BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is Stupid

First of all you may find this funny, however the minority joke was not funny. It has taken us many years to reach the point of tolerance we have today. This will also be my primary argument. Firstly it has an adequate system of education which allows free education to most. It houses four of the world ten best universities. So this point of its education system being horrible is irrelevant and wrong. Secondly it has the best lifestyle. This aside the level of tolerance is enough make it grand.
The North Started the Civil War

Well. I like your argument. Before I post my facts, I will go ahead and state that you admitted that the southern states were rebellious. Rebellious states must be dealt with before they cause problems. Now, we can look at the fact that the south did in fact start the war. George Washington warned that the government must stay together in order to remain stable. The south deciding to secede went directly against what one of the founding fathers stated. By removing themselves, the south endangered both the Union and Confederates to attack, as they would be smaller and any attack would be more affective due to the decreased military. If the south had not seceded, the north would have had to reason to protect their interests. http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com...
The North Started the Civil War

Lincoln's Tyranny in the South: The Nullification crisis was said to be the first start of the Civil War. The Tarrif highy taxed the Southern states including South Carolina whitch it tried to succed form but didn't because of not a lot of supporters.http://www.u-s-history.com...In January of 1861, a mouth after South Carolina seceded the Morril Tarrif was passed by Lincoln to raise the prices of imports and exports of cotton to Europe. The tarrif made the South so poor that slaveowners started freeing there slaves selling them to a rich planter for they can sell there plantation and move to the subarbs. When the tarrif was passed Several other states secedded after. All the Money would of came to Washington. http://history1800s.about.com...http://the-classic-liberal.com...Battle of Fort Sumter:The Battle of Fort Sumter when Confederates fired at the Union occupied fort in the Charleston Harbor. When Lincoln called out to the troops to get solders on the Fort, they fired, Southerners were sick of being highly taxed because of lincoln's tarrifs and fired to start themselves in a new nation. The South just wanted to leave in peace and weren't looking for war but he declared war on his rebelluios states and cost the lives of 6,000,000 Americans.
The year 3000 will not be seen by us sapiens

Then may I ask con to prove how technology would advance to the point where we can solve all of the problems I have listed previously? AS far as I'm concerned, technology cannot and will not cease the the growth of human populations, nor will technology solve religious problems, unless we make a Goku Kamehameha blaster capsule beam 9000 to kill Satan, then maybe I'll admit technology is capable of overcoming religion problems. Like I said, Con needs to make a point and not waste rounds and I will rebuttal them, but since Con has wasted one round and now has only one round avaliable I ask con to provide as much points and evidences as possible for the next round.
The year 3000 will not be seen by us sapiens

To begin I would like to give a clear setting or definition of what I mean by this. By the 30th century 99% of us humans will cease to exist and therefore leading to a human extinction. The causes of our extinction can vary from the following: -Population continues to grow to the extent where water won't provide for many in the world. -Our water source will eventually get polluted to the point where we won't even have water -Our atmosphere will eventually be polluted at our current rate -Religious reasons -etc These are only some ways we can go into extinction, but I am not going to go into to much detail into each of them, so I'll allow to elaborate on one point and I will rebuttal. (These examples are within or before the 30th century
social media & it's effects on teenage communication

The effects of social media and networking has a negative effect on the current generation of teenagers. It has mainly become an issue with communication due to the 'face free' interaction that social media sites such as twitter, facebook, and snapchat provide. It's altered the way that teenagers deal with conflicts; instead of confronting face to face they take to fighting via the internet allowing people to say things that they normally wouldn't say with no remorse.
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

1. Airbrushing/ Photo shop is a great tool that be can used to help people, and it truly does. 2. There is no considerable reason why these tools should be outlawed. 3. Why should a few select people due to there misuse of the product as a scapegoat? 4. The main issue that comes up is anxeria and insecurity. Many men and women use this product to change or alter their photos because they don't look a certain way. This is not the fault of the product or the makers but merely the problem of the view society and the projected image upon these people.
Airbrushing/photoshop should be made illegal in the media

I shall take the con side. The BOP is on the Pro side. R1- Acceptance only R2- Opening argument R3- Cross- Exmanination, Rebuttals, etc. You may present a new argument to defend your case. R4- Final thoughts, Rebuttals, etc. No new arguments. All I ask is a good, respectful debate. Lets have fun.
Gun control

Thank you for accepting and good luckAs pro stated, guns are violent weapons that wreak havoc on the people of America, whether they be at home, at a movie, in church, or at school, these weapons bring death wherever they go. However, would putting a restriction on this weapon that makes it to where only a specific group of people could obtain it benefit America or harm America? I would like to take you over seas to the United Kingdom where they put a ban on all firearms in 1997. In 1996, one year prior to the ban, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 1997, the year that the ban was implemented, the murder rate rose to 1.24, and in 1998 it rose even further to 1.43 per 100,000 before finally reaching its peak in 2002 with a homicide rate of 2.1 per 100,000 people.People will always find a way to kill others without guns whether it be stabbing, hanging, drugging, choking, etc. people will find a way to kill someone without a gun. A study that was conducted by Harvard University in August, 2013 says "Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownerships often had LOWER murder rates." This quote shows that people can and will find a way to murder someone even if a gun law is enforced. The Harvard Study goes further into the subject by bringing up a country that has the most strict gun law in effect, Russia. "Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the "gun-ridden" United States." The following study further increases evidence that banning guns will result in America's crime rate going up instead of it going down.I would like to stay in Europe for right now and I would like to talk about countries that don't have this law in effect. According to the same study conducted by Harvard University, some of the lowest crime rates were found in countries that do not have gun restrictions present such as Germany, France, Norway, and Finland compared to some of the highest crime rates that were found in countries with a gun law present such as the United Kingdom, Russia, and Luxembourg where, according to the study, the crime rate is nine times higher than Germany in 2002. The following study shows that keeping guns available to the public will keep our crime rate lower while putting a gun ban will make our crime rate go higher. According to an article posted on guncite.com by David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli, "Switzerland virtually has no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control." This quote shows that a small country like Switzerland that legally requires every male adult to own a gun so that he can protect his family from a threat to their lives or the lives of those around them.
The user Conor is weird.

In his last post, my opponent has stated that he is merely displaying behavior that is typical of teenagers trying to claim their individualism and defy social conventions. Now, perhaps your experiences are different, Conor, but for me, using the name Mohammad as some sort of collective noun that can be offered to other people, is not expected, even of particularly individualistic teenagers. Many of the users on this website are teenagers, but none have come even close to blatantly making up words and ask nonsensical questions as if expecting a legitimate response, even in a serious debate. Conor has provided me with more evidence of his weirdness in his last post: "'Your turn, moogie'" --It was his turn, that's all I was saying. And he *was* being a moogie, you can't deny that." "And to address my seemingly strange personal information box on my profile: You chumanga in my lubanga. Juba?" Conor explains that his opponent was indeed being a "moogie", prompting him to call him one. Conor simply assumes that we all know the meaning of this word. Then, Conor, instead of even attempting to explain his profile descriptions, proclaims a strange, seemingly euphemistic statement and then asks "Juba?" as if, again, expecting a response. Conor cannot win this debate without distorting the definition of the word weird to such an extent as to render it unrecognizable. If anything is weird, it is Conor's behavior as displayed on debate.org. The resolution is affirmed.
The user Conor is weird.

It's hard to find an appropriate response to this blatant ad hominem attack, but I'll start by pointing out the obvious. I'm a teenager, so this kind of strange, individualistic behavior can be expected, right? I mean, all kids my age do weird things that might be going against the "social conventions" of the day. "It's true you fat idiot" --That may be rude, inappropriate, and irrelevant in the context of the debate, but it's not weird. "Nags: I don't know how to quantify the degree to which someone has messed up Iraq, so no, I'm afraid I can't. Btw, you want mohammad?" --That quote of mine isn't weird; I suspected that nags wanted mohammad, so I politely offered it to him. "Animal of a man" --That quote was used to express my frustration at the animalistic practice referred to as "vote bombing." I personally believe that vote-bombers are, as I said in the above quote, animals among men. "Your turn, moogie" --It was his turn, that's all I was saying. And he *was* being a moogie, you can't deny that. "I'll never accept, you godforsaken animal." I don't remember who that was to, but whoever it was, I can assure you, was clearly an animal forsaken by God. "wjmelements: Majuni." --I was telling him that I agreed with his previous comment. What don't you understand? How is that weird? "I think it is a good children's movie because it provides a playful story to members of our new generation and simultaneously addresses such topics as equality, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse in a playful yet educative light. Thank you." --That was my opening statement to a debate with lifeisgood. What do you find weird in that statement? We were talking about the movie "Up" and its good and bad qualities. And to address my seemingly strange personal information box on my profile: You chumanga in my lubanga. Juba?
The user Conor is weird.

In this debate, I will be arguing that the user Conor is weird. That is, he displays abnormal patterns of behavior that are unnecessarily random and incoherent. Conor will defend himself as not weird to any meaningful degree. Some evidence of Conor's abnormal behavior to start us off: "Conor's Information" on his profile reveals a number of references to Islam and terrorism, despite his being a 16-year-old male atheist in Brooklyn, New York: "About Me:Moqtada Activities:Jihad Beliefs:None Books:Qur'an, Hadiths Movies:Mujahideen Music:Qom Nasheed Quotes:La ilaha il allah, mohammadan rasulu llah Sports Teams:Asood al-Rafidain TV Shows:Alhamdulillah" Conor posed a debate to me called "Monkeys eat their children from time to time", stating in his opening argument nothing more than "It's true you fat idiot". Conor frequently posts strange comments that pose unexpected, nonsensical questions or that call people nonsensical names: "Nags: I don't know how to quantify the degree to which someone has messed up Iraq, so no, I'm afraid I can't. Btw, you want mohammad?" "'This is vote abuse. It is a disgrace to this site.' Animal of a man." "Your turn, moogie" "I'll never accept, you godforsaken animal." "wjmelements: Majuni." Conor posted the following as his argument for why "Up" is a good children's movie: "I think it is a good children's movie because it provides a playful story to members of our new generation and simultaneously addresses such topics as equality, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse in a playful yet educative light. Thank you."
how easily are we influenced by media

The media does influcence us, but we influence it more. It's big business with share holders involved, and what the people want to see (what gets the most ratings) is what they show. So, we decide what goes on the news.... We are more entertained by smaller incidents of death like school shootings or a girl getting killed, than the death that goes on with war; it gets more ratings. So, that's what we see.... We control the media if anything, because we decide what to watch, and thus, which programs get the highest ratings, and what we see is based on that.
Who is better despite injuries? Dez Bryant or Calvin Johnson

Number one, Calvin Johnson is retiring like a wimp. Number two, Calvin Johnson did not help his team win like Dez Bryant did. Just look at their records. Number three, Dez Bryant is still progressing while Calvin just quit like a wimp. In 20 years, Dez Bryant will have the better stats than Calvin because he was in the league longer. This will make him more likely to get in the Hall of Fame. Number four, Dez Bryant is a good trash talker, unlike Calvin. Number five, every receiver in the NFL is decently tall, fast, and can catch pretty good. THAT's WHY THEY ARE IN THE NFL. Number six, I want to devote this argument to the one and only true god, SHREK.
Abortion is immoral.

Thanks, Pro. I think it's bad conduct when an instigator with the burden of proof shifts the obligation onto the contender to make the first argument, or set up the parameters for the debate. Pro is the one who must prove that abortion is immoral, so I technically need not post a round since there's nothing for me to critique about his assessment thus far. Nevertheless I'll bite (I'm accepting the debate as-is after all :P ) and present an introduction. Before we begin I'd like to ask Pro whether or not he considers birth control to also be immoral, as it may pertain to one of my future arguments. So without further adieu, I'll present my brief opening round... A person - not a fetus - has rights. Therefore the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus. Just because the fetus is a living thing does not mean it necessarily has the right to life. For example, plants are living yet we kill those all the time. As such, it seems that a particular level of conscious determines whether or not one indeed has the right to life. While plants are conscious, they do not posses this right. Another example is those with severe brain damage. A living person with brain death is considered legally deceased [1]. As Bernard Gert - the Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College – points out, simply being alive does not have inherit value in itself. It is the ability to have a conscious experience of the world that is important [2] (via Freeman). Richard Carrier writes, "Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual 'abortion' to occur, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. That is a condition universally regarded as a state of death in adults. An adult human being in such a state cannot really be 'killed,' just unplugged [3]. To force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is immoral. Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. While I have innumerable other arguments (or rather defenses) in mind, I'll allow my opponent to make his case before assuming what his criticisms of abortion might be. For now I'll conclude with the simple notion that it is not immoral to kill a fetus because it does not have the right to life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. p. 30. [3] http://faculty.cua.edu...
South Park is better than Family guy

There isn't a whole lot to discuss so I will dissect brettg951's three contentions. *Case Con- Rebuttals* Contention 1: "south Park is has more episodes and seasons than family guy. " This assertion is completely irrelevant and therefore the conclusion that my opponent draws from it is a non sequitur. [1] The fact that South Park has more episodes than Family Guy does not make it a better show. A television show could have lots of episodes and they could all suck. "south park is able to use current events and turn them into a parody therefor more teenagers and adults watch the show. " Family Guy can do the exact same thing in its shows and therefore this point is irrelevant. Contention 2: "there are more viewers for south park than family guy. " This assertion is completely irrelevant to the resolution. It's simply an appeal to the crowd. [2] The fact that South Park has more viewers than Family Guy does not mean that it's better. Contention 3: "south park has more games and movies than family guy. " Like my opponents first contention, this assertion is also irrelevant. South Park may have more movies or games than Family Guy, but this does nothing to show why South Park is a better television show than Family Guy. Even if we were to include movies and games as relevant, the fact that South Park has more games does not show that these games are better than those of Family Guy. South Park could have lots of terrible games while Family Guy could have only one or two good ones. ========= Conclusion ========= The burden of proof is on my opponent to show why South Park is better than Family Guy. [3] And it should be obvious that he has not fulfilled this burden. All three of his contentions are palpably fallacious. Therefore, the vote should be obvious. (Vote Pro) ---References--- [1] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
South Park is better than Family guy

I strongly affirm that the television show, South Park is a better show than Family Guy. First Contention: south Park is has more episodes and seasons than family guy. family guy is currently showing the 8th season while southpark is showing the 13th. south park is able to use current events and turn them into a parody therefor more teenagers and adults watch the show. the seasons may not end because south park makes fun of current events. examples of this would be the episode about last night, which makes fun of the obama election, or the new episode on wrestling. that makes fun of WWE. Second Contention: there are more viewers for south park than family guy. because more people watch south park, more people talk about it. i just recently started watching south park because almost everyone in my school talks about it. third contention: south park has more games and movies than family guy. south park can be played on the iphone, xbox 360 and much more. because south park can be played on more than just the t.v. and computer there are more viewers.
Teletubbies is a better kids show than Clifford.

Well played.... One last thing before this debate ends, and the voting sequence opens. Clifford. Is. Satan. Yes, the Devil, Satan, Lucifer, whatever you would like to call him. The Teletubbies may be about slavery and the will of man having creatures do our biding, but Clifford, oh man, is about what will happen to the "Sinners" of this world, the big dead dog, the cannibalistic murderer, everything connects, and Clifford is the Devil.
Teletubbies is a better kids show than Clifford.

You weren't supposed to debate that round... It's fine, I will post my debate, and you just post: Hello. Here is my argument: Yes, you are right. But Clifford also has its dark sides. Clifford is a cannibalistic murderer. In one of the episodes, the narrator has some pretty dark things hidden in his message. In that episode, you can see bloody.... things in the background. It is sort of blurry, but you can tell someone, if not the developers, tried to hide something...
Dinosaurs existed on the planet Earth.

R3 rebuttals"Like I said, them fossils is fake.http://www.funathomewithkids.com......Anybody with a dammed finger can click this shitt and see." boozeandbabbleNegative, fossils are difficult to fake. First there is people with Phds in archeology. "This document explains departmental procedures and requirements for graduate students seeking the PhD degree in Archeology at Boston University. " [3]I doubt children's toys would fool someone with a PhD in Archeology.Next, is the dating techniques used to date fossils. Scientists would become suspicious of a fossil dated less than a year old."The principle of superposition builds on the principle of original horizontality. The principle of superposition states that in an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rocks, each layer of rock is older than the one above it and younger than the one below it (Figures 1 and 2). Accordingly, the oldest rocks in a sequence are at the bottom and the youngest rocks are at the top." [4]Then, there is the scholarly peer review process, which would eliminate most fakes. Finally, science is a skeptical point of view due to the nature of science. That is why there is such a strict criteria to be credited with a new scientific discovery. Yes, fakes are possible despite all the above, but the filtering process eliminates the vast majority of fakes, including those made out of children's play toys. Thank you for continuing to debate. Sources3. http://www.bu.edu...4. http://www.nature.com...
Dinosaurs existed on the planet Earth.

R2 ArgumentsThe main argument for dinosaurs is the fossil evidence. "Were dinosaurs ectotherms or fast-metabolizing endotherms whose activities were unconstrained by temperature? To date, some of the strongest evidence for endothermy comes from the rapid growth rates derived from the analysis of fossil bones. " [0]"Unlike Archaeopteryx (a 150-million-year-old creature thought by many researchers to be among the very earliest birds) or modern birds, the vertebrae were not fused into a solid rod at the tip of the tail. Instead, the tail in amber is whiplike and flexible, bending in several places at once. That, the researchers report online today in Current Biology, suggests that its owner was not a bird but in fact a dinosaur, and likely a member of a group of small two-legged dinosaurs called coelurosaurs. (Jurassic Park fans, take note: Compsognathus—nicknamed “compys” in the movies—are a member of this group.)" [1]Amber also provides a way to persevere dinosaurs. Dinosaurs existed in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods. [2]Sources.0. http://science.sciencemag.org...1. http://www.sciencemag.org...2. http://scienceviews.com...