BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pokeban

Resolved: Pokemon should be removed from Cartoon Network. Pokemon: The series of anime movies and television episodes licensed by the Pokemon media franchise Should: Ought to Removed from: No longer aired by Cartoon Network: The cable television network Cartoon Network, broadcast in the United States 1.The characters on Pokemon frequently capture a variety of so-called "Pokemon", some of which are extremely rare. It seems to be the objective of all Pokemon trainers to do this at every opportunity. Rare Pokemon are the most desired, and the most frequently captured. This is clearly would be considered an act of illegal poaching in today's society. 2.They allow the Pokemon from their prisons only on rare occasions for the purpose of "Pokemon battles". These battles involve pitched combat between two Pokemon, ending only when one passes out. During the struggle, Pokemon use any means at their disposal in order to emerge victorious. This does not reflect the natural behavior of Pokemon. In the wild, they appear to be non-predatory. They fight infrequently, and never between species. The trainers, through their battles, are perverting the Pokemon's nature. This is a form of animal abuse, much akin to dog fighting. 3.Not only does Pokemon exhibit poaching and animal abuse. It actively promotes them. Those who commit these acts are viewed as "heroes". In fact, the primary manner in which social standing is achieved is through the collection of rare Pokemon, and success in Pokemon battles. 4.Cartoon Network and the show Pokemon have a target audience almost entirely composed of young children. These young minds are being corrupted by Pokemon's influence, which teaches them that poaching, dog fighting, and animal abuse are heroic acts. This will lead to a perverted world outlook. In addition, children will be inclined to imitate the Pokemon characters, their heroes, and develop a tendency to abuse their pets.
'bama got me hypotonic all da time now -- need a 'bate

>I would like to establish that I only have one debate.org account as of the present. KDub222 is another person. >I thank KDub222 for starting this debate. >My opponent has provided one and only one source-which I thank him for. However, I must state its invalidity. It is extremely biased, most likely meant as a joke. It claims that tying together idea is hypnotism. This is known as affective speaking in reality. >I have nothing else to refute, Obama ran a hypnotism-free campaign.
'bama got me hypotonic all da time now -- need a 'bate

need help plz plz kay voted for Obama and I wuz all liek bama won gat 2 get 2 my house 2 part-TAY. called me friends... but they said "NO LOL BAMA AIN'T NOTHING." so i start reading... http://earlytoday.wordpress.com... 'Bama hyptotozing ME... clearly he is 2 much for us... we gotta stop him... with a protest in da OVAL OFFICE... Bush + Cheney + Gore + Libermen + Kerry + Dean + Biden + Mrs. Me... anyway can ya beat my argum
Abortion

I'm going to lay out all the arguments I have here, I am not going to argue from a moral perspective really at all, I do not think that aborting a child (the pro choice community now wants to kill me but yes child) is a moral action in really any circumstance (and now the pro choice community really wants to kill me). First I am going to try and give a definition of abortion we can both agree on, does "artificially ending a pregnancy, specifically excluding C-section" work for you? I will base my current argument on that definition. First lets see the (relevant) rights a fetus has: Right to life, Right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, Right to recognition before the law, Right to not be discriminated against. Now you may think that I have granted you a lot and in a way I have but now for my argument. Despite the rights a fetus has a fetus does not have the right to live at the expense of another person, a comparison I have heard is: A two year old child is dying, they require a kidney transplant, the only person who can provide the kidney is the babies mother, the babies mother doesn't want to give up her kidney. If that woman can choose to not donate a kidney then why can't a pregnant woman choose to no longer provide her body for the fetus to grow inside of? Now for your position to be logically consistent you need to force the mother of the two year old to give her kidney to her child. Obviously it would be a moral action for the mother to give her child her kidney but that is not the question, the question is whether or not she should be forced to give away her kidney. While a fetus has the right to live it doesn't have the right to live at the expense of another person. A person should have the right to ownership of their own body. And now for very early term abortion, the argument that a early term (0-10 week) fetus is human has to rest on the genetic makeup of the fetus which begs the question: Should a placenta have rights? It has no nervous system but neither does an early term fetus. An early term fetus should be considered no more human than a placenta and if you want to argue otherwise you will have to find a trait an early term fetus possesses which a placenta lacks. I look forward to your arguments (yes I have no problem with rebuttal in round 2).
autism is evil

Okay so how was I meant to know that; Anyways, since is the last round I would like to conclude that autism is nowhere evil, and they should be treated equally just like us Autistic children tend to look at the world in a different view, attention to small details instead of looking at a bigger picture,expertise in special interests and there's even some of them who tend to teach others. A quote from Hans Asperger about Autism: "It seems that for success in science or art a dash of autism is essential"
Patriotism

"...against teaching patriotism in schools. Also just because I'm against simply teaching it in schools doesn't mean i do not support the troops. But even though i may support the troops i do not support the war..." How can you support the troops and not support their effort to win the war? Were you against the war on 911 when al-Qaeda attacked us and killed 3000 Americans? Or just when we fight back? You can't teach patriotism. I'm glad you donate your time to the VFW.
Patriotism

Well first of all in our profiles that view isn't are you against patriotism that view says are you against teaching patriotism in schools. Also just because I'm against simply teaching it in schools doesn't mean i do not support the troops. But even though i may support the troops i do not support the war, i am very active in patriotic things I'm secretary of the ladies aux VFW post 9857. So maybe before you attack me with your personal stories and such you should actually read what I'm against.
The government should not run schools, all schools should be private.

There is no such thing as "same" education. Each parent can decide what he wants his children to learn, and then send him to the school that teaches that material. If there is no such school, he can open such school to attract enough similar minded parents, to make the fees cover the expenses to run it. If people want to pool money to share the burden of educating their children, they can do so. (A voluntary pool could work by having each family pledge to contribute a certain amount of money over the course of their lifetime, in a sense, getting a student loan from the pool.) Just don't force me to join this or any pool. But join the pool I must (and contribute to it financially), if the government runs public schools. To address your point about equality. All people have an equal chance in once sense: they have an equal chance to act, to do something. The range of these actions differs greatly for poor and rich people, but what is important is the mechanism. Although a rich person can act to build a space rocket, and a poor person can act to build an efficient shovel, in the long run and through several generations, the poor man's descendants would reach prosperity as well. On the other hand, there is no any other kind of equality prescribed by morality. Besides, that two children would receive the same exact education, does not make them equal anyway. One could be more talented, the other less. One could have more startup capital to capitalize on the learned knowledge, the other less. We are not going back in time. Now parents know that it is important to educate their children as much as to feed them. If they don't feed children properly, then children will not grow to have attractive body, which will hinder their life. Likewise, if they don't teach them, this would also (as you said) hinder their life. Therefore, it is the responsibility of parents-to-be to think ahead and only take the responsibility of parenthood if they are ready to provide their children the basic necessities of food and education.
The government should not run schools, all schools should be private.

Although food is necessary for people, some people can't get it. Maybe because they are poor or they don't have a good enough income. An education for children and adults is the most important thing that they can have. If they don't have that education then how can they have a house? Or have a family? They couldn't. They couldn't live their life because they can't pay for education. Are you saying that people who are poor can't have the same education? The good thing about the government now is that everyone is equal. Everyone gets a chance. No matter if they are Obamas children or the homeless family you see on the street. They all get to have a chance. A chance to shine. If you want people to pay, then you must have money to, but what if someone has 3 or 4 children and had to pay "1000 per term. That's a lot considering there are multiple terms. How are people with no money going to pay for education? People who want their children to better than they did? How can they get the education they deserve? and people paying more to get better education? Are we going back In time?
The government should not run schools, all schools should be private.

Just as food is not provided for free, yet is a necessity for life which must be earned by parents to feed their child, the same should apply to education. From the financial aspect, not all private schools would be expensive, just like not all grocery stores are expensive. Schools in poorer neighbourhoods would cost less, the price being set proportionately by Free Market. Cheaper schools will not have fancy facilities but still can provide good instruction. Education only requires enthusiasm, not expensive equipment. But the main reason is moral, not economical. As a citizen of a country I am responsible to abide by the Code of Law, and that's it. What I think and what I teach my children is my business. Also, I have no moral obligation to finance education of the children of others.
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

It is called debate.org for a reason. If I was looking for Christianity I would be in a church. Not once have you proved the bible is real or addressed my counter arguments. "There is no obligation upon Christians to DO the LOOKING for you!" - You When did one time did I ask for you to help me seek the truth? I don't believe your truth is my truth. If anyone gives the point to Pro for reliable sources, please understand I would've used some if I needed to. But I didn't. I see you are here to convert people. I got something for you: Don't
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

There is no obligation upon Christians to DO the LOOKING for you! Again I show you the scriptures! and Remind you that YOU have done nor stated anything you actually know?That you are SO SIMPLE-MINDED to beleive this is even remotely about winning a debate? Demonstrates the sheer level of your blindness. I offered the World answers to whatever questions they possessed of Life ... BUT like all atheists/pharisee you chose to ask the one question that demonstrates the REASON YOU and those like you ARE going to Hell.Because YOU refuse to look. I have lead you to water and YOU refuse to DRINK? I had thought I lead a Horse, I clearly have lead an A$$. No matter. I shall repost in the hopes of a HORSE the next time. Die in ignorance! I leave you with YOUR CONVICTION NOTICE:Mark 16:15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.…
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

You offered me a statement, that hasn't been proven true. It very much is your problem, because you haven't proven anything. If what you say is true, you win the argument by far. But you haven't. You haven't proven anything. If the claims you are making are not confirmed in any way, you failed. "You know I bet there are MANY squirming in the chairs DYING to ask the questions your obviously to ignorant or profoundly self absorbed to ask." - You That's not the impression I'm getting from the comments section. If someone brings up the facts I haven't really proven my points (They really can't be proven, because it's proving God which is nearly or impossible to do), I've gotten a lot closer than him. It's also on a 7 point system, and from what I'm getting I'm going to get more points than Pro.
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

Like Truth-Over-Emotion;I offer you the truth nothing more nor less. to accept or not is neither my concern nor my problem? You have no questions you need true answers for? Okay! no problem. What I am not HERE to do is convince YOU of squat! Not my job, certainly not my problem. You know I bet there are MANY squirming in the chairs DYING to ask the questions your obviously to ignorant or profoundly self absorbed to ask. I am content to remain silent! and leave YOU IN THE DARKNESS where you reside!
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

The question comes back: How do you know the bible is real though? How do you know it is reliable. I can make up a religion where everybody else who doesn't believe also goes to hell, but that doesn't mean it's true. If the bible is true, fine I go to hell. But you still have yet to prove it is true. How do you know God doesn't recognize another belief? Maybe there is no God (I don't believe this, but I have to mention it)? You're the one bringing the claim, therefore you must prove it. So far you haven't.
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

Con quote"Ok. I see I need to bring this up: I'm Jewish. When I mean my religions bible, I mean the Torah. How do we know the bible is a reliable source? Don't bring me quotes. Quotes mean nothing. You can't use a source to validate itself. Tell me how the bible is accurate, and it may not be some other religion, or evolution?"hehehe, I'm offering only TRUTH which exists ONLY IN SCRIPTURE! You appear to continue in the denominational view of chasing after HUMAN opinions, which while interesting and certainly entertaining are mere fabrication of imagination, with 0 scriptural defense or corroberation. Which is WHY there are 43,000 of them? If they simply followed scripture there would be ONLY 1.Deuteronomy 4:35"To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.Don't believe in God, your not gonna believe in His Word? here's the thing though, nobody cares but YOU? Cause YOU are the one GOING to Hell for not believing it. See how easy once the TRUTH comes out?SCRIPTURE ANSWER: Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." This means what it says ... If you believe, you CAN BE SAVED, if you DON'T HELL! that very much implies, that God doesn't hold US accountable for what YOU CHOSE to believe or not! Find OUT when you DIE! that's okay ... JUST- NO WAY to be saved at that point ... comprende? That YOU would be so foolish as to BELIEVE WE MUST PROVE something is YOUR MISTAKE! I don't have too, I am not required to AND I'm perfectly okay with YOUR CHOICE to go to Hell. Are WE clear on that? I don't mean that cruelly, I'm just pointing out YOUR CHOICE has ZERO impact upon ME or anyone else? believe what you want? are you really just gonna WASTE time asking foolish questions? you Could have the answers to questions of the AGES ... but uh-uh I don't WANT to believe the Bible is all you have to say? ... okay but time is gonna run out on you. Beside I don't expect your comments I already KNOW YOU don't know the TRUTH! You don't obey your OWN, you certainly can't save anyone! Your unforgiven and dying in your sins because your unatoned for by reason of NO altar since 70 AD. YOU COULDN'T be in compliance with Mosiac laws! No altar to BURN sacrifice, therefore no blood atonement therefore no remission of SIN!Denominations have Christ sacrifice ... thus ARE the only ones SAVED!
Christianity- The ONLY God recognised Belief!

Isaiah 45: 5"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other,…Deuteronomy 4:35"To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.Deuteronomy 32:39'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.Isaiah 43:10"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.Let he who questions this ask, that the answer can be provided! Not in opinion, not in conjecture not by the knowledge of Man but by the Holy Word of God that never changes, is the same today and yesterday, whose wisdom exceeds that of all things.No acceptance nessessary. ASK, and LISTEN!
SAT Testing scores should not limit the applicants to colleges.

I, Sam, affirm the resolve that SAT Testing scores should not limit the applicants to colleges. Education is one of the parts of the United States that is well known and recognized. However, certain, if not most colleges and universities turn away students because of poor scores on testing, mainly the SATs. My first contention is that students aren't given a big enough chance to enter. Students take the SATs more than twice, if not less, and at times their scores may not be the hardest. Many colleges don't even give a chance to contact the student or applicant directly so that they can get to know the person for which he or she truly is. Colleges base everything on test scores and how well someone can do on a math problem, or what kinds of words are in a sentence. Colleges look at the score and throw the file away, therefore automatically denying a student. My second contention is that students' education varies around the globe. School districts, states, and different countries have different ways of teaching skills that are needed in life. When students take the SAT exam in their junior and senior years, it put pressure on them. Have you ever had to do something under pressure and you have a hard time doing so? That is exactly what students are mainly under when taking these exams. My third contention is that it is an indirect form of discrimination. We have all heard about years ago when there was racism in America, and Ruby Bridges wasn't allowed in an all-white school. Lets compare; A somewhat decent student isn't allowed in a university all because of test scores and are denied because of them. Everyone should have a chance to get into a college/university and have their acceptance not be based on test scores.
Ebooks are better than paper books

The fact that some people are not able to use technology doesn't make ebooks worse . The majority of them can use it, right? In addition, there are more computers in the world than usual books(2 000 000 000a 129,864,880 respectively); therefore, it is much easier to read ebook than usual book. Undoubtedly, reading ebooks for too long can cause everything what you have written. However, if you read them on tablets devoted to ebooks and periodically give some rest to your eyes, you are unlikely to have any problems with your eyesight. Also, reading paperbooks with bad lightning, in transport, with no rests will lead to the same symptoms of "Computer Vision Syndrome". Furthermore, ebooks save your time. Rather than go to the library or to the book shop and spend a lot of time on it, you can download or purchase ebook on the Internet at one click. Sourses: http://mashable.com... https://www.reference.com...
Ebooks are better than paper books

So eBooks may be more convenient sometimes, but not always. What about those who technical problems, there are many who say they cant work technology. They also ruin your eyes, if you read them all the time. This is from the news. Computer Vision Syndrome is caused by several different factors that combine to form a nasty set of issues. Partially, this is related to the way computer monitors display images. Rather than showing one full image, pictures and text on a monitor are drawn in tiny little pieces called "pixels". This causes the eye to focus a little bit harder while looking at images on a monitor, and can lead to eyestrain, headaches, and blurry vision, if you don"t give your eyes a rest from time to time.
Flat-Earth "theory" is redundant

I've recently visited Russia and was surprised as to how many Flat-Earthers there are. So I have decided to see some of the arguments that people have to prove to me that the Earth is flat. First of all, Eratosthenes proved that the surface of the Earth is curved more than 2000 years ago (in 250 BC) when he observed that during the summer solstice in noon there was no shadow in the well in Syene. But, at the same time of day, during the summer solstice, the obelisk in Alexandria made a shadow which was 1/50 in proportion to the heigth of the obelisk. Not only was this proof the Earth is round, but also allowed Eratosthenes to quite precisely calculate the circumfurence of the Earth (it's about 50 times the distance between Syene (Aswald) and Alexandria). Also, Holland (the Netherlands) is quite low, but you cannot see Dover or Kent from it. If the Earth was flat this would be possible. But it is not, reaffirming that the Earth is curved.
that music piracy should be legalized

So...my opponent forfeited his final arguments. I urge a vote for Pro's side, because: Con forfeited the last round. Con did not touch my first two points: 1. Work-for-hire contracts are BS 2. Record executives b*tching about lost sales are the ones really hurting the industry and artists. I showed that currently illegal downloads actually help the artist. That record companies are to blame for losses in sales because: They rip off the artist They rip off the consumer They made bad decisions concerning business management and choosing what music listeners would enjoy. I again urge a vote for Pro's side, and thank anyone who read this debate, as well as my opponent. /Chuckles