BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
you should not be on tv if your a woman and over 115 pounds unless your in a comedy

*Let it be known that Pro has yet to make a single factual claim in this entire argument, or back any statement up with facts of any type* What you are saying is not making any sense. The oral fellatio does not require a short person at all, as is normally committed with the giver on their knees or laying down. (I went ahead and fixed all the mistakes in your 'argument'.) Obviously most men are taller than 5;6, but the women need to be shorter for blow jobs. Women with abs are nasty. if your girl has better abs than you, there's a problem.They probably could beat me up, but at least I will have more sex and not be nasty.
you should not be on tv if your a woman and over 115 pounds unless your in a comedy

Actually, most men are taller than 5'6". I am unable to tell if you are taking this argument seriously, or are simply wasting both my time, and your time, as well as space on this website. It is more important to be healthy than to be thin. What about athletic women? Women who are competitive bodybuilders will weigh more than most people do. They are fit, healthy, and could probably "beat you up". SOURCE http://www.averageheight.co...
you should not be on tv if your a woman and over 115 pounds unless your in a comedy

There are many things wrong with that statement, even biologically speaking. Some people are taller than others, and may need to keep a body weight higher than 115 lbs just to be at a healthy weight. Not to mention the fact that, 115 lbs is fairly light. The average healthy height would be 5'4" to be 114 pounds with a light frame. That is excluding more than HALF of all women around the world, which would exclude even more celebrities. SOURCE: http://www.healthdiscovery.net...
islam is a violent religion

you make mere assertions without backing it up with scriptures. i gave plenty of scriptures. if we see repeated requests to "kill infidels" and such, that means it's a violent religion. it's like a wife beater... sometimes they may be nice, but all it takes is for them to be sometimes not be nice that makes them violent. and it's like a positive and a negative.... with both, the overall value is negative. what more could you want to establish that it's violent?
islam is a violent religion

this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." for some of the verses and the link to the above quothttp://www.thereligionofpeace.com... see the following link:
There should be more action taken in cases of "Swatting"

Pro's plan to gas all the insects in the world is clearly flawed. The food chains that these insects are a part of would most certainly suffer: birds would starve, certain plants would grow without predators, etc. . Pro's plan ignores this simple fact, that it would ruin almost every ecosystem. Thus, I am not only "another animal lover," I am one that campaigns to not destroy the ecosystems by killing off every insect on the face of the earth.
There should be more action taken in cases of "Swatting"

Seeing that Pro forfiets the debate to Con, I'd stop. But I am no ordinary debater, for I shall present a constructive to futher my case.When one swatts an insect, once is enough.Pro is calling for you not to stop at one swat, he thinks you ought to take further action. He thinks "swatting" is not enough, that you should pulverize the fly, incinerate him, perhaps. But is that nessesary? No. No it is not. In an interview with Guder Volchinez, a three-time gold medalist in fly swatting, 2 meters, stated:"Ven eye svat zee fly, eye use zee precision uf a tiger, but eye alveys make sure tu recognize one zing. Eye unly need to svat zee fly vunce, and unly vunce. Eif eye use mure zen one svat, et is unnesszary, and eye may get a foul fure unneszezary ruffnez (1)."(Note: this quotation has been translated to the best of our ability into english.) If you are to take anyone's word that swatting a fly once is enough to kill it, take the word of Guder Volchinez. Also, P. Ickle, PhD, has writen on the effects to a fly after one swat."It dies (2)."Seeing all the evidence before you, it is clear to see that it only takes one swat to kill a fly. No further action is needed to kill it.Pro?Sources:(1) www.gudervolchinez.gov/flyswatmedals(2) www.picklephd.org/flyswattingeffects
There should be more action taken in cases of "Swatting"

I accept. As nothing was defined in the resolution or in the first round, I will propose definitions.Defintions:1) Swatting: the intentional act of killing a fly, moth, or other small insect with a fly-swatter. 2) More: additional.3) Action: a specific act.4) Taken: a quite good movie starring Liam Neeson as Bruce Mills, a retired CIA agent. Also, it can be used as a synonym of "do."5) Cases: specific events.
If one is both homeless and unemployable, one should rob a bank.

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate. I will make this round no longer than it needs to be by providing some simple points, then drawing a conclusion from them. 1. Being homeless would suck compared to being rich. This is pretty obvious. Eating garbage vs. eating whatever you want. Freezing in winter vs. being comfortably warm. Using a cardboard box as a blanket vs. using a Hannah Montana bedspread... erm, I mean, a real manly bedspread with pictures of beer and stuff on it. And steaks. 2. If the robber is successful, he would be rich. Obvious, no need to expand. 3. If the robber is unsuccessful (i.e. gets caught), he will be imprisoned. People in prison live in luxury compared to the homeless. Three squares a day, a roof over their head, some gainful employment. They also use smokes as currency so the formerly-homeless would not feel too out of his/her element. CONCLUSION: If a person is homeless and unemployable, he/she should rob a bank. Whether they get caught or not, their standard of living can only improve. I'll leave it there for this round, I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Animal testing

The reason you do testing on animals is because they have the same organ structure so most of the time when you test it on animals it works and yes they might not work all the time on humans but that"s why they can get it right the first time. Well most results come up the exact same just have different affects on different people in my opinion it"s fine to do testing on animals it"s only been done on rats and smaller animals with the same type of organs and blood as humans.
Animal testing

The statistics from my previous statement came from Steve Perrin. He wrote multiple articles about animal testing. A direct quote from one of his article reads, "more than 80% of potential therapeutics fail when tested in people. " The link for the article can be found here. https://www. Nature. Com/news/preclinical-research-make-mouse-studies-work-1. 14913 He follows this stating that, "The series of clinical trials for a potential therapy can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. " The article clearly shows that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on research when only 20% of that research can be used. 80% of those funds are simply washed away and wasted because rats are not humans. Who thought it would be a good idea to test on animals in order to get results on humans? Rats and humans are two completely different creatures. If you wanted to get results for humans, Test on humans. It is that simple.
Animal testing

For a start I would like I you to find the statistics for the first point that you made since most of the trials that get tested don"t work since they haven"t found the proper drug to work and would not be a large waste of money since if they end up finding a cure to cancer I don"t think testing on an animal would be as bad. Yes I understand that you can choose your death on death row and they have a choice on what they want done, But if we are looking at Australia you won"t be able to find anyone to kill or who will be willing to take it because we have lots of research labs in Australia but the only thing we can test it on is animals. But if the scientists gave the disease to an death row inmate then they would have to choose it they might not want to do it, Because as you said they have the right to choose what they want to get done.
Animal testing

It is not a small amount of people it did not work on, The tests done on rats and other animals failed to work on humans over 80% of the time. That means over 80% of research is wasted and the whole process starts again. Because of this, A large amount of money is also wasted because the research was completely useless. As for finding people to test on. Death row inmates can choose either the death penalty, Or human experimentation. They will be given a short explanation as to how the experiment can benefit society. Either way, They will die. However this system allows for the science industry to move forward significantly as they are able to test products a lot more accurately. When you stated that the reason they do not test on humans is because the human may not have the disease, The same goes for rats. The scientist gives the rat the disease, Then proceeds to perform experiments on that rat. For humans, The scientist would give the death row inmate the disease in order to start the experiment. Neither the rat or the human needs to already have the disease in order to begin an experiment. This new procedure may cost more, But the benefit of more accurate results would benefit society dramatically.
Animal testing

Well for a start yes it might not relate to humans and because it worked on as per say rats and not on humans it would only be a small amount of people that it didn"t work and it"s only been a small handful that it hasn"t worked. Most animals they do testing on are rats and smaller animals which there organs and stuff work the same as us humans so most of the time when they want to do testing they do it on smaller animals which will work when they release it but they don"t release it after one test they do multiple test for months and months. With the fact you should test it on humans, The reason they don"t do it on humans because a person has to be willing to give it to them and people in the prison on death row might not have the current disease that they need for testing which if it"s import like cancer you want to make it quick to find a cure to that more people don"t die. If you have people on death row is takes years sometimes till they get killed so if they finally find a cure they won"t be able to test if it the guy doesn"t have cancer so it defeats the purpose. Therefore if they test if on rats and smaller animals they can see if it might work, Not to say it will it might then people who get the drug will have to sign a agreement saying there could be side effects during the testing and you could die but that"s where the animals come in so they at least know that yes in some cases it might not be safe but they can test it fries for months to make sure that should not cause any harm.
Animal testing

Animal testing has proven to be uneffective and a complete waste of taxpayers money. Most of the time, The test performed on rats and other animals did not relate to human trials at all. In one dramatic case, A test worked perfectly on animals and was authorised for human testing. That test ended up with all of those people in hospital with emergency treatment. I propose an alternative. Instead of testing on animals, Test on humans. If you want a product that works on humans, Test a product on humans. The more dangerous products will be tested on death row inmates. If the product works, Then that is a big leap forward for that product being distributed. If it failed, Then nothing of high value was lost since that person was going to die anyway.
South Korea and North Korea should reunite within the next 5 years.

Resolved: South Korea and North Korea should reunite within the next 5 years. I will be on the Negation of the resolution; contender will be on the Affirmation. I will try to convince that advocating for the resolution is, on balance, a bad idea. The Affirmation (contender) will, on the other hand, convince the voters that advocating for the resolution is, on balance, a good idea (excuse my simpleton language). Format of the debate: Round I. Introductions (no case; simply say, I accept the challenge) Round II. Case Round III. Rebuttals Round IV. Rebuttals/Summary/Voting Issues Definitions: "Reunite" - To come together again (Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary) In this debate, it will mean, for S.K. and N.K. to have a unification process, in which they unify their territories, government, citizens, etc. Let us not focus too much on the semantics, if possible. Good luck to the contender!
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

Since Abob has forfeited the round, I will not make any further arguments. I would like to say though that through further research I have found areas of this country where there is just enough voter fraud that could be stopped by voter ID laws to warrant discussing the possibility of these laws being enacted. Overall though, this country (minus a few counties) does not need voter ID laws, 1.11 percent of true Americans do not have the ID. Many Americans already have so much voter apathy that any hassle might cause them not to vote. That being said it is immoral to create a law, knowing that it is going to make people not want to vote. 2.Why is it a partisan issue? It is being pushed by Republicans because out of the 11 percent of Americans that do not have the ID, most of them are young, poor, homeless, unemployed or living in cities, the base of the Democrats vote. 3.Why are we attacking this? In a country where we have partisan districting, purposefully confusing ballots, disenfranchisement of the voters and lack of voter turnout, why are we pushing a policy that will decrease voter turnout and increase disenfranchisement? If these people really want to make the vote more legitimate, why aren"t they also speaking on these other problems? Why aren"t they trying to come up with a solution to voter apathy, perhaps the thing most detrimental to the vote? By the way, I thought this was funny. I typed in "voting problems in America" in google and its third suggestion was "voting problems in America Idol". What the heck America. Vote for LordGrae
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

A birth certificate is technically not enough to prove citizenship for an election. It needs to be a semi-recently updated photo ID, which not everyone has.Polling places know if your a citizen or not. You just need to prove who you are. Forged IDs of non-voters are easy to get. If someone wants to vote illegally they will. I said that the poor who may not have jobs that give the ID's that can be used for voting and the young who may not have jobs or colleges that issue the ID's because not all colleges issue the ID's and most college jobs aren't full time and won't provide it. By solving a virtually non-existent problem you are creating a hassle to the voting process causing voter apathy, which destroys the vote much more than fraud. You repeatedly claim that even if voter fraud that can be stopped by voter ID laws are non-existent, than why not have the laws? I will address several claims made by you and many other people. (not all you)1. Even if it is not a serious problem, if someones a citizen then they have nothing to hide. For those that are unemployed or do not receive a legitimate ID regularly it can be a large hassle to get the ID needed. A common refutation of this is that a right isn't a privilege. I would argue that you are creating voter apathy. Voter apathy is the main reason why people don't vote. Imagine you are a voter. (not sure your age) You hate both candidates, but agree with one just a little more than the other. You prefer one over the other just enough to go out and vote. Any small hassle would make it not worth it to go out and vote. I have described most of the non-voting population and the close to non-voting population. Whether or not it is a privilege or a right by inserting a law that would knowingly cause many people to stop voting all together is an awful way to stop the minor incidences of voter fraud that could be stopped by this. 2. It might become a serious problem later, why not attack it now? I want you to ask this question to yourself. Why now? Why during an era where the democrats are fast gaining power are the republicans pushing these laws. You yourself have admitted it might not stop most of our small amount of fraud. Who are the people who are most likely to be stopped at their polling place for lack of an ID. It is the young and the poor, the core of democrats base support. 11% of voters do not have the ID already, most democrats or left leaning. WHY IS THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE IF IT IS A SIMPLE CASE OF SECULAR RIGHT AND WRONG?! I WANT TO KNOW!3. Even if it isn't a big problem it de legitimizes the vote. Purposefully creating voter apathy is a bigger problem and a side affect of these laws. We would lose about 3% (this is low-balling) of the voting population if we enact these laws. That de legitimizes the vote much more. Redistricting and propaganda destroy the vote much more than illegal voters that could be stopped by these laws. So why don't those who push ID laws push non-partisan districting?
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

The point you drew from the time article is a completely different issue. The residence of college students is a grey area. The student's story you are citing as an example is irrelevant to this debate. She was not allowed to vote b/c she didn't have an ID that said she resided in that area, NOT because she couldn't show she was a citizen. Residency has always been checked in polling places. But I thank you for pointing out all of the other forms of identification she brought along. A birth certificate would have proven she was a citizen if that had been a requirement. It is not that difficult to get a proof of citizenship. You can show, a birth certificate (if you were born in the US), a passport (or even just a passport card which is cheaper), or a certificate of naturalization that you get when you become a naturalized citizen. Every citizen is capable of getting proof if they hadn't already received one of the above already. Naturalized citizens regardless of economic status have to be given some sort of documentation when they become citizens. So how is asking for proof of citizenship, which they were handed when they became citizens, barring voters? Why do democrats as you claim, have a hard time getting proof of citizenship? You also haven't addressed why it is illogical or bad to say "You need to be a citizen to vote, so prove you are a citizen". "You need to be 21 to buy alcohol, so prove you're 21" is ok. You say alcohol and guns have the POTENTIAL to cause harm so ID is ok. The thing about democracy is, voting has an effect, and if non citizens skew the vote, it also has the POTENTIAL to be harmful. Just because non-citizen voting is small now doesn't mean it will stay that way. Can you absolutely guarantee that voting by non citizens will not be an issue, 10,20, or 30 years from now? Regardless of how small, we know it happens, so why not stop it? You also keep bringing up other issues that are irrelevant. Just because redistricting is a problem does not mean we shouldn't check voter citizenship. The two have nothing to do with each other. Other issues do exist and need to be dealt with, but they are not relevant to this debate.
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

http://www.time.com... - this is why voter ID laws are bad. Legal citizens who have residencies and polling places cannot vote because their college ID, birth certificate and drivers licenses are not proof enough. I have a question. Why, if voter fraud that can be stopped by ID's, is enough of a problem that it effects national, state, or township elections and delegitimizes the vote is this a partisan issue? I will tell you why Republicans push this and democrats do not. It is because the legitimate voters that this causes a hurdle for or those whom it stops completely are almost all democrat. The young, the intercity poor and the old retired who may have trouble getting the right ID become disenfranchised and won't make their voices heard because they can't be "trusted". In fact, in PA alone, since voter ID laws came in to place voting , which had been moving steadily up, slowed. More people were barred from voting then all the voter fraud in the state for 10 years earlier until now. You say that you are protecting voting when your causing less people to vote. My parents are democrats who live in a republican area after redistricting. For many elections their vote counts for nothing because the republicans always win. We need to be looking at the other ways we are destroying the vote, not the negligible amount of fraud. To answer your question I refer to my previous statement that most of the voter fraud is not done by non-citizens or done in a way that allows for requiring ID. Basically when you move to an area or reach 18 your polling place will contact you and set up your account using government records to identify you as a citizen. If every person eligible in this country voted instead of barring young and poor than fraud would be impossible. By making it harder for people to vote you are making fraud more effective by giving those who commit large scale fraud in ways that do not require ID (electronics rigging, absentee voter impersonation) more potential votes to use. By the way, firearms, alcohol and driving can kill other people. Voter fraud has never effected a major election or even on a county level. Why bar legitimate voters to stop the 10 people casting 1 illegal vote each when the votes of those barred is much greater than fraud that can be stopped by ID laws. You say that it is harmful enough to the people that blocking thousands of voters is important enough to catch them. I say, then why is this an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans and not something agreed upon. I would suggest that republicans are trying to block the Democrats voting base. Is it a coincidence that the legitimate voters barred from voting the most are the young and the poor? Sorry if I made spelling, grammar, punctuation errors or my sources didn't get on. I'm trying to type from an iPod touch, which is difficult.