BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basic Chivalry and "Ladies First" is sexist

So here's the facts: for some odd reason young women are starting to take offense when I try to maintain some level of chivalry and respect for them in this day in age. I saw a similar debate and thought "Hey why not debate that? " Chivalry and such includes: holding a door open, offering to carry stuff for them, paying for a meal unrequested, taking a lady's coat or hat at the door, giving up your seat for a woman, etc. Pro must prove such actions are sexist to win, while I must prove they are not. BoP is shared; meaning that if someone if someone has 51% of the evidence on their side, they win the argument points.
Sons of Anarchy vs. the Walking Dead battle

I think that Jax Teller and the Sons of Anarchy could easily kill off Rick's group from the Walking Dead. First round acceptance. It is SAMCRO as seen at the beginning of season 7, and Rick's group as seen in the beginning of season 5, except that they won't be confined to imprisonment at Terminus of course. If you want to debate then send me a message or comment and we can clarify the setting and such.
Sons of Anarchy vs. the Walking Dead battle

Well, The Sons of Anarchy is an outlaw motorcycle club based in the fictional small town of Charming, California. The Sons of Anarchy is a large motorcycle club that was originally founded in the 60's by Vietnam veterans like most Motorcycle Clubs are and soon began to delve into the black market. The Sons of Anarchy soon expanded all over the US and into other countries such as Ireland and developed a close business relationship with the True IRA, the notorious paramilitary force that continues to fight for a united Ireland. The True IRA sells military grade black market arms to the Sons of Anarchy MC who in turn sells them to other gangs and factions in their area, such as certain racist groups, brother MC's and other allies. John Teller, the president and one of the two founders of the club, began to doubt the life that he had built after the death of his second son, Thomas, and the fact of how lawless him and his conrads have become. John writes a manifesto of sorts about how The Sons of Anarchy seems to have lost its way. Soon after completing this work, Vice President of the mother charter (SAMCRO) Clay Morrow, conspired with Gemma, John's wife and Clay's girlfriend to kill John. John seemingly committed suicide on the road, but his bike had actually been rigged by Clay. About 15 years later, Clay Morrow is now the President of the SAMCRO charter, married to Gemma, and his Vice President is Jackson "Jax" Teller, John's older son, who has recently turned 30. Jax is now married and his wife, Wendy, has a child minutes into the first episode. After the birth of his son, Jax soon finds his father's manuscript stowed away in a box in storage. This causes Jax to begin to question the state of SAMCRO as well. Throughout the first 7 seasons of Sons of Anarchy, Jax and SAMCRO suffers through many trials and tribulations. Jax discovers Clay's hand in his father's death and forcibly takes the "President" patch in the season 4 finale allowing Clay to live long enough to be killed by Jax himself later in season 6. Jax also reconvenes with a former high school flame, Tara, and begins to cort her as well. Jax and Tara eventually marry in season 5 and have a kid together, Thomas, only for Tara to be killed by Gemma is the season 6 finale. SAMCRO itself suffers many losses: Clay and Piney, two of the last three of the 8 original members of SOA, Jax's childhood best friend, Opie, Juice, Otto and others. But SAMCRO also gains many new members as well. At the season 7 premiere (at which the battle between Sons of Anarchy and the Walking Dead begins), Jax is currently livid with anger as he is trying find the killer of his wife, Tara, and the rest of the members of SAMCRO are drawn even closer together than they have throughout the entire series in a unified rampage that tears through several large and intimidating enemy gangs and factions. Hope this helps my opponent better understand the debate.
Sons of Anarchy vs. the Walking Dead battle

Point #1 "Experience": Not to say some of the people of Rick's group do not have any prior combat experience, as I am sure that Rick, Abraham and possibly Daryl certainly had combat experience walking into the apocalypse as well as years of gun experience under their belts, but any experience these three had before the apocalypse in addition to the experience accrued by all of them by their time surviving in their tumultuous times pales in comparison to the collective experience of SAMCRO. Every member of SAMCRO has either military or otherwise advanced combat training. Jax Teller himself is a former green beret, Chibs Telford is a former troop in the British Army and member of the True IRA, Tig Trager is a veteran of the American Navy and the pattern continues as such with every member, though not every member's full background is mentioned. SAMCRO, in addition to having far more military experience than there Walking Dead counterparts, has a lot of more experience killing people, dealing with gang-like groups, life or death situations, and surviving on "the streets" per se. Point #2 "Weapons": It is also prudent to point out that SAMCRO is far more heavily armed than Rick's group. Rick's group is armed with military grade weaponry at their point in their story, yes, but SAMCRO not only has similar weapons but every member has multiple backups of them and they have proven themselves capable of furnishing themselves with even more powerful weapons, such a mounted machine guns and rocket launchers, as they are either stored safely away in the clubhouse or warehouse at any given time. Minor Point #3 "Ruthlessness": While Ricks group, of course, has long since gone over the edge of what is normally considered merciful, they still are not yet on the level of SAMCRO. That is to say, that some members of Rick's group (Glenn, Maggie, Tyreese, Gabriel, Judith, Carl and Eugene) either lack the ability to do extensive harm to other people, lack the will or both. Every fully capable member of SAMCRO has been trained, and successfully so, to give no quarter to those that they see is a threat to them or their brothers or even has information that can be considered dangerous to SAMCRO. The Sons are degenerates who will not hesitate to cause very inhumane pain and torture and certainly will not waver for a second to kill anyone. And yes, of course, the same could be said for many members of Rick's group (Rick, Daryl and Michonne), but they aren't as numerous. Sources: . http://sonsofanarchy.wikia.com...
Magic: The Gathering vs Yu-Gi-Oh

as you said earlier that you can play as many monsters as you want, correct, but the reason that Yu-Gi-Oh has a certain amount of cards is so they can make the game balanced so that way you cant pile up on monsters so the opponent has a chance to win because if you just have a ton of monsters on the field your opponent wont be able to come back and it will be unfair. p.s when you do actually have the Pokemon debate let me know.
Magic: The Gathering vs Yu-Gi-Oh

Magic the gathering has exactly 175 sets and a pro deck can cost up to $500 - $600 each and that is a standard 60 card deck. And remember that Magic is ranked number 1 in the world with Yu-Gi-Oh at number 2. Magic may be tricky to learn at first but when you know how how to play then it gets even simpler but Yu-Gi-Oh keeps changing its rules and regulations, and changing how much life one would start out with when Yu-Gi-Oh started they had player start out with 4000 LP and then changed it to 8000 LP, in Magic it has always been 20. Another thing is that in Magic you can attack your opponents directly and they choose to block in yu-gi-oh you attack creatures in stead.
Magic: The Gathering vs Yu-Gi-Oh

Thank you for accepting my challenge and i must say you r right on a few thing but in magic the gathering you can have a unlimited amount of creatures on the field where in yu-gi oh one may only have five that is also the fact in the spell and trap zone since i play both card games I will know a good amount on both topics so I will be able to counter your statements as best as i can and yes yu-gi-oh may be kid friendly and have a anime but magic is right above it in the rankings http://shareranks.com... it is actually number one wist yu-gi-oh is number two. p.s Pokemon is another topic i will tackle soon
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

Yes, but I intend to explain it in this modern age. Put a relative perspective on it. But yes I will eventually write why we do things and why we feel the way we do. It won't be original, Humanity has done a fine explanation of the human psyche, our egos are simply the reason why we ignore such information. Jesus spoke against the wise men back then because logic and reason wasn't as flourished as it is today. The world's religion and science no longer have to be mutually exclusive. There are already wise leaders that started making you realize that Humanity is important to cultivate. It is important for Humanity to come under one morality or else we just have a divided house. "If a house is divided against itself, it cannot stand." MARK 3:25
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

I am currently creating my own religion. It's called Harmonious Numinous. Followers of this, most noble path, are called Numinites. The founder is named Guru Gonads. He lived in Egypt in 4210 b.c. He wrote the 13 Scrolls. The Egyptians killed him and burned his Scrolls. History has forgotten him. Until now!!!! He reveals himself to me in my dreams. He wants to give humanity the 13 Scrolls. I am his hand. I am writing the 13 Scrolls as revealed to me by the most noble Guru Gonads. The 13 Scrolls will explain the inward\outward impulses and how to exploit ourselves, rather than being exploited by others.
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

I know you don't need this theorem, but I am a sociopath. This is the only thing that defines right and wrong for me. I know it's weird for somebody to talk like this, but I don't attack people only because they are wrong. I had to find a reason to be right and this is my conclusion. It's not wrong to say I am/was retarded(objectively speaking retarded means to be held back). I do consider myself free now because of this truth. That doesn't change my autism, but instead completes it. I don't have any other explanation besides that. It won't change any of the current autistic minds unless they can fully understand it like I can. I will try to do my best to put it in a non-effable vocabulary.
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

Dude, you don't need your theorem. That's why I give you a hard time. Each person's mind is full of incompatible thoughts jockeying for position. You don't need to form some ideology to make sense of the noise. I saw a chimp documentary. An adult chimp nearly bit a youngster's finger off. Its aggression was demonstrating its power over the little chimp. The youngster ran away in horror, far from the group. Two young chimps went and laid down by him. They rubbed his hurt finger. No theorem. No religion. No philosophy.
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

You have called us "half-witted pieces of fecal matter". Can you prove that? I say you are a fool for insulting me in such an exaggeration. Until you can prove one my exaggerations, then I know Christ better than you. I always speak in truth no matter the difficulty of which it bears. I would contend that since I am speaking to you, then I am not "pieces of fecal matter" as you have claimed. I say you should love your neighbor as yourself. If you can prove that I have been wrong in any instance then you have won. If I was wrong then I hope to have someone explain to me why I am wrong so I can be stronger, even if it's from the likes of you who speaks without truth. If you do disagree with the right-wing/conservative/republican interpretation of the bible then we are not in disagreement. Until you learn not to be proven a liar through exaggeration, then I will always be morally superior to you. I am one of witnesses foretold in Revelations and I know the second. We will be starting our ministry soon. I will serve God to the best of my abilities. Now you can throw as many verses as you want at me, but until you prove how you are not a liar, then I will always have more truth(unless you can prove me to be a liar).
Fred claims he knows morality better than I

Ha! I will not pledge my allegiance to "rightwing/conservative/Republican". I have the mind of Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:16. Everything I say, think, or do, is in accordance to God's will, Philippians 2:13. My every action and decision is blameless in His eyes, 1 Corinthians 1:8. My conscience bears witness to all of this, Romans 9:1. The love of God fills my very being, Romans 5:5. Nothing in the universe can disprove my claims, Romans 8:39. By the authority of all this, I know Christ better than you.
Monkey D Luffy could beat Uzumaki Naruto in a fight.

I believe that Monkey D Luffy could beat Uzumaki Naruto in a fight. I'm sure that it would be a very close, intense fight, but I think the slight difference in strength between the 2 characters would allow Luffy to beat Naruto. I hope that whoever my opponent is will have a good idea of both characters' most up-to-date powers, so that we do not have to waste too much time describing them. I'm going to let you present your argument first. Good luck!
Some crimes should be punishable by death, as long as a much higher standard of proof is upheld.

The first main point I have identified in this debate are the societal benefits of punishing some crimes by death. There are 3 main societal benefits I have identified. The first is peace of mind. How would you feel if you knew there was an army of terrible criminals just waiting for an opportunity to escape into the community. Would you feel safe at night? I wouldn't. This is a perfectly feasible scenario if the death penalty isn't made an option for some crimes. The second societal benefit I have identified are deterrents. If you were a criminal planning to commit a murder, what would you feel like if that murder could well be the end for you. If I was a criminal, I would be extremely scared, and would almost certainly rethink committing that murder. If the death penalty is made an option for select crimes, this deterrent would be a reality. The third societal benefit I have identified is increased financial prosperity. Whether you are on the political left or the political right, you have to agree that there are clear benefits on having to spend less money on keeping people in prisons. Such a decrease in the money required to provide for prisoners due to decreased prisoner numbers will occur if the death penalty is made an option for select crimes. Clearly, there are great societal benefits to be had by punishing some crimes with death. The second main point I have identified in this debate is the risk of wrongly executing people. This risk is the purpose of implementing a higher standard of proof for execution. This higher standard of proof would mitigate the risk of wrongful execution. Clearly, this risk is nowhere near as large a problem with the death penalty as many people think, as it can be easily solved by implementing a higher standard of proof. I will focus on the morality of making some crimes punishable by death in round 2, as I believe the morality argument deserves almost a whole round to itself. For these reasons, I am proud to affirm the topic that "Some crimes should be punishable by death, as long as a much higher standard of proof is upheld".
Some crimes should be punishable by death, as long as a much higher standard of proof is upheld.

To begin, I wish to debunk the Con side's point about society having a duty to correct and ameliorate rather than punish and avenge, thus meaning the death penalty is immoral as it only punishes and avenges instead of correcting. Now though I tend to agree with correcting and ameliorating when it comes to petty criminals, I believe those who commit crimes worthy of the death penalty are too far gone, and it is far better simply to execute them and put the resources that would have been used on them into the next generation. Just as it is sometimes cheaper to throw something out and buy a new one, it is cheaper to execute the worst criminals and put the resources that would go into them into the next generation. When cancer is terminal and death is imminent, it is better to simply put people out of their misery with a little excess morphine then it is to let them suffer and die a long painful death. The Con side said that poverty and misery leads to crime, and to get rid of crime is to get rid of poverty. The death penalty would aid in this by allowing more resources to be funnelled into the next generation. Yes, killing an individual who has been shaped into a terrible criminal simply by circumstance may sound immoral at first, but it is for the greater good, a future where such a tragic outcome is rarer. Clearly, the death penalty is moral, even if it may seem counter intuitive at first. Next, I wish to rebut the Con side's point about hypocrisy. Yes the death penalty is hypocritical, but so is imprisonment. The law says that we should not hold people against their will, yet imprisonment does exactly that! Additionally, the same goes for fines. The law calls the forceful taking other's money theft, yet the law so often forcefully takes money from those who have done wrong. If the hypocrisy of the death penalty is morally wrong, you must also conclude that these punishments are all unjust too! Clearly, the hypocrisy of the death penalty is not morally wrong! To conclude my final round in this debate, I wish to thank all those adjudicating this debate for their time. I would also like to give a very special thank you to the Con side for debating this matter with me, as it has been incredibly enjoyable and has offered me a good challenge. I wish the Con side all the best for future debates, and though I am hoping the adjudicators side with me, I know the Con side is also greatly deserving of a win in this debate.
Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States

Legalized marriage is unjust and certainly not economically beneficial. It is a significant contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it inevitably injects bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people, it reduces pressure to have a fair system for hospital visitation and the like (which should be basable on lists made before an injury, not merely blood or marriage), and there is no particular need for having the legal ramifications categorized separately from any other type of contract. If we assume as the studies do that tolerance for gays decreases their likelihood of spreading AIDs, this is no reason to favor the expansion of the institution of marriage when the result can be just as easily achieved by blanket derecognition of marriage by the law.Your source (which is a broken link) on the "economic benefits" of expansion of legal marriage is false extrapolation, it speaks primarily of tourism from other states to those states that recognize it in the hopes that the home state will be therebound. There is no such money coming in from other states when same-sex marriage is equally legal throughout the United States as your resolution advocates, and hence no economic benefit happening throughout the United States. The mere fact of purchasing wedding related goods does not significantly impact overall economic health, as money that would be spent on wedding related goods is presently spent on other goods-- certainly not enough added motive power to outweigh the drain of a byzantine tax structure on the economy.Being "Better than civil unions" is not a recommendation, "civil unions" is no more valid an institution for the government to grant special recognition to than marriage.Appeals to majority opinion or a court are flatly fallacious (Ad populum and ad authoritatem respectively).
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

My opponent made a new argument in the final round so I shall first briefly address that and then outline the reasons why I have won the round.RebuttalTeddybearitisUnder my definition of addiction, which has been dropped by my opponent, an addiction must be harmful to the user. Thus, teddybearitis would not constitute an addiction. If it was however, somehow harmful and thus an addiction, then it would also be definitionally a disease, based on my case which has been conceded.CaseDefinitional NegationThis was never refuted in the entire debate round. Addictions are by definition diseases because they impair normal physical, psychological, and social functions. Diseases impair normal functioning. Thus, addictions are a type of disease. This argument is coming out of the first round and have never been touched.Opponent's CaseGeneticsMy opponent's entire argument relies on the notion that addictions are not genetically influenced. I will repeat again that genetics are responsible for 40% of alcoholism. My opponent never addresses this statistic and thus concedes it as true. Her entire case ceases to function when this statistic is acknowledged.VotersConduct: My opponent made a new argument in the final round that I had to respond to. Conduct should default to me for this.Spelling and Grammar: My opponent did not always use grammatically correct sentences, missing capitalization, spaces, parenthesis, and other essential components. She also failed to use paragraphs to clearly display her ideas. I have had excellent spelling, grammar, and overall presentation.Arguments: 1. My case was completely conceded,2. Her cause does not function without refuting my alcoholism statistic.Sources: I directly quote the arguments out of my source as part of my speech. My opponent's only two sources are just pasted as link without any direction as to what part of the articles she is using, as she does not properly quote & cite them. I have more sources, and apply them to the debate in a much more efficient manner. Also, if you count citation as a whole in this category, then remember that my opponent failed to put quotes taken from my speeches in quotation marks, making them hard to follow. That may also go under spelling & grammar if you count the category as general presentation.
Addiction is NOT a "disease"

Most people assume "addiction" as the most heard of drug and alcohol but there are many ranging from A-Z. I argue that a person could develop a addiction to hording teddy bears (for example) I quote you on this" Whether the addiction a person has is to alcohol, drugs, gambling, or anything else has nothing to do with the status of an addiction as a disease. The resolution is not about the causes of addictions being a disease, but if addictions themselves are.Now if any given "addiction has become noted then can it be presumed this person suffers from a disease I will call "teddybearitits" will this person then develop physical symptoms from not having the root of what ails them? can we turn this into a life or death situation without a cure? I stand firmly even though this person clearly shows signs of mental or emotional imbalance it does not qualify as a disease.