BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Colin Kaepernick Kneeling during anthem.

Je suis contre Colin Kaepernick de se mettre à genoux pendant l’hymne nationale de l’États-Unis parce que le drapeau représente la pays et la liberté des religions et liberté de parole. Colin Kaepernick n'a pas respecté le drapeau quand il a refusé de lever pendant l'hymne de nationale des États-Unis. Ça c’est un manque de respecte parce que, le drapeau représente la pays et respecte la pays. Kaepernick a se mettre à genoux parce qu’ils dit que l’États-Unis laisse des polices tue les Noires qui sont non-armés. Il a un point que des polices comme un policier de Hammond qui s’appelle Kevin Campbell a tué un maman de trois de ses enfants, Tiara thomas. Campbell était tiré en toute impunité.
people with terminal illness should be allowed a legal arranged suicide

Well i cant argue back because firstly i am not religious and second i believe in it haha that was the only argument i had. Well, one last point, that if they can live a relatively happy life on drugs and a pain free life on drugs then that is a good thing. i think the option of euthanasia should always be there as it is important for people to be able to use their free will to aid their own cicumstances and decisions. thanks for the debate, exellent points raised.
people with terminal illness should be allowed a legal arranged suicide

it's good to practise the debating skills :) i might take a leaf out of your book and get into a debate but go opposite my actual beliefs :) okay co yeah there are other options like further treatment, but the treatment if continued can have side-effects"Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects" also as their illness is terminal, "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" so if they continue the treatment, they are going to die anyway. The aim for them is to chose the way they die and not let the illness run the end of its course.
people with terminal illness should be allowed a legal arranged suicide

so, you hear the word suicide and think... jeeze. if someone is told that they are suffering from a terminal illness ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) they are told that "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" Obviously not all sufferers from terminal illness want to end their lives because as the above link states: "Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time" But what about those patients who want to take the choice to die how they want. They don't want to suffer anymore, and they want the help of physicians,family and friends to help them end their suffering in a comfortable and peaceful way. I consider it cruel to keep someone alive who only feels pain, and if this involves the sanctity of life, that all life is holy and sacred, I don't feel that existing is living. They need some compassion, because they are humans and as fellow beings they deserve to be treated in a humane way, and die with a little dignity. http://en.wikipedia.org... which states :"Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[2]. The doctrine of human rights aims to identify the necessary positive and negative prerequisites for a "universal" minimal standard of justice, tolerance & human dignity that can be considered a public moral imperative. " It is their own dying body, they are responsible for it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... "more than 80 per cent of the public want physician-assisted suicide to be available to them as an option if they should find themselves in circumstances where their lives have become unbearable without hope of remedy. " which shows that although illegal, faced with this situation most of the public would also take the option to arrange the end of their pain. I feel the law needs to change, to allow people who are experiencing such indescribable suffering, can receive an ounce of control over their deadly and debilitating illness.
You choose the topic!

I will be defending the statement: The best explanation for the facts surrounding the supposed ressurection of Jesus is that He really did rise from death. For this debate, all gospels and other accounts will be treated for the sake of argument as historical accounts. They may be scrutinized like any other ancient document. I will defend the proposition that Jesus really died, and He really rose 3 days later. This is the best explanation given the historical facts wer have. Also, you can choose whether or not you want to accept the following statement; I think it would be useful. "God may or may not exist, so miracles may or may not be possible." Keep in mind that if you deny that statement, you will be guilty of circular reasoning. Also, I would be interested in knowing your actual position on this topic, but I think it would be most interesting for you to tell me after the debate is complete.
You choose the topic!

Hello and welcome! I'll be honest, I have no idea what to debate about, but I feel like debating something. You can choose whatever topic you want and I'll represent the pro side even if I don't agree with it. ANY topic you want! Well, I guess try to be reasonable! Here's the structure: Round 1 - State the Topic and Define any Terms (NO ARGUMENT) Round 2 - Arguments (NO REBUTTAL) Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements Good luck!
At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world.

"Honestly, you coul'd be vegan i dont care that your, freedom right. I dont know if your trying to force veganism on people because if so that violationg the first amendment." Con Not trying to force, convince of your own free will. If I was trying to force, the resolution would be veganism should be forced upon 99% of adult humans. Instead the resolution is at least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. I. Health II. Environment III. Animal happiness IV. World Hunger V. Links I. Health It is well known that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Vegan diets exclude many foods yet allow fruits in vegetables. Therefore, its only logical that most vegans will eat more fruits and vegetables thus being healthier. A multivitamin can take care of any nutrient deficiencies met on a vegan diet. II. Environment Claim: Meat is wasteful compared to grain. Warrant:"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [2]. Impact: A vegan diet takes less acreage compared to an omnivorous diet. Helping save the environment. III. Animal happiness Animals are sentient and capable of feeling emotions like happiness and unhappiness. Factory farming is infamous for being cruel. Since the profit motive is at work it will always be cheaper to raise an animal in inhumane conditions like battery cages. "In the wake of an ABC News investigation into alleged unsanitary and inhumane practices at one of the nation's largest egg farms, animal rights activists are calling for an end to the egg industry's widespread use of so-called "battery cages," in which birds live six to a cage in long stacks of wire cages. "[3]. Being confined to battery cages cause unhappiness to animals. IV. World Hunger In part II Environment acreage was mentioned. The grain lots feeding farm animals could be re-purposed to feed hungry humans. [2]. Claim: World hunger exists today Warrant: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014." [3]. Impact: World hunger could be mitigated if more people decided to turn vegan. At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. Vote Pro. V. Links 2. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 3. http://www.worldhunger.org...
At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world.

Resolution: At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. "Definition: What is a vegan? What is veganism? Veganism is a type of vegetarian diet that excludes meat, eggs, dairy products and all other animal-derived ingredients. "[1]. Pro contends that nearly all human adults should eat vegan. The resolution isn't 100% because some people have rare disease and other extraordinary circumstances that might interfere with such a diet. Pro focuses on adults because veganism is so rare that parents might not recognize nutrient deficiency in children and babies. Pro will argue on the grounds of health, environment, animal happiness, and world hunger. Links 1. http://vegetarian.about.com...
A Moderate President Would Be Much More Likely to have Positive Approval Ratings

Sorry but that's not very much of an argument. A shaky opinion at best. What proof do you have? Also, president FDR, on the complete different end from Reagan, had one of the highest approval ratings of any president while in office. He is the only president to have ever been elected more than twice. In-fact he was elected 4 times. History doesn't seem to serve you justice.
Opium Should be Legalized

Not only are the useful medical applications of opium not fully utilized, the money from the trade is consolidated in the hands of illegal drug dealers, rather than being spread fairly between legal employees, and business owners. Also, lack of legal markets means that the quality of opium products is less predictable and not subject to safety and quality standards, making fraud more rampant than it would be in a legal marketplace. Morally Wrong To attach a criminal penalty to something is a very serious act. In essence, it is the willingness to kidnap someone and lock them in a cell for years. This is justifiable for homicide and theft, things that harm other people. An opium user harms no one but themselves. Threat to National Security One of the primary sources of revenue for the Taliban is the opium trade. The Taliban can buy raw opium from desperately poor Afghan farmers for rock bottom prices because there is no legal competitive market that would give those farmers a fair price for their product. Then, the Taliban can sell at incredibly high prices because the risk of jail time dramatically increases heroin"s price. The Taliban also makes money by protecting the opium trade in southern Afghanistan. Protection would not be necessary if opium was legal. Efforts by the U. S. army to punish opium growers, and U. S. police to punish heroin users, drive Afghan villagers into the arms of the Taliban and create a revenue source that the Taliban makes an enormous profit from.
After/Assuming this debate concludes, the contender ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master

You know logical..... I was thinking about posting a ton of arguments this round on why it would be very beneficial for us going on a debate but I actually am feeling in a more Neg mood right now. So I'm going to go ahead and let you provide the arguments and then I'll do something. And considering I can't forfeit now I have motivation to check this debate. Go for it. Round 2, fight!
After/Assuming this debate concludes, the contender ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master

This debate was actually inspired by a recent (yet inactive) debate created by PoeJoe. CLARIFICATION ON THE PARAMETERS OF THIS DEBATE: 1) I didn't have enough space to word the resolution properly so basically, my intent is to argue specifically on my opponent. In other words, I shall analyze my opponent and then provide reasons as to why the two of us should not go on a date. When the contender accepts the debate, the resolution should be understood as "After/If this debate concludes, "[insert Contender's name]" ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master." Thus, I will not start the debate until the second round. My opponent is free to provide arguments upon accepting this round (or can wait until R2). 2) I would suggest that my opponent only accept if a female. As a male, my opponent would have to prove that I was gay and quite frankly, I feel that this would not only be against my intentions of this debate, but would also be rather difficult to prove (especially online). 3) No going against the intent of the debate as well as providing ridiculous semantics. For you semantic lovers, I promise to create a debate specifically revolved around semantics in the near future. And no kritiks either. They are smelly. If there are any questions, feel free to provide them in the comment section.
The hate that generation five of Pokemon is getting is not justified

Closing statement: Generation five is getting to much hate that is doesn't deserve. Pokemon like trubbish and vanillite are being hated upon simply because they "are ugly" and are "not original". This is not the case. Sure, an ice cream cone and a garbage bad are not the most creative ideas, but neither are many of the pokemon of previous generations, so why does generation five not get the love? Also, according to my opponent, pokemon are getting too complex which is not good for all the children playing the game. But then he/she says that mostly adults play the game, so that argument is irrelevant. Also, complications are sometimes necessary when designing pokemon, otherwise we would just have a bunch of repeats, and then there would be people mad about that. Just leave it as it is! Also, the game is not entirely the same as other previous games; it had new additions such as the battle subway, black city, white forest, and the dream world. Gamefreak adds new things to gameplay each generation, so why does generation five' s gameplay supposedly "lacking"? Also, the battle subway is similar to the battle tower. Thirdly, complexity is not always bad because, like my opponent and I both said earlier, mostly adults play the game. Besides, if we mostly had animal pokemon like gen one, the game would get boring real fast. We need new ideas, and complecations are necessary to add new pokemon to the game. Generation five gets compared to previous generations a lot. Why are they better? Because they were FIRST. If half the pokemon that were in gen one came out in XY? We'd hate them? (Jynx, Mr mine, grimer, muk, electrode, etc.) Pokemon didn't get worse as time went one, people are sentimental to the earlier ones so the later ones seem bad. Generation five was my second favorite generation, and is fun with loads of cool pokemon. It is good and doesn't deserve the hate that people give it.
The hate that generation five of Pokemon is getting is not justified

I will now change it so that points 1 and 2 will be in one section. 1) Trubbish, Vanillite and whomever else gets critique is simply because designs are either too ridiculous ( a vanilla ice?) or too simple (grimer, as you give as example). For children, overdesigned pokemon are simply not going to cut it: ever since gen III, they look more complicated than before. Too much time is spent to make them look interesting, but pokemons shouldn't be detailed at all: that is where the success of gen I was. A simple pokemon like grimer is easy to recognize and define, and fully identifies it with poison. Vanillite is then simply the most stupendous idea for an ice-type: earlier, they based off animals (seals etc.). I could still name better ideas for ice-types than a Vanilite. I must agree to what my opponent says: it gets hard to come up with ideas after all this time. You can clearly see that they're having a tough time and therefore get inspired by everyday things. Also, they try to get their older successes back with the mega-evotutions. I'll get back to that later. The point is: when designing pokemon, you can do it with care and you should make them simple. This will aid to their popularity! 2) The format: I agree. The people have loved it for a long time, and I wouldn't like the game anymore if there was no league and no gyms. But it's all about adding new things, making a longer campaign and adding new challenges: like the invention of battle tower! About electrode-vanilluxe: I'm aware that children most likely wouldn't complain. But the game is mainly played by adults. It is quite simple: electrode is average to children and great for adults, while Vanilluxe is good for children but horrible to adults. 5) They do look more complex than the earlier ones. Charmander for example is easy: a dragon that grows bigger. Their second typing? You are well-aware that we've already had fire-fighting types. Okay, not unoriginal; just worse ideas than before.
The hate that generation five of Pokemon is getting is not justified

In reply to your previous statements: 1) Trubbish is very comparable to grimer and muk. My opponent called trubbish unoriginal, but this is my point. Which is more creative: a pile of purple sludge with a face, or a garbage bag with a face? Answer: neither! Each one is not worse than the other, yet trubbish gets so much more hate. Why? Because grimer and muk were FIRST. Also, on the developers topic...If you had to think of 719 characters, chances are, there will be some repeats and some flops. Gen 1 was mostly animals and, as time went on, yes, inanimate objects started to become pokemon. Problem? No. 2) I could name tons of pokemon that are either unoriginal or copy another. Vanillite is an ice cream cone; how is that worse that a steel shirt (bronzong) or three nubs sticking out of the ground. (dugtrio) Vanillite is no worse, maybe even better, so why does it get so much hate. 3) Mistakes? People love the pokemon format! It is the only game (to my knowledge) that has this format. There will always be people who say "this is stupid, we want a new format!" But, if Gamefreak changed it, there would be people who would say. "the original was better!" Best to keep it the way it is. Also, about the whole electrode-vanilluxe thing? Would people rather have a pokemon that is nearly identical looking to a pokeball that explodes and "faints" itself, or a dual ice cream cone? Almost all kids these days would pick the ice cream cone. 4) See above argument. 5) Starters look too complex: A red pig, a green serpent with legs, and an otter. Not that complex. And about the unoriginal aspects of the second stage? No, we have not had a two-legged, serpentine grass starter, a samurai water ninja water starter, or a fir breathing pig for a fire starter. Also, we have 3 of the 4 first games with quadraped plant-backed grass starters. Then we get a serpent and that's unoriginal? A samurai otter with scalchop swords is unoriginal? I think not. Good luck to the con.
The hate that generation five of Pokemon is getting is not justified

In reply to your previous statements: 1) Trubbish is, in my opinion, uncomparable to Grimer and Muk. Trubbish is simply an ugly pokemon that proves lack of originality in creating pokemon. It is as if the developers have just looked outside their window and made the challenge "which should we try to make a pokemon of?". 2) Vanillite and its evolutions also show lack of originality. But way more frustrating about these, is that they are simply so everyday that it becomes disturbing. Unlike exeggcute and Cherubi, they are not based off organic material. It is simply something dead brought to life. Also, ice cream cones arent exactly the best looking thing around anyways. 3) The lack of originality is simply because they didn't learn from the mistakes they have made earlier. The formula once again continues, gyms, league and that's it. Such an adventure does not last, because eventually the player gets tired of always having to redo the league and all the saving that comes with it afterwards. A nice innovation would be that the player gets to be league champion and defend his title. About the brought up pokemon designs: elektrode and voltorb are simple. That is the main advantage to their design. A ball that explodes, is entertaining. An ice cream cone, that looks complex, is not. Magneton is obviously not the best design either, but so many years later, I enjoy him as one of the non-organic pokemons. The concept is quite well, because it combines steel with electricity through the means of magnets. Magnezone is ugly though. 4) Bad gameplay. I don't know what your arguments would be on this one, but it's not necessarily the bad gameplay, it is rather the fact that much has changed to the visuals, but practically none to the macrostructure of the adventure. 5) Bad starters. Well, the only thing i could comment on here is that they look too complex and are unorigal in their second type. I would rather see new combinations of type, say, water-steel or fire-ground.
The hate that generation five of Pokemon is getting is not justified

A lot of the hate that gen 5 has gotten is basically the same, so I am going to list and defend the main arguments. (Note: These are just my opinions being used for the sake of this debate. ) 1: Trubbish. 2: The vanillite evolutionary family. 3: The supposed lack of originality. 4: Bad gameplay. 5: Bad starters. Ok, let's start out with trubbish. Yes, trubbish is a garbage bag. It is not the most creative idea. But before we go all "Oh no, it's a freakin' garbage bag, it's terrible! ", let's consider a little big. Yes, trubbish is a garbage bag, but at least it is holding all that garbage in. What am I talking about? Grimer and muk! If you don't know, grimer and muk are two pokemon from the first generation of pokemon that are literally piles of sludge. That's it. So if you are going to go on and hate on the garbage bags of gen five, take into consideration that they were not the first. Also, the first time I went by route nine and saw a garbodor, I literlly thought "Oh man, I need to catch this thing. " Yes, vanillite, vanillish, and vaniluxe are ice cream cones. Yes, the vanillish line is pretty much the same looking. But once again, not the first food pokemon! Exeggcute? All it is is a bunch of eggs! Cherubi? It is a clump of cherries with a face! But do they get as much hate as the ice cream cones? Nope. And honestly, trubbish and vanillite are (estimated) 99% of the reason gen five is hated. Now, onto lack of originality. Yes, some of the pokemon lacked originality. But, once again, there were always worse pokemon in earlier generations. Amoongus and foongus--electrode and voltorb have the same thing, but they are pokeballs with eyes! At least the 'oongus' have the plant aspect. .. Klink--Uh, magneton? Same exact idea, pretty much. Chandelue--The whole inanimate-object-pokemon thing? Driftblim, geodude, graveler, golem, bronzong. .. .. .. I would type more, but I have run out of characters. I wish the con good luck.
are school uniforms good or bad

It will stop bullying to a certain point, and the clothes don't cost that much unless you go to a private school,public schools don't charge that much. And did you read all the way or only skim because I found all this. Whichproves that uniforms have more of a purpose than only being bland and awful for students.Long Beach, CA implemented uniforms in 1995 and reported the following resultsLong Beach Uniform Statistics DataOverall, the crime rate dropped by 91 %School suspensions dropped by 90 %Sex offenses were reduced by 96 %Incidents of vandalism went down 69 %Assaults in grades K-8 decreased by 85 %Norfolk, VA implemented uniforms in 1995 and reported the following resultsLong Beach Uniform Statistics DataLeaving class without permission dropped by 47 %Throwing objects dropped by 68 %Fighting dropped by 38 %
are school uniforms good or bad

If it saves parents money why is the average cost of uniforms is $249. well 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of pants, and shoes are approximately $90 and the don't help as much as teachers say they do and here is proof http://www.statisticbrain.com... I Found it in 30 sec Also uniforms wont stop all bullying. also you chose what you wear so I don't care what you wear. you do you