BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama was a better choice for president than John McCain.

All previous arguments extend. If the forfeiting continues I have won but just to make a few points I'll right a little bit here. How do we know that Obama is the better choice for president? He hasn't done anything yet to prove this claim and there won't ever be any proof that McCain wouldn't have done better? There's no need for further points as my opponent has made nothing to refute. If anyone actually wants to really debate this let me know.
Obama was a better choice for president than John McCain.

My opponent must affirm that he has the responsibility of proving that Obama was the better choice for president. My job is simply to make sure he doesn't prove that. < > (. http://www.cnn.com...) Here McCain talks about he's going to change Washington. My opponent has given no proof as to him saying he'll be just like Bush, and has given no proof as to the fact that Obama is going to make change. He also hasn't proved that changing will be better. Since my opponent has made no points and he has to prove HIS points, the first round for him was a null. Since he hasn't made any points for his side, I will not make any points for my side as they are unnecesary. My opponent must make points with "proof" in the next round for me to formally refute them and make my own.
Should Kids Get Tattoos

Rather than posting my side of tattoos, I will just trash my opponents argument. My opponents first contention is rendered completely moot. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, tattoos fall on the third tier -- belonging. To quote my opponent, "...only rebels and biker gangs had tattoos." Being in a gang allows you to belong to something/someone. The second contention, which was pitiful, says that tattoo artists do not clean their needles. I know for a fact that needles are bathed in a sulphur-based concoction and pumped with electricity. This contention, too, is useless. The third contention is based on the opinion of what "ugly" is, so this contention, like all of the others, is useless and pathetic. Take an english class. Your grammar is bad.
Should Kids Get Tattoos

In the 20th century, only rebels and biker gangs had tattoos. Today, one in five Americans have at least one tattoo. However, just because everyone else has one, doesn't mean you should get one. Three reasons you should NOT get a tattoo are they're permanent, it's unsanitary, and most people think they're ugly. First off, all tattoos are permanent. Whether you get a small Japanese symbol that no one can read or a pair of wings on your back so you can jump off the roof and finally fly, they will be there even after you die. For example, let's say you get your boyfriend or girlfriend 's name. The chances of you still dating next week is slim; but, you still have that tattoo! How are you going to explain that to the guy/girl you actually marry? Not only are they permanent, but they are also unsanitary. The likelihood the tattoo artist remembered to change needles or wash their hands during a busy workday is not. As a result, you could contract Hepatitis, allergic reactions, various other diseases, or acquire scars. Finally, most people think they're ugly. Six in ten people think tattoos make a person less attractive. This can range from dates to employers turning their backs and walking out the door. Not everyone lives by the it's-what's-on-the-inside-that-counts thought process. Here are the facts: once you get a tattoo, it will be there for the rest of your life (unless you want to pay the bill to get it removed), you can contract diseases and have allergic reactions from tattoos, and most people think they're ugly. One tattoo can lead to another until it's an addiction. Treat your body like a temple -- why would you want graffiti on yours?
DNA Databases/Profiling

DNA profiling can be discriminatory or bias. There is a possibility of discrimination against certain races and ethnicity (Voices of Yahoo). There was a lawyer named Brandon Mayfield. Someone was filled in on the idea that this guy was a Muslim lawyer with sympathies to Muslim groups. The person discriminated had Muslims and wanted to find a way to get Mayfield convicted. That is where DNA profiling came in, and the man had used Mayfield's DNA to convict him of a crime he didn't commit (Washington Post). This shows of the discrimination.
DNA Databases/Profiling

Profiling can be seen a violation of that person"s "DNA "ownership," but without this method of identification, it would be so much more work to solve crimes and cases. DNA data basing and profiling is not a threat to an individual"s privacy. The government has access to the information, but is not providing the information to the whole world (Bright Hub). Only criminals would fear the government putting out that person"s information. If you are innocent and didn"t commit any crimes then you have nothing to fear about. The government needs this information in order to provide their citizens with the safe society they deserve. The records of criminals are permanently locked in so that they can easily be obtained (Better Health). Because of this new way of identifying criminals, people are allowed to live in a safer environment since criminal records can easily be accessed.
DNA Databases/Profiling

DNA profiling intrudes on people's privacy. DNA fingerprinting databases infringe upon privacy and civil liberties (Voices on Yahoo). Some consider any request for a DNA sample to be a violation of an individuals right to privacy and a violation of their civil liberties (Bright Hub). Once you have had your DNA fingerprinted, anyone has access to it. Companies may promise that they will keep it in a safe place but if you think about it, nothing is ever safe. Anything that you are to put out into the world can somehow be found. This is an intrusion to people's personal data and life.
DNA Databases/Profiling

Profiling and DNA databases are very effective to solving more crimes. Before DNA data basing and profiling, investigators could only identify the blood type and race of the suspect. With the technology now, investigators can establish a genetic profile that can be attached to an individual (Bright Hub). "AN FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases (Better Health)." With the DNA data basing and profiling, investigators were able to rule out 25% of people from being a suspect in a crime. Investigators and researchers re check the samples at least four times to prevent accusing an innocent person for a crime (academia.edu).
DNA Databases/Profiling

DNA databases and profiling can cause wrongful convictions when finding a victim of a crime. Errors can be made and people conducting tests could be convinced through criminal means to produce the desired outcomes (Bright Hub). Another thing is that DNA can degrade over time which will in inaccurate information (Voices on Yahoo). The accuracy of fingerprinting testing is solely dependent on the experience and competency of lab personnel and equipment (Voices on Yahoo). This shows that wrong information can be easily received. If there was a crime and one of the options to find the person is to use DNA fingerprinting, then it would be best not to use that option. You can receive inaccurate information made within small errors.
DNA Databases/Profiling

Almost every individual in the United States have created their own DNA database by allowing the police to take their fingerprint or a sample of hair (hstlj.org). It would be extremely difficult to frame someone for committing a crime by using some DNA they bought. The reason why is because the person who actually did the crime will more than likely leave behind sweat, hair, or even some fingerprints while they were in the process of this crime. DNA databaseing is designed to be able to identify even the smallest amount of evidence (ncstl.org). The DNA is only one piece of the puzzle to solve the crime. The investigators can examine if there were any weapons used in the crime and from there, DNA databasing comes into the case. By using the DNA databasing, less obvious evidence that might of not been seen at first glance would be used and be able to solve the case more in depth.
DNA Databases/Profiling

The DNA that was taken and put into the database, can be taken and sold (Voices on Yahoo). This can become dangerous. As strange as it sounds, this sold DNA can be used for crimes. For example, if a person has commit a crime, they can leave the DNA that they bought at the crime and the person's whose DNA was bought, will then be framed for the crime. That becomes a problem for not only the person, but also the investigators.
DNA Databases/Profiling

DNA profiling can be seen as bias. The investigators need to look around the area to see the individuals around to find out how the suspect might look as well. In some cases, to narrow down down an investigation, DNA dragnets have racially targeted the suspects (dnapolicintiative.org). However, DNA profiling can save your own life and many others. If you or someone you know was attacked or assaulted, the forensic people can search for multiple pieces of DNA such as, saliva, hair, blood, urine, or even semen samples to identify the victim (Forensic Investigation and DNA Profiling). With the help of this evidence, this would lead to the capture of the criminal. Also, the police can easily look up the criminal and find out if they have a bad history and quickly put them in jail.
Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

Round 1 is simply introductions and rather or not my opponent accepts my challenge. I have challenged Toxifrost to a religious/philosophical debate and at the moment I'm currently awaiting his answer. Personally, I'm a Christian and a firm believer in the Bible. I will try to argue that the biblical God is morally better (even morally superior) than us humans. I hope this argument remains civil and not turn into a contest of insults or popularity contest, meaning that if I lose it is because I didn't lay out a convincing enough argument and or didn't connect all the most important dots. I hope the readers see a good and well informed debate on both sides and may the best argument(s) (not the more popular side) win.
Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

My apologies for this very short argument however I am typing this on my phone in he hospitol so I can't exactly type paragraphs of stuff Evolution does actually explain why we think certain thongs are wrong and right. I believe that I may have discussed this before and if not I will next round. "It would be safe to assume that whoever invented this item would know everything there is to know about it" Well not really. I mean if I invented a new type of microchip I certainly would not know every single usage or possible application it could have. Besides you have yet to establish that even if there IS an objective morality (and you saying that society influences morals actually pretty much debunks that) then god was the creator of it. Who's to say that god os the only being who could possibly create a morL standard? It's not scientifically impossible it's called behavioural evolution and it's quite simple The rest of this is basically the argument of why my Opinion can be deemed better than gods opinion. Again I explained before that mine is actualy evisent to exist outside the realm of a story-book. Sorry I can't go into detail at the moment but I will next round.
"Appetite for Destruction" is the best Guns N Roses album

I think that Chinese democracy is a better album cause. 1 it is their most popular album 2 it featured the songs Chinese democracy, Shackler's revenge, better, street of dreams, if the world, there was a time, catcher in the rye, scraped, riad N' the bedouins, sorry, I.R.S, Madagascar, this I love, and prostitute
"Appetite for Destruction" is the best Guns N Roses album

Slash is the best f-ing guitarist that GNR's ever had. Buckethead, Tommy Stinson, DJ Ashba, and them other guitarists that followed after Slash left Guns were never that good. Anyone who's played Guitar Hero 3 will remember that Slash is in it. I mean, Slash said that the riff for "Sweet Child O' Mine" was originally a joke. He's a freakin' badass, dude.
What came first? The chicken or the egg

Pro asserts that the chicken must have come first to lay the egg. This seems like a reasonable point of view the only problem is there had to be a species before the chicken who produced the chicken. Therefore, that species brought forth the egg which produced the first chicken and making the egg before the chicken. To better understand this question we could formulate it as: "ChickenX that can't come without the eggY, or the eggY that can't come without the Xchicken? " Professor John Brookfield and Professor David Papineau argue since there was a "first" chicken, it must have come from an egg which pre-dated that chicken. . http://www.cnn.com... Therefore my position seems the most reasonable and even the theory of evolution can be argue that a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that a creature similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. I think I had validated my positions and turn it back to Pro for his response.
Starbucks is better than Dunkin Donuts

On the argument of taste, I must say that Starbucks has a very rich and robust taste and not at all watered down. I would say that Dunkin Donuts coffee is actually the one that has a watered down taste. Also, in freshness, Starbucks is always freshly made, right in front of you. As for the price, I will talk about that later in the debate, because we are talking about taste at this time, as con stated.
Starbucks is better than Dunkin Donuts

Ok, on the topic of price, Starbucks is only about 50 cents more than Dunkin. I'm not even commenting on 7-11. (lol) Yes, Starbucks does offer multiple convenient locations and wifi...I believe that's part of the reason they are so popular. I would say that's actually a plus on there side, there making things easier for the customers. The look is nice, and that is also a plus. As for service, Starbucks is also fast and efficient, if it takes a while it's only because there are so many more people there than at Dunkin. :)
Starbucks is better than Dunkin Donuts

Starbucks is over priced and over rated for taste. there is a reason why america runs on dunkin and starbucks is not expanding as much becasue they over populated themselves.Without their fancy looking stores and "convenient" store locations with "wifi" capability they would be no more than the normal mom and pop coffee shop. personally everyone i know who is an avid coffee drinker would rather go to 7-11 over starbucks, where they can make their own coffee and selective choices, but overall Dunkin takes the cake when it comes to fast efficient service and taste, if i wanted a frozen macchiato with a hundred of other flavors then i would undoubtedly go to Starbucks for terrible coffee/iced coffee and untimely service. when i need a pick me up and a flavorful cup of coffee at my convenience then Dunkin it is all the way
The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Since my last attempt to debate this resulted in a forfeit, I'm going to try again as con.Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.Round structure:1) Acceptance2) Arguments3) Rebuttals4) Response to rebuttals.5) SummaryRules: Burden of proof is shared.Definitions/framework is open.You can only respond to something said in a previous round.Forfeit in any round is an automatic loss unless worked out through a mutual agreement.No new rebuttals in round 5. Show why you have won, do not attack what was said in round 4.This is one of my stronger cases. As such, I'd prefer a skilled opponent, but have made the debate acceptable by anyone.
The GOP Tax Cuts will, on average, not help the middle class.

Hi there. I think (and we should all hope) the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will benefit the middle and lower classes. It is true that the highest earners benefit the most from this, but that is because they originally paid a large portion of total income tax revenue, so naturally they would get a lot back. I don't think the the general population will benefit from the trickle-down economics, I was never fond of that argument; I think they'll benefit because the vast majority of them get tax cuts as well. Bottom line: trickle-down may not help, but tax cuts on the middle class will.
The GOP Tax Cuts will, on average, not help the middle class.

Very recently, the U. S. House of Representatives, then the Senate, and then President Trump signed into law tax cuts for corporate America (rich people). Supposedly, this money is supposed to be reinvested into the economy and trickle down to the middle class. My position that I'll be arguing is that these tax cuts will, on average, negatively affect the middle and lower classes. You will argue that they are beneficial.
should kids be aloud to vote

I believe the word is "eluded", when I used "alluded" in the last round. But it does not seem to worry my opponent because he has seen it fit to ignore anything I say, calling it "off topic".I noticed that my opponent is 13 years old, a bit too late to be noticing such things, but explains the feeling of amusement that has steadily accompanied me in this debate. Thank you.
should kids be aloud to vote

Again, my opponent has executed a streak of earth shattering wit and intelligence. He argues that the mere usage of the word "aloud" should not be taken as an attempt to reference a property of sound and volume, rather, the meaning should be extracted from the incohorent phrases that my opponent has seemingly perfected. I cannot help but be surprised at such a penetrating combination of logic and reason, and have to grudgingly concede to his contention.He asserts that if a child is allowed to vote but that vote does not count, the child hasn't voted at all. This, indeed, is sound reasoning and has led me to wonder what foolishness waylaid me into arguing against such formidable an opponent. My opponent states that there is "no point" to such a vote, and therefore it isn't a prudent decision to establish such a system of voting. I will agree to my opponent's line of reasoning, but through the same logic it must imply that each and every action of a child has a certain "point" to it, and this "point" is grounded in logic- explanations such as "it is fun to do so" are not acceptable.Therefore, I have decided to ask a question the answer to which has alluded me for years- "What is the point of a child swallowing shirt buttons ?" If my opponent manages to give a logical answer to this question, I am willing to contemplate over his query.Thank you.
should kids be aloud to vote

If you say "they should vote but it shouldn't count" you are basically agreeing to my point because if it doesn't count then its like their not even voting. And I wasn't talking about volume so what the hell are you talking that is completely irrelevant. Just because I said "aloud" don't mean I'm talking of volume we're talking if kids should vote not if they should be loud or quiet. Though they are putting some paper in a box just for it not to count what is the point in that. If you are saying "they should vote but it shouldn't count" shouldn't that just mean that no one will take them seriously at all, as if children didn't get treated like crap by adults already.
should kids be aloud to vote

My opponent has put forth a very formidable contention- whether or not children should be "aloud" to vote.aloud: with relatively high volume;My opponent reasons that children should not be "aloud" to vote since "they should enjoy their lives and not worry about law and sh*t". Although his assertion is recursively intellectual (i.e.) infinitely complex, I will try to make sense of it. Basically, my opponent contends that children can vote- but they should do so silently (i.e.) not aloud.As to why he thinks that the decebel volume makes a difference to the vote cast, I can only surmise. Perhaps, he means to say that a silent vote is no vote at all (since no one would get to hear it) and therefore it is as good as not allowing children to vote.As you can see, I have- through a maze of infinite perfidiousness reached a conclusion that is formidable indeed. I have, in other words, dropped the metaphoric axe on my own foot.Even so, I assert that children should be "aloud" to vote (i.e.) they should cast their votes in the loudest manner possible (which also happens to be the default reflex for children). However, in a sense I also agree with my opponent that such votes should not count. Now, I am quite certain that the number of children who voluntarily agree to vote is going to be quite small in any case. But the votes of the children who do cast a ballot, however loudly- can be discreetly abandoned.Therefore, I contend that children should be "aloud" to vote yet their votes should not count.
PuTlOcKeR.Watch]The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online FULL.(2018)

WATCH NOW!! The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online Full Putlocker As our Online TV online viewing live channels free live HD TV. Online Full CLICK HERE TO LIVE STREAMING HD >>> https://t.co... DOWNLOAD FULL HD : https://t.co... Title : The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 | FULL EPISODE | 4K ULTRAHD | FULL ACCESS | FREE STREAMING | As a great TV show that is very creative, we will be an important episode. For that, do not forget to watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 . It"s up to you, you can watch it streaming via the Internet, or through a television at home. Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 streaming video for free. You don"t need to install anything and you can Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 in very good quality. Neither It was Easy to " The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 2018 Online Putlocker" Through Some ways over The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 et that means legitimate ways to " The The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 2018 online Full Movie" ultimate source to watch full Movie and also sometimes free online. Have your say!! Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Divided Free Online " OVGuide " Watch full length Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Series for Free Online. Streaming Free TV Series / Show to Watch Online including TV Series / Show Trailers and TV Series / Show Clips. Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online Free Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Free The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Streaming Stream The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Stream Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Free Watch Online The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Full Video The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Megavideo The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Putlocker The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Megashare The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Youtube The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Dailimotion The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Xvid The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Player The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Vidto Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online HDQ Watch The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online HD1080px The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 Online Full Episode The 100 Season 5 Episode 5 English Film Free Watch Onlineb