BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalized Prostitution

I'll jump right into my rebuttals: "It would be nearly impossible to erase prostitution" I'm not arguing we can completely erase it. I'm merely contending that the legalization of it would popularize it even more and would lead to negative side effects. My opponent commits the straw man fallacy here because he is essentially rebutting an argument that I never made. "it is a law not particularly enforced by law officers" This article goes into detail about how police catch prostitutes: . http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... Even if it is not too priority, police officers still have it on their mind and will attempt to catch prostitutes. "Violent people wishing to hurt a prostitute are more likely to abuse them if they are confident about not being caught by the police" As mentioned before, police are keen on actually catching pimps and prostitutes. Making prostitution completely legal would make most police officers fail to see much encouragement to go out and catch abusive pimps and prostitutes, as the prostitution itself (The reason they are going out in the first place) would be completely legal. Keeping it illegal keeps police motivated to catch them, thus decreasing the violence caused. "Not only is there violence within the prostitution rings, but it is comitted by those who enforce the laws themselves. Every year, there is more and more police violence against prostitutes. An article by Chi Mgbako on rhrealitycheck. org says that in South Africa, where prostitution is illegal, police officers often fine sex workers immense amounts of money" We are discussing the United States of America here, not South Africa. My opponent does not give any evidence that indicates police brutality towards prostitutes in America, nor does he give evidence that it would decrease if we made it legal. If police are already breaking laws and beating citizens for little reason, they probably won't see a reason to stop. Thank you for reading what I had to say. Have a nice day, and good luck Pro!
Murder of children is worse than murder of adults

I never denied that I am supposed to debate that murder of children is worse than murder of adults. The point I was making were that all I have to prove is that it is worse for a child to be murdered than for a adult to be murdered.All you did this round is say that "murder is murder". That is true, but some murders are worse than others.You failed to respond to any of my arguments, so I will extend them to next round.Happy New Year's to you to.
Murder of children is worse than murder of adults

I'm sorry for forfeiting last round. I will concede conduct to Con.Now for my argument.In this debate I do not need to argue that to murder a child is a morally worse action than to murder an adult.Neither do I have to prove that murder of children is always worse than murder of adults.What I will be arguing is that, all other things being held equal, the murder of a child is a worse thing to happen than that of an adult. The reason for this is simple. Children have more years of their life left to live. A child looses more of their life then an adult.Your argument was basically "We're all going to die someday......". This is true, but I fail to see how this is relevant.
I exist

Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins, "Somewhere in the world, something, even a computer program, is typing this argument." This is not a contention in Pro's favor. Because a computer program is not capable of formulating thought, then the speaker of that statement ('I' by definition) does not exist as a real being in reality, but merely reflects what another existing being has programmed it to do. For example, if a talking toy baby says "I'm hungry" does the 'speaker' of that 'I'm' exist? Of course not. The actual toy exists, but the entity or individual the toy portrays or pretends to be does not really exist. Another thing to note is that 'I' also refers to the narrator of a literary work written in the first person singular [1]. However, the narrators of literary works do not often exist. For instance, Holden Caulfield is the narrator and speaker known as "I" in The Catcher in the Rye. However, Holden Caulfield does not actually exist. Pro writes, "My opponent cannot deny that the word 'Revolution' exists at the top of this debate page on the Pro side." No, I will not deny that, but I don't feel that it's relevant to the discussion. My opponent continues, "Even if I do not exist as a material being, I exist as a word." This completely changes the context of my opponent's argument. Originally Pro said that the typing of the argument is what ensured existence. However words are capable of neither forming thoughts nor typing. Therefore, just because a word exists does not mean that a speaker behind it (constituting as "I") exists. For instance the word "argument" exists at the top of the page too, but that doesn't mean an "I" exists behind it. Next, Pro states "As I stated and my opponent acknowledged, my existence as a word would prove the resolution..." However I don't recall ever acknowledging such a statement, but I invite Pro to quote me and find where I said that so I can justify my alleged acknowledgment. Moving on, my opponent's statement about unicorns existing is irrelevant because he hasn't proven "I" exists. My opponent concludes by saying we "know" that the word 'I' at least refers to the word "Revolution," but I've already explained how that is irrelevant and/or would not help support my opponent's case. Pro has not fulfilled his burden. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
I exist

Thank you for accepting, Con. 1. Somewhere in the world, something, even a computer program, is typing this argument. Whatever it is that is typing this argument is "I", by definition. My opponent cannot deny that the word "Revolution" exists at the top of this debate page on the Pro side. Even if I do not exist as a material being, I exist as a word. As I stated and my opponent acknowledged, my existence as a word would prove the resolution, because anything that is "I" would prove the resolution. Also, if I am a unicorn, unicorns must exist because I do, as affirmed above. Finally, we do know what "I" refers to, or at least one of the things it refers to. One of the things it refers to is the word revolution.
I exist

Thanks, Pro. As instigator of a non-agnostic resolution, my opponent has the burden of proof [1]. My opponent gives two contentions in favor of I's existence: 1) If I am typing this, I must exist... 2) The resolution says nothing about what I am, only that I am. First, Pro must prove that "I" is typing this. If Pro cannot prove "I" is typing that, then this contention is irrelevant. Second, Pro is correct that the resolution says nothing about what "I" am. Therefore, "I" can refer to something that does not in fact exist. For all we know "I" refers to a unicorn, which probably doesn't exist [2]. Even if you say unicorns exist, it doesn't change the fact that we don't know what "I" refers to meaning we don't have absolute proof of its existence. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden. [1] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969. p 370. [2] http://whyunicornsdontexist.com...
Students should wear uniforms.

Exactly, and just about all clothes are distracting. Though if you're all wearing the same thing there is nothing interesting to distract you. I would like to point out that you are extremely close to a fallacy by the fact that this is not about free speech, this is school uniforms, and I will slightly concede that there is a extremely slight loss of personality. However, it is not gone as some people would have you believe, and besides, if a student truly needs clothing to express themselves, they honestly probably don't have that much to express, I realize that sounds outrageously rude but it's true. If you would be so kind as to refer to my post in the comments section, you will find a extension on this, the comment reads that it is directed towards 'superburit0'. Thank you.
Students should wear uniforms.

A students clothing, depending on the individual,can mean a way to express themselves, show who they are, essentially speaking without words. Most people would agree that you can tell a lot about someone by how they present themselves. this would make the choices that we make with our clothing an extension of free speech.The supreme court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District stated that the school did not have the right to limit the freedom of speech so long as the medium that the students are using is non violent and not distracting from the learning environment. Now even though the case was specifically about armbands that students were wearing to protest the vietnam war I believe the Idea carries over the the dress code; That so long as the student isnt wearing anything that compleatly distracts from the learning environment then they should be free to express themselves in any way they choose. The only stipulations to the freedom to wear whatever they choose the indivdual administrations of the schools are free to decide within in reason what would be considered a distraction in the classroom.
Students should wear uniforms.

As to your comment in your previous post, in 2013 a student was charged with indecent exposure when said student paraded around the Carnegie Mellon University half dressed. My first point is that students are often pressured to wear the 'right clothes'. Sometimes to the extreme of bullying. This would not happen however because the students would be dressed in the congruent uniform. to back that up, a study was done with more 1,500 teens and 64% were bullied because of clothing. Thus bullying would go down. Secondly, if the school leaders decide on a females uniform that us not tight, revealing, etc., then the male students would pay more attention in class. The sexual offenses would go down as well. One study was done by the u.s. Department of Education and it states that sexual offenses fell 74% after the uniform policy took affect. My final reason is that it would flat out help behavior. School crime, fights, and as I mentioned, sexual offenses would all significantly come down. In the study I already mentioned school crime fell 36%! After they started with a uniform! Fights decreased by 51%! And sexual offenses fell 74%. So since I see no valid reason to do otherwise, uniforms should be made mandatory! Thank you.
Should Muslims be able to build a mosque near the World Trade Center

"If we allow those Muslims in our country building 9/11 memorials that's A OK, but when these guys are gettin' their filthy prayers near my ground zero, that's a problem. Unless the prayers are for those who died in 9/11. But if they're prayin' for allahu akbar, get rid of it." Do you see how pathetic this argument is now?
Dress code

My school is having a talent show me and my group for friends are instead with The play Hamilton so I was going to be Alex so I came to the prodigal to ask if my out fit was ok his words was "Your a girl not a boy." Me:"Sir, It's just for the play I'm trans." He sent me my next class I was extremely upset a boy couldn't play Alex because my school doesn't allow long hair boys and if you don't know Alex wears a ponytail.
Corruption is the main reason which holds back developing countries from being fully developed

Although most people believe it is corruption that is responsible for holding these countries back, It's definitely not the case for most people in most situations. The reasons for this I will be outlining in the next points 1. Let's make one thing clear. Developed countries not giving undeveloped countries money to fix there problems is not corruption, It's just not giving them personal government money & assets to solve there problems. It's not selfish or unkind, It's just denying them personal funds and there's nothing wrong with that. I would never call a person corrupt if they didn't give money on the street to a homeless man that has been taking money from people for years instead of getting a job so he can take care of himself. Your not uncivil if you don't give him money, Your enabling him to make his own money which is a very good thing. Not only will he be receiving alot more personal funding from employment than begging for spare change on the street, But he would be doing a service for society in order to receive those funds. 2. It is physically impossible for a corporation to be evil. A corporation is not a person, It doesn't have a heart, A brain, Or any other human qualities. Now that being said, There have been people who have led corporations, That have been evil. But to say a corporation is evil is silly because as we all know bad employees come and go and that doesn't make Walmart or 7/11 evil because there CEO is a jerk. 3. Now as far as the supposed "unfair" pay that "evil" corporations provide, Most companies pay there skilled employees as much as they can, If they didnt pay there employees competitively, They would just go work for there competition who would pay them apropriately. And please don't cry for the employee at McDonald's who thinks he deserves 30K/year for flipping burgers. Not only can McDonald's not afford to give this employee 30K/year, It's not ethical that your boss's boss is at most making as much as you do you entitled prick. If you were skilled enough to save up enough money, Make a good investment decision and buy and own your own McDonald's you deserve at least 150K/year as a modest reward for your success in life. You are providing a service to people that as much as they are unwilling to admit probably use regularly. 4. Other than if you were to be a victim of oppression or persecution resulting in you being unable to take care of yourself or your loved ones by not having decent employment opporotunities, The main thing that would be holding you back is a lack of opportunities, Not corruption. This leads me to my fifth point. 5. The real reason why undeveloped countries cannot flourish is because there is no opportunity to flourish. The jobs aren't there for there citizens, And the leaders of that country are not competent enough to provide decent work for there citizens. It's not that the citizens of that undeveloped country are lazy or are victims of corruption. It's that there hopefully fairly elected government officials can't get there acts together.
Corruption is the main reason which holds back developing countries from being fully developed

Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, Is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development around the world. Forms of corruption vary, But include bribery, Extortion, Cronyism, Nepotism, Patronage, Graft and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate the criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, Money laundering and human trafficking, It is not restricted only to these activities. It distorts markets, Stifles economic growth, Debases democracy and undermines the rule of law. Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, It undermines democracy and good governance. Corruption not only attacks the moral fibre of our society and the integrity of our markets, But it also conflicts with the core principles on which a democracy is based.
Pie is Better than Cake

" Con's source points to cake being better according to the public. " His words not mine. "Pie clearly is more flavorful with the delicious filling oozing across your tongue with every bite. Cake is too often dry, and only good for the frosting." Imagine this word "oozing", how nasty is it. "Oozing across you tongue" with statements like this, who is to say that the pie isn't a living organism freely moving across your mouth, into your stomach and waiting quietly to kill you from the inside. A pie is best when it is hot because its crust isn't hard. Now imagine this scenario: You try to eat a pie at its end. First bite and the filling "oozes" across your tongue. Its burning hot, your tongue almost inflamed. You run to sit it out only to find that the filling stuck to your gum. A drink of water and your fine. You go back to finish your diner only to find out that you can no longer taste your food. --- Would you really go through all this pain for something inferior to a nice smooth, delicious cake? "Pies can be filled with full servings of fruit in each slice. I have never seen a cake that could boast that fact." A cake can be served with small delicious fruits toppings as well as smooth, creamy ice cream on the side. A delicious combo guaranteed to stimulate your taste buds. "I can also show that longer baking time doesn't necessarily mean better food. Everyone has had over-baked cake. Dry, crusty, or even crunchy. Too much time in the oven doesn't make something better, it destroys it." This might be true for all bakery, but the cake is far superior. With only 30 minutes of baking time, it not only holds a shape but transform into a dessert fit for a king. "Pumpkin pie is much more important to thanksgiving. It is a dessert of gratitude, humility, and family unity. Pie is used in eating contests because contestants would be physically ill if they ate that much cake. Too much frosting. And lastly, Con didn't show cake to be more rhymable. " Velvet cakes, a delicious, red, fluffy, God fitting dessert is the best dessert when it comes to reunions, personal events and yes even thanksgiving. Might i remind you that cake could go without frosting. A pie on the other hand is noting without its filling. As for rhyms: Pat-a-Cake, Pat-a-Cake, Baker man, bake me a Cake as fast as you can., Pat it and roll it, and mark it with a B, and put it in the oven for Baby and me. Ones again sharing and unity. In conclusion, A cake is a friend, an Angel, a guardian. A cake is a not just a desert but a life's necessity. Unlike a Pie, a Cake is soft, fluffy, delicious and stimulating. A diversified kingdom of flavors and types, it provides us with unlimited option. A cake is a desert fitting for God like creatures like Us. Vote Cake-or suffer the horrid pain of a pie. Thank you.
Pie is Better than Cake

Con's source for cake having more flavors is an opinion on a public forum. I will quickly show how invalid this source is. One person responded to Con's quote with the following:"You can decorate a pie just as much as a cake, if not more. You just don't know how I'm a culinary student, I know these things. "Not to mention that the entire thread has 17 votes for pie, and 11 votes for cake. Therefore, Con's source points to cake being better according to the public. Pie clearly is more flavorful with the delicious filling oozing across your tongue with every bite. Cake is too often dry, and only good for the frosting.Pies can be filled with full servings of fruit in each slice. I have never seen a cake that could boast that fact.I can also show that longer baking time doesn't necessarily mean better food. Everyone has had over-baked cake. Dry, crusty, or even crunchy. Too much time in the oven doesn't make something better, it destroys it.Pumpkin pie is much more important to thanksgiving. It is a dessert of gratitude, humility, and family unity. Pie is used in eating contests because contestants would be physically ill if they ate that much cake. Too much frosting. And lastly, Con didn't show cake to be more rhymable. Pie is so fly, that I don't have to try to show you why it is my favorite way to get high.(The good, natural kind of high. Not the other kind).So I will conclude my remarks, reminding each of you of your favorite pie. Not too sweet(like horrible cake frosting), not too dry. Whether you love cherries, apples, berries, pumpkin, lemon, rhubarb, pecans, or any other combination of fillings, pie is clearly the food of humanity. After all, if you cut a pie, does it not bleed?Bleeds deliciousness! Vote 3.1415927... err...Vote Pie!
Pie is Better than Cake

I also appreciate my opponent's arguments and speedy reply.Notice that my opponent doesn't provide any support for his claim that there are more types of cake than pie. Pies can contain any filling, have crusts or no crust, different styles of crust, nuts, no nuts, etc... I object to Con's usage of personal opinions as to which is better, as there is no end of personal opinions on both types.Again, Con uses a personal opinion about cake tasting better than pie. I propose that pie actually uses larger quantities of healthy, natural flavors, rather than relying on frosting and sugar. Baking time is irrelevant to texture. A flaky, crispy crust, moistened by the pie filling, is a wonderful texture to taste. I even argue that a shorter baking time makes pie better as it is more accessible. Cake is very cultural, but pie has deeper roots in culture. Cake is used to celebrate individual events(weddings and birthdays), but pie celebrates much more. Pie celebrates community. Family reunions. Thanksgiving. A comforting meal. Pie is also used in pie-eating contests, showing it is a better competition dessert.Some pie is actually quite firm. We have pumpkin pie, meringues, and hard creams. We also have soft fillings, such as cherry. The soft filling goes down smooth and coats your tongue in deliciousness. From personal experience, I assert that most people earth the crust of a pie, especially a warm, flaky crust that wasn't dried out. I would present a further argument for the amazing 'better'-ness of pie. Pie charts. So many businesses are able to utilize pie-charts to quickly and effectively present ideas, increase effectiveness, and earn more money for employees and investors, who can then buy more pie.Lastly, pie rhymes with more cool words.Go buy some pie,It will be so good you could die.Every day I try,To visit grandma, for a slice of pie.My, oh my,I feel I could fly,Every time I eat pie!I think I have clearly presented just how amazing pie is.
Pie is Better than Cake

I appreciate the fact that my opponent responded in such a short amount of time. Cake is far superior to pie in many ways. The first being the fact that cake has more variety than pie. The second being that cake tastes better. The third, cake is more cultural and finally, pie is noting more than filling on a crust. Cake has more variety: In the world of dessert, cake proves to be the dominant bakery. With hundreds if not thousands of different cake, its no matter cake clearly defeats pie. "I like pie, but you can't do the awesome decorating to it as you can a cake.ï¿½ï¿½Besides you have far more different flavors for cakes then you do pie.." http://www.runehq.com.... Unlike pie, you are able to create or rather express different creative methods with cake. This not only encourages us to express our selves, but it also shows us that just like every cake, we can all be different and still be delicious. Cake tastes better: Cake tastes better than pie because unlike pie, you can incorporate different elements within a cake to not only make it look better but also taste better. "a fancy cake tastes better than a fancy pie." http://us.battle.net... A look into the bakery process reveals that cake takes more time to bake than pie; meaning that cake has a better texture, is baked to perfection and is completely edible. The texture of the cake is suiting to the eyes thus increasing its taste. To verify this argument I would like to present the quote... "you eat with your eyes". Cake is more cultural: In every valuable event, a cake is presented. This simply means that a cake is far richer in terms of culture. A cake is firm yet soft. This can be related as life been harsh yet suiting. Pie is noting more than filling on a crust: Pie isn't firm nor does it have a firm shape. Its squishy, disgusting as well as nasty. Most people don't even like the crust, they just eat the sugar filled filling. This is unhealthy and dangerous.