BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
O Canada needs to be changed

I will continue, it is my responsibility. I would like to state two things Primarily: It doesn't matter, It's a line in a song. So why not change it slightly to better reflect our society? And this is not any form of censorship, or altering a historical song. Allow me to elaborate on my second point; The original line was was "thou dost in us command" therefore the change would simply be reverting it closer to it's original line. Another suggested change is the exclusion of god from the anthem. As a modern society that has progressed greatly since religion had a severe impact on people's lives, I don't have any qualms with this whatsoever, In order to show perspective on this point, imagine if the line contained references to Zeus, or another deity of a long dead culture. It would be removed because of it's irrelevance in society and frankly ridiculous nature. Affiliation with religion is decreasing overtime (from 4 to 24 percent in Canada from 1971 to 2011, if you look at other statistics you can see this trend is worldwide) all this would do is pre-emptively eliminate religion from the anthem. Furthermore, Canada is a country that has restrictions on freedom of speech. A child can face criminal charges for saying something mean to another child. So, if you want to keep your national Anthem the same, that could be seen as hate speech in canada. The sad truth is, Canada's exclusionary anthem breaks it's own laws since some people find it offensive. Both of these are ridiculous, controversy over changing a line in a song in the very same country that has arrested people over a violent movie. If you want to keep the national anthem the way it currently exists, you should start by changing the ridiculous laws against freedom of speech. You may be wondering what my purpose in writing the last paragraph was, it was highlight the nature of Canadian politics and it's draconian laws in a way that consecutively shows that the anthem being changed is not an issue, it is a minute, unimportant aspect of a broken system that is more vital to discuss than a song.
O Canada needs to be changed

I'm not sure If my opponent wants to forfeit, if so I'll forfeit too. I'll post my argument just in case. This is the change: "True patriot love in all thy sons command." some people want to change this to before gender neutral. I think this is ridiculous. This song has been around for more than 100 years, and no one had a problem with it until now. Today, we are so politically correct we don't see any important issues. This is not an important issue and O Canada should stay the same. We don't need to change something that doesn't need to be changed. Changing it will not benefit anyone, nor will it make any dramatic difference. This was changed because of a dying mans wish, this was changed because the citizens were blinded by sympathy. I guess we should take "Can" out of Canada because jars might be offended. We do not need to worry about such trivial ideas. You don't see any women being discriminated against in Canada! It would be outright stupid to change something because it would not benefit anyone. This is just another attempt at Feminist trying to change something. It's a waste of tax-payers money.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

yes it can be used to heal people and save people, but again its messing with the balance of nature. Gene therapy is only preventing the inevitable. If one person is saved by gene therapy, then another is hurt because the human population is getting bigger and bigger while the world and its recources stay the same. a person sopmewhere in the world cant afford or dosent have acess to medical care becuase that kind of money is being distributed to richer places with longer living people. because of gene therapy. And gene therapy will try to save everyone. Would you see one person die because another person cheats death with this procedure? Although a harsh reality it is the reality of the natural world. The progression that is going on are causing maricals, including the work of gene therapy. However as a race we are getting too big for the world. There"s over population and pollution because we are getting to big. We all must die when are time comes or else others less fortunate will suffer. Gene therapy only prolongs the natural order, which is only one of the many ways it hurts others indirectly. yes we dont know for sure that the situations have stated will happen, but they are almost unavoiadable because of the oppertunity, and power that comes with gene therapy. we as a race can not responsibly hold that power if right now we cant even feed everyone in our world should we really be allowing people to cheat death or have (when it comes down to it) unnecesary procedures. Its too much for us to handle
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

Although your argument is true to some standards things such as the holocaust will not always happen. Yes genocide is not right and it is a thing where people are thought to be superior to others. This does not necessarily mean that Gene Therapy will be used in the process of this time. Yes it can be used for the worst and creating races that may be perfect or wiping out populations of animals, but all of this is not necessarily going to happen. Think of what good gene therapy can bring to everyone. The ones who will be saved. The therapy of fixing the gene for deafness and a little boy hears his father for the first time. Saving one family member so the whole family is happy. There are so many up sides to Gene Therapy that it can be one of the greatest things in history because of the miracles it can bring.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

Gene therapy is messing with the balance of nature. it will contribute to these things becuase the human population is getting bigger and bigger and going against nature. its too much power for us to handel . And there is another way that gene therapy can hurt people because of its potential power... With the power obtainable with gene therapy we would most certainly try to create the "perfect race". By changing the genes we can create the "superior" human being, but by doing this countless people will get hurt in the process because we are all so different. Different cultures and looks and ideas. Hitler essentially tried to do the same thing, he modified the gene pool by killing thousands in the process because he thought one race more superior than the race. We all have opposing ideas with no right answer so how can we decide on the perfect race. With gene therapy we will certainly try to do this but it will only hurt people.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

Although the people are making animal go extinct that is not the reason why gene therapy is good. Gene therapy will save millions it is a therapy that can be contained it doesn't have to outbreak. Scientist can limit the types of gene therapy that are being used. Animals going extinct does not have to do with people getting gene therapy. It is do to the pollution and the growing of human population and extending the area in which they live. Gene therapy isn't causing this over population nor the extinction of animals. Gene therapy can actually save animals. According to sciencedaily.com gene therapy can save your dog or cat that is ill with cancer and might die soon. Scientist have even found possible ways to make genetic identical copies of a certain animal you lost.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

The main point was that both of those were originaly used for medical purpouses but they diverged fom that original purpouse. the same thing will happen with gene therapy but the consiquences will be much worse because it has so much potential. and this is how... Gene Therapy has too much potential. With this procedure we are literally tapping into are very own code we can literally change the human being, we can shape our entire race. Which we shouldn"t because there is a reason why when reproduction happens we don"t know or control the exact genes that contribute to an offspring. If we do change the gene pool or control it through gene therapy we will be putting the very balance of nature in our own hands. Nature is very delicate, which is why a single race does not control, it"s outside of our control. If we controlled our own genes could we keep balance in the world? As it is we are facing overpopulation, the earth is polluted, and other species are going extinct because of our power, do you really think we should have that kind of power to? NO, because we would completely collapse as a species! Let"s just let nature take its natural course and not mess with it.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

You say that medical marijuana and steroids are be used and taken advantage of but gene therapy is not necessarily an enhancement in a disadvantaging way. Gene therapy can help cure the disabled. Marijuana cannot so the argument presented does not relate to the topic at hand. It cannot cure blood diseases nor severe diseases. Insurance should cover these therapies depending on what it is for. For example if someone wants to enhance there ability to run faster or jump higher it should not be covered. If someone wants that treatment it should be paid for out of pocket. Although if a child with the disorder of Thalassemia and needs the treatment it should be covered.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

Yes its true that this method has been used to improve the quality of life for some individuals (while still remaining an unstable method) whose to say that this method will continue to be used for its original purpouse? Gene therapy could prove to be a huge money maker and a tool of selfish benifite, and where profit like this present people will always follow the money. why? because humanas anre both greedy and selfish. Gene therapy's purpouse could easily be abused by peopole who have the means and money to use it for things like enhanced preformence, or desiner babies. what happened to steriods, originaly used for strictly medical purpouses but now widely used to enhance performance. Or "medical" marijiuana, now its one of the biggest money makers for our state. you may say that this is a risk of all medical discoveries and that the good out weighs the bad. But because gene therapy has so much potential it could lead to a very shady future. With this procedure we are litteraly able to change our very code and with that much power it will be abused and the consiquiece will be far worse than that of things like steroids.
Gene Therapy Pro vs. Con

Although this method has been proven to heal blindness among other hereditary diseases, gene therapy remains to unstable a method to be widely used. We barely know anything about gene therapy, we dont know if its safe we dont know if the effects will last. Instead of fixing the problem theres a very present posibility that gene therapy will only add to or make the problem worse. in one case this did happen. Jesse Gelslinger died because of gene therapy. this person was part of research in which gene therapy was used to cure his disease. however instead of being the miracle gene therapy is promised to be it only made his condition worse. He could of lived, his disease was treatable, but because of this very unreliable method he died. we dont know all the saftey factors of this mehtod, its just to to unreliable.
Princess Peach doesn't belong in Smash Bros.

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal First of all, as I've already said in comments, my opponent never specified exactly what the focus of this debate was. Thus, you can't blame me for arguing for Peach as a character. That being said, my opponent has conceded that Peach is a good character, which is one reason to vote Neg. Rebuttal to his New Argument His main argument is that she's not a violent character, but what he fails to remember is that this game is targeted towards children. Trying to compare this game towards more mature fighting games such as Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter is ludicrous. This game is not supposed to be "brutal" as he says it does. This is a childish, cartoony game. This game is meant to take a bunch of children's favorite characters, and make them fight. In fact, this game is barely even a fighting game. It's more of a party game with fighting game elements. Yes I'm aware that there is a tournament scene with this game, but tourney rules take all the fun out of the game. Thus, saying Peach should be taken out of a fun, cartoony, kid's game, because she's not "violent" or "brutal" is stupid. Peach decapitating people or destroying their soul would be really stupid. More so than she is right now. Also, using my opponent's logic, anybody in this game that doesn't use swords or guns, or is violent in some way should be removed, so I'll provide a list of all the other characters that should be removed in addition to Peach. Bowser Pokemon Trainer Pikachu Jigglypuff Lucario Mario Luigi Zelda/Sheik Dr. Mario Ganondorf Wario R.O.B Mr. Game And Watch Greninja Little Mac Lucas Ness Mewtwo Pichu Olimar Donkey Kong Diddy Kong Sonic Wii Fit Trainer Yoshi That's a lot of characters, and they all need to go, according to my opponent. Also, he says that there are many better characters that could replace Peach, but this is simply a matter of opinion. Vote Neg for being logical and proving my opponent utterly wrong.
Princess Peach doesn't belong in Smash Bros.

Rebuttal: All the characters are good, so like Mister_Man pointed out in the comments, how good a character Peach is does not pertain to this debate at all, and the base of your argument is like saying you should read the Bible just because it is "good." If my rebuttal does not stand with that, Peach is only one character in the game and can be replaced by lots of other good characters such as Mega Man X, Knuckles, Tails, Zero, Kamek, Waluigi, most Mortal Kombat characters, etc. And yes, this debate is focusing on the entire Smash Bros series. New Argument: Smash Bros is a fighting game. Peach's move set is just too civil and girlish and really does not belong in a violent fighting game, especially not when the game's theme song makes you feel like fighting hard and you feel like having a manly fight. She throws turnips, descends with a parasol, holds out a toad to reverse damage from an attack, and lunges hip-first at enemies. Even her final smash is girlish. She makes everyone fall asleep and eats peaches. It stops there. No swords, no guns, nothing violent. She is simply begging to either be taken out of Smash Bros or simply get pummeled. Other fighting games, however, tend to keep it brutal because fighting games are not supposed to be for younger audiences. For example, let's look at a couple of other fighting game franchises. They all have at least one mechanic that adds to the brutality. Mortal Kombat: in this series, if you defeat an opponent using aggressive assault, your character will perform what is known as a Fatality. A Fatality, in Mortal Kombat, is a final finishing move that can be used against one's opponent at the end of a final match [1]. It is generally something extremely brutal, like decapication or skinning [2]. Street Fighter: each character has their own ultra move, which does something violent to the target, such as hit hard at them with a purple energy called Psycho Power [3], or destroy their soul [4]. Peach's moveset does not meet this standard of brutality a fighting game must have, and like I said earlier, there are many better characters than peach to replace her if she is ever removed from the series. Sources: [1]- http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... [2]- http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... [3]- http://streetfighter.wikia.com... [4]- http://streetfighter.wikia.com...
Princess Peach doesn't belong in Smash Bros.

Princess Peach is a perfectly viable character. Here's the reasons why. She has high priority on her attacks, the ability to float, decent combo ability, very versatile projectile, decent recovery, excellent edgeguarding moves, great racking ability, very unique playstyle, decent range and speed on some of her attacks and for her Turnips to recover her approach. Not to mention, her final smash gives her great sustain, as she gets around 30 seconds to collect peaches and heal any damage she may have taken. She's not a high damage dealing character by any means, and I think people look down on her for that. The goal with peach is to poke whenever possible, try to string combos, and get away. She's designed to outlast all the other characters, and for that, I would say she is quite good. Also, I'll assume the focus of this debate is SSBB, as that's the latest, and best as most people tend to agree. However, if you want to argue Melee as well, she's quite good in that game as well. This is due to her moderately powerful attacks, formidable recovery, amazing aerial game, good ground game, and overall good moves. Not to mention, she's ranked in the A tier in SSBM. All in all, she's a pretty good character. Good luck to the Affirmative. Sources: http://supersmashbros.wikia.com...(SSBB) http://supersmashbros.wikia.com...(SSBM)
the death penalty should not be enforced

Before we start, I am going to say that I am pro-death penalty, and am taking this up just for fun. My opponent gives a very detailed account of an egregious crime. And since his case is one example, we must assume that the resolution would only be pertaining to this specific case. Thesis: The death penalty should not be enforced in this particular issue because the detailed crime is so egregious that it literally ripped the victim's human worth from them. Thus, the death penalty is too easy in this case. Bright-line: Proportionality Contention I: Use of Torture A. Physical Since the killer tortured their victims to an inconceivable amount, it is only just and appropriate to do the same thing to him. Using the death penalty is to easy and will only be a few seconds of pain, not even. That is no way proportionate to the harm he caused his victims. B. Sexual Since the killer tortured his victims sexually, and raped them, again the death penalty is not appropriate in this case because it is to simple and kind. He caused them sexual pain, and thus deserves the same thing.
the death penalty should not be enforced

A longtime sex offender was sentenced to death for the 2005 kidnapping, torture and murder of a 9-year-old Idaho boy after federal jurors deliberated just three hours. The jurors' recommendation was binding for the judge in the case, Edward Lodge of Federal District Court, who sentenced the man, Joseph E. Duncan III. Relatives of the victim, Dylan Groene, remained somber as the jury's decision was announced. Mr. Duncan murdered Dylan's mother, older brother and his mother's fiancï¿½ in May 2005 at their Coeur d'Alene home to kidnap him and his sister, Shasta, who was sexually abused along with her brother but survived. Mr. Duncan took Dylan and, Shasta, to a remote western Montana campsite where he raped, tortured and threatened them before shooting Dylan in the head and burning his body. Jurors viewed a videotape Mr. Duncan had made of his sexually abusing, torturing and hanging Dylan. So sinse you think the the death penatly should not be enforced he should have just got life in prison instead of what he deserved.
Hard Rock

Overall, the popular belief that listening to certain musical styles causes a variety of behavioral problems is not supported. Baring perhaps country music and suicide rates. ;D The effect of music on an individual in general depends on the the type of music in reference to the individual listening. Those individuals with exposed to positive (they like) cognitive familiarity with melody/lyric will show greater resilience to negative affect compared to those who are unfamiliar. Heavy metal/rock has been shown to be a successful de-stressor, in the enbling of negative affect release for those for whom it is a style of preference - the form of catharsis may outwardly be similar and mistaken for anger, but it is certainly discrete. The most glaring confound is the relationship of causality - there is no clear determinant as to whether those who listen to heavy metal/rock maybe prone to anger, or some individuals predisposed to anger, prefer heavy metal/rock. == Arnett, J.J. (1996). Metal Heads: Heavy metal music and adolescent alienation. Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J., & Stack, A.D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulling of self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4), 134-139. Becknell, M.E., Firmin, M.W., Hwang, C., Fleetwood, D.M., Tate, K.L., & Schwab, G.D. (2008). Effects of listening to heavy metal music on college women: A pilot study. College Student Journal 42(1), 24-35. Kemper, K. J., & Danhauer, S. C. (2005). Music as therapy. Southern Medical Journal 98(3), 282-288. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
RESOLVED: Smoking should be banned

My opponent makes some excellent points. The util formula is impossible for me to understand, and thus I will not rebut it.As for the smoking problem not being able to solved, the USA smoke ban has kept 2/5 smokers out of the hospital, as I have already stated within round 2. And while some people may be unable to quit smoking even after the ban, it is better for 2/5 of the smokers to be healthy for the rest of their lives rather than zero percent. However, I cannot rebut the argument that which death-rates by smoke-related causes in smoking-banned countries are increasing, and because such I must drop such an argument.Economic stuff:I don't know how to rebut this. 10 billion dollars is a lot, and even those people's spending on hospital recoveries I doubt is enough. Still, some people waste up to 1/4 of their money on cigarettes, and this adds to quite a hefty amount. Considering these people pay to destroy their bodies, this money is a complete rip-off!! [1]Laws, laws and laws: I'm not sure how to counter this point. I've never seen this before. XDAnd with that, I concede the debate. My opponent has bought many critical and powerful viewpoints countering my strong and long unwavered viewpoint. He made some excellent points and were it not for our agreement he'd have certainly won this debate.But, an agreement is an agreement. I ask the voters to tie this debate.[1] http://www.dailyfinance.com...
RESOLVED: Smoking should be banned

So onto it my friend. Our resolution: Resolved: Smoking should be bannedSmoking: is defined as a form of inhaling tobacco or any other potentially addictive substance for one's pleasure. Banned: is defined as the act of completely criminalizing an action, object or practice. Rules:1. No trolling. 9space take dis srsly2. No trolling. 9space you better take dis srsly3. No trolling. 9space plz take dis srsly4. No ad hominems.5. No vulgarity.6. No trolling.7. No FFs. FFs will lead to a 7 points loss.8. No semantic plays. We are using the above definitions.
TROLL DEBATE: Homosexual Marriage Should be Allowed

Wow! This is very fast! Last round!Now, I have to say this very important fact: Con failed to rebut my point about "wonderful conversations" and how semen is healthy for the body, so I stress them one last time here.FINAL REBUTTALS:1. Well Bill Gates isn't working so he is losing money...2. Gaining estrogen becoming staight....? What kind of study supports this? 3. Coke being "on crack": Well they're not out of control or anything. See http://www.urbandictionary.com... coke are perfectly in place and not wildly running about.4. MLP ponies kissing: Of couse they kissed! In the first one it's obvious. Second and third are only further proof that they love each other, it's just that the show producers wanted a laugh that the two poor lesbian ponies couldn't kiss. It's like an anti-climatic ruiner--it's hilarious!5. Hollywood people: That is a parody. That does not show us that hollywood actors run everything. This is a fan creating a video, not hollywood actors.In conclusion I have debunked all your points while you left two points of mine hanging in the air.Vote me!