BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
xXCryptoXx's 100th Debate: The Conjugal View of Marriage is Philosophically Valid

Thanks to Crypto! I am truly honored to be his choice of adversary for his 100th debate. I congratulate him on this milestone, and wish him good luck in what I know shall be a truly stimulating contest!I shall assume, as per standard tradition, that the first round is for acceptance and clarifications.There are a few things I wish to point out: 1. PRO does have the sole BOP. As this may be important later in the debate, I wish to reiterate it here for clarity's sake.2. "Validity" is not the same thing as a "special distinction." Certainly, a distinction must be drawn between the conjugal and revisionist views in order to affirm, but Pro must also show--after that distinction--that the conjugal view is valid. 3. I would also like to speak to what this topic implies. This topic is about affirming the conjugal view at the expense of the revisionist view; i.e. that Pro must argue that the conjugal view is the only valid view to take. Pro concedes this when he states, "Pro will be arguing...that reproduction itself is a sufficient reason to distinguish conjugal relationships from any other relationship." This is also part of his in-round BOP.4. We have established, via PM, that heterosexual, polygamous marriages fall within the conjugal view of marriage.5. We have also established, via PM, that heterosexual relationships incapable of reproducing fall within the conjugal view of marriage. With these observations in mind, I gladly accept, and wait Pro's opening remarks.
Is self harm ok

My post this round will be VERY short for obvious reasons. The fact that you don't care about losing or winning is highly respectable, as a side note. My opponents doesn't really properly refute any of my arguments... however I will refute what little Con has written this second round for the sake of the concept of debating. ======My Final Refutations===== My opponent states that it is very dangerous and it does not do anyone any good. However, I have made very descriptive contentions on why it DOES do some good. It does many positive things such as: Release psychological distress. Gives them the right of engaging in a victimless crime of their own free will, where nobody is harmed. It makes the self-harmed person happy as proven by one of my sources. We all have the right to pursue happiness. Also, the dangers from it could lead to a hospital visit, which can further turn into a therapy visit where they get the psychological help that they need. Lastly, my opponent concedes the fact that it makes some people happy, and any other arguments brought up were dropped by Con. Thanks for the debate, Con. And, with that, this debate is over.
Should School Be 8 Hours

Hello, and thank you for the debate. I contend that school lasting eight hours daily, except Saturday and Sunday, is a beneficial factor towards children. First of all, it is important to mention that the subjects currently taught at school are numerous, ranging from arts to sciences and from foreign languages to historical education. [1] The eight-hour system provides the teachers with enough time to successfully conduct their lesson, considering the massive amount of knowledge the student has to learn. Reducing the school time, as my opponent proposes, will only give more trouble to teachers and more pressure to students, as the same amount of work will have to be accomplished in a shorter time period. What if, on the other hand, reduce the amount of the taught information, whilst cutting an hour or two out of the current eight? Fortunately or not, that would be impossible, as the aforementioned is something that students actually have to learn. The reason; simply, today's society requires a vast amount of knowledge, no matter the field of study, as the current world runs on information and nothing else. Whether one wants to be a scientist or a programmer, a teacher or a theologian, wide education is fundamental, on a scale, of course, and with school being the stepping stone. The most apparent objection is that, as humanity progresses forward, students will seemingly have to attain school longer and longer classes. Despite this being indeed quite a problem, the solution lies in the used educational system. As Finland [2] has shown, a proper system can have miraculous impact on the student's education, even, if really successful, allowing us to reduce the hours of the daily curriculum, as Con wishes. Therefore, if my opponent manages to either confront my statements about why are eight school hours necessary or presents an idea of a school system that is estimated to both teach the students all significant information and require less than eight hours daily, they win this debate. Sources: [1] All possible school subjects: http://choices4learning.com... [2] Finland's educational system: http://www.oph.fi... https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used

Argument 1-It costs millions to kill peopleThe average death penalty case costs 2.4 million dollars[1]. This means that since 1976 the US government has spent close to three billion dollars on the death penalty alone. (The actual number is two billion nine hundred forty-two million four hundred thousand dollars)Argument 2-It is possible the convicts are innocent There have been 11 cases that have strong evidence of the people being innocent[2] Of course there have been countless others that we have not yet discovered weren't guilty. The chance of being falsly killed is 0.897226753670473% (again based on the people who were killed) Argument 3- It doesn't deter crime87& of crimoligists beilive that getting rid of the death penalty wouldn't have any effect on homicide rates[3][4] and 88% think it doesn't deter crime[3][4][1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...;[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;[4] http://www.denverpost.com...;
Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used

Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Rebuttals/Closing (no new arguments) Death Penalty- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. This debate addresses death penalty in the US. Pro, me, takes the side that death penalty shouldn't be used. Con, JoshB, takes the side it should.
Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used

Torque Dork unfortunately FF's 2 rounds. This debate is part of a tournament that he can no longer participate in due to personal reasons. Although many voters may agree with my opponent, it is clear that Pro won this debate on the grounds of reliable evidence, conduct, and resouces used in this debate. I hope things get straightend out for TorqueDork in the future, he has some other good debates which aren't related to this topic.
People should reply to messages as soon as they see them

This is mostly about personal opinion. I think people should do many things, but I cannot force them to. Similarly, you think people should respond to messages as soon as they read them, but you're entitled to your own opinion, and not everyone will pay attention to that, since most of us do what we believe is right. If I think it's right to reply later, then I'll do it. I don't have to tell you that I have to go. Besides this, I'd like you to give me a definition of "important message", since you want people to reply to them immediately.
People should reply to messages as soon as they see them

Thanks for responding to the argument and you have very good points over there so now referring back to what you quoted was "Sometimes you have to reply to many people, not just one, therefore you need some time to write a response" well my response to that is if you know you are busy then maybe tell the person that yes I am busy and I will get back to you because if the response the person is waiting for is very important , this would waste the persons time and just telling someone that I'm busy isn't something that would take long to do so yea . And then quoting another of my opponents points "Nobody is forced to reply. Discussions going on on this site are voluntary ones, and whether one wants to reply or not, that is his own business." Well first this debate didn't start based on this site , it was a generalization so I don't think we can focus it to one site or use of messaging because while some messages would be things like someone necessarily doesn't have to reply to and when I started this debate it was referring to all messages This was my personalized view with it I would like to say is if someone was waiting a very important message and that someone was you , would you like being waiting for hours for it , or would like being informed that they might be busy and will get back to you and some people get upset and get a rejection feeling which is not nice to feel as it gives out wrong messages and can lead to bad situations Thanks waiting for my opponents rebuttal :)
People should reply to messages as soon as they see them

Thanks for setting up this debate. I will make some short points about why people do not necessarily have to reply to comments etc. as soon as they see them. 1. While it may be annoying that people do not reply to messages immediately, there may be a reason for that: -- a) -- It may be that you speak about something that they do not know much about, so they spend some time reading about it. -- b) -- Sometimes you have to reply to many people, not just one, therefore you need some time to write a response. -- c) -- Nobody is forced to reply. Discussions going on on this site are voluntary ones, and whether one wants to reply or not, that is his own business. 2. I see a bit of double-standards from your side, since you're debating with someone but have yet to write an argument.[*Just for the point*] - I think you should stand up for your beliefs. But you apparently don't regarding this one. Maybe your opponent too hates this slow reply. References: [*Just for the point*]http://www.debate.org...
Eating meat

You said: "Besides, I'm afraid of that you can't get enough Vitamin B12 by eating vegetables only." True that the highest source of vitamin B12 is meat, however cheese, eggs and other dairy products are also very high in it. Also, vegetarians do not just eat vegetables. Due to not getting protein from meat we must eat nuts, cheese, milk, etc to get it instead. I am also not American, however I got my figures from american sources, that are quite similar to British figures. You also said: "About the meal-time pleasure part, think about it, human eat meat=cruel, but animals eat meat=natural?That doesn't make sense!" I'm don't think I mentioned animals eating meat to be honest. Because that argument would be completely separate to the one we're having now. However, I agree with what you said at the end about a longer life. Another reason why being a vegetarian is good, is that giving up meat actually isn't that hard to do! Many people just presume that by being a vegetarian, you have to eat vegetables and nothing else. Clearly, that is not true, because to be honest, a meat-free diet doesn't feel that different. Of course, it is different due to not eating meat, however I can still eat most of the foods that I've always enjoyed! Giving up meat is easy because you just stop. Temptation to return to meat eating, doesn't really occur with many people, to be honest! :p
Eating meat

Sorry if I forgot to say hello :p Well, I have to admit that vegetarian diet is absolutely more healthy than an average American diet (It's basically high fat foods like fried foods, bacon...etc) , but what about the diets of other countries?Besides, I'm afraid of that you can't get enough Vitamin B12 by eating vegetables only. Meat is the main source of Vitamin B12 for a people who eats both vegetable and meat .If you only eat vegetables, then Vitamin B12 might be a problem for you. I'm not really sure about the US money part since that I'm not an American. About the meal-time pleasure part, think about it, human eat meat=cruel, but animals eat meat=natural?That doesn't make sense! About the 13 healthy years part, vegetarian diet is not the main cause of longer lives, without other important elements that make you healthy like sports, you still can't live longer. In the end, I wanna mention that every kind of diet is good, diet with meat is also pretty good! You can still get a long-lived life with diets that has meat in it, just remember to do sports, be happy, and enjoy your life!
Eating meat

I see your point of view here, however I am now going to make a point that may appear far-fetched. Animals eat vegetables a lot more than humans, and by you eating more animals, you are sort of consuming a lot more vegetables than me. So, you are a bit more of a vegetable murderer than me! :p. Anyway, I will sort of start, with more of a serious point then the one I made before. To begin with, by not consuming meat, it has been scientifically proven that your body is less vulnerable to disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. Clearly, this is a good thing! Also, meat has been proven to be one of the USA's biggest use of money. To be honest, this money is paying for the brutal slaughter of a perfectly-good animal, just for the meal-time pleasure of a human. Sorry, for sounding preachy yet again! To add to this, I have found a quote from a expert to back my point up: "If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life," says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. "People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age." Surely, a longer life to spend doing the things you love is a good thing? I have more points, however I will save them until you answer in the next round. Soure used: http://www.vegetariantimes.com... And personal experience.
There should be sections of interstate with no speed limit.

Athenseric, I understand that responsible change is a good thing, but there is always point where we need to put a limit. An Autobahn might change the quality of highways (make them better), make the drivers ed. test more inept and harder, but in a highway such as autobahn there is a much higher chance of an accident because of the non-enforced speed limits. Maybe autobahn has a lower rate of accidents do to its better construction, but maybe instead of giving the people a free wheel, maybe we should just up the mandatory quality of the highways around the world. Also in your earlier round you stated that some people have the need for speed, and I respect that. But the reason we invented racetracks was so that those people could race
There should be sections of interstate with no speed limit.

You make some valid points which is why I supported the use of speed limits in problem areas such as construction zones and high congestion areas.The annual fatality rate on the Autobahn is 2.7 per billion kilometers traveled. The United States has a 4.5 fatality rate for the the distance. Furthermore this could bring about new changes in in how people drive, and drivers education, as well as how maintained highways are. The accident rate on the Autobahn is consistently lower than many other highway systems, partly because of its better construction, it has a 40 year rating. The US highways have a 20 year rating. Also new laws would come about such as mandatory vehicle inspection every two years. Responsible change is a good thing.
There should be sections of interstate with no speed limit.

Athenseric, think about this there is a 60 year old grandma driving a civic down one of the parts of the interstate with no speed limit, then this 25 year old guy in a Hennessey venom gt comes barreling down the road at 250 miles an hour, and that guy is right behind her on the same lane, while he is racing with his friends, what do you think is going to happen, boom crash slam right? That is way this nation has speed limits, to protect the people from getting hurt. Speed is the cause of most accidents that tend to be fatal, I quote from http://www.smartmotorist.com... "Speed was a factor in 30 percent (12,477) of all traffic fatalities in 1998, second only to alcohol (39 percent) as a cause of fatal crashes." And that was when there were less cars, the world is making cars at a rate of 59,929,016 per year, and that number is constantly growing. So imagine, with more cars, the more the chance of an accident. In 1995 in Congress they raised the speed limit to 85 miles an hour on several highways, then the American journal of public health analyzed the effects of the 1995 act, it resulted in a 3.2 percent increase in road fatalities(accidents). Imagine that, by just raising the speed limit hundreds of more people died, so picture what would happen if we gave the people free run on some interstates. Millions of more deaths would happen.
There should be sections of interstate with no speed limit.

Just like the autobahn there should be portions of interstate where there is no enforced speed limit. Additionally like the autobahn there should still be section with an enforced limit such as exits and any areas that frequently have issues. By creating limit free zones you would allow people with a need for speed to get it out of their system and return to normal driving afterwards, this is especially true for anyone with a performance vehicle. I'm sure that i'm not the only one who likes to see what a vehicle can do every now and again.
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

Greetings to all viewers. My name is TheBunnyAssassin and I would like to negate the resolution, Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior. I will be proving that Super Junior is a superior group. Contention 1: Popularity "Popularity (pop"u"lar"i"ty) noun- the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people." Super Junior, which is a globally recognized group, is popular. Just because Big Bang's one video reached 100 million views, we cannot conclude that they are "popular". Anybody can repeatedly watch a video over and over, thus reaching such a high number. In addition, according to March 24, 2014 Allkpop's [Tournament] Battle of the Best Boy and Girl Groups!, Super Junior soundly beat Big Bang by a majority of 53% of the votes, compared to Big Bang's 47%. With 295,446 voters, we can conclude that the voters truly sought out Super Junior as a band with higher popularity. Moreover, right after the round was over, the final match was created: Super Junior versus the k-pop goddesses, Girls Generation. The result was still the popular choice: Super Junior. With 373,121 votes, Super Junior won beat the "goddesses of k-pop" by 4 percent. Overall, from these statistical analyses, and not by mere views on a music video (that can be repeated), Super Junior is superior to Big Bang and the band of the people. Contention 2: Diversity Compared to Big Bang, Super Junior envelopes a wide plethora of music genres. In addition, instead of focusing solely on music, Super Junior have taken measures to also participate in numerous Korean Dramas, as MC hosts, and other social and public events. One of the greatest superiority of Super Junior is their music. Unlike many other entertainment brands, SuJu has many subgroups: Super Junior- M, Super Junior- T, Super Junior- H, Donghae and Eunhyuk, and the successful solo singer, Henry Lau. Utilizing this wider approach to music, this boy group has demonstrated far more of a diversity to music by appealing not only to the younger audience, but also to older people. The diversity of this group also benefits their company, SM Entertainment. Compared to YG Entertainment (Big Bang's company), SM has an operating income of 44 million (USD) compared to YG's 17 million (USD). In addition, SM's net income is 34 million (USD) compared to YG's 15.6. Due to a more appealing approach to music, and the usage of diversity, Super Junior multitasks by not only engaging the crowd, but also benefitting their home company. From these contentions and real-life statistical analyses (not just personal assumptions), we can conclude that Super Junior is superior to Big Bang. Please take my reasons into account and vote for the negative.
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls. My name is Lawrentian and I would like to affirm the resolution, Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior. In order for the affirmative to victor in this debate, I believe that all I need to prove is that Big Bang is the better group. Contention 1: Popularity My first contention is that of popularity. I believe that a crucial factor in this debate is that of popularity since it is to my understanding that popularity derives from the overall fanbase of one's group. I believe that both debaters can agree that youtube is a very reliable source in expressing the aggregate of ones popularity and fanbase. On youtube, Super Junior's most viewed song, Sorry Sorry, (44 million views) does not even compare to Big Bang's Fantastic Baby which upholds the recognition of 100 million views. Even Big Bang's second most viewed music video, Bad Boy, has more views that Sorry Sorry. Therefore, I believe that we can conclude that Big Bang not only has a greater domestic recognition, but also international popularity. Big Bang is far more globally recognized for one simple reason: They're the superior group. Contention 2: Lack of Quality This is an argument that even many Super Junior fans would agree with. The quality of Super Junior has not lived up to society's standards. For a group that has once been proclaimed with the title of "Kpop Kings", Super Junior has released very poor quality music, aside from the fact they have barely been active for the past few years. It seems like SM has moved on from Super Junior, investing more time promoting newer groups such as SHINee and F(x). Super Junior is almost all but forgotten and definitely are not the same group they once were years ago. On the other hand, Big Bang is the opposite with their most recent album Still Alive received numerous All-Kills on music charts and winning many international recognition. As a fan, I admit Super Junior is a great and respectable group; one of the best actually. However, as I stated in my burden before, all I have to fulfill to win is to prove that Big Bang is superior as to which I have well supported with my two contentions.