1] Theoretically, we see the economy moving forwards with the marginal boost of GDP and jobs created.ConclusionIf the USFG decides to raise the minimum wage, we will see minimum-wage workers escaping poverty and improving their well-being, a reduction in gender- and race-based wage inequities and an overall increase in domestic consumption leading to a growing economy.Sources:[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.alternet.org...[3] http://www.samhsa.gov...[4] http://www.epi.org...;
February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage

I will be Con. My opponent, Xerdex, will be Pro. Round one: Acceptance. No arguments allowed. Pro may contest the definitions if he wishes. Round two: Opening arguments. Round three and four: Arguments and rebuttals Round five: Rebuttals, no new arguments. Definitions: USFG - United States Federal Goverment Raise - Increase Minimum Wage - Lowest hourly rate an employer can pay an employee. http://www.businessdictionary.com...
The United States Should Not Intervene in Iran

Evidence can be produced upon request, but should not be posted unsolicited. I'm studying to pass my last test before getting my degree, so I don't really have time to document every little thing. That's especially true since most of the documentation I've seen on this site seems to be at fourth hand from wikipedia or random little sites that I've never heard of before. ARGUMENT US intervention in Iran would have virtually no positive impacts and would seriously harm US and human rights interests in the Middle East. Limited Gain The consensus seems to be that a US/Israeli strike on Iran would delay Iran's nuclear program by a mere two years. Regional Balance of Power Currently, Iran is isolated and relatively unpopular in the Middle East. Iraqi's are upset with Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. The Gulf Arab States are scarred out of their wits by potential Iranian hegemony. Syria is embattled. Turkey is interested enhancing its own hegemony. An attack on Iran would only serve to gin up support for a perceived victim of US/Israeli aggression. Internal Iranian politics Within Iran, the current regime is unpopular among urban elites and the United States is not viewed unfavorably. An attack on Iran would bolster a weak regime and make the United States universally unpopular. Proliferation Fears Overblown Nuclear proliferation has not occurred despite N Korea obtaining nuclear weapons. With the United States already guaranteeing Saudi and Iraqi military security, it is unlikely that the other major states in the region would risk US displeasure by pursuing their own nuclear arms programs. Iran is not an Existential Threat While Iranian leaders might not grant Israel legitimacy, they are not suicidal. Iran's leaders rule over a sophisticated and educated population and have complex internal politics of their own to deal with. Whatever their words might be, Iranian leaders have enough self interest not to lob WMD's at their neighbors. And anyway, the Ayatollah has ruled nuclear weapons immoral, and the idea that Iran might use nukes before being attacked itself against the ruling of the Ayatollahs is unlikely. So given the limited, short term gains (a mere two year delay), the long term losses (an entrenched regime), and the weakness of the stakes (proliferation unlikely and Iran too self-interested to go too far anyway) the United States should not attack Iran
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information.

Let me repeat. There is no way to argue against your own thought. There is no way we can ever know 100% if a person knows a certain piece of information. Oh wait, actually there is: and that is IF WE KNOW THE INFORMATION OURSELVES Torturing someone who cannot/will-not answer your pleas is a waste of time and a violation of basic human rights. If you vote for my opponent, you affirm his sense of self-superiority and the idea that his imagination tops all. If you vote for me, you vote for justice and human rights.
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information.

I don't think you understand the basis of hypothetical arguments. Allow me to expand on my previous god example. If I start a discussion with a friend with "lets assume god is real. do you want to go to heaven or hell? which would be better?"If my friend starts arguing my assumption that god exists, his arguments are irrelevant. It is not impossible, like you say, to continue this discussion. He can accept my assumption that god is real, and then argue heaven or hell as his choice, backed up by whatever data or principles he likes. In my scenario, we assume that John knows information. It is irrelevant how we proved this or how efficient torture is. ASSUME that torturing John will save lives. The ethics behind THIS scenario are what I would like to debate. If you've come to discredit the government's proving of Johns knowledge, then it is irrelevant, since you're arguing my hypothetical assumption. It wouldn't BE a hypothetical situation if we didn't make an assumption and both assume it to be true.Please present an argument relevant my hypothetical scenario, in which we assume to know 100% that John has information. Do not argue whether John has information or whether we can be sure that he does. This is assumed already. By undertaking this challenge, you've agreed to attempt to convince me that torturing John is unethical even if the Government is sure that he has information that would save lives. I repeat. Convince me that it is wrong to torture a man, even if we are 100% sure that this torture would save lives. I'm not asking you to analyze the reality of this hypothetical; whether such a situation could ever even exist. I'm asking to you to say "even if we were to be completely sure that John has information, it would still be unethical to torture him because _______________"If my opponent responds with an irrelevant argument again, I will assume he cannot think of any arguments against torturing a man who we hypothetically assume has life saving information, and therefore forefeits the debate.
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information.

"My opponent's argument is inherently wrong and false because of the fact that we can never know for sure "100% " that a person knows something."This is irrelevant to my theoretical scenario. I agree that in 95+% of real-life scenarios, we don't know for sure if a person knows something. I agree that torture is quite often ineffective. But these do not relate to my theoretical scenario. We are NOT debating whether torture is ethical in a situation where we're not sure if the suspect knows something. In my scenario we are ASSUMING that we know 100% that John knows life saving information about the bombs. The proof of this is irrelevant. This is not unlike discussions in which people assume they know 100% that god exists, for the sake of creating a hypothetical situation. It is impossible to know for 100% whether a god exists, but for the sake of a hypothetical discussion, we can make assumptions.I strongly believe that torture is wrong. It is often used on suspects that hold no information, and it is often ineffective. BUT I believe that if we could ascertain for 100% that a suspect knows information that could save lives, then torturing him would be ethical. You've provided 0 arguments to dispute this. You've argued that torturing a suspect who "might" have information is wrong. As I said in the first paragraph, that is a completely different debate. Please present a new argument that is relevant to my theoretical scenario In which we assume to know 100% that John has life saving info.
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information.

Torture is *NOT* ethical when it is 100% sure that the torturee has life saving information... My opponent's argument is inherently wrong and false because of the fact that we can never know for sure "100% " that a person knows something. We are able to know as much as the person is willing to tell us, and using torture, which is in direct violation of the Geneva conventions, is wrong and ineffective. If someone holds a belief so dear to them that they'd sacrifice their life for it, torture is not going to change that. Sorry.
Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information.

I would like to debate the ethics of torture in a very specific theoretical scenario. I will be debating the PRO side, as in PRO-torture(in this specific scenario). Please skip the accepting rounds, etc, and begin with arguments. Thanks! SCENARIO: US Gov has in their custody a man named John. John is a known terrorist. Assume that the US Gov is 100% sure that John has information about multiple bombs in major cities which will soon explode, killing thousands. John has admitted to knowing this information multiple times, and the US Gov has proven that he knows it through various other sources. Furthermore, intelligence from John's home country, Terroristlandia, indicates that in the past, when John was tortured for information, he spilled very valuable information which was accurate, and saved lives. Let us assume that torturing John WOULD save lives. I argue that in this case, torturing John is ethical. I would like for somebody to convince me otherwise. Please keep in mind: I am using a scenario in which we are 100% sure that the torturee has life-saving information. Torturing those who "might" have life saving information is another debate for another day. Thank you for accepting my challenge!
Nick Sandman did nothing wrong

Politically: His grinning face exuded far too much right wing arrogance. Why does Pro think that Nick Sandman was Politically Correct? Of course I would have to concede that N. S. Was unavoidably the product of his own conditioning, Which I suppose is somehow relative to the insularity of U. S. Regional politics. Therefore the debate is not really about Nick Sandman's political incorrectness, But far more about the accountability or unaccountability of U. S. Regional politics.
The second amendment should be completely abolished

"I do not think you should abolish the second amendment. There are about 11,000 gun homicides a year. However, 500,000-3000000 lives are saved through the defensive use of a firearm. And that's from the CDC (a government-funded source)." So how exactly do they measure the range of people "saved" by firearms? Like if I just shot and killed a dude pointing an AR-15 at everyone, how do I calculate the number of people "saved"? Hence define "saved". Might want to increase the character limit too n
The second amendment should be completely abolished

I do not think you should abolish the second amendment. There are about 11,000 gun homicides a year. However, 500,000-3000000 lives are saved through the defensive use of a firearm. And that's from the CDC (a government-funded source). And for the record 4/5 of the gun homicides are committed by illegal firearm owners. They bought them illegally. (Washington Post) CHECKMATE
The second amendment should be completely abolished

Chicago has the strictest gun laws, and also the biggest homicide rate. Switzerland has about 7x the gun ownership rate of the UK, but only half the homicide rate. The U.S. has the most gun ownership rate but is ranked 83 on homicide. Norway and Germany have a greater gun ownership rate than Canada. However, they both have smaller homicide rates than Canada. (FBI statistical report) I could go on forever if I didn't have 70 characters left. There are many examples on both sides of the argument.
Deadliest Warrior: Samurai vs. Ninja...the ninja would have really won in a real life scenario.

Do excuse me, but I must concede this debate in it's entirety. Here's why: Stupid people at my stupid school being stupid and I recieved 10 days suspension and was almost recommended for expulsion, due to showing a friend a vulgar letter, which they classified as "Distributing obscene material". This is a level 3 offense, just below assault on an employee and bringing a gun to school. I assume that ment pornographic material, and I had to convince them otherwise. Thank God I like to debate! I would like to start this debate again with you, when I am able regular internet access, but I must CONCEDE. Asta luego!
Deadliest Warrior: Samurai vs. Ninja...the ninja would have really won in a real life scenario.

I found this interesting when I watched the show. This show can teach us a lot about different cultures. Okay, now to begin the debate! The simulation developed by Slitheren Studios (Copied from Harry Potter???) is designed for a head on battle between two said warriors. This is a battle to the death, should we not be mislead. This brings me to my first point. Point 1: Stealth vs. Open Combat Contrast The Samurai is a bodyguard, more or less. Trained to identify suspicious or abnormal behavior in others and to expand and protect the Lord's property. They began training in fighting first, at age five. They practiced hand-to-hand, mainly. When they got older, they trained in the Katana, or the bow, according to the time period. Fighting is their main style. The extent of training was based on wealth, which many people were not wealthy. The ninja, however is trained in stealth and open combat. Unlike the samurai, they do not learn just a general practice, but they are trained to adapt and analyze situations and systmatically resolve their method of attack with time and planning; they are trained to adapt to the situation, unlike the samurai. "They travelled in disguise to other territories to judge the situation of the enemy, they would inveigle their way into the midst of the enemy to discover gaps, and enter enemy castles to set them on fire, and carried out assassinations, arriving in secret." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja If you can't see a ninja or recognize one in disguise, how will you block the rapid, deadly attack? It's not always open combat. Even if it is, they are trained to quickly disappear when they need to. They may not always succeed, but more often than not they will. In the simulation, it was just open ground or a forest. Either are likely to be in another place, such as a town. Even so, they didn't take this into account.
Trolling is a form of art.

Resolved: Trolling is a form of art.Definitions:Trolling: "deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame. The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help. Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll."http://www.urbandictionary.com...Art:"A skill acquired by experience, study, or observation; an occupation requiring knowledge or skill... the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." http://www.merriam-webster.com...;Rules:1) Neither the definition of "trolling" or "art" may be questioned by debaters.2) Sources in text.Structure:Round 1: Introductions.Round 2: Opening arguments.Round 3: Rebuttals to opponents arguments in preceeding round (i.e. rd. 2)Round 4: Responses to rebuttals and concluding arguments. No new arguments may be introduced."When we are born, we cry that we are comeTo this great stage of fools"King Lear; Act IV, Scene IV
Kolte Patil 24K Grazio in Koramangala

FKANNOGWEGOEWEOFWEJAOWFNFNVNNOWOEORGNRGWEOGWEOGNQFWEOFNWENWRGOWDPVJWFPGOQIRJTOEJOPTJRPNQEFKNSDKLVNDFGENKF<BGLNBELRKNGWRKNEAFINGEAIGKNEAFNGIEGR$*@*@$)+__~JJS#$$?><:W{P{@####%call NUMBOR: 989- KILLMENOW-SUFFERING