BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any topic

Hello, thanks for Con to reply. First I will go on my rebuttalsRebuttal1. I know that it is their choice. But also it is their choice that they get cancer by smoking. Also even if it has some benifits, there are more disadvantages of smoking than advantages. That was from my picture Even if is bad for those things, why would you do it for stress. Also you can solve stress in different ways. Lets see the ten ways to solve your stress in...http://www.webmd.com...These are reasons how you can solve your stress.2. Next on Con's second argument which is that buisnesses will be destroyed. Yes, but ths just doesn't make sense. Would you rather kill some people from the smoking and give money to the company when people die or just decrease a lot of smoking, which will destroy some money of the companies. Are deaths more important or companies? Con should ask that himeself. Also you can just get another job or something.3. In Con's third arguments, there is nothing really to argue or rebut. He is just giving the fact that it is a high tax. No one can rebut because it is true, so this means(even if I tried) it is not possible to rebut Con's third argument because it is a fact.4. This is just a question. Who would give a Pdf which is so long...Sources:http://www.webmd.com...http://www.beautyprog.com...
Any topic

I have three main arguments in my debate. My first argument is that it is a person's choice to start smoking. My second argument is about the businesses that would be destroyed. Lastly I will bring up the amount of tax revenue that cigarettes bring in. 1. It is a choice to begin smoking. If you are a smoker that means that at one time in your life you had the opportunity to start smoking and took it. There are 10 main reasons why people take up smoking. Some of these include stress relief, risk-taking behavior, and parental influence. Going into the smoking habit you have likely heard of some of the dangers. In fact, you may go looking for something that has a risk involved in it. There are many organizations that, if you really want to quit smoking, will help you in the quitting process. Smoking may have a lot of health risks but there are also some good things that smoking can do that are sometimes overlooked. Some benefits to smoking include lower stress, lower risk of getting Parkinson's disease, and a lower risk of becoming obese. 2. Businesses would be destroyed. By making smoking illegal you be putting all the tobacco companies out of business. Meaning that all of the people who work for tobacco companies ( factory workers, farmers) would no longer have a job. Currently there are 48,800 people working at tobacco factories across 21 states and 136,000 people who farm the tobacco across 23 states. Imagine that your poor and looking for a job. You finally find one at a tobacco factory. Your happy because the pay is better than the average manufacturing job. But then, it becomes illegal to smoke cigarettes. Tobacco companies go out of business, farmers no longer have anyone to sell their crop to, and the factory workers are no longer needed. Because of this law you no longer have the money to support your family and are forced onto the streets. By making smoking illegal you are taking away people's jobs. Jobs that, on average, pay about $10.85 more than most manufacturing jobs. 3. My final argument is that tobacco has a high tax. Tobacco products are one of the highest taxed items in the United States. In New York the average sales tax is 4%. Yet the tax for cigarettes is much higher. For every pack of cigarettes you buy you pay $4.35 in excise taxes. The United States has gotten $16,563,684,714 in taxes from tobacco products. By making smoking illegal you are taking away from the states all of the money that was made from the taxes on cigarettes. Sources http://ers.usda.gov... http://www.taxadmin.org... http://m.livescience.com... http://health.howstuffworks.com...
Any topic

Hello, today the Contender chose the topic smoking should be illegal. As I said I am Pro. First I will give you the status quo. The status quo is that Tobacco use is the major cause of preventable and premature death and disease worldwide, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC reports that 46 million Americans age 18 years and older smoke cigarettes, 443,000 smoking-related deaths occur annually in the U.S. Smoking affects the population, causes premature deaths and is a substantial financial burden to society.Now I will go to my three main arguments. My first Argument is that it descreases Population. My second reason is that it makes harm in your body and easy to die. Last of all it is because it is to expensive. My defintion of my debate is that Smoking: a cigarette, cigar, etc. : something that people smokeIllegal: not allowed by the law : not legal1. I will go on my first argument which is that it decreases populationSmoking affects human lives in many different ways. First is that it is unhealty which I will say in my next arguments and second it is baf air which makes pollution. First I will tell you about the unhealthy things about smoking. First, it destroys your lungs. Imagine this. What if you were trying to smell and breath in the pollution out of a car and also smoke out of a fire. That is the same as smoking. I will give you a picture of your lungs. There will be those white things on you lngs with is basically bad things that might kill you. Many people die because of this.I will say my second reason for the population is that it destroys the enviornments. Because we will breath the bad air if we breath bad air then are lungs will be like the picture above. Also don't blame about cars. Smoking makes almost the same amount of pollution. Also do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is bad for the lungs and will make cancer.2. Very easy to dieNow I will explain more about it. First It is bad for your lungs. In the pictures above, do you see the black thing on the cigarette? That is the bad thing that goes in your body and make you not breath with the white things in your lungs.Please look at this video of someone posted in Youtubehttps://youtu.be...Also because of Fire. Many people die of fire, but the cigarette makes fire. https://youtu.be... That is a lot from smoking. Also you die fast if you smoke.3. Expensive CostWell, this isn't a matter a lot but the cost just gets higher and higher. Sourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...http://idebate.org...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.historyandheadlines.com...http://www.mirror.co.uk...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.heart.org...http://www.beautyprog.com...
This House Believes that God Does Not Exist! (Troll Debate)

Argument From ProduceMy foolish opponent attempts to show how bannana's are a tool of the devil by showing a girl eating a banana....................................She's eating a banana? Get your mind out of the gutter, you pervert! It's not bananas that are making people worse, it's you!My foolish opponent also attempts to say that bananas are dangerous and they kill people, but his stats don't prove anything. Just because some misguided youth decides to beat a guy to death with a banana, that doesn't make banana's bad. A (banana) gun is only as dangerous as the finger behind the trigger. Also, banana guns sound like a great invention. Now I can give delicious fruit to my friend 1200 yards away! That's a great idea!Also, I'm not explaining the pinapple? I'm explaining the banana. The lack of reading makes me believe that it's the return of the dumb-dumb.Argument From LiteratureGod did too! It says so right in the Bible! (Truthiticus Chapter 2 veruse 12). Also, even if it's a story book, have you ever heard of non-fiction? And if Satan were really tempting people to write lies, it would be more evident. There would be much more talk of sinful things, such as pornography, violence, hatred, abuse of kittens, etc. etc. And since it's not there, your refutation is clearly bogus.God killed babies? No he didn't. Sin did. And God saved their souls from eternal torment in Hell. Turned that argument like a pro, you dumb-dumb! Problem of Justin Bieber My opponent fails to resond to the argument I make that he's 100% just totally jealous of Bieber's amazing skills stealing all da womenz from him so his fedora-tipping, neckbeard ways can't woo any of the m'ladies without them calling the police on him anymore. This undermines all of his arguments because it becomes clear that there isn't any kind of sense behind his position. HEY CRYPTO! U MAD BRO!!?!?!?!? And, again, God never killed any babies, he saved babies. I don't understand my opponent's fascination with dead babies. You should probably get some help...Argument From Richard DawkinsThis argument is still as dumb as before. My opponent doesn't actually respond to what I talked about (typical Atheist). God made science, so God cannot be against science. That would be like if I made a delicious apple pie, but refused to eat it becaus I don't like apple pie. That doesn't make sense!And theists wear glasses too. So if smart people are talking about god, by my opponent's logic, then God must surely exist! Another argument in favor of me!Argument from Formal LogicMy opponent's just being rude now. My refutation was a debating tactic known as layering the debate. It's something that's done by non-dumb-dumbs to show that "My opponetn is being dumb, but even if he's not being dumb, he's still dumb."And of course, being the dumb-dumb that you are it goes waaaaaay over your head. I'm praying for your poor soul. And, of course, ice cream and logic are not compatable.P1. Humans should eat in consistency with a healthy diet.P2. Ice cream is not a part of a healthy diet. C1. Humans should not eat ice cream.
This House Believes that God Does Not Exist! (Troll Debate)

Debate Resolution: God Does Not Exist -Overview and Rules1. First round is for acceptance. If you wish to accept this debate please comment in the comments section. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission it will result in an auto loss. 2. This is a troll debate, and thus no serious arguments nor rebuttals will be given by either debater. This debate is meant to be light, humorous, and imaginative to be enjoyed by the debaters and the audience. 3. Shared BOP among the debaters. Pro will offer arguments and rebuttals as will Con.4. 8000 character limit.5. No Semantics. All definitions will be used in context of the resolution. 6. Standard conduct applies. DefinitionsGod - A being that which none greater can be concieved. This includes traits such as perfection, rationality, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence, in addition to having a special interest in human beings like that of the Christian God. That is, God is a personal God and not one uninterested in the universe it has created. Exist - To be within reality. We are assuming that there is no such thing as "outside" of reality. Everything that is, is within reality.
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

Downloading free music that is usually paid for. IS UNETHICAL. It's stealing. And stealing is unethical. Yes there are cases where you can say, "but". This is not one of them. Again, I am not condoning the actions of the RIAA. F*ck the RIAA they are a criminal organization as far as I am concerned. But as of now, the downloading of music illegally hurts the artists (only a tiny bit), but still. The income earned by the RIAA is rightfully theirs. If people were not willing to spend money on music, the RIAA would not exist. Just because a large percentage of people believe something to be unethical does not excuse another unethical action. If you want the RIAA to go away and allow cheap/free music downloads. Let the market speak. Boycott the RIAA. Don't steal, because it just gives them more ammo.
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

The legal high ground isn't necessarily the moral high ground. This debate is about morality. You can use legal means to create immorality as well. Many laws are found to be unethical all the time, and must be changed. It wasn't too long ago that blacks were not legally allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites, or keep their seats on a bus when a white person wanted them. Morality exists deeper than the law and you cannot just hope that the current laws are perfectly moral. You cannot just hide behind "stealing is wrong" and expect to find truth in the situation. Legality does not equal morality, and illegality does not equal immorality. Laws are not perfect. I have described the flaws in the laws in this case. The laws have been slow to adapt to the technology and are creating drag. This is likely to occur again, as technology continues to progress and surprise us, and if legislators do not find ways to keep up with technology then we will find ourselves in this situation yet again. Maybe next time it will be a more serious matter... perhaps we should learn from this experience and make sure it doesn't happen again. I would imagine it will be the internet that is involved next time, possibly involved with our freedom to use it and be allowed access to unadulterated and unbiased information. I am truly concerned that this situation is a harbinger. In order to get to the root of this issue you must hash out the details. This you are COMPLETELY unwilling to do with me, and I guess I don't blame you. People that take your stance usually don't have anything more intelligent to say than "it's stealing" (then compare it to shoplifting or something similar), and I venture to guess that they haven't really spent the time to wonder if the laws are really right or wrong, they are just used to following them and find it convenient to have pre-packaged sets of rules that prevent them from having to think. They are also so used to buying tapes and CD's that they forget that musical art wasn't originally meant to be recorded and sold; it was meant to be performed. It may take another 20 years, but things will eventually go back to their true form, and musicians will go back to performing to make money. We won't have as many super-millionaire musicians around, but that is a sacrifice we are just going to have to make, unfortunately :D
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

Okay. But this is still stealing. Even if we don't like the prices. The only reason that we're not in jail is because there is no realistic way to crack down on it. If we had stolen a car stereo then we would be in jail. They are the legal owners of the intellectual property. They license us to use their music for a fee. They have the legal high ground. I don't like it either. But you can't obey laws you do or don't like based on your politics.
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

"It is wrong to steal. That is indisputable"... "Stealing is unethical." This seems to be the meat of your argument, so I will address it. Stealing is not always wrong, not always unethical. It usually is. During times of war, stealing from the enemy is not unethical. We see stealing in nature, and I don't think that biologists use ethics to address the situation when a snake steals eggs out of a nest. If there was a tyranny in power in our country, and we wished to overthrow it, we could hardly call ourselves unethical for stealing from the tyrannical government to overthrow it. Stealing is USUALLY unethical, but you can't say it always is, even if it is the vast majority of the time. Like I pointed out, this niche that technology created was unnatural. it created an unusual situation that lasted only about 100 years, in which large manufacturers had the ability to record music but normal consumers did not. Before this, no one could, and after this, everyone could. But during this small amount of time we created a market based on this difference, and now this difference does not exist, so the market is collapsing. Those who oppose this transition would be just as stupid as to oppose a tornado headed for them, because it is coming and no one can stop it. So you see, although stealing is USUALLY unethical, in certain rather specific, rather unusual circumstances it is certainly not. Technology created a very unusual situation indeed, which indirectly caused a loophole in the ethics of stealing. You say you "do it too", harboggles. Are you saying you are being unethical? Are you a good person, Harboggles? Isn't one of the tests of good laws, as well as good ethics, is whether or not good people can follow the law/ethic? Because if good people cannot follow the principle, than it is concievable that it is the principle itself that is at fault, not the good people who are breaking it. Now you do the numbers with me. How many people download music? So to disagree with you, your argument is not indisputable. I suggest you start addressing the mountain of points I have made and leave the philosophical absolutes alone for awhile.
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

It is wrong to steal. That is indisputable. Now when it comes down to it, the artists should define the price of their music. They should have the discretion of allowing people to pay 1 cent. nothing. or 10.00$ for an album. But that's not our system. Our system is rigid, and we pay to the RIAA not the artists, hell, the artists get very little of the profits as is! Even though the RIAA is unethical as hell, stupid, and greedy. Stealing is stealing. (I do it too, so don't be quick to dismiss it) Stealing is unethical.
It is not inherently unethical to download music illegally

Besides the obvious fact that you are breaking the law, there is no inherently unethical aspect to downloading mp3's off of Limewire or its competitors. Socrates taught us that we should not break the law, no matter how unjust it is, but I will argue here that the illegality of the act is the ONLY thing wrong with it; hence the act should be legitimized and legalized. First off, I will compare music with physical art. Physical art can be sold as a product, which seperates it from musical art. Musical art is not sold as a physical piece like physical art, it is performed. If you steal a painting, it is truly stealing. You can't steal music, however. You shouldn't be able to, that is. The only reason we can steal musical art is because within the last century, technology created a very unusual niche for musical artists; the ability to record sound onto a disk and sell an unlimited amount of previously non-reproducible copies to the public, and rake in the profits. This highly unusual event produced highly unusual results. Performers became extremely rich because of this niche, and in a lot of cases a band that simply made some music became multimillionaire celebrities without having to perform very much at all. This trend came to an end, as we all know, when technology progressed again and gave the consumers the ability to copy and download the music for free, without paying the artist to do so. Musical art has taken its rightful place again, next to physical art. Physical artists make items to be sold, and musical artists make art that must be performed live to be profitable. The physical artist has little utility for performance, as the musical artist has little utility for physical items. This is how it SHOULD be. Technology created this niche, and took it away RIGHTFULLY SO. Musicians like Metallica, who whine endlessly about illegal music downloads, should not have been that rich to start with. They should be out performing, doing shows, like musicians do. Even famous musicians from the past, like Bach and Mozart, were not well-off financially. It wasn't until Beethoven came around that musicians made ANY money whatsoever, and he was only notable because he actually made enough money to not have to work a day job as he composed/performed - he was not super-rich like Metallica is. Musicians can make a decent living, like the rest of us, if they perform. There will always be a demand for live musical performance and composure, so they need not whine about not selling CD's. Local artists can sell CD's with little to no worry about dubbing, because you simply cannot YOUTUBE or LIMEWIRE their music. Musical artists can perform for money, and they will only have a problem with downloading if they make it SO big that people actually start recognizing them nationally. At that point, they can hardly complain about the system not working for them. Metallica can still go out and make hundreds of thousands of dollars for a show whenever they want; they just can't sit home and do NOTHING and make millions. How sorry I feel for them.
Society should regret the common narrative of good triumphing over evil in children's entertainment

This debate is a part of the DDOlympics Debate Tournament described here: http://www.debate.org... We are part of Group D, and as such, this is the first of two debates that both ShabShoral and I will be participating in during the group stage of this tournament. That being said, I'm excited to debate ShabShoral on this intriguing topic, and I"m looking forward to having this debate with him. I don't think there"s much need for ground rules here, but I will at least establish some definitions and frame the resolution. Society: We are referring to American society, in particular. We can certainly reference children"s entertainment that exists outside of the U.S., but in order to better understand the effects of this narrative, I think it's best to restrict to whom it matters. Should regret: Should implies that we have some obligation to do so on the basis of the evidence presented. Regret here means the same as repentant or remorseful, i.e. past decisions reinforced the narrative of good triumphing over evil in children"s entertainment, and we feel that this was in error. As such, this will be based on a balancing of both the benefits of this type of narrative and the harms. That balance makes this an on balance debate, meaning that neither of us have the burden of proof. Common narrative: A story line that is seen frequently, also known as a trope. It should be assumed from the resolution that such a trope does exist, though I will nonetheless establish its existence as part of my case. Good/evil: These words represent two opposing principles, and while I assume this will be a substantial portion of this debate, I will try to provide some basic understanding of them here. These are usually defined by some sort of moralistic perspective, i.e. to be "good" is to be moral and to be "evil" is to be immoral. It"s a dichotomy where there is a clear difference between the actions of the "good" and the actions of the "evil." Trumphing over: to achieve victory and, by consequence, inflict defeat. Children's entertainment: Any form of entertainment (movies, books, games) that is specifically aimed at children. We can define children broadly, though in this case we should aim towards those directed at kids under the age of 12 (i.e. PG movies, books below the age of young adult, and games categorized towards that group). I think this delineation is relatively straightforward, though we can certainly discuss it and alter it if need be. Simple debate structure: R1: Definitions and clarifications of the debate/Acceptance, no arguments R2: Arguments and rebuttals R3: Arguments and rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and crystallization, no new arguments If my opponent has any issues with the definitions, we can and should address them before the start of the debate. With that, I await my opponent's acceptance and wish him good luck in this debate.