BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped for ever.

Rape is a type of sex that involves a deep, intimate connection between two or more people. However, consent is not a necessary condition for sex; sex can and does happen everyday without consent. Sex is just another kind of physical activity that provides an opportunity to deeply connect with each other. Overall, it is not at all "special". Please discard such right-wing, conservative idea; this is the 21st century, not the Victorian era. Rape gives its participants to have and enjoy a moment in which they can become intimately and deeply connected with each other without having to experience the pointless hassle of consent. The only difference between sex and rape is that the former contains a cumbersome process of consent while the latter doesn't. Rape is only a shortcut of sex. Rape is only a crime because you think of it crime. In previous rounds of argument, I have successfully revealed as to why the notion that rape is crime is founded on an indefensible, erroneous basis, and also that because of this, the notion shall be discarded for good. The damage to the vagina or anus is negligible because such effect can also be achieved in passionate, rough sex, not specially traits only for rape. As for the purported mental damage that raped females experience post-rape, I have provided a rational and realistic solution of teaching them to view rape in a thoroughly new, fresh and positive light, so that those females will not have to undergo any psychological uproar after their rape. By decriminalizing rape, we can achieve the level of community spirit that we have always desired. Via rape, the members of community can enjoy occasions of deep, intimate connection with another human being or two. Legalizing rape can also engender the community spirit of sharing - that is, a woman's body can be in compliance with the community spirit of sharing in order for other people to experience pleasure, fulfillment and happiness through her body. The raped females, meanwhile, can feel blessed and happy about their role of giving somebody great sexual pleasure, satisfaction, fulfillment -all happiness - by participating in rape. Rape creates a win-win situation for everybody involved. The con has consistently failed in providing any rational, reasonable or logical rebuttal to the Pro's argument. It it as if the con just participated in this debate in the first place without any other purpose than trolling. Had the con been really serious about expressing any opposition towards the proposal of decriminalization of rape, the con would have presented a more thorough, careful argument. However, the con has just stated fallacies, irrelevances and words that are devoid of any human logic and rationality. Had the con contained the least level of integrity, the con would have confessed that s/he is actually for rape, just like the Pro.
Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped for ever.

Sex should be a deep, intimate connection between two consenting people. When there is a rape you take away the consent and the intimacy. We all own our own bodies and sex is a special way of allowing ourselves to deeply connect with another person. Rape does not seek consent from the victim and therefore disregards the victim’s ownership of their body. Forcing someone to do anything they don’t want to do is wrong especially when is a, normally, intimate act. Rape is an aggressive, violent assault. Rape often causes damage to the vagina. Rape can pass on STD’s to the victim. Rape can damage the anus. Rape causes long term mental trauma. Rape causes the victim to find it hard to be consensually intimate with other people. Rape is wrong. This is why rape is illegal and should remain illegal. It is a dangerous act. If it were legal it would spread fear throughout the community. It’s a no brainer really. Because of this when people break this law they should be punished like when any other crime is committed. This is all I’m going to write because I’m tired of reading PRO’s repetitive, nonsensical arguments and then having to repeat my rebuttals. He obviously spends a lot of time writing long arguments but not a lot of time making sure there is any substance behind the words. Anyone with half a brain cell can understand why rape is illegal. Pro has not been able (or willing) to disprove my rebuttals to his arguments instead choosing to deny there even was a rebuttal in the first place. Sources Common sense http://www.healthyplace.com... http://www.brissc.org.au... http://www.pardaphash.com...
World wars I &II were about oil in Iraq

1. My opponent has chosen to completely ignore 3 paragraphs of round 2. These 3 paragraphs give a detailed account of how the British military first attacked Baghdad and stopped the Germans and Turks from seizing control of the Iraq oil fields. I have clearly stated that oil based technology was just being developed at this time and the importance of oil had become of vital importance to the British Empire. 2. My opponent has concentrated his efforts on the release of prisoners after the war was finished. It should be made clear that all wars have prisoners and the release of prisoners after a war is finished is nothing unusual or extraordinary. What is important is what was the cause of the war in the first place. Obviously, the first actions of a war will give important clues as to what the motives are behind the reasons for having the war. thus, the first actions of the British in world War I were to send troops to Baghdad to stop the Germans and Turks from building a railway to Baghdad. The second World War was just a reinforcement of this same policy as well as some unfinished business from the last war. 3. Human rights were of little importance during the course of these two wars. Soldiers were sent into battle with little or no protection or armour. Thousands of soldiers were sent in against machine gun positions which were really just suicide attacks which had no prospects of success. Thus, this is evidence that the commanders had little respect for human life. Reference from source - https://en.wikipedia.org... The railway became a source of international disputes during the years immediately preceding World War I. Although it has been argued that they were resolved in 1914 before the war began, it has also been argued that the railway was a leading cause of the First World War. Technical difficulties in the remote Taurus Mountains and diplomatic delays meant that by 1915 the railway was still 480 kilometres (300 mi) short of completion, severely limiting its use during the war in which Baghdad was occupied by the British while the Hejaz Railway in the south was attacked by guerrilla forces led by T. E. Lawrence. Construction resumed in the 1930s and was completed in 1940.
World wars I &II were about oil in Iraq

"World Wars I and II were about global domination. In order to become globally dominant, you must first secure oil supplies so that you can fuel the machinery of your domination. Between 1913 to 1945 the predominant means of securing military force was by ocean going vessels. Powering these vessels required lots of petroleum...without a secured oil supply, neither side could conduct a proper military campaign...[t]hus, it was absolutely vital that oil supplies be the main priority." This statement, while a great deal more specific than the original arguments presented, still fails to specifically address the precise manner in which Iraqi oil reserves served as a nucleus for both wars, as opposed to freedom and protection of human rights. Perhaps the original argument was too hyperbolic, and should have been pruned to specifics so as to accommodate the point trying to be made in the above block quote. In light of the direct quote that these wars had "nothing to do with freedom and protection of human rights," the most effective and simple counterargument is to point to the liberation of the concentration camps toward the end of World War II. While this certainly wasn't the main aim of the war (and no knowledgeable individual would argue otherwise), it negates the idea that the war had "nothing to do" with protecting or preserving human rights. Per "A Short History of Human Rights," the author discusses the Nuremberg trials, noting that "officials from the defeated countries were punished for committing...'crimes against humanity'." The violation of the basic human rights of the Jews was a focal point of these trials. These trials involved crimes committed during World War II. It follows, then, that "World War II...had nothing to do with freedom and protection of human rights" is a null statement.
World wars I &II were about oil in Iraq

World Wars I and II were about global domination. In order to become globally dominant, you must first secure oil supplies so that you can fuel the machinery of your domination. Between 1913 to 1945 the predominant means of securing military force was by ocean going vessels. Powering these vessels required lots of petroleum. Quote - ' In short, oil played a limited role in the military decisions and operations of both wars.' Reply - Without a secured oil supply, neither side could conduct a proper military campaign. Thus, it was absolutely vital that oil supplies be the main priority. British send troops to stop German railway to Baghdad. http://www.revisionist.net... As well in Serbia British military and intelligence networks were most active prior to outbreak of war. Major R.G.D. Laffan was in charge of a British military training mission in Serbia just before the war. Following the war, Laffan wrote of the British role in throwing a huge block on the route of the German-Baghdad project: "If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority," warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army. "Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France," Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean." Note - World War II was just a reinforcing of the previous war efforts. The beginning of World War I was at the same time as oil became a recognized fuel source which was far more efficient than coal powered vessels.
World wars I &II were about oil in Iraq

While there is much dispute about the machinations of the beginnings of World War I, it is almost unanimously accepted by scholars that the proverbial powder keg involved European affairs, as opposed to Mideast affairs. While it is true that Germany and the Ottoman Empire entered into a secret alliance (perhaps setting up a possible misinterpretation of the facts relative to the struggle between German/British resources), the great bulk of combat took place in the European theater. Similarly, while the theater of World War II greatly expanded comparable to the previous war, again, nothing concrete suggests the war's origins centered around disagreements over petrol resources. In short, if Britain's oil-related motives in World War I involved gaining control of routes and/or resources, then it only stands to reason that their motives in World War II involved maintaining control of the same. In short, oil played a limited role in the military decisions and operations of both wars. As a side note, the Anglo-Iraqi War (1941) lasted less than one month, and offered a strong base of British operations for continuing wartime efforts in the Mideast. While the implication is clear that the British Empire shed the blood of belligerents and innocents alike to maintain control of Iraq's resource routes, one must be careful not to assume that the Iraqis were apt to respect basic human rights and dignities; following the Anglo-Iraqi armistice, over a hundred Jews in Baghdad lost their lives at the hands of angry Iraqis, the latter of whom having turned their frustrations on innocent civilians.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

You stated, " As most people who have been actually bullied in real life will tell you, cyberbullying is really stupid. "Oh no. Some girl said to me in an email "ur fat lulz". I"m scarred for the rest of my life." Nowhere NEAR as bad as getting hit, punched, abused, ect." First of all, this is making fun of, or rather bullying this person who has gotten cyberbullied. Second of all, Lohanthony on YouTube, and many other people, get death threats daily. This may scare and intimidate him for the rest of his life. Cyberbullying can be thought of as getting hit, punched or abused mentally. According to bullyingstatistics.org "This type of bullying has gotten immense media attention over the past few years sighting instances of cyber bullying pushed too far, and in many cases leading to cases of teen suicide or death. Many bullying statistics and studies have found that physical assaults have been replaced with constant cyber assaults in the form of bashing, rumors and other hazing content targeted at a single student or group of students." Lastly, teen death and suicide is not stupid especially for the victim and victim's loved ones. Cyberbullying that happens outside of school, and affects school conduct, is one of the only cyberbullying acts that should be responded to in school. The other instances when cyberbullying should be dealt with in school is when a student comes to a teacher, counselor, or principal for help.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

Justin W. Patchin states "I have been using the internet since I was 4 years old. And I have had some experiences with "cyber-bullying", as it is now called. Funny, we used to call it "people being idiots". As most people who have been actually bullied in real life will tell you, cyberbullying is really stupid. "Oh no. Some girl said to me in an email "ur fat lulz". I"m scarred for the rest of my life." Nowhere NEAR as bad as getting hit, punched, abused, ect."Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus studied 450,000 American children between the ages of three to twelve to see if traditional bullying is still the most frequent kind of bullying. Of those in his sample, eighteen percent said they had been verbally bullied (the more traditional form) while about five percent had been cyberbullied. Among those doing the bullying, Ten percent said they did it verbally, while three percent said they did it the cyber-way. Bottom line? Olweus says the main problem is bullying in the traditional form, and that cyberbullying tends to be used as just one of many tactics. In addition, Olweus suggests we shouldn't spend too much time attacking the cyber-problem, when directing typical proactive measures to the general problem of bullying should suffice. In his research, Olweus says "it turns out that cyberbullying, when studied in proper context, is a low-prevalence phenomenon, which has not increased over time and has not created many 'new' victims and bullies, that is, children and youth who are not also involved in some form of traditional bullying." In short, cyberbullying doesn't prove to be a huge problem in schools, this issue should not be handled out of school. Handling cyberbullying outside of schools is like students not doing their homework resulting in suspension, or a child stealing money from their moms purse, resulting in suspension. Small problems that should not have anything to do with school lives should not be carried on into school discipline. In conclusion, cyberbullying could easily be stopped with the log out button or simply not being part of social media, and cyberbullying outside of school should not be punished by the school as it can easily be solved by the student and would be an invasion of privacy and often lead to legal issues when attempted to be punished by schools.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

Yes, bullying is an issue, but you"re wrong when you state it is dealt with quickly. "Each day about 160,000 students miss school because of bullying or because of their fear of being bullied. The sad fact is that every 7 minutes a child is bullied on the playground. Adult intervention is often 4%, peer or classmate intervention is 11%, and no intervention is 85%. This means that is more common for these incidents to be ignored." So, most of the bullying done in schools is ignored by teachers. Phones and social media use is prohibited during school hours at most schools, but just because someone is not texting at that exact moment or updating their status doesn"t mean the cyberbullying doesn't affect them at school. For example, one young man could be harassing another on facebook. The next day at school the teen who was being attacked the night before could have reached his limits and decided to fight back. A physical fight could break out, or a verbal one, either way, the effects of cyberbullying are now in school. Continuing on Amanda Todd, she did some inappropriate things online to cause the reaction she got, but it wasn"t just her fault. An analogy that can be used about sending nude pictures is one about rape. People often say because of the clothes someone wore is the reason they were raped, which is incorrect. Also saying the reason Amanda Todd was bullied was because she sent inappropriate pictures, is incorrect. It was the bully"s fault, not hers. Although if the pictures would not have been sent she might still be alive and well today. If the school were to have gotten involved in what was occurring with Amanda Todd, they would have notified her parents and then, taken away her use of social media. In the court case of Beussink v. Woodland R-IV school, the school was sued because they took unnecessary action. A student at the school, Brandon Beussink, made a homepage with crude language and rude things about the teachers at his high school. A girl by the name of Amanda Brown found out about this webpage, and told the computer teacher at the school. The principal got involved and gave Brandon a 10 day suspension. This homepage was not affecting Woodland High Schools daily routine, so it should not have been dealt with by the principal the way it was. Times like this cyberbullying should not be disciplined by schools but other times when a child's behavior or school conduct is affected it should be.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

Though it is agreed that bullying in school is an issue, it is often handled quickly. This debate is on cyberbullying outside of school. Cyber bullying often does not carry into the next school day when schools handle the bullying and don't allow social media websites at school or cell phones. If students were following the rules than the cyberbullying could not be carried on into the next day. Also, yet again, If the student really wanted the cyberbullying to go away, why would they not delete their account? or block the bullies? or, as you can often do on today's' social media, set your account as private. Now to the Amanda Todd case, though she did not deserve what happened to her, is there at all an argument that she brought it onto herself? About 1 in 5 teens have posted or sent sexually suggestive or nude pictures of themselves to others which results in a huge percentage of the cyberbullying. Though if those pictures had never been sent, how could the bullying ever have happened? If Amanda Todd had never "flashed" the boy she was video chatting with, would bullying have ever been an issue for her? Amanda Todd was also twelve years of age when she did this act, with the age limit on all social media being thirteen years of age, she should have never been on the social media in the first place. One-hundred percent of bullying over inappropriate pictures would be avoided if the pictures had never been sent or the acts had never been made. The schools do often also take charge in bullying in school, though when schools get too involved, they are often sued for exceeding their authority and violating the students free speech right. There are many things that schools attempt to do to take action but cyberbullying outside of school, can not be handled by the school. Only 4% of any bullying is brought back into school and is handled immediately.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

Cyberbullying is an online form of bullying where the bully attacks another person through social media or text messaging. It is not simply two people joking back and forth, but an ongoing harassment that degrades the one being threatened. Cyberbullying generally happens outside of school and will carry on into the next school day. Most people tend to sway to the idea of keeping cyberbullying away from school because it does not happen there. Schools are responsible for a healthy learning environment, and bullying of any kind impedes on this process. It disrupts the school environment and takes a class or student away from learning. Although this is true, it is important to focus on cyberbullying because it could be hurting the child in many ways. For example, in the case of Amanda Todd. She committed suicide because of cyberbullying. She was bullied for many years and then went to the extreme lengths of ending her life. She moved schools many times to try and escape the bullying but none of the schools helped and moving didn't either. This bullying occurred off campus, but affected Amanda Todd at school. Since it affected her school life as well as her personal life the school should have been involved.
Cyberbullying that is held outside of school should be punished by the school.

Cyberbullying that is occurs off campus should not be punished by the school. According to Merriam-Webster, cyberbullying is the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person. Schools are exceeding their authority and violating the student"s freedom of speech by disciplining the student for cyberbullying. The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Unless the problem is brought onto campus, the school cannot interfere with the issues. The victim chooses to listen to what the bully has to say, if they just blocked them from the site or their news feed then they would not have to worry about it. There are things as simple as a "log out" button.