BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigration

If you study the history of this country, every time the economy tanks, most Americans want to flush the immigrants down that tank. I don't think it's right to scapegoat immigrants every time the economy takes a downturn. Immigrants aren't here to become a burden to our society, but contributing members of our society. The Arizona debate exemplifies nativist rhetoric that seems to be unaware of it's own discriminatory consequences. This is not right. I don't think it's fair that a Spanish-speaking Latino like me can be asked for my papers but a blonde guy with blue eyes will be passed over. Sorry officer, my passport doesn't fit in my wallet. Are you going to ask the white guy behind me for his papers?
I aM mOAr OF a MLg pRO thAn CoN iS

Hello! Dack McJonnel here!Pro has the burden of proof to prove that he is more of a MLG pro than I am, as he has the positive claim. All I saw were assertions that were unsourced. Pro did not meet his burden of proof.1. SpidersPro states that:P1. Spiders have more swag than conP2. Pro has a spider as his user profile pictureC. Pro has more swag than con However, this does not make sense: pro cannot be a spider, because spiders do not know how to use the internet. Anyone can use a spider as their profile picture, but that does not make them a spider, nor does it magically increase their "swag".2. Gaming skillsPro claims that:P1. If one gets accepted by Faze Clan, and they did not apply, they are an MLG PROP2. Pro was accepted by Faze Clan and did not apply.C. Pro is an MLG pro.Disproving premise 1:MLG is a gaming organization that hosts tournaments. In order to be an MLG pro, you join the pro tournament by purchasing a pass.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) You do not randomly get accepted by "Faze Clan" and become an MLG pro.Disroving premise 2:Pro is not a part of Faze Clan;s member list. Nowhere on the list does it say "reeseroni". (http://www.thetechgame.com...)I have disproved both of pro's arguments. I hold that pro did not meet his burden of proof.
I aM mOAr OF a MLg pRO thAn CoN iS

Sweg is define as bein cool (Sours: http://www.urbandictionary.com...)1. I am sweg becus i good debater and gud school theirfor i col i am more sweg. I profil pictur shows im cuol becuz it has sieuns and stuef on it so it show im kewl2. im mlg pro i dident need to eve install aney gaems or ploay them and i becum swag and noscope. I evin got achivements for stuf that i dedent do on a gaem i dedent pkay becuz im a mlg proz!!!1
I aM mOAr OF a MLg pRO thAn CoN iS

K m8 so I will stert dis deb4te by showin u mai extr33m swag, dat u r no match for. (If u think u hav moar sweg dan me then 1v1 me irl m9) 1. K so u can see m8 dat I am spoder, from my profile pic. It is a known fact dat spoder haz moar sweg dan u, even if u hav a lot o swag. Go H3r3 m8 -----> http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk... Az u can c, spoder haz moar swag dan u, and he always will. Ok m9 next point. 2. I am an mLG PrO nd I didn't even apply to Faze Clan and dey accepted me. Like a baws m8. I am a quicksc0per, n0sc0per, and sw4gsc0per fyi, and I can rek u on cod m9 fite me. Dere is no way con can beat m3 in a 1v1 quickscope challenge. Is dis not enough proof 4 u?? OK den ill give u moar. Once upon a time, dere was a 360 noscoper mpg pro Faze clan member. Dat member wuz me. One day, dis amazing guy rekt every1 and he even defeated Faze Rain himself, and became da leeder uf Faze Clan m8 Tank u 4 ur time Fite me bro.
I aM mOAr OF a MLg pRO thAn CoN iS

As you can see m8 I have moar swag dan u and u will prolly never have as much swag as me. Oh btw I am a MLG pro noscoper for Faze Clan and if u don't believe me m8 then fite me 1v1 girl m9 and ill swagscope u and u'll go crib evrytiem becuz ur nawt a quickscoper m8. Oh and u never will be. -Rnd 1: acceptance m9 -Rnd 2: con tries 2 pruve he has moar sweg den me and dat hes moar MLG pro den me. -Rnd 666: we argue until con gets rekt m8 -Rnd 420: we keep arguing m98 -Rnd 69: we finish arguuuueeeiingg aboot whu has moar sweg and is more MLG pro. Tnx m8 and gud luk 2 u cuz ur gonna loze to my dank 360 noscoping skillz m9
Normal people should not be forced to subsidise the overweight on scheduled flights

My opponent is clearly a gentleman and has accepted that one's weight is largely within one's own control. In view of this, I am willing, as a sportsman, to accept that, nevertheless, certain individuals are more liable to gain weight than others, even given the same diet and exercise regime. However, I cannot accept that allowing airlines to charge according to the combined weight of the passenger and their baggage amounts to discrimination. Discrimination is based on prejudice, whereas requiring passengers to pay the full cost of their transportation is an economic policy that also happens to be morally sound. Therefore, my opponent's dissection of the debate into two possibilities represents a false dichotomy. Now, have you ever been to the island of Barra in the Outer Hebrides on the west coast of Scotland? It's very nice. If you like azure blue seas and white sand beaches and don't mind the cold too much, I'd recommend it. There are two ways to reach the island: ferry and plane (nervous flyers may prefer to travel by ship as Barra does not have a runway so the plane has to land on the beach – it is the only scheduled service in the world to do this). http://www.youtube.com... http://www.calmac.co.uk... http://www.hial.co.uk... Now let's consider the ferry operator's pro forma 2009 table of charges: Normal passenger - ï¿½31.00 Big, fat, ugly passenger - ï¿½62.00 Now that would be discrimination, because a passenger's weight (and indeed physical appearance) on a large ship has negligible effect on the fuel consumption of the vessel. And now let's consider the airline's pro forma 2009 fare display: Normal passenger - ï¿½77.00 incl. taxes and charges Big, fat, ugly passenger - ï¿½144.00 incl. taxes and charges. That would be discrimination as well, but what if the fares were the same for all adult passengers but the airline's conditions of carriage read: "Maximum free weight allowance for passenger and baggage combined is 212lb. Excess weight is charged at 1.5% of the full economy one way fare per lb or part thereof." There's nothing discriminatory about that, is there? It's not as if I am suggesting that airlines should replace first and economy class cabins with normal and fat class cabins (although, since most people prefer to sit at the front of the aircraft, this arrangement would help weight distribution). In the final analysis, airlines are commercial enterprises, not charities whereby normal people are obliged to give donations to people afflicted by slow metabolisms. Therefore, the IATA regulations that prevent scheduled carriers from charging for the weight of the passenger and their luggage combined should be revised. Thank you.
Normal people should not be forced to subsidise the overweight on scheduled flights

"My opponent claims that asking overweight people to pay their fair share of the fuel costs amounts to discrimination." I'm assuming that this isn't a fact in dispute. It is certainly discrimination to treat any group of people differently than any other. That is the definition of discrimination. Your claim in this case shouldn't be that the different treatment is not discrimination, but rather that the discrimination is morally justified in some way. That being the case, I see only two ways to go about providing a basis for moral discrimination. 1. That it is necessarily the fault of larger people that they are larger, and therefore it is prima facie acceptable to charge them more for their larger girth. 2. That despite the fact that it isn't necessarily the fault of larger people that they take up more weight, it is never the less acceptable to charge them more. Your last post attempted to defend the first of those two possibilities from my contention that it was not necessarily the case. The flaw in your argument is that I was never claiming that there is no correlation between personal choice and size. There is certainly a correlation. I fully admit that it is possible for each person to vary their weight widely. My contention is that while there is that choice, there is also an element that is beyond each persons control. Even in the scenario you described, different people subjected to the same exact regiment of malnutrition that had started at equal weights could still vary widely in their final weight after some time. The consequence of this point is that while I certainly would not argue that there is a correlation between many things and each person's weight, there are still enough factors beyond their control that it is unfair to discriminate on that basis. I need not address the second possible route to a moral basis for discrimination because no argument has been offered other than the idea that each person is completely in control of their weight.
Normal people should not be forced to subsidise the overweight on scheduled flights

I am indebted to my opponent for his gracious rebuttal of my assertion that all passengers should pay their fair share for ‘plane tickets. His first argument was that some overweight people are fat, not because they eat too much and do too little exercise but that they are "genetically predisposed" to being overweight. Well this might be the case for a tiny minority, but think of the images we have all seen of people in famine-stricken countries, or inmates in Nazi concentration camps or prisoners of war on starvation rations. You don't see lines of people who are all skin and bones with one fat person in the middle, do you? Imagine the conversation between two Allied soldiers who were being forced to help build the Burma railway by their Japanese captors in WWII. Allied Officer: I say, Smedley, this is a bit delicate, but the thing is, the officers and men can't help noticing that you appear to be relatively well fed. Allied Soldier: Well-fed? What do you mean, sir? AO: Well, look around you, Smedley. All the chaps in here are so hungry that they could eat a baby's arse through a cane chair. I mean, look at Caruthers here – I've seen more fat on a chip, whereas as you, Smedley, you have more chins than a Chinese telephone directory. In short, you are fat, Smedley, and we were wondering if, perhaps, you might be in receipt of extra rations and being excused work in return for colluding with the Japanese. AS: No, no, sir! No, absolutely not, sir. No. I eat the same and work as hard as all the other lads. It's just I am genetically predisposed to being overweight, that's all, sir. AO; I see, Smedley. Jolly good then, sorry to have doubted you. Dismissed. AS: Arigato gozaimasu! Sayonara, sir! My opponent claims that asking overweight people to pay their fair share of the fuel costs amounts to discrimination. If my opponent will forgive me for contradicting him, I insist that it is not unreasonable to expect people to make a financial contribution commensurate with the cost to the airline of transporting them. Indeed, it is normal and underweight people who are being discriminated against under the current system. With this in mind, I would urge the debate.org members to cast their votes in my favour in support of this important revision to aviation law. Thank you.
Normal people should not be forced to subsidise the overweight on scheduled flights

I certainly agree with your previous points that the smaller members of society pay more than their share of the economic burden in this situation. However, inequality in itself does not make the situation inequitable. I view this problem as one of civil rights that must be concerned with the question of whether people can be held responsible for things over which they have no control. The problem in this case is not simply one of obesity by choice, but variation in weight based on many different types of genetic predisposition. I hope we can accept without specific evidence that people vary widely in size whether or not they have made any personal choices to contribute to their weight. There are very short, very thin people who may weigh under 100 pounds. There are similarly very tall very muscular people that may approach 300 pounds while still being in excellent shape. Some people have genetic problems inherently like obesity or thyroid problems that render them unable to shed excess fat that the average person would be able to. Society benefits by contributing to the well being of all of its members regardless of circumstances beyond their control, and preventing discrimination on that basis. It is certainly true that variation in weight is not only based on circumstances that are beyond the individuals control. Some people who otherwise would be thin may avoid exercise and overeat to the point that they are obese. Other people who may be predisposed to obesity may make conspicuous efforts to maintain a lower weight. In spite of those cases, it is not justifiable to discriminate between all people in some group on the basis that only some of the group are deserving of that discrimination. Some individuals will certainly take advantage of the system, but preserving the justice for some outweighs the small economic benefits of forcing inequity on the rest. The analogy comparing meals in a restaurant to plane fare is not useful because each person makes an individual choice about what food they want to eat and when. Differences in metabolism might also easily mean that some smaller people eat more food at a higher cost than larger people. Similarly, different food costs different prices from different places; and all of those differences afford choice. There is some choice involved in weight, but enough of the matter is predetermined to make it morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.
Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking.

Before I begin, I am going to reject your definition for value because you have not sourced it and you have not used it correctly. If you want the word value to work in your resolution, then that definition must be replaced. Here is a better definition: Value :to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance - to regard or esteem highly . http://dictionary.reference.com... I must remind my opponent that as instigator and pro, he bears the burden of proof. He must prove his contentions to be true. So far he has just stated them, so I as con and the contender cannot do much to refute them. I will do as much as I can in this round, and that is to attack the credentials of his sources. I am not quite sure how he used this source, or if he didn't, how he plans to use it in the future. I had to search to find your source. Next time, please post a link. When I did find your source, I must admit that I was very confused. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a paper written in 1943 about the basic needs of people. The only thing remotely close to my opponent's resolution is respect. It is the only part where it mentions other people's interaction at all. The paper states that if a person does not get respect, they will have low self esteem. I have yet to see what this has to do with the resolution. I would like to stress when that paper was written. Clearly in 1943, Maslow did not have social networking in mind. I have more to say, but not the time to say it.
Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking.

C1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. C2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. C3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Value: Well-being Criterion: Decent Portrayal/Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Global warming is real

Well, if you were to look at the atomic mass of a cat, oh which over the last many year, has never changed. If we were to let say look at carbon dating, if global warming was real, it would have had to of changed at lest .000879, of which it has not. We can also look at other signs lets say Mormon Jesus, in my opinion the worst god, but that doesn't matter, if we were to look to the bible for light we would find that it states, "Thee earth shall not change, no matter how much humans dare try to change the world". Now this hard core evidence doesn't just do me in but many like me such as cat lovers all over the world, and crazy old folk who think global warming is real. Now you see I am Pro global warming and can't think of anything to go against it, you win great one. Sources sited: 4chan.org http://www.reddit.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://cats.wikia.com... Global warming is an issue on which humankind has come to unanimous agreement with unprecedented speed. The Earth is warming, or else it's cooling, or else it's not doing either very fast. If left unchecked, this will lead to the destruction of civilization, probably, in a Biblical flood that will happen around 1995. Humans' prosperity and rich diets, breaking faith with Nature, and anything else you may feel guilty about, are the cause. Unless it's sunspots. And all of the above is brought to you by one or more of the following: Barack Obama, who was not content taking over GM and now wants your backyard Hibachi. Communists, One-Worlders, and left-wing pot-heads. US right-wingers, talking up a threatening leftie crusade to help them raise money for a comeback in 2012. Greedy businessmen who need a gimmick to sell you light bulbs that spatter mercury all over the nursery when they break. In short, humankind is at loggerheads over both the facts, the culprits, and the proper course of action, with no resolution in sight, as on every other issue of the day. So things are pretty normal on the planet. Ps: Gata love wiki <3
Global warming is real

Website 1: You can see increasing temperatures all around the globe from now a century and a half ago to now. The Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. What else can cause the polar ice caps to melt? Models allow scientists to make predictions about the future climate. Basically, models simulate how the atmosphere and oceans absorb energy from the sun and transport it around the globe. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Website 2: Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide are higher today than any other time in the last 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial revolution. The concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in atmospheric samples have been measured continuously since the late 1950s. Since then, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million in the late 1950s to about 385 ppm now, with small spatial variations away from major sources of emissions. Concentrations of carbon dioxide are measured in parts per million, those of methane and nitrous oxide in parts per billion. These are trace constituents of the atmosphere. Together with water vapor, they account for less than 1% of the volume of the atmosphere. And yet they are crucially important for Earth"s climate. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Website 3: The temperature keeps rising and lowering at an extreme levels. Sea levels are rising. Natural disasters are happening more often. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Website 4: Sea levels are rising up in the last 2,000 years. "The planet is red" in a global map of the change in average surface temperatures, noted Swiss climate scientist Thomas Stocker, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I responsible for this summary at a press conference. "The world is warming. " In 2007 the human effect on the climate has grown 40 percent. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Websites used- Website 1: . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... Website 2: . http://www.skeptic.com... Website 3: . http://www.dosomething.org... Website 4: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I am finished and i will hand it over to my opponent.
Agnosticism should be considered as genuine a religion as Christianity

I agree with what you say about agnosticism being a faith But this is what you also said "But faith is not synonomous with religion. You can have faith IN a religion, but whether or not the principles of that religion are going to help you or not is a different story." You only argument made was that you believe in seven virtues. I still do not see any sort of PRACTICE that is necessary for a faith to be classified as a religion. I did not, as you say, give up on this debate. I simply made a short and easy to understand argument that proves you are wrong. That short argument still stands. 1. Following virtues does not mean practicing a religion. That means following your morals 2. You never showed any instance in how you practice any belief. You never proved that agnosticism was any more than a faith. Good Luck