BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

I will start by saying I don't agree with magic. However, the things Harry had coming to him were uncalled for. Harry didn't even know he had magic. He was shoved and forced to live under the stairway. Sometimes starved, and, as the book seems to imply, physically abused (and I mean abused). Vernon was an arrogant man, and in some cases, it could be implied that he was racist (thinking southern Englanders were scumbags, being that Dursley is a Midlander name). It matters not that he was forced to care for him. He treated Dudley better than Harry. So no, I think that Vernon was a mean man for those reasons.
God is a cruel, immoral and unjust figure.

Since this is the conclusion round and my opponent would not be able to oppose any of my ideas after this one, I will choose to go pointless about this topic. Instead, I'll say something on the logical validity of this whole topic. 1. God exist. It is all-powerful and all-knowing. 2. Either god can make contradictions possible or god cannot make contradictions possible. 3. If god can make contradictions possible, logic cannot judge god's move in any sense, hence making this topic senseless. 4. If god cannot make contradictions possible, god is not all powerful, hence also making this topic logically invalid in its assumptions. 5. But it would be possible that god can both make contradictions possible and contradiction not possible, since god is all-powerful in all sense. But the fact that god can do both will still makes logic invalid to judge god's moves. 6. By any possibilities, judging on god's act would be inconclusive because god is outside the system of logic, if god does exist.
God is a cruel, immoral and unjust figure.

There is little I can do to respond to your first few paragraphs as you have essentially agreed with the motion. However I will respond to your points on how you feel God is a moral being as well. You say that "by logical sense, god cannot be all immoral, just like how god cannot be all moral" however I think he very much can be, and is all immoral. I would not say that the extinguishing of a forest fire is the best example of "God's" supposed morality, however since it is the only example you have stated, then I will go from there. You say that the extinguishing of a forest fire is a good thing, and indeed it is. However that day of the forest fire, thousands of innocent children in Africa have died, and this is just one example. (remember we are speaking as if God is in control of these deaths). How can you say that such an immoral act is justifiable because a forest fire has been put out, or any other moral act for that matter. (Remember I am just referring to the forest fire example as it is the only one you have given). If God has the power to commit a moral act then why does he persist in committing such immoral acts? If a man beats a child to death and then later that day saves a child from getting run over by a car we would not let him off the hook. He would be thrown in prison, or worse. Although people would certainly question why he would commit such a horrible, cruel, immoral act when he is capable of doing a good act. How is God any different? Why should we make him an exception to cruelty and immorality. I find the fact that God (if exists) commits acts of morality as well as acts of immorality even more cruel and callous as it is the utmost form of mocking. That he has the power to commit all the moral acts that he wishes yet doesn't. In fact, quite often does the opposite. But why?, just for amusement? And it would mean that people have the right to wonder things like "God why did you let my innocent toddler child die but let a mass serial killer away with it", as such events like this are all too real occurrence in the world. You say that God is neutral in his acts because he commits both acts of morality and immorality. My point is that this cannot be seen as neutral because of the simple fact that he allegedly has the power to commit acts of morality all of the time yet chooses not to and often, chooses to favour the side of immorality e.g the Holocaust, children in Africa, natural disasters etc. Also the Bible is the alleged word of God not the alleged word of humans. I said that I was merely singling the Bible out as an example of immoral teachings from God. Basically, all world religious texts claim to be the word of God, therefore the Bible is the alleged word of God, therefore it was valid for me to use it as an example. I could of used any religious text as an example but it would have been the exact same idea and principle.
Raunchy Performance

My opponant says that the parents should not do their job of safe gaurding their children's minds from mature content, such as this performance by Britney Spears and Rhihanna. I will be be proving that it is right for the parents to make sure that there children don't veiw this content. My opponant says that the more a parent tries to stop their children from watching the material, the more they want it. This untrue since the child already wants the stuff enough to act out what they see. The human brain in a child in under developed untill the age of 25. The child's brain is made to learn from there suroundings and other influences such as the media. The problem would be solved if the parents replaced the bad influences, with good influences. My opponant also states that we can not do anything about the provocative nature of the world today. However this is false because in the 60's the U. S. had a cultural revolution that challanged everything the generation before then had thought and lived for. Ever since then the U. S. has influenced the other nations of the worlds culturl values and has created the culture we know today. If the parents of the world started punishing their children for breaking the rules,a nd replace the bad influences with the good ones then the world and our up coming generation would be a whole lot different. In Conclusion, The parents should do everything in their power to monitor what their children watch. The parents should replace the bad influences with good influences. We can change the provocative nature of the world around.
Raunchy Performance

Today i came across and artical i read on a newspaper site about a Performance made by Britney Spears and Rihanna and that performance being 'Too provocative'...This statement being because kids are becoming to influenced by these Celebrities and the way they dress ect. My point to the debate is , Parents who think their children are being easily influenced seriously need to back off a little bit. The more you try and stop your children from viewing or even enjoying the lifestyle of today , the more your children will want to watch these performances and the more they will be influenced. The state of mind of any human is the more you cant have something the more you want to try and get it and the same in the instance. The world of today is provocative and we need to understand that there is nothing we can do about it. The entertainment industry thrives off viewings and press so for parents and any one else being annoyed by these performances your giving the media exactly what they want. Any press is good press. My opinion may not be correct but the more you try an stop your children from watching performances like this ... they will vieit whether it be on the telly or in the middle of the street. STOP being so PICKY!!!!!
Raunchy Performance

Not everyone is just moaning about the problem. The parents who are raising the children up right and making sure they don't get into something that is clearing bad for their underdeveloped minds are not just using moaning they are backing up their words, and ask both your own parents and your grandparents and you will see that it works. My opponent has no piont in her claim. I made it perfectly clear in the comment section that I am Pro. However, I wanted to argue on the side of Con. I am using the traditional Con arguments that have been used for a long time.
Raunchy Performance

My opponent is clearly saying that just because everybody else is doing something that is clearly bad and some what immature, the parents of the child should let them join because everybody else either is doing it themselves or doesn't care. This would be like everybody else is snorting cocain, so the parents of the child in a effort to make their child fit in let the child snort the coke with their friends. The parents are to make sure the child is ready to be successful and the type of culture that these kind of performances, these CDs, and these clothes promote are a threat to that. If the child grows up into an adult with full rights then they can act a dress any way they want, but while they are children and teens their parents are the ones responsible for them. In conclusion, the parents have every right and reason to monitor what their children are doing, watching, listening too,etc.
Raunchy Performance

Most minors would see it on TV. Many minors do exactly what they see on Mtv and VH1 and other channels that sponsors this type of behavior. Also, they would go with a friend that their parents trust. This is an example of why the parents should monitor the minor's friends as well. It is the job of the parents to make sure their child by the time he/she has reached adulthood is ready to co exist with the world around them. If the parents let them do whatever they want the child would not be able to sustain a job because the person would be rebelious and would not follow the rules. The child would also most likely be put in jail for for fighting or doing drugs, which is what most of the rappers and rock music promote. It is for the child's own good. Then it is the duty of the parents to make sure the child goes to a school such as private schoolsand home schooling that don't exspose the child to this. The parents are soully charged with making sure their children are educated in the best possible way. True the majority of minors want to be noticed and they choose to dress provocatively, but this in know way justifies the parents leting them do this. The parents should instill good values like getting repect for who they are, not for what they dress like , or for who they can inpersonate. In conclusion, The parents have every right and reason to monitor what their children are doing, watching, listening too,etc.
Raunchy Performance

I can see what my opponant is saying but a few points to state my opinion... -firstly , how would they see this performance? They obviously have been around that enviroment To want to see it in the first place or their parents are not that bothered about keeping their children from this mature content. -secondly , Parents as their job look after their children , they are not meant to make their children into robots. -thirdly , there are infant schools now that are teaching kids the age of 5 about sexual content and mature features ... Therefor this is being exposed but you cannot help children from running from this. Yes you may think this is wrong as well but its the way of the world. My conclusion to this is , im not a fan of young girls or males dressing or acting provocativly its very downgrading. For a person they want to be noticed and some and i mean majority think this is how to do it.
Raunchy Performance

My opponent says we are ment to be free minded. This is false because we all are influenced by are surroundings whether the surroundings are music, books, parents, friends, drugs, religion. etc. My opponent says that parents have to much control over their children. This also not true, the parents are the ones that are responsible for their children. They are the ones that have to change their diapers, they have to feed them, to house them, and also in this case educate them to make sure they grow up and be a successful. My argument- C1: If a child does do these things that are obviously harmful to their mental well being, then it is the job of the parent to make sure that these influences are replaced with ones that are healthier. The job of the parent is to educate their children as they see fit. The child is not mature enough to make rational descisions. In Conclusion, We are not free minded because we are influenced by everything around us. The parents must educate and bring up their children if the children are to be successful. Children are not mentally fit to make their own descisions. Therefore, parents should monitor anything and everything their children do, watch, and say.
Raunchy Performance

Firstly i would like to add to my first opinion i made earlier. Us as people are meat to have a FREE mind , think FREELY without the help of others , so this going on my previous statement and what my opposition has just made it just clarifies at when parents do overly power their children with their thoughts, They are not avaible to think for themselves so therefore it goes FOR my argument that yet again that if parents have to much control your not the person your mean to be.
Marijuana should not be legalized.

My opponent copied the whole article in without changing anything or even citing. I refuse to rebut such a thing. I extend all arguments and expect rebuttal next round. CONCLUSION:My opponent has failed to prove that Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that he copied and pasted his article in the second round, and most likely in the first. I have proven it should not be legal due to the health risks and how it can really effect you in the long run. Doing so, I believe I have won this debate.
Marijuana should not be legalized.

It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns. Although Marijuana is illegal, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it through the black market, and regardless of it becoming legal or not, people will continue to smoke it no matter what the government says. If Marijuana becomes legal, the cops will have less petty things to worry about and may concentrate more on crimes as well as drugs that are actually harmful. Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of money associated with the taxing of Marijuana. Marijuana is NOT addictive, yet it is completely and utterly legal to smoke cigarettes that ARE in fact, addictive and cause cancer among other side-effects. Not only do cigarettes kill you, they kill the people around you as well. Marijuana is not only a natural herb, it is ten times safer than any other Illegal substance known to man. Marijuana is one of many controversial issues facing America today. It should not be a crime to smoke something natural, and less harmful than products that do indeed harm people that are legal. The number of crimes in the state of West Virginia increase more and more each day, and an estimated half of those crimes are due to selling and possession of the substance. Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession. It's a complete contradiction that shouldn't even exist. There are millions of American's that smoke Marijuana and are not classified as criminals or "bad" people. According to Dr. Melanie Dreher, a famous Reefer researcher who has done countless studies on the effects of Marijuana on the human body and the use of consumption during pregnancy, proves with her countless studies that children being born to a Marijuana consuming mother, has found no link to any form of birth defects and that the children tend to be smarter than children born of non-using mothers. Thus proving, Marijuana has far more advantages than disadvantages. It is fact that there has never been any form of studies done in The United States proving or disproving whether or not Marijuana is harmful or not. However, there have been numerous studies in other countries PROVING that Marijuana does not harm you. In fact, there are several benefits of medical marijuana. It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness. It's a proven fact that the use of Marijuana during a woman's pregnancy can decrease nausea and excessive vomiting and can actually help maintain a healthy appetite, and improves the child's birth weight. With all of this being said, America is one of the very few countries that has yet to legalize Marijuana without even considering the scientific resources.
Marijuana should not be legalized.

This is a debate involving the legalization of cannabis/marijuana.I wish to challenge this person to a debate.7,000 characters72 hours to argue3 rounds (short debate)DEFINITIONS:Cannabis: any of the preparations (as marijuana or hashish) or chemicals (as THC) that are derived from the hemp and are psychoactive. [1]Legalization:to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2]Good luck.Cites: [1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
is feminism good for the world

when you say feminism has worked (as in first and second wave) i agree but now we are all equal. Men and women are not payed differently for the same wage. This is because the statistics you look to use a large number of people in "similar" but not equal jobs and find a difference since different jobs pay different amounts of money even in similar fields. Also, there are other reasons women (on average) are payed less like pregnancy, staying with the young child and differences in behavior (like being less likely to ask for a raise.) If there was a giant patriarchy paying women less why would anyone hire men? If companies could get away with a cheeper wage why wouldn't they. Proof of this is the move to work in China because labor is cheap there. 3rd wave feminism has not helped women all over the world if it did it would get rights for women in India and Saudi Arabia not worry about man-spreading and "a pink tax." Less qualified women will get into S.T.E.M. fields more than there more qualified male counterparts because the business wants to even out the gender group in a work place. This is indisputable since there are many statistics that show this and since they do the same for non-white and non-asian people.
is feminism good for the world

Feminism has a stigma attached to it that is nowhere near the truth. The idea behind feminism is equality for ALL- to not judge or oppress because of one's gender. Feminism is a great attribute to this world because it has helped women all around the world gain rights. It has given women a reason to fight for what they believe in and continue to fight for change. Additionally, feminists have fought for not only women, but everyone who has been oppressed/victimized at some point in their life. They have been there from as early as fighting for the abolishment of slavery, to fighting together to diminish Jim Crow laws, to the current issues happening today in our nation. Furthermore, the idea that feminism only makes people think that "personal failures are out of control" is absolutely inaccurate. Is it their fault that that they don't make the same amount of money as men? Is it their fault that men are more likely to get hired even if they are more qualified? Was it anyone's fault that there has been any injustices at all? Feminism allows people to fight for that change with others who are just as passionate about equality, which in fact, should be everyone. Moreover, the idea that the patriarchy has completely diminished is also incorrect. Although not physically seen, forms of patriarchy still happen in subtle ways. The simple fact that women are frowned upon if they don't wear a shirt while men can and making a normality of women taking their husband's last name are just some of the many ways that shows we are indeed still living in a patriarchal world.
I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

I did not use semantics, which, by my opponent's definition, "My opponent may NOT define any terms in round 1, or any future round." I did not define region, I merely pointed out that Pro's unwritten assumption that region means the same thing as nation is wrong. Of course, Pro may have meant countries when he said regions, but that doesn't change the fact that that isn't what the word regions means. "He neglects the example of Michigan, that wins me the round given the argument provided by Con. To disambiguate the issue; regions and nations are non-distinct in this debate. I'm Pro my ability to create a 4-color map, not a random arrangement of shapes that are independent as soon as their borders end." Pro's example means nothing, unless you first accept his assumption that regions means the same thing as countries or states. "The reason there is a distinction is because countries can be split and discontinuous, as opposed to polygons and geometric figures, which can not." There is a distinction in Pro's mind, but not in what was written during R1, which is what counts. He defined 'Four Color Theorem' to mean a specific thing, and failed to prove that he had disproved that specific thing. If he had said countries in his initial definition, which he could have, he would be right. But he didn't. "Furthermore, it only makes sense realistically to assume that regions don't have to be coninuous for the sake of this debate given the fact that all maps keep discontinuous nations/states the same color anyways. E.g. Michigan, the US/Alaska/Hawaii, Pacific Islands, etc." No, this assumption does not make sense. One cannot just assume that you meant something that you did not actually say. If Pro's intention was really to show your claim was true of countries, rather than regions, he could have simply said so. His actual intention was to be deliberately deceptive, by saying something that he knew was different from what he meant. In conclusion, if Pro had meant countries when he said regions, he could have said so. He did not. Because he defined the four color theorem to mean a certain thing, his burden of proof was to show that he had a valid counter example to what he actually defined, not what he secretly meant by what the words in R1 said. He did not meet this burden of proof.
I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

I'll keep my argument short, for there isn't much to say here. Con writes, "'Region' doesn't mean the same thing as 'nation. ' #5 on Pro's map is one nation, but two different regions. While region was not specifically defined in the resolution, it is absurd to assume that it means the same thing as nation, especially since we are talking about a mathematical theorem. " Refer back to my round one; even to the definition; even further, look to the title of the debate. The "4-color map theorem" is what is being debated. Regardless of whether or not it is called a nation or a region, my argument holds. Essentially, my opponent HAD to break a rule to win. He argued from semantics, distinguishing nation from region and then arguing that regions MUST be continuous. He neglects the example of Michigan, that wins me the round given the argument provided by Con. To disambiguate the issue; regions and nations are non-distinct in this debate. I'm Pro my ability to create a 4-color map, not a random arrangement of shapes that are independent as soon as their borders end. The reason there is a distinction is because countries can be split and discontinuous, as opposed to polygons and geometric figures, which can not. Had I not cared whether we were discussing mathematical "regions" or geographical "countries", I would not have so vehemently emphasized "possible geographical map" in R1, or used Michigan and Lesotho (real states/nations) for my examples. Furthermore, it only makes sense realistically to assume that regions don't have to be coninuous for the sake of this debate given the fact that all maps keep discontinuous nations/states the same color anyways. E. g. Michigan, the US/Alaska/Hawaii, Pacific Islands, etc.