BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

"the first problem is you believe reality television as a way to diffuse pent up anger. "Sure it does! If your wife is mad at you, give her a glass of wine and let her catch up on 'The Bachelor/Bachlerette' and I guarantee she'll mellow out. "have you ever even been angry? watching these shows in no way shape or form is a release"Well it doesnt work for me because I dont have a vagina. "with you saying black friday is racist and comparing it to looting you are assuming blacks jump on these sales because they are poor."im not assuming it, Black Friday is, hence the name 'Black' Friday......=======================================================================================I contend that Black Friday is racist as sh** due to 1) The hidden connections between the qualities of black people and what Black Friday entails Black Friday:- Terrifying - Expensive things almost being free- Shopping like theres no tomorrow- Stores that have it are always chaotic Blacks:- Terrifying (to white people)- Looting items in stores like they are free (New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, LA after the Rodney King Verdict, DC after Obama was elected)- Looting like theres no tomorrow (Again, N.O. after Katrina, LA after Rodney King, DC after Obama)- Cities that have them are always chaoticand 2) There are many other better names they could have gone with for Black Friday, yet they chose to go with 'Black Friday' anyways. Why would they do that if it wasnt racist as sh**? Its because they ARE racist as sh** and Black Friday IS racist as sh** I rest my case.
Pokemon is better than Star Wars

Pro uses music, graphics, and characters to attempt to differentiate Pokemon from Star Wars. Nowhere does Pro actually explain why Pokemon is superior in these areas, however, so the arguments as they stand are baseless assertions. I will endeavor to show that Star Wars is superior in each of these areas, and to at least provide some justification as to why it is superior. In regards to music, John William's scores have won an accumulated Oscar, 2 BAFTAs, Golden Globe, Saturn Award, and 5 Grammy's, not including mere nominations. The American Film Institute described the music as the "most memorable film score of all time," and, indeed, most people can at least hum the opening notes of the Imperial March or one of the many other works comprising the total score. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Given the critical accolades that Star Wars has received, and the ubiquitousness of it's music, there is every reason to believe that Star War's score is an excellent one. I'll include a soundtrack for you to listen to as well. Similarly, in a 25 minute search on Google, I could find no evidence that Pokemon has won a Tony, Oscar, Grammy, Golden Globe, or BAFTA for it's music. Pokemon is well-known, but it seems to receive fewer critical accolades for its music than Star Wars, putting Star Wars ahead. Pokemon's graphics are unrealistic and cartoonish. See the first embedded video for evidence of the realistic nature of Star War's animation, and the complexity of it. Finally, as for characters, Star Wars trumps here too. Pokemon's characters lack much depth or dimension. Even characters who straddle the good-bad line do not have their internal conflicts treated in a serious, credible way, but rather in a humorous fashion. With Darth Vader, on the other hand, there is an earnest exploration of his character's conflicting emotions. Thanks! Please, Vote Con! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Every academic learning experience can and should be an interactive and enjoyable process

As I also feel that attempting to provide the reader with the numerous (or innumerable ) ways that academic learning can be an interactive and enjoyable process will be an exhausting task, I will allow my opponent to provide examples of academic learning that can not and should not be experienced in an interactive and enjoyable manner. This interaction can be between mentor(s) and student(s) or shared between the learners themselves. As students are often heard to refer to lessons they receive as boring, the resolution seeks to challenge the approach and methodology of the modern educational process. In hopes of discovering or promoting innovative ways of imparting knowledge and teaching lessons to learners, this exchange will seek to identify ways that academic learning can be participated in and enjoyed by the students rather than merely being observed and tolerated. If a child can't learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn. .. Ignacio Estrada While we teach, We learn. .. Seneca Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. .. Chinese proverb I await my opponent's response
Every academic learning experience can and should be an interactive and enjoyable process

I accept (and apologize that I haven't had time to put together our other debate yet). I believe that there are some academic learning experiences that either cannot or should not be interactive or cannot or should not be enjoyable for at least some persons. Although the resolution is susceptible to exceptions, I do not intend to fall back on mere exceptions any more than I intend to debate against the trivial fact that academic learning experiences involve some sort of feedback or communication (such as grades, or the fact that a student is receiving a lecture) and are therefore "interactive." Instead, I intend to convince the reader that some academic experiences are more meaningful when the resolution's criteria are set aside, and that the exceptions in some areas where a general rule might apply are so numerous as to counsel against accepting the resolution as more than an observation about what might be desirable when possible.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

Bad judgement still needs to be punished, you cant let some person break your heart and expect to immediately forgive them, justice is an important part of morality, because in order to maintain balance, if someone is uprightly hurt, it leads to people wanting revenge on the person who hurt them. and if someone emotionally hurts you, wouldn't you want justice, wouldn't you feel negatively about them, that's because of the cheater doing it in the first place, yes their at personal beliefs in morality, that's why we make laws to defend it. this is similar to that serial killer, even though the serial killer is no longer himself, he still must go to a mental hospital to make sure He's back to normal, and he must serve time for the blood on his hands, which is how the government works both may suffer, but lets not forget who started the cycle of suffering, cheaters are never punished by the government in most countries for cheating, they don't even send a fee to the cheater, so the only punishment breaking up with the cheater and forgetting about him/her.
Cheaters should never be forgiven

cheating is never a mistake, they willingly accept that one drunk guy/girl who wants an affair while knowing they are hurting their girlfriend/boyfriend, you don't believe that people shouldn't be punished for an action they take? what if someone gets arrested for murder, shouldn't they be punished, while cheating is more of an offence than a crime, the person who cheated should not get away with it. just because they could change doesn't mean that you should change the way you think about them, they betrayed you, and you have every right to still hate them for what they did. a cheater is more of an animal than a static robot, and what I mean is while they know what they did is wrong, they just will keep doing it anyway. a serial killer would still have blood on his hands, he still hurt the family, it isn't what he is like, its about what he did, much like a cheater, so yes, the serial killer should be half accountable. its the same with the cheaters who have the worst intents, it makes them more unforgivable, because you know their intent is inhumane, and if they do change, so what? the damage they did was already done. what they did is unforgivable, while some cheaters are dealing with temporary guilt, the victim is dealing with heartbreak, and possibly depression, and that's why they cant change, cheaters only feel bad for their victims for a few days, what makes you think that they deserve recognition?
Cheaters should never be forgiven

The statement, "Cheaters should never be forgiven" appears to be very broad.People are stupid, and people make mistakes. I will admit that I have never been cheated on in my life, however I do not believe that a person should be eternally condemned for an action they take. People change. People are dynamic. The answer to this question lies in what kind of a person you are. It is natural for someone to create a negative stigma and antagonize another person for an action they comitted in the past. If you are reluctant to forgive someone, that does not make you heartless, it simply means that you attatch yourself to the past.But the claim that "a cheater will always be a cheater" is absurd. It implies that people are static robots that think and act the same throughout the entirety of their lives. There are a million versions of everyone you know.But this leads into another question: What makes you, you?If a serial killer loses his memory of comitting murder, is he still the same person? Personality and behavior come from positive and negative reinforcements. If somebody loses their memory, they will not know what they were like a few months or years ago. So are they the same person? Does losing your memory change your identity? And in this case, does the serial killer, who now has no recollection of his actions and behavior, deserve to be held accountable for what he did?It all depends on what you define as identity.Going back to the main topic, some cheaters do not deserve to be forgiven. Cheaters who have malicious intents and cheat to get back at someone or make someone jealous are manipulative and don't care how you feel. Do they stay that way throughout their life, however? Some do, some don't. However, it is illogical to simply assume that they will remain a manipulative and immoral person for the rest of their lives.To sum it up, I do not believe that you should allow one flaw in one's behavior dominate what you think of them in the future. The person who cheated on you 10 years ago is not that same person. And they won't be who they are now in 10 more years, either. If you do allow yourself to succumb to this perception, then you will be a very conditionally loving person.
Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates

1. Yes, in an ideal world the purpose of the debates is to better americas future and such but as you can see in a "Time" article of August fourth, When obama set fourth solutions to gas mileage to help america with the current fuel problem, mccain ridiculed him and to this day has the "joke" on his website. This demonstrates that Obama's legitimate attempts to establish better fuel mileage in america were undermined by John McCains unwarranted attacks. 2.While the candidates could better themselves in these Debates, the risk seems far too high considering obama is only a margin ahead. As you can see in McCains television ad where he compares Obama to britney spears. The risk can also be found when he distorts obamas trip to the middle east. As the past records of ads and commentary suggest, obama going into these town meeting with McCain would most likely lead to McCain having an open forum to attack and distort obamas image, so considering obama is consistently ahead it would only prove beneficial to engage in Town Hall debates, even if the long term outcome was "better the candidates" 3."As well, McCain has expressed interest in making these debates Lincoln-Douglas style debates. " - I would first like to point out that accoriding to CQ politics and yahoo news of August 2nd- "Under McCain's plan, the candidates would have met once a week between June and the Democratic National Convention at the tail end of August. Though it left room for negotiation of details, the McCain camp suggested that the candidates appear together for 60 to 90 minutes at each meeting and take "blind questions" from members of an audience ranging from 200 to 400 people. " With the audience asking questions it could lead to compromising situations for Barack Obama. This was demonstrated in the Abc Hilary-Barack Debate where one voter mailed in a video-question asking "Why doesnt senator obama wear a flag lapel?" While many voters are eager to see how the candidates will fix the economy and end the war in Iraq..., there will be a large majority of voters very attached to theeir respective candidate who are willing to ask embarrasing or ridiculous questions. So with the unpredictable voters asking questions, it seems apparent that nothing would get done and it would be counterproductive to both candidates. 4."To combat this assertion made by my opponent, I say that it is most important for the public and society to gain from such debates. The issues referred to in presidential debates regard the society" They would Stand to gain very little from the debates. As i have said before, in an ideal world debates benefit society, but unfortunately we live in a little thign called reality....Senator Barack obama has held rallies where he as answered questions and affirmed his stances. It would be superflous and counterproductive to put himself in a situation that could potentially sway some of his voters to McCain.. -I apologize for the late response-
Obama should have accepted McCain's request for town-hall debates

I argue that Senator Obama should have accepted Senator McCain's general request for town-hall debates. Seemingly, one could argue that the role of government (and of course Obama and McCain are vying for its top spot) is to do what is best for its country/society. Therefore, what must be determined is how one figures out what is indeed best for the country. There are often many opposing viewpoints provided by numerous people and parties. However, for the government to truly determine what is best, collectively, debate and argumentation must be pursued. Thus, because of the declination of the pursuit of truth via these debates, Obama is seemingly in error (on this issue). For additional background regarding McCain's proposal and Obama's declination, see the below sources. http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.cnn.com... Depending on my opponent's response, I may get more detailed in my logic in regards to this issue in later rounds. As a side note, I am currently supporting Obama (and hopefully John Edwards too). However, I question this action (or perhaps, instead, inaction) made by the Obama campaign. I look forward to this debate, Oboeman.
Abortion

Abortion can be viewed as a moral issue throughout society. I am not here to debate whether killing an unborn child is murder. I am here to state that women deserve the right to choose whether to abort a baby. A woman can attempt to have protected sex but, it will not always work. A woman could be raped and may not want to have that child. If a woman cannot afford to have a child and that child goes through life suffering that could be worse. Also medically many women die in child birth. It is better to save one life than to risk two. Even when we look at this as a moral issue the impacts outweigh. Women deserve a choice and it should not be male policy makers making this choice for them.
THBT parents should monitor children's social media

Forgive me if I am wrong and not adequately on the opposing viewpoint of your expressed opinions. You did not clarify what you were considering a child, other than being dependent on a parent or adult guardian. A child can be 2 years old or 17 years old. I will teach my child about the dangers of the world, including not "taking candy from strangers" nor meeting with people you met online or sharing personal information. If my child was young as in under 15, I am going to be actively involved in their lives, both inside & outside of school if they are not physically present with me, I will insure that I have confirmation of where they are be it an extracurricular activity they are participating in, or physically confirming with the family they are staying with. While I do agree that social media can be an easier platform to be exposed to numerous potentially disturbing things, I want to have a relationship with my children where these things are discussed openly and with honesty. Since you didn"t explain what you meant as a "child", it"s hard to really state exactly where I stand. When I was 8 years old, my parents gave me a cell phone. When I was 11 or 12, I had a Myspace account and my parents knew about it. They didn"t monitor me nor try to make me delete it. They just told me the risks online and let me know if I had any questions to ask them first. I had a group of friends who didn"t get cell phones, they were not allowed to have Myspace or be on the internet without being monitored. Their parents were constantly going through their personal things, there was no trust on either side. They still had Myspace, they simply checked their accounts at school or at their friends house. They were more likely to (and did) engage in dangerous behavior because they couldn"t trust their parents or ask them questions. Another solution to cyber bullying is being open and honest with your kids. You should repetively instill in your child"s mind that bullying is never okay and not to be tolerated and always to be reported. You should also raise your children to understand that being a bully is one of the most horrible and disgusting things you can be. I know that not all parents can instill this & also that even amazing parents who did their best to teach their children these things can be unsuccessful. I just feel as though, especially in today"s world, it"s so easy for children to access social media and the internet in a multitude of scenarios while they are outside of our monitoring, such as school, their friends house, even the public library, there"s no way to really monitor this. I would rather give them more freedom & encourage open dialect and have them know that I"m trustworthy. Like I said, in my personal life experience, the kids with the most restrictions and monitoring were the ones that did the same things, only secretively and we"re too scared to confide in their parents.
THBT parents should monitor children's social media

Ladies and gentlemen, Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. I will be accepting any opponent, please debate with me on this!!!! I am going to begin by defining the model, and then I will get into my constructive points. By 'parent' I mean a guardian or a responsible adult. By 'monitor' I mean to screen for material that could be inappropriate or harm to the child's welfare. By social media, I mean communication via the Internet. Social media is used by millions of people worldwide. It is a simple and easy way to share the highlights of your life with your friends and family. However, many a danger come with such a thing. Perhaps you believe that your child is responsible enough, but not everyone in the world it is. For those with harmful intentions, social media is the perfect trap in which to catch their prey. It is frighteningly easy to post an image, video or message that children could see. For example, using an innocent hashtag that children might follow. Another thing we see too often is cyberbullying. It's so easy to do: a click of a button. The bully does not need to have any face-to-face contact with the person. Many children take this on themselves. A solution to this problem? Parent monitoring. I by no means am stating that ALL privacy should be invaded, as children deserve their own space, but I personally believe that safety takes priority. For these reasons I am proud to propose.
Cable news stations should not be allowed to lie in the United States

It was a pleasure presenting and witnessing facts on both sides of the issue. However, since my opponent has not made a rebuttal to my previous argument, I will instead use round 5 to conclude my arguments for the debate. In this debate I have shown that: 1. News organizations such as Fox News do in fact lie. 2. They lie to fulfill their agenda for the Republican Party. 3. It is dangerous for people to watch these news channels unless they are fully aware of what kind of program they are watching. 4. They continuously break a code of ethics for journalism that has been around for over a 100 years. I have presented a clear and concise argument that shows that not only are networks capable of lying but do so on a continuous basis. Like I said before though, lies do not end with just the Fox News network. The other news networks have just as many fallacies. I hope at the very least after reading this debate, you will open your mind to the truth and not take everything at face value.
Cable news stations should not be allowed to lie in the United States

"What your not realizing though is that stations are not just misinterpreting information at times. They are deliberately skewing the news in order to make it more entertaining." - Actually I am well aware of this, you stated that the businesses skew their stories in order to make it entertaining. Which when a station is more entertaining or interesting, its' ratings sky rocket, more listeners tune in which in turn equals more revenue for the business."People assume that the journalist who covered the story already did it them self. News channels are held accountable to stories they are reporting. " - Which consequently leads back to the journalists, they provided the misinformation, therefore the cable station is simply reading off the information given. Not necessarily a deliberate misrepresentation. People can assume what ever they please; it does not make what the cable stations, tv stations, news broadcasts full of lies. "How can you justify this knowing that Fox News has an average of 7.3 million viewers and are all being lied to." - Just because it says a company can lie, does not mean that they are at all times. The phrase "taken out of context" appears in my mind, many individuals, such as yourself I would assume, believe things that are taken out of context "lies" when in fact they are just large portions of a story or even small bits that can lead a person to accredit it as deceit.In addition, what proof have you that ~ "...7.3 million viewers... are all being lied to." Providing evidence to support this claim is vital ~ "Fox News distorts the report to fit their own views."
Cable news stations should not be allowed to lie in the United States

It is not ethical for a news corporation to be lying its to viewers because it can be dangerous. Instead of getting the truth out there about the issues around us, channels like Fox News distort the report to fit their own views. Instead of being an unbiased source of information they are deliberately going against their own motto of being "fair and balanced." Which is pretty funny when you think about it. They type of "news" they report are usually ignorant and extremely right wing agenda which goes directly against the ethics that the Society of Professional Journalists provide. It is one of the oldest organizations representing journalists in the United States, established in April 1909. Here's how the Society of Professional Journalists describes their craft: "Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." http://www.spj.org...