BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

As Pro, I must only show one or more examples of altruism. Con most obviously believes that altruism doesn’t exist, but I can easily prove Con wrong. To do so, I must use Con’s definition of altruism. “Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species”. Because of this definition provided by my opponent, I win if I show an example of an animal displaying altruism. The following is quoted from (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers. Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill. Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats. Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group. Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return. Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos. Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system. Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings. Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack). Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators. Some termites release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a gland near the skin in their neck. This autothysis defends against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect. Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predators attack. African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators. As you can clearly see, animals display true altruism. I provided over fifteen examples of this. Therefore I have completely refuted my opponent’s position and have proved that altruism is possible. Because of this, I would ask that you vote Pro. Thank you.
Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

Merriam Webster Definition of Altruism: 1. unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2. behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species Every act that I can think of, there is some motive behind it. Religion, fame, respect, payment. While some motives may be easier to identify than others, there is always a reason for an action. I implore someone to prove me wrong. I will reserve more of my arguments for later rounds.
Social Networking is NOT the best way to develop relationships

Hello and thank you for posting this debate. My opponent has claimed that social media CANNOT be trusted because it can lead divorce. This would in fact be a fallacious claim. Firstly, Social media is just a label for a form of communication "it" is not conscious and does not act on its own without human input. This is in fact what my opponent must prove to justify her claim. Removing the label "social media" from the issue and replacing it with communication (since in fact that"s what it is), how creditable does this claim seem? Communication cannot be trusted because it can lead to divorce; now thats a pretty hard justification to make! So this means my opponent suggests that communication causes divorce". Which obviously is not the case. We hear all the time that "communication is key to a healthy relationship". According the Psychology today and many other sources out there, communication is key to a healthy and successful marriage. So if anything, the LACK of communication can cause a divorce but that isn"t my point because anything can be a contributing factor to a divorce (lack communication). The key thing to understand that the reason for divorce due to the person(s) involved and their decisions. Can liking a photo of an ex-gf cause an argument or a break up? Absolutely but it was the action taken upon the individual to do so. Social media in no way demanded or forced the individual to "like a photo". Social media can be trusted and it"s the individual you have to look out for. As far as I know, social media is not conscious and requires human input. Yet, you claim that social media IS the cause. Please expand on your claim on how social media is 1) conscious 2) performs actions without a human input And most importantly: 3) how humans are the not cause for their divorce Yet, if you go back to the basic idea that social media can cause a divorce" well then a rainy day, a flat tire, and children can cause a divorce too and with your logic implied nothing should be trusted.
Social Networking is NOT the best way to develop relationships

Twitter,Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, and Skype! What do these five have in common? They are social network sites! It is the generation of Internet and these sites are ruling over teenagers and young adults (20 -30), but it does not mean that you can trust Social Media with your relationship?! Imagine this, even in reality (face to face) someone can just turn your love into a game, how would it be if it was in social media? According to U.S Rates and Statistics, the divorce rate has been on the decline since 1980, the fact remains that there are people out there getting divorced. While it may not be as high as 50 percent rate that has long become the go-to stat, no marriage is perfect therefore no marriage is safe from divorce. While experts try to predict what leads to divorce as means to lessen the amount of them, in the past few years there has been a new factor: SOCIAL MEDIA IS A REASON WHY PEOPLE GET DIVORCED It's not only the married couples who gets divorced because of Social Media. Couples who wish to be married tend to break up because of Social Media, either it's liking a picture of his/her ex-girlfriend/ex-boyfriend or hiding something from their particular partner. Social media can ruin relationships.
teen's should not have cell phones!!

Accepted. I will argue that teens should indeed have cell phones, because of these reasons:1. Emergencies and safety. I believe this is the biggest reason. Teens must need cell phones so they can call the police if for example someone try to kill them or something. They will also need it if a accident happens, especially teens, because most teen begins driving. So a teen should have a cell phone for safety, if a accident happens, or for life threating emergencies. Just these 3 reasons alone is enough to any rational person to know that a teen should indeed have a cell phone. And also, some cell phone companies offer GPS tracking programs that can help parents know the teenager's location. This can be very helpful if the teenager has been lost or kidnapped. 2. No excuses. Teens should have cell phones because it will eliminate the excuse for not calling home when they are going to be late or to ask permission about something. If teens have cell phones, they can’t use none of these excuses.3. Busy schedules. If teens have cell phones, the parents can call to let them know if they are running late or if there’s been a change of plans etc. This is very important because of the fact that many families have such busy schedules these days. This basically becomes a important and very helpful issue for the parents.4. Communication with Friends. Its very important to a teenager to be social. Basically, having a cell phone allow teenagers to communicate with their friends regularly, and encourage them to take time to sustain and grow relationships with their friends.5. Responsibility. Giving a teen a cell phone teache teens responsibility. It also gives them a kind of independence. They are almost adults and they can't even have cell phones? Teens are almost adults and should therefore be ready to it. Giving your teen a cell phone is a perfect way to do so. He learns to take responsibility and becomes more ready for the adult life. just because your dad got his first phone when he has 40, it doesn't mean you have to follow his footsteps.6. Impact on teen lifeA majority (57%) of teens view their cell phone as the key to their social life. 80% say their cell phone provides a sense of security while on the go, confirming that the cell phone has become their mobile safety net when needing a ride (79%), getting important information (51%), or just helping out someone in trouble (35%). Second only to clothing, teens say, a person’s cell phone tells the most about their social status or popularity, outranking jewelry, watches and shoes.ConclusionWe are living in the modern age, not in the stone age. Teens should indeed have cell phones for their own safety and for they own happiness. Thank you and I'm looking forward to your round.Sources The statistics showed at 'Impact on teen life', are from: http://www.marketingcharts.com...http://www.phoneservice.org...
Is Five Nights at Freddy's based off of a true story? (Yes= pro | No = con)

"FNAF is a real story because freddy`s pizzeria if you didn"t know exists" As I stated before, through my research, I found that the "real Freddy's Fazbear's Pizzeria" was a hoax. While yes, there is a real Freddy's pizza, it is simply a family owned pizzeria that was dragged into this from fans wondering if the game had anything to do with them. I also want to remind you that if five kids went missing in this establishment, there would be records. No crime that is so horrid could disappear without a trace. Scott has not give any clue to this being based on a true story. I do not see enough evidence to prove that it was anything more than inspired by real crimes, but if you think that you can convince me wrong, please, go ahead.
Is Five Nights at Freddy's based off of a true story? (Yes= pro | No = con)

This question has been tossed around the fandom many times the game was first created, but I have to say no, FNAF was NOT based off of a true story. Now my reasoning is that, there's a large difference between "inspired by" and "based on". "Inspired by" is when the author uses real events as inspiration, while "based on" is taking a real story and recreating it in a certain form of media. Most people argue that there are many videos and forums that hold evidence that FNAF is based off of a true story, but it easily is not. There is no real story that is exactly like that, because there is not real Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria. Yes, I know that some may argue that there is, and I know what you are talking about, but that was proven fake. The location moved multiple times, and that "photo proof" could have very well been photoshopped. To add to that, if there had been a series of murders at that establishment, there would be records. No matter how long ago it happened a simple Google search would find record of such a crime. Now, all the evidence proves is that Scott may have taken some inspiration for the storyline of FNAF from real events, but Scott has not confirmed anything yet. This does not mean that it is based off of a real story. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to view anyone's opinions on the matter.
Same sex marige

ok before we start a dabate this is my first one so it will suck Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Jesus is fake.

I will be the pro side, arguing that Jesus existed. To begin with, I must point out that the resolution stated by my opponent is "Jesus is fake", while in his opening statement he says that "God is fake". While this is most contradictory, my duty as the pro side is to argue about the resolution, thus I shall argue that Jesus existed. So let's begin. First, I must say that asking how can someone "believe in such crap" is most unappropriate for a debate and can be considered no reasonal argument and as such warrants no rebuttal. I shall now state my argumentation as to why Jesus exists. Jesus most definitely existed and there is overwhelming evidence to support that claim. Famous Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius speak of the existence of Jesus in their works, and one must keep in mind that they certainly did not write such claims out of religious beliefs; in the Roman Empire, Christianity was outlawed until the Edict of Milan (313 AD) and the mention of Jesus in those works is purely historical. Many modern atheists, such as the author of the best-selling book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins, also believe Jesus existed. They separate his historical existence, however, from his godlike traits and his existence as the son of God, but that is a different matter entirely. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the people associated with Jesus or mentioned in the stories and records about Jesus were historical and definitely existed, such as the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist and Herod the Great. I find it most unlikely that a non-existent person would fit into historical records alongside historical people just like that. To summarize, evidence from historical sources, the definite existence of persons associated with Jesus Christ or mentioned in historical records about him and the beliefs of many modern atheists and antitheists alike are more than enough to safely state that Jesus Christ existed.
Debate chicks are attractive

Resolved: the majority of "debate Chicks" are either nerds with acne, social disorders and self esteem issues, or they take the opposing side of being inmodest, rude and "too social" their are only about 10 % of "debate chicks" that are normal girls with regular issues. (This is not to say that girls in debate are worse than boys in debate. In fact, the boys in debate face the same percentages and issues.) Please understand that there are "normal girls" in debate, but the majority is the issue and the main voter in this debate. Therefore, because their personality and physical looks are generally flawed, "debate Chicks" are unattractive.
Debate chicks are attractive

"chicks" is a slang word for a female. I am black, why would i debate somebody that i know? Why does he slander my good name by claiming that he knows me. My opponent clearly has no real arguments as i have previously stated, this is why he makes things up and claimes that he knows me. I am straight, and bringing up sexuality during a debate is very rude and uncalled for anyways. dictionary.com defines chick as: 1.–noun 1. a young chicken or other bird. 2. a child. 3. Slang: Often Offensive. a girl or young woman. Defenition 3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This word in and of itself is rude and cruel, therefore he cannot say anything about my personal integrity because he, the one who wrote the resolution, already claims that he thinks females are worth less than the general public. I have proved my case that the majority of debate "chicks" are not attractive, and also shown that their is no connection between my opponent and I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate chicks are attractive

My opponent says he likes 10%. that is incredibly selective. My opponent (in saying that he likes 10%) is 10% agreeing with me. The Con side, is supposed to completely disagree or contradict the Pro side. In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, 'chick' is considered the young of any bird, OR A GIRL/WOMAN. By saying chick, I'm merely using correct terminology. "The reason that I mentioned that boys face the same issues, is because it is true" I ask my opponent, what evidence do you have on this? "In conclusion to my statement, I am straight, read my profile" I personally know my opponent, and I know for a fact that he is white-Caucasian and is LDS (although on his profile, he said he was a black Jew). If he lied on those details, what is to stop him from lying on the issue of his sexuality. "The reason I mentioned this is so that the girls would not feel as if I was targeting them as the problem with debate, but simply saying that all persons have this problem." I am not targeting debate girls in a negative way. in fact, quite the opposite. I am saying that debate girls are attractive. Never once did I say anything bad about debate girls. My opponent clearly does not understand the issue at hand, and I ask that his 'arguments' be discarded and ignored. I have proved that debate girls are attractive through multiple details. 1)Debate chicks are attractive. (Round 1-Pro) 2)He does not appreciate the fact that debate girls are beautiful, wonderful, and attractive. (Round 2-Pro) Vote Pro, due to the fact that my opponent is clearly against debate girls. Thank You
Debate chicks are attractive

My opponent first states that I do not like "debate chicks." However, I do like 10 % of debate chicks, just not the other 90%. The 90% is the main voter in this debate. My next point that he brought up was that I was a "sexist". However, the resolution is "Debate chicks are attractive" I would like to point out that he reffered to the females as "chicks" this is a very sexist term for females. It is demeaning and encourages negative behaviour towards females. I simply said that the majority of females participating in debates are "nerds with acne, social disorders and self-esteem issues." I said this because it is correct, it is a fact. The reason that i mentioned that boys face the same issues, is because it is true. I was simply stating that not only the girls have these problems but the guys do too. The reason I mentioned this is so that the girls would not feel as if I was targeting them as the problem with debate, but simply saying that all persons have this problem. In conclusion to my statment, I am straight, read my profile. My opponent just has no real arguments, so he had to make false accusations to sway away from the topic.
Debate chicks are attractive

My opponent says that debate chicks are unattractive. My opponent obviously does not like the majority of debate chicks. My opponent is rude, and cruel to this girls by saying they're "nerds with acne, social disorders and self-esteem issues." Female voters should vote AGAINST Con, due to the fact he is being sexist. He does not appreciate the fact that debate girls are beautiful, wonderful, and attractive. I suspect my opponent is homosexual. He brought up boys in debate, although the resolution clearly states "Debate Chicks."
Sennheiser and bose are far better than beats

Bose is not at all better than beats. Bose is a total ripoff. The reason why I say is it's a ripoff, is because something expensive should mean it's better. Bose should have a great sound quality according to the price. Sennheiser is better than beats but is to expensive to afford for some people also people won't buy it because it's to expensive, and since it's a higher price, it should have a great sound quality . Although sennheiser is a little than beats, beats are more cheaper and affordable
should there be NASA be less used in America

Indeed, so let me point important reasons that require attention and money for the benefit of national security, understanding and development of worldwide science. Again, the fact that we have not found much about something does not prove we will not (it also does not prove we will). It is likely that our discoveries in the universe will teach us more about ourselves and our planet itself than many things we could be researching in earth itself. The scenarios we could suppose here are endless. They could range from a race to get water in Jupiter (there is water in JupitEr) to trying to clean the space garbage. Investing money in NASA is attempting to understand the future and past without the wrong and primitive assumption that we are the center of this universe, that we will only find answers within ourselves, that we are alone. War will eventually extend to the space. China, the Russia and the United States developed earth to space weapons and during the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, space to earth weapons were also designed, as much as in the United States. Investing in NASA is powering research to learn how to be ready for a proper defense to this attacks. (http://www.fas.org..., http://www.sciencedirect.com..., http://www.time.com...) For science, what we have discovered until a point is resumed to the ability we had here in earth. As soon as NASA (and other space agencies around the globe) could research the outer space, much more was discovered and the usefulness of this research, that is contested here, are necessary to any need we might come across because it represents our understanding of how it works, where it is. It is identification and capability to say that we are aware of the situation and, if we need to do something about it, we understand what is around our planet and have the means to go there and act. Halting the full amount of investment NASA receives would be halting a very important process of science development for the whole world.
should there be NASA be less used in America

Ok apparntely my oppenent did not read my main headline i said NASA should be use LESS in america not taken completely away my oppenent is right we have found out more about the universe true but you see we find out so much about for example jupitar ok there is no life on jupitar there is no water nothing ( except jupitar rocks and stuff) ok we spend billionsof dollars going there and learning nothing we can not use jupitar to help boost our economoy so whats the point in spending billions and billions of dollars to go there when we could be using that billions of dollars to help boost our econmoy and what my oppenent was saying about NASA uses sattelite and help wireless technology form i agreewith that i think that should be the only thing NASA is MAINLY used for because we need that to help us in the world we live in today