BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children complain about their age being judged, but then they use age restriction like a hypocrite.

Ah, that's much better. Being a teenager and wanting to have the freedom of an adult's and also needing the love and care desired by child is a common and a very popular dilemma all of us face or have faced. Personally, I believe that an individual's way of thinking or maturity should not be judged based on his or her age. Mental age and physical age are not the same. When people assume that a teenager/adolescent should not be taken seriously just due to the fact that they are under 18, it's very discouraging and insulting to that person and it is fairly logical that one may complain or well, voice their opinion regarding the issue. Now, as we all know the internet can be a very scary place for people who have never been subjected to a prior experience of those sites. Age restriction is vital when it comes to mass media, including the internet. There is a reason that this was implemented and the reason is that there is a lot of sensitive information on the web that can impact a person greatly, both minors and adults. Just because minors ask for fair recognition does not mean they need to be privy to all kinds of age-restricted information. I don't have a prior knowledge of kids using age-restriction as an excuse during debates here since I joined today. This is a general argument. PS: "Also, why does everyone on this site need me to paraphrase everything for them? Are you all colloquially illiterate or what?" I'm not sure if the problem resides in our literacy skills.
THBT the Arab Spring was a success.

I’m looking to get into more foreign policy as I do Model U. N. more, so this ought to be enjoyable. It is DDO Custom to have the first round be for acceptance, so I will begin arguing next round. Before anything else, let’s begin with the definition of success. Success: the accomplishment of an aim or purpose (standard Google definitions) And let’s also note the countries the Arab Spring has occurred in so we can be clear what we are talking about. The countries the Arab Spring (AS) involved was Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Without further adieu, let’s begin our discussion on the Arab Spring (AS). Over to Pro ____________________________________________________________________________________
THBT the Arab Spring was a success.

The Arab Spring was not a complete success, but it was more of a victory than a failure. The A.S. fought, in most cases successfully, against social, economic and political injustices. However, we will first define the Arab Spring as a series of demonstrations and civil unrests that began in December 2010 in Tunisia, before spreading to multiple countries. The A.S. arguably still continues to this day. To prove that the A.S. was a success, we will first focus on one countries' story, Egypt. On Jan 25 2011 Egyptian protesters took to the streets in defiance of the 4th President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, whose political rule was embodied in the interminable state of emergency law which supposedly justified Police brutality and the suppression and repression of Civil and Political liberties. Three weeks of public unrest later Mubarak stepped down as President of Egypt, caving in to the demands of the people; people who were calling for Democracy and the downfall of an Autocratic state. Similar events, with varying degrees of success, occurred across multitudes of countries around the Middle East. Showing that, in fact, the Arab Spring was a success.
Toronto Maple Leafs is the greatest NHL franchise

Hey this is gonna be a fair debate, no cheap shots, no pain. If you understood the dynamics of what makes a successful franchise not only in the pockets of the owners but in the hearts of the players then you would understand the reality behind the scenes. I grew up being raised by a father who was a massive fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The team has more fans then any other NHL franchise, number one in television views. The team has been through the longest Stanly Cup drought in the NHL thus far, 42 seasons since the last championship. You could say its hard for an NHL franchise to survive under the circumstances of continuous loss. The case to address is the continuous fan support and hope among veteran and minor league players. WIthout the passion behind such a franchise how could any other team become so dynamic in the sense of a few fans.
Toronto Maple Leafs is the greatest NHL franchise

I am in my last week of school and have a ton of stuff to do in preparation. "Among all of these teams the Montreal Candians have won the most championships, if your argument is to state the current greatest franchise is the team that wins the most, then the Pittsburgh Penguins have only won three championships since the establishment of the franchise in 1967. If you were to base the greatest franchise upon who has won the most then Montreal would be number one with a massive 25 championships. " ---Choosing one of those two franchises would be logical, and neither one of those are the Leafs. My opponent is correct that the Forbes article indicated that the Leafs had higher attendance than the Penguins, however after reviewing it the article is probably a bit outdated. For this past season, the Blackhawks easily beat out the Leafs in attendance figures. I could not find any statistics about the merchandise sales but my opponent said that "If Toronto were a winning team they would sell more merchandise, if they sold more then Pittsburgh then wouldn't it make them number one? ". Yes. If the Maple Leafs won, and sold the most, and had the best attendance, then yes they would be number one. But like he has conceded multiple times, they do not win, and they haven't won in over 4 decades. Until he provides a better source than mine for merchandise we can assume that the Leafs aren't in the top of the league in that category either. The Leafs may have fun support, but clearly it is not the best. [1] The bottom line in this debate is that the Maple Leafs have been terrible on the ice. They simply cannot be the greatest team in the NHL without having won a championship in over 40 years. If they had won even a couple, then it would be easy to argue based on their fan support that they could be the greatest team, but the lack of championships automatically omits them from any discussion. [1] . http://espn.go.com...
Toronto Maple Leafs is the greatest NHL franchise

Very good arguments from my opponent, to avoid bias opinions I must position facts among the reasons why the Maple Leafs are the greatest franchise. 1. As the NHL is 87 years old the original six teams are listed as followed; - Montreal Canadians - Toronto Maple Leafs - New York Rangers - Boston Bruins - Detroit Redwings - Chicago Blackhawks Among all of these teams the Montreal Candians have won the most championships, if your argument is to state the current greatest franchise is the team that wins the most, then the Pittsburgh Penguins have only won three championships since the establishment of the franchise in 1967. If you were to base the greatest franchise upon who has won the most then Montreal would be number one with a massive 25 championships. Although your Forbes reference is a great argument, the article states that Pittsburgh is only number one in merchandise sales, attendance rank is number 4, and TV viewership is number 6. As you continue the number two franchise on fordes list is the Toronto Maple Leafs with an attendance record of number three, and a TV viewships at number one among the entire league. Although the Maple Leafs are lagging behind Pittsburgh in merchandise sales, they are still achieving greater fan support through television and attendance. If Toronto were a winning team they would sell more merchandise, if they sold more then Pittsburgh then wouldn't it make them number one? 2. What makes a franchise great is the fan base. Not only does the sport itself make the game exciting but also the passion of the fans and great lengths they go to show how much they love the team. Many current NHL franchises are failing due to poor ticket sales, merchandising, and TV viewership. These are the three most important things that make a team profitable. If you were to research the most valuable team in the NHL then the Toronto Maple Leafs would be number one at a value of 448 million dollars. Not only is it worth almost half a billion dollars but the most recent offers for the franchise has exceeded one billion dollars. If a franchise continually loses but is still worth the most among the entire league then doesnt that descirbe the greatness of its potential to rake profits and build more loyal fans? 3. Toronto is Canada's team. Most NHL franchises are successful in Canada, most Canadians would rather see a Canadian team win championships then an American team. Every team clings to hope and most teams cannot repeat championships, if you were to say a great franchise is great because of the players then your missing the fact of what makes a team a great franchise, its the fans. Fans build the attendance, without the attendance there is no need for the team to exist.
Toronto Maple Leafs is the greatest NHL franchise

I am not the biggest hockey fan but I am an avid sports fan in general so hopefully I can hold my own. My opponents main contention seems to be that the Toronto Maple Leafs are the greatest NHL franchise because they have the greatest fans. "The team has more fans [then] any other NHL franchise. .. ". This is false. If they had the most fans then wouldn't they have the highest ticket sales? I would think so, and I would also think that they would have a rather large fan contingency throughout all of the NHL cities, however, they have neither of these. They were fifth in average fans per home game, and there were 8 teams that sold as well, or better than them on the road this past season [1]. If they did in fact have the best fans, then the ticket sales on the road and at home would be higher. Not only this, but Forbes. com did a study on the best fan bases in the NHL and the Pittsburgh Penguins brought home first place, not the Maple Leafs fans [2]. All of that being said, it is irrelevant. The resolution is "Toronto Maple Leafs is the greatest NHL franchise", not that the Maple Leafs have the greatest fans. My opponent spent a lot of time talking about the fans, but fans don't make a franchise great. Winning does, and as my opponent has conceded the Maple Leafs don't do very much winning. "The team has been through the longest Stanly Cup drought in the NHL thus far, 42 seasons since the last championship. You could say its hard for an NHL franchise to survive under the circumstances of continuous loss. " These two sentences alone are in direct clash with my opponents side of the resolution. Great teams don't have to suffer through continuous loss, much less 42 consecutive years worth of it. My opponent also mentioned the continuous hope among players, but this also clashes with the resolution. Mediocre teams may have hope when a season begins, but great teams have expectations. They expect to win, and if they don't then the season is considered a disappointment, but the Maple Leafs don't have any of these expectations because they know they are not going to win. All they have to cling to is hope, and look where that has gotten the team. My opponent argued more for the fans than the actual team, which is not what the resolution requires him to do. I urge a Con ballot. Thank you. [1] . http://espn.go.com... [2] . http://www.forbes.com...
Lord of the Rings Trilogy is Better than the Harry Potter Trilogy

Lord of the Rings 1, 2 and 3 were much better than the entire Harry Potter trilogy. My opponent must present his arguments for why Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings in the first round, and I will make my opening argument in round 2. Rebuttals will follow until the end of the debate. However, Con cannot post any rebuttals or arguments of any kind in the final round (round 5) The person who accepts this debate must have watched both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, even if not in their entirety, at least two films from each trilogy. Voters will decided who presented the best reasons why the film he or she argued for is superior, and who gave the best arguments for each side. Good luck to whomever accepts.
Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

My opponent is making some interesting points here, but who's to say that all prisons will react to boxing as Cereso Mexico Prison did. 0 or lesser violence you say? Boxing is one of the most violent sports in the world and isn't the only one that may help release anger. There are numerous other activities that could be introduced in Prison that could release as much anger as boxing does but does not cause as much injuries. Football, Basketball and other types of sports can release anger and help prison members make friends because they would be working in teams. Trouble that could be caused with boxing in Prison could be that the inmates may feel favouritism towards there opponents and see this as an opportunity to make enemies. Who knows what kind of mental condition any one of these prisoners may have, they might even want to seek revenge if they were to lose. If we introduce Boxing to prisoners and make it clear to them that it will help with anger and be a great solution to any situation then some may interpret this as a way that it is right to use violence and that is the only answer to all your problems and may take this thought with them even when they leave prison.
Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

Thank you for accepting my argument. My opponent here is generalizing a bit but actually, there has been multiple prisons wherein they introduced boxing arenas and well, violence and aggression have decreased as well as convicts were more calmer. It reduced prison fights because, the inmates would meet each other up at an arena and spar or fight and it also increased sportsmanship among the prisoners. http://www.youtube.com... Go watch and pause at 0:59 and this video has information about the argument. In Cereso Mexico, the prison over there has not seen violence in one decade ever since they introduced boxing. Yet, where is the negativity you say? The inmates are having it good and their is also a spa included. If we introduced Boxing for an activity at a prison, there would be o or lesser violence at all because the inmates don't have to get butthurt at the food court and yet, they could just meet up and release their anger. So yeah, there is a lot of good coming out of it.
Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

In this debate I will be giving my reasons on why boxing should not be allowed in prison. First off I would like to say, what is the reason for prison? Prison is a place where criminals go so that they can learn to become better people and introducing boxing into this atmosphere is nothing other than a bad idea. All it would do is teach them violence and negativity towards each other, not to mention getting injured. Honestly I don't see anything good coming out of it.
Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

My apologies, a giant Nazi duck attacked my house and I was busy and stuff. Even though Boxing is a dangerous sport but how dangerous? It's more of a gentlemen sport, you're talking about MMA being dangerous. And I do boxing, there are a lot of rules as well; It limits how dangerous it could. So far, you never presented any evidence whatsoever, against my argument. I mean even if we do introduce other activities such as Football, (One of the most dangerous sports) there still might be violence but I favor Boxing because people can release their anger on their opponent instead of doing it in the courtyard. You still have not provided evidence that they will take this outside but, the prisoners actually became interested in boxing and some of them actually joined boxing leagues. There were no reports of violence outside the prison, upon release after boxing.
Stress can have positive impacts

I understand that stress "improves" somethings but is it worth the negative effects on your health. Your muscles tense up to prevent injury which is irrelevant if the stress is meant to positively help you perform test or anything not involving physical activity. But if your constantly stress your body doesn"t have the chance to relax your muscles afterwards, Tight muscles cause headaches, Back and shoulder pain, And body aches. I just don"t want stress encourage because it can be negative.
Stress can have positive impacts

Although people may think that stress is bad for our health and it can affect our lifestyle, That doesn't mean that we should rule it out completely. Stress may seem like an annoying feeling that you just want to get rid of, However, If we are feeling this emotion so strongly and so often then doesn't that say something? I believe it does, I also believe that stress plays an important factor in the decisions that we make and the actions that we take.
Stress can have positive impacts

Stress is a natural emotion that every human being experiences. Without stress, What force us to study for a test, Complete homework, Or train for a sporting event? Stress pushes us to our limits and enables to show off our full potential. A study at the University of California, Showed that stress boosts the production of neurons that improves performance. Stress has also been found by Stanford University to boost our immune system which results in a healthier lifestyle.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". i have reasons not to list here for excluding them. you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
Racism is still breathng in today's society

Being on the Pro side of the resolution I feel that I only need to prove one instance to show how racism is still active in todays society. If I prove that I have won this case. So lets first define the word racism. Racism- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. (dictionary. com) Based upon this definition we can say that racial stereotypes comes hand in hand with the trm of racism. So being the pro i will provide racial stereotypes that will show racism is still alive. Black people are good in basketball. White people have no rhythm but have great credit scores. All hispanics in America are illegal citizens that hop fences. Every asian is intelligent These are four popular stereotypes that go into the racial profling or stereotype. Since racial stereotypes go hand in hand with racism, than these previous stereotypes prove racism still breathes in today's society
Resolved: Vegeta, from "DragonBall Z", is the most badas* character

Broly is a psychopath and being one does not make you a badA. A hurricane is a disaster but not bada just because it destroys things. Now the thing about Santa. Santa is obviously not in Dragonball Z which is outside of the resolution so you can drop that. Also Tony Montana isn't in Dragonball Z, so that's invalid as well.f Broly couldn't even control himself. His rage was uncontrollbable .Someone who is BadA someone who is that can control themself.
Resolved: Vegeta, from "DragonBall Z", is the most badas* character

||Introduction|| Definition of a bad-as* character: Someone who loves violence and is good at it. Isn't scared by anything. Always, improves and is capable of scaring his enemies. The above definition is based on my opponents arguments. ||3 Rivals|| Since, my opponent produced no limitations, I will use my right to produce several rivals. Broly: Also a character from the "Dragonball" series. "Broly's personality is similar to that of a psychopath, as he generally exhibits tremendously uncontrollable rage, and is uplifted by the very idea of bringing destruction and inevitably crushing his enemies. He loves nothing more than to destroy things" http://dragonball.wikia.com... Also, the video. http://www.youtube.com... Tony Montana: "Tony Montana: I kill a communist for fun, but for a green card, I gonna carve him up real nice." Tony Montana Enough said. Santa Claus: "He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake " http://www.azlyrics.com... How can you beat an omniscient being ?
Resolved: Vegeta, from "DragonBall Z", is the most badas* character

Contention 1: Vegeta is merciless Throughout the saga of DragonBall Z you can see how merciless Vegeta actually is. In the saga he wouldn't take crap from anyone, often times killing them and annihilating them. A number of times when he fought with people, he wouldn't fight them until they died but until they couldn't move anymore. Contention 2: He loved to fight Throughout the saga he was always the instigator in a fight. He consistently wanted to fight and would often go on hell bent missions to assassinate certain characters in the series. Since he believed that the more fight he caused the stronger he got, this would also be a reason he would start fights. Contention 3: Everytime he fought, he got stronger There are numerous times throughout the story that whenever Vegeta would fight and get beat to a pulp, he would come back even stronger after he recovered. In one instance he fought a character and got destroyed. However, when he recovered he came back even stronger and eventually killed him.
Resolved: Vegeta, from "DragonBall Z", is the most badas* character

Broly: "Just because Broly toys with people doesn't mean he's not crazy. " Your argument was that he can't control himself. "Broly couldn't even control himself. His rage was uncontrollbable . Someone who is BadA someone who is that can control themself. " Pro I assume that you have conceded your only argument. Also, readers please note that my opponent has ignored the youtube video where Broly is shown to be many times more badas*. Tony Montana and Santa: "Santa and Tony Montana is outside the resolution because I specifically said 'from DragonBall Z. ' " Nope. You said " Vegeta, from 'DragonBall Z' ", which does not restrict me in any way, this only says that you're referring to the Vegeta from "DragonBallZ" and not some other Vegeta. My arguments were not challenged so even if faulty, they must be accepted as valid.