BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time to crackdown on the gay rock 'n' roll swindle

This morning, disillusioned young women around the world were ripping Ricky Martin posters off their bedroom walls and throwing them away in disgust - just as countless girls have done in the past with their posters of George Michael out of Wham, Stephen Gately out of Boyzone and Lance Bass out of ‘N Sync. That's because Ricky Martin, like the others, has finally admitted he is gay. When I watched Ricky Martin perform "Livin' La Vida Loca" it was obvious to me that he was a screaming homosexual but none of the girls I know believed me at the time. They said I was jealous of him because they all fancied him and wanted to have his babies. Well, now they know I was right, just as I was right about George Michael and the rest of them. But it's all too late now - they've already blown their cash on Ricky Martin's records and over-priced merchandise and there's absolutely no prospect of him refunding their money. You see, the fan-bases of boy-bands and singers like Ricky Martin are overwhelming young and female – mostly consisting of teenage girls dreaming that one day they might get married to their pop idol and live happily ever after with him. Little do these star-struck girls know that their boy-band dreamboat is most probably selling them a pup – that instead of standing on the deck of a luxury yacht singing to an admiring group of bikini-clad lovelies, he is more likely to be in some filthy public toilet "entertaining" a big hairy truck driver. Clearly it's now time for the authorities to hunt down suspected homosexual pop stars and publicly expose their anal antics before they get a chance to jew any gullible young girls out of their cash. Thank you. Sources: ---------- Ricky Martin - http://www.cnn.com... George Michael - http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk... Stephen Gately - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk... Lance Bass - http://www.canada.com...
It's time to crackdown on the gay rock 'n' roll swindle

Pro, while your concern is truly heartwarming, I believe you overestimate the rationality of these young girls dramatically. I would like to draw your attention again to these twilight fans. "I have been obsessed with these stories and have really grown attached to the primary male character . . . I feel like I am missing a lot all of a sudden, and I keep thinking about this character and wanting a love like he has" http://www.examiner.com... While she clearly knows there is something wrong with her obsession (she is writing to an advice column!), she cannot stop it. She knew, going in, the this character, and this story was purely fictional, and yet she still became obsessed with the main character. If non-existence is no barrier I don't understand why homosexuality would be. Furthermore, if you watch the video I linked you will notice that this 23 year old woman is defending her! Theres nothing wrong, she claims, with being entirely obsessed with an utter impossibility! Sad to say, many women are simply incapable of seeing sense. If they want to obsess over Ricky Martin's "hot bod", they will do so regardless of his sexuality. Since the chances of ever having sex with him are minimal to begin with, the small added challenge of turning him straight may as well be non-existent; such women may even find the added challenge exciting. There is a certain sense of pride to be had in "turning" someone, wouldn't you say? Perhaps to put it in terms my opponent will understand: Lesbians are hot! The fact that guys everywhere jerk off to lesbian porn with gusto should demonstrate the hopelessness of using avowed sexuality in preventing the inane attractions of teenagers. The above should cover points 1, 2, and 5. To address point 3: Pro has dismissed the element of strategy in my argument. As he demonstrated, being "out and proud" has not worked well for the gays generally. However, look at Elton John. He reached an impressive height of popularity, came out, and was later knighted! These are the kind of role models the young gays need. "Passing" allows these men to acheive great success, and once they've reached the top they can look back at all the bigots and say HAHA YOU LIKED A GAY MAN. This may prompt at least one or two of them to rethink their positions. Supposing one of those two has a gay son- one less filicide! I have clearly demonstrated why Brian's plan, though well intentioned, has little chance of achieving what he wishes it to achieve. There are many things in life that are simply outrageous, that make you think "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!". Surely this is one of those things, but given the pitiful state of the minds of teenagers, especially teen girls, only extreme authoritarian actions would be successful. Overall I think its best, as my opponent agreed, to let the girls swallow the bitter pill of disappointment, or if they will not, allow them to wallow in their own delusions. At least until we can develop thought control devices. Thank you.
Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets

tie The sun rose over the wasteland As far as the eye can see Sand fills the vast plains of Serkland It's vultures jeering at me But they can circle until they drop dead I have not come this far To end, but to pursue my own thread To join The Varangian Guard Guards of glory and of might Red as blood and black as night Flies our banner as we march In the East, for the king of the Greek There's men of the cross and the hammer A few of the moon crescent Men simply searching for glamour Some concealing their royal descent The axe-bearing foreigners they have aptly named us All we've come from afar Diversity is what unites us We are The Varangian Guard Guards of glory and of might Red as blood and black as night Flies our banner as we march In the East, for the king of the Greek Miklagard, in the second indinction, in the 6542 year of the world To Holmgard and beyond This is where the winds have us guided For fame and for gold We once set sails for these lands unknown Guards of glory and of might Red as blood and black as night Flies our banner as we march In the East, for the king of the Greek
Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets

I don't have time to do this right now. I've been swamped at work. My arguments were going to be, in short -- 1. Lowering taxes on the rich increases income inequality. Income inequality is a serious problem. 2. Economic inequality has a huge set of social harms associated with it. Under almost any value criterion except "GDP growth," I win the debate on this point alone (e.g. if you use a happiness index or something like that to measure policies). 3. It's not clear that the "economic growth" from lowering taxes outweighs the "economic harm" from inequality. There's tons of evidence showing inequality actually slows growth, and possibly slows it even more than lowering taxes increases it. Given the uncertainty there, I'd say it's a clear vote for Con in this debate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the arguments. I'm gonna leave it up to 16k whether he wants to tie the debate and do this another time, or whether he wants to accept a win. Up to him. I'm okay with either one -- not in this for the win stats.
Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets

Select winner, 10k, minimum ELO 1500, blah blah blah. I made this impossible to accept. Say if you want it in comments. If you want to complain about my rules then say so in the comments. This is a resolution for a program I am doing this summer, so yeah. Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance only 2. Second round is for cases only 3. BOP is shared 4. No kritiks/semantics 5. Voting is on arguments only 6. Breaking rules = loss 7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link. 8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race 9. You accept definitions 10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. == Definitions == Income tax: "An income tax is a government levy (tax) imposed on individuals or entities (taxpayers) that varies with the income or profits (taxable income) of the taxpayer. Details vary widely by jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions refer to income tax on business entities as companies tax or corporation tax." http://en.wikipedia.org... The marginal tax rate is currently 39.6%. I will argue for the reduction of across the board tax cuts. Not only do the rich get cuts, but also the poor. And don't pull some "can't cut the taxes on the poor if they already pay 0". Corporate tax rate: "Corporate taxes are taxes against profits earned by businesses during a given taxable period; they are generally applied to companies' operating earnings, after expenses such as COGS, SG&A and depreciation have been deducted from revenues." The current corporate tax rate is 35%. kewl added judges BlackVoid thett3 Blade-of-Truth F16_Fighting_Falcon Varrack tejretics 1Historygenius Romanii whiteflame ResponsiblyIrresponsible tell me if that works
The Death Penalty

Deterrence. . . For the sane people, Were they to balance a scale in their heads about the pros and cons of a decision, The possibility of death, It would seem to me would weigh heavy as a reason not to. Usually people fear death. While one lives new experiences and changes of circumstance are possible. And if one is religious or possessing some view of an after, Karma and the judgement of ones soul sooner rather than later, May seem a terror. When you speak of sane people not being motivated to commit or risk crime, I think you underestimate what lurks in the hearts of men. But perhaps not. Justice has many different forms and interpretations. If I go by this ten minute video I just watched source number 1, I appear to be advocating for the interests of the wronged in the form of 6:57 Retributive Justice. While you argue for an overall justice for society 7:48 Welfare Maximization. There are two closely related right next to the two I mentioned, But I'll pass over them. Still I say, You do not address the justice of the people. Closely aligned with revenge perhaps, But justice none the less. Equitable, A sense of what is fair. As for how the form of death or imprisonment is carried out. There are flaws in both systems, Which again can be seen as a failure in execution rather than the concepts themselves. Cost If costs were added over time, So too can they be taken away. If substitutes can be found using innovation and technology all the better. But this is about the concepts themselves. The cost of the death penalty, As with the failure of Life Imprisonment, Can be solved with how one goes about the execution of the concept. Perhaps my mind does go to an older epoch in time. I think I'm thinking back to Old Testament judge like courts. you may be right about marijuana. That is based more on my personal feelings and actions on the subject. But still, I think people may agree with the concept of a law, But be disappointed with how it is carried out. Prison is not a penthouse. But it is life. Existence. Meaning and purpose can be found even behind those walls I say. A world in which material, Positive experience, And people are limited in scope. But the mind and spirit can overcome. Books. . . Such books have been dreamed in prison. Whether by men admired as with Dostoevsky: The House of the Dead and Nelson Mandela's Conversations With Myself or men despised Albert Speers: Spandau: The Secret Diaries and Hitler's: Mein Kampf. As for the innocent Innocents are harmed even by a butterfly's wings. More so policies and actions, Even in the best of plans in a bad situation, Innocents are harmed. As innocents are harmed by faulty implementation of the Death Penalty, So too have they ben harmed by faulty implementation of the Life sentence as demonstrated by my source in round 2. Source1 Youtube What Is Justice? : Crash Course Philosophy #40 (Joke)Source2 YouTube: Supreme Court: Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass' Both sides Source3 Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? Pro Con. Org
The Death Penalty

I'll be presenting my own reasons then on why the death penalty ought currently be a good thing. Innocents are injured and lost in any endeavor I would say. Whether in war, Store policies, Societal regulations, And so on. This is not good. But even when one chooses no action, Events continue. Many times worse than if we had taken action. Yes, When a person life is lost. That is rather final. Irreversible really. But, There are reasons the death penalty exists. When a murderer is given a lifetimes worth of paroles, Is given such and murders again. Is the innocent that he murdered given any chance at life again? Does the justice system make it their business to sentence to execution the innocent? No! I say. Innocent life lost is an unfortunate byproduct of the best path that we might take. On deterrence. Perhaps the death penalty is not a true deterrence to them. Often they slip the proverbial noose so to speak by reason of insanity. For the slightly though no less mad, The death penalty exists to remove them from society. And for the sane. Motivated by whatever sin is their flavor, Cunningly concocting plan or carrying through their desires in manner quite foul. Still they cannot grasp that they want if they are dead, Cannot enjoy spoils behind bar or grave. Fear makes some work there. Cost Yes, My opponent is correct that the death penalty is more costly at this time. But is that reason to argue against the death penalty? Or more, Is it reason to argue against the current plans. Methods of trial, And procedures that lead to the death penalty? As an example. Do you think that people who vote against marijuana being legalized, Intend their vote to mean "I want the government to waste it's time and money ruining peoples lives if they have a gram of marijuana on them"? No, Rather they, I think would want the government to simply seize the substance if illegal, To prosecute a dealer to children as they would a tobacco or alcohol dealer to children. The problem is not the idea of the law, The concept. The problem is in the execution of the idea. The prison system as it is, Is a costly sore to the public. Irritating and so often unasked by the taxpayer. Renovation, Innovation are what is needed. Laws, Prisons, The Death Penalty. These will exist in societies. It seems an unrealistic approach to try to remove them in a moment in our current society. Rather we must learn to go about them in a manner less wasteful, Less harmful, But acknowledge their existence and current permanence. But these matters speak of the materials wasted, Of the few injustices made to the innocent. What of justice itself, By that which society or the wronged feel for those sentenced truthfully for wrongs, For horrors committed? Google six-reasons-the-death-penalty-is-becoming-more-expensive Google costs-why-death-penalty-costs-so-much
The Death Penalty

This debate will be on the death penalty. I will be arguing against the death penalty being a good thing. My opponent who will be 'pro' will argue in favour of the death penalty. Whoever my opponent will be I would like to wish them good luck and hope for an interesting and fun debate. Here is my reasoning on why the death penalty is a bad thing. One of the strongest reasons I think why the death penalty is a bad idea is the amount of innocent people that it has killed. The justice system is not perfect and many innocent people have been convicted by it, The problem with the death penalty is that there is no way to go back on sentences and fix mistakes when new information about a case is found. There have been a number of people in the US who have been sentenced to death who later have been found out to be innocent. If these people were just sent to prison these mistakes could have been reversed and fixed. Secondly I find the argument that the death penalty will deter crime to be a bad one. I feel that this is very logical. If someone is that messed up in the head to even consider killing someone or doing something equally as bad and inhumane, Do you really think that the prospect of death is going to deter them from doing it? Also, One thing that I've noticed many people who are in favour of the death penalty don't realise is that the death penalty is in fact very expensive. According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, In the US the average costs for a non-death penalty murder case is $1. 1 million ($870, 000 in imprisonment, $250, 000 in trial), While the average costs for a death penalty case are $3 million ($1. 3 million in imprisonment, $1. 7 million in trial). For these reasons and more I strongly believe that the death penalty is a bad thing and should absolutely be repealed in countries that it is implemented in such as the US. https://deathpenaltyinfo. Org/executed-possibly-innocent https://deathpenaltyinfo. Org/costs-death-penalty
Legalize Bestiality

Possible Harm=/=Good Reason to Be Illegal"My BoP is to show how bestiality can be harmful. I do not need to show that in every case bestiality is harmful, just that it is in a significant number of cases. "WRONG. It is not to show how it can be harmful, it is to show that it should be illegal. You are making a huge leap in logic by saying sometimes it is harmful therefore that is a good reason to have a law against it. It is the same as saying that since human-human sexual relationships can be harmful if they involve rape or are with a minor that we have a good reason for human-human sex to be illegal. Animal Abuse Statutes"Because this debate is not concerning any specific jurisdiction, we cannot assume that such anti animal abuse provisions exist. "There is not a single jurisdiction that would allow animal abuse, and this assumption can be made fairly just like if this were a debate about sex between humans and if that should be legal we could assume the jurisdiction already bans child abuse. But for the sake of argument let's say there was no statute against animal abuse, that's not a reason to ban bestiality. That's like saying if a jurisdiction has no laws against rape that it would be a good idea to pass a law against having sex (regardless of whether or not it was consentual) rather than to simply rectify the situation by passing a law against rape. Likewise if a jurisdiction doesn't have a law against animal abuse the best thing for it to do is to pass a law against animal abuse, not one against bestiality. FairnessPeople committing an act not in itself wrong (which Con has conceded to by admitting bestiality can be consentual) should not face punishment just because some other people who commit the act do it in a way that is wrong, especially when it's possible to punish those others for the "wrong" that they do without punishing the person not doing anything wrong while doing it. Petting ExampleCon seems to think that in my example I meant "in the mood to have sex" let me reclarify. "Animals are clearly capable of non-verbal communication with humans, including whether something feels good or bad. Ever go to pet a cat or a dog? You can clearly tell whether the dog is OK with you petting it or is not in the mood to be petted. "It's not considered assault every time you pet an animal just because it didn't tell you you could, likewise it should not be considered rape just because the animal didn't verbalize consent. Consent can be communicated nonverbally. If the animal shows any sign of resistance, then that's a rejection of consent and time to stop. ConclusionThe proper way to deal with sexual abuse of animals is with laws against animal abuse(without specification about whether the abuse is sexual or not) instead of laws against bestiality that would apply whether or not abuse was present. Con's arguments against legalizing bestiality focuses on cases that would either A. remain illegal under animal abuse statutes or B. Would be best dealt with by passing animal abuse statutes, in which case having bestiality illegal would be unfair to people who do it without abusing animals.
Legalize Bestiality

Before I begin, I would like to correct a small mistake I made in R1. In my C3 I said "Bestiality is sex without consent." I should have been more specific and said "In many cases bestiality is sex without consent." This is my amended contention.BoPUnderstanding this is vital to determining who wins the debate. It appears that my opponent is not completely aware of what his BoP is. It is not simply to provide a couple of examples of how bestiality is not animal abuse, it is to show that there are not valid reasons to keep bestiality illegal.My BoP is to show how bestiality can be harmful. I do not need to show that in every case bestiality is harmful, just that it is in a significant number of cases. I have shown that most animals are not capable of making an informed consent, and in many cases the action would not be animal initiated. By doing this, I have fulfilled my BoP. There is sufficient reason to keep bestiality illegal.AbuseMy opponent admits that bestiality can be animal abuse."In some cases, yes bestiality can be animal abuse."Done. End of story. There is sufficient reason to keep it illegal. Unless, of course there are reasons to legalize it that outweigh this. My opponent has not presented no such reason."Con has conceded that consensual sex between a human and an animal is indeed possible."It is possible, but in many cases it does not happen this way. This point is really irrelevant."For starters even if bestiality is legalized that does not mean that the separate animal abuse statutes which exist in every jurisdiction would have to be rewritten to make animal abuse legal in the case that the offense coincided with bestiality. 'Animal abuse' would still be illegal, so in the case that an act of bestiality also happened to involve animal abuse(such as the use of force) then that act would still be illegal, it just wouldn't be prosecuted as 'bestiality', only as 'animal abuse'."Because this debate is not concerning any specific jurisdiction, we cannot assume that such anti animal abuse provisions exist. Because of this, we must only look at the possible results of legalizing bestiality, not other laws that may or may not be present in certain jurisdictions. In many cases bestiality is animal abuse so there is not reason enough to legalize it.Dolphins"Animals are clearly capable of non-verbal communication with humans, including whether something feels good or bad. Ever go to pet a cat or a dog? You can clearly tell whether the dog is OK with you petting it or is not in the mood."Petting and telling if its in the mood is in no way enough consent to justify sex.ConclusionMy case still stands.