BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prostitution should be legalized (Guderian)

On to Contention 1: It is important to note that today's illegal prostitution rings have no laws regulating the protection of prostitutes. The PTSD, and STD's can be avoided by having legitimate brothels that protect the women. No beatings or such could take place in a protected environment, reducing significantly the chances of mental disorders. By legalizing Prostitution you are not bringing along the crime, corruption, or trafficking because there are know legitimate institutions. Employers hire their employees just like any other business and have interest in ensuring their continued health and productivity. Contention 2: This contention does not really prove anything. The same lazy student could simply try a life of crime or other "easy" jobs. Those who work hard and wish to succeed are always going to do better over over the pot-smoking lazy student who drops out. The drop-out may also turn to prostitution anyway- by legalizing it you are now better protecting that drop-out. Contention 3: This contention merely assumes that the government would be the owner of the brothels. If the brothels were privately-owned the business owner would pay for the monthly check-ups as part of their operating costs and import that in the price of their product. In that way the spread of STD's is still countered without a lot of extra cost. I contend that: Contention I: That prostitution is good for the economy. Prostitution is good for the economy for several reasons. First, it takes a previously illegal industry and legalizes it, opening the way for tax revenue which will help the government. It would provide low-skill people with a chance to work, and it will offer new business opportunity's for business owners. Contention II: Legalizing the Prostitution increases the Public Health. The prevalence among STD's in prostitutes today is a direct result of an illegal industry with no standards. Assuming the legalization of Prostitution one could argue that is would be in the Brothel's best interest to have their employees be healthy, both to offer a better product and ensure continue productivity. A client is very likely to pay more for a clean prostitute over one that is carrying an STD. In this respect the public health would be increased as STD's among this profession would be less common. Contention III: That the legalization of Prostitution cuts down on crime. Legalizing Prostitution cuts down on crime in several ways. Firstly prostitution would itself no longer be a crime, and prostitutes or their clients could no longer be arrested. Secondly, the secondary crime that is common with proposition such as drugs, abuse and the like would be dramatically decreased with legalization.
MLP should not have this huge fanbase.

Ok. I know this is going to start a flame, but i have to do it. One of the most surprising moments of my internet experience is that, a girls show like My Little Pony had such huge fan base, with 30 years old people loving this show. I was laughing a lot. I still can't understand why it's so famous. I heard that the show had really good characters and great morale, but for me it was really strange. I finally tried to watch the show and it was nothing special. I mean, it's great for kids because of the morale, but it's nothing different from other kids shows. I think the only reason for its incredible success is for the fact that after years of terrible Dora the Explorer and same episodes of Spongebob finally a good kids show shows up. What's your opinion?
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

Ohhkay.So, according to you, if I have understood you right, you are actually saying that simply because it has happened , it is a good thing.'Not many poets...'Well, yes, but think about it. The greatest poets do actually give their work away for free, thanks to the internet.Suddenly you no longer are the only one!'it is great that colin leslie deans work has been recognized as being of cultural value"'And why would that be? You have no basis on which to say this, because I have just proven you wrong. Now to my point, which is simply that; If you have been selected, it does not neccesarily mean that it is 'great'. Now great, according to the dictionary means 4. wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great! Now, because they selected does not mean that a) It is of cultural value which you have been assuming all along and b) that it is a good thing. Thank you for reading, vote good poetry and taste, vote con. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

I have backed up my claim by citing the National Library of Australia guidelines -which show they regard colin nleslie dean work as being of cultural value-which Is great I gave 3 reason why I think it is great "as I said it is great because his work is free for download for ever and not many poets give their work away for free and as pointed out in the library godliness it is great that colin leslie deans work has been recognized as being of cultural value" con has given no arguments only assertions thus I should win
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

'If you dont go to the link and see the book-for free- then there is no point to debate'Wow. So you are actually assuming that I did not read it? Yes, I read it. 'as I said it is great because his work is free for download for ever'So, it is 'great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation' because 'as I said it is great because his work is free for download for ever'I fail to see your reasoning. Thanks for the easy win, BTW.
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

con says "it is, then that does not necessarily mean that it is 'great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean" as I said it is great because his work is free for download for ever and not many poets give their work away for free and as pointed out in the library godliness it is great that colin leslie deans work has been recognized as being of cultural value you did not tell us if you have visited the library site with deans work
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

ARRGH! Shakuntala, has it ever occurred to you that people would trust you more if you stopped referring to colin leslie dean in the third person? As I said, even though the library thinks that you are of cultural value, or whatever it is, then that does not necessarily mean that it is 'great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean' . That is not a bad piece of evidence- but it does not support your resolution.
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

"con says You'd better give some VERY good reasons, shakuntala. If the only reason is because you are him, then there is no point." I will take your word that you have gone to the site-do you give your word? as to your argument 1) as I said in the first round colin leslie dean being preserved is a great thing -because his work will be free -for download for ever 2) how many poets give all their works away for free and if some do this great but I bet colin leslie dean is only one of a few 3) if you go to http://pandora.nla.gov.au... you will see that colin leslie deans work is considered by the National Library of Austral to be of cultural value note the guidelines says "In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection" "recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge" be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia " "4.1 Australian content 4.1.1 To be selected for national preservation, a significant proportion of a work should be about Australia (7); or be on a subject of social, political, cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia and be written by an Australian author; or be written by an Australian (8) of recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge. 4.1.2 It may be located on either an Australian or an overseas server. Australian authorship or editorship alone is insufficient grounds for national preservation. In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection
It is great that the National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean for preservation

The National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean via Gamahucher Press for preservation http://pandora.nla.gov.au... I think this is great that colin leslie dean work -Gamahucher press published- is preserved -because -for free download- which I think is a great thing If you dont go to the link and see the book-for free- then there is no point to debate
Shaq was Batman, Kobe was Robin, if the Kobe now replaced the Kobe then this would still be the case

Head shot??? this is not counter-strike, while O'Neal and Kobe where on the same team, O'Neal won an MVP award, Kobe did not win once. Shaq won all three NBA Finals MVP's when Kobe won none on same the team. Now that is a head shot. I started this debate. So follow my topic statement. And yes my debate is based on comparing Kobe and Shaq. Shaq lead his team to victory. Listing other big men who lead their team to victory like Jabbar, McHale, Bird, Robinson, Duncan who won an MVP and 3 Finals MVP's secures my argument by saying that big men are more valuable than guards. Shaq contributed more to the team when he was there. If Kobe was the leader... what was he the leader of... not contributing the most. Kobe was the leader when Shaq left. Kobe Bryant was a failure in leading a team. Instead of him winning he wanted out of Los Angeles. So on top of Odom, they gave him Gasol, and Artest. All three of those players were the best players for their team that they once were on. Now Kobe is as happy as ever in kissing every one's behind... Mr. Humble. Kobe is the master at behind kissing and corny sayings: -Artest is the greatest defensive player in the league -Gasol has that killer instinct (Gasol is scared to take the ball inside). -Morrison can play... that guy can go once you give him the chance. -I have studied black mamba's in the African deserts and I love their killer instinct. If people didn't know that Black Mamba was Kobe's nickname... you do now. I'm sorry kissing every one's behind does not make a person a quality leader.
Shaq was Batman, Kobe was Robin, if the Kobe now replaced the Kobe then this would still be the case

Shaq played on the Cavs for one season. And LeBron James never had a dominant center like Kobe had or has now. James is also a forward which contradicts your argument. This man says that the guard position is a more valuable position than a center. When in actuality rebounds help to win games more than assists do. But since Kobe is not known for his assists you say that he still ran the game. So tell me this since Kobe never was asked to play point guard for a season, so how did he run the offense. Kobe Bryant shot a better percentage with Shaq on his team than with Shaq not on his team. This is a sign of dependency. When Shaq left, Kobe never had that security blanket. Dwayne Wade had a chance to experience that blanket as he won an NBA title with Shaq who was averaging 20ppg and 10rpg. The guards with the most assists in the league do not win championships. They win all-star votes. Shooting guards who try to win all by themselves do the same. If we take a look into recent history. The only guard that was a leader on his team who has won the nba finals consistently without a big man was Michael Jordan who is considered to be the greatest basketball player of all time. The Celtics with Bird and McHale won without guards The Lakers with Jabbar as their best player won with Magic, but Jabbar was definitely the one who made the greatest impact. He is the all-time leading scorer. The Spurs won with Duncan as the best player along with Robinson. All of these players scored and grabbed rebounds they were more essential to their team than Kobe is to the Lakers.
Shaq was Batman, Kobe was Robin, if the Kobe now replaced the Kobe then this would still be the case

Everyone knows that Kobe Bryant is he greatest player of all-time right... so we know that he is not. Shaq did not need Kobe to win yet Kobe needed Shaq to win. If I remember correctly the saying was let Kobe get his and worry about guarding Shaq. This was said because Kobe then like now tends to over shoot to the point were he has to rely on his team to get points rather than him giving his team mates a chance. One playoff game where Kobe lost trying to get his team mates more involved, reporters asked Kobe why he decided to pass the ball and cause his team to lose rather than shoot as he was doing in the first half. This guy not word for word basically replied by saying that his coach told him that he was not passing the ball enough. Kobe decided to pass himself into a loss eventually getting his team eliminated from the playoffs. Shaq was so hard to stop. Game footage and stats will prove this point that Shaq was more efficient than Kobe ever will be. My opponent will give you some facts by saying that Shaq never won before he had Kobe or that Kobe won championships without Shaq. But my opponent will just seem to forget that Lamar Odom, Gasol, and just recently Artest were playing for this team. These people for their teams before the Lakers were the go to people for offensive production... Odom and Brand for the Clippers, Artest for the Kings, and Gasol for the Grizzlies. Shaq only seemed to have had Dwayne wade on his team as they won a title after he played for "kobe Bryant's team" Kobe's dependency on others: As of now it still seems that Kobe needs his team more than his team needs him... before getting his pieces to win a championship in recent history he was planning on jumping ship, because he never had that cushion to fall back on since Shaq left. It just seemed that when this Lakers team added Gasol and then Artest they started winning. On game 7 of the NBA Finals Kobe just seemed to disappear as the Lakers found some way to win. Only because of Perkins' injury and the rebounding down low from the Lakers helped them win game 7.
Work is for slaves and overachievers

Work is for people who have no lives outside of it, no hobbies, no interests, no bigger dreams. Unfortunately most people need to eat and have shelter and all the other basic necessities of life so they have to be slaves to their jobs. How many people actually enjoy their jobs, 10%?? maybe, and those 10% are the overachievers. Are you seriously going to tell me you would rather get up early out of bed and go to work rather then spend a nice morning with your family, maybe go for a nice drive, play some sports, travel, pick up a new hobby, maybe tinker around in your wood shop or work on an old car, or just go hang out with friends, maybe see a movie, do some shopping, or just sit back in the backyard and read a good book. Only overachievers go to work because they have nothing better in their lives, and can't spare a minute to sit back and actually enjoy their lives, smell the fresh air, that's ok they are usually dead early, Just look at Steve Jobs, serious overachiever, where is he now? Ya Ya you are going to say how is society going to function without people working, I will let the overachievers worry about that, while I sit with my umbrella drink in Bora Bora
Work is for slaves and overachievers

For thousands of years work has always been performed by slaves or overachievers that just love to go to work because they have nothing else in their lives, no hobbies, no interests so work is the only thing they know. Work is a redundant task that your boss doesn't want to do so he has you do it for the rest of your life or until you find another job doing another redundant task. Slaves need to do it to eat and survive and overachievers do it because they have nothing else in their lives and without it they would not survive without boredom. (pathetic) I say work is just a waste of time, there are so many things in the world to do and see who has time for work, I want to travel more, read good books, visit family more, hang with friends more, let the slaves and overachievers run the economy
Work is for slaves and overachievers

My opponent has kind of dropped my main point; that without work, society wouldn't be able to stand, let alone exist. We have rights now, and slavery is illegal. But let's compare the average worker to an african american slave:Worker:- Has a house, and maybe a family- Yelled at a few times, but work is overall good- Has no chains to keep them down- Other than work, life is good- Can get promoted, earning them more moneySlave:- Usually lives near, or even at, the work area- If they do have a family, they're either also slaves, or far away- Gets abused, both verbally and phycisally- Does have chains, makes them frown- Has to work almost constantly, and life is terrible- They don't get paid, and ranks don't existAs you can see, we don't have the description of the Slave in our work force (maybe if you're a prisoner forced to do community service, then maybe). I got the information from what I recall, and believe. Keep in mind my opponent has no citations either, and it's mostly his opinion. I'll go ahead and talk about my argument vs Pro's.Rebuttal:Examining his argument: Judging by his statements, I don't think Pro actually has a job. If he does have a job, it must be a lifeguard around people who don't drown. The argument consists of overgeneralizing Spongebob's life. This isn't Bikini Bottom, and we aren't magical bathroom sponges whose lives are jellyfish catching and burgers. That's not what life is.How much is the ecomony?However, in round 1, he did say "let the slaves run the ecomony". But, as I've shown above, these aren't slaves. And are there overachievers? What are they overachieving, anyways? Debate isn't so much a chat, it's more like proving your opponent wrong.Argument:What have I posted, though? I've used logic to show that work is needed in society. Doctors cure illness, cops take down criminals, lifeguards save people from drowning, and lazy bums need to get their buttoxes up and make some money! I highly suggest purchasing the Nintendo Switch when it comes out, as well as Marvel vs Capcom 4. Great stuff you're missing out on. (I guess I should make that argument. As well as needing money, you can buy fun things.)Conclusion:My opponent's argument conists of uncited generalizations. My arguments consist of (uncited) logical conclusions based off of the world around me, as well as mentioning video games. I personally think my arguments were made better, but ultimately, it's the voter's decision. Who did you think had the better arguments?Also, you should check out Super Smash Bros. I wish Amaterasu gets in the 5th one!
Work is for slaves and overachievers

I'm sitting in a shay lounge chair by the ocean on a white sand beach reiterating my point. Work is for slaves or overachievers and I'm neither. I'm fortunate enough to be financially sound so I don't have to be someone's slave, I don't need to police the roads, or fight fires or more likely sit in some cubicle staring at a screen for 8 hours a day. People choose different careers because, yes they need to eat and pay their bills and to survive, which in turn sounds like slavery to me, with the exception of getting paid, sure they get paid but it's never enough, people always complain about their salaries and not having enough to buy the things they need, just enough to get by, sounds like slavery to me. Then there are the overachievers who go out and make tons of money because they can't stop for a second to smell the roses, they need to keep working and working to move up for status and power, real overachievers!! I believe there is more to life then work. I'm not going to be someone's slave for minimum wage, or someone's bitch to keep a job so I can pay the rent/mortgage or buy food. We will always have overachievers, thousands are born everyday, they can go right ahead and keep overachieving in the work force and bossing the slaves around for their meager wage, just enough to eat so you can keep working. No thanks that's not for me. I'm traveling, getting a nice tan, eating well in nice restaurants while the slave waiter and waitress serve me hoping I tip them well because their slave wage is barely paying the bills at home, and watching the overachiever manager running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to make sure all patrons are seated and everything is satisfactory. Life is great when you are free of slavery and not an overachiever, not a care in the world, the world is only dark and grave for the slaves. I'm free from work and I could care less about it, I'm living the dream
Gaming is a sport

This debate is a clear choice. Con has refused to answer any of my contentions or offer rebuttals for any of the points brought up. The only thing he has states or responded with is games do not require muscle memory. I showed an example that anyone can use that even shows how your wrist and hand actually can acquire muscle memory. He has only made an assertion with no evidence so this can be dismissed. Muscle memory is learned through repetitive actions and motor learning. Doing a certain motion or action until you can almost do it without thinking. Muscle memory works in sports like weight lifting and basketball but is most certainly used in games as well with wrist flicking motions. Overall my adversary has answered no points I've brought up and I have no reason to expand on anything I've said , due to the lack of a response
Gaming is a sport

My adversary keeps insisting that gaming is a sport, but the day I see watching TV considered a sport will be the day hell freezes over. Playing games has no muscle memory for pushing buttons, why don't we call cooking a sport then. A sport requires physical exertion, there is no exertion in pushing buttons repetitively, Also gaming is not an athletic activity, you don't need to be an athlete to sit in front of a screen. The day they cancel gym class in school and instead introduce gaming 101 as a physical education sport then maybe I will consider it a sport, but until then gamers are not athletes, more like nerds wanting to be recognized as sport athletes. Let's see how fast that that obese gaming champ runs the 40 yard combine, with those nimble muscle mass fingers. By the way maybe we should make texting a sport, some people can really text really quick with those thumbs.