BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should drones be illegal in the USA

I want to start off by thanking the Pro for the debate.Also, because there are only three rounds in this debate, I will go ahead and lay out my main points.I will be arguing that drones should not be illegal, and here are my reasonings.The definition of a "drone": "an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously,without human control or beyond line of sight:"[1]This includes all drones, including UAVs (figure 1.) and camera drones (figure 2.) Figure 1. UAV Reaper Drone [2] Figure 2. Camera Drone. [3]Because the Pro does not specify which drones, I will argue for them all. Despite what Pro states in his opening thesis, drones can actually be extremely beneficial in many ways.1: Drones aide in saving lives. Immediately after natural disasters in which the damage is not yet determined, drones can be used to easily assess the amount of damage and find out the level of danger, and acts as a safe alternative to sending in first responders.2: Drones help in agricultural management. Farmers can use drones specifically to manage crops and pinponts areas that need special attention. This way saves time by only providing care exactly where needed, and improves crop yield.3: Help safely in architechtural maintenance and inspection. Drones can obviously go places where humans cannot, and can also do it without risking lives. For example, drones would easily help inspect places of infrastructure such as below bridges and high buildings.4: Drones give the media access to places: They can film places never reached before, for news and film production. This can be done easily, efficiently, and safely, thanks to drones.Because of my limited time, I will limit my arguments to those above and wait for the Pro to present his. I look forward to this debate and the rebuttals along with it. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2]commons.wikimedia.org[3]www.bostonmagazine.com
Depression Should Be Illegal

Oh, man, you really went off the hook there with those grizzly bears. I knew it would be something like that. You don't even know what you're saying, do you? You're a lost mind in a simple world. That's why I like debating with you, sir. I always win, because you continuously fail to provide any sources. We are not going to kill 350 million people for the polar bears. It would be roughly the population of the United States and Australia. But if we killed that many people, the United States and Australia would have far less people and we would be worse off because we would have labor shortages, the people would rebel against their government for killing all the depressed people, and the like. There are cheaper, more humane, efficient ways to deal with global warming, like solar, wind, nuclear, and so on. We do not need to kill everybody to stop global warming. Humans are not the problem, the problem is how we produce energy. If you actually cared about global warming, it would be nice. But you don't you just use global warming as a way to express how you hate 95% of all the people on Earth. Actually, though, we could kill all the white supremacists and hate groups. That would help. I ask you, sir, in the comments, to give me just ONE source, one graph or chart which shows that global warming is brought about by the farts of pessimistic people. I doubt you'll be able to. Because that's not true. You choose what we debate next, surprise me, send it out, I'll be waiting. In the meantime, here's another picture of you: https://i.pinimg.com...
Depression Should Be Illegal

Look. I hate grizzly bears because they are brown people. They are no different from African people. All grizzly bears do is play basketball and eat fried chicken. 350 million killed is a huge favor to the polar bears. Polar bears did nothing to deserve this evil, yet humans contribute to overpopulation and global warming. That is the population of the United States and Australia combined. Think about it: if the United States and Australia never existed, there would be much more polar bears in today's world. People who are depressed are always paranoid and sad. Paranoid and sad people are always pessimists. Statistics have shown that pessimists fart too much, which is also bad for the environment. Oh, and here is a picture of you, frankfurter50: http://files.jungiananalysisliterary.webnode.com...
Depression Should Be Illegal

Depression is not just low self esteem, it's a mental condition, and people should try to resolve their mental conditions, we should not kill people because they have a mental condition. people with low self esteem are not useless to society. Many great comedians have low self esteem, that's why they became comedians. Stand up comedy is a kind of mental therapy. Everybody has low self esteem at some point in their lives, we should not have to hide our emotions. When emotions are suppressed, and people only feel happiness, and the happiness is being forced, then that person is not happy. Many people with depression have jobs, stupid, boring jobs, and that's why they're depressed. They're depressed because they're contributing to society. We should change society so people are less depressed. We should make life more fun. Then they wouldn't be depressed anymore. We should allow more pay, shorter work hours, more career diversity. We should make life better for them, not worse. What kind of sick monster ARE you? You said that 350 million people suffer from depression. Killing them would be killing a lot of people. Then more people would be depressed about the people they killed. Sadness is a part of life. We cannot eliminate it. We can only turn our society into a smiling utopia by embracing sadness as a reality. To Hell with your polar bears. Polar bears are not affected by overpopulation, they're affected by CO2 emissions. We need to stop emitting CO2. Then polar bears would be fine. I'm sure some polar bear scientists have depression. And what about the penguins of the walruses? Do you care about them? Or just your stupid POLAR BEARS WE ARE NOT GOING TO COMMIT MASS GENOCIDE UPON ALL MINORITIES TO SAVE ONE ANIMAL What do you think about grizzly bears? Do you hate them for the color of their fur? That picture you gave is a striking likeness. Here's one of you. https://cdn.drawception.com...
Depression Should Be Illegal

Okay. Depression is when you have low self-esteem. People with low self-esteem are useless people who achieve nothing and are useless to society. Therefore, it is a good idea to kill off everyone with depression because that helps solve overpopulation and save the planet, before all the superior polar bears are gone. Below are some statistics about depression: https://www.healthline.com... 350 million people worldwide suffer from depression. 350m/7b=5% So 1 in every 20 people suffer from depression. To put this into perspective, only 1 in 200 people are redheads, so depression is much more common than you think. America is the 3rd most populated country in the world, currently at a population of about 324 million. So if we kill off all the depressed people in the world, it is equivalent of killing off everyone in America. That is a big solution to overpopulation and global warming, and polar bears will be happy. Here is a picture of you: https://sikorski.ca...
Two is equal to One

My opponent’s argument breaks down at step 2. The Taylor expansion for ln(x) has a radius of convergence of 1, around the point x = 1, such that 0<x<2 (as opposed to 0≤x≤2) as I will show below, meaning that the Taylor expansion of ln(x-1) likewise has a radius of convergence of 1 around the point x = 0, such that -1<x<1. By inserting x=1 into the Taylor expansion for ln(x-1), he is causing the series to become divergent, thereby inducing the error in the proof that appears to make 2=1. Proof that the Taylor expansion for ln(x+1) fails at x=1: 1) Differentiating ln(1+x), we have: d/dx (ln(1+x)) = 1/(1+x). 2) Trivially, 1/(1+x) = 1/(1-(-x)) = 1/(1-y), where y≡-x. 3) Taking the Maclaurin expansion of 1/(1-y), we have: 1/(1-y) = 1+y+y^2+y^3+y^4+… 4) Note that the result in step 3 is the expression of a geometric series, which has limits of evaluation at |y|<1. Since y≡-x, |y|<1 is equivalent to |-x|<1. Substituting 1 for x, we have |-1|=1<1, which is false, since 1=1 (again, note the difference between 1<1 and 1≤1). For example, substituting x=1 into the previous expression yields: 1/(1+x) = 1/(1-y) = 1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+… This expression is divergent, resulting in the error that causes 2 to appear to equal 1. This concludes the proof.****************************************************************************I greatly enjoyed this debate; you’ll have to challenge me to another some time!
Two is equal to One

In R2 I will present a proof that 2 = 1.Please don't worry. The proof is flawed. In R2 it will be task of Con to spot the flaw. If she is able to do this, she wins the debate. If she is unable to spot the flaw in R2, I win this debate.If Con is unable to spot the flaw in R2 (or provides an errenous explanation), I will provide the correct explanation in R3. Con need not do anything in R1 and R3.I will be using Taylor series expansion and logarithms. Nothing in much detail. But you need to be comfortable with basics of these two concepts and series calcuations to accept this debate.Hoping to get a sincere opponent.
Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare

Drones do work, they are safer The real reason the majority of Americans tired of the perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? For some at least one factor was the consideration of the hundreds thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan people died and suffered over near to the length of a generation. These same people could also be expected to be angered by the death of our own sons and daughters, friends and family, who sacrifice their lives, physical and mental well being, to serve the Country's interests. The majority though lose sleep over the death of the innocents not counted as our allies and brethren. They are collateral damage, necessary to keep America and our children safe. That what we are told, not just by Fox News, but by the other major networks as well. Imagine a world where people who had the same financial interests in the military industrial complex were also heavily invested in the mass media. Welcome to it. The drones remove a large number of our soldiers from harms way to carry out certain missions, or executions, as the case may be. This is good, we don't want our soldiers to die, and could any ethical or moral reason be good enough to surmount that? It depends how the drones are used of course, but those who control them are those in power, and those in power usually, historically speaking, probably don't have the best interests of the people at heart. Not really. Not the people beyond the sphere of their family, friends and co workers, or their bubble, to be precise. They might believe they do, but that to better sleep at night. Argument 2: Drones are always necessary. Its a more effective way to destroy our target then actually going out there and risking there life's. You say if we had drones that we wouldn't have soldiers, in fact they could be National guard which is almost the same thing but instead they are in their hometown helping out,
Kids should have cell phones

Kids should definetly have cell phones. I will give 3 main points to back my position. (1) Emergencies (2) Socializing (3) Responsibility Kids need phones for emergencies. What if your at a movie with some friends and an adult comes and starts walking around you and acting creepy. Without a phone you can't call somebody to pick you up you will just have to deal with this strange adult. This is just one of many scenarios of an emergency. Kids need to be social in order for them to develope correct social skills and learn how to act around people. With cell phones kids can talk to each other whenever they want and can arrange hang outs much easier. Cell phones teach kids responsibility. They have to make sure they don't lose their phone and not send mean texts and things like that. I'm not saying this is the only way to teach responsibility but kids will enjoy learning this way.
Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances

This is for Spinko's debate tournament.Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegalAbortion-The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.Ought- Should beIllegal- Outlawed Most Circumstances- Includes almost every cirumstances except those of rape, incest, and when the female's life is threatened.THIS DEFINITION WILL NOT BE UP FOR EXPLOITATIONThis debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid.R1: AcceptanceR2: PRO's arguments/CON's arguments/rebuttalR3: Rebuttals/DefenseR4: Final rebuttals/conclusions BOP is on me.Good luck!
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator

Alright. My opponent is instigating that Spongebob Squarepants...oh dear god this is painful already...Spongebob bleedin' Squarepants would beat the T-800, however, my opponent also said it would be a no-holds-barred fight, since every T-800 is controlled by Skynet, Spongebob wouldn't be fighting the T-800, he'd be fighting skynet, skynet that has access to nuclear weaponry and has been polluting the seas and killing all organic life for a good couple of decades. (who's dead in a pineapple under the sea?) In other words, in order for the T-800 to even exist, Skynet must dominate the earth, have already polluted the seas to the point of wiping out all life within them, and have turned the entire earth into the earth we see in Terminator 4, mainly ruined cities and deserts punctuated by small swamps and forests. Spongebob, just like Squidley and Patrick and that squirrel thing, would already be dead from the pollutants poured into a certain coconut before the T-800 even began production.
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the terminator

I believe that it is a little known fact Spongebob Squarepants is a BAMF. Anyone with a reply may answer and for the time being I will not give away spongebob's powers. All I am saying is no holds in the fight will be barred and by Terminator I mean the standard T-800 Schwarzenegger model. I look forward to this most epic of battles.
Christianity is a force for good in the world.

Apologies for forfeiting the previous round. Certainly Christianity is the largest single organization for healthcare in the world, but with over a billion members there aren"t many organizations that could offer that level of service, but that"s not to say they wouldn"t if possible. This has nothing to do with Christianity, this is a want to help your fellow man, an instinctive drive that all people and societies need in order for us to survive and evolve. To dispute your point on the church starting the orphanage movement I will direct you to this piece from the writings of Plato, many hundreds of years before the church was helping orphans, by the way, no doubt they were orphans due to some war funded by the church. Plato (Laws, 927) says: "Orphans should be placed under the care of public guardians. Men should have a fear of the loneliness of orphans and of the souls of their departed parents. A man should love the unfortunate orphan of whom he is guardian as if he were his own child. He should be as careful and as diligent in the management of the orphan's property as of his own or even more careful still."(1) Furthermore, you mention Jane Addams, but a recent study of her found that Jane Addams "had come to epitomize the force of secular humanism." Her image was, however, "reinvented" by the Christian churches.(2) Here we can see that you have fallen into a trap laid by the church, claiming that one of the brightest lights of humanity belonged to their ranks, when in reality Jane Addams was agnostic at best and indeed a secular humanist. Now to quote you directly: "He (god) wants us to be loving and caring, and when humanity strays from those values, who is to blame? Not The Lord, but in fact ourselves." Now this argument is heavily flawed to me, why should this apparent god receive praise for all the good humanity achieves, yet when something bad happens it"s the humans who are at fault, now to me that seems to be a slight double standard. Now I will leave you with this. In mathematics a positive multiplied by a positive equals a positive, but, a negative multiplied by a positive equals a negative. So if we take all the negatives Christianity has done and all the positives and multiply them together, it is still a negative. To put this in more simple terms imagine a serial killer with 50 innocent victims. Should he be forgiven because he did some charity work on the weekends? The answer is of course no. Christianity is not a force for good in the world. The hatred found in Leviticus and the pedophilia dispersed in the places of worship are enough to see this on their own. Not to mention the other points I have raised. People are good and just enough already to need a bronze-age book dictating their lives. (1)http://www.perseus.tufts.edu... (2)Christie, C., Gauvreau, M. (2001). A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900-1940 McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, Jan 19, 2001 pg 107
Christianity is a force for good in the world.

Ultimately the question being asked is if Christianity is a force of good in the world. IS it a force for good, not HAS it been a force for good. And ultimately even when you look at it from two different angles, it's apparent that indeed our God is a God of love. He wants us to be loving and caring, and when humanity strays from those values, who is to blame? Not The Lord, but in fact ourselves. Thank you.
Christianity is a force for good in the world.

While you are correct about the crusades and other battles fought over Christianity, remember that while the humans may not always make the right choices, the religion governing them wants them to. The bible itself is indeed a strong force for good, and there are countless major benefits from Christianity. The church is the single largest provider of healthcare and education in the world, especially in the poorest countries where it is needed most. Christianity also pioneered social work. The first American woman to ever be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was Jane Addams. The church also co-founded the first settlement house in the US, hoping to bridge the gap between poor and rich. The London society for the prevention of cruelty to children, or the London SCCP, campaigning from the wider church, was the first force to stop cruelty towards children, and from them the first UK law about child neglect and cruelty was created. Churches were also the first orphanages, opening their arms in the Middle Ages to unwanted children that were left at the Churches' doorsteps. This practice ultimately started the orphanage movements we have today. I could go on for hours listing the countless things Christianity has done for the world.
Christianity is a force for good in the world.

When I observe the horrors in the back catalog of Christianity, it seems fitting that the image chosen as their earthly symbol, is one of most abhorrent forms of bronze-age Middle Eastern execution. In order to fully understand the role Christianity plays in the world today we must first look back at the terrors conducted in its repugnant name. Here I will name but a few of the achievements of Christianity: The crusades, the inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, the African slave trade and the deafening silence during Hitler's Final Solution. A list of accomplishments, which perhaps, would not be towards the top of ones curriculum vitae. Now to look towards the modern day, the Christian church remains a patriarchal establishment. The injustice to women is institutional. That is half the world"s population who are doomed to be listed with the livestock. On top of the patriarchy there is of course anti-homosexuality, these are people who are being punished by the church, not for what they believe, but for who they love and how they express it. This cannot be good for the world. Love is so desperately lacking in life, love needs dispensing not suppressing. Another unforgivable aspect of the modern day church is the idea that AIDS as a disease is bad, however, not as bad as condoms. Millions dead, for whom? And for what? It certainly wasn't for any force of good. Finally in this opening statement I will briefly touch on the most reprehensible part of Christianity in recent times, the long-standing institutional child rape. I do not think I need to expand on the point of pedophilia and why it is wrong. A force for good? Well, unquestionably not a good that I would fight for. No one can argue Christianity doesn't have some wonderful morals, however, these morals are not exclusive to Christianity, and the works of charity done by Christians are not exclusive to Christians. The force for good is already within human beings, Christianity, perhaps not intentionally, but undoubtedly persistently, distorts it.
Valentino arbitrarily with

Sit on a chair with [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino[/url][/b] your back straight up and your feet flat on the ground. Pick up the pencil using your affected foot. To do this, squeeze the pencil between your toes and the ball of your foot. The shoes cost twice as much as the heavier boots of the time but allowed soccer players to attain trackmeet speed as they sprinted, as well as achieve better feel of the ball for kicking. Most important to kicking was the Dassler introduction of screwin studs to match the stud length to the sloppiness of the playing field, important especially in rainy Northern Europe. like cleats because they have extra support at the bottom of your foot. Traditional cost accounting systems such as absorption costing determine product pricing by dividing the period costs equally or arbitrarily with the number of units produced during the same period. In a highly competitive business environment, the direct costs such as raw materials and labor remain more or less constant, as do profit margins. Companies try to boost profitability [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Outlet[/url][/b] by trying to eliminate period costs. Jordan began his career over three decades ago, after playing for the North Carolina Tarheels and gaining national attention with his gamewinning 3point shots. Immediately Nike saw his potential, and after Jordan was drafted to the Bulls, he signed a fiveyear contract with the brand worth half a million per year. In 1984, Michael hit the court in the first ever pair of Air Jordans in a classic Bulls red and black. Hiking shoes or boots [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Shoes[/url][/b] are the most important item for a hiking trip. A bad pair of shoes can lead to slipping, sliding, skidding, falling, and injuries. Most hiking shoes also have a good amount of support to protect you from feeling any discomfort in your legs, feet, knees, back, shoulders, or neck. Super Wide Lace Up Boots: If slouchy super wide boots do not appeal to you then lace up boots are another option. Lace up super wide boots that come up to the calves or are kneehigh, are very much in vogue and they are very versatile too. The lace up wide calf boots are of two varieties, the frontlace type or the sidelace type.