BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape of women and chidren should be legal

You started with a personal attack which I will ignore because it isn't an argument. I heard that person in the comments and I destroyed her/him. Yes 46.8% of the workforce are women but we would be completely fine if they stayed in the home. Everything was created, invented, discovered by men. Understand this and don't bring up that whore Marie Curie who stole the credit from her husbands work. Read this article. Women can not think or make decisions. They need to be servants or slaves. http://www.sciencemag.org... My wife is my servant. She acknowledges me as her superior, as her master.
Rape of women and chidren should be legal

You should be glad that I don't know who or where you are. Because if I did, I'd probably have already called the police. If your an idiot, well, enough said. If you aren't an idiot, then you certainly have done a good job at sounding like one. And yes, I am a man. Now then. Your arguments are preposterous. "Women are only good as servants", You heard that person in the comments give one example of a great woman? Women are intelligent on just about the same level as men. I can get a very intelligent woman to come on here tomorrow and utterly wreck all of your points. Show us the "negative effects" of criminalization. "Everything you use was made by men"? Not so. 46.8 percent of the workforce is women. If you have a girlfriend, a wife, a partner of any kind, show them this debate. You'll be too busy with the divorce papers to even post a response. Best of luck in Round 3... you'll need it
Rape of women and chidren should be legal

No, it is not a joke. "This goes against literally all of the laws on rape", yes and we are trying to get rid of those stupid laws. It is not ok for women to deny men. Everything you use was created by men, every brick you see was put there by a man. A woman or a child denying a man could lead to the man becoming depressed and it would limit his capabilities. We all know that women are completely useless as anything other than servants, so this would not have a negative effect on the world. Criminalizing rape on the other hand definitely has bad effects and that is reality.
Rape of women and chidren should be legal

Hello everyone, welcome to this debate, today we are discussing rape and why it should be legal. Male on male rape should of course be illegal unless the male being raped is below 13-years-old. I wish good luck to con and I hope that voters will vote based on arguments instead of "wow this is totally crazy oh my gosh i can't believe someone could think like that con is totally right despite being like 9 and sucking at arguments" .
Prostitution isn't immoral from a logical perspective

First off, I'd like to give a definition of Prostitution. The oxford dictionary describes prostitution as "[t]he practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." [1] I will use this definition, if pro has any objections I will be open for new definitions.The oxford dictionary also states that the origin of this word comes from the Latin prostitut, meaning "exposed publicly, offered for sale" [2]. Most of the prostitution here in Germany where I live is illegal and thousands of women are infiltrated from eastern Europe. Mafia buys women in illegal slave markets, brings them to Germany and sells their bodies. These women often have unsafe sex with hundreds of men. They are treated rough and don't really get something for their "work". I hope you understand my point in how this is immoral and should be forbidden. In the second round I will argue why also prostitution from people wanting to work as prostitutes is immoral. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
If human meat was sold in corporate grocery stores the majority of people would be fine with it...

"Wrong and disgusting are no more than social standards and can be overcome over time. Back in 1930, this same argument could have taken place with marijuana being the subject instead of cannibalism. I am sure most people back then would have agreed that had marijuana been sold in stores society's reaction would have been to be shocked and disgusted besides a select few people." On the contrariety there are people who are still disgusted and think it's wrong. Even though some think it's alright "a minority in fact" most still think this and it's not socially acceptable. Its still very much illegal federally. Though that's a different debate. The point is even though some find it acceptable is not accepted by all and a lot of people are not ok with it. "As for humans having a basic fear of eating flesh, this is no more than a primal instinct which can also be over come. Saying that humans have a basic fear of an activity means that we were not designed to do it. However, unlike other animals human can operate on reasoning skills, logic, superior cognitive abilities which allow us to make decisions that are not based on our basic emotional responses such as fear, anger." Again I disagree we have an instinctive fear of darkness,heights, and fire these are fears that no one can overcome completely. If you disagree put your hand in a fireplace and see if you have no fear. "In this day and age, people do not eat what is within a nutritional standpoint. Assuming, my opponent is in America (and I thoroughly apologize if you are not), we currently have an obesity epidemic going on. Why again, with the full knowledge that the food they eat is unhealthy, do people still choose to eat McDonalds and Burger King on a regular basis? Certain delicacy's in specific countries are not eaten based on nutritional value, but based upon society's view of that particular food." Again i disagree with all the health fads like gluten and fat free foods Americans are becoming more and more concerned about their health. And being unhealthy and diseased are very different. I may have failed to mention this but some parts are fullcof protein but not a lot of the body. With this I conclude my argument and let me just say this was very fun and thought provoking. Oh and by the way I do live in the United States.
If human meat was sold in corporate grocery stores the majority of people would be fine with it...

Wow very interesting assumption. I'm afraid my whole argument rested on it happening in this reality or universe, but I'll adapt it for universe x. Now let's assume that in universe x all historical events have happened the same way as in our universe. http://listverse.com... Every single example given in this article states that canibslism is wrong and disgusting. Even events like the Donner Party where even though cannibalism happened out of desperation they were still shunned and ridiculed by society. Humans have a basic fear off eating human flesh. This fear and discuss lies in our DNA it's bread in us from the moment we are born. Therefore event A would never have happened. My next argument is about the health risks from eating human flesh. Eating human flesh can be fatal. Large as sounds of cannibals acquire a disease known a kuru. Kuru is a neurological disease that is very similar to mad cow disease. It causes the brain to deteoriate. There have been many cases were the consumption of human flesh over long periods of time causes pus and ulsers to form in the body. Finally human meat is not very practical to eat from a nutritional standpoint. The brain has a lot of nutrition but that's also how kuru is acquired. The eyes are poisonous and the fingers and toes are made up of mostly cartilage and don't digest. The digestive and filtration systems contain waste materials and are also not safe to eat.
If human meat was sold in corporate grocery stores the majority of people would be fine with it...

...and would be eating the products. Following a protest by PETA [link below], an interesting theory popped in my head that if human meat were sold in large corporate grocery stores, such as Safeway, Walmart, or Publix, the majority of people would not only be completely fine with it, but they would also be participating in the practice of cannibalism. Before I explain my theory any further I would love to hear what my opponent has to say about this. Feel free to use anything from personal opinions and perspectives to any sources you can find on the internet. For the sake of the argument, please accept the extremely miniscule possibility of this happening, disregard the fact that this is a highly taboo topic, and discard any questions or statements on how the meat would have to be acquired. http://www.peta.org...
Animal Testing should be banned

I agree humans are more important than animals, but we are not sacrificing just "a few" lives here. 115,000,000 is not a few. I didn't mention what type of testing because these statistics are from every types of animal testing, such as in the medical field or toxicology testing. First off, we don't test animals to help them. We test animals to help us. Animals testing isn't done to discover how animals act and how to help them in the future, it is so we as humans don't have to do it. We are forcing dangerous chemicals onto animals that could definitely kill them and/or make them suffer. We need animal testing to an extent, but there has to be more regulations and give the animals suffering pain killers at least. We need to lower the amount of animals dying and suffering in these tests. I did not specify the animal since the statistics were based on all tests, though usually the animals are easy to obtain ( So nothing exotic) but it really depends on the study.
Animal Testing should be banned

I don't mean to say anything bad, but humans are more important than animals. And if killing a few animals will help the human civilization, it is probably worth it. By the way, you never mentioned what type of animal testing you are talking about. There is a wide range of tests, and you did not clarify that. I love animals, but I can't think of any reason why banning animal testing would help our world. Animal testing helps us find out things that we never knew such as how animals act, and animal testing could help animals in the future. We could learn things during testing that will let us know if animals need to be treated in different ways, or if we need to help animals by doing something that we aren't.
Animal Testing should be banned

Actually, at the end of the testing session, the animals are almost always killed. The total scale of the animals used is hard to measure, but it is estimated about 115,000,000 animals are tested each year in the US. The vast majority of this is euthanized after the experiment is over. And contrary to what you say, many are tortured. Figures gathered in 2010 showed that in the US alone, 97,123 animals were used in experiments likely to involve both pain and suffering, and sedatives/pain killers would not be given to them. I don't see how this is fair at all. Source- Animal Research Database
Churches Should be Taxed

If I were President, I would tax churches only .5%. Think about it. If a church makes $100, we (the government) are only taking fifty cents of that. If five churches make $100, the government will only get $2.50. "What does the government get out of this?" you may ask. Well, where I live, in Ohio, there's at least ten churches in about 10 square miles. And they make (most likely) more than $100 dollars. Churches can go on their missions that don't really help, and the government gets more money to pay off China. Everybody wins.
Churches Should be Taxed

The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on "Why Jesus Loves Me." The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org...
Churches Should be Taxed

To me, the separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation. In such a diverse country, secularity is crucial. Should the government decide to tax churches, or any other spiritual or religious organization as I assume you do not mean particularly Christianity and its denominations, the separation of church and state would be violated. One of the fundamental doctrines of the state. While an economically intriguing idea, this is not a good idea. I apologize for taking so long on my response.
Daniel is from the Moon

Daniel accuses Jordyn as the person from the one, I disagree, I was a soldier in the great war of the sun, I was to protect the infants from the moon, but only 2 survived daniel and Jordyn, I raised them, but now they deny their true form, they are MOONLINGS!!!Great war of the sun: Picture I took while being in the spaceship with the infants, Daniel and Jordyn. Picture of me, not MW2 cover picture, I assure you, this was me in the aftermath of the great war of the sun, Daniel took the picture as an infant with his own moonling powers, how can I take a picture of my self when I am so far away? It is because Daniel took it with his moonling powers.
Which is better Microsoft(Yes) or Sony(No)

I bought the PS4, and have not been disappointed. Server maintenance is a pain, although there is ways to get around it. My brother has the XBox 1, however, and he says it hasn't disappointed him either. They are both great consoles in truth, but Sony's Playstation's online servers are much better than XBox 1's. Microsoft's graphics, however, are better. There really is no better console, but there are some critics for both
Questions for the left.

Sorry. Im moving to a new house and signing the papers this morning. I forfeit for lack of time but do not concede defeat. I will say one thing. The right, left, and middle all are against We The People. You mentioned the obstacles the rich setup. That is in fact true but your misconception is that its just the right. The political class has us divided so they can continue to enrich themselves. The truth is that I believe the left is worse than the right but not any better. You bring up many good points. When I get settled we can pick up a particular subject and discuss. You dont seem to be filled with vitreal as most people I encounter on the left. You are actually carrying on a conversation without being personal. I respect you immensely for that sir despite our disagreement. I have never had the opportunity to discuss politics with someone that I disagree for the reasons above. I concede defeat more easily because of the courtesy you afforded me sir. Congratulations and please save me as a friend.
Questions for the left.

I'm new at typed debate so excuse my lack of articulation. I'm an ignorant redneck so I leave out all the courtesies and semantics. 1. Why one person is more responsible tax wise than another. 2. Why happiness and comfort in their lives isn't their responsibility? 3.Why does class warfare work on you? 4. Why its ok for the Govt to spend money to save your house? 5. Why you are owed something? 6. Why do you have zero understanding of the past? 7 Why you have never read the Federalist Papers? 8. Why do you blindly follow leaders in your party that will destroy the opportunities that have been created by private enterprise that exist for you. 9. Why you are economically illiterate? 10. Why you have not moved t the right as you got more mature and wise?
The Baptist stand lost.

The Baptist stand lost. because they're never mentioned in the bible. What do you mean by that? Since Baptists are never mentioned in the bible, that means that the denomination is invalid? Or that the core beliefs of a Baptists are invalid? If you're talking about the denomination being invalid: The Bible never really mentions specific denominations. Peter didn't define himself as a Calvinist, Thomas didn't define himself as a Catholic, and John certainly doesn't define himself as a Baptist. If that's the case, wouldn't that make every denomination "lost"? That there are no real Christians in the world? If you're talking about the core beliefs of a Baptist being invalid: Here's part of an article from https://www.baptistdistinctives.org... "The Baptist Recipe What are these key ingredients in the Baptist recipe? Some of them we have in common with Christians of most all denominations, such as belief in God and in Jesus Christ as Savior. However, Baptist beliefs about some major matters differ from those held by certain other groups. For example, although practically all Christian groups declare that baptism is significant for Christians, Baptists hold a different view of baptism than most. In the weeks to come, this series will discuss what that difference is and why it is important. The Baptist recipe includes several key beliefs or doctrines: -the Lordship of Jesus Christ -the Bible as the sole written authority for faith and practice -soul competency -salvation from sin and eternal death to forgiveness and eternal life only by faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior who is the grace gift of God -the priesthood of each believer and of all believers in Christ -believers baptism -baptism and the Lord"s Supper as wonderfully symbolic but not essential for salvation -church membership composed only of persons who have been born again -religious freedom and its corollary, the separation of church and state" I think you'll find that all of these fits with the bibles basic doctrines, and this, in fact, strengthens the argument that Baptists aren't lost.
Longer Christmas Break

Ok I have concluded from my opponent that she wants 3 weeks instead of 2. 1. We would have to take off days elsewhere to extend this break possibly from summer break. Even just adding a eek will cause us to have to take off days elsewhere. Also politiians are actually looking at extending the break http://www.bbc.com... 2. Winter break is long enough considering the fact we have summer break. I agree that winter break is long enough in fact a lot of kids including myself forget some stuff from the long break. http://blog.highschoolblanket.com... We don't need a longer break that's being greedy and you haven't shown me that politicians even plan on extending any break therefore this proposal will not even happen. The policy isn't even being considered therefor it will not be implemented. Since the resolution doesn't just say "should make longer break" you have to show me that it can even be put into affect. 3. We should look at countries like China who have a crazy curriculum and no summer and be grateful not greedy. Creativity is super low there because of these educational standards as well and how much time they spend on education. They don't have nay breaks they go to school year round. We should be grateful for what we have, there is no intangible reason why we deserve or should ask for me breaks. 4. This will never happen especially since our education system is attempting to catch up to China and other countries in the first place. This will never be implemented. Policy makers including Obama himself are considering/have considered taking away summer or lowering the breaks we have. My opponent has to prove to me that this can happen, that a break could be extended and that someone is proposing it.
Longer Christmas Break

I believe we shouldn't take a Christmas break for the following reasons which I will explain more later after my opponent presents their argument. 1. We would have to take off days elsewhere to extend this break possibly from summer break. 2. Winter break is long enough considering the fact we have summer break. 3. We should look at countries like CHina who have a crazy curriculum and no summer and be grateful not greedy. Creativity is super low there because of these educational standards as well and how much time they spend on education. 4. THis will never happen especially since our education system is attempting to catch up to CHina and other countries in the first place. THis will never be implemented. I have a question for my opponent. How long do you want the Christmas break to be?
Why should selfies be prohibited from social media

Extend my last argument. my opponent makes the point that selfie endangers somebody's life, but I would make the case it also may save them. If for example, you're somewhere without a doctor, and you have a doctor on snapchat while at the same time you feel like you have something wrong with you, a picture may describe whatever has happened better than words to doctor, in which the doctor may save your life. But if you want something with more evidence, selfie sticks are somewhat common things for people who constantly take selfies. If you prohibit selfies, selfie sticks would be in great decline. And the link I provide is a story of a girl who had a selfie stick, and used it to save her life. Source- http://www.popsugar.com... What my opponent is striving for is to remove a way millions of people communicate today. Some things are said better in pictures than words. People send selfies to connect with others on a more personal level. Someone may have just dyed their hair and wants to show them how beautiful it is, think about how much of a hassle would it be to create the beauty through words or something else, but due to lack of writing skills, it just ends up unsatisfactory.
Why should selfies be prohibited from social media

But people also learn from their mistakes which in the end would help them from preventing even worse mistakes. On the other hand, how about the people that are aiming to make their selfies prevalent. Those who are trying to get famous will have less luck. 1 million selfies are taken each day, and you're trying to remove that from the users who take delight in showing others what they took a pic of. Source: https://infogr.am...