BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is natural

According to the 2007 medical journal article entitled ,, Neurological control of human sexual behavior insights from lesion studies which published in the journal of neurology,neurosurgery,and psychiatry : Kolarsky and colleagues54 examined the relationships between "sexual deviation", age of lesion onset and localisation of lesion (temporal vs extratemporal). The authors defined two diagnostic categories: (1) "sexual deviation", involving a deviation of sexual object (for example, paedophilia). Homosexuality was included in this category, which would now be considered inappropriate, and (2) "sexual disturbances other than deviations", including orgasm in response to stimuli unrelated to the subject's sexual preference, hypersexuality and hyposexuality See. . http://www.conservapedia.com...
Homosexuality is natural

I suspect that previously you already have debated with stephannoi that's why i wonder why you i ask that i am the same person of stephannoi,You have to understand that i am not the same person of stephannoi.But me and stephannoi,we are best friends of each other.My name is talitcha bathmann and i am 14 years old.Personally i am homophobic against LGBT groups and they shouldn't be part of our society.But instead i approve pedophilia,bestiality,and incest.Do you still want to debated with me ??
Homosexuality is natural

Homosexual and pedophilia are among the most hatred group in the society. Countries such as saudi arabia and iran,maximum punishment for them is whipping and death penalty. Many people seemingly to have negative impression such as they often think homosexual admire pedophile and therefore collaborate with them in accomplish together their goal such as legitimize sexual relationship between adult and children,lowering or abolish age of consent,legalize child pornography.Some homosexual group such as National Lesbian Gay Task Force has join and attained symposium with pedophile groups ( NAMBLA). In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay organisation is issued a 'Gay right Platform that included the following demand ,, Repeal of all law governing the age of sexual consent in order to allow adult predatory prey on little children sexually ". This is why i demonized LGBT right group because they possess danger to our society.They shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or same-sex marriage should not be legal.
Social Networking

Well, you've heard it from my opponent folks, an open concession; needless to say, once you flow through my arguments from Round 2, and add that to her recent forfeiture, it's clear who you need to vote for in today's debate. Sometimes I really wish that I could take trophies off of people that I've beaten, like the way hunters take the head, or the foot, or the pelt of an animal that they kill. We should get one of those.
Social Networking

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**
should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person

The problem with a 'definite guilty verdict' is that the jury may get it wrong. Why would it be any more acceptable to give someone a 'probably guilty verdict'? They could still go to prison for the rest of their lives, and it actually seems worse because everybody has agreed that they do not know whether or not the suspect is truly guilty.On the topic of lethal injection feeling the most natural; have you ever died from lethal injection? Where are you getting your evidence from? I read an article a couple of weeks ago that described a recent lethal injection as being a very slow and agonising death:'(The execution of Dennis McGuire at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility took 25 minutes, a death that defense attorney Allen Bohnert called a "failed, agonizing experiment.")' ~ USA Today, January 16, 2014 [1]The UK, although having the death penalty abolished for a long time, preferred to hang people via a long drop. The person condemned to death would be weighed and hanged from a sufficient height that would ensure the breakage of their spinal cord upon tension of the rope. Unconsciousness and death were instantaneous; long drop hanging is widely believed to be one of the most pain-free and quickest way to die, without creating too much visible damage on the deceased. [2]Conclusion:Although I have stated clear reasons against the death penalty, I have also made clear that lethal injection is not the best way for an execution to be carried out, which is what my adversary is in favour for.[1] - http://www.usatoday.com...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person

First off, deth penalties should only happen if a definite guilty verdict is put apon someone for something horrible. As you mentioned in your statement, that stare action is also an option, that is true, and I agree with you, however, when you get a leithle injection, it feel much more natural and it is much quicker than any other way and much much safer. When you use an electrical chair for example, you risk others lives and loss of power.
should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person

[[Firstly, I'd like to state that I do believe in the death penalty on a personal level, but I fancied a go at being Con to challenge myself. Good luck. Here we go...]] You claim that the death penalty should be enforced on the most serious of crimes; this is indeed how most death penalties work, but what if somebody is wrongly convicted for a serious crime that they did not commit? How much certainty does the jury need to have before sentencing somebody to death? I live in the UK. The UK used to have the death penalty, but then we got it horribly wrong: a teenager, Derek Bentley, with the mental age of 10, was hanged by the court in 1953. It was later revealed that he was innocent. [1] And that's not the only high profile case of wrongful execution. [2] How many other executions were performed on innocent people? Nobody could possibly know now -- death is irreversible. Your next claim is that a lethal injection is a natural and cost-effective method of capital punishment, which I refute completely. Synthetic chemicals are man-made (not found in nature) and cost over a thousand US dollars to administer: "The state of Texas is scheduled to spend $1,286.86 ("811) to kill Keith Thurmond on Wednesday night." ~ BBC Report. [3] One would be hard-pressed to find somebody 'naturally' dying of lethal injection, but you will find many examples of people naturally dying from electrocution, starvation and the such all over the world. It doesn't cost a penny to starve somebody to death, but it's not a matter of whether the execution is natural and cost-effective or not -- at the end of the day, death is not a reversible punishment, regardless of how it is performed, and compensation can never be issued in the event of a wrongful ruling. Your final claim reiterates your belief that the most horrible of crimes, specifically mass murder, should receive a death penalty, with the exception of a good excuse (fearing for their life or the 'stand your ground' law). I also reiterate that the jury may wrongfully sentence an innocent person; what if every murderer had a 'good' excuse that couldn't be proven? What if the jury doubt what the murderer is says, issues a life sentence, but are later informed that the murderer was in fact telling the truth? The grey area is too vague when people's lives are at stake. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://www.bbc.co.uk...
should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person

should there be death penalties? yes I do partially believe there should be death penalties but only for horrible crimes. I believe that if there is a death penalty, the person should be killed by an injection, this is because of many reasons. 1) if we use a shocking chair, it uses up a lot of power. 2) it is less expensive. 3) it is a natural ay of dying instead of being shocked, starved, or what ever else they do to people, but back to the death penalties. if people do something horrible like kill multiple people then they should get one if there was no reason. But, if there was a good excuse i.e. if one feared his own life or the stand your ground law, then no death penalty should be sentenced, but if lied about or not good enough, one should be stated
Having just one TV channel is a good idea.

My contention went uncontested.I shall now rebut my opponent's contentions.1 - No squabble over what to watch. Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not.The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program.This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails. Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality chows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.Totally irrelevant. In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.
Having just one TV channel is a good idea.

1 - No squabble over what to watch'Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not'no way Jose. There'd be the best programs on it and so there wouldn't be more of that than there is now. Some people are already choosing not to get a tv now.Some people choose to do so now but inevitably far more would do so if only one channel, to the mainstream only, was available.'The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.'as I've said, there'd be the best shows from each category. Cooking, cartoons top gear etc. haha you fail. Everyone likes the best programs.If everyone likes the best programs then why is it all channels currently get viewers? Oh that's right, because different people have a different opinion of what is 'best'.' This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.'I'm not sure where you got that idea from. There'd only be one thing on at each time. Porno shows would be on when the kiddies have gone to bed.How would you ensure that all around the world children were in bed? Thought so. Your system is impossible to legally implement.2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program. 'This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails.'I don't think you understand what I mean. It would be the best channel that'd ever existed. You know. Not the best channel that would be on.'Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality shows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.'there would be motivation because the tv people would know that the viewers could choose to go outside and do something like throw a Frisbee or milk a duck, so they would make the shows entertaining. Your whole argument falls.Invalid point didn't address my point at all. Conduct fallacy for insulting my argument saying "Your whole argument fails".3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.'Totally irrelevant'that's just a dumb baseless assertion.So is yours.'In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.'yeah but the thing that's wrong with that is that with two channels, people wouldn't have the time to watch every episode of every tv show ever.You seem to think that people can spend 24/7 watching TV. Haha, no.
Having just one TV channel is a good idea.

lets do a rebuttal1 - No squabble over what to watch'Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not'no way jose. there'd be the best programs on it and so there wouldn't be more of that than there is now. some people are already choosing not to get a tv now.' The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.'as i've said, there'd be the best shows from each category. cooking, cartoons top gear etc. haha you fail. everyone likes the best programs. ' This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.'i'm not sure where you got that idea from. there'd only be one thing on at each time. porno shows would be on when the kiddies have gone to bed.2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program. 'This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails.'i don't think you understand what i mean. it would be the best channel that'd ever existed. you know. not the best channel that would be on.'Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality chows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.'there would be motivation because the tv people would know that the viewers could choose to go outside and do something like throw a frisbee or milk a duck, so they would make the shows entertaining. your whole argument falls.3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.'Totally irrelevant'that's just a dumb baseless assertion.'In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.'yeah but the thing that's wrong with that is that with two channels, people wouldn't have the time to watch every episode of every tv show ever.uhhhh this is like an essay
A unicorn is superior to a pegasus as a war mount.

We are obviously assuming that these creatures are real. To simplify things, we'll assume that the riders of these mounts are equal in strength and do not have access to projectile weapons. If you don't know what either of the creatures mentioned in the resolution are, I recommend you try Google. I really don't care how you evaluate superiority. Use your imagination. If you would like to assume that there are whole armies of the creatures that would be fine with me. Good luck.
Corruption is neccasity

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited his round, I suppose this means he has no rebuttals. I'd like to take this opportunity to refute his opening statement then."Why corruption has been started it is just because of our lackness, non fulfill of requirements of statutes, whenever somebody ask for our total income then we describe less income for avoidance of Taxes and give bribe to Income tax officer, whenever we not follow the traffic rules then we give bribe to Policemen to hide our mistake, Even sometimes our all documents are complete then we also give bribery, Do you know why because of Lack of knowledge , we don't want to give proper fees to consultant, Whenever we think corruption then it begin from us at end upon us and we always want a true leader just like Arvind Kejriwal to fight with corruption"Alright. I wanted to break this down into sentences but uh... this seems to be one large run-on sentence, seeing as there is no period to be found anywhere. I also, quite honestly, cannot make enough sense out of it to properly refute the arguments. I sincerely hope my opponent returns so that he may elaborate upon his arguments so I might be able to refute them. My apologies go out to the voters for the lack of action in this round.I suppose I extend my previous arguments, seeing as there doesn't need to be anything else that I must contribute in this round.
Corruption is neccasity

corruption should be eradicate form the root. Why corruption has been started it is just because of our lackness, non fulfill of requirements of statutes, whenever somebody ask for our total income then we describe less income for avoidance of Taxes and give bribe to Income tax officer, whenever we not follow the traffic rules then we give bribe to Policemen to hide our mistake, Even sometimes our all documents are complete then we also give bribery, Do you know why because of Lack of knowledge , we don't want to give proper fees to consultant, Whenever we think corruption then it begin from us at end upon us and we always want a true leader just like Arvind Kejriwal to fight with corruption
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

Exactly MMA fighters, in addition to dealing with fatigue, must also be able to take physical damage and still compete, whereas wrestlers frequently only need to deal with fatigue. so it takes its fatigue to the next some wrestlers get so tired they cant even stand with out a couple of seconds of rest im not saying ur wrong u have ur points. but even kimbo slice who has been street fighting and been trained to deal with physical damage got K.Oed in under 30 sec http://www.youtube.com... this portrays exactly what i was talking about. all you have to do is not get hit and u can win. its so easy also i believe that wrestling training is harder than mma training http://www.youtube.com... THE MAIN BASIS OF WRESTLING IS TAKING SOMEONE DOWN AND TRYING TO TURN THEM WHEN THEY ARE FULL FORCE TRYING TO NOT GET TURNED. IMAGIN TRYING TO FORCE UR OPPONENTS WHOLE BODY WITH JUST AN ARM OR TWO people can barly turn someones arm in an arm wrestling match imagin there whole body ur lugging someone around for the whole time lugging someone around is much easyer then striking ESPECCIALLY SINCE YOU CANT CHOKE UR OPPONENT OUT AND MAKE THEM TAPP IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. THERES NO EASY WAY OUT U HAVE TO USE UPO ALL OF UR STRENGTH AND ALL OF UR ENERGY and look at all these ghetto kids who barly weigh more than 135 pounds. strutting around thinking there cool cuz they take mma classes they get into fights all the time and they probably knocked out a couple of people. and they dont even train as hard asa wrerstler. because its easy. ill slam those kids on there knecks
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

MMA requires not only wrestling ability, but also the ability to engage in and defend against a variety of other fighting arts. It is true that MMA fights can end in a matter of seconds. However, wrestling can also end in a matter of seconds if one of the participants is pinned by the other. It does not matter how long the matches go, since those factors can vary depending on the relative skills of the two participants. The issues that matter are the amount of preparation and training that goes into the competition. MMA requires skill and familiarity in numerous different fighting styles, while wrestling only requires one style. Any move or technique that occurs in wrestling could also theoretically occur in MMA. MMA participants must therefore be able to defend against these wrestling techniques and be familiar with how to utilize the techniques themselves. Additionally, MMA fighters must also be able to defend against punches, kicks, grapples, elbows, and so forth. MMA fighters, in addition to dealing with fatigue, must also be able to take physical damage and still compete, whereas wrestlers frequently only need to deal with fatigue. MMA fighters must be versed in a wider range of techniques and skills, of which wrestling is included. MMA fighters must also be able to take physical damage and remain focused, while wrestlers are not permitted to hit each other.
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

ok now for my counter argument Just for the fact that MMA has a variation of punches and kicks makes it an easier sport. If you seen an MMA fight that lasts 10 seconds, that is usually because the guy got a punch on him and the other guy got knocked out Total amount of work= one punch A wrestling match that takes ten seconds is a take down and holding the guy there for the pin Total amount of work= shooting in on the guys legs lifting him up taking him to the floor and holding him on the floor while he tries to squirm out. In MMA if i practice dogging and striking then i can dodge and hit my opponents all day With wrestling u have to take somebody down and turn them over all while he is resisting you 100 percent. The opponent knows almost the same moves you do. so it takes not only skill but sheer endurance and strength. so lugging someone around is more work then punching or kicking bringing someone down to the mat is called a mat return. I can mat return someone lighter then me no more than 10 times. on the other hand i can punch 50 times times with each arm and do 50 kicks with each leg and not be as tired
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

Mixed Martial Arts I propose that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) competitions are a tougher sport than wrestling. MMA competitions are a grueling, physical battle between two opponents who are highly trained in various martial arts and wrestling systems. Participants must be capable of utilizing and defending against a wide-array of punches, grapples, throws, submissions, and takedowns. They must also be able to overcome injuries that occur during the match, such as cuts or temporary daze, if they hope to win. While wrestling may be tough, MMA includes wrestling as one of its components, as well as many other fighting and grappling systems. MMA fighters must also be in superb physical shape. MMA fighters require speed, agility, strength, and endurance in order to prevail over their opponent. Fighters are similarly required to meet a particular weight requirement to fight within a specific weight division. MMA requires fighters to not only be in excellent physical condition and skilled at wrestling, but the fighters must also be capable of boxing, clinch fighting, ground-and-pound, and submission grappling. MMA is wrestling and more.