BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Time for the final round-the rebuttal round. Firstly, you gave a few sources for why homosexuality is a choice. However they all seemed like opinion pieces, and when I brought that up, you didn't argue. Secondly, you claimed gays are pedophiles and animals, and you quickly tried to backtrack, saying "where homosexuals are truly considered animals", implying that you did not consider gay people animals. Yet you clearly said in your first argument "sadly these animals are being protected". And then you implied killing homosexuals, however, was that necessary? You also made some very extreme connections. You repeatedly compared being gay, that's loving someone, albeit of the same gender, to extreme actions. For example, you compared loving someone to murder, walking around naked, and illegal drug use. How do you make those connections? In your next argument, you said that " with gay marriage comes more rights that homosexuals will demand". What is bad about that? Why shouldn't gays have rights? Why can't they be served regardless of their sexuality? It seems unreasonable that they can't. And then you said many people would deny them because it goes against their beliefs. But when entering a store, one wouldn't randomly announce their sexuality. And the store clerk wouldn't ask "What is your sexuality?" so that they know whether they can serve them or not, that is intruding. The clerks would serve them anyways. So how is your argument valid? Also, people must accept the beliefs of others. While they may not approve of gay marriage, others must accept it. Finally, you keep on referencing gay rights, however the topic of this debate is "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", we are just focusing on gay marriage. We can debate the topic of gay rights another time. Now, I said, that people cannot help their sexual orientation. As I already said, you tried to disclaim me by giving me a bunch of sources, however when I said that they were merely opinion pieces, you did not disagree. You made no comment at all. Then, I went on to say that people deserve, at least, their right to love, and therefore marry, whomever they want. And it doesn't matter it's not the social norm. You did not disagree to the point that people deserve the right to love, but you did try to rebut my point on being the social norm. However, I say, and said, that the way you tried to rebut this was by comparing it to other non-norms, like walking around half-naked, and illegal drug use. However, as I said earlier, the connections you made between people loving each other, and drug use is very abstract. And now, I shall leave it to the members of the DDO to decide who has won this debate. I have given you a lot to consider for why gay marriage should be legal. However, for all these reasons, I believe that gay marriage should be legal.
"God-like force played a role" must be an existance creator of inteligent design.

We never know; I like it. Who am I even trying to communicate with here? I have not anything about you, personally, apart from that, you are 26 years old? I was having the best times of my at 26 so do you choose to come across as some kind of Oracle omega or someone that has nothing better to do. Or are you just trying to find your way home like the rest of us? Or are you a fence sitter that leans to the right or to the left whenever it suits one's self? I can have conversations with an existence creator of intelligent design within the imaginations of my mind but I find it very hard to converse with an omega as it's just fundamental principles that create the missing link and it's JUST fundamental principles that are the missing link. But I have as yes tried to with some success as I find them within MMORPG's constantly. This is not a personal attack upon you. I am trying to get a feel for the playing field that you wish to put forward as I have put mine across clearly have I not? As your's it seems is the hardest point, as it is the point of existence for that is where my own sanity is flawed. So a personal allusion is all I have and where I draw to line in the sand between humane and inhumane is what keeps me somewhat sane upon this adventure of life. Because insanity is to have no or to have to lose all concepts of your own liberties within the mind. Much like this world we all live in. I can't at times help myself but to question my own sanity. What about you?
"God-like force played a role" must be an existance creator of inteligent design.

Hey, It is really nice that you watched some videos and I hope you are taking this seriously. What Hawking said or didn't say has as much bearing as any other, but the truth is that the acknowledgement has been and always should be made that we do not what happened at the big bang and how it happened to be. Simply, taking a comment and a statement and putting forth is futile and has the same strength of an argument as merely saying "whatever". But apart from that doing so, you are either being ignorant of all the work done by appealing to one example, which doesn't help your case whatsoever. What happened 13.8 billion years can't be summarized in a single sentence, not in any meaningful sentence anyways. What have I got to say to that? Hawking was born in human species, nobody is fallible. I don't even know if he said that, nonetheless, you should stick to making an actual argument. I am pretty sure you haven't started yet. hopefully in the next round. Witty lines you wrote there but almost seemed that you are pissed at them. Maybe that stopped you to actually make an argument. I won't indulge in that, but I am sure you will, don't forget to bring your case to the table though. I don't know about poetry much but I think you made an attempt. Hope to read what you have to say.
"God-like force played a role" must be an existance creator of inteligent design.

https://www.youtube.com...... yep and tell me when I should take this debate site seriously? Stephen Hawkins passed away and his rebuttal to his critics insisting that intelligent design does not prove that God exists but only that a God-like force played a role in the creation of our universe approximately 13.8 billion years ago. What have you got to say to that? Just go on say he lost his marbles before he passed away or it's a farse and don't forget to then say that even his send-off within a church grounds must have been a mistake. Then say that the event on the horizon is the edge of the known universe. Because we as a species we are stupidly intelligent and then watch Neil deGrasse and Richard Dawkins talking yes not speaking as only one was speaking Mr Neil deGrasse while Mr Richard Dawkins mind melts back into the dark ages where he belongs with Sigmond Freud. Do as I say not as I do. Shall we Richard Dawkins. I don't really know you and you don't really know me. Do we ever really know ourself? Poetry shall never belong to science while they pear through that magnifying glass and do no more than burning ants.
No Game no Life is better than Sword Art Online

Argument:To my opponent, I must say that commercial success is not everything. Rebuttal: I am not stating that commercial success is everything, I am stating that Sword Art Online is superior to No Game No Life in terms of commercial success, which negates your statement that "No Game no Life is like a better version of SAO" Argument: The protagonist of Sword Art Online, Kirito, is the Anime hero archetype. He is a highly attractive flawless person. This ruins the allure of the show because the main character is very stereotypical. Rebuttal: According to the Sword Art Online Wikia, Kirito may have been highly attractive in the beta stage of SAO, but afterwards he appears more feminie. Kitiro is also not a flawless person. He has many flaws including not being good with words, thus coming across as rude to others, he is sometimes too fierce or aggressive in battle, to the point of losing control of himself. Kirito also loses control to his emotions sometimes. These flaws show that Kitiro is not a flawless person, and thus does not fit the anime hero archetype. http://swordartonline.wikia.com... Argument: Also Sword Art Online is littered with filler episodes. Rebuttal: According to fillerguide.com, Sword Art Online is only 20% filler with 80% of the anime being non filler, or 5/25 episodes being filler. This filler count is considered quite low for most animes Argument:SAO has many evident plot holes Rebuttal: While SAO does have some plot holes, it is common for anime series to have plot holes, and the plot holes do not have a major interference with the quality of the show. Argument:But the episodes are still littered with useless side stories. Rebuttal: This is your personal opinion, others may enjoy these side stories. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to prove that "No Game No Life is like a better version of SAO in every way", but it also has been negated by both Sword Art Online's commercial success and character success.
No Game no Life is better than Sword Art Online

To my opponent, I must say that commercial success is not everything. While Sword Art Online gained popularity due to a popular distributor and an official English dub, No Game No Life with minimal exposure has not been able to gain this popularity. Nevertheless, No Game No life has a far better character design in regard to the main character. The protagonist of Sword Art Online, Kirito, is the Anime hero archetype. He is a highly attractive flawless person. This ruins the allure of the show because the main character is very stereotypical. Also Sword Art Online is littered with filler episodes. These episodes do nothing to advance the plot and just serve to clutter the already cluttered source material light novel, also SAO has many evident plot holes, such as when close to 70 floors are just skipped over, but the episodes are still littered with useless side stories.
No Game no Life is better than Sword Art Online

Argument: "I have to say, No Game no Life is like a better version of SAO in every way," Rebuttal: My opponent has stated that the anime No Game no Life is a better anime than SAO (Sword Art Online) in every way. Since my opponent has made such a sweeping statement, the burden of proof is on Hisoka to prove that No Game no Life than Sword Art Online in every way, including having better animation, music, commercial success, and critical success. In order to debunk my opponent's argument, I will have to show one way that SAO is better than No Game No Life. 1) Commercial success: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... All these sources show the constintancy of the popularity of Sword Art Online magna, which feeds into the popurality of the Sword Art Online anime. No Game No Life is not even on any of these lists, therefore, Sword Art Online is a bigger commercial success than No Game No Life, thus negating the resolution that No Game No Life is a better version of SAO in every way, since it makes more money and is more famous.
Rap Battle

Look at this fool, man.I got him scared runnin'The rappin' hasn't started and his feet already gunnin'.This is sad.I got him soaking wet, like I'm a certified vet, but he ain't heard my lyrics yet.I gotta' laugh.This here is real funny.Dude is hoppin' like a bunny with a wolf on his trail.Look at the fluffy little tail.Let's call him Yellowback 'cuz this fool is a hack.I got the track here bumping and my fingers steady pumping on the keypad.And I'm getting kinda hungry;I should get some rabbit meat.I gotta' keep myself leanI Don't wanna' laugh so hard that I bust a freaking seam.This here is hilarious.I'm not even really trying but these words are buzzing off like honeybee dying.And I'm enjoying it.Bet the fans are too,And it's all because Pro don't know how to produce I'm gonna' sign off, so PRO can take his loss like a champ.I'm done with my slam. ;
That the mind is a purely physical substance.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I hope you will find it interesting and thought-provoking.ResolutionAlthough Pro didn't stipulate whether the burden of proof would be shared or whether it would be solely on him, I am assuming, based on the debate structure he laid out, that he intended us to have a shared burden of proof. So rather than simply poke holes in his arguments, I will make arguments of my own for substance dualism, which is roughly the view that humans have both a physical and a non-physical aspedt to the nature, these two aspects being two distinct substances usually designated the body and the soul.RulesI agree to all the rules Pro spelled out.Debate structureIf I understand Pro correctly, we are each to defend our respective positions in the opening rounds. That means that in my opening, I will not be attempting to repond to his opening. I will just give arguments for substance dualism. Then, in the following round, he will respond to my opening, and I will respond to his. Then, in the closing, we will each try to defend our own positions against the attacks of the other, then give a closing.ModelThe arguments I actually use will depend on how much room I have. I won't know for sure until I've written it up. But here are a list of the arguments I plan to choose from.1. The argument from the indiscernibility of identicals.2. The argument from intentional action.3. The argument from from reason.4. The argument from continuity of personal identity through change.5. The evolutionary argument against naturalism.Good luck, 113086, and may the odds be ever in your favor.
That the mind is a purely physical substance.

Full Resolution:That the mind is a purely physical substance, existing in the brain and that all dualist accounts supposing the existence of a non-physical soul are false.Rules:1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate Structure:Round 1: Introduction by pro and model by both pro and conRound 2: Presentation of arguments by both pro and conRound 3: Rebuttal by both pro and conRound 4: Defence by both pro and con as well as conclusion.Model: Throughout the debate I shall put forward the following two arguments:1. The Argument from Causal Closure 2. The Argument from Methodological Naturalism
The U.S. should eliminate all restictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

I accept that I have the burden of proof for this argument, as most debaters advocating for a specific change should do. Beyond the "shadow of doubt" does not necessarily apply here however. This is not a trial: rather is it a arbitration, which in the courts, required one side to have above a 50% likelihood that their side is the best. I do not need to win ALL six points in my constructive to win this speech, this is completely abusive and was not agreed upon before the debate. 1. Advocating that the government remove legal restrictions on a medical procedure is the very thing that prevents the unfortunate back-alley and home abortions. Women who resort to these unfortunate choices often due so because of legal restrictions placed upon them. They would not be legally prosecuted, but treated medically if they need to. Removing restrictions on the right to have one's appendix removed could very well lead to home procedures or back-alley procedures. So called "partial-birth" abortions, not even recognized by the American Medical Association as proper terminology. This procedure is called intact dilation and extraction is rarely necessary to preserve the life of a woman in later term. 2. Advocating ignorance is what my opponent supports by continuing to confuse women with convoluted informed consent laws which ultimately attempt to deny them their rights to an abortion. Also, pregnancy can be emotionally your physically stressful, but this is not a universal fact for all women. I would request that my opponent refrain from unscientific, emotionalizing language such as "unborn baby" when in fact we are talking about an nonviable fetus. 3. Abortion is an extremely personal decision. Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell another woman what she can or cannot do with her own boy? ! A man did indeed help to create a fetus, and has only join rights in many cases, with the child, not the fetus. A fetus is a part of tissue inside a woman that has. My opponent fails to answer my argument that spouses can be abusive or hard to contact and can have undue influence over their woman's right to an abortion. Women have full rights to their own bodies. 4. The woman's level of mental development is irrelevant in determining her right to an abortion. Her parents could be abusive or even threaten her life if they knew she were pregnant. Proper counseling is available at the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics. Younger women are encourage to seek counself from their parents but should not be quired to inform them or thave them to consent to a procedure. 5. My opponent is non-responsive to my arugments here. Extend my arguments from Round 2. 6. Again, my opponent avoids the arugments here. The government has no busiess regulating morally in relation to personal health.
911 was an inside job

Sorry to have to turn your world upside down. False flag events are very common in the history books if you know how to read between the lines and research the fine print. 1.The Gulf of of Tonkin attack was a case of American aggression, not Vietnamese aggression. The American destroyer was only 30 kilometres off the coast of Vietnam looking for trouble, so when a few torpedo boats came near to investigate; the destroyer decided to get some target practice. Thus, we had the beginning of the Vietnam War. 2. Pearl harbour - The Japanese navy had radioed Pearl Harbour to advise them that they were going to attack days before hand. The radio message was not passed on. Thousands of civilian lives were lost unnecessarily as a consequence. This gave the American Government an excuse to enter the Second World War. 3. The Lusitania - This ship was loaded with passengers and ammunition at the same time. A German newspaper in New York tried to publish a warning about submarines in the area where the Lusitania was about to cruise. The article was stopped by the American government who needed lots of causalities so that America could have a reason to enter the First World War. 4. 911 - Suspicious circumstances - Marvin Bush (George's brother) was in charge of security of the World Tower buildings. - Passports of terrorists found totally intact without any burns or damage. (very convenient) - George Bush's friendly relationship with the Bin Laden Family. - Mobile phones working on planes at high altitude (impossible) - Donald Rumsfeld slip-up about a missile hitting the pentagon.
911 was an inside job

9/11 was the second large scale attack on the U.S. That goes without saying. A terrible day to be remembered and I mourn for the poor souls that lost their lives during this crisis. The theory that the United Stated government attacked their own nation, and caused 9/11, is un-sensable and preposterous. Isn't the job of the government of the United States to protect its people? Yes Hitler did complete some acts that are relative to these types of corruption, to influence propaganda and seize control, but... obviously Hitler was a maniac. I think everyone agrees that the United States, and other countries, are trying to learn from the mistakes that misguided leaders took in history, especially in WWII. Yes, the U.S did gain some oil product from these countries, but they didn't cause 9/11 as an excuse for it. If the United States wanted to attack Arab countries for oil, we would have done it without killing our own citizens. The risk of a information leak would lead to detrimental consequences, with relationships to other countries, and with the United States public. No country wants to resemble that of the Nazi empire, and following that, my opponents comparison between the U.S and the Nazi organization deeply unsettles me.
pencils are better then pens

Pens are permanent and cannot be erased, as my opponent stated even with whiteout there will still be a mark. So i raise this question to my opponent: Would you write me a check in pencil? now if my opponent had any common sense he would say no as he knows i can as he stated easily erase the amount he wrote and quickly re-write in my own. Why are pens better then pencils? because pens can save you money
pencils are better then pens

Pencils can erase, so if you make a mistake you don't have to look at a scratched out mark. Now I know whoever my opponent will be will argue that there is whiteout, but whiteout still leaves a mark. If you want a clean paper, pencils are neater for this reason. Even erasable pens don't do as good of a job as pencils. If you want something done neatly the first time, use a pencil. Pens also run out of ink. Now mechanical pencils may run out of lead, but it's replaceable. Wooden pencils can become too short or break easily, but they are much cheaper. There's nothing more to argue; pencils are better then pens.
should recycling be a law and punishable

My opponent argues about the dangers that not recycling will destroy the world via climate change. This is however not true because climate change is caused mainly by capitalist industrialization in third world countries. Even if we did make recycling a law the effects of what my opponent states are already irreversible. Also there isn't really a way to effectively enforce this law as we can't have police digging through peoples trash in search for a plastic bottle. Also the building up of trash doesn't destroy habitats it is rapid expansion of humanity that does that. All in all there is no reason to make this a law nor is there a way to enforce it.
should recycling be a law and punishable

people think that they should be payed or they think it is to hard to recycle. But it's not. For those people who don't recycling are pretty much saying goodbye to the polar ice caps and pengiuns. I don't want to have no clean land to live on and to run out of recorces faster than we find them. The more we recycle means less landfields and more open space which can mean cheaper prices for land. Landfields ruin forests and jungles and wildlife. And we cant just burn the landfields or else the polar caps will melt even faster and we may not even HAVE a land to live on. Recycling save energy and space and recources. We do not have a unlimited supply. We are limited to our earth and soon we wont have one so don't be stupid with it. recycle pople. End of story.