BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Wars (for) v. Star Trek (against)

Star Wars is obviously better because it has more variety. It has The Clone Wars, and just normal Star Wars. Star Wars has so much more back ground and order. Like if one writer writes one thing, everyone who writes Star Wars has to go off that and check it to make sure it is correct. They can't change the history of it. It all has to be in check and in the right sequence. And no, Star Treck does not have better graphics, just watch one episode of each and you'll easily see what I mean. Star Wars is newer than Star Treck also. I know most people think the older is better, in lots of cases me too, but our generations need new things to watch. At some point you'll reach the end of Star Treck, or get board with it. So what do you think? Star Treck, or Star Wars?
In the US, pennies should be abolished.

I. Pennies are used to control inflationI don't think the OP understands why we have pennies. It's not to control prices, per say. It is to control inflation rates. Let me explain. Pennies have low value, being only .01$, which means we can pump however many out we need to control inflation to the number. It is the most precise way to control inflations rates.If you control inflation rates, you control prices. If you control prices, you control how much consumption and investment goes through the economy. With that said, it is 100% neccesary to have pennies for monetary control of the economy.II. Forex Trade will CrashThe Opposition needs to take into consideration the volatity of FX trade. Currecy exchanges are very profitable to the US. Here are two reasons why removing the penny would crash USD exchange over FX.1. We can not control the USD to ensure ultimate deals by trading USD over Forex.2. Foreign traders will be forced to round to .05$, decreasing the amount the USD gets bought and sold.III. NASDAQ and the Stock Exchange will be hurt NASDAQ is the national stock exchange of America. The opposition has not thought this out. Most stocks are rounded to the penny. For example. Green Energy Co. sells stock for .13$, or the stock of Speedwat right now is 18.14$. The problem with abolishing the penny, is that all stock purchases need to be rounded up to the nearest .05$, which for investors who purchase 1000's of shares monthly, this will completely hinder their investments.That .01$ adds up, and with the stock market up 140%, this would be the worst possible time for the US to remove the penny.
In the US, pennies should be abolished.

http://www.usmint.gov... Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.
In the US, pennies should be abolished.

I. Forex/Stock ExchangeMy opponent still does not get it. Rounding up to the nearest 5 cents adds up. Lets say a investor buys 500,000 stocks worth 7.13$, and we decide to remove the penny. If the nickel is rounded up .02$, then the investor loses 100'000's of dollars. Likewise, if we decide to round the penny down, then the seller or company likewise loses 100'000's in equity.II. Inflation ControlYou can control inflation with any kind of currency. The difference between controlling it with a nickel and controlling it with a penny is vast though. Using a penny can round down a inflation percentage to the nearest 0.1. This can help the economy and the world market tremendously.You might as well just kill the banking industry if you're going to round to a nickel, not to mention the federal reserve will crash, and with it, billions of corporates. III. Just make the penny cheaper My opponent has not considered simply removing more silver, zinc, or copper from the penny. Instead of removing it and costing the nation about 100 billion dollars, we could just lower the materials we put in the penny as they leave the US mint. Actually, we do every few years. The penny gets cheaper and cheaper overtime, and the reason the mint is keeping it 2.00$ now, is because we have a inflating economy.Soon the value of the penny and its cost will equal each other. Come on people. Let's not pull a Canada here.
In the US, pennies should be abolished.

1. Forex Trade/Stock Exchange will not crash. The cost is not only rounded down/up, but a combination of both, depending on how close the cost is to the nearest 5-cent increment, which could actually cause a boom in forex/stock. 2. Nickels can also control inflation with lest cost to the government/mint. Pennies cost 2.4 cents to make, and are worth 1 cent.
In the US, pennies should be abolished.

I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions
Cones should be left on statues' heads.

Pro gave three basic points in his reply. The first point was that parents " will say 'Oh, the pornography of it all!' and remove the cone altogether and put it on a road or something." This rather vague point fails to take into account that what is basically only the implication of a phallus cannot possibly compare (in terms of the objections of people to 'the pornography of it all') to those statues which portray actual nudity and yet even those, for millennia, have not only been tolerated, but celebrated. Therefore, the belief that a parent would object to a traffic cone on the crotch of a statue, but not the countless famous statues which were alluded to in my last point (such as the Venus de Milo or the Thinker) that show actual nude figures and in some widely celebrated statues (such as Mannekin Pis of Brussels) the depictions are of more than 'simple' nudity. The second point is that "some stupid kid...will walk into it and poke his eye out." Now, this point is almost beyond my reach, as there is so much wrong with it that I find myself unable to pinpoint the fundamental issues. The point suggests that a horizontal traffic cone represents a danger to people's safety and while this might've been arguable, the example used is frankly irrelevant. Firstly, there is little that would cause a child to come into contact with these traffic cones which would be halfway up a statue (which are sometimes actually on raised plinths and are usually - in any case - separated from the crowds of people) very obvious and sometimes very difficult to reach. Secondly, a traffic cone is not actually sharp or thin enough to take an eye out, generally. Therefore, unless the child in question is as tall as a Cyclops and has an eye the size of a Cyclops too, the cones cannot actually harm them at all. The third point had my opponent state the expense of removing cones and pull a "RECEIPT" from nowhere, stating no sources for the receipt or any proof. The initial point about "100 being the expense of removing a cone is, according to the very source that Pro gave, simply a claim from the council. Even if we accept this as the realistic cost of removing the cones, which it isn't, the proposed plan is to simply reattach the cones. I believe I have addressed all of Pro's main points, however, I would also like to request that Pro provides proof for the validity of the receipt mentioned. I need hardly remind that, as both Pro and Instigator, you do have burden of proof.
Cones should be left on statues' heads.

My opponent thinks that we should leave the cones on the p*n*s of a statue, but I think he is wrong. My opponent says that doing this will educate children on sex and stuff, but he is not correct. Some parent will say "Oh, the pornography of it all!" and remove the cone altogether and put it on a road or something. Also, some stupid kid (what I mean by this word is the slang for 'child', not the normal definition that normal people use which means a baby goat) will walk into it and poke his eye out. That's why I don't go outside anymore. Also, we shouldn't put the cones on the p**** because that would mean removing it and then reattaching it on the statues' *****, and removing a cone from a statue costs lots of money [1]. According to the guardian, according to the council, it costs "100 to remove a single cone, and it's easy to figure out where that money goes. RECEIPT -- REMOVING A CONE Labour to remove the cone - "0.23 Lunch break - "15.00 Extra money to the council - "84.77 So you see, we really don't want to unnecessarily waste money, especially when it's going to the council. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.theguardian.com...
Cones should be left on statues' heads.

http://www.bbc.co.uk... This debate is about whether cones placed on statues should be left there, or taken away. "Mummy, mummy! Look at that cone on the statues' head that hasn't been removed as of yet!" says a boy who doesn't live near said statue. "Let's go to see the statue!" he continues, with as much enthusiasm as ever. "Alright," says Mum "We can go, but it's coming out of your "5". So boy and Mum go on a 12-hour flight, see the statue and go home. What the cone has terrifically done here is increase tourism and give the people who rent out the aeroplane seats a bit of extra pocket money. "bwahahaahahaha!" boomed your typical teenage muppet, who had woken up five minutes ago and had already churned out that sentence thirteen times because he laughs at pretty much everything. "Donald, Darnel, come on! Let's see what the name of this loser is who only gone and got a cone on 'is 'ead!" and so Bert, Donald, and Darnel found out who that statue was of, liked his name and spent the rest of the day researching that person in books they borrowed from the library and will give back before the due date. However, what if he didn't have a cone on his head? "Hi guys" said your typical teenager. Him and his friends walked past a statue. It looks like cones bring educational, financial and touristic value. Thank you.
Utilitarianism is Good

1. As the definition of utilitarianism (I'll now refurr to it as UTM) the needs of the majority outway the needs of the minority which means if 5 people are raping one single person that means the sexual needs of these 5 out way the resistance of the 1.2. My opponet just goes on to say slavery is no longer an issue whhich makes my arguement irrelivent but that is irrelivent, because my point I've made is that slavery has had a big impact on American History and the World's. So my opponet just seems to conceede my arguement.3. But as you see the Muslums hate Israel and the Jews, even the Iranian constitution states that it must destroy the big satan the U.S. and the Little Satan Israel. When you have something this powerful and you conect UTM to it then boom you get the second hollicost and WW3. Even Muslums are teaching their children to hate Jews with TV shows. http://www.youtube.com..., http://www.youtube.com..., http://www.youtube.com..., and http://www.youtube.com...'t be shy and take a look at some of the vidoes.4. Lets take another history lession, back in the 1900s in Germany. Hitler commited the hollicost. By killing millions of Jews and it's been prooven that Christianity is the world's largest relgion, then it's Islam.
Utilitarianism is Good

I accept your definition of utilitarianism, first I would like to point out in that definition the term "greatest pleasure" suggests there exists varying degrees of pleasure/happiness or pain/unhappiness, and that the objective of utilitarianism is to balance these varying degrees of pain and pleasure with the greatest number of people. So for example 5 people raping a single person while provides pleasure for the majority of people, does not fit with the goals of utilitarianism for the momentary sexual pleasure of 5 individuals does not outweigh a lifetime of psychological scarring and trauma inflicted upon the victim. This is on top of the fact that most people would not want to live in a society that advocates gang rape to begin with, thus such an environment would cause ultimately cause greater unhappiness. Moving on to your points, slavery is no longer condoned in modern society, majority of people do not support it. Such an environment in this modern setting creates the high possibility of uprising due to unrest as well as the diminished productivity of forced labor, and the pain caused a lifetime of slavery the denial of freedom and basic rights outweighs the pleasure of convenience for the slave owners. In the middle east murder causes great pain and unhappiness not only to the victim but his friends and families, vengeance seeking will undoubtedly further add to this. Also advocating another holocaust by killing Jews in the middle east may prompt predominately Jewish societies like Israel backed by the United States into war, war has always resulted in the greatest spread of pain and unhappiness not only due to the scale of violence but also the economic consequences, as wars are incredibly expensive, the resources of all participants are diverted to inflicting pain rather than used for creating happiness. Thus such practices serve contrary to utilitarian goals.
Utilitarianism is Good

I'll first define Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism- a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Which means the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. Lets take a trip back in history to the U.S. in the 1800's the Europeans where the majority while the minority where the African Americans, the Africans where enslaved because people were trying to satisfy the needs of the south and adventualy we waged war do to the topic of slavery. Now that we're done with our trip in history lets look at the Middle East. There are more Muslums then Jews in the Middle East and they could use the topic of Utilitarianism to murder people they don't like.
Utilitarianism is Good

Hello, first timer here I'm not quite sure how to start so I hope I'm doing it right, I'm used to informal debates but the whole structure thing is kinda new to me... I guess first round should be for acceptance, opening statements and perhaps some tips for the newbie :P Then just exchange arguments from there until the conclusion. I must confess I'm not big on research which is why I selected a topic that I thought would be more intellectual sparring and less scouring the Internet for evidence, but if the discussion ends up with requiring proof as logic alone is insufficient I am not adverse doing research as necessary. I guess I'll begin by telling a little about my views then move on to cement my position as best as I can. So I guess that ends introductions, to begin... I consider myself to be both amoral and utilitarian, although I must admit that I do have some negative knee jerk responses towards certain actions that I have grown to perceive as distasteful such as the act of torture, so perhaps I'm not as amoral as I should be, I still however believe in it logically and that torture can be justified. So I consider myself amoral because I do not logically see why any action is intrinsically good or bad, it is the resulting effect that I feel is relevant. Which in turn has led me down the path of utilitarianism. In my view utilitarianism is a practical efficient approach to maximizing happiness which is ultimately the end goal for most if not all people. Every person may have different sets of desires but ultimately happiness is the end goal, since the reason people want to fulfill desires is to achieve happiness. Thus because happiness the common goal of people it makes sense that aiming to maximize happiness would be ideal to any society. I'm open for anyone to challenge my views and hope that we have an enjoyable debate. :)
Utilitarianism is Good

UTM- a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number My opponent apparently didn't read the bolded portion of the definition. 5/1 is a greater balance of pleasure over pain vs. 1/5 I know rape is morally wrong so I'll stop that train before it leaves the station. But the 5 people having pleasure vs. the 1 person having pain, so if I do my math right 5 is a better statistic than 20%. Then he goes on to criticize me when I know my stuff.I did indeed make a point that slavery today is no longer condoned by society, however I also pointed out that a person denied his freedom and rights is simply too much pain to justify the mere convenience of his owner, a point which again my opponent has ignored. Furthermore my opponent goes on to point out that slavery had significant negative effects throughout American history which actually supports my cause that slavery is not a utilitarian ideal, because utilitarianism seeks happiness and not the unhappiness caused by the war my opponent claims resulted from slavery.My opponent is lying through his teeth if he's telling you that slavery is no longer an issue, I see all the time on crime stoppers about sex slaves http://abcnews.go.com..., even on criagslist their are sex slaves. Then in Africa slavery is still an issue, except this time it's not Europeans in Africa it's Africans doing this themselves. http://www.massnews.com....If it were true that killing Jews made Christians happy then why did America, a predominantly Christian nation, fight Nazi Germany and rescue Jews?False, Hitler hated Christianity because Jesus was a Jew, so he made his own religion. http://nephiliman.com...While extremist factions do exist, a majority of people are moderates. Evidence of this is that if extremists were the majority the world would be a less tolerant place for homosexuals whom are reviled by both major Christian [1] and Islamic [2] faiths, and yet the world has become more tolerant of homosexuality today than it has been in the past.[3]Yet again this is false most of the people in Kansas are highly Conservative, we've voted Republican for every election except 2 and most of all I believe homosexuality is wrong, so yet again you're barking up the wrong tree as the squirrel gets away.My opponent’s sources.1st off I'd like to say wikapeadi isn't a creditable source; even I'm a person that changes things on there. Sorry my school computer won't let me see your 3rd source. Conclusion.I have rebutted all of my opponent’s arguments and more. He goes on to criticize me. All of my points have been defended, so therefore I believe this debate is in the bag, but that isn't my job it's the voters. So long and good night from Kansas.
Snuggies are a waste of money

Hey, sorry about forfeiting, but my Internet was out all day, so because of the time limit, I was forfeited automatically. Anywho, back to the debate! The website you provided was the Snuggie I had in mind, sorry for not posting my own. For rebuttal, I would like to point out that when you buy a Snuggie online, you must pay $7 for shipping and handling, plus any applicable tax, so the final cost is more near $30. On Amazon.com [1], there is a luxurious robe for only $20, so around the same price as Snuggies. My opponent pointed out that one gets 2 Snuggies for $20, therefore making it a better deal. However, I point out that if the Snuggie company can sell one Snuggie for $10, and still make money, than they must make Snuggies very cheaply, with inferior fabric. The robe I found is made with micro fleece, which is better than ordinary fleece, because it is warmer and more breathable. Robes are superior to Snuggies because they come with pockets, which are really handy for putting your hands in, or keeping remotes or snacks in a very convenient place. Also, with Snuggies, no matter how you wear it, one side of you is always cold. You can wear it like the advertisements suggest, but then your back will be cold. Or you can wear it backwards, but then your front will be cold. With a robe, it comes with a stylish belt, so you can be warm all around. Or, if you like to wear a robe so that either your front or back IS not covered, than you can take the belt off. My opponent also mentioned that Snuggies are long, and keep you warm better. I own a Snuggie, and when I wear it, I am constantly tripping on the excess material. Also, the fabric gets dragged all over the floor, and therefore gets very dirty. I therefore conclude that robes are much better than Snuggies, because they can do everything Snuggies can, while having added features like pockets, belts, and better material, all while remaining at the same price. Sorry again for the accidental forfeit :P Landon [1] http://www.amazon.com...
Snuggies are a waste of money

Thanks for the challenge :] I am 19 and this is also my first debate, so we're both on the same level, regarding the level of experience upon this site. Now, I do not have a great deal of knowledge regarding snuggies(this is actually first time I've heard of them). So when you write "For this debate Snuggie will mean the official sleeved blanket produced by the Snuggie company.". Then I am slightly uncertain of what you specifically mean. But to make my argument right away, I will present what I will go after. :] http://buysnuggies.guyseye.com... ======================= My argument for snuggies not being a waste of money ======================= I do not think that snuggies are waste of money, this is because according to that link you can get 2 for only 20 bucks. So since I'm so great at math, I can figure out that 1 costs 10 bucks. That is quite cheap even for just a usual blanket of fine quality and size[1]. Some of the advantages of a snuggie compared to a normal blanket is though that you don't have to be worried if it slides off. You can sit and read using your arms and still have them covered, which I can't with a usual blanket. It's a lot longer than a robe, making it better at keeping you warm. And it's also cheaper than good robes[2]. ====================== Conclusion ====================== Snuggies are cheaper and have advantages that robes and blankets do not have. This do not however mean that it is not a waste of money. But if you claim it to be, it'll seem like you also have to claim that robes and blankets are waste of money. Which I do not think you do, since you recommended a robe backwards instead of a snuggie. Thanks again for this debate :] - William [1] http://www.argos.co.uk... [2] http://hubpages.com...
Snuggies are a waste of money

I am fifteen, and this is my first debate, so I thought I would start out with an unimportant one. For this debate Snuggie will mean the official sleeved blanket produced by the Snuggie company. I am arguing that Snuggies are a waste of money because they are just robes worn backward. Also, for their price, they are made out of cheap material. I argue that it would be much more practical to buy a robe and wear it backwards if you like the concept of wearing a a blanket with sleeves. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.