BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justin Bieber shouldn't be hated.

It seems my opponent misunderstood my point of this debate and i (accidently) even made it worse, made him thinking that he shouldnt be hated at all. I dont think there should be a winner in this debate. "I agree that extreme hate is wrong, but as far as hate in its simplest form, I don't see any reason why this should be held back just because "he has good top 10 music" or "people have never met him". I guess we are both debating a different topic here..." Those 2 points actually add up to the hatred instead of making him popular in the good way. There really is no reason to hate him because of those reasons, but people do hate him. "To be honest, the fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what really happened, and this is impossible to tell, the important bit is that the perception it creates leads to hate, and if he can't properly deal with this perception, then "haters gonna hate"." I agree here, but as we know Justin Bieber was innocent as we know. If he had punched a 12 year old boy and he had been caught, then yes there should be hate as he punched an sort of innocent (not truly innocent) young boy. But he didnt, so there was also no reason to hate him except people supporting the 12 year old boy. "Why does he owe his mother a huge debt? Well, in honesty, every bit of money he earns is because of her. Who was it that uploaded the videos of him singing to youtube? In short, if his mother had done that, he would never have gotten a contract, and never made this amount of money. So yes, he owes his mother a lot! She has supported him by giving him this chance." Hmmm, i see. Seems i dont know everything yet. But isnt this a personal problem? Why should there be hate because of this. My conclusion is kinda odd, but yeah, it has been so for some time because of this debate. Justin bieber doesnt deserve hate and isnt so special as the others, but what special reason is there in the world for this extreme hate?
Justin Bieber shouldn't be hated.

"Hmph, i was merely giving an example of hatred. Even so, this is still hate and since you agree with and say its wrong, this argument has been approved by you. You dont seem to know how much the hate has become. Sure, if someone says your comments are bad, then its fine. But people here are just simply hating him so much that he wishes their parents dead and even tries to destroy his life! Note that this debate is based on opinion. Even i dont really care about hatred over others, but extreme hate is going too far." I agree that extreme hate is wrong, but as far as hate in its simplest form, I don't see any reason why this should be held back just because "he has good top 10 music" or "people have never met him". I guess we are both debating a different topic here... "Ahh this entire incident again huh? Actually, Justin Bieber was the victim if you didn knew. The 12-year-old boy called him a faggot (in other words a gay, something Justin has been bullied for some time) and of course he got mad. He shoved him aside and tried to run, probably touching the 12 year old face. His sister testified that he cried immediately after being hit, but there were NO marks left. (more of a lie to corner Justin) Justin Bieber wasnt thrown out of the facility, he never was. He just left the facility after paying the round." To be honest, the fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what really happened, and this is impossible to tell, the important bit is that the perception it creates leads to hate, and if he can't properly deal with this perception, then "haters gonna hate". "Tell me then, why did he owe his mother a huge debt? Certainly she has done nothing to support her except that she prevented Justin from dating with other girls. Your source seems to be my source." Why does he owe his mother a huge debt? Well, in honesty, every bit of money he earns is because of her. Who was it that uploaded the videos of him singing to youtube? In short, if his mother had done that, he would never have gotten a contract, and never made this amount of money. So yes, he owes his mother a lot! She has supported him by giving him this chance. So my conclusion is that Justin Bieber doesn't deserve extremist hate, nobody does, but as far as regular hate goes, sure, what makes him special?
Justin Bieber shouldn't be hated.

Also the last rule i add is NO VOTING FOR YOURSELF. My arguments why Justin shouldn't be hated: Justin Bieber became target of various internet pranks and hoax just because of he sounds younger then his age is. This is absolutely no reason to hate him other then being jealous at him because he was succesfull and you not. A. Hackers have been tweaking with his Youtube accounts and Last. Fm images whereupon if you enter these sites, you get redirected to either porn sites or hoaxes about Justin Bieber dead from a car accident. This may be a prank and worth a laugh, but the aftereffect and damages are too great. Young fans would enter his profile, but instead getting redirected to porn sites or him being dead. Youtube had to spend hours to fix this error as does Last. Fm. B. His songs may not be great, but it was praised by various groups and it even entered the top 10. His songs entered the top 10 list, he got rich, isn't friendless and concerns safety above all else, so why the hate when he is succesfull? C. He recently has been accused of being a gay or girl and has been hated for that since but, no proof was shown that he was either girl or gay, only an accusation. And with him having dated alot of girls how can he be gay? D. No one of the haters has ever met Justin Bieber and yet, people hates him. I say we also shouldn't judge the book by its cover.
Abortion

Ok, yes rape is terrible and is a very traumatic experience. However it is still murder. God has a plan for all of us (I don't mean to offend anyone if you don't have the same beliefs). God makes everything happen for a reason. Many people say "don't let others make decisions for you." This fetus can't make a decision to be killed. People argue that its the woman's body and they can do what they want with it, but it's not their body they are killing. They are killing a whole other person. No one should have the authority to kill such an innocent creature. It is also true that woman die at birth, but woman also die during the abortion. More than 400 hundred woman have died from abortion (not including illegal ones). It saddens me how woman will risk their lives to kill this one. Many mothers cry over losing a child, whether it be to disease, war, car crashes, miscarriage, or gang violence but these mothers are killing their kids before they have even met them. These mothers knowing and willingly let their children die.
Abortion

I am not saying I am for abortion, but I do think it is not a matter of what everyone other than the carrier of the child. You have failed to mention that there is such thing as rape and other causes that are able to get a woman pregnant, not just consensual sex. Say you got pregnant via rape (I don't want to harm anyone emotionally, but just putting it out there). You are young and have a whole life ahead of you. If you don't want a kid, you shouldn't be forced into having one. And let's not forget that it is in fact possible for a woman to die during child birth. I believe that the decision is to be made between the doctor and the woman carrying said child.
animal Rights

yes thats true and all but there is alot of reasons we sould treat humans like dogs well dog like humans 1. humans have brains and dogs also have brains. 2. e walk on 2 legs they walk on 4 thats1 thing we dont have in common with them. 3.o.k you are proeley ging to wi this debate but im going to try and win this debate so i can get better at this. o.k humans are bigger than dogs so thats y we dont put them down because wehave been working with humans for years and for years to come. dogs on the other hand we have only been woking with them for only about a year now and we are getting better with dogs so maybe in 3 4 yeRS we wil be abe 2 not kill dogs and work on them like we work on human. if you can tell i love dogs alot and i dont like seeing dgs going trew pain. tanks for helping me get more info and helping me debate
animal Rights

org and welcome you to it. Second, I thank you for starting this debate and wish you luck. On to my contentions. You states in your second round arguement that, "the only reason they should kill animals is when they are hurt and need to be put down. " I wish I could agree with this, but I simply cannot. Your first sentence says that humans are just like animals and should be treated just as if they were humans because they have feelings too. Well, you contradict yourself because by saying that you want to give animals the same rights of humans, you are actually giving MORE reasons to continually out them down. When a Police Officer is threatened, he must shoot the attacker, however, if the dog is the attacker, the Police Officer must still shoot. You contradict your whole argument by saying you want to treat them like humans and want to only put them down if their hurt. We cant do both, its either only kill humans when their hurt, or kill animals when it is necessary because a human is killed daily because it was necessary to do so. I urge a CON ballot
Border wall

Yes, you found my source. I forgot to paste in the link but it did have quotation marks so you know it wasn't my words. Let's skip down to the meat of the arguments. First, let's address the issue of funding. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Mexico isn't paying for the wall. But it doesn't really matter. My opponent totes an aggressive estimate of 21.6 billion dollars as if that's actually a lot. It isn't. Especially if you notice that even if your other argument about how illegals get in is true and the wall fails to stop most illegals it would still pay for itself within a decade by cutting the costs necessary to support the illegals according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research for the CIS states that the wall would save taxpayers 64 billion over the course of a decade. So the two billion you stated is largely insignificant. The wall is an investment that would pay for itself very quickly. Government buys out people for their property all of the time. This wouldn't be a special case and the affected people would be compensated. I've already addressed the problem with your "the wall wouldn't stop most illegals" argument. We could use the money we save by building the wall to increase immigration enforcement to stop other means of illegal immigration. For your next point on circular flow, As I previously stated, we would institute a merit based system that would allow in someone who would fit well in the United States, and I would support a pathway to citizenship for people who are already here and are working and not committing crimes. So that solves for the "why would they leave" dilemma. As for the argument that illegals commit on average fewer crimes that natives, according to the National Review, Using overall native crime rates as a benchmark for immigrant crime treats it as an excuse to let in illegals with higher crime rates than we would normally tolerate. (This also throws a wrench into state-by-state comparisons; some states are much more violent than others, in part owing to different racial demographics, which will make a given group of illegal immigrants look better or worse relative to natives depending on where they live.) For another, it"s well-known that immigrants in general have low crime rates, possibly because being in a new place induces caution. This effect doesn"t persist in future generations, however. If there"s a similar effect among illegal immigrants " and they have a crime rate similar to natives" despite it " that could spell trouble in future generations if assimilation falters. Indeed there are already some signs that, on numerous metrics, assimilation stalls after the second generation for Mexican Americans. Essentially, using averages doesn't necessarily show that illegal immigrants have higher or lower crime rates when you adjust for location and population density.
Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.

I shall begin my case.Contention 1: Marijuana is dangerousMarijuana has negative side effects when individuals are exposed to it for both short term and long term periods of usage. It distorts your senses, can make you panic, give you anxiety, and increase the rate of your heartbeat, which risks a chance of a heart attack, and since heart attacks are lethal, this means that Marijuana can kill you overtime. Marijuana distorts both you both physically and psychologically. It can make you depressed, reduce your sexual capacity, reduce illness resistance in your body, and destroy your lungs fibers which could potentially be permanent. It also can give you psychosis and schizophrenia. Bronchitis and lung infections are also negative effects you can get from this lethal substance. But worst of all, it increases risk of cancer. It increases amount of cell mutations in your body and when the users smoke them, they inhale carcinogens, which have been scientifically proven to give you cancer by either manipulating your dna directly or increasing the rate of cells dividing, which increases chances of cancerous cells forming. The worst part of Marijuana is the simple fact that it contains up to 50-70% more of the cancer causing substances than tobacco does, and it can cause the same amount of damage as FIVE cigarettes being smoked one at a time.All of the above I have stated are negative effects Marijuana can give you, and we shouldn't allow a drug that is dangerous or lethal, as it causes an unnecessary amount of pain to those who are exposed to it, and each single period of time smoking marijuana is much worse than a single period of time of smoking tobacco.Contention 2: In Colorado, pot increased the crime rateFrom 2004 to 2012, crime rate in Colorado decreased by 32%, that is until pot was legalized, because once it was, crime rate was increased by 21% in just 2 years, with an average of 10.5% per year, whereas the crime rate from 2004 to 2012 decreased at a rate of 4% per year. If crime rates are increasing now with marijuana faster than it was decreasing, then Colorado has a problem. The rate could keep increasing of it is not stopped, and the problem is, this is just Colorado. Imagine if every state allowed people to smoke weed. There are only 4 states in the U.S that have 0 restrictions on Marijuana, while there are 22 states where Marijuana is illegal. Would you want to risk increasing crime rates in all of those states, not even counting the states that have heavy restrictions on Marijuana?Marijuana hurts both the users and the people around the users because as I have demonstrated, it has more cancer causing toxins than tobacco, can give you lung infections which destroy them, can make you depressed and anxious, and it can increase the likelihood of you committing a crimes. Marijuana is clearly not a safe substance, and therefore, it should remain illegal.Sources:http://www.americanthinker.com...http://herb.co...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.narconon.org...
Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.

I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that laws prohibiting marijuana use are doing more harm than good. Here are my conditions for a successful debate: Round 1 - agreement to debate, introduction Round 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level arguments Round 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2 Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issue Round 5 - final focus and comments, connection back to the impacts, conclusion Here are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification: 1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 1 2. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2) 3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponent And finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them): 1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments 2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches 3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits) I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate. I look forward to this debate!
Rap battle

Hey sis I'm like superman I put up a heck of fight And just like him I got no weakness, not even kryptonite So I can't be stopped in a feud, and done being nice I'm gonna be rude even if your not a dude Dont worry because I know at rapping you incapable But what your gonna go through is inescapable Hey maybe my raps to you will be motivational Maybe you actually change, and maybe then you won't be so strange
Rap battle

Oh ok, I guess lol! I don't wanna be offensive though! So you say your name is James, but you ain't got none of the fame Your life is kinda borin', basic, annoyin' I'm over here tryna rap battle a young when you ain't even rap better than your mum! Raw rhymes stronger than Rick Grimes; stronger than my jawline when I spit a phrase sounds like them good ol' days. You into the Walking Dead but you aint even well in the head son! I don't know how you do it in your town, when all you ever do is turn down, not up you ain't even allowed to hold a red solo cup! Let alone have a drink in it, man you 14, stop tryna make a scene cops be all up in this place, when they see the face, that tryin break up like that damn helicase. You wanna talk science? this ain't even a defiance, more like noncompliance see, i be taking science, while you cant even be in a compliance!
U.S. Military Intervention

Well everyone, I was really enjoyed this debate, but I am saddened that Con had to forfeit several rounds. ;( I would be glad to re-do or pick up this debate again later if Con wishes, so we can properly finish it. I will restate my strongest point again: Compare the world today, a product of Obama's weak, isolationist policy, with that of Ronald Reagan, who defeated the mighty Soviet Union and brought peace and prosperity to America. Looking back on history, it is clear that when America decides to sit back and let the world be, it really turns into a mess and threatens not only only out allies, but America as well. Thank you, and please vote PRO!!!
U.S. Military Intervention

Ok, some good points. But first I never said that the Vietnamese people were better off if we left. It's just that it would likely be the same result. Here is an excerpt about some of the coups and junta's of South Vietnam "Di""'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½€ï¿½m's removal and assassination set off a period of political instability and declining legitimacy of the Saigon government. General D""'†ï¿½ï¿½""'†ï¿½ï¿½ng V""'„ï¿½'n Minh became president, but after only three months, he was ousted in January 1964 by General Nguy""'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½€ï¿½n Kh""'"'ï¿½ï¿½nh. Phan Kh""'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½c S""'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½u was named head of state, but power remained with a junta of generals led by Kh""'"'ï¿½ï¿½nh, which soon fell to infighting" And sorry that some of the characters got mixed up in the copy and paste. But anyway, I dint really feel we should be talking about whether Vietnam would look different, but about the numerous live and money lost while fighting. Overall, the U.S. Shouldn't have been involved in any way, as the entire conflict was a ridiculous waste of lives by depraved politicians and beaurocrats. America comes first. We have enough problems at home, it's not in our interest to go abroad and get ourselves involved in more. Yes, Even though the military budget is huge, a number of other government programs cost massive amounts money and should either be cut in funding, or eliminated completely, such as Obama Care. Although, I also advocate. It just that but also almost no spending on foreign aid or any other nation building type of program. Also, I feel that Obama's approach has been too hawkish, such as Drones being able to target American citizens without trial, and other things such as Libya. I do support the United States going after Al-Qaeda, as we were provoked. I also support the bombing of ISIS forces since they harmed a U.S. citizen, although I do not want another costly and useless ground war with many consequences such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. We almost went into Syria, another costly mistake had we done it. Americans are sick of their neighbors coming home in body bags for no reason, and their tax dollars being spent on a war that we had no business in, such as the Syrian Civil War, a conflict that the U.S. should not enter, because there forces have done nothing to provoke the U.S. into fighting a war. We shouldn't go to war because some country far away is fighing a civil war. And even though Assad's regime is not a good one, just like other totalitarian governments, we have no business in intervening. Also, yourself being a conservative, does not like big government. But war is the biggest excuse to grow the government in size and take away civil liberties and freedom such as congress authorizing the PATRIOT ACT.