BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Five nights at Freddy's is based on a true story

First off I want to clear up that I don't mean animatronics can be possessed by children, I mean that the person who created five nights at Freddy's may have gotten ideas from this real life incident. Secondly I want everyone to know I did not come up with this theory, that goes to a youtuber known as Game Theorist. Check out his video on YouTube. Now lets first go over what year the events of five nights at Freddy's supposedly happened. There are not many hints but we will use the check you get by end of the game. You get $120. By dividing 120 by the number of hours you worked(5 days times 6 hours equals 30 hours) you get $4 an hour. In today's stantards that is below minimum wage. But in the year 1993 minimum wage was between 4.25 and $5 an hour. Also interesting is that the event I am using takes place in 1993... Now the story: ( for the sake of the victims I won't post the town where this happened December 1993. Chuck E. Cheese It was just a normal day for the staff of a local Chuck E. Cheese. There were five people: Margaret Goldberg, the manager, and employees Silvia Krowell, Ben Grant, Holleen O'connor, and Bobby Stevens were closing up for the day. But unknown to them there was a sixth person inside, a former employee named Nathan Dunlap that was fired earlier that yearwas hiding in the restrooms. After a while he came out with a handgun and went room to room shooting everyone in the building, when he got to Bobby, who was scrubbing the kitchen, he shot Bobby in the jaw, which sent Bobby sprawling onto the floor. Nathan then left the scene but security cameras led to his capture. It is a sad story but I have strong suspicion that it helped the idea of the making of Five nights at Freddy's. Next round I will go over the five victims links to the five animatronics that haunt the restaurant, and I want the con to know even if you win this debate I say thank you for giving me a chance to test this theory with others and say either way this turns out, GG
You do not have any free will if you believe in god unless you believe in evil and hate

Season beatings. Oh whooppss I meant to say greetings even though that la la bye time is over for the year (and my opponent thought I blocked him = nope) but he"s headed into a meat wagon of dreary dreams in which is penalty kicks are back at the opposing 0 yard line from the videos which are of pure logic, common sense, rational, reason, thinking based in which christianity, god, the bible and his religion has none. He"s an eager beaver isn"t he to prove his bias for his schmuck-dumb religion for which there is no fact base because after all he cannot even prove his god. So let"s see what he has to say to counter the videos. If he does not counter the videos, this debate will be over in a hurry. "1. There's clear biased in his whole argument. Sure, there are some heartfelt arguments towards their stance on Free Will, but nothing of substance." Typical christan yodeling Buddhist monk response when utterly slapped in the face with substance and no outs left. So let"s see what #2 has to say (my this debate can be over in a hurry because I will not tolerate idiocies and sheer utter stupidity like that) "2. They provide NO evidence to support their claim; I'll not be merely persuaded by ethos or pathos. With this in mind, I will also be ignoring the YouTube videos," Then I will be ignoring everything he has to say. This debate is now over. My opponent has lost this debate because he cannot and will not examine evidence which solidly proves EVERYTHING of his religion flatly wrong which is what the typical christian is totally incapable of taking in. Conclusion My opponent has pulled this crap before on another debate. It doesn't matter a F--K where the videos come from. If he wants transcripts, they could come from somewhere else other than youtube. Some of the videos were made outside of youtube and then placed on youtube to get more recognition. But I guess my opponent thinks that diminishes the content of what the videos has to offer for some stupid reason that goes on in his tinsel brain. Some of the videos are made specifically for youtube so that others WILL WATCH THEM and get something from them and nevertheless the content remains the same. He expects me to vidie the links he posted. Is he serious? Is he THAT stupid? Like they are REALLY more valid than something posted on youtube? I do get it indeed... According to him, IF HIS LINKS WERE POSTED ON YOUTUBE, they would indeed be worthless. That is his complete failure. That is why he has lost this debate.
Schools offer only uncomfortable seating.

I believe you are completely wrong. School seating is made to be highly chip and warp resistant, and thus, comfort resistant. The desktops are made of uncomfortable, very cold plastic that causes you to write as if you are riding in a school bus (ill get to that some other time). The welded on book racks are useless, but are the most comfortable thing about the desks when used as a footrest. Even though it is a footrest, the freezing metal cuts into your ankles. School desks are uncomfortable.
All forms of tobacco should be illegal in the US

BoP is shared. I shall argue that not all/no tobacco products should be banned, while my opponent shall argue that they all should be made illegal for sale.My opponent argues: All tobacco products should be illegal in the USI argue either the contradictory or contrary statements: Some tobacco products should not be illegal in the US/No tobacco products should be illegal in the US.Since contradictory and contrary statements cannot both be true, if I can show one of the two statments above to be true, then "All tobacco products should be illegal in the US" has been proven false.No semantics.R1: Pro makes his opening caseR2: My case/Pro's responseR3: My response/Pro's responseR4: My response/Pro posts: No arguments as agreed.Failure to abide by these rules shall result in a full 7-points loss. Please note the R4 rules.So if you accept you start right away.Good luck.
Euthanasia should be legal

People that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it. Euthanasia is assisted murder and the doctors should be charged with said crime. The doctor took a Hippocratic oath to help their patients and to try to ease them into the unfortunate moment of them dying, not being the cause of said death. Who knows, before the person dies of the disease they are trying to avoid dying from by killing themselves, they may come out with a cure. That is my stance
Euthanasia should be legal

Euthanasia is is the practice of ending someone's life in a relatively painless manner, and with their full consent. This is only done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no cures for their illness and the patient is usually under unbearable pain. This means that this is not suicide, this is a medical procedure, that is assisted by a physician who decides weather or not the patient are ill enough for euthanasia. If a individual decides that they have so much pain that they can"t live with it, and that they would rather die than live with the pain until they die shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
Euthanasia should be legal

My opponent is right about the part where I said that the 50% of meat and bills part is weird, at that point I guess I was just typing random things that would be weird if you only did half of them. I'm sorry for the confusion, I myslef was confused after re reading the article after my opponent pointed this out to me. I thank him for that. This is my final argument against him and before I say anything I would like you to vote Con against Euthanasia. Reasons: a. The Hippocratic oath says that a doctor must take care of the patient until death an try to prevent said death, not kill the patient b. it gives them "a relatively painless death" I have researched further and there is no scientific proof of it being painless c. Even if the patient is in agony there is a 50% chance in recovery, with the percentage of recovery higher if there is an antidote. d. The death from Euthanasia causes even greater emotional strain on the family because they will wonder if there was anything that could have been done to save their relatives life. f. It is a form of suicide, which is also illegal. Thank for reading my case, I hope you vote against Euthanasia!!!!
Euthanasia should be legal

My opponent is correct in saying that a doctor should do everything in his power to save a patient if there is a 50% chance that he/she will live, and not kill him/her but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a doctor only should help a patient if he/she is terminally ill or a patient that is in unbearable agony, because they have a disease. The patient should also have a wish to die, before the doctor would help the patient. My answer to your question is that I would prefer to be with them until they died of their sickness but if they were in a terrible agony and they couldn't stand the pain anymore, then I would prefer them having euthanasia and I would of cause be sad to see them die, but I know that I want my relatives to do the same if it was me. I know that there always will be a chance for you to be cured but I don't think that it's worth it if you go through all of that pain, just to die at the end if they don't find a cure before you die but that's just what I think. Conclusion: In this debate my opponent has come with several arguments against euthanasia. The first one was that a doctor took a Hippocratic Oath but this argument is invalid, because doctors don't have to take that oath anymore, and those who do take an oath that has been modified so it fits in to this century. In round 2 my opponent comes with some arguments. He says that if a patient has 50% chance of surviving, then you shouldn't just let the patient die and in some ways I agree with him in that argument. Later he starts saying something about if you cook meat 50% then you still have a chance of getting a parasite, and then something about bills and that you will have a weird life if you just pay 50% of them. I think that argument is weird, and not really an argument.
Euthanasia should be legal

My opponent says that the Hippocratic oath is out dated... In some of its aspects, yes it is. It requires the doctor to pray to the "healing gods." But some aspects, the more important ones say that is is a doctors "duty to do everything in his power to SAVE the patient, not end his/her life because there's a 50% chance that he/she will die? Here, let me ask you a question. Would you rather just let the doctor kill a relative or someone you might know just because they are in pain? Or would you rather live the rest of your life wondering if there was a chance... Even a slim one, that in the next few days of the patients life, a treatment or cure be developed for the patients illness? Back to the 50 % statement. If you went through your life always betting for the good odds, you are still gonna end up losing. If you cook meat 50% of the way through here is still a chance you might get a parisite... If you pay 50% of your bills, you're going to have a weird life. Anyway, if you always look at the numbers, of course you are going to lean towards the bigger one, but there is a reason that number isn't 100 %, because there is a possibility that the other 50% could qualify for your relative/friend and that their life will be spared!
Euthanasia should be legal

My opponent said that a doctor takes a Hippocratic Oath, but the Hippocratic Oath is from 400 B. C. E so it's outdated, and it doesn't suit our world. That is also why it has been modified many times and, in contrary to popular belief, it is not required by most of the modern medical schools, although some of the schools have adopted modern versions that suit many in the profession in the 21st century. This means that doctors doesn't have to take the Hippocratic Oath, so your argument is invalid. My opponent came with an argument which was that people that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it, but the average percentage of terminally ill patients who die in pain is 55%, it over 50%!. This means that even if a patient wants to enjoy the last portion of their life they will still be in in a lot of agony, which means that they won't enjoy the last portion of their life, because they are in so much pain. The total percentage of the public in the US who support euthanasia for the terminally ill/on life support is 86%, so you can see have many who thinks euthanasia should be legal and that's why I think it should be legal.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

Claim 1: First, Donald Trump is overtly misogynist. Warrant 1: [2]Impact: Misogynists are more likely to commit sexual offenses. [3] Thus increasing the chances of Donald Trump committing the crime. Claim 2: Two prior sexual assault cases have been filed against the accused.Warrant 2: [4] [5]Impact 2: This further increases chance that Trump performed the deed. Claim 3: Jane Doe has a witness Warrant : "I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop." [1]Impact 3: This greatly increases the chance that Trump performed the deed and increases the credibility of the allegations.Sources2. http://www.slate.com...3. http://psycnet.apa.org...4. http://www.foxnews.com...5. https://www.theguardian.com...
The Bible Restricts Believers from Judging One Each Other

I would also look forward to more debates with you, my friend! A note to voters: I am particularly proud of my round one argument and would request that you please give me feedback on its style, structure, and content in your RFD. I am not asking for points, as I deserve none but maybe conduct for my concession, but just feedback to see how well my arguments were worded and what not. I have been trying to improve my presentation for a while now, so hopefully I do get some feed back.
The Bible Restricts Believers from Judging One Each Other

Con has raised two extremely good points here. The only way I can save my argument is on the basis of technicality and that would not work to sufficiently prove the Con wrong, as would be required to win this debate. Plus, I honestly don't care about who wins or loses. Debate statistics are just numbers. What I care about is who is right, who is wrong. In this case, after doing my own research into his claims, I think that Con is right. I concede all his points as they are all correct. My foundation of argument seems to not be applicable to the Cannon due to the fact that it was added by John later on, putting in question its divine inspiration according to Christian doctrine.
Homosexuality is Morally Wrong, Therefore Unjust, Gay Marriage must therefore be illegal.

Since this is the last round I will not start a new argument. My point of using the soldier as an example is Pro stated earlier that "All animals look to have their species continued, reproduction is how this is accomplished, thus reproduction is for a species betterment. Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong." He cannot justify this as moral because there are many people other then homosexuals that he would have to call immoral anyone that does not have a child is immoral by this definition of betterment. I do not find this definition to be true by any means. I have already addressed the issue of homosexuals contributing to the growth of the population and how even if they did not they are not contributing to stagnation. To not do something is not supporting the opposite think of it this way in the last election if you voted for Romney then you did not vote for Obama but if you did not vote you did not vote for either of the candidates not that you voted for one of them. "Prove: Homosexuality contributes to the growth of the population, thus homosexuals do not contribute to stagnation, thus homosexuals are not immoral." Already have addressed that they can add to the population but either way reproduction does not prove or disprove immorality or you would be calling everyone without a child immoral. "Homosexuals are great and beautiful people, however they possess a natural difference which keeps them from acting entirely morally good." So because they poses something they cannot change and it is different than other people there immoral? lets think about this since I'm born with a penis can I call a woman immoral for possessing something that is a "natural difference" or vise versa? My opponent failed to accept that his definition of betterment would call everyone that does not have a kid immoral. I suggest that you think about your position more and come up with a better argument other than reproduction. I would love to continue to debate this with you another time.
Homosexuality is Morally Wrong, Therefore Unjust, Gay Marriage must therefore be illegal.

Again it is your opinion that to not be able to reproduce is immoral. If that is the case and there is no exceptions like you said 1 moral does not take away 1 immoral nor 3 or 4 I understand your point but with your example just like I said before if a soldier was moral and fought for his country but came back without being able to reproduce then he is now immoral because he can't reproduce if someone is born sterile then they can do anything they want but yet they are immoral. Your opinion on reproduction being moral and not reproducing is crazy if a straight couple decides not to have kids there immoral if they have a miscarriage they are immoral because they are not reproducing. To not do something is not supporting the other as I have shown you can not want to have kids but do not say hey make everyone not have kids because there kids. Your definition of betterment being reproduction again is not supported by facts the world population is suffering from overpopulation so I would argue that to help lower the population in a way that does not include murdering someone or just letting them die without health care would be a completely moral thing to do. I never stated that homosexuals work against the betterment. It actually is possible for a homosexual to repopulate they can use in vitro fertilization or pay a woman to have a child for them aka adoption. There are ways for homosexuals to have children. I think it would be more moral if people would stop having so many children and started adopting the ones that are without a family. http://abbafund.wordpress.com...
Homosexuality is Morally Wrong, Therefore Unjust, Gay Marriage must therefore be illegal.

Pro states all I have to do is refute hit point "Homosexuality' Halters the continuance of the human race.'" This is not hard less then 2 percent of the population of America http://www.theatlantic.com... and maybe 10% of the worlds population is gay or lesbian http://www.gallup.com.... Based off of what I have provided in previous rounds the United Nations estimates the world population to rise to 9.5 billion in 2050 clearly the population cannot become stagnant off of homosexuals. For homosexuality to be the cause of stagnation would mean that more than 50% of the worlds population would have to be gay please provide some facts that homosexuality is on the rise and causing the population to go down. Then you can call it immoral by your definition. Now onto your legalization of Gay Marriage you want to decide the legalization of gay marriage with morality my point was that 53% do not agree with your morality. That is how laws are decided in our country agreement. Oh by the way on my definition or morality Hitler did not follow my morals but to Hitler he was very moral. Your saying the only way to better your species is to reproduce that means you should constantly start pumping out babies no matter what the world you are bringing them into is like due to how many people there already is.
Homosexuality is Morally Wrong, Therefore Unjust, Gay Marriage must therefore be illegal.

It is definitely a credible source if you read the article it is an interview on Gary J. Gates who is co-author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. His doctoral dissertation included the first significant research study of the demography of the gay and lesbian population using US Census data. His work on that subject has been featured in many national and international media outlets. He holds a PhD in Public Policy from the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University along with a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vincent College and a BS in Computer Science from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Favor-(1) : friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (2) : approving consideration or attention : http://www.merriam-webster.com... It is a good thing to adopt a child that has no family so they did a favor to the population. Not to me. Over population is an issue http://www.globalissues.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://howmany.org... Overpopulation is not how many people are in a spot at once it is the resources that are being depleted by the population. "A court that encourages immorality, is no longer a court at all." Again it is not immoral it is just how you think of it like you tried to say how a favor is. Something moral to you may be moral to another person this is why gay marriage should not be based in courts on morality it should be decided on how many people support it like how laws are supposed to be made. http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://abcnews.go.com... Even if you want to decide a law on morality this one would pass because more than 50% of Americans agree it should be legal. Your last point means nothing there are straight men that don't agree with straight marriage, drug users that don't agree with drug legalization, and thieves that don't agree to legalize stealing. "Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong." By this statement homosexuals are not morally wrong because just because they can not reproduce with one another because for one providing money to pay for all the people that can reproduce kids would mean helping provide a better education with taxes they go to help Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Military, Government, and Food Stamps a clear betterment to the species.
Harry Potter is a superior book series to Twilight.

Topic: The Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling triumphs that of the Twilight saga which was written by Stephanie Meyer. Not only is HP (Harry Potter) more well rounded, but it is also far more detailed and inspiring. Meyer's books are focused on a much slimmer audience and lack the depth that Harry Potter possesses. The Harry Potter book series with consist of the original seven books: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows The Twilight Saga will consist of the original four novels: Twilight New Moon Eclipse Breaking Dawn Structure of the debate: Round One: Pro presents case. Con accepts. Round Two: Pro refutes. Con presents case, refutes and defends. Round Three: Pro refutes and defends. Con refutes and defends. Round Four: Pro refutes and defends. Con refutes and defends. Round Five: Pro defends. Con defends. Voters are presented.