BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Mayonnaise Be Considered A Lethal Weapon

Hello, I've been wondering this answer for a while now. I, personally, am a fan of mayo. I've heard many negative comments about mayo, which has really hurt my feelings. Anyone willing to contest me I wish you luck. I'm also waiting to see how much you type in hopes of slacking off. There's no way you can argue that Mayonnaise is a lethal weapon. I will start my full argument after the Pro.
US Presidential Debates Should Include Third Party Candidates

Contention 1: MarginalizationSubpoint A: Exclusion Marginalizes Third PartiesBy excluding third parties from presidential debates, third parties are effectively excluded from the national discourse and subsequently marginalized. By marginalizing third parties, third parties find it very hard to organize and grow. According to Open the Debates, a non partisan, non profit which advocates fair debates: "Exclusion from the general election presidential debates is the death knell of a political campaign. A candidate who fails to gain admission to the debates is automatically relegated to fringe status and destined for marginal support at the polls. Conversely, inclusion provides a candidate with an opportunity to climb in the polls and prevail in the election." https://www.opendebates.org...http://www.cbsnews.com... Subpoint B: Americans Want a Third PartyAccording to Gallup Poll published on January 7, 2015, a record 43% of Americans do not identify with either party, more than Democrats or Republicans. This is a clear sign that Americans are dissatisfied with the two party system, and this is only further evidenced by another Gallup poll from September of 2015, where 60% of Americans say that a third party is needed in politicsDespite this, a third party presence is still lacking in American politics, this is thanks in large part to marginalization. http://www.gallup.com...http://www.gallup.com... Subpoint C: Allowing Third Party to Participate will Demarginalize Third Parties, Empirics ProveWhen third parties and independents are allowed to participate third parties are allowed to enter the political discourse and are treated as legitimate political forces, they are allowed to enter the political mainstream and gain support. This has been shown to be the case in numorous examples. In 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot was allowed to parrticipate in the debates even though Perot had only 7% support in the polls. This resulted in Perot obtaining 19% of the the popular vote in the 1992 election.Examples also exist at the state level. In the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial election, Jesse Ventura was initially polling at around 10%, lower than would be required to participate in a presidential debate (15%). After he was allowed to participate in 3 debates, Ventura climbed to 37% and won the election. According to Ventura, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”https://www.opendebates.org...http://www.usnews.com...Contention 2: Fairness and DemocracyIn order for elections to be free and fair, all voices, who have the ability to win, must be given a FAIR chance to make their case. If only two candidates are allowed to make their case on the national stage and if voters can only see two candidates in a head to head comparrison, this gives an obvious unfair advantage to thos two candidates. In order for elections to be fair, all feesible options must be allowed to make their case.
Chastity Belts Should Be Illegal

Interesting topic, Pro, and thanks for starting up this debate. I will argue that chastity devices should remain completely legal.I will admit that I don't have a ton of knowledge on this subject, but I'm at least vaguely aware of the fact that some "subs" in the BDSM community gain sexual pleasure from wearing a device that prevents or limits stimulation of their private parts. I personally don't understand why, but we don't need to psychoanalyze anyone's kinks. All we need to know is that these are consenting adults taking part in an activity that makes them happy, and so long as they aren't hurting anybody, the government shouldn't stand in their way.Your problem lies with parents who force chastity devices onto their children to prevent masturbation. At first, I almost didn't believe you, but when I looked it up, many brave people admitted online that their parents did this to them. This is a cruel, abusive, humiliating practice, and I understand your side of the debate. However, illegalizing chastity devices isn't the right course of action.You say, "This will continue to happen if they are not outlawed." I'd say that it will definitely keep happening if they are outlawed. Surely chastity devices could be easily smuggled from the numerous other countries where they'd still be legal for sale. And what about the people who own chastity devices already, including parents who use it on their children? What are we going to do, send SWAT teams to break down people's doors and search their houses for sex toys? Strip everyone naked to see if they're wearing one? Wouldn't that be a nightmare. Not to mention expensive. And what about the couples who use them for consensual BDSM purposes? Are they going to get jail time, even though they did no wrong?Banning chastity devices would ultimately be a clumsy, expensive, inefficient process. Not to mention illogical. Lots of parents whip their children with a belt, so should we ban belts next? Shoes, because some parents throw them at their kids? Automobiles, because some parents leave their babies in the car? All due respect, I think you're focusing on the wrong issue here. The tool being used to abuse isn't what's at fault, because almost anything can be used to harm a child, as I've pointed out. Instead, we should be fighting against the act of abuse itself. Air PSAs that raise awareness, discourage parents from this practice, and warn them of the consequences if they're caught. Teach children and teens alike how to call Child Protective Services and let them know what's going on. Toughen up the laws, and make it clear that if you put a chastity belt on someone, without consent, that is sexual abuse and punishable by prison.I sympathize with your reasoning, but I think that it's not only flawed in theory, but wouldn't work in reality. I await your response.
Chastity Belts Should Be Illegal

I would like to propose that chastity belts be made illegal. My reasoning is as follows. Although the original purpose of the device was to be used in BDSM activity for people with such sexual preferences, it has now become something that cruel, abusive parents use on their children to prevent masturbation. This will continue to happen if they are not outlawed. It is truly appalling. The stores even sell them in very small sizes and it looks extremely uncomfortable and even painful! People who practice BDSM should be willing to give up one of many devices used to limit the sexual freedom of the dominated partner so that children can stop being abused by their parents.
The USA should invade Canada. Joking btw.

Canada is boring. Being part of the US would make it fun(1). There would also be no stupid customs at the border(2) and everything the US gets, Canada will get too(3). Sources 1: If you're been to Canada and went to any place other than Toronto, you know/. 2: I don't need a source. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS! 3: My baby dragon said it's false. He lies.
The USA should invade Canada. Joking btw.

The US should invade Canada because the US needs to know the glories of poutine(1). Also, the conservatives will get their F-35s and they can shut up about it. Canada is cold cold cold(2), so becoming part of the US would make it warmer. Because it's part of the US. Lastly, the US needs something to do with their huge military that's way too overfunded(3). It just gets boring Sources: 1: Anyone who's tried poutine 2: My backyard when it's winter 3: https://en.wikipedia.org...
The USA should invade Canada. Joking btw.

The USA shouldn't invade Canada because we would lose access to Canadian bacon, lose much of our digital entertainment, and Canada is owned by England and we wouldn't want to annoy the Brits. "Canadian bacon is a type of bacon used on Pizza or English muffin commercially available breakfast sandwiches." [1]. "Canada is one of the global leaders of the entertainment software industry.[20]"[2] "Canada's still owned by England." [3]. Due to my reliable sources invading Canada would be the wrong move. Links 1. http://bacon.wikia.com... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. https://answers.yahoo.com...
The Holocaust Happened

Note, the resolution is that the holocaust happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Pro has made a MINIMUM of THREE assumptions in order to make his point (which isn't even his own point). He uses the three basal assumptions: 1) The universe exists 2) We can know something about the universe 3) We can test our assertions about the universe While making those assumptions, I agree that holocaust denial is ludicrous. The problem here, however, is that the resolution requires 100% certainty. 100% certainty CANNOT exist if assumptions must be made to reach the conclusion. As Pro (or anybody) MUST make the three basal assumptions to even get close to claiming that the holocaust happened, that means that Pro (or anybody) cannot be 100% certain that it happened. Since that 100% certainty does not exist, one cannot claim it happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. As it cannot be claimed to have happened beyond a reasonable doubt, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP.
Religious Beliefs Based only on the Christian Bible Must Condemn Homosexual Relationships

Pro: "you have made the assumption that a decision of weather or not something is sinful, should be decided on weather or not (your) belief on which interpretation of scripture is correct" The bulk of my argument had nothing to do with the interpretation of scripture but with the translation of scripture. Interpretation is subjective while translation is completely objective. Pro: "On another note, the old testament is not useless in teaching of what is right and what is sinful, when Jesus speaks of coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he means just that, not to remove laws that were already there, but to clarify what already was" I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that, according to the scripture, Jesus fulfilled the law and under the New Testament Christians aren't required to follow the Jewish commandments. Leviticus has other commands such as "do not eat shrimp" and "do not wear clothing of mixed fabrics", but these things are no longer considered sinful. Even one of the ten commandments, "Thou shall rest on the Sabbath", is no longer considered sinful to break, as all Christians break this commandment on a weekly basis. Since Christians do not hold all of the commandments it wouldn't make any sense to hold just a hand full of commandments as still being applicable today. If we did this, I could justify the murder of an adulterer as not being sinful for the sole reason that it is a commandment in the Old Testament. And besides all of this, even if Christians still chose to abide by the Old Testament, it would have no effect on my argument as Leviticus only condemns homosexual sex between two males. Celibate homosexual relationships would still be permissible as would fully sexual lesbian relationships. Pro: "you have made statements but given no proof" I have given proof. There is proof in my argument that arsenokoitai is mistranslated and you have offered nothing to the contrary. I have also given proof that even if you base your beliefs on the literal, mistranslated version of the Bible, only sex between two males is condemned and not sex between two women or other sexless homosexual relationships. I would have to say that you have offered no proof whatsoever that religious beliefs based only on the Christian Bible must condemn homosexual relationships. As such I challenge you to refute the three points I made at the end of my first post.
Are police officers corrupt or not

I understand the great police of America, are under paid and under appreciated for the work they have to perform. If you look at the law enforcement in this nation's largest cities, the risk usually outweighs the compensation. Regardless there are those in these institutions that bring a negative light to the good unselfish police officers out there. For instance, taking bribes which was rampant in the 80's and early 90's. Even now in the 21st century reports come out quarterly, take the TV show COPS, civil liberties, rights, and abuse of power is ridiculous and this is shown on national TV, and has been on the air since March 11, 1988. Even if this show is doctored and scripted it still is quite a accurate to portray today's and yesterday's law enforcement.
Are police officers corrupt or not

I have to disagree with this topic. The department of law enforcement is good as we got so far in today's time, but human greed, dishonesty, and disloyalty have crippled this institution alone, not to account for the other numerous issues we face as a people. It only takes a little research and documentary-watching to prove this. Presently we don't have to deal with the huge issues of racial indignities in law enforcement. Is that because its none existent or have people got better at covering it all up? Questions like that alone should put doubt in any person knowing the history of America, just naming the country I know best. It's been argued and proving that some of society's laws were made in order for the state to gain federal funding by apprehending out of line citizens. How can a police department keep its funding if they don't have anyone to arrest? I oppose on this debate, because the justice system is corrupt therefore the front line which is said police officers follow suite in some form or fashion. There's no way that all the cops are on the straight and narrow. I understand excessive threat has to be met with excessive force and I know their job isn't well paid or glorified, those issues lead to unrest and insecurities within the institution, and old habits tend to die-hard.
Should cell phones be permitted in school

FIRST THINGS FIRST. STOP FORFEITING THE ROUNDS PLEASE!!!! Though I do understand if you are gone from your laptop/phone/tablet but if you are not busy or away from your electronic, please please please stop forfeiting. In this round I will once again talk about phones and the distractions they cause. Next round I believe that we should just post conclusions because it is the last round. I am going to go back to what I said about everyday society using phones. It is a huge distraction. Car crashes have blown up in percentages and they are mostly because people are texting on their phone. Phones are also able to hold other diversions such as games, Pinterest, Facebook, Instagram, music.. etc. If school boards decide to let phones into schools, how is the state testing score going to change? I personally believe that it will drop tremendously. Students will be playing on their phones during class and not paying attention. Their test scores will drop because they can't get the homework done, which will lead them into detentions/after-schools. Then the principal has to call home to the parents who will not be very happy with their children no matter what age they are. This will result in probably getting the phone taken away instigating more problems. When the child finally gets the phone back, they will take it back to school starting the cycle all over again. Just as a reminder: the next round will be for conclusions. thank you!
Should cell phones be permitted in school

I have no idea what to post because my opponent forfeited, but I will give it a try. Like I said earlier, if in a hostage situation, captors are going to take away phones, ipods, etc. This proves my point. Cell phones are a huge distraction in schools and everyday society. Every day you see people walking down the street looking down at their phone. They bump into people and run into poles. Now, what if we bring this into schools? Students are going to be using the phones incessantly and not paying attention in the halls. The other students are going to be trying to avoid them, and the phone users are going to run into them anyways. They are going to lose track of time and be late to class. Then the phone will be used during class and the students will be behind in the classes. Say we have phones during lunch, students are already distracted by trying to finish their homework during lunch. Add phones to this equation, and you have a distaster. I would elaborate, but I am running out of time and have to participate in school. :)
Should cell phones be permitted in school

Yes, textbooks are out of date, but as it happens, teachers know more and are more than willing to help the students. I agree on the funding part. Yes, most schools are low on money and what money they have does not go towards technology a lot of the times. But if the student body really wants computers or iPods, they can have a fundraiser to earn money themselves. They can also talk to the student council team about talking to the school board. Most school boards are willing to listen to the students questions and suggestions. At my school, rules were recently changed to allow students to where sport shorts on Thursdays and Fridays. Originally we could only where them on Fridays. Like my opponent stated, many computer labs are not suited to used with a lot of students. But, on the contrary, most schools are now upgrading their technology to support many more students. My school upgrades the high school laptops every three years. The old ones are sent down to the elementary school for them to use. I am in another argument of music in schools right now. I think that music should be allowed but not off of cell phones or iPods owned by the students. The teacher should get to decide when students listen to music, and if other students don't have or forgot ear buds/headphones the teacher can play music off of his/her computer or radio in the classroom. As for having the phones for entertainment purposes, I am assuming that you mean high-schoolers and middle-schoolers. If you do mean grade school kids, why do they have cell phones? Beside the point that most grade school teachers have toys, puzzles, or games for the children to play with while it is raining out. Yes, society is dangerous especially around schools, but in most hostage situations phones are the first thing to be taken away. The captor walks in with a gun. First everybody is going to cower away from him/her. The hostages are then told to throw out their phones or be killed. Who in this situation is going to keep their phone and call the police. Phones have bright screens full or lowest brightness. The captor is going to see this and hurt this child or adult. So then, if the captor told them that no one would get hurt if all phones were thrown to the center of the room, this injury or death is pointless.
Should cell phones be permitted in school

In response, I would like to counter that many schools do not have the funding to provide each student with their own laptop. Many labs are not sufficient in regards to the number of available computers. Allowing students to bring their own device would offer a solution to this funding problem. As far as textbooks go, many textbooks are out of date. Accessing current information online would enhance the classroom experience. Funding issues plague districts and not only affect the availability of technology but also adequate textbooks. Regarding the concerns over safety, certainly if facing a situation in which you could leave the classroom with a simple excuse fine, but what about a situation in which the teacher is incapacitated or the student is not in the classroom but somewhere away from authorities.
Should cell phones be permitted in school

No. Cell phones are a big distraction during school hours. Yes, they could be used in dangerous scenarios, but most students can leave them classroom if they feel threatened. It is very easy to come up with an excuse to leave. For the music aspect, yes students benefit from it. I am in a debate about it right now even. But some schools don't allow any music at all during the school day. The teachers believe that the music distracts them. Some teachers also allow music to be played from their computer or classroom radio. Students can learn much more from their textbook than they can from their phone or tablet. My school has laptops for each student to carry around and take home to use for homework. A lot of the teachers use the system 'Angel' for homework and notes. So, the only time we can get our laptop out at school is to get an assignment from there. In conclusion, cell phones should not be permitted in schools. They are a big distraction to the students while they are supposed to be learning.
Should cell phones be permitted in school

I believe cell phones should be permitted in school because students could use them for educational purposes, to ward off boredom during free periods, and for safety. With the variety of educational apps available, technology in the classroom is an effective teaching/learning tool. Most students carry their cell phones anyway. Why not utilize them within the classroom learning environment positively. Many school districts do not have the funds available to provided computers or tablets for each student. If students were permitted to have cell phone, particularly smart phone, then they could research right from their desk. Many students find it helpful to listen to music while working. Having a cell phone would allow for this. Granted students would need headphones. Often students, have free time throughout the day. Having a cell phone would mean that they could use it for entertainment purposes, especially on those rainy, inside days. Who hasn't heard the news? With the prevalence of school violence, students need to have options for seeking help. A cell phone could be critical in this matter. I know most schools provided a land line phone at the teacher's work station. However, many of the scenarios we have seen play out on the news did not happen within the classroom. All to often the students were not withing reach of these land line phones. Having a cell phone on their person would allow for immediately contacting the appropriate authorities. While there is much debate on this topic, I believe cell phones would be beneficial to the learning environment and therefore should be permitted in schools.
Advertising, in general, is necessary in today"s society.

Hi all,Since the very dawn of marketing, advertising has played a crucial role in civilization, as we know it. In the business world, it is often said "advertising is a necessary evil". I have read that the spending in 2013 reached an all-time high with 500 billion dollars. It is expected that this trend will continue and spending will rise up to 5,8% in 2015 and 2016. From this one might conclude that advertising is needed by companies.I found myself wondering if all of this really is necessary. Imagine a world without advertising and all aspects that would come with it. What effect would that have on the economy? What effect would it have on people's thoughts and perspectives? I will be writing a report on this topic and I am very interested in your opinion. Therefore I have create the following statement:Advertising, in general, is necessary in today"s society.What are your thoughts on this?