BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cold(pro) versus Hot(con) areas to live in

Arguments: It's easier finding ease from heat. Pro asserts that it's easier fighting cold because we can just cover ourselves with clothes. Note that this privilege can never be put in a general sense. Beggars would find it hard finding clothes and will eventually end up freezing to death. Moreover, it's hard for them to find fire for they will be shunned away by people who share a certain source of warmth. In a hot environment, people can get away from direct sunlight by hiding in shadowy places. Umbrellas, caps, using fans, going inside commercial establishments, wearing thin type of clothes lessen the feeling of heat. People who live by the coast experience the routine seabreeze that cools their community. Albeit not too massive to prevent heat, swimming pools, open beaches, and resorts, by the coast or in the center of the city, alleviate discomfort from heat. Heat as a necessity Pro provided his winter setting and there was no objection about my presumption so this makes it official. The setting has the ubiquitous snow everywhere, thick and low temperature, iced bodies of water, etc. Vitamin D is essential for growing kids and growing tummies of pregnant women. Devoid of vit. D, children and newborns suffer rickets, a bodily deformation that deprives children of normal lives. Trees will die due to less sunlight and water. Fruits would cease to exist, grass will wither, animals won't have food but themselves and this would cause such havoc. Without trees, we couldn't produce paper; a meager material that gives large significance to government, school and business. Rebuttals: Pro says it's more fun playing in the cold. Remember, fun is a feeling and these emotions are inherently subjective. And even though we can ski, and make snow angels, swimming, beach volleyball, surfing, boating, and other watersports would be erased. I affirm my resolution.
Cold(pro) versus Hot(con) areas to live in

I argue that living in a cold place is better than a hot place. Here are my reasons why:1) It's easier to get comfortable with the cold than the heat. For example, you can always put on more layers of clothing in the cold. With heat, the most you can do is basically a swimsuit(since most places don't allow public nudity), but even then, if public nudity was legal, then you'd just be nude. Even when nude, 100 degrees fahrenheit(37.7778 Celsius) or higher would still feel uncomfortable. There's nothing you can do about it other than use air conditioning. However, with cold, you don't necessarily need a heater, as you can just pile on layers of clothes. Since our bodies are warm-blooded, we produce heat ourselves, so all we need is something to trap that heat(clothes). The fact we are warm-blooded makes it worse for heat though. If we were cold-blooded, then, and only then, would heat be better than cold2) It's fun to play in snow. Cold means we you could get snow, and it can arguably be said that you can have a great time with snow, whether it's skiing, snowboarding, building snowmen, having a snowball fight, or whatever. There's nothing that comes from heat that is fun to play with. Sure, you could say it's good for surfing, but you could still surf in cold weather, albeit it may not be as good, it's still possible. Whereas in heat, it's literally impossible to snowboard or ski, as there is no snow.
The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society

I cannot believe the claims you are making, They are absurd. The Bible is not just a rule book it also helps people when they are down and teaches them to be strong for example: Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. Isaiah 41:10 Fear not, For I am with you; be not dismayed, For I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. Deuteronomy 31:6 Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, For it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you. Isaiah 40:31 But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint. See these scriptures encourage and motivate people and when people are at their worst it shows them that there is someone that loves them when they feel depressed. But not only that but the bible has scriptures on encouraging but also has things that help with general health. For Example, In the Bible, It talks about being unclean and that you cannot touch the dead but at that time a lot of cultures did that and it caused a lot of airborne diseases. So the bibles laws actually saved lives. And in the bible, It says not to touch blood and again that used to happen and caused more diseases. And finally, It says don't eat pigs and you might say that is not bad but at that time people were dying because of diseases carried by pigs but as time went on it was ok to do in the New Testament. Also, The Bible gives input on just smart decisions For Example: Ephesians 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, Which leads to debauchery. And That is why the Bible was useful then and is useful now.
Animal Testing

Thank you. The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief. Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.
Animal Testing

Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee [1]
Animal Testing

My opponent has copy/pasted the above segment from PETA's website: https://www.peta.org...;Why I am Pro on Animal TestingFirstly, if animals were not tested on, many forms medical treatment would not be available to humans as the research necessary would of course not have been conducted. It isn't merely medical products that are tested on animals (though, they would constitute the most important). Virtually most of the artificially-constructed products that we use, have been tested on animals. One large source of animal testing is the beauty industry, so most mainstream cosmetic countries continue to test on animals - the ethics of this, I admit, are questionable. It's important to distinguish between animal testing done for the medical reasons and the benefit of mankind and animal testing that is done purely for superficial reasons. In regards to other products that are tested on animals - sadly, some of these are necessary. Chemical cleaning fluids are included within that bracket. The case of more than 12 women being blinded in 1933 upon using a cleaining product that contained an untested chemical named p-phenylenediamine is an example of what can happen when animals are not tested on. Not so long after this incident (and this alludes to my point about drug saftey), an antibacterial medicine named 'Elixir Sulfanilamide', which was specifically made for children, was not tested and 107 people died as a result - the majority being minors. Now, when drugs for humans are tested on, you have what is referred to as the 'pre-clinical trials', and this is when animals are used. If all appears well in these trials and no adverse effects are observed, the next stage is the 'clinical trials', with phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. [1.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Naturally, if animals were not tested on in the pre-clinical trials, and the pre-clinical trials were removed, humans would be tested on first and this could potentially cause many deaths. Although Con plagiarized his argument, I will respond to one point from it; which is that animals used in laboratories are not protected and are forced to endure pain. The 1988 Animal Welfare Enforcement Report by the Department of Agriculture found that '94% of all laboratory animals reported are not exposed to painful procedures or are given drugs to relieve any pain caused by a procedure' - meaning that the majority of tested animals are not subjected to continual pain. [2.] https://www.nap.edu...
Online Poker should be legalized and regulated for all persons living over the age of 18 in the U.S.

I guess I really don't know what my opponent is arguing here. He never gave a reason as to why it should not be legalized. He just asks a bunch of rhetorical questions. Although I will answer one of them: 'are you saying other forms of gambling should remain illegal?' ---I do not enter this question into the realm of the current debate. Although I do believe that this should be allowed too and this should be even more closely regulated to make sure that it is fair, I do not believe that this is the vote determining factor within this debate. In the end, my opponent fails to really make any attacks. Because of this, leave the choice up to each individual person. Therefore, vote PRO! Thank You
Online Poker should be legalized and regulated for all persons living over the age of 18 in the U.S.

I believe I have made the irrelevant point that casino gambling is a disaster. Whether poker is a game of chance or skill, there is a lot of money going around so there is enough for the industry to self-regulate. Take Tom "Durr" Dwan for instance. Let him fork up instead of the taxpayers. As for legalizing it, are you saying other forms of gambling should remain illegal? Who has ever gone down? Is that state or fed or both? Internet is different from casino I guess. It's more visible and more political right now. How's that Congressional bill going?
Online Poker should be legalized and regulated for all persons living over the age of 18 in the U.S.

My opponent is unfortunately mislead as to what online poker has become. Several thousands of people make a legitimate living playing poker online. And no, it isn't because they are luckier than the rest of us, but rather, they wait for people that do not understand poker, like my opponent, and they take advantage of their weaknesses. I myself have already made 60 dollars playing poker online. Not because I get better hands, but because I know the odds, the players, and the positions. What this means, is that poker may not be for everyone. But it certainly is for some people. Take Tom "Durr" Dwan for instance. He has made millions of dollars playing poker online. If this was not allowed, he would THEN be some poor bum (like my opponent talks about). Therefore, rather than outlawing it and having unregulated back-alley games (like whats happening now), we ought to regulate it, and allow people to make their own choices. Just because my opponent thinks it's bad, does not mean that he gets to make my choice for me. He made his choice, let me make mine. Thanks
Online Poker should be legalized and regulated for all persons living over the age of 18 in the U.S.

Gambling is just another scheme to take money from the needy and give it to the rich, with disastrous consequences. Any "good" that it can do comes out of this money which the poor need much more than the rich. There are rich who are just as stupid but they do not bear the consequences of their own stupidity. We do. Organized crime is the big winner here. The rest of us are big losers. You can take that any way you want. Yes they sure do a good job of "regulating" casino gambling to keep out anyone honest. Only losers gamble online or at all for that matter. See them "practice" games of chance such as the thing with cherries and lemons. Their time would be more constructively spent vote bombing or in a street gang selling drugs. Or debating online.
Medical Research does more harm than good

Hello all, Well I suppose this is it. I'm not sure why the pro would forfeit, but he never really had a convincing case in the first place, and the terms of the resolution were very unclear to start with. I have laid my points above, and they have remain unrefuted for the most. Sure, medical testing MIGHT be cruel sometimes, but it never should be, it never intends to be, and the benefits that are produced far outweigh these small pains.
Medical Research does more harm than good

Hello again, I would like to start this by talking about the food chain, as highlighted by the negative team. The term "food chain" is known these days as a form of superiority of some species, namely humans, over other species. This is incorrect as if you find a definition of "food chain", you will get the following: "A series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food." At this point I would like to point out the term "food". It refers to species higher up on the food chain using the species lower down the food chain as a food source. If you look at the definition of "animal testing" you get the following: "Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments..." Now I would like to point out the lack of the word food in this description. The point the con made is completely irrelevant because of this reason. Secondly, I would like to point out that humans are just another type of animal. We might be smarter...yes, but this does not make us any more important for this reason. That is like saying Albert Einstein was probably the smartest person on the planet, so he can use the rest of the world for his benefit, or in this case, testing. So humans should be on par with all other animals in this respect. Thirdly, the con made the point that "Clearly, these benefits outweigh the small price of the small number of laboratory rats and mice that may receive a few injections!". Would you call 50-100 million animals "a few"? and also the fact that "a few injections" goes way past that. The animals literally get dissected alive. I wouldn't exactly call this "a few injections". For my fourth and final point, I would like to point out an example of human experimentation, the Nazi Human Experimentation of WW2. Some of the tests are listed below: Freezing Finding a way to have only twins (killing 800/1000 "participants") Tuberculosis Phosgene gas (a type of poison gas) Limb transplants Drinking only seawater Using poison to torture people Artificial insemination I, personally, would call this wrong, and if you find anything not wrong this, then please, be my guest. I hope i have got across to you how this is a completely wrong thing to do and how medical research does more harm than good.
Resolved:Should Cyber bullying be a criminal Offence? (Serious/Prepared Debaters Only Please)

Cyber bullying should be a criminal offence for my 3 contentions. The success of the current law placed, cybe rbullying is on the rise, and the affect of cyber bullying mentally. I did not copy and paste this case, this is my actually case that I use in my debate class, which is why I'm only looking for serious debaters. This is actually my summed up case... 1)Cyberbullying has greatly decreased ever since the law was placed, for example. Just a fact, the first cyber bullying law was place in North Carolina in 2009, and has been placed in most states or in the process. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, in 2004, 40.8 percent of children were being cyber bullying and in 2009 it was stated to be "well over 40%" now in 2010 the percentage has dropped to 20.8 percent, ONLY 1 year after the law was placed. Cyber bullying has decreased more in one year than it has in the last 10 years. 2) Cyber bullying is on the rise. Technology/social networking has increased with in the last 50 years because of this technological era. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noticed a rise in cyber bullying. In 2000, only nine percent of kids ages 10 to 17 experienced this type of bullying. The percentage has now reached 50 percent for 2008. This means that before the first law of cyber bullying was passed in 2009, counseling, programs, and other efforts were not working at all. According to BBC news, Childlike staff in Nottingham said new technology had dramatically increased their workload. The charity receives about 4,500 calls a day nationally and about a quarter of these come from victims of bullying. 3) Our first reason, the negative impact of cyber bullying. Statistics and professionals have shown that this has been an increasing danger for our kids. According to cyberbullying.com "….Most victims suffer shame, embarrassment, anger, depression and withdrawal." Cyber bullying is taking our kids from their normal beings to replace them with humans full of depression and anger and constant cyber bullying. Is this something that deserves to be bypassed? study from Turku University showed that teenagers who faced cyber bullying in their daily lives would have an increased chance of suffering from several headaches, sleeping problems, and possibly increased stress. This type of treatment is putting our children of our world to a lower level and morale and it will decrease there values on their life. Thank you, and please vote Pro. Here is the format- Pro Case Con Case Pro Rebuttal Con Rebuttal
The "Ground Zero mosque" was justified

I will be arguing that the Ground Zero mosque had every right to be built close to the 9/11 site. Plain and simple.Round 1- Acceptance/Opening statementsRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Rebuttals/Closing statementsNo profanity (unless censored somehow) or racial slurs.
The "Ground Zero mosque" was justified

So let's turn this around. Let's say a church is burned down, and we rebuild a strip club there - freedom of speech mang! You are resorting to double standards and blatant lies to support your insidious agendas. These people died to an attack that is not only being vilified by your religious buffoonery - but being vilified by conspiracy theorists on BOTH SIDES. You and the Americans are all just animals that have no clue what justice is - what integrity is - what honor is! You're nothing but children that fight over bloody materials over the bones and flesh of our MEN.
The "Ground Zero mosque" was justified

The #1 reason that the mosque near Ground Zero is located in a little document called the "Bill of Rights. " Now, for the confused, this "Bill of Rights" guarantees basic human rights, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "(. http://www.archives.gov...)This makes it effectively illegal to ban any sort of mosque anywhere in the US. Now, the families affected by 9/11 have absolutely no say in whether or not the mosque should've been allowed near Ground Zero. Why? Because they're against otherwise peaceful Muslims from practicing their religion, and suddenly because 9/11 happened, it gives them more power? There is a very small minority of Muslims that are extremists, and the majority don't practice the violent portions of Islam. They wouldn't allow other people to dictate whether or not a church was going to be destroyed or not, so why do they get to dictate whether or not a mosque is able to be built?
Resolved: That showbiz personalities be banned from entering politics

Since I was forfeited from the second round, and my conclusion should be in this round, still I need to post my arguments. I strongly disagree with what you said. A good example, to support my arguments is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is a very popular Hollywood actor and nobody thought that he will be the 38th Governor of the U.S. state of California. And in this part Ms. Catherine, I can prove to you that showbiz personnel should not be banned in entering politics. Besides, it doesn't mean that if someone is a celebrity or actor or actress, one can't be a good politician. Just like some actors here in the Philippines who abandoned their career in showbiz, and turned out to be a good leader in the society.And it doesn't mean that if you have political experience you can serve your place better.In fact, people with political experience are more prone to corruption than the others who have no experience. Still, I strongly believe that entering politics doesn't require any background. Anybody, an educted or undergrad, or even a celebrity can serve his/her community or country by his/her own way.
Resolved: That showbiz personalities be banned from entering politics

I would think they would need some sought of background into politics and I don't think their experiences as peformers would be a good background. The only way entertainers make good politicians is the fact that they are used to sittThey may look pleasing in front of the TV but they don't have the skills to make decision and influence the decisions of the other seasoned politicians. ing/standing in front of an audience with a often rehearsed script.
Resolved: That showbiz personalities be banned from entering politics

I strongly disagree that showbiz personalities should be banned from entering politics. First and foremost, you didn't set any parameters for this propsition.You haven't mentioned if what country are you talking about. Well, if you consider this proposition as a general one, I can say that everybody has the right to enter politics.It dosn't matter if you are an undergrad or a showbiz personnel.No law in the constitution can stop you from entering politics as long as you have a clean record. Beside, no statistics can record can prove that showbiz people are nuisance in the politics.In fact, there are lots of showbiz people who abandoned their career and turned up to be a good politician.
Why do some males sag their pants down?!

I understand what you are saying, but I think that "sagging", is a absolute minor factor contributor to abortions and all that stuff. .. In my opinion, I don't think that all people who "sag", are signalling that are available for sex, maybe for attention or perhaps other things. I think that sagging may just be a followed trend. I would like to thank my opponent for this nice "discussion" or whatever you want to call it. .. To my opponent, I say CHEERS!