BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More the means of communication the less we communicate

Well, I am bound to repeat to the same thing again. Actually the thing is that we both are having entirely different perspectives of the debate resolution. By saying that "more the means of communication, the less we communicate", I obviously don"t mean that we have stopped communicating or even began to do that! What I mean is that, with such a whopping increase in the communicating mediums, our ability to socialize in person has declined drastically. It has been even proven by many scientific researches, so you can"t just blow it up in the air. "It doesn't matter how humans socially communicate" "".This is what you said in the first round. But my friend, it matters and it matters a lot. As I have previously said, these advancements have made us connected to a lot of people which earlier was nearly impossible to do, but, it has also made us potentially more disconnected. We have stopped socializing in person as much as we did before. You yourself gave the example of Facebook as a wonderful way of socializing. Right? So tell me, out of all your Facebook friends, how many of them have you talked once? For God"s sake how many of them are even known to you?...... So does it still sound to you as an "amazing" way to build meaningful and long-lasting relations? I totally agree with you that DDO is a probably the best platform to interact with some of the smartest people on earth. But at the same time, I don"t consider it as a viable option to build friendships when compared to meeting such people in person. (Again it"s hypothetical, but try to consider it on a much smaller geographical scale!) Finally I would like to conclude by saying that technology has changed our lives forever in quite an amazing way. Now we are able to interact with anyone and anywhere. But we have to understand that it is not and can never be an alternative to personal socialization (that is communicating face to face with someone). I really think that in today's era, we should take advantage of every opportunity to practice our communication skills, so that when important occasions arise, at least we will have the style, the sharpness and the emotions to affect other people!!
More the means of communication the less we communicate

The problem isn’t that I have misinterpreted the arguments, rather you are not arguing for the debate resolution. The resolution isn’t whether communication has reduced in quality over time; the resolution is that the more means we have to communicate the less we communicate. All I have to argue is that not only is this resolution untrue, but that the reciprocal of the resolution is true. Rather, the more means humanity has to communicate the more humanity communicates. This being said, most of my opponent’s response is entirely irrelevant to the debate topic and he does nothing to refute my own arguments I presented. “The fact is that we have become so engrossed in social media that we are left with very little time to spend with our parents and friends.” Why? You have to remember that social media isn’t just “you” and the world. It is “you,” those around you (friends, family, ect.), and then the world. Just take a look at social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. All of these allow me to spend time communicating with friends and family that I can’t see at the moment in person. It allows even more communication with those I care about then I could traditionally have. In addition it allows me to socialize with others whom I don’t even personally know, allowing me to build relationships I would have been able to have. “Moreover if a person primarily communicates 'virtually', he is never able to build meaningful friendships or relations.” Eharmony. All jokes aside, there is absolutely no empirical reason to believe that you can’t build relationships starting off in the virtual world and building to a level as personal as with the people directly around you. Stop thinking of people as some sort of virtual thing, and start thinking about them as people. Once you have done that you can understand that it doesn’t matter how the relationship was built. “We are no longer the deep thinkers we used to be. Who has the time to think?” Lolwut. Have you SEEN DDO? This is a social site that is chalk full some of the smartest people you will ever meet. “Don't you think that this debate would have been far more successful and worthy if going on face to face?” You’re thinking about it wrong. Imagine if DDO never existed. That would mean we never would have had the chance to debate this at all, depriving me of this social experience. That is an example of how advancements in communication have allows more social opportunities. Again, this isn’t an argument about the quality of communication; it is about how the more means we have been given to communicate, the more we communicate. I await your response.
The scariest SCP

Ah, SCP-632 Class Euclid For This round I'll talk about how it spreads and the first stage of infection How it spreads And first stage of infection: They and I quote "they undergo parthenogenesis to reproduce. When active, SCP-632 will secrete a feathery thread from its spinnerets and attach its microscopic eggs along it" As said in paragraph 2 sentence 3-4 It is weightless and will be transported around by small air currents Then upon contact it will hatch into a juvenile SCP-632 whose sole purpose is to seek out and burrow into the sweat pores in the skin. Once inside the body, SCP-632 will live off body tissue, burrowing into the nearest blood vessels. First off this is scary since you will never know if you get infected or not it lives off of our life sure its not fatal, yet anyways. This could infect you from miles away and you'd never know until its too late I might as well add it was first found somewhere in china after reports of an entire village bludgeoned to death came to the attention of the police. Sources [1] http://www.scp-wiki.net... Good luck to you in round 3
Black Lifes matter

BlastphamousHD Gaming. ... Maurice Barnett (born October 16, 1987 (1987-10-16) [age 28]), commonly known by his YouTube name BlastphamousHD, is an American reaction YouTuber from Nevada. ... Barnett was born in Compton, CA (stated in BHD story time #51 and #59). COME ON SON! OUT HERE TOUCHING CHILDREN
Black Lifes matter

hi mi name es giorgio i woerk in potatoe faktory and since mi padre died in a donkey waggon accident i leav mi wife and ugli daughter to become a pro leagueue of leyendaerio player, everydai i watch rainamndio. i just wante to sai thank you veriyi much rauinmanio i improvd from bronce 5 to wood 7 in just 6 months. plz no copato pasterato dis is onli my life. i ALso killed mi dog. Sorry fo mi bad englando im not NA Hello Alkaizer, this is Hollywood director and producer Eddy Pasterino. We would like you and fowtini to star in our new movie: Naked Skor"orita. You will go the the inn and see fowtini lying in Leah"s bed and she will want your Skorn but you say "No Skornerrino" and topdeck her. Pls no hastalapasta baberino. Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3"5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes." This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one. pls let me whin theus deb8 m8
Black Lifes matter

Hello twitch chat. This is michaels mother speaking. Please stop the spam in the chat. I can"t read the amazing conversations that you are having about my son. Thanks. Don"t copy and paste this to spam more or I will tell Michael to ban you all. Hello. I am a 15 year old Rhinoceros. The only problem is that my horn on my head is soft and limp. As you may know this is very devastating to a rhino like myself. If there are any rhinos out there that can help me with my problem it would be appreciated. Please dont copy paste this. This is my story. "wtf his ult did like 3k damage how is that legit" " leonardo da vinci 1496, founder of the Illuminati I can no longer resist the pizza. I open the box and unzip my pants with my other hand. As I penetrate the gooey cheese, I moan in ecstacy. The mushrooms and Italian sausage are rough, but the sauce is deliciously soothing. I blow my load in seconds. As you leave the bathroom, I exit through the front door".
Should we have mandatory school sports in middle school

"We" don't need to lift a finger. However, parents have the right to go to their elected officials and complain to them about how their moronic children cannot drop and give the PE teacher twenty due to a lack of upper body strength because they only consume pizza, junk food, and soda before sitting down to play video games for 3+ hours after homework, and that is food. Sports are glorious competitions between equals (hopefully) that are a preferable alternative to violence. Remove them, and we just get violence.
Should we have mandatory school sports in middle school

Students should have mandatory sports in middle school because DOLOR TRANSIT, GLORIA AETERNA EST. Actually, kids should be doing sports because they need to be reasonably fit so as to take care of their parents in a more effective manner. Also, sports teaches discipline and a whole lot of other buzzwords, as well as encouraging kids to compete in things, which means that they have drive to excel, and whatever buzzwords fit there. Concussions and other injuries are temporary, but ambition is forever. Also, far more concussions and/or horrible deaths happen from automobiles and pools, on the level of an average of ten deaths daily from pool drownings.[1] News flash: Life will kill you, eventually. [1]https://www.edgarsnyder.com...
Bestiality ought to be illegal

Con once again argues against the value of my challenge without answering it, so we can only assume she cannot create a way of minimizing the risk to the point we can justify legalization. I have fulfilled my burden of proof by showing the damage done by raping animals, which i view as unavoidable with bestiality legal, con has avoided offering a way to prevent damage. Also, con must show why bestiality should be legal (in the US's legal system). This is because of precedent. The precedent is that bestiality is illegal, therefore con has the burden of showing that precedent should be overturned. <> possibility X 1,000,000 citizens = inevitable. Therfore con has agreed that abuses will happen < > even if it were not effective who would it hurt? the only people whom stand to lose anything are the people commiting bestiality. Therefore con has agreed that keeping it illegal is at worse neutral. Also, if we admit that it is a problem than the first step in solving it is making it illegal. Con's response to my consent argument uses the fact that animals do not require consent among themselves. The most obvious problem with this is that animals also attack other animals in what, if it were a human, we would call animal abuse. < > so does already illegal animal abuse, with your logic there are two states, 1)do no harm to animals or 2) do what ever we want. The problem is if we except this mindset and go with two, how will we ever reach one? Of course if you think two is the right option then i can't argue against such a fundamental philosophy, but otherwise we must reject this philosophy or else society would dissolve into anarchy (when this philosophy is applied to other areas), that is why i feel that your arguement is the single most dangerous one. I would like to remind the gallery that con has agreed that sexual abuse would occur, and offered no reason to that it should be legal other than the fact that keeping it illegal would do nothing.
Bestiality ought to be illegal

Bestiality can be similar to rape because we do not have consent. << I will note that he speaks with the assumption that many or most acts of bestiality are abusive or non-consensual.>> I am speaking under the assumption that enough are abusive not to justify legalizing it. < > according to your source it is incredibly rare, and has only been observed in non-closely related species once. < > The difference is when it is done to a human, the human can say something and the rapist would go to jail for rape. and once humans get involved it is no longer an 'animal' affair. < > This could possibly be the most dangerous argument in history. "We are not perfect so lets do whatever we want." Con has refused my challenge, instead of answering he shifted the burden back to me. This implies he does not have an answer and without limiting abuse to the point legalization is justified how can we justify legalization. To address cons concerns: 1."that sexual abuse to animals is an active problem" my challenge was for you to provide ways in which we can assure it is not an active problem, but with bestiality legal, well intentioned people might mis-understand animal gestures as consent, when the animal is actually opposed, as well as people not caring about the animals wishes (much like rapists don't care about the victims) 2." that making bestiality illegal will deter offenders." as i understand it you are saying in this argument that because making it illegal will not deter offenders it should remain legal. << Also, I would like to remind my opponent that, although there are currently laws against bestiality, the default state is that it is not prohibited by law.>> I don't understand what you are saying. Once again, i challenge con to come up with a way to limit abusive actions in bestiality to the point we can justify legalizing it.
Bestiality ought to be illegal

As requested, I've waited to post my argument. My opponent states his argument as "bestiality is similar to rape," but he has not demonstrated that this is true. But before I address my opponent's claims, I will note that he speaks with the assumption that many or most acts of bestiality are abusive or non-consensual. This ignorantly disregards healthy, mutually beneficial zoophilic relationships. "Animal DNA is hard coded to accept un consented sex within their species. even if they resist, that would only be applicable to that one species and it is still better than with another specie (human)." This is simply false. Scientists have widely observed sexual harassment and coercion in cross-species partnerships.[1] Animals even sexually harass humans -- a dog who humps someone's leg does not ask their consent beforehand. "Forceful assault does not necessarily leave obvious marks, and when it does there is no guarantee it can be traced, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the rape." This could be easily applied to sexual coercion between humans, yet we do not make all acts of sex illegal. My opponent is attempting to apply a human standard to animal affairs, but even the human standard does not make the case. "Unwanted action could still happen, and the human could say the animal consented, whose going to argue." Once again, my opponent tries to apply a strictly human standard to animal affairs when I have already shown that this is a faulty framework. We do not require consent for slaughtering, enslaving, or breeding animals, thus the human standard does not and cannot always legally apply. "I challenge con to think of away we can limit abuse to the point we can justify legalizing bestiality." Here my opponent makes two grand implications: 1) that sexual abuse to animals is an active problem, and 2) that making bestiality illegal will deter offenders. My opponent provides evidence for neither of these claims. Also, I would like to remind my opponent that, although there are currently laws against bestiality, the default state is that it is not prohibited by law. To claim that it ought to be gives you the burden of proof. My responses show the weighty flaws in the original claim, that "bestiality is similar to rape," and my opponent does not show why any remaining connections between those two acts justify legislating against bestiality. Sources: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Bestiality ought to be illegal

I intend to argue that bestiality is similar to rape, so con's argument for physical abuse is irrelevant. Con says that because animals do not consent to sex with animals of there own species, we do not need there consent. There are a number of problems with this argument. 1) Animal DNA is hard coded to accept un consented sex within their species. even if they resist, that would only be applicable to that one species and it is still better than with another specie (human). 2) saying that animals can show some level of consent does not mean anything. Unwanted action could still happen, and the human could say the animal consented, whose going to argue. pro agrees that "This does not justify a forceful sexual assault of an animal" Forceful assault does not necessarily leave obvious marks, and when it does there is no guarantee it can be traced, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the rape. I challenge con to think of away we can limit abuse to the point we can justify legalizing bestiality. I would also ask that con wait to post his argument as i will be out of town for the weekend.
Bestiality ought to be illegal

To make a reasonable argument that bestiality ought to be illegal, my opponent will at least need to demonstrate that bestiality is A) a significant threat to the human who commits the act; B) a significant threat to the animal that receives the act; or C) a significant threat to society. Failing these, he will need to demonstrate the value of making a harmless act illegal. Argument B, that bestiality is a significant threat to the animal that receives the sex act, is the most common justification for making such acts illegal. Thus, this is what I will address as my primary counter-argument. Claim: Bestiality is physically abusive. Response: Bestiality is not necessarily committed with physical abuse. If the sex act does result in physical injury, existing laws against animal cruelty would account for that. For example, in the state of Oregon, there are three offenses for which a person could potentially be prosecuted[1]: -> Animal abuse in the second degree: ". .. Causes physical injury to an animal. " -> Animal abuse in the first degree: ". .. Causes serious physical injury to an animal; or . .. Cruelly causes the death of an animal. " -> Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree: ". .. Maliciously kills an animal; or . .. Intentionally or knowingly tortures an animal. " Considering this, legislating against bestiality would be a frivolous gesture. Claim: Bestiality is rape. Response: While this sentiment may have compassionate intent, it not only mischaracterizes many acts of zoophilia, it also sets a misleading presumption for the nature of sex in animals. Consent is a normal part of human sexual relations, but not necessarily for that of animals. Sexual coercion has been observed, sometimes as a social strategy, in many mammal species, such as dolphins and other primates. [2][3] This does not justify a forceful sexual assault of an animal, but it shows that we should not expect to establish consent in the same way that we do for other humans. This said, animals can, in fact, show consent. A healthy, mobile animal is capable of resisting unwanted touch and encouraging pleasurable petting. Animals even initiate sex acts with humans, often in the form of a male animal advancing on a person to thrust his pelvis against the person. [4] Neither of these claims justify making bestiality illegal. Any additional concerns that my opponent may bring up will be addressed in the next round. I eagerly await my opponent's argument. Sources: 1. . http://asci.uvm.edu... 2. . http://www.nytimes.com... 3. . http://www.sciencedirect.com... 4. . http://www.utilitarian.net...
Bestiality ought to be illegal

In this debate I will argue against the popular notion that we should legislate against bestiality in the US. Arguments may begin in Round 2. In this round my opponent will agree to the following conditions: For clarity's sake, I would like to mark the difference between "bestiality" and "zoophilia." Bestiality: acts of sex between humans and non-human animals Zoophilia: sexual or romantic desire for non-human animals Although zoophilia is relevant to the debate, Pro will only have to argue in favor of making general acts of sex with animals illegal, not the sexual or romantic desire. Also, for simplicity's sake, we can assume that any reference to "animals" implies non-human animals, unless otherwise stated. I sincerely thank my opponent. Hopefully we can get into a productive, substantive discussion on the topic and not get stuck in semantic ditches.
Marijuana should be legalized

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for setting up such a good topic and such a good debate so quickly. I'd also like to thank SocialPinko for inviting me to his tournament and everybody who might be reading this debate, for taking the time to inform themselves on such an important issue. As you may have guessed, I accept my opponent's challenge and all of his definitions. One minor clarification that might be useful for voters to bear in mind is that "legalized" refers to a generic first-world nation, with no specific jurisdiction in mind. Other than that, I'm ready to get this debate rolling!
Marijuana should be legalized

Full resolution: "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Sex education should be taught in schools.

I believe sex education should be taught in schools. Many would object to this stance, as it is a sensitive and touchy subject best left to the parents. I agree, schools should not have to teach students about sex, but the fact is a vast majority of parents won't discuss that subject with their children, and the children won't ask their parents about that subject. Sex education in schools is also important because it is taught to like-minded people of the same age group, meaning it will be more personal and probably less uncomfortable for the students.