BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES!!!!! (Oh yes I did)

I must concede that having one testicle does appear to be better if you're a pantyhose-wearing, pony-rider who gets into catfights with other girls and needs to visit a support group to let your Cub Scout tears flow while you wave a fist angrily at the ceiling, shouting "Why, God? Why have you cursed me to this life of being not quite a woman, but not quite a man either? "Here are my reasons for why having an inhumanely large sack of testosterone is better:1. Better to have too many than too fewSo, big guy, find yourself in a pickle for having an odd number of gonads? If that number happens to be three, then fear not! It's a snap to snip away any unwanted testis so you can finally join the parties of normal, two-testicled men and women (adjectives not meant to also modify "women"). Oh, what's that? You only have one? Well, then don't cancel your appointment to that support group for virgins because you'd be hard-pressed to find a willing genitalia donor. Yeah, good luck with that, champ. Point is, you can always go from three to two if you want, but you can't go from one to two (at least not as easily).2. Spermatozoa Count (hey, I learned a new word! )That's right, as my opponent said, testis have the monopoly on sperm production, which means having three of these bad boys will effectively transform your tra-la-la into a shotgun of pure ecstasy. This is better in multiple (and manly) ways:1. Higher chance of sexWomen from all around the world (and even some men) will fly first-class Delta to your front door to experience your cojones' irresistible power. As Confucius once said, "In the world of two-testicled men, the three-testicled man is a real baller. "2. Higher chance of pregnancyAlright, now you've decided your raving gigolo days are over and want to settle down and start a family. Being divinely blessed with three testicles is undoubtedly better as it produces and allows for many more of God's wonderful creations to swim determinedly to the egg cell at the finish line and instantly create a brand-new smiling baby! With only one measly testicle, God will look upon your pathetic swag futilely attempting to procreate and frown disapprovingly (and then probably put a curse on your crops or something).3. Higher chance of wet dreamsEven if you're not sexually active, having a surplus of eager-to-be-free sperm can cause wet dreams, those fantastic sensations of spontaneous orgasms during sleep. We can only assume that single-testid men dream about being alone and unable to even sexually woo his own hand long enough to masturbate. In conclusion, like Musketeers and matching lotto tickets, having three testicles is simply better than having only one. I will save my refutations for the next round, so the ball's in your court now, imabench (cheesy pun very much intended).
HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES!!!!! (Oh yes I did)

Reasons why having one testicle is better than having three testicles 1) More space in your underwear If you have one testicle, then all of your underwear would probably become a little more spacious and comfortable. Having three testicles though and its gonna get crowded down there 2) Easier to ride a horse. Riding a horse without a saddle is very painful to men, mostly because you have a 300 pound horse and a 140 pound you mash your own nuts between these to over and over..... With one testicle angled the right direction horseback riding can become a lot more comfortable..... With three testicles though you will feel like you are getting kicked in the nuts every time the horse gallops. 3) Smaller target Lets say you really annoy a woman, whether it be accidentally or on purpose. The number one tool women use to mess with men besides playing mind games is a good old fashioned foot to the nuts... Now if you have only one testicle then the target she has to put you in serious pain just got quite a bit smaller and quite a bit easier to defend against. With three balls though the target you have is only going to get LARGER which increases your chance of you ending up on the floor in pain probably coughing up blood.... 4) Its easier to explain to women Lets say your about to go reproduce with a woman, but when your in your natural form she notices something is a little wrong south of the border..... With one testicle you could argue that you had to get it removed because of testicular cancer or you lost in it an accident (there was an episode of scrubs where turk had one of his testicles removed because his son kicked it very hard) Both of these do happen and it could still be overcome and result in the rest of the night ending in reproduction.......... With THREE testicles though its a little harder to explain to a girl since the only way you can get a third ball is if something is very wrong with you or if something happened causing one ball to divide into two smaller mutant balls left with one normal sized ball along with the sha-bang-a-bang (penis) on top of that. Point is its a lot easier to explain to a girl why you have one testicle instead of three, and its also more likely to get over it and get back on track with one testicle than with three.... 5) Support groups There are more support groups for men who have lost 1 ball or only have 1 ball then there are about men who have 3 balls. So if you are under stress about your situation below the border, there are more people out there willing to help you if you have 1 testicle than if you had 3 https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... 75,400,000 results for support groups for men with 1 ball 54,100,000 results for support groups for men with 3 balls
HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES!!!!! (Oh yes I did)

I accept and will be arguing that, contrary to my opponent's beliefs, it is better to be a non-stop machine of sexual vigor than what can only be described as half a man. It's on like Donkey Kong, et al.(Also, while I appreciate the rule at the end, I would prefer there to be no nude pictures of men with two testicles either.)
HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES!!!!! (Oh yes I did)

YOU READ THE TITLE RIGHT PEOPLE! !! !! ! I AM HERE TO ARGUE THAT HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES! !! !! !! The Pro (me) is arguing that one testicle is better,The Con (con) is arguing that having three testicles is better.
Crimea has a right to secede from Ukraine

Why the referendum is not legitimate==========================Russia is swaying voters----------------------------1. Currently, Crimeans are not allowed to view Ukrainian media. This is an obvious attempt to sway voters, which only emphasizes the importance of international supervision in the upcoming referendum.2. If you have not been updated on current events, Russia has assembled a huge invasion force outside Crimea. Is it unreasonable to assume voters may be swayed by this scare tactic? That's not even all. They've likewise, been doing miliitary exercises off the coast of poland and lithuania. The two most vocal about the Crimean Crisis.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.foxnews.com...Rebuttals While the vote may violate international law, the revolution which deposed a legitimately elected government was like wise illegal. It was hardly a revolution. They were mass protests, and then the president starting cracking down on them. This is a crime against humanity, and that's why the parliament ousted him.https://www.kyivpost.com... Besides this, the international community has no stake in their issue, no skin in the game as the saying goes. I believe they do. The countries have formed these laws not without reason. They were to ensure peace and stability, and to keep security within the community. Seccessions ussualy lead to death, and that is probably whats going to happen if Crimea joins Russia. If they want to secede, they have to go through legal channels.http://www.theguardian.com...The process for deciding its secession is being handled democratically, but above that the Government of Ukraine whichto which Crimea was a part- has been Deposed. The Elected government is in Exile and so It is hard pressing say to the people in Crimea 'No, you must remain in Ukraine- Even though the rest of the country has over thrown the elected government... even though the new Government is controlled by radical right wing Nationalists, You cannot secede until there is blood in the streets'. This is the case international community brings to the table.Once again, when a government starts killing protestors, then that is when the people have a right to dispose them. The parliament democratically impeached him.http://www.aljazeera.com...
Crimea has a right to secede from Ukraine

While the vote may violate international law, the revolution which deposed a legitimately elected government was like wise illegal. Besides this, the international community has no stake in their issue, no skin in the game as the saying goes. To hand the keys over making this decision over to an "international community" is to give the decision to making to people who are generally not knowledgeable about the specific situation, the issues the people in Crimea face. International law may deem it Illegal but the International community has no standing to act against the people of Crimea for making a decision to leave the Ukraine. Nor are they honestly qualified to make these judgments about Crimea. The process for deciding its secession is being handled democratically, but above that the Government of Ukraine which to which Crimea was a part- has been Deposed. The Elected government is in Exile and so It is hard pressing say to the people in Crimea 'No, you must remain in Ukraine- Even though the rest of the country has over thrown the elected government... even though the new Government is controlled by radical right wing Nationalists, You cannot secede until there is blood in the streets'. This is the case international community brings to the table. Further, it is a folly that West is focusing its attention on Russia. Crimea is the one having the vote. Does the hypocrisy of supposedly democratic nations disregarding democratic processes really not make its own point? http://www.mcclatchydc.com... <- Article Outlines the nature of the vote, as well as touching on the relationship Crimea has with both Ukraine and Russia. The Right Sector speaks: http://mag.newsweek.com... Alternate source: http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.globalresearch.ca... And with this, despite there being quite a bit more resources to support a Dangerous Neo Nazi control of the Ukrainian revolution. The White house and west continues to deny what is obvious. That an Illegal and dangerous coup was mounted by a Dangerous neo Nazi sect successfully deposed a elected government and now controls Kiev. Thank you for the Debate Jifpop09 and look forward to having more of them with you.
Crimea has a right to secede from Ukraine

Argument 1: People can only Secede when the nation is causing active harm---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- International Law allows nations to Secede, only when the government is causing active harm to the population, or they are being oppressed politically. Currently, Crimean citizens have all the rights that Ukranians do, you could even argue a little more. They can participate in active government, and from what I know, the government is not suppressing ethnic Russians. Which makes seccesion illegal by international law.http://www.sbs.com.au...Argument 2: Secession has to be through the International Community --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In responce to your rebuttal (Never seen anyone use me as a source :), Arkansaw can't just secede. By law, any act of seperation needs to be done through the international community, and the country in question. The Crimean Parliament can't just secede, they need to bring it to the community of nations, and need to involve Ukraine before they can make a referendrum. It's like me saying to the residents of my town, I decided were going to Secede from the US, there will be a vote on tuesday. If the vote was in favor, does that give me my seccesion valid?http://www.csmonitor.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Crimea has a right to secede from Ukraine

A regional people and or a regional government has the right to secede from a nation and secession, the ability to throw off ones government is a basic human right. A region and or regional people can declare independence in the result of being badly failed, prosecuted or worse by a standing government in order to join with another state or form an independent state.In the case of Crimea, an ethnic-cultural and economic tie to Russia in this Region is obvious and strong. The suggestion that their secession should need the permission fo a state they have remarkably little in common with,especially after the usurper government is composed of radical Nationalists and even openly neo Nazi factions have a controlling interest in the new government. Crimea clearly has a right to its secession. The debate, if you accept will be in 3 rounds.Round 1: Opening ArgumentRound 2: Rebuttal and Questions.Round 3: Answers and closing argument.
All Human Acts are Selfish

Dear lannan13, I have decided to challenge you to this debate in response to your comment on my previous debate (now canceled) called 'Choose the Topic'. You, my opponent, will be arguing that 'all human acts are selfish'. I will be arguing that the aforementioned statement is untrue. The BoP is shared - whoever presents the most convincing arguments wins. First, I shall provide some definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com...: all - adjective - the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of human - adjective - of, relating to, or affecting people acts - noun, plural - something that is done selfish - adjective - having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people First round is for acceptance and agreements/disagreements with the above definitions. Thanks!
All Human Acts are Selfish

Contention 1: My opponent's example's1. Being shotThis is indeed being selfish. Since my opponent is being vague here we can imagain any type of sinerio like you taking the bullet for the President. There you would be doing your job and would be a hero for saving the President's life. 2. Tripping on a rockHere you trip on a rock. You do this inorder to not break your ankle when your foot comes in contact with the rock when motion would continue to take you forward. You fall in order to protect your ankle from breaking. It's a natural instint that way you don't hurt yourself.3. Getting Punched in the FaceI can say the same thing as number one. You can simply be taking a hit for a loved one so they do not get hurt.Contention 2: Humans are animalisticSigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted."I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)“one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death” (De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory).We can see here above that simply we go to avoid death and we all know that one of the leading fears is death. Why do we fear death? What will happen to our families when we die? How will I be remembered? Could I have done better? What's next? Am I going to heaven or hell? These are all questions that we ponder when it comes to the afterlife. We simply fear the unknown.PS I will be going to MEPs and will be gone until Sunday. Could you please hold off on responding to this debate for a day or so. Please and thank you.
All Human Acts are Selfish

As seen in my opponent's previous statement, the definition of selfish has been changed by lannan13 to 'to satisfy one's personal needs or feelings'. I shall now proceed to my argument. As the BoP is shared, my opponent must show that all human acts are selfish, while I must show that not all human acts are selfish. As the word 'all' means "the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of" (see above), I must show that only one human act is not selfish in order to win the debate. However, many human actions are not selfish. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Being killed by an assassin's bullet 2. Tripping on a rock 3. Being punched in the face I shall now show how each of the above actions prove that all human actions are not selfish. Human - A human can be killed by a bullet, trip on a rock, and be punched in the face. Act - All of the above numbered statements are actions. Selfish - None of the above statements satisfy one's personal needs or feelings. Being killed is neither a need nor a want (feeling) by a majority of the world's population. Tripping on a rock is neither a need nor a want by a majority of the world's population. Being punched in the face is neither a need nor a want by a majority of the world's population. As shown, the above human actions are not selfish. They do not satisfy any personal needs or feelings for most people. With that, I end my feverishly short argument. I thank lannan13 for taking the time to debate me, and wish him luck in his further arguments and debates. Thanks!
Society should be more tolerant of 'the love that dare not speak its name'

Although backside bumpers have done what could be considered a noteworthy contribution to the entertainment industry, they have also attributed to many negative aspects of it as well. Whether it be Justin Bieber's horrid music or Tom Cruise's wacky Scientology rants; they have angered more straight shooters than they've pleased. In fact, daisy prancers who pretend they don't fondle with other merry Matthews are only making us cat pounders look bad, which isn't fair. And, of course, I would like to see two doting dames go at it in a fountain, but it still is indecent. My personal fetishes shouldn't entrench into the daily lives of others, as I expect the same from willy wankers everywhere. Although society should have more tolerant federal laws on men and women who wear the same clothes, society itself is not morally obligated to bend their ides in favor of those simply on a sexual basis. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Thank you for being politically correct as well. But just to clear up the confusion, we're talking about homosexuals, right?
Society should be more tolerant of 'the love that dare not speak its name'

First of all, we should be clear that not all pillow-biters are kiddy-fiddlers, far from it, even though stories of shirt-lifters abusing positions of trust to molest young boys seem to dominate the news these days. The reality is, however, that these scandals are actually quite rare. For example, so far this year, only one pope has been forced to resign amid allegations that he covered up the wholesale sexual abuse of choirboys that poofy paedophile priests committed during his tenure. Now, of course I understand my opponent’s concerns regarding public decency but we should put them into perspective and remember that, over the years, gender-bending gentlemen have contributed a lot to the world, particularly in the field of entertainment. Prominent among these mincing minstrels and arse-ramming artistes are the pansy-potting playwright Alan Bennett, the mattress-munching movie actor Ian McKellen and the puddle-jumping pop star Ricky Martin, none of whom care if people know they are uphill gardeners. We need more high-profile harbour masters like them to set the example for entertainers such as Justin Bieber, Craig David, Keanu Reeves, Kevin Spacey, Daniel Radcliffe, Tom Cruise and John Travolta, all of whom are rumoured to have a poster of Cristiano Renaldo on their bedroom wall (1) but, presumably, are too ashamed to admit it. Finally, I agree that nobody wants to see men who play the pink oboe snogging in public, but consider this, if the behaviour of men who order quiche in restaurants is more widely accepted then perhaps ladies who wear sensible shoes will also feel less inhibited about expressing their sexual preferences in public? I don’t know about you, but I for one would not be offended by the sight of two leggy blonde stunners frolicking together in a fountain on a hot summers day. Thank you. (1) . http://www.imdb.com...
Society should be more tolerant of 'the love that dare not speak its name'

I, as Con, believe that men with brown fingers should not profess their activities and emotions in public, and should be kept as a private matter between the two and their social fellows. For there are social standards that each society must uphold, and the act of nancy boys confessing their actions publicly is perversion. What if pedobears were to do this? Sure, if a kiddycatcher does it, it will disgust more than that of a rear rusher did, and, of course, simply because something disgust someone does not mean it should be said, but there must be limits, and since men who watch the Bravo network is not of the norm and since is a perversion, it should be kept to ones self. I'm not saying men who can't hold their farts in very well should not be proud or embarrassed by who they are, but there is no reason for an entire society to be tolerant of sexual deeds simply because they are becoming common place. Nor am I saying that people should discriminate bundles of sticks. Sexuality should be between partners and not shown in public places, for both straight and crooked fellows. Of course, a peck on the lips is nothing to riot about--but even then there are limits. No parent wants their child to walk down the street only to see Steve with his tongue down Bob's throat, and although some are okay with heterosexuals doing the same, it, once again, does not mean a society as a whole has to be tolerant of that action.
Society should be more tolerant of 'the love that dare not speak its name'

Personally, I am very tolerant of men who are, you know, good with colours, just so long as they don’t try and queer up little boys, of course.Naturally, I find repulsive the thought of what men who iron their socks get up to in the bedroom (or in public lavatories in the case of George Michael) but I believe that gentlemen who are fans of Billy Elliot have nothing to be ashamed of and that friends of Dorothy should be more widely accepted by society.Unfortunately, many men who know what flowers are planted in their garden feel they have to keep their sexuality secret, especially in rural areas or in industrial cities where bad throwers are openly discriminated against.I say, if you are a man who knows his way around a sewing box, don’t be embarrassed, stand up and proudly tell the world that you are, you know, one of them, because only this way will society become more tolerant of the love that dare not speak its name.Thank you.