BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fundamentalism is a bigger threat to belief in God than Atheism.

Fundamentalism is a bigger threat to any religion than atheism because fundamentalists see their religious books as a scientific and historic document, something that they were never intended to be. Thus, the real way to interpret religion is lost, and belief in absurd unscientific facts like creationism seem to be neccessary for belief in God. Fundamentalism and 'Sola Scripturum' are relatively recent ways of Biblical interpretation, and Wahabism only started with the origin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Religion is the art of taming the Heart.It is *not* meant to curb scientific progress and infringe on others freedom.In a way, all fundamentalists can be called Atheists as they are Atheists with respect to all other religions other than their own. Modern Atheism is merely a reaction to this disturbing rise.
Television is a bad influence on children.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Most television shows, including the ones you quoted are not educational, since when did the Powerpuff girls teach us anything? If you look at the television shows nowadays you will not find much in the way of education. Think about Handy Manny, a television show that teaches that the tools are magical and can sing and talk, they can also talk in Spanish and jump up and fix things when told to. What about Jungle Junction, a TV program that shows animals scooting round on wheels, talking, singing and playing games, wow now that is what I call educational. My five year old brother gets bored watching television and complains that the shows are all "the same", good guys win, bad guys lose, everyone lives happily ever after. He thirsts for some decent entertainment, so I tell him to go outside, he agrees and goes and plays happily in the garden. Sure, it is good for children to use their imagination, but to a certain extent only, it gets to a point where you start to worry and re think letting your child gorge on the sad world of television.
Television is a bad influence on children.

No, I don't. In fact, television is (on the whole) good for children, teaching them everything from how to count to how to be a good person. To facilitate children spending their time wisely as my opponent recommends, all countries should (and most do) rate TV shows according to how appropriate they are for children to watch. I say this as somebody who grew up watching all manner of great kids shows that were around then - Sesame Street, Thomas the Tank Engine, Barney, The Powerpuff Girls, Courage the Cowardly Dog, Yu-Gi-Oh, and countless others. These shows were not only educational, but enjoyable - making learning fun is particularly important for children due to their limited attention spans. My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. I will wait for them to make their arguments before I present mine fully.
It's time to crackdown on canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages.

I accept the definition, even though it is even more confusing than the original term - yet even more hilarious. It is my opponent's claim that democratic principles should apply in nearly all cases - including the issue at hand. Unfortunately, on occasion, the will of the majority is to oppress another group of people. For this reason every nation with democratic principles also has certain checks in place to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. In the United States that check is known as the Bill of Rights. I am not intimately familiar with British law, but I assume there are similar checks in place. My opponent's argument fails since he has rested his case entirely on the rationale that the majority should be able to oppress the minority - in this case the poor, grossly disfigured couple. It is clear that this is just another issue brought up by Mr. Eggleston to distract the public from his ultimate goal - world destruction. http://www.debate.org... Furthermore, he has published a photo of himself in the obvious attempt to intimidate the reader into voting for him. http://img148.imageshack.us... (Brian can be found in the center of the photograph in his natural state)
It's time to crackdown on canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages.

I should, therefore, like to clarify my position as follows "ugly people shouldn't be allowed to caress each other on subway trains because it grosses people out". I am also happy to oblige my opponent by providing the definition he requested as follows: Tango Butter: noun; slang, chiefly British; origins obscure – the traditional accompaniment of a quarter-pounder with cheese (though may also be employed as a dip in a spinster's finger-buffet); liable to become quickly encrusted, thus necessitating a Gentleman's Wash. While I am on about definitions, by the way, in the title of this debate I used the word "cretin" in the sense of a noun that refers to someone who is physically deformed. . http://www.askoxford.com... Since cheerleader positions are normally given to pretty, physically fit girls rather than big, fat ugly mingers, I must assert that there is no contradiction in my argument as my opponent suggested. He then wrote that I was attempting to oppress "masochistic voyuers who prefer to punish themselves by sneaking a peek…at a hideously disfigured couple groping on the subway. " Well, all I can say to that is that the will of the majority should prevail over the will of the minority. This is a democratic principle. As some of you may have heard, there was a general election in America recently. Some liberal bloke called Barack Obama won, getting slightly more of the popular vote than the conservative coffin-dodger who was his opponent. Now, the thing is, those Americans that wanted to go about "managing the environment" by shooting the wildlife and drilling for oil in National Parks and "stimulating the economy" by giving wheelbarrows full of ordinary taxpayers' hard-earned cash to people who are already extremely rich were very disappointed at the result. But that's democracy for you and the same principle should apply to snoggers on the tube. Just think about the top-shelf magazines. There are plenty of titles like "Teen Lovelies", "Asian Babes" and "Busty Blonde Stunners" while very few newsagents stock copies of "Fat Slags", "Hideous Old Crones" or "Freak-Show Fantasies". That is to say, very few people would object to a couple of gorgeous lesbians getting intimate with each other in closely confimed circumstances, but most people would start gagging if an aesthetically-challenged couple did the same. Still, until my proposal is implemented by Transport for London, I will take my opponent's advice and I therefore plan to have a skin-full at the boozer round the corner before I attempt to get the tube home from work tonight! Thank you.
It's time to crackdown on canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages.

Of course, I extend my gratitude to Brian Eggleston for another entertaining and difficult-to-understand debate. Before I begin, I feel compelled to demand from my opponent a full and comprehensive definition of 'tango butter'. My opponent contradicts himself. He claims that 'canoodling cretins' ought to be banned from 'conspicously cavorting' on 'crowded carraiges'. In the very same paragraph he states that 'a couple of lesbian chearleaders' going at it on the same 'crowded carraige' would be fine, since he presumably finds them to be aesthetically pleasing. What Brian is attempting to do, then, is oppress those masochistic voyuers who prefer to punish themselves by sneaking a peek (and sometimes a peak) at a hideously disfigured couple groping on the subway. Mr. Eggleston goes on to cite the prohibition of alcohol on the subway as an example of how to rid the system of 'canoodling cretins'. However, lifting the prohibition altogether may be more benefitial, especially when passengers are forced to watch two 'aesthetically-challenged' people going at it. A couple of pints of rum could quickly turn that couple into a pair of lesbian chearleaders - or at the very least add to the original couple a number of lesbian chearleaders.
It's time to crackdown on canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages.

We've all been there, haven't we? Standing in a jam-packed underground train with hardly enough room to breath, never mind move, when the aesthetically-challenged couple next to you decide to demonstrate that they aren't too hideously ugly to get a sexual partner by going at each other hammer and tongs - right in your face. Yes, there they are, these two freaks of nature, his hand up her blouse, her hand down his trousers, slobbering all over each other like a bitch on heat being taken by a dog with two d###s - and the worst thing is, there's no escape from this appalling public display of affection. http://img148.imageshack.us... (Decent, hard-working Londoners taking the Circle Line to work yesterday…) http://somuchdamage.com... (…until these two get on and start snogging…) http://www.smh.com.au... (…and chaos ensues as the disgusted commuters try to leave the train between stations) Now don't get me wrong, I'm no prude. Certainly if a couple of lesbian cheerleaders decided to touch each other up right in front of me, I would be the last person to complain. However, if a couple that are so unspeakably repulsive that they could earn a living as specimens at a Theory of Evolution exhibition boarded my carriage, and the bloke started fondling his bird so close to me that I could actually smell her tango butter as she started frothing at the g#sh, I believe I'd have every right to complain. The question is, what is to be done about them? Well, since there's widespread adherence to the ban on consuming alcohol on public transport, with offenders being dragged off trains and given on-the-spot fines (and a bit of kicking as well), it would be reasonable to assume that a similar ban on unsightly snoggers would be equally successful. That's right, it's time to crackdown hard on ugly lovers that overtly display their affection for each other on busy trains and I hereby submit this reasonable and long overdue proposal to the House. Thank you.
Debate.org should Change their voting system

I'll give my last punch in this debate before it ends. Vote Bombing will be CuredWith only one vote per voter the chance to leap frog over someone with more votes will be gone. Like I said before lets say the time remaining clock is ticking down to the last seconds of the voting period and someone is winning a debate by 6 points, which seems to be blowout, a troll or if someone made a fake account just to help them win he/she still can win the debate by vote bombing for their side and winning the debate before anyone can counter the vote. With a 1 vote per voter this would be eliminated if someone is up by only 2 points a vote bomber, troll, or a fake account can do little to change the outcome. Also how most people figure out who vote bombed is by the comment left by the voter. If the voter gives a reasoned response then the vote would be valid, but if a voter gives an unreasonable reason for voting how they did then it could be countered just like usual. Still can Have categoriesWhile there are 4 categories that go toward the debater for points there are two others that have zero weight in voting. The "Who You agreed with before" and "Who You agreed with after" have zero weight. Debate. org can do this with the new voting system by having still all 4 categories of Conduct, Spelling/Grammar, Reliable Sources/ and more Convincing argument, but they will have zero affect on voting points. They could just be a rubric for voters and debaters to see why they voted the way they did and to help voters vote. Debate. org could just add one more category that could read "Who won" and that would carry one point value. Changing the voting system will keep trolls and vote bombers powerless. It would not change on counter voting because there would still be a comment section which would give away bad votes. It would make life easier for debaters.
Debate.org should Change their voting system

There are two main reasons why Debate.org should change their voting system first to stop vote bombing and to make trolls powerless. Currently with the system that is in place someone can give an opponent up to 7 points. The biggest reason why some people are against democracy is because two idiots can out vote one smart person, but now with this system one idiot can out vote up to six smart people. How many times does someone need to counter-vote a bad vote in our debates. For me it has been countless when either my opponent or I was even points that were not awarded. If we change the voting system to what I have proposed vote bombing will no longer exist and it would give a more real world feel to the situation. When someone goes in votes for lets say a president they only get one vote to decide not 7. Let me give you a situation someone's debate is in voting and he is up by 6 points, which is a pretty big amount, someone could vote and take away their lead and cause them to lose a debate in which they might have deserved. Change the voting system and vote bombing will be banished. For those who don't know what a internet troll it is-A person who feeds off the anger of others as he enrages them over the internet (1). Internet trolls do this by posting something controversial or in this case vote bomb someone. The most notorious internet troll that Debate.org had was RationalMan. He would go onto my debate like this one (http://www.debate.org...) and against me without any real reason and someone had to counter vote him and in this case imabench, but this could be stopped by taking power away and making one vote per person. They can't feed off of the anger of something with only one vote. Sources (1) http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Debate.org should Change their voting system

I have made this debate impossible to accept if someone finds a way to accept without my permission they will forfeit all rounds. If you would like to debate this subject leave a comment and I will choose someone later on. Currently the voting system for debate.org breaks down like thisConduct- 1 pointSpelling/Grammar- 1 pointMore Convincing Argument- 3 pointsMore reliable sources- 2 pointsI will be arguing that debate.org should change their voting system to each voter gets one vote and one vote alone.My opponent will be arguing to keep the voting system as is.Round one is for acceptanceGood Luck
Patrick Willis deserves the defensive rookie of the year and is the best linebacker this year.

I had fun as well. Like I said, I really can't fight you on the DRoY aspect, but best LB in the league this year is stretching it. Extend through my args about how awesomely awesome Lewis is. Obviously, he is an example of a better LB this year, which means Willis is not the best. Despite his bright future all of those things I pointed out mean Willis is at least second best this year. Thanks.
Patrick Willis deserves the defensive rookie of the year and is the best linebacker this year.

First, I don't see how you can fault Lewis for the talent around him. If anything, this means that other players step up and make tackles or big plays. Willis makes all the plays himself, that is why his stats are so bloated. When a running back tears through their terrible d-line, Willis is right there getting more opportunities for tackles. Also, Willis has NO other stats other than a high amount of tackles. Lewis contributes in several aspects of the game, as his stats indicate. Combine that with his equal amount of tackles and Willis has no offense here. We have already established the fact that if Lewis had the opportunities Willis did, he would have the same amount of tackles, against harder teams. As for your Minn. example, Willis did not have 10 tackles, he had 6, which didn't even lead his own team (Nate Clements). Yes, Peterson did get shut down, but Chester Taylor ran for 110 yds......on 8 carries! Apparently, Willis is not the run-stopper you claim. The fact is, Willis gets more opportunities to pad his tackle stats. Despite this, Lewis has an equal number of tackles when we consider the number of snaps they have each played. So, with the tackle stats equal, Willis has no other claim on Lewis. Lewis' intangibles go unanswered, as do his well-rounded and other league leading stats. Keep in mind that Willis plays in arguably the easiest division, while Lewis plays in arguably the hardest, with non-division games against the Pats and Colts. Lewis has better stats against more difficult competition and his experience, leadership and value to his team make him above and beyond the best LB this year. *By the way, I have gotten all of my stats from nfl.com, if you could either cite yours or tell me straight that you are exagerrating, that would be great.
Patrick Willis deserves the defensive rookie of the year and is the best linebacker this year.

First of all, Ray Lewis is a great Linebacker, maybe one of the best all time. However, if you look at the Ravens D, Ray has a lot of help around him. Patrick on the other hand, has no one who is performing at a high level this year on defense. Lewis may have a SB MVP, but if Willis was to go to a SB, I am sure he could definitely get one as well. Looking at pro-bowls, Lewis has 8. If Willis continues to play like he is, he could surely pass Lewis in that catagory. Just F.Y.I., in the vikings game 2 weeks ago, Adrian Peterson had 3 yards on 14 carries. Willis had at least 10 tackles on Peterson. Basically, he single handedly held Peterson. Lewis has one more sack, and one more fumble, and two more pics, that is not a whole lot. I did not say he was the best linebacker, I said the best this year.
Patrick Willis deserves the defensive rookie of the year and is the best linebacker this year.

I can't really argue with defensive rookie of the year, it would take a miracle to beat him out. Best linebacker this year though is definately a stretch. All of your arguments seem to say the same thing. WILLIS TACKLES PEOPLE......HE TACKLES A LOT. But, do tackling numbers, or statistics for that matter, make anyone the best at their position? First, Willis does lead the league in tackles. Thats a fact. But, the 49ers are second in the league in defensive snaps. Compare that to other teams with notable linebackers. Ray Lewis of the Ravens has taken 110 less snaps than Willis, yet only trails him by 20 tackles. This play/tackle ratio means that if Ray Lewis had played the number of snaps Willis has, and played only to his average, it would put him at 139 tackles, just three behind Willis, in a much tougher division with a mucher tougher schedule. Thats just tackles, taking a look at the intangibles and other stats, it makes it even more obvious that Lewis is better this year. Willis has, as of week 14, recorded one sack, one fumble, and zero interceptions. Lewis has 2 sacks, 2 fumbles, 2 INTs (one for a TD), and of twice as many tackles for a loss as Willis has. Additionally, Lewis has twelve defended passes, not only does this lead the league among linebackers, but it also speaks to his versatility to both defend the run and the pass, also compare his twelve with Willis' ZERO. Beyond statistics, Lewis value is greater because of his veteran leadership. He plays a vital role in the Ravens D and is classically one of the greatest leaders in the game today. No rookie, no matter how gifted, can provide the kind of experience, leadership and knowledge of the game that a 12-year, 8-time-probowler, super bowl MVP, can provide. There is no doubt that Willis has a bright future, but tackles aren't everything. He is definately tops among rookies, but has a little ways to go to be able to be considered the best LB in the league (even if its only for this year).
Patrick Willis deserves the defensive rookie of the year and is the best linebacker this year.

Patrick Willis is having an outstanding season. He definitely deserves rookie of the year honors and is the best linebacker this year in the NFL. Just a few statistics: -Willis has 136 tackles heading into tonight's game against the Bengal's. -Leads the NFL in tackles this year. -Averages over 10 tackles a game. -On pace to get over 150 tackles. Good luck to my opponent
Hitler was a Christian

Ok. So in your argument, your sources for saying that Hitler was a Christian come from his speeches, which, as you know, were used to try to gather support from his people. Now, in saying that, since there was a Christian majority in Germany at the time, would it make sense for Hitler to isolate this group? Hitler is know to be one of the greatest deceivers in all history. Hitler himself has not said many things on the matter of his religion, but some of his close officials have- "Once I have settled my other problem," [Hitler] occasionally declared, "I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes" But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed [...] he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up... and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually... That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat... " Extract from Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of Albert Speer The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian on principle. " Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939 According to Marshall Dill, one of the greatest challenges the Nazi state faced in its effort to "eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least subjugate it to their general world outlook" was that the Nazis could not justifiably connect German faith communities to the corruption of the old regime, Weimar having no close connection to the churches. Because of the long history of Christianity in Germany, Hitler could not attack Christianity as openly as he did Judaism, Communism or other political opponents. The list of Nazi affronts to and attacks on the Catholic Church is long. The attacks tended not to be overt, but were still dangerous; believers were made to feel that they were not good Germans and their leaders were painted as treasonous and contemptible. The state removed crucifixes from the walls of Catholic classrooms and replaced it with a photo of the F"hrer. Not only was Adolf Hitler non-Christian, he was Anti-Christian. I would like to also include this quote from Albert Einstein. Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. - Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Music should be banned because it gets people to emotional

I disagree with my opponent once again. i think that this is very irrational. Music is what shapes humans and society. Without music, life would be boring. Exposing a child to great music " as a listener and as a player " is good for brain development. "Nothing activates as many areas of the brain as music," says researcher Donald A. Hodges, Covington Distinguished Professor of Music Education and director of the Music Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.