BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That trademarks should be abolished

Hey everyone. In this debate, I'm going to be proposing the motion that trademarks should be abolished. My opponent, naturally, will negate this topic. We each have 72 hours to argue our points, and 8000 characters to do so in each round. There are four rounds, although the first is just for acceptance, rules, etc. As usual, please only vote if you're either being completely fair or voting for me. I would very much appreciate (and I think my opponent would too) constructive comments for improving my case. A few basic rules, too, just in case my opponent hasn't done that many debates before. No sources in the comments. All arguments that each side intends to make in the debate must be made in the debate rounds, not comments or sources. I have the BOP (as is obvious). One last thing - definitions. A trademark is a distinctive "sign" of any kind that distinguishes a brand from its competitors (http://www.iponz.govt.nz...). Legally trademarks are protected by international law via the Madrid Protocol of 1891 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The debate will focus solely on trademarks, not other kinds of intellectual property, such as patents (which protect processes) or copyrights (which protect creative works). Examples of trademarks are the M of McDonalds or the shade of purple used by Cadbury chocolate. So - good luck to my opponent, and I look forward to an exciting debate.
Obama: The Most Honorable President in The Last 50 Years.

It has been a pleasure. Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this round. I would like to think that he was just busy with the holidays, but who really knows. In this round I would like to summarize 3 key points of this debate and show you why they all lead to a vote for the CON side of this debate. 1. )The first and most important is that my argument about Obama's approval. Oxford dictionary defines being held in high esteem as being honorable, yet president Obama comes in at 6th place in approval rating out of recent presidents making him very far from being the most loved or the most honorable. 2. )The next key point is that president Obama has committed very immoral things which clearly outweigh the arguments my opponent tries to use against previous presidents. President Obama has hired lobbyists and corrupt official who have gotten involved in prostitution scandals and other dishonorable acts. Even worse, he has PERSONALLY APPROVED of drones strikes which have killed hundreds of innocent children and 3 american citizens. I would say that these acts are far more immoral and thus make Obama less honorable. 3. )The last key point that I would like to make is that my opponent continues to try to say that because Obama has said that he is going to enact gun control that he is doing a good thing, but there are two problems with this argument. First of all, he has not shown how this is necessarily the right thing to do and Second, we must remember that to be honorable you have to DO the right thing, but Obama is yet to DO or enact anything, whereas president Clinton actually did enact gun control, so even if you buy that gun control is good, president Clinton has President Obama beat.
Obama: The Most Honorable President in The Last 50 Years.

We cannot blame our president for the misconduct of some of his employees. Concerning President Reagan, he has been credited with allowing Pakistan to build a nuclear bomb, as well as with the creation of al-Qaeda. Another incident damaging his reputation was the sale of weapons to Iran. He did, however, opposed the sale of assault weapons. The only event affecting President Clinton was the one with Monica, which was blown out of proportion by Congress and the media. It may have been worthy, though. Besides that, Clinton was a great president.
Obama: The Most Honorable President in The Last 50 Years.

After winning his reelection, President Obama can be considered the most honorable president since the assassination of President Kennedy. President Obama, unlike most of his predecessors, has been able to distance himself from political scandals, corruption, love affairs, military interventionism, and any other event that could have damaged his legacy and image. Fortunately, the American people are enjoying and experiencing a historic moment in the construction of the best democracy around the world. No country has been able to escape corruption in his government, and some have endured oppressive dictatorships. On the same token, we cannot blame the population, but its leaders. Since our independence from England, the U.S has strove hard to correct many flaws left by the founding fathers namely, slavery, racial discrimination, women's right to vote, and other inequalities. With President Obama, the U.S. leads the world as to equality, civil rights, and democracy. Who knows how long it would take Europe to elect a non-white president even though minority groups are everywhere in any of those countries. President Obama has had the courage to address issues that other presidents did not dare to. Obama has stood up against abusive practices in credit card and loan companies, has attempted to fix the health care system, and other issues. Presently, the president is ready to fix the huge problem we face with the assault rifle proliferation among our civilian population. I challenge my opponent to present another curriculum with more transparency, honor, and dignity than President Obama's. Good luck!
Children 5 years or older should be allowed to consent to sexual activity

As I agreed on, this round is to be used as a conclusion and reasons why I believe I won. I won't present new arguments here and neither should my opponent. To conclude, I believe children 5 years or older should be able to consent to sexual activity because their brain is 90% developed by that age. Then I stated that a child should have a right to agree to it. I addressed concerns early in my argument about the possibility of STD's but that can be prevented if we allowed for children to be taught about sex and STD's at a young age, or even if it was made illegal for children to consent to have unprotected sex with adults. I argued that whatever doesn't do harm to other people, should be legal, and sex between two consenting people does not harm to anyone else. I believe I won this debate because I used facts and logic, while my opponent only relied on logic and assumptions and provided no evidence of facts through sources. Their argument in the first round I already rebutted sufficiently in the second round I think and pointed out why that logic doesn't work. Then in the second round my opponent made the assumption without evidence that children can't fully understand the decisions they are making. While this may be a commonly held belief, I ask people to look at this objectively and determine that since my opponent didn't offer support for this claim, it is a weak argument. Then my opponent's argument that children do not experience sexual desires was already proven to be false by the source in my second round. And lastly, my opponent, argued that sex with an adult is the only way for a child to get an STD but I ask the voters to truly think about that for a moment, and think about what other ways STD's are transferred(such as through blood contact). Thus, my opponent's arguments were weak in round 2, and I already pointed out the problems in round 1 with my rebuttals in round 2. I implore voters to vote on this debate as objectively as possible. Do not let your own opinions affect your voting, especially since nearly everyone has an immediate reaction to child sex as something disgusting. Put that aside and judge this debate objectively, and I will accept it. Since vote comments are turned on, if you don't provide sufficient RFD, I will report the vote. Hopefully that also encourages you to look at this objectively.
Children 5 years or older should be allowed to consent to sexual activity

1. Children are Unable to fully understand the Decision they are making, Children as well do not have Sexual desires so odds are really high of them unable to really Consent to something they do not desire. As you previously stated Earlier Pregnancy issues do not exist since they are Unable to procreate, That leads to my next point. There is no need to Have Sexual Activity Among someone so young because A. The Childs Sexual Desires do not exist although they may feel like they want to explore things, They Do not Have a Sexual Desire to Have Sex with another person nor do they Fullfill their Desires (Aka Have a Orgasm that reliefs Sexual Urges). B. Since Sexual Fulfillment isn't a thing for a Child (Due to the fact that they are Incapable of having Sexual Urges), and Since Procreation isn't a thing (Due to the fact they are Unable to Procreate). The Only person who would gain sexual Fulfillment from it would be an Adult. Your point is comparing Children to Adults "why do we keep children ignorant of the fact that when they explore sexual organs, they may contract a disease from that?" Children aren't like adults, They do not Have sex so much that Diseases Exist. The Only way for a Child to Receive those types of Diseases would be for an Adult to Transfer the Disease, Which is another reason why I do not accept the idea of Children of 5years or older should be allowed to Consent to Sexual Activity. Children aren't Exactly tried as an Adult, Someone I know Broke Another kids jaw. However since He was "A Minor" at the time. He had to go to Safe school, Instead of spending 5 years in prison. Children cant legally be Sentenced to Death in The United States, While Adults can.
Should the God Hypothesis be a Scientific theory

I will try and prove that while the concept of god is an interesting hypothesis it is hardly a concept that can be called a well established, by a vast body of evidence supported constructed that is worthy of being called a theory. I accept all but one of the proposed definitions. Before my opponent proceeds to argue that the “God Hypothesis” should be treated as theory it should be well defined what exactly god is. A scientific term is essentially one that eliminates all grounds for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Defining god as creator of the universe, personal etc is hardly accurate. His nature must be defined explicitly before it can be supported by scientific facts. Until stated otherwise I will assume that the god in question is the Christian one. I look forward to my opponent's points and a good and educating debate.
Should the God Hypothesis be a Scientific theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis should be a scientific theory. In principle, I technically have all the Burden of Proof, but for the purpose of winning and losing this debate, my opponent must explain why it should NOT be a scientific theory. In other words, my opponent should be focusing on explaining why its unfalsifiable rather than try to falsify my hypothesis. There is a difference. However, I do welcome any attempts on his part to try to falsify it regardless. My opponent will have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being an established theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair. A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections. Plus, I will probably be adding some new elements to this theory that were not present in my other debates. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
R-rated movies should be banned from television.

R-Rated movies wouldn't bring in enough revenue for a channel to survive on a commercial basis.Those who are into that kind of movie must legally be adults and therefore should go an purchase the DVD themselves, rather than pay for a channel where more than 50% of the viewers are not there for blood, guts and gore and those who are would rather see it beginning to end rather than on a channel, 20 minutes in. The small minority of people who would love to regularly view their television on a channel that streams R-rated movies over and over on a loop should not only get their heads checked but also learn to use the Internet.It is economically unfeasible for R-rated channels to survive in the long run because there's simply not large enough a market for it.Banning the channels as a policy prevents idiots taking up a channel number where a far more sustainable content is being displayed.
Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

Well, a troll who is now banned accepted my other debate, so I am doing this again. Thank you to Medv4380 for accepting this debate. However, they have yet to respond and start accepting debate challenges. The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate.______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans.Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS.Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks are not accepted.As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!
Censorship in general is stupid

Because this debate is about censorship in general here will be specific rounds for different forms of censorship with the final round for conclusions/closing arguments. Round 1 is for acceptance and opening arguments 2 is for internet censorship 3 is for media (inc. music) censorship e.g. wear words 4 is for nudity 5 closing arguments Opening statement: I think that censorship in general is stupid and in some cases pointless as it doesn’t work and/or make sense, for example the way we would censor lingerie and not bikinis. While there are some examples where it may be appropriate, most calls for censorship by people are, in my opinion unjust and unnecessary.On a less serious note:
Censorship in general is stupid

Sorry to hear about your grandmother, mine also had strokes earlier this year. I hope she gets better. Main reasons why censorship is stupid: It doesn’t work in many cases such as internet censorship which is ineffective since it is so easy to get around. It takes away freedoms of expression by restricting how and sometimes if people can express themselves. Examples include censoring nudity in art preventing Restricts the information available to the public which prevents them from being fully informed ehcoh could affect a countries growth Censorship can and has been used by governments in attempt to control the views of the public by restricting, information notably in China Therefore, censorship is stupid because it has very few benefits in comparison to its negative consequences. In conclusion, Vote for me!! :)
Censorship in general is stupid

I am sorry for the forfeiture. My grandma had two mini-strokes in under a week. One was on Friday, and we (my brother, mom, and dad) stayed in Toledo until Saturday when she was released from the hospital, so we left to go to my parents' house in Akron. On Saturday afternoon there was another TIA (mini-stroke/transient ischemic attack) and we immediately headed back to Toledo. We only just got home today. My grandma is doing well, she is home and my uncle and his wife and four kids are there. So is my grandpa. Again, sorry for the crappy debate.
Censorship in general is stupid

I'm going to keep this short because I don't have much time left, it’s three o’clock in the morning and my opponent forfeited the last two rounds. While I understand why people would want sexual nudity to be censored in public, none sexual nudity shouldn’t be censored because there is nothing unnatural about the human body therefore we shouldn’t be feel a need to censor it in media etc. Firstly, most shows, movies etc. don’t have nudity in them and the ones that do such as True Blood tend to exclusively have mature audiences, thus it can’t be argued that nudity is needed to protect the ‘innocence of children’ in this instance. Also people who watch these shows tend not to have much of an issue with nudity otherwise they wouldn’t watch something which contained it. Secondly, if more none sexual nudity wasn’t censored less people, especially teenagers would be worried that don’t have a ‘normal’ looking body or think that they’re fat when they’re not which could lead to there being less body issues among people. Additionally, nudity isn’t always sexual, for example in art work such as painting and statues as well as more modern artwork such as body paintings (http://www.theguardian.com...). Finally, in the US and UK among other countries, there is a sexist double standard to what is considered ‘obscene’ in regard to nudity in different genders, for example the way it isn’t regarded as ‘obscene’ when a man’s nipples are shown but when a women’s are the image is often censored, sometimes even when the image of the man’s chest is intended to be sexual and the woman’s isn’t (e.g. protest, art, breastfeeding...). This is simply sexist and point to the major flaw with censorship of nudity, as with all other forms of censorship; what is counted as ‘obscene’ or ‘offensive’ is subjective. Why should something be censored because it might cause offence to some, especially something like the human body which we shouldn’t be offended to seen naked? Examples of none sexual nudity and nudity not usually regarded as ‘obscene’ which shouldn’t be censored. Teaching mothers how to breastfeed http://www.mumsnet.com... art http://lh3.ggpht.com...(1)%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800 http://3.bp.blogspot.com... not usually regarded as obscene: http://images5.fanpop.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... Sources (AKA tabs I sorta looked at then added cause, meh you have to add sources) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.fhm.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://uk.eonline.com... (IT IS NOW 04:02, I SHOULD REALLY GO TO BED!!!)
Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays

Christmas is just around the corner and every year this question pops up..."why do you, an atheist, celebrate Christmas? Aren't you being a hypocrite?" So I am taking the Con and pose this debate to anyone who is willing to tell me why I should NOT observe Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Rosh Hashanah, L. Ron Hubbard's birthday or Halloween. I will start by defining some of the terms that will be referenced: Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious: 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious Holiday: a day specified for religious observance http://dictionary.reference.com... Observe: 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way http://www.merriam-webster.com... Hypocrite: 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings http://www.merriam-webster.com... Christmas: 1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Easter: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon http://www.merriam-webster.com... St. Patrick's Day: ...an annual feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick (circa AD 385–461), the most commonly recognised of the patron saints of Ireland, and is generally celebrated on 17th of March. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rosh Hashanah: ...a Jewish holiday commonly referred to as the "Jewish New Year." http://en.wikipedia.org... L. Ron Hubbard's Birthday: The Church of Scientology recognizes March 13, the birthday of founder L. Ron Hubbard, as a religious holiday. http://altreligion.about.com... Halloween: is an annual holiday celebrated on October 31. It has roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Christian holy day of All Saints, but is today largely a secular celebration. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is not to be a venue for prostelising or for discussing the merits or demerits of any belief system. Keep it clean and on point.
The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

My stance is presented in the title of the debate. I will present my case in several manners: 1) The "Ground Zero Mosque" is, in fact, not actually a Ground Zero Mosque. 2) The builders of the "Mosque" have a constitutional right to do so, and to prevent them from building it would be unconstitutional. They have the law on their side. 3) It is both Un-American and straight out immoral. The moral components: a) The "rubbing salt on the wound" idea is incorrect and foolish. Furthermore, the opposition/prevention to the building should be seen as rubbing salt on America's wounds. b) Opposition of the building on the grounds that the builders are Muslim just like the people behind the 9/11 attacks is unfair discrimination. c) The terrorists behind the original 9/11 attacks will not have "won" if the Mosque is built. On the contrary, they will have won if building is prevented from being built.