BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney Must be Banned

Disney is not going to be banned and it should not be banned. It is a part of American culture and to ban it would be a violation of the free speech guaranteed under the United States constitution. It might be a bit stupid, but it's for kids and there's nothing lewd or wrong with any of it. All the points you bring up are nothing more than shallow conspiracy theories. Disney princesses are not meant to be a mockery of today's royalty, but a representation of yesterday's royalty. Their representation of medieval life might be inaccurate, but if they were accurate, and showed the black death, it would not be acceptable for a kid's cartoon. They might be stupid, and cliche, but there's nothing wrong with them and most kids enjoy them. If a parent doesn't want his kid to see them, he doesn't have to play them. It's as simple as that. Eeyore is depressed, but he's depressed for a purpose. His depression is meant to conflict with the naive joviality of the other characters. Because of his pessimistic viewpoint, he can see things in a different way, he can see when things are wrong. Pooh Bear is a clod when it comes to important decisions, Eyesore's pessimism increases the diversity of the show. Without him, the show would be dull, because all the other characters are happy. It takes all kinds of people to make am world, and Eeyore is crucial to the comedy and fun. He does not cause kids to be depressed. many donkeys do look sad. A.A. Milne took the face of a donkey and imagined how it would behave. He's good at that. Pooh does not wear pants because, in reality, he's a teddy bear and the whole story is imaginary. Didn't you know that? It's an important part of the Pooh universe. It would be obscene if he had a genitalia and did not wear pants, but he does not have a genitalia. And while you're at it, why not call out Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, everyone from Pooh, Donald Duck, and Wile E. Coyote, who do not wear pants either? They do not wear pants because they are anatomically incorrect. Pooh is not meant to be Asian because he's yellow, he's just a yellow bear. He does not have a racist Asian accent, or buck teeth, or glasses, or any of the other racist baloney. You're a hypocrite, sir. You hate Asian people. Piglet and Tigger are not meant to be close to the n-word. Piglet is called Piglet because he's a little pig, and "Tigger" is a misspelling of "tiger". That's the whole joke with him. Don't you get it? And you shouldn't be one to call out the n-word, sir, you hate black people. You're malodorous and vile. Mickey Mouse is not ugly, he's a very aesthetically designed mouse, and an American icon. We are not going to ban Disney. It is a multimillion dollar corporation on which the American economy rests. If we banned it, there would be riots in the streets and those who devalue censorship would be outraged at such a violation of the constitution. We are not going to ban Disney. There is nothing wrong with it. I await your next argument.
Disney Must be Banned

Disney is a bad influence on children. It misdepicts so many things. First of all, the Disney princesses, such as Mulan or Cinderella, are a caricature of today's royalty. Too much romance and whatnot is involved, as seen in Little Mermaid. That is why Disney princesses are a terrible influence on today's kids, especially younger girls. Also, Eeyore, from 100 Acre Wood, is depressed. This is mean to depressed people, and also misrepresents the donkey. How offended would a depressed merchant be? And Pooh Bear is not wearing any pants; is that a reference to pornography or sex? Furthermore, he is yellow, which is mocking Asian people. Now obviously there is the Chinese, Korean, etc. version of him, but that doesn't mean that he ought to be Asian or whatever. Piglet and Tigger are just one letter away from the N-word. (niglet and nigger) Also, Mickey Mouse is so ugly. It's like getting Uncle Sam or Mahatma Gandhi to be the mascot of the NFL. Here is a picture of you: http://www.mikesblender.com...
Disney Must be Banned

But Disney is a waste of time, right. Kids today spend too much watching Disney movies and doing wasteful stuff. I think they need to learn to play Solitaire and go on debate.org and debate against me over some white supremacy topics. Also, as I said, Disney is nothing but a caricature of royalty, Asian people, and depressed people. Please, judges vote wisely. You can tell who the wiser, one is. (Hint: He is the white guy.) And here is a picture of you: https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Disney Must be Banned

Disney World is not filled with prostitutes. There are no prostitutes at Disney World, because I'm sure there's a policy against selling your body for sex when you work there. You can give me an article about prostitutes at Disney World, and I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's unsupported nonsense. Disney used to be racist, back in the day. Just slightly racist. They're not anymore. They're trying their best to not be racist and put out a whole bunch of new movies about the culture of the world. Moana, Pocahontas, The Lion King, and so on and so on. I think it makes them less racist. If they WERE racist these days, they'd be put out of business. But they're not racist anymore. Again, you're a hypocrite, because in a past debate, you said, "I believe that black people cause too much violence in the world. You see, besides rap music and basketball, what are black people good at? nothing. They have abnormally low IQ's, and throughout history, they have achieved nothing." THAT'S racism. OK? You're a racist lout. So don't criticize Disney for being a titchy bit non PC back in the 30s. That picture is not ugly, it's Mickey and Minnie mouse standing in front of Disneyland. What's wrong with you? Pooh Bear and Donald Duck wearing clothes is not inappropriate, because they do not need clothes. Real ducks and bears do not wear clothes, so they don't need to either. Pooh bear is not supposed to be Asian. If anything, he's British, since A.A. Milne, the guy who created him, was British. And no, he is not going to have glasses, small eyes, or chopsticks, because that would be racist. Donald Duck is white because he's a white duck. He's not supposed to be Indian. We are not going to reconstruct the 7 wonders of the ancient world for kids. We might do it for adults, but it would be unnecessary and expensive. This is a more debatable topic than your racist ones, but you still can't even do it. If I was on your side, I could bring up some bad things about Disney, some stuff that would PROVE Disney should be banned. But I won't give them to you, you'll have to dig up the dirt on Disney yourself. You're doing a bad job of badmouthing the most beloved children's franchise of all time, sir. The saddest part is, it's something you COULD prove. 5 pictures of you: http://s3.amazonaws.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... https://img0.etsystatic.com... https://vecto.rs... http://l7.alamy.com...
Pro's Choice.

Since he has let me decide the resolution with the stipulation that it must be something I believe, I have decided to go with a topic in Old Testament linguistics. The resolution shall be: -The word "Alma" cannot be translated as "virgin"- Expanded resolution: The Hebrew word in the Old Testament "Alma" cannot be translated into the English word "Virgin". More specifically, the passage "Isaiah 7:14", which translated in the KJV says: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin ("Alma", translated as virgin) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " I'll take the affirmative position of the resolution. I will prove that "Alma" does not mean virgin in the passage, and in fact cannot possibly mean virgin in any case. Rather the word can properly be translated as "young girl/woman" (or similar). Because this debate has been set up for 5 rounds I will let my opponent make the opening arguments in round 2 or allow him to pass and have me begin with opening arguments in the same round which will still allow for plenty of rounds to argue. The burden of proof in this debate will be shared. However since I am making the case against something that is often considered to be the conventional wisdom or status quo, there will be a greater emphasis on the burden of proof upon me. In other words, while my opponent needs to properly assert the established point of view, it will be incumbent upon me to show why that view is incorrect. If I am unable to do this to the a degree of significance necessary for disproving a well-established "fact", then my opponent wins this debate.
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

Yes, I am saying that. Thank you for accepting this debate. So, based on you're profile information I take it that you will be debating from an atheistic standpoint. As I don't know what you're argument will be, I guess this one will be pretty short. The notion of God hasn't been proven or disproved yet. Now, there are many arguments for god and many against, some with sound reasoning behind it, and other with none. Now, it is impossible to objectively say that that God does not exist, as there is no scientific proof supporting that claim. To make it clear, I'm not speaking of any one god from a religion, but a general god. Now, it will be impossible for science to disprove a god, since, as of now, the nature of a god is not known. Thus, if science disproves a popularly held notion of god, theists would be able to assign a new feature to that god. Thus, objectively, to know whether there is or is not a god is truly impossible.
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

Hey, I've never debated anybody on this site, so thought "might as well give it a try!" So, from what I've seen, people usually define terms. Agnosticism- The state of not knowing; not to make a claim God- an omnipotent, omniscient being (not limited to any religion/belief) valid- having a sound basis in reason and fact only- and no one or nothing more besides existence- in a state of objective reality 1st round will be acceptance, and from there until the final round, we will see where things go. Thank you!
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

Seeing how pro has already conceded to taking the word out of context I see no point in continuing a pointless discussion on the semantics of the word gnostic. I've already defined my term and as such will not be discussing it further. PointlessnessI never actually claimed that gnosticism was a valid stance so this entire paragraph is essentially irrelivant. Serious OversightsThe main thing that undermines pros 3rd argument is that he overlooks his own definition. Atheism is not the "belief in the negative" it is the DISbelief in the positive as defined by yourself. As I stated before atheism does not make a claim it simply rejects someone elses. The next point in this paragraph was that if something isn't discovered yet that does not mean it does not exist however this goes back to my point of the absence of evidence is warrant for disbelief. By not believing it atheists are not saying "Well it looks like it doesn't exist so we shouldn't even consider it. " they just are not believing it because at this time there is no evidence to back it up. Pros next pseudo paragraph is just sort of restating what I've already said. Yes theists have no objective evidence because of how they subjectively interperit it. This has alrady been established so I'm wondering what the relevancy is. Your last paragraph is just a total misunderstanding of what I've already said. Atheists have no beliefs they just reject a claim. It seems like this entire round can basically be refuted by my last one. In summary pro has done nothing to refute the fact that disbelief in something due to lack of evidence is not a valid stance due to his lack of understanding for the actual words themselves as well as to their deeper meaning.
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

ContextPros first argument relies fully on taking a word out of context and playing a game of semantics with it. Dictionary.com is actually where I get my definitions from as it's more frequently updated. Gnostic: 1. pertaining to knowledge. 2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritualmatters. The rest of this paragraph is just semantics and definitions and no actual substance. Sources. http://dictionary.reference.com...;To further illustrate my actual point in that paragraph take a look at this. The Subjectivity of BeliefWhile technically there is no "solid" evidence for either side (which also presents some misunderstanding of terms but we'll get to that) both beliefs are still completely justifieable. Atheism requires no evidence. Let's just clear that up right away. The reason atheism requires no evidence is because it makes no claim. It simply listens to the hypothesis of a god, then rejects that hypothesis for whatever fault in the hypothesis one can find. To require evidence one must first make a claim. Atheism does no such thing, the only thing atheism claims is this "I aknowledge that you have a hypothesis of a god but I reject said hypothesis for reasons x, y, and z." Again atheism is a claim from belief and while the absence of evidence for theism is not the evidence of absence, absence of evidence IS warrant for disbelief. It's perfectly justifiable to be an atheist and just reject a claim because of the reason you stated before of "there is no solid evidence to show that god exists or doesn't". Theism is a tad more tricky as a lot more personal bias comes into play when forming this belief. Now belief in a god can stem from many places but by far the most common is that the person was raised in a religion by their parents and so they simply follow that religion. The thing here is that a lot of people in religions simply follow them for the previous reason but never stop to look at the evidence and so they believe because they have never seen opposition to what they believe. Even then belief is still justified albeit nieve. On the other hand theists who do research the evidence and keep a belief in a deity normally do so because of their interpretation of the evidence. A lot of people interpret evidence differently based on personal biases from whatever experiences they've had in the past. One man may look at a fossil of a human skull and go "Wow another step for evolution" while another may go "Wow what an amazing example of Gods creation! Another point to Intelligent Design!". Now I'm not saying that this sort of interpreting is right in any way shape or form, however forming a belief in a god based on what you've been taught in a holy book or religion would influence how you see evidence. Now the thing is is that theists will commonly believe in a god based on personal experiences such as "I felt moved by the holy spirit" or "I talked to Jesus" and things such as that. That's still justified for belief in a god although it's not any sort of evidence for one.
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

Thank you Con for your argument. 1.) Gnosticism I would like to ask Con from where did he get his definition of Gnosticism. According to the Merriam- Webster dictionary, the definition of Gnosticism is as follows: The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis. http://www.merriam-webster.com... The definition of gnosis is as follows: Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation http://www.merriam-webster.com... Con never specified the definition of Gnosticism, and I have provided the definition above. To also quote from the oxford dictionary, the definition of Gnosticism is as follows: A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... In Con's argument, he refers to Gnosticism as being claims from knowledge. Here, I demonstrated that Gnosticism is, quote, "A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church". There is no correlation between the argument that Con makes with Gnosticism and the actual definition of Gnosticism. 2.) Atheism and Theism being valid positions As of now, the position of Gnosticism can be invalidated, as the actual definition of Gnosticism and the argument Con makes with Gnosticism show no correlation, as demonstrated above. To quote from Con, his last sentence goes like this: " Agnosticism is a perfectly valid stance however so is atheism and theism proving that agnosticism is not the ONLY valid stance". As one can tell from Con's argument, he makes no points of why atheism and theism are valid stances. He makes the argument of Gnosticism, but none for atheism and theism alone. Atheism and Theism are fine beliefs to hold, but not a valid position to make a claim on. As there is no evidence to back up either position. But agnosticism makes a claim that is justifiable as it states that the existence of God cannot be known, and thus far, that claim is correct, as there has been no solid evidence to show that God exists or doesn't exist.
Agnosticism is the only valid position in the Existence of God/s debate.

The Importance of TermsNow the downfall of pros arguments rests mainly on his misunderstanding of the terms. Now while agnosticism is in fact a very valid stance on the debate of gods existance it is not the ONLY valid stance. See gnosticism and by converse agnosticism are claims from knowledge. If one is agnostic one simply does not know and the terms gnostic and agnostic can be applied to basically any topic. For example I am gnostic to the statement of "There is an aligator under my bed" as I can check and thereby know for certain if the statement is true or false. I would be agnostic to that statement if I could not know for certain whether there was or was not an aligator under my bed. Now that that's out of the way it's on to the real problem.Now while gnosticism and agnosticism are claims from knowledge theism and atheism are claims from belief, and more specifically the belief in a god. While one may not know for certain however one may still believe or not believe. Both are still stances on the issue and both are still equally valid. However the terms agnostic and gnostic along with theistic or atheistic are not mutually exclusive terms. One could be an agnostic atheist, an atheist who doesn't believe in a god but does not conclusively know there isn't one. Or a gnostic atheist, one who does not believe in a god and knows there isn't one, and the same applies to the other side. A theist that believes in a god and knows there is one and a theist who believes but isn't sure which is the strangest of the four but they exist none the less. Now let's use the example from before. Now if you told me that there was an aligator under my bed and I didn't check I definitely would not know for sure but I still probably wouldn't believe you as to the unlikelyness of that being true. Essentially your problem is lack of knowledge on the terms. Agnosticism is a perfectly valid stance however so is atheism and theism proving that agnosticism is not the ONLY valid stance.
The courts should be allowed to grant retrospective abortion orders

The Pro has clarified how people who are suspected of being future tyrannical leaders would be examined on an annual basis which may give his argument more believable, but what if a subject is examined multiple times and only once is considered for retrospective abortion? 1 bad run out of 10 examinations may not be enough to justify killing the subject in question. As for the Con attacking my position over the death penalty to nullify my argument, there is a very outstanding difference between retrospective abortion and the death penalty Death penalty - The subject has already committed a terrible crime, been found guilty of committing it, and the state he was prosecuted in has decided to sentence him to death. Retrospective abortion - The subject has committed no crime at all. They are being killed because of fear they will commit a crime based on their early childhood behavior and nothing else. The Pro has forfeited the argument that it might not protect the world from future tyrannical people The Pro has forfeited the argument that this process could put to death thousands of children whose lives would not have caused the misery of millions The Pro has forfeited the argument that childhood behavior does not foretell how they will act in the future The Pro has forfeited the argument that many of the people who are infamous in history did not develop into who they became until adulthood The Pro has forfeited the argument that the age limit of such a law could allow people who do act evil to escape the system The Pro has forfeited the argument that such a law could easily be considered unconstitutional, unlawful, morally unjust, etc. The Pro has forfeited the argument that such a law were to be implemented millions of people would protest it Vote Con