BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children

Well my friend, Even though 50% are Pedophiles we have yet to calculate the number of high risk scumbags. But not all of them will actually act out on there sexual desires. Let me be the first to clarify, I believe ALL Pedophiles should be given 3 options: 1) Get treatment 2) Be under constant monitoring until they get treatment 3) Be Executed Either one is fine with me. Just through I'd say my view on pedo's(I hate them). Anyway, the fact I'm a Quasi-Lolicon Fan does NOT mean I am unfit to represent the Lolicon Genre and its fan community. Hell if anything, it makes me more able to defend it. On to the next issue, Morals. Just because someone thinks its morally wrong to look at Lolicon, doesn't mean it should be illegal. As long as its kept out of children's hands and real children are not used to create Lolicon(which is only created in Japan), then I see nothing wrong with allowing Lolicon to remain legal in the US and become legal in Canada, UK, Australia, ect... By the way, since when has Politics been fair? I do ask that my opponent start offering up evidence and such instead of complaining about my ability to defend something I support.
Lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children

First of all, the question of factors was "personal" meaning what you believed were the factors, not a wholesome man, or womans' words. And frankly, if there is almost a majority of "possible future pedophiles" why it is safe to have? That is wrong. And as for my opponent, ranting on about being immune to my morals... who gives a flying hail stone? My opponent claims morals don't affect them, however, my opponent is claiming Pornographic material being freely viewed is moral, and right! Therefore, my opponent's claim cannot be followed; morals affect even people who don't want them. And "informing the masses" won't do a thing. Pedophiles know about what sex crimes are in specifics, despite still doing it. So that will not work. Since my opponent brought the "Corrupt Police/Legal System" factor up, I demand they elaborate, or else the argument could not be sustained. And finally, I find this round to be politically unfair, and tricked. My opponent, starting the debate while a Lolicon Fan, obviously knows more about the laws, thus is politically unfair to opposite debater. Also, my opponent should not be bringing personal things into the debate, and should be sticking to rather than stories of their life, an actual argument or piece of evidence.
Lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children

Well my friend, I have been a Lolicon Fan for about 6 years(since age 14). I run an org. called the Lolicon Defense Task Force. Among several things, we conduct research on Lolicon Fans. According to research last updated in 2008 or 2009, 50% of Lolicon Fans are in fact some form of a Pedophile. Just through I'd throw that out there. In any case, as odd as it may be, I think teens should be allowed to view pornographic material seeing as they will end up having sex at an early age anyway. As for The factors that contribute to the Low Sexual Abuse cases, I don't get what you mean by that. I will go out on a limb and assume ya mean "what are the factors that contribute to nations that have low sex crime rates compared to nations with high sex crime rates, and in that case one of 3 things would cause this: 1)Corrupt Police/Legal System- I won't elaborate on this seeing as it may prove fatal for my side of this debate. 2)Information and Training- The more people know about sex crimes, the less likely they are to happen. Example, a Sexually Abused Child shows signs of being abused, so if a Teacher or such is trained to identify these signs then the abuser/future abuser will be afraid to sexually abuse a child. 3) Liberal Porn Laws- Research shows nations with less strict porn laws, have lower sex crimes. [1] And on the part about Porn and Morals, let me respectfully say, Who give a flying hail stone? Oh, I can hear the rumbles beginning now. I can hear you getting all puffed up w/ your Righteous Indignation and your Superior Sense of Morality, tsk-tsking about how Insensitive, Absurd, and Unrealistic I'm being. SAVE IT! I'm Immune to your Moral Exhibitionism. Deep down inside you know I'm, right. I rest my case. 1-http://www.hawaii.edu...
Lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children

The most basic argument for why I affirm is because of what Lolicon causes onto the victims of Sexual Abuse. First, Children feel helpless against the adults who commit "Dirty" acts on them. The adults are influenced by reading the lolicon, and thus commits the acts on the children. Kareyth Patrick elaborates: "A press release issued by the University of Chicago Press Journals states that a new study to appear in the Journal of Consumer Research shows that social change is driven when information reaches easily influenced people who then influence other easily influenced people. " Thus, people can be easily influenced just by reading the lolicon. If people get influenced this leads to badly affecting the children through sexual abuse. If this lasts too long, it can lead to extreme emotional problems for the girls. Second, Child Sexual Abuse (even by Lolicon) leads to self-harm, and suicide among it's victims. Thus, Child Sexual Abuse is bad, and also does occur. Spataro J. writes: "Similar to the general population, CSA victims who died as a result of self-harm were predominantly aged in their 30s at time of death. Most had contact with the public mental health system and half were recorded as being diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Our data highlight that CSA victims are at increased risk of suicide and accidental fatal drug overdose. CSA is a risk factor that mediates suicide and fatal overdose. " Cross-Ex: 1. ) Do you believe just anyone should be allowed to view pornographic material? 2. ) What factors do you THINK contributed to the low Sex Abuse cases? 3. ) How is allowing pornographic material to be viewed by anyone moral? Sources: 1-. http://www.associatedcontent.com... 2-. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children

First lets look at what Lolicon is. According to western definition, Lolicon is a genre/theme of Anime in which underage female anime characters are sexually depicted. It was first formed in Japan in the 70's and since then has been introduced in to its mainstream media. Unlike in Japan, Lolicon is NOT popular in other nations from my research. It was legalized in the United States as of 2002 by a 6-3 Vote in the Surpream Courts.[1] Lolicon is legal I'm most nations. That's enough on its history, lets get to the debate. Critics claim Lolicon contributes to the sexual abuse of children, but there is no definitive evidence that says this is the case. There is how ever evidence that says it has an opposite effect on people. Nations with less strict porn laws tend to have lower sex crime rates. Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated and that the reduction of sexual crimes in Japan during that period may have been influenced by a variety of factors they had described in their study.[2] I rest my case. 1- http://archives.cnn.com... 2- http://www.hawaii.edu...
Abortion should be illegal

TAMPONS DON'T ALWAY STOP FLOW My opponent argues that if we assume abortion is immoral than we must also by extension argue that wearing a condom is immoral or a tampon. This is somewhat absurd. If my argument makes it immoral to kill a sperm than his argument makes it moral to kill an infant. What is the difference between aborting a full term pregnancy and an infant? Well for one you have to be the same entity that will develop into a human for the FLO argument to work, and we don't have an entity yet, until the sperm meets the egg, and the process of forming a human is started. It is premature to apply the FLO argument to anything before that, because none of those things have yet to form a human. In summary, the FLO argument applies to the same entity as what will develop into a full grown human, and that the tampon argument is silly, because a woman usually can't conceive during menstruation. RACISM My opponent argues that if something has a some racism in it than it is not enough to ban it, because by extension we'd have to ban Caucasians, guns and voting among other things. The difference is that it is the purpose of abortion to be racist as my argument states, and my opponent drops my argument that abortion is racist in favor of arguing that the racism doesn't matter. The purpose of abortion is to genocide the black population. It's entire purpose is for the purposes of cleansing the world of inferior races and people as confessed to by Margaret Sanger. I do think that we should eliminate the instrument for black Genocide, yes. CONCLUSION I have not had much time to write this out, but my point has been made clear, while I stand here scratching my head at some of my opponent's arguments. He has had the disadvantage of not being able to use an E, but on the other hand, it seems he has made a tiny point here or there and just droned on about it, to make his points seem bigger. I'd like the judges to consider the rape comment in the last round a conduct violation. Implying somebody will rape a 9 year old during a debate is inappropriate. I guess the human vitality argument by my opponent was an attempt to say that if a human can't defend themselves, they deserve to die, I am not sure. I didn't quite get it, but it is absurd enough and not provided premises so the response is covered in my FLO argument as well as the voter's sense of what is absurd or not.
Abortion should be illegal

Round 2: Con: 0. Summary of up til now: 1. In my introduction, I said don't outlaw abortion if you want tampons. 2. Pro said in his introduction 2 things: 1. Abortion is racist. 2. Abortion inhibits an individual from having a Forthcoming-simiLar-to-Ours (FLO), and on account of that, is morally wrong. 3. In short, my position on both is: 1.Humanity is racist. 2. Using tampons stops FLO. 4. In long: 1. Humanity is racist 1. Abortion is always wrong, or it isn't always wrong. 2. If it is always wrong, proving it is racist also is gratuitous; it's wrong anyway. 3. If abortion isn't always wrong, you don’t try to cut it out totally on account of racism; think about: Cops Laws Jobs Schools Voting Gun owning Caucasians This country (US) Humanity broadly 4. Should you also cut out all things on this list, if racism is found to abound in all, historically and today? 5. No, as long as what's at hand isn't totally wrong, you shouldn't cut it out totally on account of racist links; you should maintain what part of it is not wrong, and try to disjoin said links as much as you can, asymptotically. 2. Using tampons stops FLO 1. Pro says that why killing humans is morally wrong is that it stops a human from having a FLO (Forthcoming-simiLar-to-Ours). 2. But, if this is so: 1. Using a tampon is morally wrong, 2. Birth control is morally wrong, 3. Taking part in any activity that conflicts with producing what maximum sum of offspring you physically can is morally wrong 4. Not raping any girl 9 and up in whom offspring is not now spawning is morally wrong. 3. Possibly, though, you think that auxiliary moral rights undo such things. 4. But, wouldn’t all such rights--such as a right against raping for not now spawning offspring--also imply a right to not always try to hit a FLO maximum (on what opposing grounds would you not now start spawning offspring forthwith)? 5. Most of what’s said in this paragraph was said in my initial round, and as Pro has not had an opportunity to talk about tampons (or his strong suit, raping 9 yr. olds) thus far, I’ll finish by noting that as of now at this junction, any right-thinking suffragist to this discussion has an obvious road to follow; viz., Option #1=Killing kids for not doing anything wrong, or Option #2=Raping 9 yr. old prima donnas. You know what Con.
Abortion should be illegal

Read all rules before accepting. Violation of rules should result in a 7 point forfeit. 1. My opponent may not use the letter E at anytime during this debate. Any use of the letter E will result in a 7 point forfeit. 2. My opponent may not intentionally misspell a word.3. Types of abortion excluded from this debate are ones that are medically necessary for the physical well being of the mother, or terminations of pregnancies as a result of incest or rape. 4. Any attempt to avoid abiding by the rules by semantics or lawyering will immediately end the debate, and the judges are urged to award me all 7 points.
The Bible Teaches Total Depravity

PublicForum, I think we have two diferent definitions of total depravity...I do not believe the religion of Christianity is totally depraved, but rather that MAN is totally depraved. If the religion was depraved, there would be no point in it. Allow me to define it so as to clear things up. Depraved--- Marked by corruption or evil; perverted. Having said this, I believe that MAN is TOTALLY depraved, and cannot do any good work with a pure motive on his own. So depraved in fact that he is unable to accept the love of God on his own. This is my standpoint, so if you are arguing that the religion itself is depraved, then I'm afraid we agree and cannot debate. Thanks! Renzzy
Britain is a war criminal

Thanks for your lengthy response Pro and for accepting the definitions.Also, thank you for calling me pedantic.I pride myself on being excessively concerned with displaying academic learning.I am a teacher after all.*Pro's Case*Pro claims that "an island who is government and army" fought many wars.There are three problems with this.1. An island is not a government or an army; it's a piece of land...just check the accepted, though considered pedantic, definitions in round 1.2. Neither colonizing many countries nor fighting many wars necessitates criminality; both colonization and wars can be executed while no crime is committed.3. An island is not a who; the pronoun who is generally reserved for people or animals.Pro also claims that this is how he "referred to the Britain."Let's see what Pro wrote before round 2:"Round 1, accept challenge, state position and basically outline argument."My response:I fail to see any mention of Britain, an island, a government, or an army.Pro, when did you refer to "the Britain" as a government or army, before round 2?If the answer is that Pro didn't refer to "the Britain" before round 2, then how could I have been aware of Pro's reference?Also, this surely flies in the face of the accepted pedantic definitions, no?*Conclusion*Pro is just not giving us enough evidence that an island is capable of being a person or committing a crime, even if Pro inaccurately tried to refer to the island as a "who."So I maintain my rejection of this resolution, because Britain is a piece of land, as accepted by Pro, and not a person who committed a crime.
Britain is a war criminal

Thanks for the debate, Pro.I accept the challenge.Pro didn't bother to supply definitions for the resolution, so I will.DefinitionsBritain - the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...island - a piece of land surrounded by water.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...war - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.https://www.merriam-webster.com...(#2)criminal - a person who has committed a crime.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...person - a human being regarded as an individual.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...human being - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*My Position*I reject the resolution that a piece of land surrounded by water is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens who has committed a crime in a state of conflict.*Outline*Being that Britain is a piece of land, it does not qualify as a member of the Homo sapiens species and therefore cannot qualify as a criminal, in times of war or otherwise.Pro?
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

I am sorry I was too busy to answer in round 2. So, you argue women are forced to kill their children? I don't understand this. You see, from fertilization you have an individual person, doctors agree with this, but you say women can do what they want with this individual life? Can any woman kill their baby a year after it is born? No, it's murder. Basically your argument comes down to this – women will kill their babies anyway, so we should let doctors to it for them. Victims of rape and incest should not kill their child. You reason that since a guy did something horrible to a woman, she should have the right to do something horrible to her innocent baby?
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

Thousands of American women died and thousands more were maimed before abortion was legal. For this reason and others, women and men fought for and achieved women's legal right to make their own decisions about abortion. However, there are people in our society who still won't accept this. Some argue that even victims of rape or incest should be forced to have the child. And now, having failed to convince the public, certain of these people have become violent, engaging in a campaign of intimidation and terror aimed at women seeking abortions and health professionals who work at family-planning clinics. Some say these acts will stop abortions, but that is ridiculous. But, the same urgent reasons will exist for safe, legal abortions as have always existed.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

Abortion should be made illegal because it is not a woman's right to kill her child. In Roe v. Wade, the Judge's conclusion was, "The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to... resolve the difficult question of when life begins... since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus"[1] It turns out, scientists have finally figured out when life begins: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."[2] "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."[3] "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."[4] There you go. [1]Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). [2]Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically [3]Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic [4]Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical Schoo
Is it possible to love more than one person

1)Still the definition of love agreed upon. 2)Romantic love can not be shared with more than one person because the same "in love" feeling can not be duplicated if its real. 3)You can"t be in love with more than one person because once you start to become in love with someone else, the love you felt with the original person weakens or dissolves completely, now making it not the same as being in love. To continue I do not mean that you can never fall in love again. It basically means that at you can not share it at the same time with two people. Of course you can love two people but separately at different times. 4)With love comes passion and you can only have fire-burning love with one person. Anything else would just be a very strong feeling, which is a far cry from being the same as being in love. Passion coincides with the "strong feeling we described in our definition of love, though my opponent believes that there can be no set definition of love, we can so very well make a definition of what the foundation of love should consist of. 5)If you have the feeling to fall in love with someone else than the original person did not fulfill the areas that you needed meaning that its not love because love equals fulfillment. Though the definition we created did not include the word fulfillment itself, it did include strong feelings and attachment, the exact things you need to be filled with. 6)Therefore it is impossible to romantically be in love with more than one
Is it possible to love more than one person

1.I still agree with the definition of love as previously agreed upon. 2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship exclusive to that one person. 3.Feelings experienced during cannot be duplicated. 4.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another. This is also due to the fact that people express themselves differently. 5.Love is brought about in different ways and people have different reasons for loving other people which allows for more than one romantic partner. This includes variations in personalities, likes and dislikes, and presences for romantic partners. 6.There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love. 7.Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person. I replaced server premises and modified others to make my argument clear and understandable.
Is it possible to love more than one person

2) To clarify, Duplication meaning having a simultaneously replica of being in love not meaning the notion of falling out of love with another than falling in love with someone else. That is a total opposite spectrum of love that can not be used as an example in this argument for the fact that they are based off two separate things. Again why did we even create a definition of what love is if no one can say what love is ? Wouldn't our whole debate itself be invalid if we ourselves didn't create a definition of love ? 3) The premise is not to judge to explain the logics of why one cannot love another. I simply said that love triangles down not mean each party is in love with one another they can be in the relationship for different reasons. 2) That is true but it still did not point out how you can love people at the same time. The problem is not whether you can be in love with someone if you are in a relationship or not, its if you can be in love with more than on person at the same time. 3) True but again your argument was that people can not define what love is yet we have done the sam exact thing you have argued against. 4) Polygamy does not equal in love. Though it may be possible it may also very well not be possible. 5) Yes, It is different but that doesn't infer that it happens at the same time!