BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

First off, I want to compliment my opponent on his skill and conduct. He is a brilliant debater, and has shown very good conduct throughout this debate. Let me explain my reason for adding the ancient example of a gay military force. My opponent stated that, and I quote, "the long held Military principle that homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with Military service remains correct." This is a counterexample to that. By providing an example of an elite gay military force, I am attempting to refute my opponent"s argument that gays are inherently unfit for military service. As my opponent stated, we agree on several issues and opinions, quite possibly the most important one being that male-on-male rape is not always perpetrated by homosexuals. Many times, heterosexual men rape other men. Why, then, should we punish the gay servicemen for a problem that is not entirely their fault? http://laurelhouse.org.au... << my source for the statement that male-on-male rape is often perpetrated by heterosexuals Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the vast majority of the sexual crimes in the military are not committed by gays, but it should be noted that gays are not the only source of the problem. The instigator asked me to reply to the statistics he posted surrounding the numbers of rape victims. I will do so. I"m sorry if I wasn"t clear in my opening argument. The statistics are startling. But part of the reason that they appear that high is that the military has begun to crack down more on sexual abuse. It is being reported more, causing an increase in official rates of abuse. And if my opponent truly believes that mental instability, rather than homosexuality, is the cause of these sexual assaults, he might realize that these statistics do not really prove his point. Also, according to CNN, the number of total sexual assault cases in the military has decreased by around 27% in the last two years -- not increased. The study in 2016 estimated that 18.9 thousand soldiers were victims of "unwanted sexual contact," compared to 26 thousand in 2014. The more recent study showed that a larger percentage of people were willing to admit that they had been sexually assaulted, which could indicate that the decline in rape/sexual assault cases is accurate. http://www.cnn.com... My opponent also stated that the emotional impact of sending one"s lover into combat would impact one"s judgement negatively, and because of this, gays were incompatible with the military. However, commanders already often send their friends and family members on missions involving danger. How much would this really change things? Again, I want to compliment my opponent on his skill and conduct. He is one of the most intelligent and agile debaters I have so far, on or off of DDO.
My stance in this debate is wrong

No. Your stance is not the same thing as your claim. You have clearly confused the two terms.Your stance is where you stand, Pro or Con.Your claim is your argument.You claimed that your stance is wrong. You support this claim, therefore you are Pro.Stance and claim are not the same, but they are tied. Your claim is what determines your stance. And your claim determines that your stance be Pro, and you happen to be Pro, therefore your stance in this debate is right.
Should students have P.e. everyday

Having P.E. every day has not been a problem for me, in fact, it is enjoyable, as well as good for children's health. Now, I'm not expecting every school to make 6-year-old kids run across town and back, but having P.E. every day could provide many benefits. It will make them more physically active, which is something every kid needs these days, especially with everyone sitting on their butt all day watching the television or playing video games. Also exercise can actually help people feel happier, they release some chemical that makes people happy, I forgot which one because I learned this a few years ago. Anyways, it also may help kids get their energy out as well, because many kids have pent-up energy from sitting in a classroom all day.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

Shalom Alecium! If you wish to change anything in set-up inform me prior to accepting, if you cannot accept at this time let the timer run out so that whenever we want to debate this, we can start immediately. 1. This is to debate the "law of non-contradiction" which is defined as: 'no two properties, statements, propositions, events contradictory in nature, can both be true at the same time. It is therefore impossible that A is B, and A is not B are both true, and there exists between them a formal exclusivity". My opponent may however bring forth any accurate explanation/definiton of this law, and I leave it to the judges to decide whether it is fair. 2. My opponent should start immediately, and should pass over the last round so that we have an even number of rounds. The burden of proof rests with my opponent to show that the law of non-contradiction is true. 3. Spelling, and Grammar alongside Conduct will not be considered unless there is an obvious, and important violation of them. 4. You need a minimum of 2500 Elo to vote, with a Select Winner option. 5. No intellectual dishonesty, trolling, or unfair semantics allowed. All terms are up for debate, and judges should cut points if they feel a certain definition is unfair. I wish that bossyburrito does accept, I have been wanting a debate for a long time. While my entire argument will be comprehensible, and understandable by all I will for those few logic junkies be using a little but of logic. However in no way is the logic essential to my case, and I make it extremely clear, my argument that is. Please accept bossyburrito!
Capital Punishment

If we were to accept the argument of an 'eye for an eye' in everyday society then there would be no end to the amount of killing and crime, if we say that it is acceptable for the government to work by this principle, but it is not okay for it to happen in everyday society then the government is acting hypercritically. It should not be acceptable for the leaders of our nations to work in this way, it sets a terrible example for the population, ultimately creating a brutalised society. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment should in no way be what other countries take from the US, the state killing criminals and potentially innocent people is such a negative thing, surely, there are more positive, inspiring things that can be taken from the way the US works?
Capital Punishment

I am against capital punishment for a number of reasons. To begin with, I disagree with the effect that capital punishment has upon society, I believe that it creates a brutalised society and creates the impression that killing is acceptable, when in reality that is exactly the view that the government is trying to prevent - it is hypocritical. Secondly, capital punishment amounts to torture, this is the case more and more often in society today, even in the most advanced societies of North America. The use of the death penalty in advances societies, such as in the USA creates a negative example for those less developed countries/cities where more brutal methods are still in use. Killing the criminal removes the opportunity for remorse or atonement in the criminal and does not allow the victim's family or friends to forgive or learn exactly what happened to their loved one.
Videos for people is the BEST Youtube channel.

Videos for people is the greatest thing to come out of YouTube thus far. It is an utter masterpiece and every time Videos uploads something new, I'm filled with giddy anticipation. He is a comedic genius and he deserves an Oscar, or something like that. I'm not kidding, he's frickin' amazing. Watching Videos for People is kind of like being strapped into a chair and having to watch weird stuff non stop, but if that stuff was good. I know the simile doesn't really make sense, but it does. Through him, we see the world how he sees it. he knows how to pull at our emotions, mine at least. His videos manage to be weird and normal at the same time, which is a very hard thing to do. At a first glance, the whole thing may look simple and mindless, but as you delve deeper, you start to understand the complexity of the whole thing. His videos really show some complex stuff. His parodies are amazing, and his fake commercials are good too. On the one hand, his channel is weird, because there's never any real dialogue, only some music, and his characters only communicate with speech bubbles. But it's also very normal when you look at it, because his stick figures behave essentially like normal people, and the words are plain and ordinary. His plots are weird, because they're things that couldn't happen in real life, but, honestly, it's like a Salvador Dali painting. It could be real, but probably not. This is what I have to say about him right now. I look forward to this debate.
Videos for people is the BEST Youtube channel.

This is a rematch of our old debate. Here is my first argument: This is a new debate, and I hope that you are able to defeat me this time, instead of using strange vocabulary like you did last time. Please try to create a rational, logical argument, and tell me why Videos for people is not a good Youtuber, using reasonable evidence from his works. I made our last debate a bit too short, and I apologize for that. I await more invigorating discussion once you accept my challenge. I will start by stating that the title is subjective. Surely, videos for people is not the best. There are probably other good ones out there. But he is relatively close to the best. His strategy is genius. he is a genius. his videos are amazing, and every time there's a new upload from him, I am overcome with joy. He's not like any other thing I have ever seen. His comedy is incredibly unique. the way he executes comedic sketches is amazing. He's like Saturday Night Live, but even more funny than that. The way he sets up characters in odd situations is exemplary. Now, think about his art. he's not a master, but he doesn't try to be. The videos are supposed to look bad. Stick figures drawn out on MS paint, and sometimes actual pictures, but only seldom. His art is like something from an old cartoon, i don't know, Blondie, maybe. Really, it's that good. His videos fill me with nostalgia. I don't know why. they just do. Finally, you say he's a troll. I say he's not. trolls do videos that have no meaning. His videos have meaning. They sometimes have plots. They talk about complex issues. Videos knows what art is. Some of his videos don't even insult people. And his videos aren't tasteless. Some have less quality than others, but they all have some kind of point. He doesn't play video games, or do unboxing videos, except in parodic terms. I hope you accept, ShyreWolf. I look forward to this debate. Please, bring a valid argument this time. Good luck!
Should cell phones be allowed in school

Cell phones should be allowed in school for the following reasons: *They will cut spending so much because they already have the IDEM *Kids will be able to understand lessons more *New Common Core Curriculum will force school districts to make changes *Student's wouldn't have to hide them in class and have to be worried about getting caught, therefore, they could focus on the lessons. *Students would be able to use cell phones as planners to remind them of their assignments or projects coming up. *If kids don't have their phones and something happens, their parents will not know where their child is and most likely will freak out. *Also, cell phones can be quite useful for subjects such as math. Overall, cell phones should be allowed in school.
Are zombies better than vampires

There is no chance a zombie can be stronger, faster or smarter than a vampire. First, of all zombies don it have brains there for there is no way a zombie is vampire. Next, vampires are faster than the average human as they do not have to breath making them able to run much faster and never have to stop however zombies are rotted and some have a arm or a leg missing. How is it possible for a creature with possibly one leg to be able to run at all. I agree with the point that zombies are braver than vampires how ever this is just because they have no sense of feeling and are not smart enough to run away if they no they are going to die. Thank you and please vote for me
Are zombies better than vampires

The character length is only 1'000 characters forgive me. Key Z=zombie V=vampire Z's come from Haiti[1] and are mainly black[2]. If you look at the threads on stormfront.com all types of experts on race show that blacks are superior athletes to whites, therefore z's are actually faster and stronger than the upper middle class whit kids playing dress up. (AKA V's). Z's also have more balls than V's. You can shoot the Z next to them and they won't flinch or relent in their pursuit. Where as V's are scared of the sun, mirrors, garlic, crosses etc. Z's are also smarter than V's. If you look at the movies you can see that Z's typically take over the entire world and the best humans can hope for is to survive. While the the in V movies is to kill the V. In V movies these powerful creatures fall to man, While in Z films, Z's clearly are in charg http://www.slate.com... http://mysteriousuniverse.org...
Are zombies better than vampires

Dropped arguments by con 1. Z's are black 2. Z's have balls 3. V's are rich white kids I've also shared my arguments for why Z's are smarter and have received no rebuttals, another dropped argument. My opponent offers new arguments in the final round which should be disregarded. I've proved Z's have brains by showing they are smarter than V's. It should also be noted that Z's are still human. My opponent is saying that because Z's are black they aren't human. Well I got news for my opponent. Black people are human also and according to most doctors humans need a brain to function. I'm the only one to use sources and should win there. My opponent has been super racist so I should get conduct points and my arguments have all been dropped so I should get that also. My opponent has stated that because some Z's are missing limbs that they are somehow slower but any demographic like rich white kids (aka V's) also have handicap people.
Needs only exist within the context of a desire.

If there are those who have no desire for those things, then they certainly do not need them. For example, if I have no desire to live, how could I need to live? Even if there were a scientist who had the cure for cancer, but was about to die before sharing it, that does not mean he needs to live. Most people would want him to live, but it is only due to the desire to have the cure. The idea that people suffering from eating disorders need to change their diet is not a need; it is a desire because we want them to live and be healthy. Our survival would, presumably, not depend on their survival and even if it did, since survival is a desire, not a requirement, my claim remains true. People suffering from BED will overeat because of an overwhelming desire to eat. However, they do not need to reduce their diet. It would beneficial to their health, sure, but being healthy is not a requirement. People only perceive that to be the case due to their desire for people to be generally health.
Needs only exist within the context of a desire.

Within desires, requisites exist in order to make the desire into a reality should the requisites be fulfilled. For example, if someone wants the television remote to work, they will need working batteries in it. There is a theoretical limitless end of desire and needs, but the desire is always the parent of the need; never the other way around. The most common referenced definitions of needs are listed as things necessary to survival (food, water, etc.). However, survival itself is not a requirement; it is a desire. Even if somehow, one's survival was necessary for the existence as something as massive as the entire universe, the survival of the person would become a need, yes, but the need would only exist because of the desire to keep the universe in existence.
extinction=closing my eyes

I accept. PRO has the complete burden of proof to demonstrate that closing his eyes is equal to extinction--that once he does this, he ceases to exist. He hasn't provided any evidence to this effect, and this would be, frankly, an impossible text. PRO cannot post a debate argument from the grave, so we know for a fact that he hasn't even tested this. It's entirely fabricated, and no one should buy it without actual evidence, which he has failed to provide and won't be able to provide because this is a one-round debate.
cupcakes are better than cakes

hahaha lolI am glad that i was challenged to this debate. I'm not quite sure where I stand on this key issue, so this debate will help me sort out my thoughts.Cake all day erry dayMan, cake is the way to go. You say cupcakes are healthier? You should not eat cupcakes or cake because they are healthy, you should eat them because they taste good. If you want to eat healthy have some asparagus or something. Cupcakes may be small and bight sized, however they lack the variety of cake. One of my favourite cakes is cheesecake. Unfortunetly, there is no such thing as a cheesecupcake. There is also layer cake, black forest cake, fudge cake, layer cake, upside down pineapple cake. There is WAY more variety with cake to cupcake.Also cakes can look awsome. Ever seen one of those huge wedding cakes, those can be pretty cool. Theres no huge cupcake. Also, icing can be used to put cool pictures on cake, but cupcakes are too small.Cupcakes are okay for giving out to your friends, but cake has potential to be WAY better then cupcakes. Cake is where its at!
This House Asserts Ontology Necessitates God's Existence!

Shalom Aleichem! The idea of this debate started with me contacting Tejretics for a debate. Given a list of topics he believed that the best topic to discuss is the Ontological Argument. I believe I should mention the Spirit of the Motion is whether the study of Being, with relation to the studies of Ideas can make God a necessary conception. There are some rules which both parties must accept: 1. The first round for Tejretics is acceptance only, and to share any pleasantries. He accepts the definitions, and rules set herein. 2. The onus rests on the Proposition who must show that there is a logically sound Ontological Argument. 3. The order of the debate is such that the maximum limit is 10, 000 characters, there fwill be 72 hours given to post an argument. I do ask, of those who vote, to please provide strong reasons for debate explaining the decision on each point. This is of course only a humble request. 4. Any and all sources must be linked, and a referencing number should be provided in the argument. Sources must have paginations cited. 5. All the respective definitions may be taken from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other well reputed text such as A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. These definitions of course can be debated. 6. No deconstructional semantics, trolling, semi-trolling, pseudo-trolling, patatoes or tomatoes. Here are some of the fundamental definitions: 1. God: God is a trasncendental, sentient, creator, diety who goes beyond the limits of empirical cognition. He is distinct from the Universe, and possess the qualities of excellence and greatness. 2. Ontology: Ontology is the study of Being where one tries to prove phenomenon from a completely rational perspective, starting out with nothing but the conceptualization of a Being. 3. Necessitates: Makes necessary, when I talk about necessitating God I make it clear that the argument must prove that God exists.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

With violent crimes, i think you refer to crimes that have violence involved: Murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery, arson and grand theft Note that this only applies if the person has been found guilty of one of these charges. Arguments why juveniles should be treated as adults if charged with violent felonies: 1. Violent felony are listed as a serious crime for a reason. If the person knows that its serious and still decides to commit the crime, why do we have to look at him as a child? 2. Crimes are all the same whether a child or an old man committed the crime. We shouldn't be looking at the age if a crime is committed but rather at the seriousness of the crime and the damage of it. (Meaning treating ALL criminals as adults) I give my spotlight back to my opponent for now :P
it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist

Pro has once again failed to demonstrate the truth of his 2nd premise. Pro made the claim that, "a world with categorical imperatives and a world without categorical imperatives are indistinguishable from one another."Pro has failed to provide any supporting evidence for this claim. Worse, this is circular reasoning. Pro is attempting to use their conclusion as one of their premises for their arguement. It's equivalant to saying we know God wrote the Bible because it says so in the Bible. This is NOT a valid form of arguementation. For a second time now, Pro needs to provide evidence for their second premise or thier entire arguement fails.And, thus far, Pro has completely failed to put forth a logical arguement for their position.Now on to my arguement. Pro attacks my first premise claiming that it is contraversial. This is not a vaild arguement for refuting the premise. Just because things are contraversial does not mean they false. For example, the scientific theory of evolution is contraversial and many people have a problem with it. But it is none the less demonstrably true. Likewise, human well being as the basis for objective morality is not accepted by every single person. But things do not have to be accepted by every single person to be true. Universal acceptance of a claim is not required to know something is true.Morallity is based on human well being. This has been emperically established by Theory of Mind, Cognitive Empathy, and Moral Inferential systems. Human well being is the metric used by every civilization to support tribal and societal health. It is an objective reality.Those who claim that morality comes from God believe in a subjective morality. Allow me to explain. If I say palmagranites are good because I like them - I am making a subjective claim. It is entirely dependant upon my personal preference. However, if I say palmagranites are good because they contain anti-oxidants - that is an objective claim. It can be verified outside of my personal experiance.Likewise, if things are good because God likes them - then morality is subjective. But if things are good because of the effects they have in the real world on human well being - then morality is objective.My arguement stands.