BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

Well, thank you for your opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that social networks should be prohibited for children as they result in inability of a child to emotionally and socially connect to the people they meet. He\she dives into the virtual world deeper and deeper and loses the interaction with the world around. In other word, social networking builds the isolation of a young person. So this phenomenon disturbs personal, emotional and social development of a child. It's harder for him\her to make real friends, get attached to the real people, perform in front of an audience, argue own position, express own opinion. Hence, they cannot communicate with others face-to-face and become socially withdrawn.
Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

As a 15 year old, I have grown up in a world where social networks were not only invented, but improved upon. Through the many different kinds of social networks, whether they be picture sharing, status updaters, or whatever else, I'm able to keep in contact with people that I don't see everyday, or even at all. For example, Omegle, a website that allows strangers to converse with each other, gives me the opportunity to meet people from around the world. And if we have a good conversation, apps like Kik or Yahoo Messenger allow me to talk to that person at a later time, which can easily lead to a lifelong friendship. Also, on apps/websites like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, I can see what family members who live out of town, state, or even country are up to, and comment on these postings. Plus, I can see what my favorite celebrities or even the government are doing as well. And to finish this round, I'll present an educational point. With most of these apps, the abilities to discuss things from school, work on projects, or compare answers on homework from long distances is present. So while there may be cons, as you already stated and others, the overall pros weigh them out. Especially considering the fact that not all younger teens are the same.
Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

Since Internet became available throughout the world, social networks have taken a special place in men's lives. Facebook reports that the amount of users reached the number of 1.11 billion in the world on May, 2013. No doubt, there are a great amount of young users under 16 years old. So I think that social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old because children might be experiencing negative influence of available information at the Internet. Some of the contents might be automatically switched off by their parents (for example, pornography). However, there is much more beyond that accessible for sharing among children. Therefore, opportunities provided by social networks for information sharing are more dangerous than real communication, because the face-to-face communication is limited in the content than social networks.
Chocolate Ice cream is the best flavor! (Con will represent other flavors)

First, my opponent claims that obesity is "only one" of the negative side-effects; an in doing so does nothing to the degree of actually refuting that Chocolate is bad for you. Just because I only present one argument on the matter, doesn't make Obesity good. Nor does it quantify the Diabetes, Addiction, or poor self image that comes with it. My opponent simply blows off this point. I win one-fold. Second, my opponent claims that when referring to ice-cream, they in fact mean that the ice-cream will actually have chocolate in it. I ask you to review the topic, it says the best "flavor" in which my claim is still completely justifiable you cannot accept a new argument such as this in the second round when there are only two rounds to go on. Not to mention my opponent gives us neither logical warrant, nor empirical evidence to back up this claim. We cannot look to this argument. I win two-fold. Third, my opponent says "That is what the ice-cream contains" first refer back to y second point that most Ice-cream in fact does not contain Chocolate as the main flavoring. Go ahead go to your nearest wal-mart and check the back of a tub of Blue Bell, or Haagan Dazs. I defy you to find chocolate ice-cream in any grocery story (diet not including) that hasn't got tons of syrups and sugars. Again, I'll extend my point; my opponent only talks about chocolate. they do nothing in the field of discussing Ice-cream. I win three-fold. Finally my opponent does not touch my argument that what is truly "the best" is entirely up to opinion. So extend this point. I've won the debate four-fold.
Chocolate Ice cream is the best flavor! (Con will represent other flavors)

"Chocolate Ice cream is bad because it is addictive and can lead to obesity." That my friend, is only one negative effect of chocolate on the human body, opposed to the many positive effects you've probably seen in my last post. "not all chocolate ice cream (in fact most of it isn't) made with real chocolate." When referring to CHOCOLATE ice cream, im talking about ice cream that contains CHOCOLTE. "My opponent's Sources are only on chocolate" That is what the ice cream contains.
Chocolate Ice cream is the best flavor! (Con will represent other flavors)

First, Chocolate Ice cream is bad because it is addictive and can lead to obesity. And once some-one is obese, it leads to a slew of medical problems and deteriorating self-image. This is bad. Second, not all chocolate ice cream (in fact most of it isn't) made with real chocolate. Therefore it is comprised primarily of sugar and syrup and is bad for you. Finally, what is the best "Flavor" is all entirely up to personal perception. My opponent's Sources are only on chocolate, not Ice-cream and it is on the positive medical benefits not the personal opinions on taste.
The few, the brave, the "we are entitled"! LOL!

If you follow the rules of Logic, then the validity of your argument is everyone's to judge. If I read your reply correctly you are stating that people enjoy equal opportunity at birth, but only within their sex. In my above arguments I have show that is not true and factors, such as being born into a low income family, can be like an anvil around your neck. While I agree that both your gender and your sexual orientation have a large impact on your equality in both social and economic settings, for entertainment sake, let's look at your claim that it is the only thing that makes us unequal. You said, in your opening, that "Equality is paying your fair share." If we look at that and your assertion that people are born unequal due to their "sex" (I am assuming you mean gender) then it follows that men and women are not being paid equally. Since "equality is paying your fair share" you must also apply this definition to the employers that are not paying men and women equally. Therefor, to be equal, employers need to pay men and women equally. We can also expand this argument out to include race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Closing: I have shown through facts and logic that not only are people born unequal, but that our government should work to give everyone a equal start in life. There are a myriad of ways to do this, but ensuring everyone gets the same education, nutrition, and health care are paramount in creating a solution. When we talk about equal health care I am including equal access to birth control. It is giving low income women the ability to get long term birth control that will allow them to have control of their lives. When women control their reproductive health they drastically improve their economic potential. Thank you for debating with me.
The few, the brave, the "we are entitled"! LOL!

You have not replied with a valid argument, nor have you refuted any of my claims. You have stated your opinion and you have not offered any evidence to back it up. Because of this you are calling into effect Hitchens's Razor. Hitchens's Razor states that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It also states that the burden of proof is with the instigator (you). Here is my refutation of your round two arguments: You have offered a substitution fallacy. Because you move to intensional statements that I "wish for equality while condemning any human based on race or sex," your argument is invalid. The same is true for the argument that I "desire a coalition of darker skinned folks, and women, and children to follow [my] lead, and to improve [my] condition." Would you please offer a valid argument that either furthers your claim or refutes my argument? Your next round should have evidence that can be verified without requiring a specific point of view or requiring any preexisting beliefs.
The few, the brave, the "we are entitled"! LOL!

By your own words you look at "white men" as your downfall, or as your target. I target no one. My family is light skinned, however they came to the land of the free well beyond the time of slavery or womens sufferage. I will not accept your guilt trip. Good luck in life if you wish for equality while condemning any human based on race or sex. What I feel you desire is a coalition of darker skinned folks, and women, and children to follow your lead, and to improve your condition. Go suck an egg.
The few, the brave, the "we are entitled"! LOL!

Equality means starting on the same footing. In America there are many different starting points and no real effort to give the disadvantaged a way to start at the same level as those with advantage. There are many examples of this. I will give two. # 1 Being born poor in this country automatically means you will receive a poor quality education, diet, and health care. Students in low income areas of the country are not given the same level of education as those in more affluent parts of the country. When you can barely read or do math the world becomes a series of closed doors and you are already destined to make less in your lifetime than those that can do math and read. When it comes to diet, low income families are provided with such a small amount of money to purchase food that they inevitable choose the food that is the cheapest. As anyone that has visited a grocery store knows a box of macaroni and cheese is much more affordable, feeds more, and leaves you feeling fuller than spend that same $0.79 on one apple. This lack of proper nutrition sets children up for life long health and weight issues. The lack of adequate health care that is available to the disadvantaged is most clearly seen when individuals look at birth control. When women are given access to affordable. long term birth control they are able to ensure that the children they have are better provided for. This form of birth control also allows more girls to stay in school, graduate, and get a higher paying job. #2 Minorities in America ear a lower wage than their white male counterparts. This fact is seen the most in minority women. How are you to reach the American Dream when you are automatically punished for being a non-white female? While the wage gap for white women is 78 cents per dollar that there white male counterparts make that amount drops dramatically when race is added to the equation. Hispanic women only make 53 cents to every dollar white males (with the same qualifications) makes. This huge wage disparity not only puts the women in a position were they cannot live an equal life style as white males, it automatically place any children they have in a lower starting position. Instead of demanding people end the same, why don't we ensure they start the same.
Nuclear decay rates are not constant

I have decided to focus on a study performed by the Institute for Creation Research (young earth creationists) and built upon previous observations of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I have decided to dismiss the original study that I have mentioned, because I find this one to be of greater significance and impact. Before I begin, I would like to state that you will have absolutely no issues when it comes to finding rebuttals to the study that I am about to present - there are countless of them on the internet, but I believe all of them to be bogus and I will be ready to counter each and every one of them.Let's begin with the bakground. In the 1980s a team of researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, while doing nuclear waste contamination research, noticed that there is a significant amount of helium in zircon crystals and they rightly found it suspicious as the decay rate of uranium-238 from which the helium came from, is incredibly slow & the time since the formation of the crystal is 1.5 billion years. This concern was published here as Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129.On to the relevant part. Two decades later, the Institute for Creation Research assembled a group of scientists to investigate radiometric dating methods for several years and write a report, this project was called RATE. During their investigations into radiometric dating, they came across the report that the scientists at the Los Alamost National Laboratory had published in the 1980s and realized that they could use the data in that report to prove that there was a period of accelerated nuclear decay using calculations. However, something was missing: there was no study in all of scientific literature that had measured the "leak rate" of helium in zircon crystals, a piece of information that is necessary in order to perform such a calculation.Quickly, they anonymously tasked a world class laboratory with measuring the rate at which helium leaks from zircon crystals at various temperatures. Before the results came in, they made a model based upon a 6,000 year old earth and a model based upon the commonly stated age of zircon crystals, which is 1,500,000,000 years. When the results came in, they almost perfectly fit with the 6,000 year model and there was a large discrepancy of a factor of 100,000 when it came to the standard model of 1.5 billion years. From the data they managed to conclude that the decay rates definitely had to have been a billion fold faster than they are today. You can read the report here: http://static.icr.org... If I could make a request: for the sake of clarity, please summarize rebuttals as points instead of only having blocks of text.
Nuclear decay rates are not constant

We have only known about radioactivity for a relatively short amount of time, but regardless, we seem to insist that the decay rates of elements are constant beyond a shadow of a doubt, under any circumstances. For example, the half life of polonium-218 will always remain 3.05 minutes, no matter the circumstances surrounding the element (f.ex., atmospheric pressure, temperature, magnetic field intensity). I am here to say that this doctrine of constancy is demonstrably false, and I will provide evidence for my statement, in the form of a scientific report. I believe that this report clearly demonstrates that the idea of a constant decay rate is false. Kappeler, F., Beer, H., and K., Wisshak, S-process nucleosynthesis"nuclear physics and the classical model, Reports on Progress in Physics 52:1006"1008, 1989. This paper reports that at high temperatures, the 176Lu/176Hf decay bypasses the usual route (slow), and moves to an isomeric state (half life = 3.68 hours). Compare normal 176Lu decay (t" = 41 Ga).
Religion (specifically Christianity) is true

Ah, well what I would like to say is to go against the fact that you stated the fact that the light made God. Then again you said that sunlight created the light and was also made by the sun and the fact that God is fake. For that reason yo us said god was not real. Yes you could see it like that, but why isn't there any other news or a fact that shows people in Christianity are leaving. Since if they know that God is fake, why aren't the people leaving? They know that the sun makes all those lights but Christainity is still number one religion. The reason is because they know that God is real and that proves that God wasn't created because they needed an answer for the lights. That proof is like what I said before the fact that people leaving the Churches when they know that the light is caused by sunlight. If God was created by light and the truth is that the sunlight is the light, that means that God is fake and not real, but still knowing that fact and people not leaving means that God is believed to be real. Also the reason why people don't amke knew religions is that there is nothing to make more of, it would be similar to the ones that are already made. There may seem to be few of religions but there are many hundereds and even though make a new one, it would be similar to others and still wouldn't be so famous because of Muslims, and Christianity. So there is no point of making a new religion. Finally, I would like to state that the bible talks on many thousands of years and is made in just one book. Also before writing, what do you think people gave there news, by speaking, and speaking can be changed which causes all those hocus pocus. Also, even though like a myth, it could of been changed and added up, but keep on following the story tellers and guess what you might find the true story. I mean a news is based on fact but could be changed by time. That I think is what I give as a proof that God does exist.
Religion (specifically Christianity) is true

First of all did i ever say that i think that Buddha was real? no. I think that heir values are great but i don't believe in it it's self. You are right when you said that i can not prove the big bang but the reason why i believe it is that it is a guess based upon the facts that we see in the universe. God was based upon people saying OMG light, it must have come from somewhere, but i don't know where. People are afraid of things that they don't know so they said a being must have made light. notice that the first religions put these attributes into mainly animals (another unknown) and later into human figures. All the main religions where made thousands of years ago. Why aren't there any more today? why aren't people still creating more religions? Because people cant go on making reasons to why there is light, we now know that the sun makes the light and therefore there is no reason to try to explain it. If this is not enough evidence for you and you still insist upon saying that "we feel it in our everyday lives we don't need evidence" (i'm not saying that you said that i'm just saying that iv heard that argument before) then why does every other religion also say that? they cant all be right.
Religion (specifically Christianity) is true

Well, don't get me wrong but I also like science alot. Though what I'm asking you is that, do you have any proof that well God didn't exist. I', asking you then what had started Earth and all those cool space things. And those things are still remained as a mystery and even modern science can't exactly prove what happened but just guess. I understand that you can't understand that God doesn't exist, but then what had happened when the space was forming. Sure it could of been the Big Bang that started it, but it once again do you have proof that all those scientfic theorys are true? Also, in the fact that you might be argueing based on the of fantasy of like God creating or healing people suddenly. Then lets think of Buddha, he is real and in the history based on Buddha, he does all these stuff like talking to god and holding mountains. That is fantasy, and you know he was alive, but did you find his body any where on Earth, I don't think so, and it's the same thing. We didn't find Buddha's body but we still admit that he was alive, and he did all these hocus pocus stuff? It is the same thing with Jesus or God, we never found there bodys and they fantsay stuff, and it is the same with Buddha and guess what, you admit Buddha but don't admit Jesus or God even though in the same condition.
Religion (specifically Christianity) is true

Like i said religion is a speculation, it can not be proved wrong. i ask you to give any type of valid proof that it exists. jesus is no more a true prophet then Abram, they are figure heads yes but like so many other people that claimed to be divine (alexander the great, Xerxes, etc.) it is unlikely to the extreme to be true. it is like saying "i was born from Zeus himself I am divine!" and if i was convincing enough people will believe me and ill become a god.
Religion (specifically Christianity) is true

Hello, I would like to state in the first round on just two reasons. The first is the fact that science can't prove everything, second is the fact the torah and Abriam. First I would like to state that science can't prove every thing. This means that yes you could say God may not be real but guess what, what about Jesus. In the bible, Jesus was said to actualy come to Earth and had also died in Earth meaning there is a possibilty of actually Jesus's grave in Earth. Yes it might be a bogus that Jesus had rebirthed, but who knows. Yes science may be able to prove Jesus fake, but no evidence also to the fact that God and Jesus is fake. Also, in an example of the Mystery Cyrcle, us humanity used all the technology to find out what did this thing with science it is still a mystery. There for, I conclude that science can't show and tell every thing on Earth, so you could state no body knows and who knows God or Jesus could actually be real by the fact there is no evidence in science that proves God and Jesus is fake. Second, I would like to state on Abriam. As you know or might not know, Abriam is the first to be the follower of God. And he is the one who wrote the Torah. In today's time, now he is followered as one the leaders and the starter of christianity. But if you state it as fake with your oh holy science, that means we people were actually frazed in order to make money. Also the preist there would also be fake for making many people pay money. So you could state christianity a bogus fraze to make money. Though, with you scince, how come there is no news about any fake churches and about Christianity being fake to make money. So with my final sentence, I state that tell me khaylisa, do you have evidence that Christianity is fake with you science.
(Pro) Oreos Vs. (Con) Chips Ahoy Rap Battle

I'm chewy and gooey I get girls You get milk I am perfect for a science project You are perfect for a deppresed guy named Ted I am classic I got taste Your black and white makes you look like penguin Toothpaste OH Penguin Toothpaste OH du du du du du I'm so cool You a fool I get love You get drool N*gga please leave the cookies to guys who are cool People recogniz me when they take the first bite People only recognize you when you do it with white MILK
(Pro) Oreos Vs. (Con) Chips Ahoy Rap Battle

Ready, set, GO!!!I'm an oreo; nobody can beat me,except when i'm bought at a storewhere anyone can eat me.You sound like the words an obese pirate would say,and taste like sh*t, unlike me, okay?I'm considered black,with my center snow-white,where your brown like sh*twearing your chocolate ballerina tights,My insides the color of milk,and are soft as silk,and after they taste me,they'll be screaming, YOLOYou only eat OREOS
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point. but it's still the only fair thing to do. unlike con says, the person wouldn't be left to die, per se. well, they would, but it's at the expense of others who would die if he doesn't. that is, there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do.