BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
George Juergens ("Secret Life of an American Teenager") was a douchebag

I had an entire argument planned out, however due to the various groups/people that Pro has compared the fictional character, George Juergens to, I thought I would focus on that. 1. "Klan member"s personality"To even compare a fictional character to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is absolutely absurd. The KKK is classified as a hate group who has done unspeakable things in the history of the United States. I find it appalling to even try and compare a character in a show, to having a Klan like personality. 2. HitlerAdolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Part, and played a pivotal part in the Holocaust, when approximately 11 million people were killed. I could go on about the horrible actions that Hitler carried out, but I am sure you are all aware Again; I find it appalling and absurd to compare a fictional character to a person who brought so much terror into the world. Kathleen Bowman cheated on George in their marriage, which also happened to be George"s first marriage. He was truly in love with Kathleen, so it is understandable that this was a very traumatic experience for him. His next marriage to Annette Scott, previously Anne Juergens also failed. Why? Because she eventually admits that she is gay. So to say that George has "destroyed every marriage he was in" is not actually factual. Though he has a hard time showing it, he truly cares about his family. I would like to end my argument with a quote from George that truly captures his tolerance for others. "People want to believe that gays are born gay, but to me that implies there"s a reason people are gay and to me that implies that there needs to be a reason I don't like people blaming being gay on genetics or anything else because no blame needs to be assigned. People are gay or they're not and it doesn't matter where that comes from... No one has found a gay gene and I question why we're even looking for one."I think that everyone can agree that neither a member of the Klan or Hitler would ever say such a thing. I would like to add that Pro posted a link to a website, when instead he should have written out his arguments.
Judaism needs Christianity to stand up under the Historical method

O K Mr. Hot Shot, Your on. Torah teaches spirituality not history. Xtianity which limits the gods to 3 physical dimensions requires a historical physical Jesus son of Zeus. For this Jesus son of Zeus to exist only as a myth personal belief system Xtianity as as religion ceases to exist. Idolatry requires a 3 dimensional idol. The son of Zeus requires a physical body, The church has nothing but some outline on a sheet which if refuses to carbon date. The 2nd cumming of this none sensical myth requires that a person personally believe. This god requires that a person believe in order for it to even exist. The same holds truth with both Zeus and Allah. All one in all childish belief systems which fools murder rape and steal to believe.
Is communism a good idealogy for a society.

My opponents opening argument demonstrates a clear misunderstanding as to what communism is- communism is a political and economic system in which all property is owned by the state, the state controls the means of production, and individuals are prohibited from buying and selling freely. So, enable for my opponent to prove what he claimed in Round 1, he must prove that the Government taking control of the education system would make it better, that by the State usurping the health care system, it would make health care system more efficient and capable of accommodating more people, and that removing the profit incentive for picking a career would be a good thing. On the contrary, it has been suffiuciently demonstrated by the operation of Military Hospitals and the failure of Obamacare that a Government ran health care system is less efficient and is capable of accomidating less people than a free market healthcare system.
Is communism a good idealogy for a society.

( Sorry for bad grammar )Communist would be a good idealogy if followed correctly. If the governement would not take the money that come from the communist system ( Erm erm Stalin Erm Erm ), communist could make a third world country the world power. Why ?1. The money recolted by communist can easily be used to upgrade ministers ( Any ), for exemple, lets take Cuba, which we remember is far from being communist, have some of the bests doctors the word have. Before Fidel Castro came in power, must cuba was illiterate but now have a proper education.2. All person in the country could easily have healt care, which is something we do not see in, for exemple, capitalist societies with a bunch of sick homeless in the streets.3. People in the jobs will be real passionate and not only some that come for high income.The peoples live would also highly upgrade with the 1st point, without having people work in bad conditions without complaining to not be fired, no longer have thousands of people in the street dying, starvation and ect ... would only happen by the people fault of spending their's money on bad places ( Drugs, alcohol ect ... ) and not them not having a accurate education/not finding any job.Note : North korea IS NOT communist, Cuba and the URSS was not ' totally ' communist.
No such thing as a need

If we talk about need in humans, then life is the basic essential of that. While an average human lives approximately 75 years, in those 75 years humans have basic needs. Now if you want to discuss the universe without life in it, there are needs required by the solar system in order to function. The sun which provides life on our planet is essentially a big gas ball, once the gas is all burned up the sun will explode, so you can argue that the sun has a need for hydrogen in order to sustain it's life. Planets need orbital gravity in order to stay in the solar system, otherwise they would collide or drift off into space. Everything NEEDS something to sustain it. Without needs there would be nothing. And if you want to discuss human death, funeral parlors need death to stay in business. So there are needs for everything in life, death, universe.
No such thing as a need

The body wants to live, but even that is a strong desire, everything on the planet could die, the world would just be a barren rock from then on. The body has the possibility to have the same reactions to things unnecessary to survival, like in the case of a bad drug addiction, water boarding, or anxiety. Because you see, I would argue that anything considered a need simply comes from a strong desire to live. Death comes to everyone anyway eventually, in a way food, water, and shelter in a way simply postpone it.
No such thing as a need

Basic human survival showcases the need to survive, in every aspect of life itself all organisms since the dawn of time have followed the basic code of survival. Species of all kind will become aggressive when in danger or attacked, this stems from the fact that it's all about survival. Take a human being and try to drown and hold them under water, their basic instinct will kick in and they will fight to not drown, they will struggle for a breath of air. It's a basic instinct in humans as well as other organisms. The need to fight and survive includes the fact that humans as well as any other species need to eat to survive as well as drink, these needs come from our body, you start not feeling well if you don't eat for a long time, you start feeling dizzy if you do not consume water, these basic traits show that the human body needs things in order to live. Living is what humans were born and evolved to. Live and procreate and reproduce, it's the basic law of life. So there are basic needs for life. Without needs there would be no life
RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

I'll go ahead and sum up my stance for the convenience of the voters. == It goes 1 of 2 ways== The Con proposes a util world, which means having the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and not supporting humans over all life. This means that to vote for the Con, one would have to endorse one of 2 worlds. 1) Humans are valued as equal with other life and pollution and expansion is stopped. The human growth rate is 0% from now on, but the current human population stays. Due to the Con's evidence in Round 1, the world loses all life viability and life on Earth is ruined. No util, so game over. The reason I keep extending this scenario is to stress that it's not possible that the Con's approach (humans are valued as equal with all life) satisfies the values of both sides. The only other scenario for the Con is 2) humans sacrifice their lives for the other lives of the planet. Each successive death will feed dozens of bacteria and allow for habitat of hundreds of more organisms. It's a great deal, lots of bang for the buck, the con's value would be all over it. == Chocolate instead of vanilla== Enter the Pro's value as an alternative. The slow death of humanity will deprive the Earth of beauty, which is what makes life really matter. Art and creation and ambition are what make live wonderful. We're going to need humans to do that, to imbue the Earth with philosophy and poetry. Having as many lives as possible on Earth is ideal only if those lives are exciting and amazing. Beautiful lives are much more important than the mere existence of lives. == Why you can do both== And, the Pro's stance (humans should be valued over all life) fills both utilitarianism and beauty. Humans will someday colonize the moon and other planets, bring life to the infinite space. (1) Humans will make an exponentially higher amount of life in the universe, while also spreading their technological wisdom throughout. So, by voting for the Pro, you can support a world where both utilitarianism and beauty are produced. Both the values in this round are affirmed with a Pro vote. == Back up== And once again, if you buy the Con arguments that the Earth should go on human-less, then you should note that all of the values we've been talking about, only you and I value them. Animals don't value things like util, let alone understand what those words mean. Animals value survival. So the Con's value is unsustainable; only the Pro's value is supportable in the long-term. (1) . http://ssi.org...
RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

The purpose of this debate was to be LD because I was preparing for and LD tournament. That being said: The affirmative provides no attack towards the negative contentions thus extending them throughout the round. Furthermore the affirmative provides no criterion by which to measure his value of beauty. A value without a criterion falls because it cannot be measured. Furthermore, the affirmative basically argues that we will meet our end anyway, and therefore should not value other forms of life above humans. The negative argues that by recognizing the value of other organisms, humanity and other forms of life can survive and that is utilitarian. The negative, thus successfully proves why the affirmative attack is factually incorrect and therefore ought to win the round. Proceeding to the affirmative attack on the negative value. Utilitarianism is the supreme value in this round because the debate deals with the good of all forms of life. In response to the dog biscuit question, yes, it is good to give impoverished people dog biscuits because they have nothing better. They are being helped from their current state. I urge you to negate.
Sgt. Pepper is the most influential album in the history of popular music.

With that out of the way, I have four main contentions: 1. The White Album was a better album than Sgt. Pepper. It sold more, and according to wikipedia, "The Beatles is often hailed as one of the major accomplishments in popular music. " It featured some of the greatest Beatles' songs of all time, like Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da, Blackbird, Back in the USSR, While my Guitar Gently Weeps, and Helter Skelter. 2. Michael Jackson's Thriller sold more than any other album besides a greatest hits album. It sold approximatley 72 million more albums than Sgt. Pepper. This album influenced the current rap genre, which is the most popular genre of music today. And may I add, the folk-rock style employed by the beatles is dead now. 3. Various rock and rap albums make people, especially kids, have certain views or emotions. As a speaker named Dr. Mykee once said, "Rap music is all the same- I'm gonna shoot you, then sell drugs to you, then have sex with you. .. then shoot you again. " Indeed, Rap and rock have had a significant impact on youth. It promotes various stereotypes and many parents worry when their kids listen to this type of music. 4. The burden of proof belongs to my opponent. He must prove to you that, in fact, Sgt. Pepper was not only influential, but more so than any other album in the HISTORY of music. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Trump is a bad president

"He needs only be better than 22 others or no "worse" than 22 others. I may further refine that measure by using a "bell curve" to say he may only need be better than the 10 "worst". "I would have liked you to state who was the 10 worst from your perspective but you didn't so I am left to assume. I can't really know what you are thinking so I will now compare Trump to Obama because of your failure to state your side sufficiently. I will argue for why Obama is better than Trump. Employment rateObama started his presidency in January 20 2009 and left office in January 2017. Looking at the first source I have provided Obama when took office was the one who started the downwards trend of unemployment. If Trump had some significant impact of reducing unemployment then Con will be able to point to a law and the time frame when this law took place. Obama started off at a 10% unemployment rate which he reduced it by 2% when he was first elected. When he was elected again Obama was able to reduce the unemployment from 8% to around about 5%. These numbers are more impressive than Trump even. Currently Trump has reduced the unemployment rate by 1% which does not look like to be reduced by 2 which means Trump if I am correct would not have done better than Obama's first election cycle in office. HonestyGoing by the third and fourth sources Trump has stated more mostly false, False and pants on fire statements compared to Obama. Even though Politifact was keeping data on Obama even before he was elected in 2009 somehow Trump manages to mislead the public more than Obama. This shows Trump is not capable of verifying what he is saying instead does not think before he says something. 24% of Obama's statements were mostly false, False or pants on fire whereas 69% of Trump's statements were mostly false, False or pants on fire and it is not even the end of his presidency while also taking into account Obama has been tracked by politifact for a much longer period. I will leave it at that. I don't think I can be blamed with the approach I have taken in this debate because Con did not clearly state what he wanted. What I would have liked Con to do is tell me if we are comparing Trump to the 10 worst presidents while also telling me them or define bad so that I can know where this debate was headed. Source 1: https://tradingeconomics. Com/united-states/unemployment-rateSource 2: https://www. Politifact. Com/personalities/barack-obama/Source 3: https://www. Politifact. Com/personalities/donald-trump/
Trump is a bad president

I am arguing that Trump is not a "bad" President, By defining that as he is the 45th President, He merely has to be "better than average". That is to say, He needs only be better than 22 others or no "worse" than 22 others. I may further refine that measure by using a "bell curve" to say he may only need be better than the 10 "worst". I will also be using certain "benchmark measures" from reliable sources such as employment vs unemployment, Real weekly earnings and home ownership. Con will attempt to use empirical measures where possible, And avoid to the greatest extent to avoid opinion. Con awaits the next move from Pro.
Animals should be freed from zoos

First we need to establish in our understanding of what exactly a zoo is. But first let us start with what a zoo was. A zoo was a place where animals were showcased for people's entertainment and amusement. Conditions were appalling. Understanding was limited and lets not get started on the rights of animals.... but that was then. Now zoos are for conservation and protection for the rights of animals. Many zoos and zoological societies petition against governments who don't protect and enforce protection legislation over animals.Before animal rights and laws regarding zoo conditions, zoos actively sought out animals to showcase. There was no understanding or appreciation of animals. Zoos were never a prison. Living conditions and social conditions weren't taken into account. The animals weren't necessarily put in zoos because they did something wrong. Zoos were more so and (I will accepts, still are) circuses and fairgrounds. There is still that elements of attraction but we don't actively seek out animals to put in zoos for entertainment. We do it for their safety. The fun aspect of zoos is there purely as a bonus not as a matter of priority.My argument may be seen as contradicting the Darwinian perspective - survival of the fittest. But I say to this - who says that our intervention is a negative force. Our interventions supports the evolutionary journey so beings have no need to die out.Many zoos also protect endangered animals. In fact many animals would have become extinct by now. You may decide to contradict this by saying that more species are killed than saved but without zoos then that as I said previously that statistic would be higher without zoos.The modern zoo is a progressive force for the betterment of all animals.All good zoos try to recreate an animals natural habitat. Animals will get the care that they need and the animals may not be aware of this but generally there quality of life will be improved and there food supply will also be generally higher. Animals are not being taken to zoos for no reason. They are taken there either because they are injured or are not fit to be out in the wild; because they are being hunted in the area that they are living in or they are on the verge of extinction. Would you rather die or have your family taken away from you (possibly temporarily)? You would also know that your family is safe and that you will be to.They will be given the right amount of food and the right medication to bring them back up to strength. If they are ready to return to the wild then they are allowed to - unless they are endangered, this is because zoos are trying to keep their species alive. As well as this it is also important to consider the consequences of sending animals back to the wild. If an animal is born and raised in a zoo then it is not used to hunting out in the wild. Do you think an adult lion that has been raised in a zoo since birth will know how to hunt and survive in the wild? The answer is simply, no. I look forward to reading my opponents main arguments and rebuttals.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...
Animals should be freed from zoos

I have done this debate twice now but my opponent has either forfeited or provided a very weak argument each time. This time I am making it so that only a debater ranked better than me (in terms of elo and win ratio). This will ensure that I can debate this topic properly. As Con I will be arguing that animals should be kept in zoos. Therefore, Pro will be arguing that animals should be freed from zoos and returned to their natural habitat. The debate structure is as follows, Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main points and justifications (no rebuttals)Round 3: Conclusion and rebuttalsDefinitions: Animals: a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.Freed: release.Zoo: an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, used to protect animals in need of protection.Rules No trollingNo forfeitureSwearing or use of inapproriate language is no allowedFailure to abide by the rules results in an automatic win for the opposing side. Sources https://www.google.co.uk...https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk...
number 8 is better than number 6

I believe that I have achieved my argument, namely to show that there are situations in which 8 is Not better than six. A quote from my opponent: "I can also go into mathematics but I feel that math equations and formulas don't make numbers superior to each other, since every number has significance in mathematics. All digits work together. If a digit became extinct then all of the other digits wouldn't be able to work properly. " My opponent proposes here that there is No superiority among numbers relative to mathematics. He himself is stating that there is a circumstance in which 8 is Not better. Thank you again for the debate.
number 8 is better than number 6

Another main argument. 8 in science. -Element 8 (oxygen) We would not be taking apart in this debate if WE didn't have element 8 (oxygen) for us to breathe. Us humans can generally only survive two minutes without oxygen. Basically we rely on element 8 every day. Sub arguments. Lets take a look at the number 6 in religion. -666 is the mark of the beast. It represents the impurities of man and their evildoing's and sinful ways. It invokes Satan and it's all around a bad number in religion. I can also go into mathematics but I feel that math equations and formulas don't make numbers superior to each other, since every number has significance in mathematics. All digits work together. If a digit became extinct then all of the other digits wouldn't be able to work properly. "6 is related to the Mersenne prime 3, since 21(22 - 1) = 6. (The next perfect number is 28.)" -If the number 8 was not existing, then this statement wouldn't be true. Proving that all digits work together in mathematics But I will go there in this aspect. -Take the number 8 and flip it onto its side. What symbol do you get? the symbol is infinity. 8 has infinite possibilities and that is what I have shown. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.webelements.com... http://factsfactory.blogspot.com...