BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

Jack Sparrow lies constantly, is blatantly dishonest in business deals, and abandons his friends on multiple occasions. Davy Jones is honest and treats his crew members fairly.Jack Sparrow has no problem condemning his innocent friend to a lifetime of slavery:Davy Jones: "I wonder, Sparrow, can you live with this? Can you condemn an innocent man - a friend-uh - to a lifetime of servitude, in your name while you roam free?"Jack Sparrow: "Yep! I'm good with it." (1)Shortly afterward, in the same movie, Sparrow deceives 4 other men in a business deal in Tortuga. He convinces them to join his crew, holding back the fact that he is going to hand them over to Davy Jones to be enslaved for 100 years.When the Kraken attacks the Black Pearl for the first time, Sparrow abandons his entire crew by taking the single remaining longboat and heading for land. (2)(1) www.imsdb.com/scripts/Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-Dead-Man's-Chest.html(2) http://pirates.wikia.com...
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

Well, with the dialogue about Jack trying to marry Elizabeth, she in turn shackled him to the ship, and that is when he understood that his actions were wrong and he faced the Kraken with dignity instead of calling out to his crew. At that point he also went back with the last longboat and rescued the last of his crew. The point is, either way, that he stilled killed Mercer, whether he was evil or not, instead of releasing him to be captured by the whirlpool, he suffocated him, instead of just taking the key. I had a magnificent time debating with you, GarretKadeDupre! Vote for Davy Jones being more evil, or Con! Your choice!
Jack Sparrow is more evil than Davy Jones in Pirates of the Carribean

The reason I had stated that was because Davy Jones had said, as an excerpt of what GarretKadeDupre wrote, "...and POSTPONE the judgement", meaning either way he will be killed.That's not true. If someone chooses to serve Davy Jones, he won't be killed!"he let his hurt and anger get the better of him and destroyed any man he came across."Again, not true. He didn't destroy every man he came across!"He also killed Lord Beckett's, right-hand man, as I would call it, Mercer."That is a good thing! Mercer is an evil character who once killed a man just because of a message he was bringing to the king. Davy Jones did a good deed by killing Mercer.I digress. Thanks for this debate, Con, I enjoyed it :)Vote Pro! Thank you everyone.
Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

Thanks for your response You're so obvious Lets start it off with the definition of irrational. Not logical or reasonable. I do not recall anything in my argument that illustrated neither. Being that is your opinion I guess it does not hold any value does it. You proclaimed there is no claim in the bible, which states gays can not adopt. However it states Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination". Therefore the bible forbids homosexual activity. Therefore if the bible was followed there would be no place in society for children to be raised by a homosexually couple. You say we should disregard the bible however the bible is one of the oldest texts that is still relevant today, so how is that possible. You say "thy shall love your there neighbor and it also states you shall not lie with a man as you will with a female". So which one is right? What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up. Which is gay adoption and by the way you say also "thy shall forgive" if I'm correct and not assuming like you say don't you forgive when someone has done wrong? Question when did I state a heterosexual couple has better parenting skills then a homosexually couple or did I state they have an option to consult their mom or dad? I'm pretty sure a female has a different point view opposed to a male. That's all I was saying yes they need love and compassion along with someone they can look up to. As a child you learn a lot from your parents therefore the child may be way more open to the same sex opposed to if he had a heterosexually family. Here is your link http://authorfbradshaw.hubpages.com... which shows gay parents do have some affect on their kid's sexual preference. Not only did my opponent cite Wikipedia which we all know is not a legitimate reference, anyone can write on Wikipedia. But he somehow got that "LGBT parents have absolutely no effect on influencing or changing the sexual orientation of the child, there is no scientific evidence to support it, and this is according to the American Psychological Association." I find that to be impossible being there is billions of people in this world and I cited a source that states otherwise. Next issue is that the child of an LGBT couple may result to being bullied and depressed because of their parents' sexual orientation. You say they should make laws and the parents should not be faulted, however if we think proactively it can be stopped by not allowing homosexually couples to adopt kids. Question why can't two females or two males have a child of their own? Is it because they were not made to, to my understanding only a male and a female can produce life? And if not mistaken you never answered what to do if the child is depressed because he or she is different in regards to there parents. Once again I have nothing against homosexuality And please no references from Wikipedia because all it is an opinion.
Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

I believe that God created us to be with the opposite sex don't get me wrong, I have no problems with homosexuals. But when they bring a children into there relationship, that's undermining what God has created a family to be .I believe that mothers and fathers have different purposes in a child's life that they need. There are just some issues that are better dealt with by a father and some issues best handled by a mother. By exposing a child into this circumstance it almost influences a child to be homosexual themselves. think about it growing up you always want to be just like your parents and in that situation the child will most likely lean towards being gay . not only will that situation make them lean towards dating the same sex, growing up the child will be confused and may also suffer from depression. you may ask what do you mean suffer from depression but growing up young with two dads or two moms can be embarrassing to the child. for example when they go to school and they see there friends being dropped off by there mom and dad what does the child say when his or her friend ask he or she why he or she has two moms or two dads. what does that child do when they are being picked on because of that? it is going to make he or she sad and almost ashamed of there predicament.
Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

I apologize for the forfeit. I loss track of time. Ladies and gentlemen, there's not much to rebut here;In CON's response to my equality, he stated that there is community interest and society interest, and that he thinks that same sex adoption is NOT best for society. What does he know about society's interest? This is obviously a flawed rebuttal and it's too weak since it didn't elaborate accurately on refuting my contention. Next, regarding my contention that homosexuals make good parents, my opponent's only refutation here is the use of the word, 'more likely'. CON used semantics instead of providing counter statistics/testimony to rebut my case. My opponent says that's there's no evidence that homos are better than heteros. It's obvious he didn't read my statistics I cited. Please extend. My opponent attacks the APA's documented opinion on gay dads as non factual because it's an opinion. We're engaged in a debate, and we've got to consider all possible evidences. This testimony is an official document that holds the opinion of a prestigious medical organisation. It must be considered accurate and concrete evidence. Next, he stated that changing society is long term. If that's what it takes, then so be it. Equality is more important. There are educational institutions that promote and liberalize respecting LGBTs, which is a good sign of progress. It's possible, within time, to achieve the goal on changing societyI thank my opponent for issuing the debate. Again, to the voters, please be impartial with voting (regardless of idology bias). Please extend my previous arguments since it wasn't accurately rebutted and since my arguments stand supreme.
Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

you bring up the case of equality everyone should be treated equally. you say by denying them the right to adopt is almost like discrimination or hate towards the gay community however it is not. sometimes you got to weigh the community interest and society interest. I do not think that is best for society. pro says According to psychologist Abbie Goldberg, gays are likely to become better parents than the average heterosexual couple, because they are more motivated and committed on the role because they chose to become parents. the key word is here is likely who knows they can be the worst parenting figures or the best there is no evidence supporting that they are actually better parents then heterosexual couples that actually lay down and have there own kids. pro stated American gay dads are found to be more fit parents than straight dads, according to the opinion of the American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org......). this is once again an opinion and should be disregarded it holds no value or fact. pro states parents gender has got nothing to do on the disadvantage of kids raised by LGBT parents (http://www.livescience.com......). Which means, and as I said, if the child is depressed and being bullied, it shouldn't be the parents' fault. We need to fix society and their poor reaction to LGBTs. social transformation does not happen over night therefore your idea may be a long term goal. however we need a solution now which can be them not being able to adopt, to protect the mental state of the children
Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples

Thanks for responding.Rebuttal/DefenseAddressing my opponent's remark on religion, I'll say it again, it is irrelevant and futile in this debate because the United States has a seperation of Church and State that is protected under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net...). But then agaoin, my opponent made no reasonable rebuttal to refute my argument which states that gay adopion is against the Bible. The Bible only prohibits gay sex. Again, please disregard any religious arguments.Next, my opponent tries to rebut my argument that LGBT parents have no influence on children, which is true. My opponent's reponse is by sending a link to an opinion article of an unpolular website and not even care to argue what's being said there. You need to elaborate what you cite in an online debate. Bottomline, there's nothing to refute if there's no official argument, please extend.Oh, and since my opponent is being to mean and wants Wikipedia articles disregarded, I'll back up my argument by showing genuine and official documents published by the APA:**http://www.apa.org...In here, the APA officially states that, "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."This basically trashes the ludicrous claim that having gay parents can make you gay.**http://www.apa.org...APA stated that "there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"Finally, my opponent never really convincingly rebutted my argument on preventing bullying and depression and continues to claim that we ban LGBT adoption because it's the only way. He didn't explain why thoroughly enough. CON also argues that homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally and therefore shouldn't have children. Weak arguments needs improvements.Once again, I ask the readers to please extend my previous arguments since they weren't adequately refuted by CON. Thanks.
Raising Minimum Wage

There is a lot of talk these days about raising the minimum wage to $15/hour. My position is that I am against raising the minimum wage any higher than it already is. There is historical evidence that raising minimum wage is detrimental to companies. I will start off this debate by pointing out three facts: 1. Raising minimum wage causes companies to to either cut employees or cut hours. Most companies either do not have it in their budget to pay the difference when minimum wage is increased, or they refuse to increase their budgets. Therefore, many companies will hire fewer people to compensate for the higher wages. Other companies have a tendency to cut hours. Just because someone is making $10/hour instead of $7, it doesn't mean that they will be offered the hours desired to see a difference. 2. Raising minimum wage increases costs. For companies that do not cut employees or hours, they are forced to raise prices to compensate for the extra money being spent on payroll. There is a reason that prices have soared for many consumer products in recent years...it is because minimum wage keeps increasing. In order to balance their budget, most companies have to charge higher prices to compensate. 3. Raising minimum wage kills competition for jobs. There are two possible consequences if minimum wage reaches the desired $15/hour that many cities and states are fighting for. Most of these jobs require very little skill and/or little to no education. Therefore, this is either going to cause other careers to raise their wages or many will pass by college to get a job that will pay close to the same without the student loan debt. Why would someone go to college for 4 or 5 years and be put $100,000 in debt to work a job that pays just a little more than a career with no education experience required. Either way, it will start a ripple effect across the entire economy.
ETHICS of Polygamy

As my opponent has forfeited the last round, one may freely assume that polygamy, in a world view, is unethical because it is an action that is considered morally non-viable by a vast majority of the world, and because it is a tool used by the patriarchy to enslave women, even those fortunate enough to live in a first world nation. I thank the affirmation for the debate as a whole, and hope to debate you again in the future!
ETHICS of Polygamy

Thank you for entering the debate! It seems to me that a great number of you are confused about a simple little term: ethic. Thus clarification is needed. Ethics are 'oughts' derived from various sources: you ought not to do (X) because (Y,) or you ought to do (X) because (Y). The term 'ethics' is more all-encompassing and pervasive than the term morality, which is generally used only in reference to more 'transcendental' rights and wrongs. ie: Nietzsche was definitely "immoral" (he even called himself so) but he was not unethical. The problem most of you seem to be having is about your (Y)'s; since for an ethics to be valid you need a authentic (Y). -Social acceptability is not an authentic (Y) - if it were, the Holocaust would have been ethically sane since German society felt it was acceptable. This is not to say that society is unimportant in deciding ethics - after all ethical decisions often impact society in majors ways (think abortion or something of the sort). -The legality of an act is not an acceptable (Y) because law is not infallible, nor an authority over rights and wrongs. I can break the law but I might have done the Right thing. Yes law often comes about via ethical concerns - the reason murder is wrong is because it is ethically nonviable, not because capitol hill decided it so! Thus, if my clarification goes through it seems as though we can proceed unto Polygamy! -------------------------------------------- CON's argument seems to be focused around one point: "Polygamy" as we know it, has too much historical baggage to ever be rectified in modern times: "To say that polygamy will be able to escape its dominant form is an impossible promise to keep. It would require the upheaval of nearly every society in the world". I concede the point that Polygamy does indeed harbor a long history of misogyny (hatred or abuse of women); however it seems highly unfair to claim that since it was one way in the past, it will always be that way and will never progress. Consider 'voting': from the republics of ancient Greece, to the revolutions in France and America and the eventual Democratization of much of the globe - Women could NOT vote, EVER. Voting was used as a tool to continue the marginalization of Women. However in the late 19th century and early 20th, suffragettes and suffragists eventually forced a change in most democratic nations that allowed for women to vote. From that point on voting was no longer able to abuse and keep women down. The historical records still know of voting's shady past - but it itself has been able to be modified as to become viable in our modern world. Furthermore, if we were to hold true to CON's doctrine that things cannot change - we would also need to concede that jail is pointless since no one will ever be reformed. change is constant, betterment can and does occur; it is absurd to say that Polygamy could not be brought into modern times as a viable and acceptable practice. Thus is should be understood that since there is no reason NOT to accept Polygamy; that is, no authentic 'noughts' stand against it - Polygamy is something we ought to be able to practice.
ETHICS of Polygamy

I attempted to have this debate a little while back - but due to initial confusion the argument didn't really get off the ground... anyhow. I intend to defend the view that Polygamy, being the right to marry multiple, consenting, age-appropriate partners of whatever gender should be ETHICALLY acceptable. This means CON will argue against the ethical-viability of Polygamy. Unfortunately in modern society, polygamy is generally an exclusive right of males and is practiced primarily in third-world or Islamic nations. This anecdotal information regarding polygamy should be understood as being inconsequential towards the true ethical acceptance or non-acceptance of it. PROPER polygamy, as I intend to promote, is as follows: -The Right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender. Furthermore, since this is an ethical concern regarding legal status, social-acceptability plays little role; that is, social-xenophobia towards polygamy is NOT a factor. thus, since as said this is a primarily ETHICAL question (which has legal implications), and my 'original-position' (viability of polygamy) is stated as being ethically neutral, the burden of proof against polygamy lies with CON. So let CON's contentions be raised!!!
In a Fight Without Prior Preparation, Superman Would Beat The Incredible Hulk (Modern Incarnations)

Today's debate is about who would win in a fight: Superman or The Incredible Hulk. (Both heroes will be in their modern incarnations and Superman's code of ethics will be ignored) 1. Acceptance 2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument 3 & 4. Rebuttals 5. Resolution/Closing Argument Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1 Rules- No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
drug legalization

All drugs should be legal. The choice of use should be an individual decision. Instead of incarcerating thousands each year and fighting a losing drug war, we should spend our tine and money on education. We should educate the public on the benefits(if any) of every drug. Also the dangers and harm they cause. Give the people all the information there is and allow them to make an educated choice. Instead of false propaganda lets tell the truth about drugs. Some have beneficial use some do not. It will be up to the individual to make the decision which to use or not. Our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders. Instead of educated these people we lock them in a cage and forget about them. We spend upwards of 2 billion dollars a year on the so called drug war, yet drug use continues to increase. We could use that money for education, rehabilitation, and research of drug use effects. Too long in this country have we stuck our heads in the mud about this issue. Its time to stop going to the doctor to get our drugs. Its tine to have the right to make our own choice what we will or will not put in our bodies.
Should DNA cloning be banned

Cloning humans for any reason should not be encouraged. It may have a multitude of impacts on the society, and this may also create social unrest as well. It also gives provides possibilities for increased criminal activities. Moreover, cloning is fairly new concept, and we are still not aware what will be the long-term consequences along the generations.The practice of cloning humans in no way should be legal, and should be punishable. Man has no right to play God, and should leave this alone. Aside from Hollywood movies, the imagination can really run wild as to what could possible go wrong here. Armies of clones, malfunctioning clone maids, or worse, all could in theory become reality.ould be banned and well controlled.
Vampire diaries- Elena should be with Damon(pro) or Stephan(con)

I think Stefan should be with Elena for the following reasons: Stefan's flawed, but he's trying. Stefan's gone off the rails, yes. Nobody's perfect and he had everything perfectly under control before Klaus came along. As Klaus made clear in 'The Reckoning' the connection between Elena and Stefan is extremely rare. Since he met Elena, he hasn't really considered another woman. Stefan would do anything to protect her even if it means hurting himself in the process. He will literally do whatever it takes to make sure she's OK. No matter how much flaws he has, he'd never hurt Elena. Stefan is extremely loyal. Stefan knew his relationship was not going to last when he went on that ripper road trip, he still went for Damon!
Vampire diaries- Elena should be with Damon(pro) or Stephan(con)

I think Damon deserves to be with Elena more than Stephan as Damon has denied his feelings for Elena for her and his brothers sake however he has been hurting himself. Also Damon is better for Elena as Rose said (season 4) he makes her question everything she believes and they change each other. He makes her stronger and she brings out his humanity. Damon is also more stable than Stephan. Stephan has been off the rails for long periods of time where as Damon has short explosive outbursts which normally end after a killing. This makes Damon much more stable than Stephan.
Vampire diaries- Elena should be with Damon(pro) or Stephan(con)

I disagree with the statement that Stephan will do anything to protect Elena because Elena often puts herself in danger for example when she removed the dagger from Elijah's chest and goes away with him. Stephan knows she is in danger however does not do anything about it because it's her choice. Whereas Damon would have gone after her to make sure she did not end up dead if he had not been stopped by Stephan. This shows that Damon cares more as he does not care if he has to go against Elena he just wants her safe. Before, the debate ends I want to say thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. It has been very good and I have enjoyed it. Thank you. Plz vote.