BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal

I don't know why it is such a big deal when a human fetus gets aborted at least individually, I will never ever have to worry about becoming an aborted fetus in my lifetime unlike becoming a mentally ill elderly person or having to be forced to feel the pain of pregnancy and birth. You don't see people complaining about aborting fertilized chicken or tapeworm eggs do you? If it is because chickens or tapeworms don't have "souls", the intelligence, or the capacity of suffering of human beings like pro-birthers tell me, how do fetuses with semi-developed brains still get "souls", intelligence, or the capacity to suffer? If it is because it is "unethical", "immoral", explain how it is pragmatic to call abortion unethical or immoral, how does it negatively affect the born who will never become fetuses in there lifetime? Calling me things like evil, gross or immoral for not caring about the human fetus is not an argument. And really, the gross fallacy? And trolling is it? I find pineapple on pizza gross, but is it immoral? I'll let you decide. If it is because I have to possibly worry being reincarnated as an aborted human fetus, provide proof at least if the fetus, especially at it's early stage of development if it feels any suffering when aborted, especially with the best euthanasia techniques. I honestly find reincarnation a problem to begin with anyway since the memories that make you "you" get wiped out when you die. If it is because what the fetus will potentially become, like a rockstar or something. Why do you think we don't have unprotected sex and give birth 24-7? Because, you know, the potential.
Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood

I have literally no time left to write this, so I will have to work really fast and present just one argument. Rebuttals and the rest of my argument will be given in the next round. SEX Vampires need to have nasty, hardcore sex, with humans and with other vampires. True Blood has this in spades, while from what I can find The Vampire Diaries is little more than some PG13 bullsh!t. Here is my evidence: VIDEO #1 is a sex scene from TVD http://www.youtube.com... I suppose there is some passion here, but compare this to... BE WARNED!!!! THIS IS NOT PORN, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY CONFRONTING FOR THOSE WHO ARE OFFENDED BY SUCH THINGS. PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS AND THEN REPORT ME. THAT WOULD BE LAME. It is completely relevant to my argument... This scene shows a near-mad Bill having extremely violent sex with Lorena (the vampire who turned him) since Sookie no longer wants him. VIDEO #2: http://www.youtube.com... (I have specifically put the "Verify Age" link for this video because it's pretty full-on) Sex and vampire go hand in hand and the sex in True Blood is far closer to how I imagine vampires would have sex than The Vampire Diaries. Over to you.
Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood

1. The Vampire Diaries" boys are loyal to the end. Sure, True Blood"s Bill would die for Sookie " now. But where was he back in her grandmother"s day? Stefan and Damon Salvatore have been in love with Elena and her kin (read: Katherine) practically since time began. As they"ve repeatedly said, they"ll "always choose Elena." True Blood"s Bill and Eric, in contrast, might sometimes choose their vampire exes or their blood-sucking king or queens over Sookie Stackhouse. 2. The Salvatores can"t be bought. Let"s not forget that on True Blood Bill was paid to get close to Sookie. That"s right. Quiet as it"s kept, Bill Compton"s so-called Queen hired him to seek the supernatural waitress out. Meanwhile, love brought Stefan back to Mystic Falls and Elena"s door. Lust made Damon follow. But, hey, not everyone"s perfect. 3. TVD"s neck nibblers know their place. And it"s beneath humans. Yeah, we said it. Not to sound all elitist or anything, but The Vampire Diaries" vampires know enough to be at least a little ashamed of the fact that they are not human and that they prey on mankind. They"re not marching in the streets talking about "We"re here. We"ve got fangs. Get used to it!" They"re not demanding equal rights. They accept the fact that they"re something unnatural about their existence and they don"t try to shove it down our throats. And that"s kind of endearing. Besides, there"s something to be said about putting humans on a pedestal. And being of the mortal kind, we like that. http://www.wetpaint.com...
pankcakes are better than waffles

There's a difference between begging the question and claiming two things are equally good. That claim does not inherantly beg the question of which is better, because none of them are better. The fact is that for some people pancakes are superior, for other people waffles are superior, and nothing my opponent has said changes that.Pancakes need pans, waffles need irons. Both need "special equipment". Even my opponent's source agrees pancakes need pans. That's why they're called pancakes.Finally my opponent says pancakes are harder to get wrong. Actually pancakes get hard and brown when overcooked - it's quite disgusting. Try overcooking a pancake and see. Trust me, it isn't hard to do - the university hall where I stay at manages to do it every Sunday.My opponent has given seven reasons in this debate, but all have been equally applicable to pancakes and waffles. That's why I think she hasn't met her burden of proof. The resolution is negated.
pankcakes are better than waffles

Even though my opponent explained that you could also make waffles into shapes and actually buy the waffle irons in the specific shape id like to rebut another argument. Id like to state what my opponent said ,"waffles are clearly the best,since MAKING a pancake in a waffle shape is incredibly hard", id like to say that probably for my opponent ist hard but for other people it might not be hard in other words my opponent was just begging the question . also going back to our original argument when you overcook a waffle they get really hard but with pancakes they don't they probably get burned i admit but at least not hard that you cant eat them. Also id like to site this website saying that pancakes dont need special equipment. http://wiki.answers.com... Thats all id like to say and thanks for taking your time and looking at my side and how pancakes are better than waffles
pankcakes are better than waffles

My opponent has apparently conceeded that some people like pancakes better, and others like waffles better. This implies that none of these breakfasts are objectively better than the other. Nevertheless, my opponent still brings up a new argument that I'd be happy to rebut.While it is true pancakes can be made in a variety of shapes and designs, waffles can also. It all depends on what shape you use for the waffle iron. Indeed, waffles are even easier to get into the right shape than pancakes, because waffle irons can be sold in mickey mouse shapes or whatever other kind of waffle you'd like to indulge in. Differing waffle irons is the principal difference between waffles around the world ie Belgian and American waffles are almost the same except for their shape. Besides that, some people quite like the distinctive waffle shape. For these people, waffles are clearly the best, since making a pancake in a waffle shape is incredibly hard.So again, my argument is that both are really great and that any supposed superiority of one over the other is just personal opinion.
pankcakes are better than waffles

Thank you for accepting my argument and its true waffles are trickier to make. but since people learned about cooking with batter they learned to make pancakes and yeah there are a lot of waffles to make but pancakes are still more family friendly with the idea of a little kid to ask his mom or dad to make them in a type of design. the problem with waffles is you cant make them in a way you want like for baby's you could make Mickey mouse, or Donald duck. I do think that both breakfast dishes are good but pancakes still are better. like my opponent stated "the thinner the pancake is the less flavor it has", you cant judge the thinness of a pancake because everyone likes them at different lengths. you probably think that but other people might not.
pankcakes are better than waffles

My contention is that both are absolutely delicious, and that none is better than the other - they're both just beyond compare. Please note that my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. She has to demonstrate the absolute superiority of pancakes over waffles. Any food is fun to make as the whole family so long as you've got the right attitude. If you come to pancake-making with a frown on your face you won't have a lot of fun making pancakes. Waffles are trickier to make, meaning more family time, but at the end of the day they're both foods the whole family can participate in the making of (. http://www.waffle-recipe.com... about 40 recipies for waffles, most of which even children can safely participate in). So yeah, they're both family-friendly to prepare. I also contend that both pancakes and waffles are classic american breakfasts. There are even waffles called American Waffles (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).Finally, while it is true pancakes can usually be made thinner (assuming you have a large enough pan) and can usually be given more decoration therefore, the thinner the pancake is the less flavor it has. Some people will inevitably like more flavorsome food and choose waffles, others more decorated food and choose pancakes - ultimately both are good breakfast choices. It's all a matter of what you prefer. I look forward to my opponent's second round and wish her good luck for the debate.
Domestic Violence

Topic: The use of lethal force by victims as a deliberate response to repeated acts of domestic violence is immoral. Round One: Just for acceptance, definitions, and rules. Rules: Keep it polite. No new arguments or evidence in the final round. Burdens: Pro must show that a victim's deliberate use of lethal force against an abuser is immoral; Con should show that such an action is not immoral (which is not the same as showing it is moral.) Both sides also have the burden of clash; i.e., they must address their opponent's points as best as they can. Provisos: By "repeated acts," we're referring to a pattern of incidents which are not necessarily habitual or uncontrollable. "Immoral" indicates that something is "contrary to the moral precepts of most cultures." By accepting, you agree to rules, burdens, and definitions. Definitions: Lethal force - an act of violence that is likely to produce death in the victim(s) Victims - those being harmed by the acts of domestic violence Deliberate - carefully considered, premeditated, unimpulsive Response - a reaction to something, in this case, acts of domestic violence Domestic Violence - is defined by the DOJ as "a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone." Thank you in advance for accepting!
Donald Trump would be a bad president

Thank you for your reply. As for the link, the one I sent is the wrong one. Here's the one I meant: http://www.globalfirepower.com... The plane is his property, so he can do what he chooses. But a man like Bill Gates would have donated much of the money spent on it to charity. I'm not saying Trump has an obligation to donate his money to charity, but there are many people less fortunate than him who could benefit from it. The comment is not ordinary 'locker-room talk'. Trump made the quote 'They let you do anything when you're a star.' This indicates that he might have experience. Trump also said 'I did try to f*ck her. She was married.' I think this also serves as evidence for sexual harassment, not to mention that he tried to have an affair. Plus, even if it is 'locker-room talk' (and athletes have come out saying talk like that doesn't happen in locker rooms), that doesn't make it any more acceptable. It just shows that there's a culture of misogyny in society. Apologising to the American people only partially takes back the problem. As for the accusations, I'll let them rest for now, in the tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I judge people on how they behave when they don't think they're in public. When in private, someone's true personality is revealed. That's why I am disgusted by Trump's comments. http://www.news.com.au... Thank you for your condolences. It means a lot. For argument's sake, I will assume Mr. Kovaleski was lying. Trump should have only made fun of what Mr. Kovaleski said, rather than his appearance. You shouldn't make fun of things that people can't control (such as appearance). http://www.nytimes.com... I think it is fair to judge Trump. You should judge people by what they say in private as well, because that's the truest reflection of their personality. Note: I have to go on a school camp in a few days (no wifi). If you're unable to reply by the end of the weekend, would it be OK if we could just put our concluding statements in the 5th round? Otherwise, I won't have enough time to write an answer. Thank you in advance.
Donald Trump would be a bad president

I want to get some different points in, so I'm going to correct a few factual errors before putting forward new points. 'Alien' tends to hold negative connotations, but that's a minor issue. The gun ban in Australia may not have reduced gun homicide, but it lowered the number of mass shootings (defined as the killing of 4 people, excluding the killer). The Shermans defeated the Tigers because the Nazis were thinking tactically (short-term) rather than strategically (long term). Germany couldn't mass produce the Tigers. The Tiger tank won battles, but it was too expensive to make. Whereas the US has the industrial depth to mass produce quality products. The US has more aircraft than China, Russia and NK combined. http://www.globalfirepower.com... The NATO members don't need to pay. They have to spend 2% or more on their military, making the Baltic states model members. I think Trump meant a payment to the US, but I'm not sure. The worker who wasn't paid wouldn't have been able to get his friends to help him much, because Trump would have more money than the rest of them combined. I said I was going to explain the statement "But is that necessarily a good thing, when being influenced by someone like himself?". I meant he has said and done terrible things to other people (which will be covered next). I don't think Trump would care for the American people, seeing as he has an extravagantly furnished private jet (the photo didn't work, so just search for images of the plane's interior). I know that it's fine to use one's wealth to make yourself comfortable, but I don't like flaunting of wealth (like marble basins on a PLANE when porcelain would suffice). Trump has also said and condoned terrible things about women. There's the infamous 'grab them by the p*ssy' statement. He's allegedly walked in on Miss Teen USA contestants while they were changing. He's said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter, he'd be dating her. He's even allowed someone to call Ivanka 'a piece of a**'. These actions and words are grossly outdated, and objectify women. (profanity) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au... Trump has also mocked the disabled, which I, as a sufferer of muscular dystrophy (which confines me to a wheelchair), find somewhat offensive, to put it mildly. A president should be a good example to his people, which Donald J. Trump is definitely not.
Donald Trump would be a bad president

Thank You for your concluding statements and now I will present mine. Here are some observations that voters should consider in their evaluation. 1.) My opponent challenges my language of illegal immigrants even though it's legal by defenition. 2.) My opponent uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia. 3.) My opponent concedes that walls can be effective if they are designed correctly 4.) My opponent concedes that Trump will be good for Veterans 5.) My opponent uses a source that cites circumstantial evidence 6.) My opponent concedes that gun control is unreliable and ineffective 7.) My opponent concedes my argument about the 2nd Amendment allowing militias which are effective. 8.) My opponent uses apples to oranges comparisons and still cannot defend his argument 9.) My opponent concedes that the United States is not being respected right now 10.) My opponent concedes my argument about NATO and the countries paying their fair share. 11.) My opponent concedes that quantity can beat quality 12.) My opponent concedes that America is not prioritizing its military by giving other nations brand new planes while ours are old. 13.) My opponent creates an argument that Trump shouldn't furnish his plane even though its his money. 14.) My opponent concedes that there is ZERO evidence that Trump committed sexual assault. 15.) My opponent concedes that athletes would obviously say it doesn't happen in the locker room. 16.) My opponent concedes that Trump wasn't imitating a disabled person. 17.) My opponent concedes my argument about sanctuary cities 18.) My opponent concedes that Mexico CAN pay for the wall 19.) My opponent concedes that the American military is smaller than nuclear capable countries combined. 20.) My opponent concedes that Trump is funding his campaign and not being influenced, and therefore will not be influenced by special interests and lobbyists in D.C. Voters please take these observations into consideration. Thank You for reading and I hope you have a nice day. Con, thank you for this wonderful debate, and I hope I have changed your mind about Mr. Trump. I can understand where you get your argument from--the mainstream media--but here I am to expose those lies. Once again, thank you and good luck in future debates!
Donald Trump would be a bad president

I'd like to end this debate on a positive note, so I will be writing a little on how America is already great. America is still the largest economy on the planet. It's a hub of science and innovation, with more Nobel prizes than any other country. As the first modern democracy, the US is still the envy of many countries in the world. Immigrants come not to China or Russia, but to America, a country traditionally tolerant. While far from perfect, America is truly a great nation. In 6th grade, I went on holiday to New York, arguably the greatest city in the world. While there, I noticed that New York is a vibrant melting pot of cultures. After my holiday ended, I realised that perhaps New York is great partly as a result of being a tolerant, vibrant melting pot. The same applies to America. I await your conclusion, so good luck and thank you for this fascinating debate.
Donald Trump would be a bad president

I hope this argument is in time. Otherwise, have fun, and don't worry about the debate. Thank You for the correct link. The link shows that the fleet strength of China compared to the U.S. alone is more. North Korea, China, Russia, along with India have a much greater military with those terms. Aircraft carriers are important as I've stated earlier. But our current methods of patrolling are spreading them out too more. A reduction of a carrier or two could destroy our patrolling power. The first quote isn't evidence at all. I can say "I might kill you." Does that indicate that I've killed someone before? I highly doubt it. The second quote says "try." What does that mean? If he actually did do what he said, then why would he say "try?" In short the quotes are very vague and cannot be interpreted as evidence that he has committed sexual assault. There is no proof that he has. "Locker-room talk," or "guy talk." It's pretty obvious that athletes would say it doesn't happen. If it did, they would be in trouble too! Mr. Trump has more women at executive positions than men.[1] That clearly shows he has respect for women. I agree with you that it wasn't a good thing. He apologized to his wife and the American people. He's being held to a much higher standard. He was a private citizen at that time. It's not fair to bring that up. Nevertheless, I agree that it was bad, but what more can you ask from him? Mr. Trump has done the same actions to Ted Cruz and a 4-Star General because they were lying as well. Please watch the video.[2]He wasn't imitating a disabled reporter. It was another hit-job my the main-stream media. I hope that cleans that up. I agree, you can judge a person from private positions. However, it's not fair for him to be given the same standard as a politician, as he was a private citizen like you and me at that time. I will place my final thoughts and observations in the final round. Good Luck, and thank you for this wonderful debate! [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.wnd.com...
The War On Terror is justifiable and effective.

The War On Terror involves the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism (specifically in reference to the United States' operations) in response to the 9/11 attacks. To argue that it is justifiable, one must prove that it is possible to find reasonable and adequate ground for the overall operation of the War. To argue that it is effective, one must prove that the overall operation of the War has been successful in either destroying or severely curbing the threat Islamic terrorism poses to the Western world. The onus of proof is on he or she who believes the War is justifiable and effective, as the burden must always be placed on advocacy for action, rather than inaction, and must also be placed on the evidence of such an action's result. Thus, if my opponent can produce no reasonable justification or evidence of effectiveness of the War, or if they can produce such justification and evidence that I competently refute, then I should emerge as the victor of the debate. My intention is to argue that the War On Terror is neither justifiable nor effective. My position is a fairly obvious one; unless in extreme circumstances (i.e. under arbitrary provocation or attack from a hostile power with no reasonable alternative), war is never justifiable. My view is that the War was not conceived under extreme circumstances; rather, its sole justification was the premise of retribution. Retribution is not sufficient justification; the seemingly most powerful western democracy in the world and its allies should hold itself to higher standards than those who seek to thwart them. I also intend to prove that the War is neither the most effective tool in curbing Islamic terrorism's threat, nor effective in any sense. Not only have the War's subsequent policy shifts and occupations often fueled the insurgency they sought to quell, they have more often than not been misdirected at both the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and those who are viewed as the "real threat." Furthermore, my view is that such policies and occupations have pushed the United States and its western allies closer to the standards of the enemies it seeks to combat, and thus closer to losing all it is worth protecting. He or she who takes up the challenge of this debate receives a heavy task; not only is the burden of proof placed upon them, they are charged with the task of defending some of the most unpopular occupations and deprivations of traditional liberties in the history of democracy. Nevertheless, it is my sincere hope that he or she who does take up such a challenge may conduct themselves in a manner befitting of this debate, and avoid the traditional slurs of "liberal," and "sympathizer," that all too often invalidate their argument before they utter a single word further.