BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People are over-reacting to Miley Cyrus's VMA performance.

The reason why Miley's performance is so disturbing, is that she has been, and possibly still is, a role model for many teenage girls. The VMA awards are watched worldwide by children. Yes, it is true that entertainment today has numerous sexual references mixed, but Miley's performance has also actually glorified date rape and was degenerating towards women. We all remember that cute brunette from Hannah Montana. I remember seeing her as a role model, as a person who's the personification of everything I've wanted to be. Even today, 10-year-olds at my school are completely infatuated with 'Hannah'. Imagine the effect Miley's VMA stunt would have on their innocent minds.Keep in mind, that the video is something one sees by choice, but a live performance? You can't really avoid seeing that. And a live performance like that cannot be censored. I admit that I have been subjected to my fair share of raunchy videos, but Miley stooping to that level was actually heartbreaking. In trying to prove that she's 'all grown up' now, Miley has made many of us who grew up fantasizing about Hannah Montana very disappointed. Imagine, she's a girl with a purity ring. She was one star I though was not walking down the 'expose' path, but I guess I was wrong.Being a woman, she should have refrained from even performing to that....'song', but what she did was inappropriate actions in less-than-acceptable clothing, twerking and grinding against her co-performer, (what was his name again?), and slapping a female dancer's backside. Basically, she acted as, what common people call a 'sl**'.Suppose a little girl sees a picture of Miley's this performance, and tells her mother that she wants the same outfit as 'Hannah', as she always does. What do you expect the mother to react?Thus, I feel that the reaction of people across the globe to Miley's performance is completely justified.
People are over-reacting to Miley Cyrus's VMA performance.

Firstly I will start of by elaborating on my round one opening statement. My main point is that this act is nothing new to the world of popular music, culture and celebrities. The majority of current songs in the charts either have sexual references in them, are about sexual acts or about sexual lust for an individual. Kids are being exposed to this kind of music everyday whether it's from the Internet, radio or music channels such as MTV. But do people outrage over it? No of course not because it's become the norm over the past decade or so. If anything, such music is glorified. "Blurred lines", the actual song that miley performed is a huge hit world-wide and people want to play it through the media as much as possible, talk shows are using it, advertisements etc. Now the lyrics in this song are unbelievably explicit and it would be hard not to know what the song is about by even hearing it for the first time. But nobody bats an eye to it, they just see it as a fun pop song. Remember this is just one example of explicit popular music. What I want to know is why can people be so quick and harsh to condemn a girl who went a little crazy onstage but not bat an eye to the fact that more explicitly sexual innuendo is being pumped into this generation on a daily basis. Turn on MTV on any given day and there will be raunchy material all over it whether it's to do with music, gossip or celebrity stories. In another reference to "blurred lines" the unrated music video (which might I add anyone can view) features fully naked girls, you can see everything. Yet there is little to no controversy over this. Why would anyone think that such an explicit, derogatory video isn't as bad as a girl on stage(clothed might I add) simply just making a fool of herself? The only explanation I can find as to why people are causing such outrage over mileys performance compared so many other things is the simple fact that it happened live in real time. It's funny that when people for example, see a sexually explicit video in which anyone can view, they think nothing of it yet if a girl acts slutty on a stage everyone is outraged. Despite the video example being far more explicit and raunchy. It just goes to show that people are so quick to condemn a girl for acting a little wild and slutty when it's black and white in front of them or is in real time yet they are completely ignorant of the fact that a similar thing is happening on a much larger and more explicit scale in this generation. I look forward to your response.
"why technology is prudent despite the effect on enviroment"

This should be pretty fun. I think she meant to be the con, therefor we shall switch for this debate, me being pro, her being con. (due to previous discussion) TECHNOLGY AND IT's BENEFITS The benefits of technology in education were examined in a 1996 report to the nation on Technology and Education, "Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge", and the results were promising. Findings showed that there were numerous advantages including enhanced student achievement, advanced skills and problem solving opportunities, more comprehensive student assessment, increased student motivation, increased family involvement and instruction and experience in future job-related skills. Some other benefits cited were more individualized instruction and improved administration and management in schools. Learning should be interactive and involve problem solving, communication, and yes, development of new knowledge and products. Despite the affect on the enviroment, human life is far more advanced to better increase your quality of life. With each new discovery, we have found benefitting qualites to improve our human race for the better. for example: Oil companies. Although they extract a heavy price from our enviroment, the benefits are fitting enough to see past that. 88% of american citizens you vehicles for our everyday life. And those of them who do not, use oil for other purposes that benefit themselves and there welfare. With technology we provide our country with weapons to protect ourselves and our freedom despite the slight loss from the enviroment. We have used nature to benefit us for many different things, but none of it goes to waste, for we can only advance through technology rather than deduce living, because of the slight toll on the enviroment. without technology, most of us would find ourselves with proper homes, or jobs, and in poor living condition. The enviroment grants us many oppurtunitys, and to use them is not a crime. the true crime would be in letting to waste these great oppurtunity's and to live in utter tribal brutesqe through out life. We would not be the glorious nation we are today, without the technology we have. There for this makes technology more prudent then the slight toll on the enviroment it costs, and we are only progressing through life my using natures wonderful gift to us. i look forward to your rebuttal, and thankyou very much for posting this debate. thankyou. -kudos fo-shizzle
whats better? Halo or call of duty

Sorry for the forfeit, I'll try my best to support CoD. I won't do rebuttals, because my forfeit. Since Pro's talking about game modes, I'll list some modes for Call of Duty: Ghosts. Some modes are: Infected, Team Deathmatch, Cranked, Blitz, Search and Rescue, Search and Destroy, and Domination. I could go into detail on the individual modes, but I'll move on. Source for the modes: http://www.ign.com... As for difficulty, I have never owned any Call of Duty game nor Halo game. I've once played an unblocked version of Halo against peers in 7th grade, but that's it. Call of Duty takes place in World War 2, and also Modern days. Halo takes place in the future. If someone liked shooting with classic guns, they'd probably go with CoD. But if you're into Sci-fi, Black Ops 2 takes place in the future as well. That's all I'll post for my argument.
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

I wouldn't have recommended to keep your argument brief, it doesn't cover a fraction of the absence to refute my arguments of your lack of sources or the vague target of your debate. You gave me a graph which showed, according to you, an in-equivalency of correlation to causation, which I disproved (with a source) of the outlier of American mass shootings [1]. You did not offer a foundation to back up the claim of gun rates at high while murders being at an all-time low. US National shootings are higher and states vary due to their outliers of the mass shootings. I, on the other hand, have a source that actually proves firearms as a homicide tool escalating [2]. I haven't failed to refute your claim, I've actually disproved it with the sources I continuously state but you seem to ignore. The availability of guns is responsible for violent crime as I stated in both rounds before, and this round as well. I stated the sources before, and here it is again [2]. Your argument of poverty and other 'well-known' sources of crime are unfounded by sources and not previously mentioned by you which would have helped you earlier in the debate. Does the US have a lot of guns? Yes, the most in the world. Is it helpful in the amount of violent crime the Untied States experiences? Indubitably. Thanks for the fun argument. Sources [1] http://www.wsj.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

I'll keep this brief. I made the claim that the availability of guns in America has no correlation to the number of gun murders. I gave several examples. I have shown that the number of gun owners in a state have no effect on the number of gun murders. I have also shown that the number of gun murders has fallen even though the number of guns are at a record high. I forgot to provide a link for that, but it's common knowledge. You have failed to refute my claim that guns have no effect on the number of gun murders in the US. In fact, you claim that the availability of guns is responsible for violent crime. This is what's known as a logical fallacy. You blame the guns, without considering other factors, such as poverty or other well known causes of crime. Do we have a lot of guns? Yes. Are they the reason for all of this violent crime? The answer is no. You have provided no evidence that shows otherwise.
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

Thank you for providing your argument, Pro. Correlation does equal equation and our arguments are met. The United States leads mass shootings and since you did not refute that statement means that your chart is full of outliers which breaks the foundation of your argument. You offer absolutely no source or evidence to support your radical claim concerning the increase and decrease of your arguments. Even if your claim of Australia's rise in gun ownership is true, the strict gun laws in Australia completely filters the mentally unstable and criminally dangerous of acquiring firearms [1]. Suicide is not murder, by the way, which is in no way helpful to either of our arguments. You have yet to offer any 'study after study' that has shown any significant effect on gun laws. You can't use the United States as an example because they have the most permissive gun laws on the globe. "Criminals do not obey gun laws" is an obvious statement. When Australia seized guns from their citizens after their own mass shooting 20 years ago, they raided suspected criminal activity and gun owners [2]. Back to my argument with the US having permissive gun laws, that is why I used Australia as an example. If you use a nation with much of the same socio-political thinking that the United States has like Australia, it could prove as a similar example if those regulations were implemented in the United States. I have not failed to prove otherwise in this debate as your argument was eaten away by your refusal to provide evidence to back up your claims and your statement of the equivalency of correlation and causation as the United States has a serious section of their population holding firearms without the suggested mental capacity to do so. Sources[1] http://theconversation.com...[2] http://www.vox.com...
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

Correlation does not equal causation. And Australia is a poor example to use. The gun buyback reduced the number of guns by about a third. Since that time, the population has grown by 19 percent, yet the number of firearms has increased by 45 percent. Crime rates continued to fall, along with suicides, despite this increase in gun ownership. Also, suicide rates had been falling for a decade before the gun buy back. They continued to fall at the same rate AFTER the buy back. Bottom line. A gun requires someone to pick it up, aim it at someone, and pull the trigger. Study after study has shown that gun laws have no significant effect on crime rates. Criminals do not obey gun laws. Law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. The criminals will keep theirs. So any law you pass will have no effect. This is basic common sense. Also keep in mind that this debate is about gun crime in America, so I have no idea why you mentioned Australia. I have shown that gun ownership has no relationship to the number of gun murders in AMERICA. You have failed to prove otherwise.
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

Thank you for creating your argument, Pro. There is an absolutely undeniable correlation between gun ownership and gun related murder. Looking at the United States on a national level, they have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth [1]. It is not surprising that these permissive gun laws have also paved the way for an ease of mass murders to disturb the peace in many neighborhoods and cities across the United States. The amount of guns per capita in the United States allows them to claim the title of 'Leader in Mass Shootings' on a global level [2]. Using states as a murders per capita example can be easily refuted as a proper argument for gun murders correlation because American crime rates on a state level vary regardless of ownership of guns and populations. It is the outlier of mass shootings that throw the graph into high shooting rates because that's where gun control really plays its role. To prove that, an international example of the near-abolishment of guns having been successful in curbing both murders and mass shootings by guns is Australia [3]. Having tightened gun control to an ultimate level, Australian murder rates have plummeted since their shooting event 20 years ago which swayed them to create strict control and restrictions on access to weapons. Also, as you pointed out with knives and blunt objects, the reasons for crime and criminal activity in specific areas depending on geographical and demographic factors plays a major role on the sum of those numbers.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.wsj.com...[3] http://www.reuters.com...
Guns, guns. Everywhere, guns.

I honestly didn't think anyone would accept. Well, here we go. First, some statistics. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... These are broken down by state. Statistics include population, population density, total number of murders, number of gun murders, and the percentage of the population that own firearms. Let's first look at DC. Gun ownership is 3.6 percent. The lowest in the country. Now look at the number of murders per 100K. 21.8. The number of gun murders is 16.5. That's several times the number of every other state. Now, let's direct our attention to the state of Hawaii. They also have a very low percentage of gun owners, at 6.7 percent. Number of murders per 100K is 1.8. The number of gun murders is .5. That's one person out of 200,000 shot and killed by a gun. Also note that Hawaii has twice the population, twice the number of gun owners, and yet has only half the number of murders. Now, let's look at some states with a high percentage of gun owners. Once again, we see a discrepancy. Wyoming has the highest percentage of gun owners of any state, yet their numbers for murders and gun murders are pretty close to that of Hawaii, at 1.4 murders per 100K, and .9 gun murders. Now, there is Louisiana. Another state with a high gun ownership percentage. Their numbers are 9.6 and 7.7. As you can see, there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders. And, finally, there is the simple fact that gun dealers are doing record business the last few years, yet the number of gun murders continue to drop. More guns. Fewer murders. This is according to FBI statistics. I would also like to point out that more people are killed by knives and blunt objects than by so called assault rifles.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

First of all I would like to correct you on your statement that gay marriage is a "menial issue." It is in fact one of the defining issues of our time. Historically the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, moral conviction, and theology that has been given complete support by the overwhelming majority of the people. The first and most obvious argument against gay marriage is that of the devastating consequences it would have on the family and-more specifically-the children. There is overwhelming evidence that proves that both a father and mother are needed for a child's proper development. In 1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption." This concept would turn family into nothing more than a bizarre free-for-all. A second point to make in this discussion is that by legalizing gay marriage you have opened up Pandora's Box. With the recognition of marriage as a right instead of a union based on tradition and moral conviction you have started down a slippery slope that includes polygamous and incestuous relationships. Once introduced it will make marriage nothing more than an interpretation of rights as seen by a black-robed judge. Is this really evidence of a society evolving? It would seem more appropriate to see it as a culture on a recessive downward spiral towards the basest of human lusts and desires. Another argument that can be brought to bear on gay marriage in the more legal and practical arena is that concerning propagating society. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple benefits which are costly to the state as well as other individuals. Examples include collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy, etc. This is done because a marriage between heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a definite state interest. therefore, states have-to some degree or other-restricted couples unlikely to produce children from marriage. Needless to say, homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society and, therefore, the states do not grant them the costly benefits of marriage. I put this argument here not as one of the highest importance, but rather to show that even from a practical viewpoint gay marriage is detrimental to society. Although I doubt but sincerely hope I have changed your views, I do hope that I have shown this subject to be of far greater importance than you originally gave it credit for. These three subjects by no means encompass the spectrum of the subject, but I think that they are sufficient for the moment.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

When I previously stated that this was a "menial issue" I simply meant that there are far greater issues in today's society that we should be focusing on, instead of one that seems allow many conservatives and theists to spread hate against a certain group. In response to your comment about studies finding that a mother and father are needed to help a child fully develop, there have been far more studies that found children raised by same-sex parents suffer no more than children of heterosexual parents. In fact, many of these children were found to be more open-minded than there counterparts due to the type of family they grew up in. This "Pandora's Box" that so many people speak of seems unfair. Heterosexuals are permitted to marry one person that is unrelated to them and whom they love. This would be the same circumstance for same-sex couples. Marriage means that two people are committed to each other for life, seemingly ruling out polygamous couples because they include more than two people. The argument that extending marriage to same-sex couples would be costly to the state is invalid. People who are married are actually less of a burden on the state than people who are not. This is because there are two sources of income instead of one. Also, people in stable relationships usually strive to purchase a home, and homeowners must be fairly financially stable. People should not be denied liberties because the state may have to doll out more health care or social security benefits to spouses. If this were the case, why didn't we continue to ban inter-racial marriage? Because it was not fair! In rebuttal of your last point, which was that same-sex couples are less likely to produce children and this is why the state restricts their ability to marry, there are many same-sex couples that produce children. Also, there are many heterosexual couples that decide not to have children. The odds of same-sex couples having children are lower, yes, but this is in part due to the many difficulties these couples face when trying to adopt or using other methods of having children. The state not only restricts their ability to marry, but their ability to have children, so your argument does not seem fair to these couples. Gay marriage seems to be an issue that has been hijacked by the religious right as a way to "fight" a common enemy. Their Bible tells them that homosexuality is wrong, so they decide that they should restrict these people's rights. However, the problem with this is that the Bible is not the be all, or end all, and it certainly should not be used to excuse actions. Marriage is not a religious issue; it only becomes religious when a couple decides to marry in a church. It is a civil issue, I mean, atheists can marry. They are not denied this right because they are not religious and do not marry in a church. I do not want to open this "Pandora's Box", I simply think that marriage should be defined as a union between two unrelated people, whether they are of the same-sex or not.
Desperate Housewives is the best American TV show

My opponent still offers no warrant for the attacks made in his newest speech. he also neither defends the attacks I made in my prior speech, nor even touches the Con stance. So with said, I can go straight to the reasons why I've won It can be quickly and accurately surmised as this 1. The Pro doesn't even touch my argument that entertainment is subjective. 2. My opponent fails to prove the topic true. 3. I succeed in proving the topic false. 4. The Pro offers no clash at all. 5. The Pro drops every single point made.