BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban islam

In the comment section the pro was used unacceptable words in a debate. But as a professional debater, i will ignore his childish mentality and will continue my arguments. I have to remember all of you that this is a debate and not about our personal believes. So please vote according to the debate not your personal opinions Moving into my 3rd point i say religious freedom should be protected. In UN declaration of human rights accepted the fact that you can't discriminate anyone's freedom of religion. There are many followers of Islam. They follow their religion with their preference. So if you try to destroy one's religion without their consent, it is violating the freedom of religion which enshrined in UN declaration of human right. So making the point that you can't take someone's freedom to religion forcefully like this.
Pokemon is Stewpid

Let me break it down.Stupid is subjective.Subjectivity starts with the word 'subject'.Subjects are things you study in class.Class rhymes with glass. Glass is transparent.Transparent starts with 'tran'.If you add an i to that that makes train.Trains travel on rails.A rail rhymes with the Holy Grail, which starts with g.Grit starts with g.Grit rhymes with bit.Bit begins with a b.B is a letter in the alphabet.You study the alphabet at school.School rhymes with cool and therefore Pokemon is cool.
Abortion should be illigal except in cases of Rape

I originally started to debate to challenge another DDO member who was already debateing abortion and was arguing it was normally wrong except in special cases such as the mother and child cant both be saved or in the case of rape.given the premise that its wrong otherwise I take the position that rape is not a cause for exception although the 'can only save one' case is. so I tried challenging the new member to debate over the rape exception. Turns out he just included that exception for 'playing devils advocate' sake partially, since he was hoping for a debate with a total pro-choice advocate over abortion putting cases of 'can only save one' and 'rape' aside.but I still want to debate this topic, so I'm reissuing the challenge and have these terms for whoever accapts it. You have to be against abortion under normal healthy growing baby, mom and dad that are dating/hitched circumstances, the sex was totally by consent. in those cases you have to be against abortion. if your not please just dont except this debate. I dont want to debate the abortion issue altogether, just a paticular irrational exception made in most abortion debates.if you accapt this debate you defending that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape.I left all my argument before in this opening round but you can skip reading the italic part if you want, it was really specifically directed at the original debater I tried challenging.also if you want to accapt this debate but dont qualiy just drop a comment in the comment section. I dont really care what rank you are that restriction was just put to keep troll debaters from accapting. if you let me know your intrested I will look at some of your past debates to see if you forfiet most of them and if dont but actually finsish your debates I will issue the challenge to you.anyway....on with the debate.Hello new DDO member, I saw your debate challenge and wanted to debate one of the particulates to your position, the one on rape. if the child and the mom cant both be saved then they cant both be saved so I would have a hard time making a case to dissagree if her life is endanger she should not keep her's over the childs. But as for if the child is a result of rape I can easily make a case against when you are already agreeing to the basic fact that abortion is wrong and should be illigal in normal conditions....So do explain for me in your opening round how when.....A man rapes a womanWoman is pregnant with a baby as a resultYou conclude.....Kill the baby.Given the 3 people in that scenario one would think common sense would lead you to lean toward killing the man that raped the woman if you had to kill anybody but instead you chose 'kill the baby'Do you hold a position that babies should be held accountable to the fathers sins if they are still in the womb?I look foward to my opponents response
A Debate With Logical-Master

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Extend my entire case to R3. Also note that as dictated for the terms of this debate, this would be my final round (for the sake of fairness). I am not allowed to debate during round four, so I will just go over why you should vote PRO (me). 1) Several of my opponent's points actually serve as evidence for my own (specifically the fact the tipping generally concerns an appeal to pity. Also note that CON suggested there was no evidence for this, yet provided me with evidence during his round. 2) Mandatory tipping can serve as a reward for racist servers, as my opponent himself brought up. Although if you listen to my plan, racist servers will actually be punished instead. 3) On another point which CON contributed, making tipping mandatory would defeat whatever "good feelings that come from giving." SInce "tipping" would be mandatory, it would be the equivalent to paying for a burger at McDonalds or getting your gas tank filled. You would be tipping (or in better terms, PAYING) out of obligation rather than choice. 4) The servers who rely on tips KNOW the gambles they are taking and CHOOSE to work in restaurants (note that if CON argues anything besides what he argued in the previous round for this point [or any point], you are to dismiss it immediately since it's abusive to provide arguments which I will not be allowed to [again, last round]). These are the best reasons (I believe) for a PRO vote, although you're free to vote off of any of the other reasons in the round. With that said, I thank CON for the debate and the audience for reading. Later
A Debate With Logical-Master

On second thought, a quick apology to you, Noel, but I've once again changed my mind in the debates which I suggested I was in the mood to debate. I think it is because I don't feel like being the one to make the first round on the aforementioned debates at the moment. That said, the offer to have any of those debates with you is still up. As for you, PoeJoe, I decided that I would pull up a debate out of my archive of debates; I'll pull up a debate which my opponent forfeited all of his rounds on. I pull it up specifically because this topics interests me just as much as the topics I had listed previously (but not as abstract). ============================================================================== I strongly NEGATE "Restaurant bill's including automatic gratuity (tip)" First, the entire idea of tipping is basically an appeal to pity. Many consumer come into the restaurant thinking "Oh, he/she is only getting paid $2.13 per hour, so I think I'll show how good of a person I am by going out of my way to provide him/her with extra money." Unfortunately, the consumer fails to realize that consumers are the very reason tipping has become so mandated within our society. The REASON the employers even pay their employees that much is because they know a majority of the customers are going to fall for that guilt trap (or fall for some other superficial aspect) and pay 115-120% of their meal's price on average. However, if we (as the consumers) were to protest against this guilt trap, restaurants would have no choice but to start paying their employees minimum wage or more. Furthermore, studies have shown that most customers don't even determine their tips based on the quality of the actual service. New York Times: "Rather, customers are likely to tip more in response to servers touching them lightly and crouching next to the table to make conversation than to how often their water glass is refilled - in other words, customers tip more when they like the server, not when the service is good. (Mr. Lynn's studies also indicate that male customers increase their tips for female servers while female customers increase their tips for male servers.)" (1) For the most part, these "workers" aren't really even earning most of their income. By the way, if you further read my cited article, you'll notice that 26 BILLION dollars goes into tipping every YEAR in the United States alone. That's a lot of money for shooting the breeze with customers, flirting, and being well groomed, don't you think? =D Finally, it is the restaurant employees who CHOOSE to work at restaurants; they come in knowing the gamble they are taking. We (as the consumers) should not be OBLIGATED to fall into the restaurant employer's traps created to swindle the consumers out of their money under the guise of "pity." If a customer wishes to tip, that is fine. However, based on the information that I've presented, if a customer is FORCED to tip, it is unjust on the restaurants part. Source: 1) http://www.nytimes.com...
A Debate With Logical-Master

My last three finished debates have been with forfeiters. Needless to say, I've become bored. Thus, I've decided to challenge a skill far greater than my own. Logical-Master, choose ANY topic that we disagree on and make an opening statement supporting your position. This will be a three round debate that I'm sure I will have to fight hard to win. However, through this process, Logical-Master will have both the first and last say. Because of this, I will ask Logical-Master to write something random for his last round. Logical-Master, do you accept the terms of this debate?
A Debate With Logical-Master

Many, many years ago when I was 23, I was married to a wider who was purty as can be. This wider had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red My father fell in love with her and soon they two were wed. This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life For my daughter was my mother cause she was my father's wife To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy. I'm my own grandpa, I'm my own grandpa It sounds funny I know But it really is so I'm my own grandpa. My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad, And so became my uncle though it made me very sad. For, if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the wider's grown-up daughter who, of course, was my step-mother. My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run, And he became my grandchild for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too. I'm my own grandpa, I'm my own grandpa It sounds funny I know But it really is so I'm my own grandpa. Oh, if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild. And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my own grandmother, I'm my own grandpa. I'm my own grandpa, I'm my own grandpa It sounds funny I know But it really is so I'm my own grandpa.
Veganism and Animal Rights

"However, according to my opponent, the question of intelligence is meaningless. Why does intelligence matter with these things?" I have said this before, it doesn't matter how intelligent the animal is. You don't have the right to enslave, torture and oppress it. Person or not. Your implication that because you are a person you deserve rights is arrogant and biased. That's like saying because you are white or black you should have rights. My opponent said that she loves animals. She lies. People who love kids, don't eat kids. People who love dogs don't eat dogs. People who love animals don't eat animals. Because she eats animals, she does not love them. We can go back and forth on biology all day long. Humans are herbivores. I'll concede that we may have evolved to tolerate the consumption of meat. [1]. Morality: My opponent has failed to tell us how carrying out the points on the list in my last argument is more moral than not doing that to innocent animals. "What moral obligation does a lion have to an antelope? Well, the lion has to eat, and an antelope is its natural predator. But if they're both animals that both deserve equal rights, then the lion should just figure out how to justify itself as an herbivore right? Of course not, it's natural for the lion to kill the antelope and eat it." Lions also greet each other by sniffing each others anuses. Should we also do that? Lions do not know right from wrong. They eat the antelope to survive, not because it tastes good, like we do. They have no other food option. Their bodies are suited to meat and only meat. They are not natural vegans. We are. When my opponent says that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, she implies that there's nothing wrong with enslaving, torturing and slaughtering innocent animals. You can't get meat without those three things. They all go hand in hand. They have done nothing to deserve the pain and torture we inflict on them. YES, ANIMALS CARE ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH! That's why cattle prods are used to force them into the slaughterhouses. I can't believe that my opponent really thinks that it is more more morally right to torture animals, than to not torture them. To each voter I say: Veganism and animal abuse are polar opposites. It isn't very hard to determine which is right. Forget the lies of the meat industry. Think for yourselves. Vote for veganism, not animal abuse.
Veganism and Animal Rights

Lets get something straight. There is something seriously wrong with our society. We have actually turned animals, that think and feel, into sandwiches and coats. What is wrong with us. Good people follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They do because they feel like we do. Pain, fear, grief etc. Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals. They don't care about what pain they cause on others. As long as they get their bacon, they are fine with animal abuse. They make the same excuses that Nazi's and slave owners made. They say that just because someone is different, they are inferior. That type of mentality is evil. pure evil. Nothing justifies the meat and dairy industry. The people who do this are not evil at heart. They have just been raised in an evil society. Think about the life of a dairy cow for example. Lets call her Jane. At birth, Jane is instantly taken from her mother, and imprisoned on a farm where she is fed a nutrition devoid diet. Eventually, she is tortured via branding. (Yes, applying hot metal to a living being is torture). She also has her ear clipped without painkiller for the sake of identification. Jane then lives an exhausting life. She is constantly milked for hours on end. She is also raped with bull semen to produce more calves that will be stolen from her. Stress takes a toll on her. After a few years, her productivity begins to decrease. She is then put on a cattle car and begins a miserable trip to a slaughterhouse. At the slaughterhouse, Jane and her friends are so scared they won't get off the truck. They know what's coming. Their not stupid. the slaughterhouse workers then use cattle prods to force them into the facility where they will each wait for their turn on the killing floor. Once there, Jane will receive a captive bolt to the head. It's supposed to render her nerves inert but almost always the cows are killed fully feeling and conscious. She is then hung upside down on a large machine and a slaughterhouse worked slashes her throat and waits for her to bleed to death. After that, Jane is sent to be butchered packaged and shipped to a store or restaurant. Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened. We slaughter 150 BILLION animals every year. Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet. Forget the lies and propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. They want money. They don't care about the animals. There is no excuse for this. Don't even get me started on the health and environmental damage from meat, dairy and eggs. http://www.adaptt.org...... Feel free to explore that site.
ban islam

Pro’s round #2 argument seems to center on 2 unfounded premises: 1st, that the purpose of laws is to limit religion. There are many philosophical explanations for the existence of laws, from which it is clear their purpose is not to limit religion, but to protect the minority (even muslims) from the majority, not encode the mistreatment of those who disagree with us. (1)(2) In fact, religious freedom is expressly protected in the United States Constitution, in the what became the first amendment to the Constitution. (3). Pro argues that cannibalism not being legal is evidence of his proposition. I argue this is not the prohibition of or limiting of any religion. It is the banning of eating of human flesh. 2nd, Pro seems to assert that from this it logically follows that we must ban Islam. It does not. There is no basis for claiming any such conclusion from the premise Pro proposed. Pro’s argument does not hold, that Islam should be banned. 1. http://capitalism.org... 2. https://www.reference.com... 3. http://www.archives.gov...
ban islam

The title of the debate is "ban islam". Pro"s only argument, ostensibly defending a position that banning Islam is proper, consists of the following unsourced definition of muslims: "muslim =sleep walking coma patient having bad dreams of evil humans". Con argues that this is not a definition of muslim which can stand scrutiny. Muslim is defined as follows: Adjective: of or relating to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam. 2. Noun: an adherent of Islam. (1) A person whose religion is Islam : a follower of Islam (2) Noun: follower of the religion of Islam. Adjective: relating to the Muslims or their religion. (3) All three definitions above show a commonality of meaning. None of them include anything remotely resembling the definition provided by Pro. If Pro"s reason for banning Islam is based on this defective definition, it is not a reason at all for banning Islam. Con position: Islam Should Not Be Banned Banning the beliefs held by others is not only oppressive, but it is ineffective. There have been numerous beliefs which have been held by others to be either erroneous, offensive, or violent. No attempt to ban any belief has ever succeeded. Con also argues that Islam not only cannot be banned, but should be allowed. If a belief is held to be erroneous, there is much more success to be had in persuasion rather than coercion. Any success in using force to change beliefs is only superficial success, and often leads to bloodshed on both sides. Islam should not be banned. 1. . http://www.dictionary.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
is competer good

My opponent has failed to clarify his position on type of computer. Is he talking about a computer by itself without internet connection, or with? Is this about video game platforms? Who is WE? His argument for why we should have a computer is limited to "Yes we should have". My opponent fails to give ANY reason why computers are good (For who?) even though I am certain there MUST be some. For arguments against: Parents do not always find it easy to regulate what their children view upon computers, thus exposing them to influences that may be harmful or knowledge the may not yet be ready for such as Santa Clause, death, pornography, advanced philosophical questions, child predators. The existence of computer games means that children may spend time playing video games without learning any valuable life skills, social skills, or getting exercise. This also applies to adults. Computers are also open to viruses. People who are careless with their credit card information or personal lives may find it easy to be stolen. Some entire countries have believed that computers and the internet are dangerous enough to warrant closing its full access by the general public.
Casey Anthony DID kill her child

I know it probably seems odd to bring up such a topic, but a PEOPLE article recently mentioned how it had been roughly 10 years since the death of Caylee Anthony. I remember adamantly thinking around that time that Casey Anthony did kill her child. Since it has been 10 years, I figured I should look up the evidence that was presented during the case and see if I still had the same opinion. After rereading the case clearly, I still believe that she did it. I would like this first round for the opponent and me to present our opinions (strictly that for this round) about the case and how we felt about it and why we are for the side we chose. For the rest of the debate, I would prefer for it to be based on facts, but of course, a few opinions can be spurred throughout. I apologize for the long introduction, now on to my opinions. Another part of the reason why I wanted to start this debate was after reading this line in the PEOPLE article. "Additionally, Anthony said that she would not be "stupid" enough to have another child, and that she still sleeps well at night." It struck me as odd, because if she did not kill her child, then as a mother you think she would be somewhat concerned that there is still someone out in the world that killed her child at the mere age of 2. Especially considering she received a lot of backlash and blame with a majority of people who think she did it. I also remembered there being something about her saying that she did not realize Caylee was missing for nearly a month. How could someone not know that their own child went missing for a month? Considering Caylee was only 2 and around that age that would require a lot of care. Although at any age that still remains somewhat true, it is just a lot more around that age. I remember when she first started going to court and it was on the news every day and every morning. She started court as her normal self and then she started wearing glasses to appear different and appeal to the court. Although I am aware that that isn't always a personal choice and it is a choice sometimes by their attorney, but still. I will mention what she did lie about later in the "Facts" portion of this argument, but there were several things she lied about that were sort of trivial, and you begin to figure if she would lie about something like such, then why would she not lie about something like the death of her child, which would put her in prison for so many years. I feel that this is all I would like to mention for my opinions. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate, I would love to discuss this topic!
God is not an intelligent person

BoP is on pro to show:1. God exists2. God is a person3. God is an intelligent personPro has BoP because he is holding a positive assertion, since he's con on a negative proposition (-)(-)= +Intelligence: "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning,emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving."Person :": a human being"Human: "Modern humans (Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade, a branch of great apescharacterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; manual dexterity and increased tool use; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies."I'd also like to know what con means by godGood luck to Con :)http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.merriam-webster.com...