BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Obama has doubled the deficit

In the first Presidential Debate, Former Governor Mitt Romney accused President Barack Obama of “doubling” the deficit. I disagree that this is an accurate statement of fact, and wish to debate the subject. I maintain that the President has done no such thing. I will take the side of “Pro,” and I ask that Con please demonstrate that President Obama has “doubled” the deficit, as Mr. Romney claims. I should point out that the doubling of the deficit would need to have come about as a result of President Obama’s policies – and not simply during his term. I am willing to be quite relaxed regarding any particular rules – these can be discussed in the comments section, and I will - of course - honor any agreements made there. I do ask that the final round be reserved for summaries of our strongest arguments – as a convenience for those who wish to read and vote on our performance.
We will win even if the rest of the world is against us

We will win even if the rest of the world is against us We win when we rape, We win when we molest All it takes is one molester, One soldier To score one victory, To win one battle Who can stop such a soldier To stop a soldier would mean to stop the molestation The rest of the world is yet to find a way to defeat us They have attempted so many times They said how morale is against us We defeated the morale They said how the rest of the world is against us We defeated the rest of the world They said how God is against us We defeated the God We will overcome all obstacles And we will molest, We will rape To overcome an obstacle means Not to be stopped by it To molest and to rape even when even when under difficulties Even when under negative consequences Even when under pressure There will always be rapists and molesters Because there will always be soldiers Who are ready to overcome obstacles To rape and molest in face of negative consequences This will never end, This will never stop We cannot lose, We can only win
Video Games: Indie games are more enjoyable than larger, more expensive games.

Hello njhill! I accept this debate and am looking forward to it. I am going to assume first round is for acceptance and will therefore post my arguments in the following round. Let's clear up some definitions Indie games: "Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams generally without video game publisher financial support." Therefore the other side of the spectrum would be games that are created by video game publishers. Enjoyable: "Giving or capable of giving joy or pleasure." Pro and I are arguing whether small independent games are more are more capable of giving joy or pleasure than bigger dependent published games. I will assume that this will include PC, console games and handheld games as well. You may start your argument Pro, good luck! Sources for definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Impromptu 13

-------- For the resolution "The number is not really unlucky", I will be arguing the affirmative. ------- Because my opponent has not provided definitions for this debate, I will do so now. Definitions: "The number": 8 [1]. "unlucky": not lucky; lacking good fortune; ill-fated [2] "fortune": position in life as determined by wealth [3] "ill-fated": destined, as though by fate, to an unhappy or unfortunate end. [4] ------ I would like to begin my argument. ARG: My argument is that 8 is not unlucky because 8 is a number, and numbers are not alive. Because of this, it does not meet the definition of "unlucky" I have provided. First of all, a number cannot be "not lucky". A number is not alive, and as a result does not have good or bad luck. Because numbers do not have good or bad luck, 8 cannot be "not lucky". Second, because numbers are not alive, they do not possess a "position in life determined by wealth". Subsequently, numbers do not possess good or bad "fortune". Under the definition I have provided, a number cannot be unlucky if it does not possess "fortune". Lastly, a number cannot be "ill-fated". A number is not a physical object or organism, meaning it is not destined to "end". As a result, it cannot have "an unhappy or unfortunate end", meaning it cannot be "ill-fated". In conclusion, the number is not unlucky because it is not "not lucky", "lacking good fortune", or "ill-fated". Because it does not meet any of the criteria for the definition of "unlucky", it clearly is not "unlucky". Thus, the resolution "The number is not really unlucky" is upheld. ------- I will end by thanking twsurber for this debate and the viewers for their time. As my opponent has not posted his case, while I have, I strongly urge voters to vote CON for conduct (as PRO did not state their reasons for forfeiting), spelling/grammar ("presnt", no "with" before "no rebuttal"), convincing arguments (PRO did not post any arguments), and sources (PRO did not cite any sources, as he posted no arguments). Thank you for your time. ------- Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(number) [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Impromptu 13

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate. ----------- I choose to debate the topic "The number is not really unlucky". I will define "The Number" as 8. ----------- My opponent may choose to debate one of the following three topics: 1) If Uchiha Itachi [1] in the state described in the cited debate [2] and Hashirama Senju [3] in his state as of the Village of Konohagakure's founding [4] were to do battle, Uchiha Itachi would be victorious. Definitions: Uchiha Itachi: The character described in [1]. Hashirama Senju: The character described in [3]. 2) In a military conflict between the UNSC [5] and Naga Sadow's [6] Sith Empire [7], the USNC would be victorious. Definitions: UNSC: The agency described in [5]. Naga Sadow: The Sith described in [6]. Sith Empire: The empire under Naga Sadow described in [7]. 3) If the Pokemon Mewtwo [8] were to do battle with the Bionicle Voporak [9], Voporak would be victorious. Definitions: Mewtwo: The Pokemon described in [8]. Voporak: The being described in [9]. -------- I will end by thanking my opponent for this debate and the viewers for their time. -------- Sources: [1] http://naruto.wikia.com... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://naruto.wikia.com... [4] http://naruto.wikia.com... [5] http://halo.wikia.com... [6] http://starwars.wikia.com... [7] http://starwars.wikia.com... [8] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Adventures) [9] http://biosector01.com...
Impromptu 13

In Round 1, my opponent will leave 3 topics for me. In Round 2, my opponent will presnt either side of the topic he/she has chosen below, no rebuttal. Good luck! My Opponent's Choices: 1) The U.S. should NOT allow a mosque to be built at ground zero 2) The number is not really unlucky 3) If global warming truly exists, we should have more hydro and solar power.
Objective morality exists

You know what, I'm afraid I must forfeit this debate. I've been thinking about it and researching it, and I really don't think I can make a compelling case that objective morality can exist without God (and I really don't think one can be made). I apologize to my opponent for wasting a debate, and I will forfeit future rounds quickly so as not to drag it on. I would encourage my opponent to begin this debate again with someone who could argue this better.
Objective morality exists

For this debate both my opponent and I will assume that god does not exist. We will be debating on whether or not objective morality does exist in a world without god. Definition Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts[1] Morality: the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories[2] Rules (A)No semantical arguments, or arguments based completely on wordplay or definitions. (B)Drops will be counted as concessions. (C)Forfeiting of any round will constitute a loss of all 7 points. I will ask that my opponent bring their arguments in the first round. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
I need somthing to debate about

1. They are not real. Simple, plausible, and by far the most supported theory. Occam"s Razor would certainly favor it.Assuming the implausibility of psychic powers before applying Occam’s Razor renders the concept circular and illegitimate. Furthermore, Occcam’s Razor heavily relies upon other particular assumptions you have already made about the world (whether it is naturalistic, metaphysical etc.) and can seldom be applied in good faith. 2. Psychic powers are SO slight that they are very nearly untestable.3. They are hiding.4. Psychic ability is naturally stifled by testing itself.My opponent confuses the difficulty of testing for psychic powers with their apparent nonexistence. This is, of course, a fallacy. Furthermore, he only deals with SOME studies, not all and refuses to paste citations. Psychics are real: So says this guy:http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.news.cornell.edu...And this guy:http://thepsychicsblog.blogspot.com... Also, my opponent concedes that one can acquire psychic powers:Actually, Project Glass is kind of like being psychic.I would also like to point out that this debate surrounds whether I am psychic, NOT whether other people are psychic. Even if I were the only person in the world who was psychic, that still warrants a ballot in my favor. In error, my opponent concedes my earlier prediction, calling this debate “pointless.” I think that’s one tally in my psychic column. Assuming something is magic and fundamentally defies explanation simply because we don"t yet understand it, is just lazy.It’s lazy to not alter your worldview when someone presents evidence that contradicts it.
SHould human tracking device be allowed

Smart phones have location services which show people where you are, but such services can easily be turned off under settings in the phone.... As for the "hackers" the tracking devices dont contain a persons entire personal information. A typical police issued tracking device is simply a transmitter and a receiver that gives off a signal that is monitored to give the police the person's whereabouts and a receiver so that if they do violate a boundary they can be alerted that they are doing so. Human tracking devices dont contain personal information about the person being tracked... Also my arguments regarding how the tracking devices monitor criminals, sex offenders, terrorists, etc from doing harm to society has not been addressed by the Con... I would like to now introduce another argument about why these devices help society. Recently many parents have put tracking devices on their children and pets so that if either were to be kidnapped, go missing, get lost, etc. then they could be found with the help pf these tracking devices.
SHould human tracking device be allowed

Human tracking devices are almost entirely issued by court orders to monitor criminals or suspects to make sure they comply with the rules set by the court. If for example a criminal is sentenced to house arrest after being convicted for vandalizing neighbor's houses or drunk driving, then a tracking device showing his location could help law enforcement see if such a person is breaking the terms of their agreement settled in the Courts. Sex offenders for example would be banned from going within a certain distance of schools or playgrounds, and human tracking devices could make sure the sex offender does not go within a certain distance of the schools to protect children. Human tracking devices could even be used to fight gang activities because if such devices could secretly be placed on the person or the persons vehicle, it could reveal the locations of places where gang activities illegally function. I invite the con to provide evidence of how these devices actually poses a safety issue to society
there is nothing wrong with zoosexuality/beastiality

And in conclusion... Pros argument proved to be duplicitous. Note the careful avoidance of anything material to his assertion that he likes to wild thing the wild kingdom. My approach, as Con, was asymmetrical. Hidden in the turns of phrase were traps and misdirection geared towards revealing Pros true motive. He mentioned sexual orientation as a key element in arguments 2 and 4. My efforts at painting graphic depictions of beastial acts forced him into his own snare. Rather than face the duplicity and admit the ruse, pro forfeited twice. That was fun.
there is nothing wrong with zoosexuality/beastiality

"Oh, Rick Santorum logic. I get it!"What? "But I understand. This is allegory. I was kind of hoping for an opening argument with definitions and sources to cite. But it's an agenda debate. You're inverting the homophobic illogical (ph)allacies, hoping I do your homework for you."What? "See, you don't really want to debate about racoon-poon. You don't really ride a camel with extra long reins. You don't really have issues with wool stuck in your teeth or trying to spit out that last, un-sheared hair."What? "You want me to prove that bopping beasts is bad."U92;I haven't asked you to prove that since you have not claimed that bopping beasts is bad." (I assume bopping = having sex?) "Therefore, ergo, tipsy fatso, a man can't put another man's meat post in his chocolate chute. It's like, a comparison, man. It's the transitive property.What? "I make lots of fancy arguments and cite all these sources like a good debater.Haven't see you do that. If anything, you have made several nonsensical comments so that makes you a bad debater. "It's not for procreation. The bible says! It's an abomination of nature! It's just plain nasty.Fictional books has no place in debates bout real life. "Then you use my own words to say gays are evil and homosexuality is a sin. Since beast sex is wrong, gay sex is too. It's science."U92;Well, if you make the argument that zoosexuality is wrong because is a sin, then by logic you also believe that homosexuality is wrong for the same reasoning. "Does that pretty much sum up the strategy here?"What strategy?
there is nothing wrong with zoosexuality/beastiality

Oh, Rick Santorum logic. I get it! Sorry the first round was "wasted". You're not exactly giving me a lot to work with here. But I understand. This is allegory. I was kind of hoping for an opening argument with definitions and sources to cite. But it's an agenda debate. You're inverting the homophobic illogical (ph)allacies, hoping I do your homework for you. See, you don't really want to debate about racoon-poon. You don't really ride a camel with extra long reins. You don't really have issues with wool stuck in your teeth or trying to spit out that last, un-sheared hair. You want me to prove that bopping beasts is bad. Therefore, ergo, tipsy fatso, a man can't put another man's meat post in his chocolate chute. It's like, a comparison, man. It's the transitive property. I make lots of fancy arguments and cite all these sources like a good debater. It's not for procreation. The bible says! It's an abomination of nature! It's just plain nasty. Then you use my own words to say gays are evil and homosexuality is a sin. Since beast sex is wrong, gay sex is too. It's science. Does that pretty much sum up the strategy here?
there is nothing wrong with zoosexuality/beastiality

My first debate so take it easy on me, like with that little veal cutlet. How very sporting of you to let me go first with arguments. However, I will decline your generous offer in the spirit of fairness. Your criteria permits, but does not require, me to provide the first defense. I'll defer the coin flip to the second half. I'll bat in the bottom of the ninth. In this topic, I'm afraid that the burden of proof is yours, not mine. Semantically, proving a negative is folly. If one were to make the assertion that there is nothing wrong with genocide or dropping nuclear weapons on a hated minority, and then asking an opponent do state why something that is pretty much universally considered wrong is wrong, the debate becomes an exercise in questioning God and good vs evil and societal laws. That's too far off topic for my tastes. And since you've brought up the topic with the intention of taking an obviously counter-cultural stance, yet defined no criteria, then it would only make sense for you to assume the "pro" stance instead of the ambivalent "not-con" stance. Grab that bull by the horns. Get a good grip and hold on tight to your position. Don't back into this. Grip it and rip it. Tell me first, why it's RIGHT for you to put the lamb on the lam, to rotisserie your own chicken, and to downward face your dog. I accepted this because I'm truly curious to see where you could possibly go with this. Offer me some definitions on the subject for "wrong" so I may understand your moral framework and those dirty big words that shan't be repeated.
Girls should have the same rights as boys

While your points sound viable, they are not as true as they may seem. I will agree that sex should not be a determining factor in anything a person does, however you can not say that only women face these problems. Men face many of these prejudicial issues as well. Physical strength between men and women, just like most other characteristics, are inherently different, that is simple biology. As for the expectations that women are "supposed to stay home and cook and clean and have kids, when the men get to go out and do all of the 'tough' work," men face these expectations in the opposite way. Women are typically expected to stay home and care for the home and children, but men are typically expected to be the one who leaves for these "tough jobs." In this point, men and women DO have equality, since neither sex is without these "expectations." The study for the difference in physical ability between men and women can be found here. Men and women are already, if not extremely close to being, on par with each other in terms of equality. In fact, it has been found that women in their early 20's are beginning to earn more than men of the same or similar ages. Ideas such as the "gender pay gap" are seemingly turning in the other direction, in the favor of women. I would say that men and women are beginning to grow into a larger state of equality as time passes, and the idea that women are any less than men, while true in the past, may not be so true anymore. Sources: 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. https://hired.com...
Girls should have the same rights as boys

Girls should have the same rights as boys for many good reasons. As an example, every body is a person. So why should gender be the reason we are being treated differently? Girls are equally as strong and as boys, so why are we supposed to stay home and cook and clean and have kids, when the men get to go out and do all of the "tough" work. Clearly, girls and women have been bumped down a couple notches of equality and fairness. It is obviously an issue, and it is an issue we need to change.
Sonnet Challenge

There have been many, many "rap battles" on this site; I thought it'd make a nice change to have something more classical. In this debate, each opponent will attempt to make a sonnet based on his choice of one of four topics his opponent provides. The form is: abab, cdcd, efef, gg Ten syllables each line; some leeway in counting is permitted (e.g. "count'd" for "counted"), but if a debater relies too heavily on such tricks the S/G points should e taken away. In the first round, I ask my opponent to post his list of four topics for my sonnet, but to wait to post his sonnet until the second round. My list of topics for my opponent: 1. Santa Claus. 2. Libertarianism. 3. The space left behind after a wisdom tooth extraction. 4. Colonization on Mars. Have fun! Looking forward to a great "debate"! C.
Sonnet Challenge

I had originally started writing about the vast emptiness regarding the hole left behind after a wisdom tooth extraction; however, I didn't save it and alas there's nothing like waiting until the last possible few minutes to submit a piece of creative writing, eh? I chose a different subject in the end so my sonnet could distinguish a different tone than the previous -- hopefully the comic effect is relatively evident at the end here. Thanks, Pro, and good luck :) == SONNET == With urgency of a revolution, Walls echoing prisms of my young ruse; Compelled to grapple with a solution, Of the burdensome, inconvenient truth. A war of wills with two waring devils, Perfect rationality on my side; When they revere our colors we'll revil, We are the bachelors to freedom's pure bride. Oh! Summoned are we like moths to a flame; Invisible chains once made of iron. Though our futile propositions lay blame-- I've made poisonous claims; ring the siren! We're never quite free, lied to once again: Us unfortunate libertarians.
Sonnet Challenge

Thanks, Lwerd, for such fun topics! I hoped you might take this debate; now I hope you'll have as much fun with your sonnet as I did with mine :) Sonnet on the dregs of coffee in my mug. Trapped within a prison's walls tall-circling, Grit catching a slice of morning sunlight, Thin dark liquid lies forgotten, cooling; Used, now unwanted, bitter and slight. The cream and sweet froth, drunk quickly, vanish'd; The coffee itself, no doubt, I enjoyed; But the last bitter drops left unfinished, Dregs now drained of coffee, were once employed To make the same; afterwards unneeded. Distasteful, gritsome, unwanted mounds, Too strong to be drunk; thus left unheeded. My life you may read in these humble grounds: Flawed, bitter, cold; imperfect, unwanted; Was useful once, but now discarded. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with! C.
Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

I'm struggling to see your argument this round. So I will use this time to reaffirm that of my own. My argument is that of abortion across the board. A defenseless child should not be held responsible for the actions of those who created it, that is immoral. A mother shouldn't have to keep the child, they should be able to put it up for adoption, but there are no circumstances where killing the child is justifiable. As you have previously stated, abortion as a means of population control is unnecessary, so the only impetus then for an abortion seems to be for cases of unplanned pregnancy, or more simply put, abortion for convenience. This is immoral, flat out. You don't get to kill something for your convenience, it is not your job to decide if something lives or it dies, just as no one can decide morally if either you or I can live or die.