BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dead baby jokes are the epitome of social desensitization.

Let us think for a second of why dead baby jokes could be considered the epitome of desensitization. What is the most innocent thing in human society? A baby. What is the thing many people fear most or is seen as egregious? Death. Now let us evaluate why this is truly the depths of desensitization at it's finest.Infanticide Isn't Funny The term dead baby joke is a tad misleading because it's not usually about just dead babies but rather it's usually about brutally murdering babies. For example: How do you make a dead baby float? Take your foot off of it's head. OR What's the difference between a bucket of gravel and a bucket of baby guts? You can't gargle gravel.[1] These jokes are about murdering babies. How can anyone find that funny unless society has become so desensitized that suddenly the thought of gargling a bucket of baby guts bring mirth to those who hear it? If you hear about someone throwing their baby into a dumpster in a garbage bag do we laugh? By all accounts it's just a dead baby joke in reality. If our society can now use the murdering of babies in sadistic and brutal ways as "conversation starters" as my opponent says then there is a very good argument to be made that our society really has degraded into insensitive beasts. My opponent says jokes are made to laugh, are good coping mechanisms and can get people to lighten up. I agree. However, it's the content of the jokes that is the problem. The crux of my argument is that if the discussion and joking of drowning babies and gargling their guts gets someone to "lighten up" or cope then there is something seriously wrong with our society. Hearing these jokes should not lighten you up, they should sicken and disgust you. If you do lighten up at the sound of a dead baby joke then you've been desensitized to the killing of the most innocent form of human being.Therefore, dead baby jokes truly are the epitome of desensitization. Thank you. [1] http://dead-baby-joke.com...
Dead baby jokes are the epitome of social desensitization.

While the "Dead Baby Joke" is just one example of many jokes in bad taste I do not believe that it represents the epitome of social desensitization. If anything, society has become oversensitive because they are afraid of being politically incorrect. I am not saying that joking in bad taste is "good" per say, but I certainly don't see it as being much worse than a viewing of most reality television shows that are so popular now-a-days. These poor taste genre of jokes are important in getting people to lighten up and laugh if they think something is funny without the fear of being PC. Just because you joke about something incredibly serious like murder, death, and rape it doesn't mean that you support it. I've learned from experience that a joke is a useful way of dealing with tragedy. So perhaps poor taste humor isn't necessarily useful to society nor does it impact the world, but from a day to day personal life perspective these jokes are good conversation starters and good coping mechanisms.
Hearthstone is better than Clash Royale

I am not accusing Con of bad spelling, Just trying to point it out. Now on to the argument. My opponent has made some good points about Clash Royale having strategies, And he's right. There is a bit of strategy, But he never talked about how it is better in any ways than Hearthstone. If we're talking about strategy, Hearthstone has way more anyway. Factors to better game play include proper mana timing, When to play cards, How to play cards, Card plays on top of other cards, Hero powers, What cards to play, And literally hundreds of other pieces that make up strategies in Hearthstone. Pro players have talked about these and many player decisions in the game. Anyone can play Clash Royale and then play Hearthstone and see the difference in the amount of strategy. Anyway, Now that I proved how and why Hearthstone has more strategy, I'll begin on the reasons that Con may be wrong, And Hearthstone is better. He said that Clash Royale was the only game of it's kind when it came out. Yeah, It was the only game with eight cards and simple game play. There were many, Many other games with mana or elixir, Collectible cards, Tower defense, And cards that went into play. These include Pocket Fort, Card Wars Kingdom, Deck Heroes, And other games. Clash Royale is not much different, Just with a few different cards and things from other Supercell games like Clash of Clans. Not to mention the game has only 82 cards, According to clashroyalearena. Com. While Hearthstone has 2, 407 playable cards. Hearthstone. Gamepedia. Com Another point that Con made was that Hearthstone is like Magic the Gathering. I've played both games, And can say that they have few similarities, But not many. I don't know how this helps his point, Because Magic the Gathering came out 21 years before Hearthstone did, And they are different in so many ways. Hearthstone is very fun because of the strategies, Heroes, Puzzles, Stories, And player vs player game play. Not to mention everything that you could experience if you actually played the game. To sum up all of this, Con is making bad points (which I hope I countered well). Hearthstone is a better and more enjoyable game than Clash Royale.
Hearthstone is better than Clash Royale

An eight-year-old would say, "That's a pretty dragon let me place it down. " However, There are a lot more things that go into playing a card that helps it reach that strategic game that requires skill. Regarding troop placement, People have to consider: elixer count, Current cards, Possible opennent's cards, Where your cards are it in cycling, Card level, Oppenents card level, Cureent hp, Opponents hp, And many more factors that lead Clash Royale in becoming a very strategic game. What also makes Clash Royale better is it's uniquness. When Clash Royale came out, It was the first game of its style to be released. However, Hearthston is very similar to many other games such as Magic the Gathering. The only difference is deck size, Card types, And usally one other facor depending on which rip-off of magic the gathering we are talking about. In the case of Hearthstone, It is the use of land cards.
Hearthstone is better than Clash Royale

Con stated that ". . . Cards are and simple to understand with an eight card deck. This makes playing a lot more fun and easier. " This only makes it easier and more simple for kids of low intelligence. This is good for the really young, But not as fun for people above 10. Hearthstone is a more skilled card game with many features and 30 card decks. There is much more strategy and better graphics than cartoons. I will save the rest of my argument for the next rounds. Good luck, Lukrest
Hearthstone is better than Clash Royale

I am new myself so this will be fun! I believe Clash royale I better do to the fact the cards are easy and simple to understand with an eight card deck. This makes playing a lot more fun and easier. Also, Clash Royale has a progressing system of leveling up so "Pay to win" strategies are hard to come by. The more you level up to stronger your towers will be thus creating a stronger player through experience.
Animals should be given the same rights and protections as humans

Humans are meat eater and even with in this premise I would not expect people to stop eating meat. However holding animals captive or butting them in horrible living conditions should be punishable by law. To protect the safety and dignity of the animals. The animals would not need to understand their duties in this because they would have no expected responsibilties. They would simply be allowed to remain free from obsessive human influence.
Animals should be given the same rights and protections as humans

Animals should be given the same rights as humans. They should not be kept as anything other than pets and should be allowed to roam free and their environments should be protected. Animal abuse would be meet with the same punishment as human assault or abuse. Animals can be eaten because we need good source of protein to be healthy but the animals would have to be hunted not kept in cages and be in production farms. Animals have been found to be intelligent, emotional creates that have very little difference from us. Their lives and all life and dignity should be protected. We have no right to treat animals as property or to do with them what ever we want with.
Religion is becoming like a business

excuse me my dear friend you said i have not rebutted your arguements , ok then I have to rebutt again in this round and with that conclusions too. In this round you have said Peoples are not lazy ? Right ! and they have jobs to do. you dont think that they got jobs because of faith of Gods and due to their philosophical guidance . And wasting time on religious prayers is a thimg of foolishness, they do not think who has given them everything , they do not respect him now. And for the novels as hey are sold at higher price in the markets , yes to gan extra knowledge about the history and the reign of gods . And this would enhance the eagerness of some individuals to know about Gods. And in the previous round you have argued about the sell of Artifacts, diyas, God statues and Idols . Yes this are sold as people think tht by buying these things and keeping it in their house they would gain blessings of god and this would be a blessing for their house. By this they would gain purity. At last concluding I would end that those who think religion as a business are pessimistic.
Religion is becoming like a business

You have mentioned in your point 1 that the record selling of religious books such as Bible, Bhagavd gita , Quran, and many other books ? They are profitably sold because for the people , as they are lethargically behaving nowadays and feel very lazy to go to the religious places to offer their prayers nowadays . Therefore the publishers of these books are in a mood of making profits nowadays , therefore they take the books for sell in the markets nowadays . This has created a gap in religion for which it is unincidentally exploited and with the same happening for the artifacts , Diyas and festivals . I want to end my arguments for this round here .
Religion is becoming like a business

This debate is not about the existence of God, but the fact that religion is being used as a business strategy. Here are some products that sell due to religion- 1. Religious books- The Bible, the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita have achieved record sales throughout the world. If that many math textbooks were sold instead, everyone would be good at math. The Bible, Quran and Bhagavad Gita are printed in mass amounts and give a lot of profit to the publishing industry. 2. Artifacts/trinkets- We all know the Christian cross has sold a lot as an accessory. Lockets depicting images or symbolic items related to religion have sold more, and furthermore have the same manufacturing cost as normal lockets but sold at a higher price. 3. Gods' statues/idols- The Statue or painting of Jesus Christ is common in every Church, and sometimes a miniature model in the believers' homes. Religion greatly increases the business of photo frames, statues and idols. When you have a mini-transformer, its an action figure, but if its a god, its an idol? Why? 4. Candles/diyas, matchsticks and oil- Hindus and Christians use candles/diyas to worship their lord. This increases consumption of oil, and boosts the wax industry. I would say it is rare to buy candles these days except for special occasions, only religion has kept the art alive. Also, matchsticks or lighters have increased sales as they are required to burn these things. While I won't argue it causes pollution, it certainly is a great wastage of oil and other materials. 5. Fortune tellers- Some fortune tellers rely on religion to establish their credibility, as they claim that God themselves have given them word. Without religion, their business would finally be shut down. 6. Festivals- Festivals such as Christmas and Eid cause a great spike in sale of many items and boost business. While people need to celebrate, it is also a business strategy to revive dead shops. Con may argue that all/some of these things have religious meaning and are a part of tradition, but that doesn't negate the fact that a side-goal of religion was business, and that as time passes, it is becoming one of the main goals. All the workers employed in religious jobs (priests, pope, sages) need money to survive, and this is their way of earning money.
Religion is becoming like a business

Bro, I dot know what are your intentions be on this topic but I may be formulating the topic and the challenge seriously. I consider this round as for the acceptance round so i would not pose any serious arguements here . But here i would like to say that you are exploiting religion in one way or the other and that also means you are against God. One thing is that I do not mean in the existence of God but I believe him as the only existence for whom we are here . He is responsible for the Human existence and Religion is one of that . Nowadays Religion has become one of the most respectable concept among humans due to which they distinguished themselves.
We have no right to question the motives of a chicken who has recently crossed a street.

I am thoroughly appalled at my opponent's consistent ignorance and hate. He has disgraced all of our mothers and the beloved Chester Chicken. If Max wouldn't get mad, I would use some serious French, if you catch my meaning. Screw it, vous sucez. Now I'll get onto my arguments and rebuttals. Defense of Argument:My opponent didn't really provide any rebuttal (typical of a polar bear hater), except for saying that he doesn't hate polar bears. Unfortunately, this is logically impossible, as I pointed out in R1. Other than this, he addresses nothing.Rebuttals: "They are very hazardous and could hurt someone on the road"What evidence is their of this? My opponent quickly assumes that chickens are hazardous. I researched chicken related vehicular incidents and all I found was this: http://www.cleveland.com...I know friends, I know. I am also disgusted by this human driver's lack of caution. He crashed into Mr. Chicken! I happen to know Mr. Chicken. He is an honest, hard working man and a foolish human endangered his life. This highlights who the real danger on the road is!"Why did the chicken cross the road? He shouldn't have the right to do that" And who is my opponent do dictate the rights of chickenfolk? He assumes these executive powers but provides no evidence or reasoning to back up his arguments. "Why should we give rights to "people" who eat seed out of their own poop? It is gross and inhumane...Give rights to a chicken, and you will regret it"Chickens are a proud people. How dare you accuse them of attrocies like waste-seed eating. And why will we regret giving rights to the chickenfolk? Explain yourself, knave!Conclusion: I see no reason to elaborate on my arguments. I have firmly protected the concept of chicken civil rights. Vote meh.
The united states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC

For the sake of fairness in this round, i will only reiterate the major points. Remember that my opponent must respond to my arguments from the previous round to win this debate. Here is how the round breaks down and i win the round. First, the top of the affirmative proves that the negative does not solve the problem of the ICC jurisdiction, the ICC will still prosecute US citizens. The implications of this argument are 1. The negative is making claims about how the ICC is bad exist in both the affirmative and negative world. For example my opponent argued the ICC will be harmful to national security but this argument i made means that the national security will be harmed even if we dont submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC. 2. All I have to do to win is provide a net benifit since my opponents case is non-unique So then the next thing to look to in the round is the value structure - remember mine is not attacked in the sense of usage as a wieghing mechanism for determining the winner of this debate. So the way a judge should evaluate this round is through who increases power the most. Here is how i do that. 1. Broomhall 1 under the first contention shows that we have some power over the function of the ICC while the negative has none. This is the first benifit in terms of power. This argument also means that we can make legislation that changes the ICC to have a better implication for US. This has happened in the past with legislation that enacted a security council check on the tirals. 2. Broomhall 2 says that negating means that the ICC is more likely to remove benificial parts of the ICC that are already in place like the security council check. 3. The second contention shows the ICC is the only way to decrease CaH because it is seen as the only legitimate method to prosecute crimes against humanity since the international community is only likely to use the ICC as the way to prosecute. My opponents alternatives are unlikely to be used by the international community because it sees the ICC as its option to prosecute. The only possible ways you could vote con are 1. Citizens lose rights if we adhere to the ICC 2. Compromises national security Now both issues are taken out by the analysis at the top of my case because my opponent only argues the ICC will do this if it has jurisdiction, which it currently does. Now let us for a second assume that this was not the case. I still win the round for a few reasons 1. My voting issues have a larger comparitive impact since the US can potentially solve the problems of the ICC and also the US can become involved in prosecuting international crooks. So even if he wins that his arguments happen, he does not win the round. 2. His arguments will still not come through all the other arguments i make on his case, he has to win all the arguments i put on his contention to get any offense at all. For these reasons i urge you to vote for the affirmative.
Jesus Was Probably Not Born on 12/15 and in the Year 0.

NO! Jesus was born on 12/15 in the year o for the following reasons: 1) I said so. 2) The bible says so. 3) you suck 4) Michael Moore was illiterate until the age of 17 5) (see number 1) 6) I attended his 7th birthday party and guess what? It was on 12/15 BONG!
Jesus Was Probably Not Born on 12/15 and in the Year 0.

The proposition on offer is that Jesus was probably not born on December 25 in the year 0. Since this is a conjunct, you can attack the resolution stating that he was born on 12/25 or that he was born in the year 0. Reasoning: 1) The Bible makes no mention on the date of Jesus' birth. 2) There is no historical record of a bright star in the year 0. 3) The selection of December 25 does not have a Christian basis. 4) The selection of 12/25 is based on various Babylonian and Roman mythologies, as well as the fact that December 25 is one of the first days after the winter solstice that one can notice a change in the length of the day. Furthermore, the only celestial event that would cause such mistaken reasoning was the occulation of Venus and Jupiter in 2 BC... in the middle of the summer. As suggested by one of the references below, a much better approximation for the date of Jesus' birth is June 17, 2 BC (6/17/-2). AFFIRMED B.G. Walker, "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets" http://www.theinquirer.net...
Traditional Medicine

I believe we should always consult specialists, for the reason that we all live in a fast paced world where immediate results are craved. We should go to the just read an old book or browse the web and self-medicate. Medicine is around to cure us in a day or so. Due to of the fact that the safety of medicine has always been around for us, it becomes a common theme to rely on such, safe treatments. In contrast with the traditional medicine, modern can provide in need.
Traditional Medicine

I put my remarks in caps because it is simple. I am not "shouting" I believe we should always consult specialists, BELIEF HAS NOTHING O DO WITH THE SCIENCE OF MEDICINE. EITHER YOU FIND IT TO BE PRODUCTIVE OR YOU DO NOT. for the reason that we all live in a fast paced world where immediate results are craved. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BODY'S PACE OF HEALING. We should go to the just read an old book or browse the web and self-medicate. WHY DID YOU PUT THIS ( PREVIOUS) SENTENCE IN HERE? IT SEEMS TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR POINT. Medicine is around to cure us in a day or so. NO. IT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS. Due to of the fact that the safety of medicine has always been around for us, NOT IT IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN. it becomes a common theme to rely on such, safe treatments. In contrast with the traditional medicine, modern can provide in need. MOST MODERN, "MEDICINE", IS, "DRUGGING THE SYMPTOMS" AND SURGERY.
finish the sentence

the kids had decided to stay in the house that their parents lived in, and had a proper traditional funeralfor their parents, and a few years later the kids, who are now grown into teenages still lived in the same house, but since they both are very cute twin girls, they meet two boys at their school and started dating, but even though the kids grew older, they never forgot about their parents and never forgot to pay their respects to their parents, who's picture they had in the living room, they had made it into something like a little shrine... ( more to come, sometime soon....stay tuned for a continuation of this story.... :) I mean if CAHAL101 wants too that is... )
On balance a ban on firearms would not be that effective in the US

I. ConcessionThree days worth of research has yeilded nothing more than number supporting Pro's case. Due to my failure to find as much as a single refutation to any of his contentions, I will be conceding this debate over to my opponent.I understand that I'm disrespecting Mikal by essentially nullifying this debate and not allowing him to face a capable opposition, and I apologize for that, however I don't see nitpicking at a few minor points to be a much better fate.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

Secondly I will review my key points to show why Hockey is a superior sport than Basketball. Hockey players are able to take so much more punishment while they plan than Basketball players (slapshot to the face compared to a twisted ankle). Hockey requires more athletic ability in the specific categories of flexibility, balance, hand-eye coordination, and strength. Basketball only has a larger fan base than Hockey because of major broadcasting stations over-hyping the sport. Hockey is mainly superior to Basketball because of to excitement a goal provides, rather than Basketball where a basket happens nearly every minute of the game. As seen by all of these points, Hockey is a much better sport than Basketball. Again I thank Pro for this debate! Vote Con! !! !
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

well are you saying that there arent games in hockey that are complete blowouts? Anyways, most basketball games end within ten points, just like every other sport blowouts in basketball occur just as much as they do in hockey. And your'e also saying that when somebody hits a 3 pointer thats not exciting. If you ask me thats pretty god damned awesome. Im not saying that i dont watch or hate hockey. I love the sport, i just find basketball a little better. I respect the sport completely but basketball is just a little better in my eyes.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

Allow me to simply state that I do in fact watch Hockey, more than any other sport actually. Secondly, I stated previously that "Hockey experiences the same problem.." Hockey indeed does experience an extreme amount of penalties, which is why it is more difficult to play than Basketball. A point that I would like to bring up that answers why Hockey is a better sport is that in Hockey when a team scores a goal it is exciting!!! A 2 goal game is the most frequent of games. This makes it so much more exciting that Basketball where the games are able to near 100 points most of the time! Why even watch the sport when the points are sometimes more than 30 apart?