BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Rights

i'm afraid i'm confused i thought this was for animals rights but now your talking about gay marriage so i'm just gonna argue for both and you can pick which argument you want to counteract. Animals are sentient beings with many feelings and personalities just like us they are good friends and bond with us i actually just had my dog of 14 years put down 2 days ago and we were all very sad because she was a member of our family. Besides that i'm a vegan because i believe that the animal farming industry is cruel and we should not support it vegan lifestyles are much healthier and you do better for the environment. Gay people cannot help being who they are it is not a choice or something they can help they should be allowed to be who they are and marry if they choose and as for religious arguments we go by the constitution not the bible in this country and gay rights are civil rights. Anything less is discrimination and that isn't something tolerated in this country polygamy should also be legalized as well equal rights for all.
con will break a rule

And now that I'm the negative debater, I only have to go through this round without breaking any rules to win (in accordance to the 6th rule). First, in response to Mr. Sully's previous argument, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at the actual wording of my rule, I clearly stated that the AFF debater would have to support the position of the NEG debater whereas the NEG debater would have to do vice versa. There is nothing within my rule that coerces one into hacking into debate. org. We need only support the alternative stances. In addition, as shown in the debates listed below, there is actually no penalty for ignoring the titles given to both contestants during the debate. . http://www.debate.org... Second, there is nothing in the foundation rules of Mr. Sully's regular rules which state that we have to actually uphold the titles which are given to us. Third, as Mr. Sully so eloquently stated in his initial round, we need only make an objection when someone has violated the rules or a rule contradicts a previous rule. Since I have not violated any actual rules and that my 4th/5th rule do not contradict any previous rules, there is no grounds to ignore my 4th and 5th rules. With that said, given that none of Mr. Sully's recent rules put him at a disadvantage, they are all to be ignored. In addition (and once more), his rulings in his previous round did not do this either (while he was the NEG debater), thus can be ignored. Now that I'm the NEG debater . . . 16. The neg debater is obligated to treat himself to a lobster dinner when he returns home. 17. All attractive debate. org female users are to hit the NEG debater up next weekend. 18. Joshand is not allowed to vote bomb this debate. Given that (as the NEG debater ) I've broken no rules, I have upheld my side of the resolution and am hence the winner of this debate. Later. :D
con will break a rule

my opponent failed to realize what i meant, the title of PRO cant be changed look under my avatar, it still says PRO therefore i must be PRO. my opponents 10th rule broke my 1st rule my opponent broke both my 8th and 9th rule my name is not mikesully99 so those rules do not apply to me. 13. my opponent must not say anything except when he makes rules or says bonerific 14. my opponent must not use the word bonerific 15. my opponent must put "megan fox is bonerific" as his display name
con will break a rule

Since there are no rules which state that neither debater is allowed to swap stances with the other, you are obligated to dismiss my opponent's attempt to define these rules as null. Furthermore, given that I am currently upholding the stance of the affirmative debater, the rules from the first round as well as this round do not apply to me. In addition, I cannot help but note that my opponent has used forbidden words during his round (CON and PRO), thus this would be sufficient reason to dismiss all of his rules which he has introduced (as each uses a forbidden word). In addition, these rules are not merely limited to "mikesully99" (as I will be playing the role of CON in my final round), thus further reason to render them null and void. 10. Mikesully99 is required to speak french for the remainder of the debate. 11. Mikesully99 must post pictures of hot women from the official victoria secrets website in each of his rounds. 12. Mikesully99 must use the term "bonerific in every rule he creates.
con will break a rule

4. In rounds AFF 2 (mikesully99's next round) - AFF 4 (mikesully99's last round), the affirmative side is required to swap positions with the negative side. In other words (during these rounds), Logical-Master will be the affirmative debater (the role which mikesully99 played in his first round) and mikesully99 will be the negative debater. 5. If mikesully99 is upholding the negative side, he is required to only make rules which put no one but himself at a disadvantage for the remainder of this debate. 6. If Logical-Master is recognized as the negative debater during his final round while not having actually violated any rules during the course of this debate, the resolution is to be recognized as having been successfully negated.
con will break a rule

0. This debate poses off of another debate that I found. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule without forfeiting. 8. If neither player breaks a rule, CON is the default winner (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way. 2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con, instagator, contender, opposition and must. 3. CON must use correct spelling and grammar.
Should gay marriage be legal

It is very well written. 1. Marriage has to include the ability to have kids. The "normal" family includes a mother and father and two or three children. Just because gays or lesbians aren't able to have children doesn't exactly mean that they can't get married. There is always adoption, and that is just as good because those children were given up because they weren't wanted by their biological parents. Women can always get a sperm donation to have kids and men can give their sperm to a willing women to raise their child. The only thing about having the women raise the child is that they would want to keep it. 2. This concept of its genetic is incorrect. As it may be genetic between twins what about children with no siblings that come out gay? Obviously if they have a mother and a father they didn't get it from them. So where would they have gotten it from? Well, it definitely wasn't a choice because did we chose to like the opposite sex? No, we did not most people are just born being attracted to the opposite sex, and even if they chose, why would someone chose to live their life being bullied for being different, and then not being able to be with someone that they love? No one would want that. 3. What if something were to happen to their spouse? If a gay or lesbian couple were to get married in a state that allows it, and then they were to travel and something fatal were to happen to there opposite they wouldn't be able to go see them in the hospital to be there for them if or when the pass over. Would you want that? 4. Lastly gay marriage is a civil right. In the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia concluded that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man. " Same-sex marriage should be given the same ruling given to iterraicial marriages. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) said that same-sex marriage is "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time. " . http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Should gay marriage be legal

We are all told we are born the way we are weather that is without a certain limb or a mental disability. When it come to sexual orientation people seen to be confused. The majority is born attracted to the opposite sex, and we can't help that its just the way we were born, but when people are born and they like the same sex people that don't agree with it get to offensive. Why can't people love the same sex? You might answer that question with " Because God said so." Which is very invalid. Yes, he may have said that one can't love the same sex, but the Bible also says (not in exact wording) that we should love everyone no matter who or what they are.
AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

Resolution: This house would legalize the sale of organs. Definition of terms: Legalize- “Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law” [1] Sale- “the act of selling; specifically : the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price” [2] Organ- “A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions” [3] [1]- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]- http://www.biology-online.org... Structure of debate: R1- acceptance *only* R2- arguments & contentions R3- rebuttals and refutations R4- counter-rebuttals and refutations This debate is for the Adopt-A-Noob programme. I wish my opponent, dennybug, the best of luck, lots of fun, and that we both learn from this debate! Due to real life occurrences, both parties had problems posting their round three arguments. This threw off the structure of the debate. As such, all rounds previously posted will just be copied and pasted here from the previous debate and no new arguments will be added into these rounds. The previous debate shall be deleted my airmax1227. ---
Vocabulary Challenge

Elucidation: My adversary's voluminous verbiage, a superficially apparently astute exhibition of intellectual tenacity, is veraciously a sorrowful facade of depressing proportions. His dictional shortcomings are multitudinous and are obscured only by his purposeful employment of an esoteric means of communication, a device of intentional obfuscation. Vocabulary is an art, and my antagonist is a dilettante, a petty probationer, while I am rightfully the master poet. It would behoove him to relax his pretenses of adequacy and denounce his proclamations of legitimacy forthwith. My opponent's limitation on the use of characters is a cowardly restriction, and so I shall circumvent it through means perhaps ignoble. Case: 1. Cavia porcellus persistents approximately four to five solar revolutions before its eventual demise. Its emphemeral nature as an existent being makes it a foolhardly choice for the emotionally frail. 2. Cavia porcellus is infamous for its frailty; its corpus is cracked and its constitution is annihilated by even weak instances of gravitation attraction, a probable outcome in the possession of clumsy toddlers. 3. Canine species are superior to Cavia in so much as they exhibit the desired traits of personality without the physical shortcomings suffered by Cavia. In conclusion, a 1000 character limit for this debate was a bad idea and get out of my level. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vocabulary Challenge

As stated in the topic, I would like this debate primarily judged on the criteria of who uses the best vocabulary as long as it still remains relevant. Resolved: Guinea Pigs are a congenial introductory pet with regard to juveniles Case: 1. Experiencing your pet flee or perish can be a portentous calamity for an adolescent. Guinea Pigs are docile and scarcely ever vacate, they ensconce solely if they are dismayed. This diminution of the probability of adolescent anguish constitutes the Guinea Pig. 2. Guinea Pigs tenure reputable proportion because they are capacious enough to fondle yet large enough to subsist plummeting from an adolescent's embrace. This also abates the probability of inadvertent quietus and sanctions the infant to relish the pet exceedingly because he/she can handle it. 3. Guinea Pigs are pretentiously convivial as they are cognizant amid the daytime and are ambrosial, venerating and magnanimous.
The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

Rules: 1. Burden of proof is on Pro 2. For sources to count, a link to the source must be provided, and it can't be blocked behind a paywall 3. My opponent must either use the first round as acceptance, or waive the last round to keep the number of argument per side balanced. Voting Rules Normal voting rules apply, as found here: https://www.debate.org... However, if your RFD follows the opt-in voting standards found here: https://docs.google.com... , then You have permission to assign all 7 points to the winning side instead of just argument points.
The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

The problem with questioning the CDC as a source because they sell vaccines, is who else would know how many lives vaccines save? In order to know how many lives Vaccinations save, we need to know how many vaccinations are given, and only those who sell vaccines would know how many are sold. So, it's impossible to not use the CDC or another vaccination supplier as a source. If you would like another source for the number of lives vaccinations save each year, it appears this one also states 2-3 million lives are saved per year by vaccines[1]. From looking into this source, as well as the source the source linked for number of lives saved, the CDC appears to not be involved whatsoever. My opponent argues that the HIV is part of the vaccine, but if it was added with malicious intent, like my opponent argued before, then it is not really part of the vaccine. Vaccines are specifically "antigenic substance[s] prepared from the causative agent of a disease or a synthetic substitute, used to provide immunity against one or several diseases:"[2] The HIV inside the original Hepatitis B shots had nothing to do with providing immunity against Hepatitis B, and it was not added in order to make the vaccine more potent or helpful. It was an unnecessary additive to the vaccine, which is not used in the vaccine any longer. It was through malicious intent that it was added and cannot be considered as a negative side effect of the vaccine itself. To do what my opponent is doing here, blaming the entire vaccine based on one ingredient in a vaccine is similar to blaming an entire cookie for an allergy to cinnamon. No, it would make sense to blame the cinnamon itself, and not the entire cookie for your allergic reactions. Sources: [1] https://www.unicef.org...(1).pdf [2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

No, I concede that the Hepatitis B vaccine could be responsible for 1.2 million cases of aids. That's different from deaths, which would be a little less than that. Next, I would like to point out, that if everything being claimed by my opponent is true, and that majority of Aids cases are a result of these HIV-infected Hepatitis B vaccinations, this doesn't prove the vaccine itself is detrimental to society. I'm surprised I didn't catch this until now, but maybe because my opponent didn't make it clear that it was intentional that the vaccinations were infected with HIV in order to reduce gay and black populations. What this proves, if anything, is that eugenics is detrimental to society. At this point, I believe none of what my opponent has claimed is actually a negative from vaccination. If the hepatitis B vaccinations were never infected with HIV intentionally, then there would have been no negative effect from it. The vaccination itself is not harmful, but rather the HIV infection inside of it was. I was under the impression before that the vaccinations got infected with HIV accidentally, which would be able to be used as argument against vaccination since if it naturally happens that vaccinations get infected, then there would be a problem. However, since the infections were intentional, as my opponent seems to have pointed out, there is absolutely no harmful thing that my opponent has shown about a vaccination, and what they pointed out was a harm with a belief in eugenics. My opponent says that the CDC would have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot be trusted, but the source I used for the number of lives vaccines save a year is not the CDC, nor is the CDC referenced by the source.
The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

Hepatitis B vaccine caused AIDS "There is no doubt that AIDS erupted in the U.S. shortly after government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments (1978-1981) using gay men as guinea pigs." [1] "How did these two viruses of primate origin get into the gay male population to cause AIDS and a contagious form of cancer? AIDS experts blame monkeys and chimps in the African jungle. My research indicates it is much more likely these viruses were introduced during government-sponsored hepatitis B experiments using gays as unsuspecting guinea pigs." [1] So it can be concluded the Hepatitis B vaccines were responsible for introducing AIDS to humans. Now let's look at the damage caused by AIDS. "an estimated 35 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic, including 1.1 million in 2015." [2] Therefore the hepatitis B vaccines are responsible for the 35 million AIDS related deaths. Conclusion The hepatitis B vaccines alone is responsible for 35 million deaths. It is estimated that only 732,000 deaths were prevented by vaccines in the last 20 years. [3] Therefore the harm caused by vaccination outweigh the benefits. Sources [1] http://www.rense.com... [2] https://www.aids.gov... [3] http://www.cdc.gov...
The benefits of vaccination outweigh the harm

I wouldn't say the burden of proof only lies with the one who claims there are benefits to vaccination. If you claim that they are harmful, that requires proof as well. It is a positive claim after all. The negative claim would be to not have a position on vaccines one way or the other, and that is what doesn't require proof. At any rate, I accept the debate, and I will be arguing for why vaccines are more beneficial. On a side note, I'm also a brony by the way! If you're interested in adding one another as friends, I will do so and you can accept if you like. Luna is best pony in my opinion. I might just challenge you to a debate on who is best pony lol, provided you don't agree that Luna is best.
Battle Rap: Cody v Lannan

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, You want me in a rap battle then so be it. Unlike Jesus, you won't have a Resurrection. How could I lose to a guy who can't get an errection. You can't touch me, I've got the Mark of Cain. Bring you back to Egypt and put you in iron collar and Chain. Blowin' your mind like Timmothy McVeigh, Unleshing upon you the 7 plagues. Die or you better praise Allah, Or Imma gas you like Bashar al-Assad, I hope your in the mood for 72 virgins, No one can piece you back together, not even surgeons. From Montezuma to the Barbary Sand, I've killed foes whether by rifle, knife, or by bare hand. You'll meet the same cruel fate at the end of my sword, If more of your jihadists pop up I'll kill some more, Raising the flag of victory here, like the Marines at Iwo Jima. Cody is about to see Ground Zero Meet Hiroshima. Takin' Arab oil for Americans to reapprioprate, You just need to be like the Japs and capsluate. I'm the king of this site, I even schooled STALIN, I'm set set for life with free schooling, housing, and retirement. Hell I'm ballin', Speaking of school Cuz your skills are lackin'. You better back out Cuz you know that I'm packin'. Got a 9mm, an AR, and an AK 47. Make one false move I'll blow a hole through the Stairway to heaven. You ain't nobody, not skilled just someone who works at a 7-11. You shouldn't have challenged me Cuz now it's Armageddon. You can’t face a mind like Lannan, You’re attempt shows your lack of plannin’. Even in the theory of infinite Probability, You winning this ain’t a possibility. Call me a black hole, because I’m stealing this Battle, Why all you’re doing is just doing a saber rattle. Absorbing your energy like a Particle Collider, You’ll be left dead, call me a black widow. You were once a President, But you only made 1 Precident. How could we pick and choose, really lose. Woundering whose’s fvck up the DDO Crew. There’s one thing you’ve missed about Lannan13, Is that you underestimate the best of me. You claim to be an MC, but you ain’t no USMC. You’re drunker then Hennosey. I’ll show you that you may be a President, but I’m a King. You’re too scared to step into the ring. I crushed the DDO Eliete. And now you are obsolete.
Battle Rap: Cody v Lannan

To Whom It May Concern:My lords and my ladies, please pardon my Frenchcuz I'm gonna get wild like rabies on this bitchIt may not be polite, but delightfully, to Lannan, frightfully, MC Grizzly's bout to get grisly spittin sh!t on the micNow this bear's gonna bare it all, bearin' down, no clownin'while Lannan grins and bears it, can't keep up, he's drownin'Y'all know I'm undisputedly the master of languageDroppin' dope flow, that's why you know what my name isI've played diplomat, bureaucrat, all fact, remember that?I rolled Presidential while I rolled presidentialsRulin' this sh!t sittin' pretty, White House residential with the crewaskbob, Sieben, J.Kenyon to name a fewI like fightin' for a good timeLannan's on the other sideRank-And-File styleGI grunt in denialUSMC? Please, you can't train enough to match meso how lucky for you that this first lesson's freeI've read your lines, I suspect you never passed basiccuz that crime you call rhymin' would get you court martialed, let's face itFor real, it's literally criminal, you're a liminal figurethis message ain't subliminal, your sh!t barely passesthat's why your @ss is 'bout to get spankedyour pyrite rhymes might glitter, but they ain't foolin' nobodyand you can take that to the bankSo sagte ich, dass es nicht alles Gold ist, was glänztSo bring your shameful simulacrum, bitch, and let's danceEs stimmt, dass was nicht ist noch werden kannbut I doubt you've got what it takes to take me onI can kick your @ss in English, German and FrenchFor me this ain't a battle, just a real fuckin' cinchPlease understand, dear sir, I mean no disrespectbut what did you expect other than to get wrecked? I'm a real MC, see, you're just a hip-hop hypocritewhen you spit illegit at me your demise is imminentMy eminence emanates from every word and every syllableIt's just common sense that to win you'll need a miracleBut fear not, my gentle adversary, for though my rhythm be hot and my flow colder than January, yet shall I illustrate an avenue of escape, call me Richard Scarry. Just bow down to me, forfeit and flee, admit defeat and the truth shall set you free.This has been but a taste of my power in battlePersist and I'll bust you like the Tower of BabelAnd lo, all the nations of the Earth will weep for what they've seen:The Cautionary Tale of Lannan13