BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The G Spot is a Myth

I'd like to take a moment to advertise my coitus services, and refute any myths about it that my opponent may have put forward. This is what you should expect from other services: "Let"s pretend we"re fishing for it with our member, she"ll never know. If she doesn"t scream with pleasure it's all on her". However, my service guarantees that we WILL find your G Spot. The reason people are starting to think the G Spot is a myth is because they use the wrong services. Fear no more! An easy solution is here! Now, let me refute any lies said about my services . Myth #1- "Glad to hear your copulation services are affordable. But, I still had to define G spot for you. So I can only surmise you never attempted to looked for it; tsk, tsk. Cheap is not always better. " I only started offering my services two days ago. Myth #2- "I have better things to think on while in bed than the meaning of life. Such as, am I getting there, or is that a pinkie. " This is why you don't manage coitus services. Leave it to the professionals. "Have at it with R. D. , he"s all yours for the taking; the mere thought makes me gack. " Again, why you don't manage my services. We love all of our clients. Nice poem. However, would like to end this debate with a video instead.
The G Spot is a Myth

Thank you Peepete. Let us analyze some of my opponent's statements. "Oh really! a grown man like yourself does not know what a G Spot is? Or are you one of those guys who are self-serving while copulating; a mere troll of the V hole. " When I am copulating, I am anything but self serving. My prices are cheap, and my service is top notch. Anyone who says otherwise is slandering my good name. "Yes, there was a G Spot Restaurant in Uniondale NY." And when the story of one G spot ends, another one begins. https://www.google.com... "Contemplation of life is the last thing I'd be thinking about while between the sheets." Contemplation of life is the ONLY thing that you should be thinking about while in between the sheets. Shame on you. "The hair cut is atrocious; he has no sense of style, and he's downright fugly." I disagree. I'd tap that a'ss any day of the week. "Due to scientific review it is now considered nonexistent despite its history of being." I believe in miracles. Do you? "The G Spot has gone down into the annals as a myth much like the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch and Pukwudgie." What are you talking about? I've seen all three of these magnificent creatures! Loch Ness Monster: https://www.google.com... The Sasquatch/Bigfoot: https://images.search.yahoo.com... The Pukwudgie: https://images.search.yahoo.com... (I honestly don't know what this is. I was just searching for Pukwudgie pictures.) Back to Pro
The G Spot is a Myth

Dr. Ernst Grafenberg, the so called Christopher Columbus of G Spot was found to be incorrect after review of dozens of studies on the topic by Dr. Amichai Kilchevsky. It is apropos to label Dr. G. as Christopher Columbus due to men and women have been searching for this elusive internal golden pillow for over sixty years without discovery. For caring gentlemen, the constant inability to touch upon this elusive female instrument has lead of much performance anxiety. For those men who are more self- serving, a golf ball is of greater value due to his effort to search for it. Alas, on the woman’s part the scavenger hunt is reminiscent of “Our Bodies, Our Selves” mania of the 1970’s where makeup mirrors were employed with unintended purpose in an effort to become knowledgeable of one’s anatomical structures. During these decades of exploration, numerous articles in magazines such as “Cosmopolitan” provided description and instruction on how to sail your phalanges and phalluses to the promise land of Ecstasy [1]. An article in “Natural Health Source”[2] recommended that a person “Go Gyro, Try the Butterfly (whatever that is), and Do Standing Doggy Style.” One must attain a copy of the Kama Sutra and join a gym for positional reference and fitness sufficient for enactment. It was all for naught. http://www.cosmopolitan.com... https://www.naturalhealthsource.com...
Romania was a more helpful ally to Nazi Germany than Italy during WWII.

As I am currently obsessed with the whole World War II time period, I decided that this would be an interesting, not to mention original, debate to create. The premise will be as followed: Romania was a more helpful ally to Nazi Germany during the entirety of World War II than Italy was. I will provide a few definition/clarifications just to be safe. WWII = World War IIThe Axis: The Faction headed by the Tripartite alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Members included Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Croatia, Finland, Siam (Thailand), Manchukuo, and Bulgaria. helpful: making it easier to do a job, deal with a problem, etc. Therefore following this definition of helpful, I must show that Romania made the German war effort easier than Italy did. Since the BoP is shared in this debate, my opponent must try and prove that Italy made the German war effort easier than Romania did. The debate structure will be generic, with the first round being for acceptance, second for arguments, and third for rebuttals. I am currently only having three rounds, however if my future opponent would like to have more or less rounds, I am open to suggestions. On the matter of future opponents, I have made this debate impossible to accept. Therefore if you would like to debate me, please leave a comment or PM me to display interest. Good luck!
Policy debaters should not use Kritikal affs

If it is ok with him, I'm going to use examples from this years topic. Contention 1: Kritikal affs rarely have solvency. They need to cite specific links to a downfall, or upbringing of a philosiphy from said plan. The proposal is inherently flawed. I'll extend in my 4th contention Contention 2: It forces the neg to debate against themselves. If their neg strat revolves around a k, then they are forced to run framework against themselves. It takes out alot of neg ground because they often have to debate themselves. Alot of PIC's are no longer available to be run. Let's say you run the kritikal afghanistan, if I run an agent cp, It is very easy to wiggle out of it. All you have to say is that if the agent is going to reinforce the philosiphy and you have lost. They are an extreme disadvantage. The main part of the neg strat is taken out. Contention 3: Kritikal affs are almost always contradicting, untopical, and (a lot of times) easy to beat. Extend contention 1 that they rarely have solvency. They revolve around appealing to the judges morals, therefore they are not policy. The anti-philosophy framework will take it out in a second. Plus many policy judges are anti-K, getting many teams voted down. Although they take out the main part of the neg strat, they are at a disadvantage to t's theory, and framework Contention 4: Kritikal affs are flawed. But so are ks, They basically say that one policy enaction will create the perfect society by eliminating a philosophy. Then by "pulling out of a few countries", we'll all be happy and dancng in the streets- no. What happened when we eliminated German nazi's- Neo nazis. To try and eliminate a philosophy is futile.
Policy debaters should not use Kritikal affs

This will be my first debate in a LONG time. I don't participate in policy debate personally, but I'm familiar enough with the activity that I think I can give you a satisfying debate on it. I have no idea why you oppose kritikal affs as of yet, so I'll forego making arguments this round. I figure it's only fair since you haven't presented arguments in round 1 either. Since I'll have plenty of characters left over this round, I'll take the time to define the "kritik" for those unfamiliar. This is from the encyclopedia of the Spartan Debate Institute (SDI) of Michigan State University [1] "[Kritiks encompass] An extremely diverse domain (as opposed to kingdom, phylum, or specie) of arguments - so diverse that any statement made about them seems riddled with exceptions. In fact, perhaps 40-60% of the entries in this Wiki are particular kritiks or kritikal concpts. That said, a kritik (or critique, or critical argument) generally seeks to engage the other team in some realm beyond traditional cost-benefit assessment of unique advantage and disadvantages of the plan. The specific word, critique, is often spelled with the German spelling (kritik), as many kritiks (particularly the earlier ones) are tied to German philosophers. Or, to save time, people just call it "The K"... Negative kritiks might object to specific words (in the plan or in affirmative cards), specific methods of solvency, specific impacts, particular assumptions behind the solvency or impacts, or the framework or mindset which lead to the case being written. A kritik might object more generally to making ethical claims, using the state to solve problems, the very existence of the state, pretending reality is real, asserting that problems should be solved, etc. Although kritiks vary widely in their details, rounds where negative initiate them often hinge on one of these issues: Is the affirmative able to "weigh" their advantages against the kritik, or does the kritik provide defense/offense/theory objection against them? Which impact is larger? Does the kritik solve the case (the root cause, perhaps)? Does the alternative solve the kritik? Is the alternative better than the perm or permutation? Which kinds of questions should be the judges' highest priority? Affirmatives can run kritiks as well, including 2AC kritiks of certain disadvantages, case arguments, solvency arguments, etc. Some critical 1AC cases are a kritik of certain parts of the status quo, but will defend the plan as a policy action against DA's, CP's, topicality attacks (though they often answer some of those arguments with kritiks). Some critical affirmatives either don't have a plan, or defend the plan in some way other than saying it would be literally good if the government passed the policy. Some critical affirmatives affirm the resolution, in a sense, while others object to it, or to the very idea of having one. Most critical affirmatives that don't claim to be topical are prepared to generate a lot of offense against negatives that run it." [1] http://sdiencyclopedia.wikispaces.com...
Policy debaters should not use Kritikal affs

I'll start with his case and then move onto my own 1. Fairness A. >>>affs are at a major disadvantage -Extend my case that Kritkal affs are already at a disadvantage. But more problems arise with Kritikal Affs >>>> which significantly limits aff options extend 3 words earlier in his speech, he states that MOST policy debates revolve around a util. Framework. So how is it limiting, if barely anyone uses it. >>>>there are significantly fewer affs to prepare for. -If anyone has the time, go to debatecoaches.org and select open evidence. Aproximatly every 1 in 20 is kritikal (that's just my second hand Math), but still there are not that many. >>>>it's just flat out unreciprocal since the negative has access to the kritik -Why can't the aff run Topicality against Cps? Why Can't they run a theory on a da? Because these are jobs of the neg. The aff is simply proposing a plan and defending it. b. >>>> Small schools get easily out-evidenced by the massive amount of files that the large schools possess -this is true, however, as I will extend later, this does not help >>>>allows for small-school debaters to specialize in one form of debate The con says that it is good to have one strat, well it isn't. This allows for other schools to prepare for what they are going to run >>>>won't always guarantee the win. -This turns the con, this means that people using ks as a crutch won't have to use actual evidence 2. Basically, debate is a game, and policy is a very educational event, no one can argue that. But Kritikal affs are basically cheat codes for this game, because they don't require any type of wiggle room for the aff. >>>>make important life choices that require a grasp of philosophy. -Policy is to help us understand and help alter the policies, but putting in morals does not belong. Doing it in Pf is okay, because PF is more real world. But policy bases itself on "how do we tackle the problem?". And, Policy is on a nation level, not on an individual level. How can we use "capatilism is bad" philosophy to solve everyday problems? Now to my case 1st- No a lot of them do not revolve around solvency, because there is no solvency for philosophies. What happened after we killed German Nazis?- American Nazis. Also, this creates a crutch of Framework. A philosophy framework is already easy to beat. (there are like 1000 blocks) and without the framework, it's easy to loose. This actually makes it unfair to the aff. 2nd Now i'll agree that there are serious flaws in policy debtors arguments, but Kritkal affs AMPLIFY said problem, because instead of concrete ground, they just float around in the sea of thought, not actually coming down to earth 3rd- Solvency is the basis for policy debate, the number one rule of policy is- No Solvency, No win Why would debater do an event called policy, if they didn't want to act as a policy maker? 4th-extend contention 1 defense
As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false.

Well, not quite. Now, to set the parameters: Definition of Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others Definition of Selfish: 1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others Definition of Regard: attention , consideration Ok, now, listen. According to you, I argue that : >>>Altruistic acts are only seemingly selfish; ultimately it's still driven by self-interest<<< "This is my opponent's only point - that seemingly altruistic acts (like charity or feeding the poor) are ultimately selfish for various reasons (either personal gain or just the feeling of relief)." So your trying to tell me that I'm saying that altruistic acts are ultimately selfish? "By definition, if this were to be true then my opponent is correct" By definition, that doesn't make any sense. That's not what I'm arguing. For someone to accurately fit the definition of "selfish", they cannot give any consideration to others. Someone can be concerned with themselves without being selfish. Consideration of others can still bring happiness. Can the welfare of others can bring welfare to one? Yes. The welfare of others can bring the welfare of one. If so, then what happens to your arguments? Here's you example: "However, I can bring up one example: a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his partners. He only has a split second to jump on the grenade, and he won't reap any benefits after it becauase he'd be dead (duh). This is obviouosly an act of altruism and thus psychological egoism is not absolutely true. Of course, my opponent can attack this example, and I will be waiting for any rebuttal. Until then, this stands as one counterexample of psychological egoism." To care more about someone than yourself, that means obviously that the welfare of others brings welfare to you. What brings the soldier welfare is not the welfare of himself, but the welfare of his country and his comrades. Indirectly, that person intends to bring themselves welfare, but that welfare is only achieved through the welfare of others. You say: "He only has a split second to jump on the grenade, and he won't reap any benefits after it becauase he'd be dead (duh)." Your wrong. He knew what he was doing. The benefits that he reaped was knowing that his friends would survive, and that he would die for his country. That's what made him happy. He did it because the success of something else made him happy. Unselfish. Yet still, ultimately but indirectly, self-interest. I'm afraid I'm out of time, but I'm sure I've proven that acts of altruism can indirectly serve as self - interests without being selfish. So: Please vote CON. Even my opponent. Thank you.
As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false.

=====Counterarguments===== Because psychological egoism is an empirical doctrine, I need to find only one example or instance where it can disprove this notion. I will first refute my opponent's only claim, then move on to bring up other points of why psychological egoism is at best, a weak and unfulfilling theory. >>>Altruistic acts are only seemingly selfish; ultimately it's still driven by self-interest<<< This is my opponent's only point - that seemingly altruistic acts (like charity or feeding the poor) are ultimately selfish for various reasons (either personal gain or just the feeling of relief). By definition, if this were to be true then my opponent is correct. However, I can bring up one example: a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his partners. He only has a split second to jump on the grenade, and he won't reap any benefits after it becauase he'd be dead (duh). This is obviouosly an act of altruism and thus psychological egoism is not absolutely true. Of course, my opponent can attack this example, and I will be waiting for any rebuttal. Until then, this stands as one counterexample of psychological egoism. >>>Circular Reasoning<<< The circular logic in psychological egoism has been expounded many times before. The social philosopher Joel Feinberg also rephrases the circular argument criticism. "All men desire only satisfaction. " "Satisfaction of what? " "Satisfaction of their desires. " "Their desires for what? " "Their desires for satisfaction. " "Satisfaction of what? " "Their desires. " "For what? " "For satisfaction"—etc. , ad infinitum The hypothesis and conclusion are the same, thus making it circuluar logic. Unless my opponent can give independent empirical evidence that psychological egoism is true, then simply relying on casual observations of human nature is hardly proof. =====Concnlusion===== I'd go into evolution and it's role with psychological egoism, but frankly I'm too busy. I've given one counterexample and a reason for the circularity of psychological egoism. This seems to suffice, and I await my opponent.
As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false.

Thank you for such a topic. Here is the resolution: As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false. And as you said: "Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare." Definition of Ultimate: arrived at as the last result http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore: "Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one aim to be arrived at as the last result: her own welfare." Now, you argue that: "When I say "as a complete view", I mean that psychological egoism's (PE) assertion that all our actions are ultimately driven by self-interest is wrong in some examples. It is up to my opponent to prove that we as humans always ultimately act in self-interest." Definition of Self Interests: a concern for one's own advantage and well-being Definition of Well Being or Welfare: the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... So you're arguing that not all of our actions are driven by intent to eventually become happy, healthy or prosperous as a last result. Hmmmmmmm. Well, we have to ask ourselves, what brings happiness? The only actions I can think of that would not seem to regard self interests is interests in other people. Selflessness. Good citizens, you know. But ultimately, the person who commits selfless actions is actually brought happiness by the prosperity of others, and therefore it all proves psycological egoism, because the actions ultimately lead to the persons welfare. :) Well, I humbly challenge you to prove how the resolution is affirmative. When you say: "as a complete view" You define it as: "psychological egoism's (PE) assertion that all our actions are ultimately driven by self-interest is wrong in some examples" So you just put the burden of proof on yourself, because you must give examples of such. Well, now that I have proven the resolution: Please vote CON. Even my opponent. Thank you.
As a complete view, Psychological Egoism is false.

After reading a couple debates on this matter, I have decided to touch on this subject also. I'm aware that some words I use in my resolution may be shifty, so I intend to clarify in my opening argument. [Definition - Psychological Egoism] "Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare." http://plato.stanford.edu... When I say "as a complete view", I mean that psychological egoism's (PE) assertion that all our actions are ultimately driven by self-interest is wrong in some examples. It is up to my opponent to prove that we as humans always ultimately act in self-interest. I will leave further arguments for the next round.
Islam should be banned in the United States on the basis of being a death cult, not a religion.

Ok. I'll take you up on this. The Koran is comparable to the Bible and Torah in content. So, the basis of this religion, its holy book, is very similar to the other two popular monotheistic religions of the world. In fact, the old testament is a large portion of all three of these. If you want to argue hat the old testament is possibly the basis of a death cult, I might actually agree with you. But then we might start banning every religion. Secondly, Death Cults aren't illegal. Meeting, saying, and holding beliefs of the sort are all legal. Congress may not pass a law based on religion, let alone a law that conflicts with the Bill of Rights (ok...so maybe the Alien and Sedition Act and Patriot Act were passed, but they shouldn't have been). Thirdly, oppression of any people is wrong. Believe it or not, the majority of Muslims have never committed evil acts. Or do you mean Death Cult is the sense of worshiping the afterlife above their first life? If you want to ban Islam on this basis you must also be willing to ban the top 10 religions in the world for the same reason.
The Ten Commandments Are Outdated

1. I was talking about commandments being good to follow and you basically said that its not a good idea to be Christian or Jewish because some people are not Christian or Jewish and that doesnt make sense if thats not wat you mean to say than please clarify 3. If by suggestion you mean God wont strike you dead for refusing to follow Sabbath than sure but God wants us to follow Sabbath and that is His plan and its still good idea to have day off so in that sense it is still commandment 5. I disagree the creator has right to do as He pleases with His creations butt His laws are for humans to follow and if God went around killing people we would still need to follow this commandment you are taking commandment out of context when God said Thou Shalt Not Kill He did not have Self-Defense in mind 7. once again you are taking verses out of context we need to keep in mind wat God mean when He established commandments exceptions to rules do not make rules outdated or invalid and all these exceptions you think up do not invalidate Ten Commandments 8. once again we must remember the context in which God established each commandment situations were lying is acceptable doesnt make the commandment invalid or outdated 9. yor link is bogus with all due respect and anyway I once again say that exceptions to rules do not invalidate rules butt also I challenge you tell me a single situation were adultery or lust is good thing I agree that we need additional laws butt that doesnt in any way make the Ten Commandments outdated its yor turn again Pro