BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Not Contradict Myself

As per the rules in this following debate: http://www.debate.org... must challenge mongeese to an exact copy of this debate. Therefore, I will copy and paste the rules. Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com......10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.12. Removed as per the rules of the last debate.Good luck.
Anti-Rape Devices should be made illegal

The points you bring up in your first paragraph suggest that only women are raped and that anti-rape devices encourage women to "hate and disrespect men." How is this the case? Having protection against rape does not encourage women to hate men, and you are focusing on only one part of a big picture. Also, I have no idea what the victim has to be responsible for, as someone has just tried to rape them. Also, how does a false sense of security contribute to anti-rape devices needing to be banned? People feel secure in their locked house at night, or while around many people that they know well. Does that mean we should ban the locking of doors and isolate everyone? Furthermore, a scream and a whistle is better than just a scream, especially in a dark alley or somewhat enclosed space. The whistle could perhaps sound a bit like a car alarm, and just screaming could end in death, like just using the rape whistle would. I don"t understand how the rapist would be able to remove the devices quick enough to kill the victim either. The rapist would be in excruciating pain, which gives the victim a bit of time to run and shout for help where they can be heard. I highly doubt the victim wouldn't try and get help after they have been assaulted. The hypothetical situation is possible, yes, but all devices used to protect against anything could end in a situation like that. These devices WILL deter people from attempting to assault both genders. You are forgetting that not only women are raped, and that not all anti-rape devices are or will be for women. You are also forgetting the fact that the victims of rape often refuse to report it to the police, for fear that the rapist will attack them further or ruin their lives more than they already have. The police are not always there when you need them and a staggeringly small percentage of rapists are arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison. 68 out of 100 rapes are unreported, which means the police can not do anything at all about them. Denying someone the right to protect themselves is a crime in itself, thank you very much.
Anti-Rape Devices should be made illegal

No "product" can prevent women feeling violated. Women just need to stop blaming men and take some responsibility. Products such as anti-rape nail polish, anti-rape tampons, anti-rape tights, anti-rape belts, anti-rape whistles etc suggest the situation for women is hopeless and they encourage women to hate and disrespect men making it more difficult for women to be responsible.It is also possible for women to gain a false sense of security, and put theirself or others in danger by not taking adequate responsibility e.g. they may believe they are safe walking home at night on their own wearing hardly anything because they have a special whistle with the words "anti-rape" written on it which apparently is better than shouting 'HELP'. However I doubt people would rush to investigate loud whistling or even burgular alarm noises, but I do believe they would investigate when someone shouts for help. Wearing anti-rape condoms might help women feel safe too, but the truth is when a rapist removes the device using his hands or a dildo he will be very angry, and rape will turn into muder. Companies should not mis-sell such products through fear. People will turn to these products instead of seeking help, and may end up dead.Here's a hyperthetical situation to consider, a woman (could be a jealous ex) flirts with a man at a bar, she accidentally or purposely forgets she is wearing an anti-rape condom (RapeEx). He buys her a drink, gets to know her, has her consent but when he penetrates her he rolls over in pain, and she tells everyone he raped her. The innocent man goes to jail for a very long time. Only 10% of rapes are carried out by strangers, meaning 90% of the time the woman knows who raped her [1]. So why do you need a device like RapeEx to catch rapists by forcing men to see a doctor so it can be safely removed? And wouldn't more innocent men be falsely accused of being rapists and suffer unnecessarily? The purpose of this invention and those that brand men with tattoos and cause pain is clearly revenge. It's disgusting. I have read the idea came to a woman who saw a patient with his penis trapped in his trouser zip, rather than think of an invention to prevent this from happening she came up with RapeEx. If there is one thing women should learn then it is this; the law should not be taken into your own hands. Ignoring this advice increases your risk of death and injury. The police are there for a reason!Also, two wrongs don't make a right.sources[1] http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk...
It is better to be feared than loved.

Round 1: You post your opening argument.Round 2-4: free argumentation/rebuttal zone.Round 5: Both can give the conclusive statements (I don't do this thing of equal rounds where you have to post 'no argument here as agreed')By accepting this debate, you accordingly admit to these definitions being correct:To be feared - to cause people to feel an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm towards oneself regardless of intent.To be loved - to cause people to feel a strong feeling of fondness or liking to oneself regardless of intent.Better - More appropriate, advantageous, or well advised.
It is better to be feared than loved.

Power; what is it? What is power? It is an abstract idea; abstract in that it is imaginary, yet it holds so much influence over our lives. Power is not matter; power is not something we could grasp hold of as easily as a table, or a water bottle. Power is not a toy; you cannot play with power, or else power will play with you. Power is not a pet; you can tame power, but it acts unpredictably. Taking hold of the three things that power isn't, we can then rightfully infer that the holders of power are efficient power users; they, in the words of Adolf Hitler in his "The Triumph of Will" speech, "must be accordingly given to the one who can exercise it best!"Yes; it is clear that power is no toy to be played with, nor is it a pet. But what is not clear is "what is efficient usage of power?" This is where our dearest quote comes into play. The Prince: The Origins of this DebateMachiavelli was a staunch defender of totalitarianism; his most famous piece of work, "The Prince", mainly deals with this complete defense of totalitarianism. But the quote we are looking for comes on the section where he deals with "cruelty vs mercy". He states this:"From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than love. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go on together, it is much better to be feared than love, if one of the two has to be wanting."How does Machiavelli defend this?"If you comfort them (your friends) with only words, they will turn on you, for friendships bought with words are gained, not secured. For love is held by a string of obligations, and this fails because the selfishness in man betrays this cause. When compared with fear, where the dread of punishment always maintain the trust, and in this sense, never fails."We are faced with several real life issues and examples of this; for example, during the Stalinist era, the Soviet society never dared to revolt against him. He created an order of fear through the Soviet society; no one even DARED to challenge his endeavours. Although one can argue that his system of fear has almost destroyed the Soviet economy, one cannot argue that the stability of the Soviet state during the Stalinist era was unstable. The same goes for any EFFECTIVE totalitarian state; the Third Reich was another example of this. Hitler had a system where he controlled everything; his people did not love him, but feared him. He kept a system in which the fear of punishment was always present, especially to political prisoners and dissidents. As Machiavelli predicts in his book, "the presence of fear shadows hatred". My arguments will revolve around three factors:1. That fear creates love in the future2. That states that run on fear are stable states3. That fear creates an all-abiding countryBy the end of this debate, I will attempt to leave you in almost no doubt that being feared is better than being love.Thanks
Spongebob is a inappropriate kids show.

Ok, a few years ago my niece got me to watch an episode of Spongebob Squarepants with her. I have got to say are you kidding me.... This is a kids cartoon....maybe I'm just reading too much into it but just from one episode this is what I got. Spongebob Squarepants is a sponge A Sponge is a form of contraceptive He likes to catch Jellyfish A Contraceptive likes to catch Sperm Squidworth looks like a french tickler Patrick looks like a Butt Plug So here we have two sex toys Mr. Krabs is a crab so here we have a venerial disease Mr. Krabs sells Krabby patties in his store the Krusty Krab so basically he is cannibalizing his own children Then you have Sandy Cheeks so I guess we were having sex in the sand Hence having Sandy Cheeks and all of this takes place in Bikini Bottom Guess she gets a lot of action Mrs. Puff well I guess her name explains what she likes to do
Jake Paul=Worthless Pile of my crap

Jake Paul is the farthest thing from PG. Swearing is not PG so you can not say that. His video got taken down once for his thumbnail being "I lost my virginity" with him half-naked in the bed. He said n*gger countless times in a rap. He has spray-painted walls, burned mattresses, caused havoc, started drama on abuse. He has done nothing educational as his videos are not educational. His videos are not education and cause YouTube to have a bad name. Here are the mistakes he's made During Hurricane Harvey, he took away resources from first responders because his fans jumped on cars because guess who they learned it from. Oh yeah, Jakey himself. He is someone that turns of people in the blink of an eye. He made a video kissing RiceGum's arse just for views because he was the big thing in 2016 when he wasn't noticed. Now, look what he's doing. He's using other people and clickbait for views. He constantly says other YouTubers are manipulative, yet he tells people to buy his merch and says to subscribe, in his serious videos. He says n*gga in videos of him at parties, which we know is bad. He made false accusations of abuse just so people can see him as the hero. Abuse is nothing to joke about he says, yet he goes on and makes a false abuse claim backed up by evidence and he doesn't own up to it. He doxxed a rapper named Post Malone after he said one thing bad about him. He can't take criticism. He gets 10% of his teammate's money that they make. They stopped the Martinez Twins from sending money to their parents in need. He forced them to kiss, kicked them out their room, forced them to do sexual acts (proof he is not PG) He does not need any more chances as we gave him the chances. I let the abuse case go, but he committed two more bad acts that prove he is not PG He doesn't listen to his neighbour's complaints and causes more chaos. By God! Thank god he got evicted he was ruined the neighbour's life by saying they took it too far when he took it 10x farther Clickbait! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The right way to live? Oh my god, he has manipulated you as well. His way of living is not the right way of living. So what if he's famous? He should use the fame for good, not for his antics that he got in trouble for and called out the good people of police. He is a villain and a pile of crap again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- His content is the basic OMG THUMBNAIL with 15min of content and then 1sec of the actual title with that one snit bit at the beginning. It's so basic and not even close to the original. Guys!!!!!!! These pop stars are doing a lot more good than you think. More than Jake Paul has done in his life
Jake Paul=Worthless Pile of my crap

That's where you're wrong, pal. Jake Paul is actually very educational and is a very good role model as well, he is PG and great for children to watch. Sure, he drops a few swear words on videos, and he's made a few mistakes, but who doesn't make mistakes? He does not mean any harm and is just trying to influence kids and show them the right way to live, the savage life. My russian, starving children love Jake Paul, they all look up to him and would like to be rich like him one day, it's funny. But no, Jake Paul is not a "worthless pile of crap", he's a very great content creator and all the kids really have now-a-days as a role model, better than any of those pop stars these kids look up to now.
WWE is better than Pro Baseball

You cannot seriously tell me a scripted sport is better than baseball. In fact, this form of "wrestling" is not really a sport at all. It is simply a melodrama which casts beefy fella's and hot women (except for Vicki Guererro, of course). The episodes are scripted, and quite frankly rather predictable. There is a stigma attached to a person once they admit watching WWE. There are typically only two reactions that occurs upon the revelation of one's interest in WWE. They will either be met with a likewise fan, or bear witness to furrowed eyebrows and a slightly cocked head when the receiver of this information realizes they are staring at someone who has not let go of their childhood. Baseball is impulsive and unscripted. It is a sport that held a country together during war and played a large roll in abolishing segregation when Jackie Robinson first played for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late 1940's. There are thousands of baseball leagues nationwide where children can join and play. How many pseudo-wrestling leagues are there for kids? I know they exist, but how many are there? Baseball is widely accepted world-wide, and for a time was an Olympic sport. What you advocate as a sport will never be in the Olympics. I will give you this, watching a baseball game can be one of the most boring experiences in a person's life; however, if I have to see R-Truth come out and sing that stupid rap song ever again I think I'll gouge my eyes out with a skateboard. One thing I cannot stand about WWE is how racist it is. Have you not noticed that 99% of the black wrestlers come out acting like thugs or gangsters? The only exception I see is Kofi Kingston. Meanwhile, a chunk of popular white wrestlers resembled white-trash. I offer Exhibit 1: The Bush Whackers. Exhibit 2: Jim Duggan. Exhibit 3: Mick Foley. They portray the only midget in WWE as a mute fool. Those are some solid characters for America's youth to emulate. I watched WWE as a kid, and my wife continues to watch it. It reminds her of the times she spent with her father. This is how I know so much about some of the modern characters, which is all they are....characters. Baseball has players.
death penalty

I believe the death penalty should be brought back, as it was a great way of dealing those who rape people or commit multiple homicides. The problem with today is they get caught and then 10 or so years later they get out on 'good behaviour' to commit that exact same bloody crime, it is ridiculous and should not happen, if the death penalty were around it would help make the streets safer and may scare those who are thinking of committing those horrific crimes
death penalty

People argue that it is cruel to kill a criminal for murder because you yourself have just "murdered" or killed a man. In a way there are worse things than execution including solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is much worse "...Prisoners call it The Box. Prison authorities have euphemistically dubbed it the Special Housing Unit, or SHU (pronounced "shoe") for short. In society it is known as solitary confinement. It is 23-hour a day lockdown in a cell smaller than some closets I"ve seen, with one hour allotted to "recreation" consisting of placement in a concrete enclosed yard by oneself or, in some prisons, a cage made of steel bars. There is nothing in a SHU yard but air: no TV, no balls to bounce, no games to play, no other inmates, nothing. There is very little allowed in a SHU cell, also. Three sets of plain white underwear, one pair of green pants, one green short-sleeved button-up shirt, one green sweatshirt, ten books or magazines total, twenty pictures of the people"
death penalty

You have a point there my good friend, however even if they are changed there is still a chance even if it is a small one that if they are tempted or pressured into doing it again they would do that exact same crime, and you know what their excuse is when they're finally caught aging its " it was all for the money my mates were paying me to do it." Now you tell me how its better to let them outta prison when that happens. Any whom my third point is that anyone who is on death row whom is guilty but is believed to be innocent and set free and allowed out of the country should at least be under house arrest for two full months to prove it. Now that may sound anti death penalty but I assure you that this what they used to do in rota, Spain, and you know 45% which isn't a lot of them were proven to actually guilty and executed by either firing squad, the chair, or a lethal injection.
death penalty

If only a judge had the power to decide, which in reality he does, then that would void the 6th amendment in which it is stated "" the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by impartial jury"". Not all criminals released from jail will want revenge or if they do it is not usually by crime or homicide. Some criminals, though not all, are changed people and will try to help those that are still in jail change.
death penalty

Putting them in jail will make them more pissed off at us for putting them there and will then get out and seek revenge and go kill another huge amount of people to fulfil what they believe to be justice. This therefore brings me to my second point of 'justice.' Todays justice system is crap, they believe that if there is a jury to help decide what punishment they should get for there crime. I say bring back the day where it was the judge who decided "I sentence you to death"
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

1. Team Galactic's plans Team Galactic's plans are worse than Team Rocket's plans because their plan asks for the destruction and rebirth of an entire galaxy. Team Rocket only asks for a one-world government, that way nobody dies and nobody needs to get hurt, whereas Galactic's plan asks for every inhabitant except for Cyrus and the legendary pokemon to die. With that known, I think its safe to say that Team Rocket has better standards and cooperations than Team Galactic, and we need that in every good villain.Team Rocket: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Team Galactic: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Both of the team's plans are explained in the first paragraph of their respective page.2. Team Rocket does have admins You argued that Team Rocket does not have admins, and that their power just goes from least to best, starting with the grunts and ending with Giovanni. That is not true, as Team Rocket has a fair amount of admins:Archer: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Ariana: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Petrel: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Proton: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Carl: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Sham: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...3. Did you know that Giovanni was actually trying to save the world (at least in the movie)? That's a pretty good thing. All Galactic wants is to kill everything that breathes.
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

I would also like to say that I will be arguing about the teams in the games, and not the anime or anything like that. Rebuttals1: Team Rocket actually has some good ideasYou say this like it implies that Team Galactic's ideas are not good. However, this is not the case. Team Galactic tries to capture powerful pokemon in order to make over not only the world, but the entire galaxy as well. In R/B, Giovanni doesn't get very close to achieving his goal, only managing to take over Pokemon Tower. In D/Pe/Pl, Cyrus gets very close to achieving his goal, as he makes it to where the pokemon are at (Spear Pillar). Giovanni ends Team Rocket completely after losing to you, but Cyrus leaves Team Galactic in the hands of one of his admins (Saturn). Sources:The games. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...2: Better Pokemon In R/B/Y, Team Rocket is only consisted of the grunts and Giovanni, so it would make sense that the have more powerful pokemon the the grunts of Galactic, because Galactic has the grunts, then the admins, and then Cyrus. Team Rocket also has weak pokemon like Rattata and Zubat. Many pokemon owned by Rocket grunts are on the same tiers as the ones owned by Galactic grunts. . http://www.smogon.com...http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Trainer_class)http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Now for my arguments:Team Galactic has a plan that affects more than just the world, as Cyrus wants to change the entire galaxy. He gets very close to this, while Giovanni's plans gets nowhere near completion. Also, Team Rocket actually kills a Marowak, which causes great unrest in Lavender Town. Team Galactic's plan resulted in 0 deaths of any life form. Good luck to my opponent!
Team Rocket is better than Team Galactic (Pokemon)

1. Team Rocket actually has some good ideas Team Rocket tries to capture powerful pokemon in order to help them take over the world. That is not such a bad idea, speaking as their leader, Giovanni, is actually sensible, wise, and nice person. So if Team Rocket were to win, there would be a one-world government, led by the great Giovanni. Isn't that better than all the horrible dictators, prime ministers, and presidents we have today? (Even though most are okay, but in the pokemon world leaders are probably worse).2. BetterPokemon Team Rocket workers have better pokemon, some of these include: Weezing, Victreebel, Seviper, Arbok, Meowth, Persian, and Raticate. These are quite powerful pokemon, while Team Galactic is stuck with sucky ones like Stunky, Glameow, and Bronzor.MORE NEXT ROUND!!