BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hate Crimes Enhancements in the United States are unjustified.

To justify a hate crime enhancement, you would have to justify that someone should be punished more severly because of their own beliefs. And for this reason, Hate Crime Enhancements are Unjust in the United States. Point 1. Constitutional Right. It is clearly written in the first amendment that you have the right to free speech and such. In this amendment, it is understood that you have the right to hate someone, and there is nothing unjust about hate. If someone were to commit a crime simply because of the victim's racial background or something else deserving being tagged as a hate crime, they should not be punished more, simply because they do not like that person. My opponent may say that you ARE in fact, allowed to hate people, but you may not act upon this hatred. However, what would make this hatred any different from the hatred of someone who commits a crime for a reason not considered a hate crime? The plain fact is, crime is crime, and hate is hate. You cannot punish someone for what they themselves think. Punish them for the crime? Sure. But not because they hate. Point 2. Unjust Punishment. To be punished for murder, is understandable. To be punished for your hatred, is not. [as i previously explained]. Unfortunately, there have been cases in which two separate people committed the EXACT SAME crime, however, for different reasons. In court, these people were charged differently, although the same crime was committed. One of the accused was given 3 more years in jail than the other. The reason for this? Because he had committed the crime in hatred towards a specific race. Now...if justice is truly meant to punish people for their misdeeds, why were these two exact same crimes dealt with differently? The harsh reality is that just because one of these men thought differently than the other, he was charge more severly. If this truly is the land of the free, should we not be free to express our own opinions? By no means am I advocating that murder is acceptable, however, murder is murder. No matter why you did it, the crime itself is unchanged, and should be dealt with accordingly. Justly.
social media does more harm than good

do u know the problem with my opponent ...he just does not know to debate..he just puts one liners in between my arguments ....he first of all cannot accept defeat so whatever i mention he just posts some stupid comment..plus he does not know the difference between good joke and bad joke and overall he is a bad debater..i think he is suffering from dylexia so he has no idea on what i say..i feel sorry for him..and i request him to get out of this website if he wants to prevent futher humlition from me and others..
social media does more harm than good

'my ooppent told that because of social media people are gettng additcde and stuff..i totallly disagree..addiction is not out there it is in your brain..u need to be controlled becase additction is the state of mind and never about the thing outside so u cant blame social media for u getting addicted...'Ya i agree, the only good arguement you have in this debate. No offense.'if hacking is as prevalent as my oppent says then it also highly possible that there are 10000 people trying to hack your account..just imagine a couple of years back when bamks came into existence people did not believe in the person who would keep their money safe...but now one is considered a fool if he or she doesnt deposit their money in bamk..same thing appiles for social madia.'That is just a bad arguement because you don't have proof that 10000 people are trying to hack my account.'my opppent told that social media makes people bad..when our heart can classify between oxygenated blood and deoxygenated blood then why cant our brain classify between good and bad information.....'Ya, i have no idea what you just said there. 'my oppoent also mentioned about cyber bullying..my oppent talked as if bullying happens only in social media and not in school..does he mean that school does more harm than good and schooling should be banned????????????a square has 4 points a triangle has 3 points and this debate has 2 sides but seeing at my oppents points i feel like commmiting suicide'This is just a bad joke thus i conclude sying that social media does more good than harm'You haven't made any convincing arguements to prove it, so no.
social media does more harm than good

my ooppent told that because of social media people are gettng additcde and stuff..i totallly disagree..addiction is not out there it is in your brain..u need to be controlled becase additction is the state of mind and never about the thing outside so u cant blame social media for u getting addicted... if hacking is as prevalent as my oppent says then it also highly possible that there are 10000 people trying to hack your account..just imagine a couple of years back when bamks came into existence people did not believe in the person who would keep their money safe...but now one is considered a fool if he or she doesnt deposit their money in bamk..same thing appiles for social madia. my opppent told that social media makes people bad..when our heart can classify between oxygenated blood and deoxygenated blood then why cant our brain classify between good and bad information..... my oppoent also mentioned about cyber bullying..my oppent talked as if bullying happens only in social media and not in school..does he mean that school does more harm than good and schooling should be banned???????????? a square has 4 points a triangle has 3 points and this debate has 2 sides but seeing at my oppents points i feel like commmiting suicide thus i conclude sying that social media does more good than harm
social media does more harm than good

Does Social Media Cause More Harm Than Good ?Students Who Spend More Time On Social Media Tend to Score Lower GPA: - In recent studies, students who spend more time on social media tend to score 20% lower on tests than students who don't. Thus meaning that social media distracts students from studying and gaining a proper education. - Students also have a lower gpa, often scoring 3.06 compared to those who don't watch social media (3.82). SOCIAL MEDIA = 0.76 DECREASE IN GPA SCORESOCIAL MEDIA EXPOSES KIDS TO GORE, SEX, AND VIOLENCE TO MINORS:Social media is not censored, thus causes kids under the age of 13 to watch uncensored material, such as XXX movies, porn, violence, etc.SOCIAL MEDIA INCREASES CRIME SUCH AS:-PIRATING MOVIES, VIDEO GAMES-HACKING-CYBER BULLYING-VIRUESES THAT ATTACK YOUR BANK ACCOUNT-PHISHINGSOCIAL MEDIA CAUSES LOST FAMILY BONDING:Students lose family bonding according to a study 2011- 2013. Which students spend less time with their famiy and more on social media. It increased by 32%
media should be allowed to photoshop bodies

I'm gonna' save myself the trouble of putting too much thought into this one until, when and if it's even ever needed for me to use more than 1% of my brain capacity here, which I doubt... But I'd love to be surprised. Anyhow... I guess I'll just say... No, hurdur. Media should not be allowed to Photoshop bodies and/or images. It psychologically damages the masses and destroys 11-year old girls self-esteem. IF they do use Photoshop, as I am not arguing the merits of whether or not Photoshop is useful when used correctly and responsibly, but IF the media uses it then for instance... A Photoshopped, Rihanna; on the cover of some teen magazine; it should clearly state that it has been Photoshopped otherwise it's a lie and we're sinking into a debate regarding truth in media and if bodies and images are Photoshopped, put so simply as in your debate title; so I would understand; are the current practices that you're referring to, then no, not unless they are honest about it or the venue specifically calls for it. Such as the movie cover for a new super-hero flick coming to a theater near you and then obviously, common sense would go to say it's not real and obviously is photoshopped or has made use of other affects. At least anyone with half a brain should be able to decipher that one. The media in which you are referring to; otherwise common sense would dictate there would be no debate to begin with if it wasn't; Then no, absolutely not. That is all.
media should be allowed to photoshop bodies

My debate is "should the media be ALLOWED to Photoshop bodies" not if they should the constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or OF THE PRESS" Also i see plenty of photo-shopped men in magazines, i don't set those people as my standard. It is THEIR company, so they have the rights to do whatever they want to do with it. Also kids and teens should be taught from a young age that magazines and reality TV are NOT REAL Also who the hell looks up to people in magazines?? i don't, my family doesn't, and my 10 year old step sister doesn't... And realistically we CAN'T tell companies what to do, they wont listen because we CANNOT force them to stop.
Best In Ring Pro Wrestler of All Time

Thank you for posting your next argument. Your whole argument is based off of what you yourself think. In a debate, you can not say that you think something is true, therefore it is. There are many other wrestlers on that list such as Buddy Rogers, the Rock, Andrï¿½ the Giant… you had the burden of proof to prove that Misawa was the best. You failed to do so. You listed no sources but a youtube video. You could have proven it if you showed an official list that had Misawa as #1. It is funny that you claim he is the best, but he has never had a book written about him. Hulk Hogan has had many books. Hogan has also won twelve Major Titles. He was the PWI Wrestler of the Year in 1987, 1991, 1994. Audience, my opponent has failed to provide any proof. His whole argument is based on his opinion. Please vote Con. By the way… Avatar beat Titanic in the money making.
Best In Ring Pro Wrestler of All Time

Sorry, I was busy and could not type for Round two. However, I am ready to post now, as you can see. So, you said that I got something out of a book? How could that be possible when there is no book on Misawa. I simply have watched him over the years, and observed is work of art in the ring. He simply knew everything in the ring, to the point where you can't teach it, it's just natural instinct. His storytelling was flawless also. Everything he did had a purpose behind it, which is typically missing in wrestling. He was born to wrestle and he was born to be loved because he really knew how to get people to love him. He was innovative and the best in ring performer of all time. http://www.youtube.com... Please watch that match just to get an example of how awesome this guy is if you never have seen him. Now, on to your point you made. You said that Hogan is the best in ring Pro Wrestler of all time because some list told you that? Okay, Hogan might have made the most money, but doesn't mean he was the best in ring Pro Wrestler. That would be like saying Titanic is the best movie ever because it made the most money, and The Godfather pales in comparison. Hogan might have made tons of money-- but it does not make him the best wrestler of all time, in the ring. I usually defend Hogan because most people say he was flat out terrible in the ring; however, I do not think that-- I think he was decent when he got to show it off (like in Japan). But with that being said, he is far from a wrestling that is even close to Misawa. Hogan's style was very 101, he did not sell moves that well, he told the same story in the ring almost every time, which got repetitive at times, and, unlike Misawa, he couldn't work with any size or different styled person-- only a very slim percentage could work something watchable with Hogan. There has been 22 five star matches, according to Dave Meltzer. Hogan's best match ever watch *** 3/4. I know that Meltzer is just a guy and opinions are subjective, but no matter how much opinions tweak, that is a pretty big substantial difference between the two.
Best In Ring Pro Wrestler of All Time

Thank you for starting this debate. It would seem that you simply took a story out of a book and put it into this debate. You say that Misawa he best Wrestler of All Time. This is wrong. On the list of best the Wrestler of All Time Hulk Hogan is listed as number one. Your resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent again for this debate. Sources: (1). http://listverse.com...
Best In Ring Pro Wrestler of All Time

Misawa's story-telling was unbelievable to the point whereas it was not teachable; it was just instinct. He knew just out of thought how to process a match-- and make it look real as possible with excellent drama and emotion built in it. When it comes down to psychology, believability, story-telling, drama and a great mind of knowing where to do a move, and knowing when a move doesn't fit the elements of the story-- Misawa was above the rest.
Philosophy is of greater value than science to students.

I'll use three points. 1. Versatility: Philosophy opens gates to many fields instead of a select few ( https://philosophy.as.uky.edu... ) and many of those fields are very profitable. 2. Applicability: Philosophy is simply universally applicable ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., http://www.scu.edu..., http://philosophy.uncc.edu...) as shown with it's versatility (above as well). From the third source: "Another, more professional reason why you should all study philosophy is that it provides perfect preparation for the entrance exams required for law, medicine, business, computer science, or engineering schools, or graduate school in the humanities. Proof of this is that philosophy majors perform among the top 10, often top 5, on most of the exams such as LSAT, MCAT, GRE and the like. So you don't have to become a doctor of philosophy (a Ph.D) but you can become an ethical lawyer, or an engineer or computer scientist who has better understanding of the world. The combinations are limited only by your imagination." The Art of Thinking is beyond a doubt one of the strongest skills there is. 3. Practicality: "What makes philosophy different? It can seem self-absorbed; philosophers themselves joke about Arthur Koestler's definition: "the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose." But it also is a tool (like history and religious studies) for thinking about everything else, and every profession from law and medicine to motorcycle maintenance. It's also one of the most competitive disciplines. When I was a science editor I sometimes saw readers' reports on colleagues' philosophy manuscripts. There were often pages and pages of challenges to the authors' arguments, concluding with a recommendation to publish anyway. This could be confusing to faculty editorial boards that approved or rejected books. It had to be explained to them that philosophers honor each other by disagreeing with each other. The number of objections could be a sign of the importance of the arguments. From such experiences I learned the difference between the merely wrong, and the valuable wrong." ( http://www.theatlantic.com... ) Philosophy is not just the art of sitting in a circle and making things up. Philosophy is Life. Philosophy is what grants many meanings to many things, from Ethics to Law, from Medicine to Business Magnate, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in philosophy is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very specific and ever shrinking instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can only take one route when they take on a science, for instance biological sciences will not yield aerodynamic results however philosophy can take you down many, many roads as cited above.
Gay Marriage

I am not exactly for gay marriage but for civil union. In our history, marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. I do not think it is a "sin" to be gay and I do not think you will go to hell. My opinion is just for civil unions because if we all of a sudden allow this to happen, I believe it will cause a lot of controversy and that is the last thing we all need right now. With civil unions, it is a gay marriage basically. You get laws and rules and there are some minor differences but gay marriage is a big step not just for the U.S but for everywhere. Do not get me wrong I love the gays, they are people just like you and me. However, I think civil unions is what is best for "right now". The future could change that, and I hope it does, but right now we just have to be patient.
Gay Marriage

I believe that Gay marriage is completely okay. It is a way of two people who really love each other to show there commitment for each other. It means something to them. There is no reason for it to not be legal in the whole country. All they want is to be treated as equals not be looked at as outcasts. They did nothing to be treated badly. You don't have to be completely comfortable to allow it. They aren't hurting anyone so why are they being treated like it. Just because its different doesn't mean its wrong. You can have whatever religion that you want and its not illegal.
There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

Same Sex Marriage - A marital union of two people of the same sex, recognized by federal and state laws. I argue there is at least one good/ok argument against same sex marriage, my opponent mainly goes on a refutation spree. BOP is for me to show and prove at least one good argument, my opponent must refute it (or them for plural). 1st round acceptance, no trolling, and begin!!
The U.S. should not invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur

There are the arguments my opponent is proposing: 1. Similar to Iraq disaster 2. Invading would create instability in Darfur 3. The US doesn't have jurisdiction over Darfur 4. It would cost a lot of money to the US 5. The world won't like us 1. These are two completely different conflicts. We can win in Darfur because we have no enemy except instability and people who are massacring innocent people. No matter what, we will leave Darfur better than when we enter. It will create world awareness, and more counties would get involved. The US military has the capacity to control the situation and save thousands of lives. 2. There is no way instability would result in Darfur more so than there is now. 3. The US set a precedent to intervene in large violations of human rights when we helped institute the declaration of human rights in the UN charter. Also, the US has troops in 83 countries at the moment. So, I'm pretty sure that we have jurisdiction to stop genocide if we already have troops in half of the world's countries. 4. it will gain the United States world respect which will increase the power of the dollar which could do more than putting a little bit of money into Darfur. At least we will be then spending our money on important things instead of earmarking, large subsidies in unneeded industries, or meaningless bureaucracies. 5. We will gain only more international respect for standing for something. Everyone in the world sort of knows what is going on. They will follow us or applaud us. Now that I have proved my opponents arguments wrong, let me, for the fun of it, elaborate to convince further. After the Rwanda incidents, we all bitched that we should have done something. NOW, we have a chance to stop genocide. Let's invade to stop it. I truly believe that there are numerous things that we need to fix about America. HOWEVER, we can't use those as excuses to stop doing what is right and moral. If we are truly a moral nation, then lets do something about it. The concern i have is if we are spending our troops to thin. however, this can be remedied by getting out of iraq within the next couple of years or by simply devoting more money to troops to give more incentives. Money, to me, is not a problem. When the US people see that the US is doing something noble and good, then they will respond positively
The U.S. should not invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur

While I am currently undecided as to whether the U.S. should send aid to the people being killed in Darfur, I am adamantly opposed to a U.S. invasion to stop the genocide. I believe that an invasion would result in a disaster similar to Iraq, with the invasion of a foreign military causing more chaos and instability in the region. I do not think it is the U.S.'s place or business to forcibly rectify the conflict, because it is a region and culture that we do not understand or have jurisdiction over. The invasion would be a costly weight on the taxpayers and would be another interventionalist war that does more to generate anti-American sentiment around the world.
Comebacks

"u think ur so smart well guess what u just got invited to a all smart people award ceremony. And guess who gets the OVER all smart people award ME!!!!!!!!!!!!" U should be you... Ur should be you're... There should be a question mark after smart, and/or Guess what... U should be you... A should be an... Award should have some sort of punctuation behind it... Is that the name of your award? Seriously? I'm reluctant to make a comeback because it's not like her insult was actually good. She doesn't seem to know how to use a comma, and her caps lock key is probably very broken. I'm guessing she was dropped by her parents constantly as a child. (On purpose)... Thank You.
Comebacks

Pro, thanks for making this so easy for me. (Aw snap ;) "ok so u don't have a pic of ur self on here because 1.) ur ugly 2.) ur just butt ugly" The problem with this contention is that it's simply not true. I don't really care what my profile picture is. I also wouldn't waste any effort trying to impress her. Because Pro didn't realize this, she shall now be declared a halfwit. So now we know her argument sucks. (LOL, Just like her mo- *Censored by the only rule*) Whenever you take tests, the teachers can't hand it back to you because you always spell your name incorrectly. Thank You.
My national healthcare is best for America

Since Pro has phrased the topic as a resolution and did not specify a shared burden of proof, I will take it that Pro has assumed the burden of proof.By "Obamacare," I will assume Pro means the Affordable Care Act. I am a bit confused by Pro's use of the possessive, as it is highly unlikely that President Obama is actually participating on DDO; I will assume that Pro means "my" in the sense of "the legislation that I endorse." By "best," I construe Pro to mean that there is no potiential health care legislation that has been or could be passed that is better than the ACA.Over to Pro to make his argument.