BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trolling is bad for the community.

"I said that I "won" because of you having the act of ignorance on my debate." As evidenced by the following round, I am not ignorant of the topic in discussion. Furthermore, I explained the simply expemplary purpose of how I interpreted and used the first round. I then expounded on it, and showed why I did as such and how it was impactful in the debate. As for lack of criteria, it's not obvious. There is either criteria, or there is not. If so, the opponent has guidelines to follow. If not, the debate is open in its entirety for interpretation."I said I won because of you not having a thesis statement against my point. So it's obvious that the Pro should win." Refer back to Pro's first round. Verbatim, this is how it reads: "I believe that Internet trolling (more specifically on the troll videos on Youtube). Anyone want to debate against me?" If someone doesn't have a thesis, it's obviously Pro. I their round, they said nothing For or Against trolling. Further, however "trolly" it might be, I gave a reason why trolling is not bad, while my opponent said nothing. Next, in the second round, I provided multiple arguments and plenty of theoretical arguments confirming the Con side.My opponent brings up the fact that trolling videos are being posted on the Internet. Some of these, may indeed be bad. However, I am not under the BoP to prove that all trolling is good; just that not all trolling is bad. As I have done so in the previous round with no legitimate attacks to those points, I have negated the resolution. Furthermore, my opponent has not cited evidence that proves that those troll videos are life-threatening. As I have implicated previously, trolling can sometimes actually have benefits. The troll videos don't necessarily affect job opportunities either. Any reasonable employer would realize that such a video likely occurred (as my opponent claims) while the potential employee was young, and not as driven or dedicated (Simply being a child, as all were).My opponent's next claim centralizes on the point that trolls are bad people. He gives numerous examples that supposedly describe these people. Yet, I trolled during this debate, and none of those descriptions fit me. This point falls without merit, as it is not backed up by reasonable logic nor evidence from reputable sources.My opponent's last claim is the only one with even the minutest amount of merit. It basically says that people can find humor in other ways. I can't negate that claim directly, as it is true. However, my opponent still hasn't shown that trolling is harmful to people. Furthermore, not all trolling is bad in any way. Some is legitimate humor, and nothing more.Lastly, my opponent has claimed that there are three reasons why trolling is bad, but all three have been effectively countered.Also, note that I have arguments still standing. Namely, those stannding arguments are as follows:(1) Trolling is done often for simply humorous reactions(2) Health Benefits(a) Exercise(b) Stress Relief(3) Mood Improvement(4) Decreased Depression Severity
Trolling is bad for the community.

I said that I "won" because of you having the act of ignorance on my debate. On the first round, you took it as a joke and that the clause was hard to read and very immature because you wouldn't do that kind of debating on congress. Also, if that act wasn't offensive, it disrupts fun activities like debating with a more emotional act that can violate the Pro's criteria. Now I didn't have a criteria but it definitely should be obvious. Just giving me an example is giving evidence to me without an actual point. Because of all of this nonsense, I said I won because of you not having a thesis statement against my point. So it's obvious that the Pro should win. Now back to the topic, I would like to quickly announce that these trolling videos are being posted on the Internet where anyone can access it. Famous trolls like Minnesota Burns post innocent kids being posted on the Internet where that can affect the future career of the human organism. So it would make trolling videos more life threatening than some video or game. We been having this problem in social media but trolling is far dangerous because it's some troll posting someone else on the Internet without permission or any warnings. If affecting a career isn't enough, a study shown that Internet trolls are actually horrible people in real life situations. Now if trolling create's laughter more the human body, it's causes an increase of narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic behavior which are major problems of the world today. Humor has many decisions and watching a troll video isn't a smart one. You have a choice of watching a kid raging and to start laughing at him because some human being decided to use a recorder and record himself making a person mad on the Internet for no actual reason or you have a choice of watching a comedy show that you laughing at it isn't so emotional and offensive. The study is likely correct but that doesn't give us the right to be offensive to someone else you don't know a hint amount about that person. This trolling act is inspiring people to act more disrespectful to random people in the society. Today trolling is ruining our society because it would affect a future career, it creates more negative personalities in the real world, and the act of humor can be easily less offensive and emotional. I would point out that the Pro of this topic used 3 good reasons why trolling is terrible. (In my opinion)
Trolling is bad for the community.

I knew it. People these days are think that trolling isn't harmful and it should be taken carelessly. So when ever a debate comes against this entertainment valve, they are always taking it as a joke CUZ THEY SCARED THAT THEY BE HATING ON TROLLING SOON OR LATER. So they decide not argue properly and make a joke to keep there love of trolling. So should I say that I just won and people are like federal crimes happening to others. I won because you went off topic and you didn't argue correctly. TROLLING IS THE WORST!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trolling is bad for the community.

There wsas LIKE forty deb8s and I chose thos one jus for you m9 m8. troll can not be bed because troll never sleeps. W8 u sed bad? Troll is not bad becuase troll has 4 different letters in it (t, r, o, l) and if you times that by 3 u get 12 aND if ou divide tjat by 4 you get 3 there is 3 sides to a triangle illuminati confirmed. bad= harmful= dangerous. troll= word= safe.
Proving your existence to another person is impossible

However I'd like to ask you to make sure to check someone's gender on their profile before saying "him" as you did at the end. We are not all male. I am agender, I don't have a gender, so I go by they. It's okay though, I'm not mad. Now without further ado, I shall hop into my argument. You have said that people see you at school every day, but that does not matter to me or anybody who is reading this (if indeed any of us exist). If you did not exist then those words could still happen. Are dreams reality? Most people would say no. Do you believe that you are in a dream when you are dreaming? Rarely. It is possible that there are dreams within dreams, so that what we know to be "real life" is only a dream, and therefore not real. I have proven that people outside of this website seeing you cannot be proven to me or anyone reading this, and that I could be debating this even if it was a dream, and not reality. Thus my original points still stand.
Proving your existence to another person is impossible

I will be arguing that proving existence to another being is NOT impossible. First, however, definitions must be given. Since Pro never gave a definition in Round 1, I'll give some. Exist: "have objective reality or being" Computer Virus: a malware program which can damage your computer, even to the point it becomes unusable. Point 1: I accepted this debate. If I don't exist, then how am I debating you? You could assume I'm a robot, but even then, I still exist. I've also accepted other debates, so those people know I'm an existing user of this website. Even if I'm a computer virus, I still exist. (Source: My own profile shows debates I've entered, proving other people know I'm a user) Pro must prove either A) A computer virus doesn't exist, or B) a non-existent user can enter a debate. Point 2: Other people saw me. Seeing is believing! I go to school, and many people saw my face and body, and know me. These people know I have objective reality in this world. Sure, you may question this, but 1,000 people don't use this site, and are in another country, therefore don't know I exist. But I don't need all 7 billion people on Earth to see my face to negate the resolution, just the viewers of this debate need to know, and they probably do. Pro must refute my arguments, as well as show why I likely may not exist, despite the fact I'm debating him right now. And with that, I'm sure I got this in the bag.
Proving your existence to another person is impossible

Hello, I have attempted this debate before, and seen it done, but both the person who did it first and I were trolled by vi_spex. If you want to know how then look at any debate they have ever done. Also we must both prove our arguments to be true rather than simply refute the other person's arguments. Here is my first argument. :) If you existed, then I would not be able to tell the difference between that and if you did not exist. Rene Descartes quote "cognito ergo sum" does not apply here, because it can only be used to prove existence to oneself. I do not know that you think, so I do not know that you are. I have not seen you, I have not heard you, I have not recognized you with any of my senses, which means that I have no proof that you exist. This argument was fairly short, but I imagine that they will get better by the next round because we will have both made our starting points. :)
The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific Theory

Hence, all the previous round’s arguments are thus dropped. I. Omni-Present, Eternal, and Immaterial My opponent begins by citing the Law of Cause and Effect and argues that there must have been a cause. Moreover, he states that the Law of Biogenesis states that life (as we know it) can only arise from pre-existing life. Let’s examine both of those claims. When we speak of a cause we mean an explanation for an event. If that is so, surely at best it remains an assumption that every event must have a cause; for no-one has provided explanations for every event that has occurred. B. The Law of Biogenesis My opponent stated that life can only come from life. However, this comes from a dire misunderstanding of both abiogenesis and Pasture’s experiments. Indeed, what Louis Pasture demonstrated that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex forms from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising from simple forms from nonlife by way of long propitious series of chemical steps/selections. (Wilkins, 2004) In essence, he actually disproved a form of creationism; namely, the hypothesis that life forms can appear fully formed! (Isaak, 2000) Indeed, my opponent’s understanding of abiogenesis is so terrible; the first video gives a full explanation of what abiogenesis is and how it works! The second video gives in detail the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation—obviously, they are two different things! . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... I apologize but I have been super busy these past few days and cannot refute any further. In the next round, I will refute the rest of my opponent’s arguments. Bibliography Isaak, M. (2000, April 24). Claim CB000. Retrieved from Talk. Origin Archive: . http://tinyurl.com... Wilkins, J. S. (2004, April 26). Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life. Retrieved from Talk. Origin Archive : . http://www.talkorigins.org...
The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific Theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory. In principle, I technically have all the Burden of Proof, but for the purpose of winning and losing this debate, my opponent must successfully poke holes in my science based on the criteria I set out without appealing to pure philosophical arguments. This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims. My opponent will have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being an established theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in human affairs. A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections.
The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

RoadMap: Attacking Pro's arguments. 1) Sending aid to third world countries are useless and wasteful because we ought to be using the money for our citizens. Where will we get cheap labor to keep production cost down, any alternatives; monkeys perhaps? And for your example I will stop and say its too much I don't want to finish your race. 2) Education is not prime to success. Obviously if you lived in poverty, you will most likely stay in poverty. Not much gets improved. Self explanatory. And I can't wait to see what happens.
The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

Good luck! Road Map: Con's rebuttals Con's arguments: 1) The purpose of sending aid to child labor is so these children are inspired to reform their "third world" government when they come to age. The cost of a life is incalculable because life has infinite value. You cannot say person A is better than person B because person A and B are both humans. Children do need some hardships in life, but not too much to overburden them to demoralize their morale. For example if you're running a race and it was suppose to be 65 miles, but along the way you see most of the runners ahead of you falling, dehydrated, injured, and telling you you can't finish the last 5 miles. Ambulances come to retrieve them and soon you begin to feel the pain that they are feeling. Will you stop and say I can't continue and escape this torture? 2) Education prime and the key to success in life. . http://www.woopidoo.com.... Bill Gates did have a formal education at Harvard and was far intelligent with a 1590/1600 SAT score for his time. Thus his argument is invalid. For the reasons stated above vote Pro. Thank you and I await your response.
wrap battle

My opponent insulted me in round one, please deduct conduct points for him doing so, that is inexcusable, and I assume round one was an acceptance, because it seemed off topic. Now here is my wrap.Here is a simple wrap recipe that is delicious, and instead of one of those lettuce wraps this is wrapped in Bacon. Yummy. They are also simple, just make them in no time and then throw them in the crock pot." Crockpot Bacon Wrapped Smokies Recipe! Author: The Frugal Girls Prep time: 20 mins Cook time: 3 hours 30 mins Total time: 3 hours 50 mins Serves: approx. 35 Smokies Ingredients 1 pkg. Lil Smokies {13 oz.} 1 pkg. Bacon {16 oz.} 1¾ cup Brown Sugar Instructions Pour 1 cup of Brown Sugar on the bottom of your Crockpot. Cut strips of Bacon into thirds. Wrap each strip of Bacon around 1 Lil Smokie, then poke a Toothpick through to keep it in place. Place Bacon Wrapped Smokies into Crockpot. Cover Smokies in Crockpot by sprinkling on remaining ¾ cup Brown Sugar. Cook on HIGH for approx. 3 – 3.5 hours, or until bacon is completely cooked. Occasionally move smokies around in Crockpot to ensure they cook evenly. ENJOY!!" http://thefrugalgirls.com...
wrap battle

Name's unknown, but call me Normerican. Spitting fire with my rhymes; totally generic an' I want to take a minute to adress my partner at hand, as I drop it on the beat let's here it for my Man........... "Okay, ha-ha...let's hear it..." ========================================================================================= WYLTED! He's the man of the hour, take a good look at him and you tell he ain't showered. Stuffing his face with every donut in sight, there's only one word to say in such of a fright. UGLY! With no allaby, crisping my opponent like his girlfriend?....*crickets..* FRIIIIEEES. *Loud uproar of laughter through the crowd* Catfiiiiish...a useful tool, for ugly wrapping adverseries who look like a fool. Don't challenge me man, this was round one.. The onslaught from the wrap god...Has just begun..
wrap battle

Yo yo yo, it's a wrap battle hoe. My opponent may wrap in the first round and skip the last, or he may just post accept if he don't want to start off that fast. I am a wrap battle champion from east to left, but if you vote than vote for the best. I suggest one point for each round win, judging another way is optional but considered a sin. If my opponent fails to post a wrap, it considered round lost, punish him so he can pay the cost.
Taxing the rich

Now my opponent's main (and only argument) thus fair is that the rich get should help the poor. His basis is that because the rich get more out of society, they should also contribute more. But let's be frank here: the rich already DO contribute much more to society than the poor do. Who is starting business? Who is firing other poor people to come and work for them? Who is creating startup, innovate companies such as Apple that then turn out to be one of the wealthiest and influential companies of this century? Certainly not the poor. So are the rich contributing their fair share to society? Certainly. The top 1% of the US economy pay almost 40% of Federal Taxes [1]. The top 25% pays almost 90%! So to claim that the rich are should contribute "more" when they are paying for 90% of the taxes while 75% of America only pays for 10% is simply preposterous. Additionally, higher taxes for the rich is basically "punishing" people for their hard work. Most people are not simply born rich. . They acquire wealth through either being innovative and paving their own way, or by many years of hard and difficult schooling (think law school and medical school), so that they can one day use their acquired abilities to serve the greater community. So let's get the the bottom of this: exactly why do we pay taxes? Taxes help pay for public services and institutions. Public education, public health services, welfare, etc, etc. Now who's actually using these public services? Almost exclusively the poor. So is it fair for the rich to be taxed more when they are already paying more for services that they don't even use? I would argue certainly not. I would like to forward the motion that a flat-taxation rate is much more fair than taxing the rich more than the poor, especially when taken into account how much more the poor benefit from taxes.
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

Even if people went through psychological evaluations and it was placed in the right hands - it would be a lot of unnecessary screening just to make it legalized. It should be illegal unless proven otherwise - and given the positive benefits you've listed, I still believe the negatives far outweigh the positives. The cost of governmental screening, the increased use and availability of drugs, and the an inevitable increase of bad trips will follow along with that - even given the most careful screening and psychological evaluations. The most appropriate form of action is to have it stay illegal status, but possibly have a "prescription" if you will, for people that are willing to pay for the cost of their own psychological screening, background check, or whatever else is appropriate to mitigate the chances of the drug which could lead to that person to doing evil acts. This way it can be illegal to the general public, but legal for those specific few who have a prescription, and are willing to pay these costs and take on the risks.
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

Ah, I apoligise for the misunderstanding. While I do agree that the possible effects can be quite harrowing, as in your example, it also has quite a lot of positive effects. It allows many individuals to have deep spiritual experiences and increased self awareness. Perhaps to avoid negative, psychotic reactions, individuals should be given a variety of psychological tests under the supervision of a medical psychiatrist to gain access to some sort of "green card". Rather than selling it in headshops for people to distribute and do as they like with the drugs, it could only be administered in a controlled medically supervised environment. Instead of being treated like any recreational drug, it could be treated like a form of therapy. This could greatly help individuals with identity disorders, PTSD, depression, amongst other possible ailments.
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

Many legal things are dangerous and should not be given to certain people. Take guns and alcohol for example. Also, I never stated that it should be given out freely. I do believe that it should be controlled and only given to mentally stable adults in reasonable amounts. There should obviously be rules and laws made to regulate responsible use of the drugs. However, why make it completely illegal? As long as it is being given to responsible, mentally stable adults without a criminal record, I do not understand the harm. You've molded your initial argument to fit my parameters, which is now far more rational than your initial argument. Also, I never said it should be given out "freely" I said "available" which is not the same thing. A vast majority of gun owners use the guns properly, as protection. The second amendment of the constitution grants people this right. Alcohol is safe in moderation. Psychedelic drugs are not safe in moderation. This man cut a man murdered and cut the heart out of another mans chest after going on a bad shroom trip: http://perezhilton.com... Do we really need people experimenting to see if they are psychotic when taking psychedelic drugs? It should not be legal. With making psychedelics legal, there will be an increased demand and availability of them. This will mean millions of more people experiencing bad trips and doing crazy, if not psychotic things against each other. I don't think that psychedelics should not exist, but they should remain in the hands of the elusive, small minority of the population to experiment with - it is safer for everyone this way.