BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Youtube be banned in schools

What do you mean by banning YouTube at schools? Would you ban teachers from using YouTube as well? Although YouTube may cause distractions, it is still an amazingly good source of information. If one searches WWII in YouTube, one gets more than a million videos all related to the subject. You want to ban this amazing source of information from schools? It's like banning Wikipedia. As for distractions, there are many different programs which allow teachers to watch what their students are doing on his/her computer.
Yo Mama Joke Battle

Again, I don't know my opponent's situation, but he\she forfeited ANOTHER round. I'll let him\her post FIFTEEN yo mama jokes on their last round. Yo mama's so fat, her clothes have stretch marks. Yo mama's like a refrigerator, everyone sticks their meat in her. Yo mama's is like a doorknob.... everyone gets a turn! Yo mama's like a "Happy Meal" small, cheap and greasy! Yo mama's so ugly her birth certificate is an apology letter! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Mama Joke Battle

Well I don't know my opponent's situation, but it is sad that he\she forfeited. But, I'm a nice guy and I'll let my opponent post ten yo mama jokes on his\her next round. But remember voters, HE\SHE DID FORFEIT A ROUND!! Now, on with the jokes! Yo mamma so fat she sat on a quarter and a booger shot out of George Washington's nose. Yo mamma so fat she eats Wheat Thicks. Yo mamma so ugly, she walked into a haunted house and came out with a paycheck. Yo mamma so fat, she sat on a rainbow and skittles popped out!! Yo mamma so nasty she made speed stick slow down.
Yo Mama Joke Battle

Hahaha. I'm liking this. Yo Momma so white, that Charlie Sheen told her "The cocaine goes IN YOUR NOSE not all over your face genius". Yo mama so stupid I told her to do the robot.....and now R2D2 has AIDS. Yo Mama so ugly, even hello kitty said goodbye. Yo mama such an old whore she slept with the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. Yo mama so fat you have to grease the door frame and hold a twinkie on the other side just to get her through.
Yo Mama Joke Battle

Well done I am mildly impressed, however I believe I can do better. Yo mamas tits sag so bad Salvadore dahli mistook them for clocks Yo mama is so fucked up helium makes her descend Yo mama is so old when she fucked gilgamesh she was arrested for pedophilia Yo mama so ugly even Hydrogen wouldn't bond with her Yo mama so dense light can't excape her
Yo Mama Joke Battle

Alright let's get this party started then. Yo mama's so dark, she makes a Black Hole look like nothing. Yo mama's so fat, her feet get home twenty minutes before the rest of her does. Yo mama's so ugly, she turned Medusa to stone. Yo mama is so old that when she was born, the Dead Sea was just getting sick. Yo mama is like a chicken coop, cocks fly in and out all day.
The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

True, This! -Beneath the rule of men entirely great,The pen is mightier than the sword. BeholdThe arch-enchanters wand! - itself a nothing! -But taking sorcery from the master-handTo paralyse the Caesars, and to strikeThe loud earth breathless! - Take away the sword -States can be saved without it!- From Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, By Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1839Resolution: That the use of diplomacy, politics, writing, etc. (the pen) is a better means of solving conflict than violence and physical warfare (the sword).Rules: Rd 1 is for acceptance, Rd 2 & 3 for arguments and rebuttals, Rd 4 for conclusions and any final rebuttals, no new points. The burden of proof is shared, Pro will argue fro the resolution and con must argue for the opposite. Please respect the intentions of the debate, in other words, don't be a smart arse, it's no fun. 72 hours to argue and 6000 character limit Any type of conflict may be used as an example, from playground bullying to WWII Any historical or real life examples must have sources. Definitions for this debate: better:of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable :a better time for actionsolve: Find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing withconflict: A serious disagreement or argument
Vigilantism *Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*

My opponent has forfeited his round. Extend all my arguments. Per the rules in R1, no new arguments are permitted in the final round. This means my opponent has no way of disputing any of the arguments I made in my opening argument. Since I have multiple independent arguments that win this debate, none of which my opponent will be able to respond to without violating the rules set out in R1, judges can feel free to stop reading this debate right here and award me a victory.
Vigilantism *Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*

Thank you, Raisor. I look forward to an interesting debate.IntroductionUsing the provided definitions, the resolution can be restated thus: "The conduct of taking the law into one's own hands is able to be defended, or shown to be right or reasonable, from a moral point of view." In order to affirm the resolution, I must show that vigilantism "is able", while Con, in order to negate, must at least show that I have failed, and at most show that vigilantism "is not able".Arguments1. Morality is SubjectiveThis is my core argument, and the core argument of any moral debate that does not take place within a moral framework. If we were debating the morality of vigilantism within a Christian framework, a Naturalist framework, etc., the debate may go either way, but when debating morality generally, the answer to the question, "Is this morally justifiable?" is always "Yes."Morality is inherently subjective. Whether one considers an action to be right or wrong is a value judgement based on one's own preconceived notions, upbringing, environment, religion, etc.Because morality is subjective, and every person on earth may have his or her own moral code, it is of course possible to morally justify vigilantism. Looked at from the appropriate moral point of view, vigilantism is able to be shown to be morally right.2. Specific Moral Points of ViewAlthough I feel it may be unnecessary, I will examine vigilantism within a few familiar frameworks, just to show that it is indeed able to be morally justified.2a. PragmatismPragmatism is a results-based philosophy that focuses on the practical application of theories and beliefs.[1] Therefore, if vigilantism yields the same end-result as traditional law enforcement - the apprehension or punishment of criminals - it is pragmatically justifiable. To a moral pragmatist, vigilantism is able to be morally defended.2b. NaturalismNaturalists hold that forces of nature are the only true forces that operate in this world.[2] Therefore, if a naturalist believes that a murderer is going against nature, it follows that any force that stops the murderer and restores balance would be a force of nature. To a moral naturalist, vigilantism is able to be morally defended.2c. HedonismHedonists believe that pleasure is the primary intrinsic good.[3] Therefore, if vigilantism is pleasurable, it is hedonistically justifiable. To a moral hedonist, vigilantism is able to be morally defended.The above are just a sample of the innumerable ways in which any action, including vigilantism, is morally justifiable. No particular view is "right", except to the proponents thereof, but no particular view can be shown to be "wrong", either.SummaryMorality is inherently values-based and subjective. Therefore, vigilantism is definitely morally justifiable.Over to you, Con.-----------[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vigilantism *Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*

*Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*Resolution: Vigilantism is morally justifiable when the government has failed to enforce the law.DefinitionsVigilantism: The methods, conduct, attitudes, etc, associated with vigilantes.Vigilante: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.Morally: In a moral manner; from a moral point of view.Moral: Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.Justifiable: Able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only.No new arguments in Round 4.10,000 characters per round.72 hours per round.Open voting, but all voters must submit a thorough RFD.
The Egg came first, not the Chicken

Bah, you just wasted a good debate sir! However, I have found a clear flaw in my opponents logic: Chickens have been recorded being around since 7000 B.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) However, T-rex first formed in 1967, and I doubt their ability to lay eggs. (http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)) Therefore, the egg of a T-rex could not have come before 7000 b.c., if the band formed in 1967.
The Egg came first, not the Chicken

I will now give my two points to prove my case: ===EVOLUTIONIST THEORY=== If you are an evolutionist, you would believe the chicken evolved from a bird species like it. Whilst the chicken was an egg, it was still the egg it's predecessor, let's call it Animal X. Now, Animal X lays the egg which the chicken will hatch from. However, the egg is still that off Animal X's species, as it was laid by Animal X. When it hatches the Animal is now a chicken. Therefore, under n evolutionist viewpoint, the Chicken came first. ===CREATIONIST THEORY=== If you are a creationist, you believe God (Or some supernatural being) created all animals. Therefore, it would make more sense for God to make matured animals ready for breeding that cha fend for themselves rather than eggs, that need the care of their parents. If we assume the God is the Christian God, I quote genesis in that: ""Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens. " 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind" From the above quote, it is clear the Judeo-Christian God made chicken before eggs. That will be my argument for now.
McDonald's should be Banned

I see you don't want to take into account the hard reality of this unbelievably unhealthy food. Not only did I read what I copy and pasted into my argument but it is what I agree to as well, one mistake I did do though is I did not put my sources and I apologize for that. If McDonald's was banned, obesity rates will decrease drastically. If you refer to my last argument, you will see why it causes obesity. It may be a huge factor that you may not be skinny as you say you are therefore you are becoming angered over a simple mistake (forgetting to put sources) I posted McDonald's is increasing economic distress not just about minimum wages. This may be a sensitive topic but we just need to face the ice-cold reality that McDonald's will kill us quicker therefore it should be banned. P.S. "TBHQ" is a chemical that is placed in most of McDonald's products that contains a sub-chemical called "Phenol" which causes dark circles under the eyes, red face/ears, diarrhea, hyperactivity, aggression, headache, head banging or other self-injury, inappropriate laughter, difficulty falling asleep at night, and night waking for several hours.
McDonald's should be Banned

My opponent has directly quoted (yes, verbatim) virtually all but the last four lines of his round without citations. I have all of the sources below to show the original text. This is blatant plagiarism. (1, 2, 3, 4) Anyways, nothing my opponent has obviously regurgitated has any real merit other than, "McDonald's is bad, mmkay?" You have a list of ingredients that can be found in any fast food joint.You have the typical "Minimum wage is too low!" crap. Minimum wage isn't supposed to fund a family of four. It's for stupid teenagers who need some extra dough to pay for x, y, or z.What's that whole TBHQ thing about? That proves nothing, other than every food company, as well as McDonald's, uses it. Thus, this adds nothing to your argument.I refuse to go on with this debate if my opponent continues to not only plagiarize other cites, but adds nothing worthwhile to the debate on top of that.1. http://www.howstuffworks.com...2. http://247wallst.com...3. http://www.endalldisease.com...4. http://miami-water.com...
McDonald's should be Banned

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I look forward to it.I'll break this round up into a few parts.People are educated enough to know what they're eating.The world has never been more intelligent or had access to more information. In a world of mass media and information literally accessible from our fingertips, there is absolutely no one who doesn't know (or couldn't know) what McDonald's makes, how they make it, and the potential consequences of eating it. On this note...McDonald's is not to blame for obesity rates.There's no way you can pin everything about our obesity rates on McDonald's. There are McDonald's restaurants worldwide, and only a select few places that have increased obesity rates. There's clearly more at play here. I'm not saying eating McDonald's won't make you gain weight, but I am saying that there are ways to counteract it. That's why I'm 6'1" and a slight 150 lbs. and able to eat McDonald's 1-3 times a week.We have the right to eat whatever we want, when we want. I want to eat cheap burgers that are quick and easy to make. Extra pickles, no onions. To go. And why shouldn't I be able to? Because a bunch of people who can't control themselves are gaining weight? That's not my fault; I shouldn't be punished for somebody else's predicament. Like I said earlier, I'm a very skinny fellow, and I probably eat McDonald's more often than the average person (I'm a college student). It's balancing that diet with exercise and whatnot, and simply because others cannot maintain that balance, I should not be punished.Banning McDonald's won't solve anything.Let's just look at this hypothetically for a minute. Say there's a backlash tomorrow, and all McDonald's are shut down in a week. Banned. Vamoose. Problem solved, right? Something tells me you don't think this will solve anything either. Because this simply opens the door for all those other guys in McDonald's wake to get ahead-- Taco Bell, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, and everyone else. They're not just gonna keep doing the same thing they've been doing; there's ground to make up. Opportunities have been made. Now they're all filling in the gap McDonald's left, and people will flock to these places. Now, this wouldn't be an issue if McDonald's was the only place that caused obesity. But we all know it's not. Now McDonald's just isn't making money, and all those other fast food places are there to take its place.Nothing McDonald's is doing is ban-worthy.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt-- maybe in the next few rounds, you'll show me something McDonald's has done that is worth a ban. But for now, I'm at a lack of any ideas. Let's use your fry example. It's gross, I can admit that. But it's obviously not illegal. The FDA would have put a stop to that faster than it took me to write this response. Also, just because something is unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal. There's a reason the alcohol and smoking and candy industries have been quite lucrative for quite a few years.
McDonald's should be Banned

McDonald's, welcome to the pinnacle of unhealthy, the father of death, and the maker of coffins. Welcome to the largest fast food chain in the United States. McDonald's is a huge contribution to the obesity rate and unhealthiness in America today. With their foods containing chemicals that make the foods "look" good even way after purchasing. There is a study that McDonald's french fries took part in. The french fries were put into one jar while KFC french fries were put into another jar. From late 2008 to January, 2012, the KFC fries were covered in mold and looked like a heap of fuzz while the McDonald's french fries (although they got darker in color) they stayed YELLOW! I think I will let my opponent argue this point while I hold back more information.
Philosophy is Dead.

I do not accept that philosophy is currently useless or is going to be useless in the future, but on the contrary, I believe that philosophy is currently useful and could be very useful in the future when it comes to social enlightenment and academical progress, and I shall use different arguments to support my view. I suppose the burden of proof is shared although Pro is the one who makes the positive claim that "philosophy is dead. "That being said, I await my opponent's case.
Philosophy is Dead.

Philosophy is dead. Philosophy here includes both analytic and continental schools, including metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics, metaethics, etc.,... Pretty much all acknowledged schools of philosophy, other than logic. (I understand some discomfort among the readers. The reason I include this caveat is because the study of logic is not usually what we mean by philosophy. And if we say philosophy is alive, just because of the pure study of logic, [which by the way is now more a field of mathematics], that really isn't saying much... Rather, philosophy as debated here is the proper application of logic.) By dead is meant it no longer contributes, and never will, to the furthering of societal enlightenment. Nor will it to the academia's. Regarding the criteria: But before that, notice that the definition is in both present and future tense. Hence our job is two-fold -- that concerning "is" and "will be". A degree of extrapolation is required, but hopefully nowhere beyond the limits of plausibility. Anyways, back to the criterion, the former is to gauge the presence of the field today in terms of its contribution to laymans' collective body of knowledge. But some may argue that academic subjects should not be gauged in terms of laymans' understanding. Thus, I've included the latter to broaden the scope of our debate. When I say academia's enlightenment, this doesn't just mean philosophy's, as that would be trivial, but of the academia as an interdisciplinary whole, striving to understand. It's a long debate ahead of us. I hope it will be an enjoyable one.
deflation is good for the economy.

Sure they'll get pay cuts, but if there were a sudden deflation of 20% and your pay was cut by 20%, you would still live the same quality of living because prices would get cut 20% also. So you wouldn't really be getting a pay cut, your pay would only be represented in fewer numbers, but your real wages remain the same. The only difference is that now your savings have become more valuable, allowing for you to invest it.
Hollister or Aeropostale

My first point is that the Hollister establishment as been around since 1922 and Aeropostale being established in 1987 so Hollister being around longer allows them more time for the improvement of their product. One reason to why Hollister is superior to Aero is because of quality and the brand for those 2 reasons Hollister has crushed Aero in sales countless years. www.hollistersales.com
Gay marriage should be legal

Wow thanks for that excellent response. Well I guess I will just do a conclusion any way. Gay marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental right to be able be happy and marry whomever you want. Also as I previously stated that every man is created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians because it is not a choice and you are created that way. Next in round three I stated that, yes the catholic bible outlaws gat marriage but sense when have we been a country based on the bible because of our separation of church and state. Well thats it for me so vote for me in this debate
Gay marriage should be legal

My opponent said the catholic bible outlaws gay marriage but when has our country ever been based on what the bible said, never. Yes, I know we are 'one nation under god' but that is the belief in god not the bible. Also the separation of church and state outlaws churches from having any say in government Note before my next argument: I respect the beliefs of the catholic church. My opponent said if we legalize gay marriage it would be " mocking the catholic church" but the catholic church is already mocking it self by not following all of the laws. One of the anti-gay arguments is that it states in Leviticus that " man shall not ly with man" but it also states that you shouldn't get a tattoo, be a virgin at wedding and to observe the sabbath. My bet is that most catholics don't follow all laws in the bible. Back when the bible was written people thought loving your own gender was a sin and a choice but now through further studies and better understanding of the brain e realize that it is natural and it isn't a sin and isn't wrong.
Gay marriage should be legal

What is marriage you may ask? Well, marriage is a religious and legal contract between people. But I, come down to the world religious. The Catholic bible is against gays, and 25% of Americans are Catholic. This problem began when the United States of America made marriage not only a religious thing, but intertwined with the law. In the defense that same sex marriage should be illegal, I say that making it legal would be like mocking the Catholic bible and over 25% of Americans.
Gay marriage should be legal

Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?
is a Christian God great.

Interesting argument from my opponent. I believe that I will debate from the bottom up. As far as semantics go, If we were to ask the followers of God if it was good that he saved them from the world ending flood, they would likely say yes. The destruction of the wicked may have been extreme, but perhaps the best way to destroy the enemies of His empire, something even those charitable non religious people have done. Second the Old Testament. We learn about Grace and Law. " Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19-20 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" Galatians 3:10-13 This teaches us that the Old Testament is a bygone time that no longer reigns over humanity. Jesus' teachings are the ones that are obeyed now. Taking that he is the Son of God and speaks His word, then we know that all commandments and tenets that exist today would be from the Son. Faith, hope, and charity, the most important of these being hope. As to the commandments in the Old Testament regarding charity, they no longer apply. Jesus taught to do what you can for the poor, keeping in mind that poor will always be among us. He is telling us that we should help, without destroying ourselves. Sensible and not very commanding. As to the first argument, I also agree that any deity, Allah, and Hitler were or are great. Greatness is something that is above and beyond normal. Obviously God is a qualifier. Let's now discuss what effect God has had on society. We have heard Hitler referenced a bunch, and never Mother Teresa or Saint Francis of Assisi. God inspires great works in many people, many more than the extremist fruit cakes that defile His name. I return the floor.