BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
65000th Debate

You say that the 666,666th debate is 'Inevitable', well, let's have a look at that, shall we?# The site, debate.org.com started in 2007, which is 11 years running. However, the first recorded debate, if you look through the archives, is 10 years ago. Actually, 10.323 years ago to be more precise. Now, take the number of debates there have been in 10.323 years and hey presto, we have a measurement of how many debates per year we have. Stick with me, bro. At the time of writing this, there have been 65,069 debates on this website, so 65,069 / 10.32328767 = 6303.127654 debates per year... Now, if we now take that number to try to find out how many years it would take to reach the 666,666th debate, well, we would do 666,666 / 6303.127654. The answer is....... 105 years!!! (105.7674914) So, after this, we can determine that neither of us is going to see the 666,666th debate in our lifetimes, nor will it be inevitable, due to the fact that either, the world probably will have ended by then by WWIII, the Internet will crash, or just because nobody will bother to post on here anymore. Therefore the 666,666th debate will probably never be reached, so you might want to consider celebrating the 65,000th debate, as it took 10 years to get here. I am ready to celebrate it, but the question is, are you? Vote Joel my mates, the 65,000th debate holds all the answers. Join me, my brothers, join me.
65000th Debate

Well first of all, you're being highly racist towards numbers. Man would be nothing without numbers, how dare you! Besides you are fake, you don't even respect the number 65000, because it should be pronounced "65,000". Now since I have exposed you for who you really are, allow me to argue that the congregation can not celebrate until we have reached "666,666" debates. For the loser of that debate will burn in hell, and that victor will surely be rewarded with all the worldly pleasures. What did you say, don't call me Shirley?!?. Shut up boy, Just wake up and smell reality. 65,000 sucks d1ck in comparison to the inevitable 666,666 debate. Nuff said.
65000th Debate

First of all, I am certainly not scared to argue my point, and at first, you might be thinking: 'This guy is a monster if he supports this kind of behavior. 65000 arguments are nothing to be proud of within our society'. Despite this, I do have a good reason to support the 65000th debate. So first off, this debate is probably the most culturally challenging question of our generation: 'Should the 65000th debate be allowed to be present in our society?'. The short answer is, yes. See, there is no reason why it should not be supported. The fact that there have been over 65000 debates on this website allows us to remember the amount of time that people have spent on here improving their debating skills by trying their luck on this beautiful site. It truly brings a tear to my eye. On top of this, according to this study, 'Problems often arise when trying to spell bigger numbers such as 65000' [1]. As a result of this, it allows people to practice their pronunciation when talking about larger numbers. This ultimately will help our society to master the English language and ultimately improve as a multi-national society. Another reason why we should support this is due to the fact that we need more arguments in this country, as one complaining couple state: 'For my husband to earn "65,000 per annum and we still can't afford to live in this bloody country!!' [2]. This was stated in Great Britain, where there is obviously more intellect saying that we need more than 65000, which helps to prove that the 65,000th debate should be celebrated, not shut down by ignorant people like you. Thank you. Sources: [1] - http://www.mathspage.com... [2] - https://www.mumsnet.com...
Preserving Endangered Languages is More Important Than Spreading Major Language

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to read my very first debate topic on Debate.org. ============ Definition of an endangered language; http://en.wikipedia.org... I believe that preserving languages of the world is a worthy task, that would both preserve culture and heritage of people all across the earth. Some points to be considered; The debate with Traditional and Simplified Chinese characters has been raging for decades; unfortunately, the Chinese government has taken the side of Simplified Chinese, enacting a fine if one were to use Traditional characters in place of Simplified Characters. Though the Chinese language is certainly not endangered, it gives one insight of what could happen if a powerful government were to enforce a specific writing system. Source = http://en.wikipedia.org... Code talkers have been used by the United States government to ensure secure communication of messages without risk of the enemy deciphering the message. Navajo, Choktaw, Cherekee, and Comanche code talkers have been used in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam to ensure safe transport of messages without risk of being understood by the enemy. Endangered languages can play a similar role in the future. Source = http://en.wikipedia.org... Language is a unique system that often has deep relations to the people who speak it. Preserving these languages can preserve historical heritage. I look forward for someone to accept my challenge.
Smoking Should be Banned

-Thank you once for your submission. Summary:First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco. Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.2. They contain liquid nicotine.3. They are toxic.4. No quality control.5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.6. Reusability.7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).9. Second-hand vapor.10. Lung Damage.Sources:http://health.howstuffworks.com...Don't Smoke and vote for me!
Smoking Should be Banned

Harming other people: Other people can just walk away. :/Industry corruption: What do you mean, scientists aren't finding solutions? Did they not invent the safer version of smoking? see: http://www.webmd.com...Irrefuted/Dropped arguments:-freedom of choice (ban=immorality of the government)-Malawi gonna get wiped off the map-Loss of jobs-Crashes of industries (thanks to my opponent's source)-ineffectiveness of the ban -it's a mental issue, not a legal issueVOTE ME.
Smoking Should be Banned

-Thank you for a very wonderful argument, I could see that you have partially understood what I have explained.Rebuttals:Let's start by discussing about the health and the death of the people. You choose to exclude the fact that smokers don't only harm themselves, but they also harm the people around, especially children. And remember, the diseases that non-smokers get from breathing in the tobacco smoke is the same as the diseases that smokers get. Tobacco industry corruption: You don't understand, these corporation are continuously forcing scientists to do the same experiments, these companies are forcing them to find evidences that smoking isn't not all that dangerous. It's not about the research; it's about finding solutions to help people. If it wasn't for these industries we would've made such extravagant discoveries. Tobacco sponsors are literally threatening these companies/medical facilities. You also have chosen to exclude the story of Phillip Morris. A company that was forced to censor health information on cigarette packs because tobacco industries threatened them.
Smoking Should be Banned

REBUTTALSI am perfectly aware of smoke's harms, but they are irrelevant because people had the decision to kill off themselves, it is their choice to harm their bodies. As for financial burden, the huge loss of jobs makes the government earn less money since there are less people to give taxes and all that to the government. 600,000 people losing their jobs? Whoa, that's a lot of tax that could have been earned.Smokes' corruption: Scientist can earn more money from more research, isn't that good? Besides, you only support my point that with smoke's ban comes huge crash of industries, since my opponent agrees to my point and even said tobacco industries sponsor nearly everything; therefore the ban has a much more negative impact than even I stated above. Thank you opponent, thank you very much. Irrefuted arguments:-freedom of choice-Malawi gonna get wiped off the map-Loss of jobs-Crashes of industries (thanks to my opponent's source)-ineffectiveness of the ban -it's a mental issue, not a legal issue
Smoking Should be Banned

About cigarettes and the addiction of tobacco:Cigarettes are one of the main reasons for premature death. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Preventation, Americans of the ages of 18 years and older smoke tobacco cigarettes. 443,000 deaths occur yearly in the U. S. from smoking. Smoking greatly affects the population of the nation. Population:As I have mentioned before smoking affects the population. Smoking affects the population's health and its economy. Not only does smoking effect smokers it is also capable of effecting the health of many non-smokers. Cigarettes are also capable of affecting the outside environment. Children, while breathing the smoke of the cigarettes are able to get diseases like bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, ear infections, and so much more (1). Deaths and HealthOne out of every 5 deaths in the states is caused from smoking. Smoking gives diseases such as lung caner, liver cancer, emphysema, leukemia, etc. cigarettes are also capable of damaging your sexual life and the pulse of your heart. In Alaska 492 people died from smoking while in California there was roughly 36,687 (1). In the 20th century smoking killed over 100 million people (2). Financial Burden:Due to the cost of cigarettes and the influence that it has on people, the United States spends $193 billion on this burden annually. $5 billion are spent on medical costs and $4.6 billion on cigarettes (1). Sources:[1]: . http://www.livestrong.com...[2]: . http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...Control of research and media:Smoking corrupts the opportunity for research by forcing scientists to conduct research on topics like decoy or distraction research. Basically, everything is dependent on tobacco industries and corporations. Tobacco industries also sponsor the media. Newspapers and many news television and the radio is forced to write good critiques on cigarettes. Tobacco industries have also forced companies like Phillip Moris to invest in CIGNA to censor the health information on cigarette packs (2). Smokers dislike their habit:Most smokers despise their addiction to cigarettes. Smoking is very indifferent to drugs like Marijuana, Caffeine and Marijuana. 10-15% of people who drink alcohol become habitual addicts to it, while 80-90% of people who smoke momentarily become addicted to cigarettes. A famous Canadian tobacco executive admitted, " smoking is not like drinking, it is rather like being an alcoholic. "Sources:[2]: . http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...
Smoking Should be Banned

Completely banned.It feels odd doing this side of the resolution, I was completely for the ban, then I debated against kc1999 about the resolution.....and he changed my view topsy-turvy. Oh well. Let's see how this goes.1. People have freedom of choice. If you ban smoking completely this does not give the people their freedom of choice. The government has no right to infiltrate the individual freedom of choice. If you ban smoking you would be doing an "immoral" choice by violating such freedom, and the people would more than likely overthrow the government or massively complain like the alcohol ban. In fact, the alcohol ban was massively ineffective. [4] 2. Economic benefits of smoking. India gained $2.1 billion from cigarettes, Yunnan alone gained $8.3 billion dollars, and Turkey has more than 530$ million dollars, even with severe tobacco taxes. [1]2b. Furthermore there is a country named Malawi that 90% depends on tobacco exports, yet is still impoverished. If we ban tobacco completely Malawi would lose 5 million jobs and $165 million yearly. People would die of starvation if we banned smoking completely.3. Jobs. The tobacco industry provides the US more than 600,000 jobs. It also directly influences 1.6 million workers in America. It gives 10$ million to the government by taxes. [2] The US would doubtfully survive the crash if smoking was banned, and around the world 30 million jobs are created by JUST farming the tobacco.4. Peopel would still get more regardless of the ban. Nicotine is so darn addictive people would go to the black market and still smoke because the psycological effects force people to smoke until you reach the substance "equilibruim". [3] Again, with the alcohol-ban's ineffectiveness--seriously, do you expect people to stop just because you banned it? Nope.5. This (addiction) is actually a mental issue, not a psysical issue. Even DSM V puts addiction as a mental condition. We cannot arrest people for a mental issue, it is not a legal issue.With this, I have negated the resolution. Onto you, pro.[1] http://www.fao.org...[2] http://archive.tobacco.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.albany.edu...
Evolution is correct

READ: This debate will be a bit different. Lots of people who do this debate type a ton of words. How boring. This debate is going to be different. We are going to debate using 20 words max per each round (Excluding this paragraph). This isn't a particularly serious debate, so I guess the only strict rule is the 20 word max for each argument. Put your argument in quotes if you want to say something else, anything not in quotes cannot be voted on. "Genetics, Paleontology, Zoology and Geology all confirm evolution is correct. It complies with religion if need be for religious people.
Are technological advancement doing more harm than good, and causing society to move backwards

I appreciate that fact that not all weoponry is good, but the advancement of these technologies are necessary in order to allow nations to defend themselves. It isn't logical to say that weapons cause wars between nations. these rivalries are inevitable. Humans have had conflicts with each other since the beginning of man. Also ethical decisions are made based on peoples personalities, thoughts and beliefs. This is not affected by the technological advances in society. A personal choice to be ethical or not is an individual decision which cannot be changed solely by technology. If anything the advancements in technology are being used as a scapegoat to cover up underlying problems with humans in modern society.
Are technological advancement doing more harm than good, and causing society to move backwards

Technology has ultimately amplified man's capacity for evil, where the many bads of technology outweighs the good. For instance, thanks to the dawn of Information Age weaponry, including nuclear weaponry, man now has the ability to utterly destroy the world in 8 minutes; which is considerbly faster than what it took God to create it!The 20th century has also been marked as the deadliest in human history; and when you consider technology of the future, the 21st century doesn't look to good either; robots, drones, mass automation, sigularity, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and human cloning, are all coming to a battlefield near you - that is, if they don't take your job first!Technology also has the bad habit of opening up the pandora box of ethical issues that I simply would not trust the human race to deal with. I'll spare you the crazy laundry list of examples here -because their are many ways man tries to play God- but there are probably none more profound or urgent then Global Warming. But for these reasons and more, we can contend that technology does cause society to move backwards.
Are technological advancement doing more harm than good, and causing society to move backwards

Unfortunately, this isn't a debate about whose worse (tech or humans), but is about whether or not technology is a good thing for man. CON writes: "If anything the advancements in technology are being used as a scapegoat to cover up underlying problems with humans in modern society." Then you've just confirmed my point. Advanced technology has allowed man to scapegoat its problems and shrink away from its own sense of moral or ethical responsibility - where a fine example of this might be the violent and graphic nature of video games that promulgate violence, or the extreme nature of some birth control methods that allow a person to abort a child. Reliance on technology also has the added bonus of creating dependency. I shouldn't have to explain this one too much, but someone who spends too much time on the computer loses quintessential life experiences that are important for areas like career-building, leadership, management, staying active, fitness, making friends, dialogue, and raising a family. CON writes: "It isn't logical to say that weapons cause wars between nations." But several arms races throughout history have proven otherwise, the most famous example being the Cold War where "fear of the bomb" evoked the USSR and the United States into waging proxy wars and building massive arsenals of wmd in order to persevere a nuclear hegemony. CON writes: "Also ethical decisions are made based on peoples personalities" Decisions are made through people, but the opportunities are created by technology. When Dr. Oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb he stated: "Now I am become death, the destroy of words." Which is just a creepy and apocalyptic way of saying "man can now do more evil." And this statement holds true for even trivial things like "internet addiction" which would be impossible without the invention of the Internet, where a similar approximation could also be said of automobile accidents that might not have occurred had there been no such thing as texting and driving, to finally, something sinister like mass killings that should have been prevented had their been a just ban on firearms. My original assertion in round 1, that technology increases man's capacity for evil, and that technology ultimately allows man to move backwards, still stands.
Music Battle

This is basically a battle of Youtube videos of songs. - Each round, post 5 videos, no more, no less of 5 different songs. - They can be from the same band - Each debater should post a brief explanation as to why their video is better/why the video was chosen. - Judging * There really is no Pro side or Con side just two people posting videos. If you're judging, you should judge the videos on originality and musicality. The originality part should definitely come in if someone is posting multiple videos of one artist. * * Conduct and grammar should be judged the way they usually are. ** It would be appreciated if the songs posted were in English this would obviously exclude J Rock, J Pop etc. I will let my opponent post first, and thank anyone who accepts this debate.
No Summer Break for School

First its important to understand that year long school could mean several different types of schedules. It could be 3 weeks on and 1 week off throughout the year with a few longer duration breaks during the holidays, spring, and summer. Also you said something that needed to be defined. Broken is something that is not working. Students in the US have shown to be behind many nations so it is reasonable to say that it is broken or at least breaking down compared to other nations. There are successful students in every school, but more could be successful schedules were adjusted to allow less time to forget lessons. In addition, it doesn't work too well to review last year's content for up to a few weeks in the current one.
Marijuana Should be Legalized

Now, the obvious question is this: WHERE THE HELL DO I GET SUPPORT FOR ALL THOSE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS OF MINE? The answer is: NOWHERE. I PULLED THOSE "FACT AND FIGURES" out of thin air. I made them up. And Pro is quite right in saying "Where are your sources? I think you are making all of this up. " (Pro's last post). But so am I! I'm just as right in saying "where are Pro's sources? " You see, Pro has done nothing (NOTHING) to support his/her claims. Pro's opening argument looked impressive, sure. But it contained NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. For all we know, Pro might have made all that up. Just like I may have made up all my claims about marijuana killing people in road accidents and about marijuana increasing the incidence of UFO abductions. Folks, this is a debate. This is not about deciding whether marijuana should be legalised. Hell no. This is about whether the Instigator has proven their point. The Contender (that's me) doesn't have to prove anything. In a debate we rely on evidence, not on unsupported arbitrary claims. I suggest that Pro has given us nothing BUT unsupported and arbitrary claims. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that Pro has not proven a thing. Pro's claims are just as valid as my claims are. They are just as unsupported as my claims are. I have made it clear from my very first argument in this debate: the burden falls on Pro (Instigator). I don't have to prove a thing. Pro had plenty of opportunities to provide us with evidence. And yet Pro didn't. So what do we end up with? 1. Pro making unsupported claims. 2. Me making unsupported claims. Seems equal. But it's not. Why? Because the burden of proof falls on Pro. Vote Con folks. And then we can all have a bong together.
Marijuana Should be Legalized

Where are your sources? I think you are making all of this up. Stupidity is not an effect of using Marijuana. What percent of mass murder is caused by marijuana? There are plenty of people who are satanists and use witchcraft that don't use marijuana. There was more than one terrorist involved in 9/11 and if you were about to kill a ton of people wouldn't you want to calm down? UFO abductions are fake, if you honestly think that people get abducted by aliens, go find a credible source and put it and the end of your argument.
Marijuana Should be Legalized

Thank you for replying. Marijuana also causes breast cancer, lung cancer and stupidity. Marijuana is the most common reason for corporate failure. It's also the main cause of roadrage. Did you know that 12.1% of marijuana users end up being seriously injured in car accidents? 3% die. Marijuna has been found to be responsible for 85% of child pornography, percent of mass murder, 11% of paraplegia, 55% of witchcraft, 2% of statanism. The 9/11 terrorist were found to be under the influence of marijuana at the time of the attack. Hitler was found to be under the influence of marijuana when ordering the Final Solution. And last but not least 25% of impotent men were caused to be impotent by having a single joint of marijuana. As for scientific investigation, it can be achieved without legalising marijuana for popural use. States (and countries) can legalise the use for cannabis for scientific experimentation of any kind without allowing popular use. I now return the spotlight to my opponent.