BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model.

Therefore, any new argument made by my opponent from this point on must be ignored. indianajones644, you have been notified that you may not introduce anything new in a closing argument. ----Counterarguments----- My opponent starts off by asserting that Miley Cyrus is a "prospective bad consequence". However, my opponent fails to prove these statements; my opponent must prove that Miley Cyrus is in fact a "prospective bad consequence". She only provides one example of this (the anecdotal piece below) that is clearly debunked. Choosing to work with the definition she chooses, my opponent MUST PROVE THAT MILEY CYRUS WILL CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HER FANS TO DO BAD THINGS. However, my opponent while bearing the burden of proof, offers little to no evidence of this. My opponent then goes on with a personal anecdote. She asserts that her cousins emulate Miley Cyrus, and that she has derived "terror" from this. However, that evidence holds no value for two main reasons. First, the validity of her claims are completely unverifiable. How can we, as the listeners to her argument, verify that she has become truly "terrified"? And moreover, it is impossible for us to know if she even has cousins that emulate Miley Cyrus. The burden of proof must be met, as it clearly has not been. Secondly, even if we could verify all of the above, her argument would still be void: One trivial anecdote does not prove a resolution. Again, my opponent must meet the burden of proof My opponent then goes on to try to prove that Miley Cyrus is "terrible", "shocking", "tremendously wrong or errant", and "causes horror". I'd hate to be in your shoes! I'll go point by point: 1) Miley's not wearing a seat belt is neither horrific nor tremendously wrong and errant. Her actions aren't terrible nor are they shocking. In fact, around 20% of Americans do not wear seat belts! [1] My opponent must prove how wearing a seat belt is "horrific" and has clearly not. 2) I'll agree that child pornography is certainly "horrific". However unlike what my opponent believes, I do not believe that the Vanity Fair photos can be classified as child porn. The photo is clearly art, and does not show anything inappropriate. [2] 3) My opponent then lists photos of Miley that my opponent apparently sees as provocative. Again, that's nice to know. However, my opponent must prove that these pictures are horrific. Where is the scientific poll that shows that the public saw these photos as terrifying? And furthermore, my opponent MUST prove that these photos will lead a significant amount of Miley's fans to do bad things. My opponent has clearly not met the burden of proof in all aspects of her argument. By default, the audience should vote CON. ----References---- [1] www-nrd. nhtsa. dot. gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810677. pdf [2] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model.

"A terrifying thing, particularly a prospective bad consequence asserted as likely to result from an act" - Wiktionary" A prospective bad consequence (following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus, taking nude/semi-nude pics along with compromising poses w/her father. Refusing to use large income to fund reasearch/help an organization, refuse to do interviews for fans. Hanging around with a shady guy, caught in bed. Overall, a bad role model for young girls.) asserted as likely to result from act. My 6 year old cousins worships this "Miley Cyrus". She dresses like her, talks like her, acts like her. This disturbs me. These following facts are "Causing horror; terrible; shocking; tremendously wrong or errant" - Wiktionary. Wikipedia.com- In her movie, Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert, there is a scene where she and her dad did not put their seatbelts on, causing her to be labeled by some newspapers as a "bad role model". On April 25, 2008, the televised entertainment program Entertainment Tonight reported that Cyrus had posed topless for a photo shoot with Vanity Fair. First saying "No, I mean I had a big blanket on. And I thought, this looks pretty, and really natural. I think it's really artsy. It wasn't in a skanky way.… And you can't say no to Annie. She's so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you're like, okay." later saying "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." Why would Miley Cyrus want to appear to be naked? Does she not feel any responsibility towards the millions of little girls who idolize her? Where are her parents in all of this? Oh wait, they're on the set? They said she looks 'natural'? Nothing less than child pornogrophy. And this "Annie" as she calls her happens to be a lesbian. O_o Photos from my space: http://www.chrisd.ca... http://lh6.ggpht.com... http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com... http://teenscoop.files.wordpress.com... http://cache.defamer.com... http://www.thahotseat.com... http://tv.popcrunch.com... http://lh5.ggpht.com... http://i32.tinypic.com... http://chaozengine.com...
Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model.

My opponent has submitted that "Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model." I shall define "horrible" using the following definitions: "Provoking horror" - Princeton's WordNet "A thing that causes horror" - Wiktionary "A terrifying thing, particularly a prospective bad consequence asserted as likely to result from an act" - Wiktionary "A person wearing a comic or grotesque costume in a parade of horribles" - Wiktionary "Causing horror; terrible; shocking; tremendously wrong or errant" - Wiktionary "Histories is a series of illustrated books published in the United Kingdom by Scholastic." - Nationmaster Ummm... my opponent bears the burden of proof. She must prove with little to no doubt that Miley Cyrus matches the above criteria is some way. I leave the floor open to my opponent.
Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model.

----I'm going to ignore her blatant ad hominem---- - "Even if I did, you are to ignorant to accept you are wrong!" ----Stuffs---- - "I can't show any other proof." That was my point. One single personal anecdote does not prove an entire resolution. - "When it gets down to it, how can anyone believe anything is fact unless you trust the source... When does it end?" The Debate.org users accepts major current events; statistics, data, and findings from notable sources; and historical examples. "It ends" when you come up with actual evidence--NOT a personal anecdote. While a personal anecdote can be made up, a report can be verified by everyone on Debate.org. What's important is that evidence is verifiable. I believe that the winner of this debate is fairly clear.
Do firearms decrease crime

For definitions, I will offer the following: 1> Firearm: a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc [1] 2> Decrease: to diminish or lessen in extent, quantity, strength, power, etc [1] 3> Crime: an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. [1] Thank you, and I will await my opponent's acceptance. Structure of this debate will be as always; first of acceptance, second for cases, and third for refutations/summaries. Have fun!
Do firearms decrease crime

Now, we look to the central thrust of his argument, which still resides in the fact that guns provide a better form of protection from other criminals. However, in reality, it is not the form of the weapon available at the criminal's disposal that actually decrease crime. On the contrary, even if we take into consideration my opponent's invalid supposition that the perpetrator of the crime will always be stronger than the victim, it still remains an objective fact that whether firearms are legal or not has no relevance to whether or not it does or does not decrease crime. In addition, if it were to be true that PRO's assumption of the strength of the perpetrator was so, we would find it imminently clear that it doesn't have relevance to the explicit wording of the resolution. Here, we are currently debating the validity of whether or not crime will be decreased, not the successfulness or probability of success of crime. In the same context, whether or not firearms exist or do not have no relevant impact upon the perpetration of crime. What my argument is not that guns serve to increase crime, but merely that it is not the gun that actually causes the perpetrator of the crime to do as he/she chooses to, but the intrinsic intention and nature of the perpetrator him/herself. In such a way, we find that PRO fails to connect relevantly to the resolution and to make adequate or sufficient refutations against my points or my rebuttals.
Do firearms decrease crime

I do appoligize for my lack of grammer and will attempt to clean it up. No i am not saying that guns would be illeagal in both but in one. See while they r leagal you stop people from always robing houses cause they r scared the person has a gun. They r also scared of the reach and the fact that strenght cant help you when you have been shot. However if guns where illeagal if i enter the and im a rober i have a knife i can attack and if i am stronger than the other person i can kill them and possibly many more ( i said woman because men r naturaly stronger not that they r the only one )
Do firearms decrease crime

i thank you for the chance to debate this words by them selves have a meaning while alone but as in science when they r put together they create a differnce in science sodium in concentration is daedly so is chlorine in minor or major cases is deadly but when combined they create a item which not only do we enjoy on food but our body needs the same is with words the indivdual meaning of words means one thing but the idea behind them is another while most people would think that guns being made illeagal would decrease crime this is not true if you take away a gun they still have knives clubs ect. but you r taking away from an ideal physical a mental deterant aginst crime see if i am going to invade a house where someone lives then my first worry is what do they have if they a gun i am less likly to invade for fear of my life however if i am to invade and guns r illegal if have a knife and if my target is a woman ( sorry ladies ) and i go to the gym so i am pretty strong i can easily out match her in strength but if she has a gun then she has no limit to reach and strength
Sportsmen are more busy in posing for an advertisement than to practising

Southwinds has forfeited this round. I will now states a short argument. Not all sportsmen get on a commercial, If you are you are very lucky, or very good. Most sportsmen who get on tv are the main stars. Let us take NFL football for example. Tom Brady has been on some commercials, and has taken a few pictures advertising for shoes and shirts. Randy moss has also done a few commercials. Besides these two there has not been many photo shoots from any other team member. The Patriots practice four days a week and play a game one day a week. That leaves just two days a week, but in those two days they do not just take pictures. They go out with their families, hang out with friends, and sometimes, if they are lucky, do some advertising. Please try to use some words of your own. Thank you
Sportsmen are more busy in posing for an advertisement than to practising

First of all, My opponent claims he did not act as a plagiarist, But there is no denying it http://dictionary.reference.com... If you look at the bottom of the new page you stole the words from http://theviewspaper.net... you will see it says copyright 2009. My opponent has admited that he used another persons text, but he still wishes me to have a fair debate with him without using his own words. The fact that he is sorry does not mean that it is still a fair fight, you have other rounds, make your point using your exact words, I advice you to use spell check, and make sure the right letters are capitalized. Lastly, I am sorry if I sound rude but your grammar needs to be a bit better, some things just don't make scene. You said "AND I HOPE THAT YOU DONT FEEL BAD>" Why would I feel bad, I did not use copied text? "PLEASE DONT MAKE ANY BAD IMAGE OF ME> I DONT WANTO CUT ANY SORRY FIGURE>" You did that without my help "KOOPIN LETS JUST MAKE THIS DEBATE WORTH REMEMBERING>" I am still willing to have a debate, but this one is already ruined, Audience, I heavily urge a con vote.
Sportsmen are more busy in posing for an advertisement than to practising

Well! Actually Koopin. I respect what are your views but I would like 2 mke it very clear that in that case I may have acted like plagiarist, but actually I'm not. And I'm very sorry for copying the text from some other link, which you mentioned very correctly. AND AS I FEEL THAT YOU ARE VERY MUCH CHALLENGING TO DEBATE WITH SO I THROW A CHALLENGE FOR YOU TO START> AND I HOPE THAT YOU DONT FEEL BAD> PLEASE DONT MAKE ANY BAD IMAGE OF ME> I DONT WANTO CUT ANY SORRY FIGURE> KOOPIN LETS JUST MAKE THIS DEBATE WORTH REMEMBERING> AND I PROMISE THAT I WONT BE REPEATIN THIS NXT TIME>
Sportsmen are more busy in posing for an advertisement than to practising

But not in this case, in this debate, the Pro has copied a link location and stolen the words from the site. Here is the link where you can read exactly what he posted. . http://theviewspaper.net... I do believe that it is now a case of Plagiarized, which is illegal. Already I heavily suggest a Con vote. since I am debating against a plagiarist. I will give him this round without an argument. I will start my brief discussion in round two
Sportsmen are more busy in posing for an advertisement than to practising

"Yeh hai Yangistaan Meri Jaan!"- and Mahendra Singh Dhoni is now seen commanding more on Pepsi and Reebok television commercials than shaping up on field, coming up more as an amateur actor and experimenting with new looks than training and practicing with the coach. Today, be it Sania Mirza, David Bekham or Mahendra Singh Dhoni, no matter how popular they may be, the ultimate and the only rational reason why spectators like them in the commercials is because of their spectacular performance in their chosen field and command on their respective sport. No matter how Big and Popular they become, a slight loosening of this grip on sporting finesse and expertise could push them into immediate oblivion and overall downfall. This unrestrained fame appetite could be a possible and a justifiable reason for their downfall. We have seen, it just needs a one- time success story and it wouldn't take a moment for any sportsperson to come on a reality television show or a product promotional video, and not to mention some of them even try their luck on the BIG SCREEN. It seems sport is only the first step of their overall ambitious list of achievements. If all the sportsmen are busy with the ROYAL STAG advertisement success with Saif Ali Khan just to "Make it Large" (punchline of Stag), who would bother about the sport? Give a damn to it! Leave it to the sponsors. They have enough funds to create a big buzz and glamorize the tournament. Alas! Where has the sport been long forgotten? Yet another case of collapsing sportsmanship among our sportsmen! They are trapped in the race for fame and money and the sport is left way behind, unattended and which would definitely not be attended until downfall. In the recent T-20, India had played awfully and one of the major, in fact, the most crucial reason for this was their endorsement engagements. While West Indies, South Africa, Zimbabwe were busy practicing with the spirit they possess, our very own Indians found it more lucrative to get short term and easy benefits by signing in for commercials like Britannia, X- Pens and Y-Shoes. Fancy, our so called international representatives going in for endorsements over game! Where have the standards gone? Is money so important that you would just do anything even when you are upholding your nation to the others? I feel sick when I see this! I think I should stop. But gleefully i've to say sports has been lost somwhere into the deserts of doom.
Vegetarianism is wrong

Good luck to both of us! :) My opponent begins by pointing out the human teeth structure. While it's true that we have teeth suited for consuming both meat and plants this doesn't necessarily mean we have to. Humans are, by nature, considered to be omnivores. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Due to this nature we are able to survive by consuming only plants. We have the teeth structure that we do so if we do choose to consume meat we can. Secondly, my opponent mentions the higher rates of animal reproduction among certain species that are bred to be consumed by humans. However, one can also assume that this wasn't always the case. For example, humans probably didn't always eat the animals they eat now. One prominent example is the Cro-Magnon man which survived largely off seeds, berries, fruits, nuts, and some smaller prey such as insects and bird eggs. . http://studyingsocieties.wikispaces.com... Another point I'll like to mention is rabbit reproduction. Rabbits are not bred primarily for human consumption, yet have a notorious rate of reproduction. One female rabbit and her offspring would be able to produce about 64 billion rabbits in seven years. . http://www.quickspay.com... Thirdly, my opponent goes on to talk about nutrition. Following a vegetarian diet can carry quite a few health benefits including lower medical costs and lower risks of disease. it is estimated that the medical costs in the United States attributed to meat consumption are about $30-60 billion a year due to a higher prevalence of hypertension, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... It has also been observed that vegetarians live about seven years longer than the average meat-eater while having lower risks of dying from diseases such as cancer. On a low budget? Vegetarian diets are much cheaper than an omnivore diet, being able to save about $4000 a year. You'll also be slimmer too. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... I'll pass this on to my opponent. Thank you and I look forward to my opponents rebuttals. Good luck . :)
Vegetarianism is wrong

Although I can see why some people choose to be vegetarians and the noble cause behind it, I contend that Vegetarianism is a wrong practice due to its conflict with Nature. 1. Human teeth structure contradicts vegetarianism: If we examine the teeth structure of both herbivorous and carnivorous animals, we will find a stark difference: Herbivores have flat teeth while carnivores have sharp teeth. The reason behind this difference is quite simple. Flat teeth are ideal for eating plants while sharp teeth are ideal for chewing through meat, which is why herbivores are by definition plant eaters and carnivores are by definition meat eaters. If we examine the teeth structure of human beings, we will find a mix of both sharp and flat teeth. This suggests that humans are intended to be both plant and meat eaters. Why would Nature give us sharp teeth if we are only to eat plants? 2. Animal reproduction rates contradict vegetarianism: In Nature, animals that are expected to be consumed on a large scale by humans tend to reproduce much faster or in greater number than animals that are not. For example, it is common knowledge that fishes and cows reproduce faster than tigers or dogs. This natural phenomenon occurs in order to meet the food demands of human beings, and we can infer that it has worked out successfully given that cows and fishes are not even close to becoming extinct nor are they overpopulated. However, Nature can only bring harmony to our world if the correct actions are taken, in this case - to eat meat. If at any time humans wrongfully decided to stop eating meat and go against Nature's wishes, cow and fish population will quickly soar to dangerous heights as a result of their naturally fast reproductive rates. They would overpopulation which can lead to many potential problems. 3. Human nutritional needs contradict vegetarianism: To be healthy, humans must have a well balanced and nutritious diet containing a wide range of important vitamins and minerals. A vegetarian diet due to its food restriction does not meet this diet standard. Among many important vitamins that are largely found in meat products, Vitamin B12, which is responsible for converting protein and fats into energy, is non-existent in a vegetarian diet. That is why herbivores, like rabbits, whose normal diet also lacks B12, have to eat plants that are infested with insects or even their own feces in order to meet their B12 requirement. If Vitamin B12 is so important to the body that rabbits are even willing to eat their own feces to get it, why would anyone purposely choose a diet that rejects it? http://www.acu-cell.com... Moreover, according to diet experts, children raised as vegetarians will not get enough nutrients, especially iron, zinc, copper, Vitamin D & Vitamin B12. Furthermore, most of the vegetarians have to take supplement to fulfill their daily requirements of both the minerals, unlike those who eat non-veg. This fact alone proves that humans were never meant to naturally be vegetarian. http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... Those are my arguments for now. Thanks for reading and I look forward to a good debate.
Vegetarianism is wrong

I will now conclude the debate with a few final rebuttals. I'll begin by addressing my opponent's statements about the Cro-Magnon man. He claimed that they were one group of people living in one small region. However, this is not entirely incorrect. When they roamed they were THE humans, evolving from earlier humans, and then finally into the modern human known as "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". . http://www.elephant.se... Cro-Magnon were all part of the same species so generally all lived similar lifestyles regardless of where they came from. Next, my opponent addresses the point about different trends of meat consumption in different areas. While it's true that fish is consumed on a massive scale worldwide, it's still more widely consumed in coastal societies. . http://www.fao.org... . http://www.fao.org... Next, my opponent addresses technology. It would be very much possible to import and eat tiger meat if people suddenly decided to eat it. The same technology used for processing other kinds of meats would be used. As for rabbit meat, it generally isn't transported as it's consumed on a lesser scale than more mainstream meats such as beef, poultry, and pork. My opponent then goes on to state that humans are the largest predators. However, many animals in the wild die naturally without exposure to humans thus they don't need exposure to humans in order to kill them off. We could get away with not eating meat as other natural elements would kill these animals. As for the neutering, that was intended to bring up the point that animals in captivity are often kept in controlled conditions to prevent reproducing. Nutrition was also addressed. As addressed in the previous round, vegetarians do suffer from health problems, just not to the same extent as meat-eaters. However, many vegetarian health problems result from vitamin deficiency which is easily preventable by taking vitamin supplements. . http://www.essortment.com... Lastly, by giving this debate the title of "Vegetarianism is wrong" it is implying that you're intending to argue from a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective one. I have countered this by stating that saying something is "wrong" is a matter of perspective, which vegetarianism is. There are many facts out there supporting both sides of the argument. Finally, thank you again to my opponent for providing an interesting debate. It has been fun and I will now turn it over to the voters. Good luck to both of us! P. S- please vote fairly! :)