BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fracking

First, of, I want to address that I feel blessed to be conversing with you. I think it is important for global issues like fracking to be discussed. I wish you the best in this debate, and remember, that we are not here to fight; we are here to discuss in an educational manner. Fracking has been on the hair triggers of many people. This is because many people worry that fracking pollutes the air, which can cause environmental issues in the long run. When air pollution occurs, it not only pollutes the air, but it pollutes water. This is because condensation takes place in the air, which pollutes the downfall of water. I do understand your worries about fracking. However, fracking has been proven to be one of the most environmentally friendly energy resources. Also, fracking has been proven to actually benefit the environment. These claims have been tested as from an article from Science 2.0 (http://www.science20.com...). Another thing that fracking benefits the world is that fracking actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions. This is because many companies in America would have to use less unconventional types of energy, which actually pollutes the air more than natural gas from fracking, as shown in a Harvard study (http://marcellusdrilling.com...). The Harvard study also discovered that fracking increases the amount of jobs by 3.8 million in America. Also, fracking will double the minimum wage in America, including the extra 3.8 million jobs. With promoting jobs, being environmentally friendlier than other sources of unconventional energy, and reducing CO2 emissions, there is a lot going for fracking. This also shows in many natural gas companies that use fracking to obtain resources like Shell & Chevron (Shell stock: $51.02, Chevron stock: $102.61) have more interest than many industrial companies like Hitachi & The DOW Chemical Company (Hitachi stock: $5.03, DOW Chemical Company stock: $53.93). With a lot going for fracking, America can still have sustainable energy without spending trillions of dollars on resources.
Does Islam sanction muder over words against Islam

I accept your challenge Mr. "Yassine."As demonstrated by the Iranian "death fatwa" on Mr. Salman Rushdie for nothing but his words against Islam (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk...,) Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam's AGREEMENT with the MURDER of Malcolm X for nothing but his words against their faith (see ,) and the recent Paris & Texas KILLINGS over nothing but words against Islam, some Muslims DO believe in MURDERING others over words against their faith. And the Qur'an (the Muslims Scriptures) sanctions such behavior under Qur'an 5:33:"The punishment of thoseWho wage war against AllahAnd His Messenger, and striveWith might and mainFor mischief through the landIs: EXECUTION, or crucifixion,Or the cutting off of handsAnd feet from opposite sides,Or exile from the land:That is their disgraceIn this world, andA heavy punishment is theirsIn the Hereafter;"
I will lose this debate

Indeed, it is all about perspective, my opponent concedes, which opens up to multiple interpretations of the resolution, since my opponent has never defined the resolution in its full. "Lose" can also mean "being without, suffering deprivation of" [http://dictionary.reference.com... ] My opponent has clearly not been deprived of this debate. And I can still fulfill NOT suffering deprivation of this debate since I obviously am still having this debate. So you see, in reality I have won, and my opponent has not won. He has not "lost" this debate because even he says the debate is open to interpretation and perspective, which has so many possibilities that my opponent losing is only one of the many. On the other hand, no matter what interpretation you take, I do not fulfill the definition of "lose". So voters, vote me. My opponent has been defeated [a much better wording if pro meant getting less points than me], and he does not win even resolution-wise, since he allowed loose interpretation, and thus why he's in a not-win-not-win situation. Good day.
I will lose this debate

I'm sure it is common sense for someone to take me saying I to mean me, and me saying you are against me saying I will lose, it says you are against me losing, ipso facto causing themselves to need to lose. I will lose this debate, and that is the truth. I am breaking my own rules, opening my statement and rules to easy criticizing, and causing an abundance of paradoxes and loopholes. So with that in mind, you must know that there are 42+ ways for me to lose. I am going to lose, so win, so we both win in your kind, but I win in mine. You see it's all about perspective.
I will lose this debate

My opponent has actually not enforced his rules, since his Rules actually say, "Starting this debate without my permission will trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent." Yet.... who really started the debate?Started: "to begin or set out, as on a journey or activity." [see\; http://dictionary.reference.com...;]Debate: "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints" [http://dictionary.reference.com... ]You see here, my opponent did NOT say that accepting the debate would result in auto forfeit, rather, he said BEGINNING the discussion itself would result in a forfeit of 7 points to me. Who begun the discussion? My opponent clearly is the instigator, and I only contribute to CONTINUING the debate, since the discussion was already going on and anybody was free to join the discussion and bring in new ideas against my opponent's opening statements, rules, etc.My opponent has also negated his own round two "argument". He breaks his own rule of no forfeits, through his round 2 paradox of actually forfeiting the debate to me. Therefore, his round two is completely negated. He never clearly says what would happend if somebody did attempt to forfeit, but we can only assume that the voters are to completely ignore it.How does all of this help to my argument? You see, the tricky part is within the resolution. While pro's rounds does refer to himself with "I", the resolution I must personally negate is "I will lose this debate". Therefore, from my point of view, it is actually, "9spaceking will NOT lose this debate", because I am CON. I will NOT lose this debate because we are already on an equal footing since I have negated all my opponent's arguments. I will also not lose this debate, since my opponent will be trying to argue that HE WILL lose this debate. His arguments only ASSIST my position that I won't lose. If my opponent loses, then I will win. He is only helping me.
I will lose this debate

RULES: 1. Starting this debate without my permission will trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent. 2. No forfeits 3. You cannot under any circumstances, use the number 42 in any of your debate. Using the number 42 in your argument will trigger forfeiture of all 7 points to my opponent. 4. Have fun [Or, have absolutely no fun at all. I couldn't care less. ]
Socialism

Right leaning socialism or left leaning socialism? Because theres only so much evidence as it's a fairly new concept not that many empires have risen and then fell on it. Left leaning socialism like in the USSR and in Venezuela, yeah no, they're dying right now and I don't want to hear "BUT THAT WASNT REAL SOCIALISM" Because it was about 7 years ago until it started to fail. The USSR collapsed due to lack of money because they couldn't develop with that communism in there trying to make a north korea like state with peoples views. But in situations like Hitlers, right leaning socialism worked out for a bit until it got all warfighting. Also based upon the land taken as the czech land was taken, the north of yugoslavia, mixed with austria. The increase in land obviously boosted the economy
Dc movies and Marvel movies (Dc con and marvel pro)

I have Experienced the horror of Dc movies and sure I had ask some friends but I done a survey I asked people which movies do they like more Dc or marvel movies it obvious who won. Sure Dc is better in comics but when it comes to movies dark knight and Green lantern should stay in a dark corner where it will never be seen again. And also how much times are they going to make a superman movie that has the same story line and Dc still wonder why they are less liked when compared to Marvel. I and don't be saying how there were superman movies which are different because does it really matter any way it's still sh1t and we all know it. Dc is just not trying the bar was set so low for them a f ucking ant couldn't go under dat sh1t.
Dc movies and Marvel movies (Dc con and marvel pro)

Seriously? Is that your first argument? Are you at all serious about this debate or are we wasting each other's time?No. 1: A few unknown random friends of an unknown person on the internet carries exactly 0.0 argumentative weight and credibility. So you soliciting comments from your Facebook peeps in the hopes that would add heft to your position is almost depraved its so delusional. No. 2: You mentioned two movies from DC's pantheon and nothing from Marvel, which would only detract from my side and add nothing to yours as obviously you need to, at some point, actually talk about Marvel's films if you're arguing their superiority. And, even if the mentioning of the two DC films you did was contained in a legitimate vessel of argument and not the half-wit ramblings of social-media wastrels it still wouldn't add anything to your side of the debate and only might detract from mine. So I ask again:Are you serious with this debate? Do you actually want me to make my case as I've planned it out? If you do, then even being a very new member of this site I can say with total confidence, that nobody is going to give you anything vote-wise if you don't come up with something...like 100x better in the next round. That being said, I'm also totally confident that I can completely and adequately state my argument in the last round so if you really want to see this through then the ball's in your court.
Did jaws kill most sharks

To the dismay of many scientists, however, Jaws cemented a perception in the minds of many people that sharks were stalking, killing machines. The reputation remains entrenched in the public psyche 30 years after the movie's release. "It perpetuated the myths about sharks as man-eaters and bloodthirsty killers " even though the odds of an individual entering the sea and being attacked by a shark are almost infinitesimal," said George Burgess, a shark biologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Burgess says the movie initiated a precipitous decline in U.S. shark populations, as thousands of fishers set out to catch trophy sharks after seeing Jaws. Later, in the 1980s, commercial fisheries further decimated shark populations. But the phenomenal popularity of the movie also helped the study of sharks, researchers say. Before Jaws, very little was known about the predators. After the film's release, interest in sharks skyrocketed, resulting in increased funding for shark research. "On the one hand, the movie did damage to sharks, because people saw them as monsters," said Robert Hueter, who directs the Center for Shark Research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida. "But for scientists, the whole Jaws thing started working in our favor, because of the overexaggerated public interest in these animals."
Did jaws kill most sharks

( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") ( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") BRO nu
Did jaws kill most sharks

"In 1974, one year before JAWS, an estimated 30,000 sharks were killed per year. 2 years later, it rose up to a whopping 8 to 9 million, and today the numbers are about 160 million deaths! Yet only 6 people are killed by sharks each year, humans are the real monsters."-""Jaws" at 30: Film Stoked Fear, Study of Great White Sharks." National Geographic."
That cutting is stupid

Ok I say that cutting is useless in this regard it does not help in any sense that makes it useful.It may trick people in beleiving it helps like the placebo effect give a sick person a placebo(sugar pill) and tell them its a pain pill of some sort and they feel better.but when told that it was a placebo they would feel bad again but with cutters they don't they still say it helps.but in reality it hasn't they have deluded to themselves into thinking it helps.only reason is becuase it is widespread and that alot of people do it saying it helps.and from another point it is got to be for more then help it must be for attention.as I say it does not help in any way other then to delude yourself and they must realize its not helping.unless you consider it's for attention but cutters almost never admit that it's for attention.
Graffiti is art

Hi. I think that graffiti is not art. I think that if you want to do art, you should do it so it looks nice. Graffiti on walls or doors or trucks or wherever is not art. You are kind of ruining the thing if you draw graffiti. Graffiti is usually letters put together. Im trying to say that art is something that makes you feel good inside. In my point of view, graffiti makes you feel scared. Like, if I see many graffiti drawings on the streets, I think that I am in a dangerous place and should get out of there. Art, on the other hand, makes you feel like you should admire the work and stay. I guess graffiti makes places look... gangster like. This is why I think graffiti is not art.
Graffiti is art

Hi, I am DarkChiyoko. I am new to this website. I was bored and found this website, and wanted to create my own debate. I have been reading other debates and I am starting to understand the rules on this website. I am excited to have this debate. I believe that graffiti is art. Many people believe it is not. I would like to debate anyone who believes that graffiti is not an art, and see their points of view. After looking at someone else's debate, I noticed this interesting way of the debate's format. So the debate will be as the following: 1st round: Pro explains the debate Con (you) will start with opening arguments. 2nd round: Pro rebuttals and makes arguments Con rebuttals and makes arguments 3rd round: same thing 4th round: Pro make arguments and rebuttals Con makes ending arguments. Last round: Pro rebuttals and makes final arguments Con writes "No round as agreed upon" While reading debates I have noticed also voting has 7 points. So as I have seen on other debates, failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point loss. I am excited to commence, and thank whoever accepts this for spending the time to debate with me for the first time. Good luck!
Graffiti is art

I. It is humiliation because its their property, and its their opinion on how they want the place to look. If they want it to look "artistic" they would do it or have someone do it. But they dont want "art" on their property. Therefore, it is humiliation. II. Ok if you ask me, I think that ruining from neighborhoods to blocks, to every single property they dont own is worse than killing thousands and saving millions to make the world a better place. III. In your opinion, destruction is art. But in the opinion who has "art" on their property, its destruction. They DONT want art on their property. Therefore, it is not art, its destructing someone's land. IV. Yes but I am saying that horror movies do make some people feel good because they enjoy getting scared. V. You can consider it art, but some people wont consider it art. Like I said before, they would consider it... a not-good thing. " Los Angeles Times supplies this bit of legal advice from former LAPD Chief William J. Bratton: "If you want to be an artist, buy a canvas." It also offers upbeat spin from Jeffrey Deitch: "We want to put out an inspirational message: If you harness your talent you can be in a museum someday, make a contribution and a living from it."" People wont consider it art if you do it on their property. VI. Going against the law is not something good. Im saying that graffiti shouldn't be considered art because if you do it on someone else's property, its jts just plain ILLEGAL. Its not courageous thing to risk yourself in jail for graffiti. And people wont consider it art if its on their property. If you really want to be so artistic, just do graffiti on a canvas or your own property. No one told you you cant have graffiti on a canvas. Tell me who did? Why would you ruin someone else's property for your entertainment?
Graffiti is art

Thanks for the response. Rebuttals: I. You are not humiliating them, and either way it is art. It is a drawing that involved creativity, therefore an art. II. Graffiti is used to express yourself in a world where your art is not accepted. War brought violence, though it is not illegal, it was worst. What is worst? Killing thousands, or drawing something on a wall you don't own? III. Destruction can be art. If it applies creativity and expression, according to the definition we used, destruction is art. IV: I said " Art does not need to make you feel good" which is why I brought up the horror movies. Basically, it is art even if it is unwanted. V: Where does it say illegal things aren't arts? Tell me where? According to the definition we used, graffiti is art. The ethics behind it have nothing to do with it. Let us say for example a person drew a painting against Islam. It would be illegal because it would insult Muslims, but does that make it not art any more? VI: You said it shouldn't be considered art. That is not the debate. The debate is whether it is art or not, not whether it should be art not. So this point kinda has nothing to do with the debate. I am basically trying to express how anything can be art, regardless of the ethics. Going against the law is an amazing thing that takes courage. Having courage is an art. Graffiti is an art, no matter how much you dislike it.
Graffiti is art

This is my first debate too. :) I. "If I drew an ugly person to represent that everyone if beautiful no matter what looks, it would still be art wouldn't it?" Yes it would be. But you wouldn't draw that on someone Else's property because it wont look like you are trying to show that everyone is beautiful. It would look like you are humiliating them by drawing an ugly person. II. "War brings destruction, yet there is no art to it." War and graffiti are not the same in any way. War isn't illegal. When you have a war, you are trying to do it for good. What was the Revolutionary War for? How about the Civil War? This was for a good cause. Revolutionary war brought some destruction, but there was also a good ending. They got independence. The Civil War brought a lot of destruction, but it freed the slaves didn't it? III. "Destruction can also be seen as art." Destruction cannot be art. Illegally destructing someone's property is just plain illegal, not art. If people really want to do graffiti, tell them to do it on their property. IV. "Also there are horror movies, that scare people." People find watching horror movies entertaining and they choose to watch it. I don't like to watch horror movies so I don't have to watch it. They don't HAVE to watch it either. When people see graffiti art on their property, they wont feel entertained. They will feel maddened. Its people's choice to watch a horror movie. Let's say that there are these teens who draw graffiti all over a neighborhood. But how about if the community doesn't want graffiti in their neighborhood? Isn't that their choice too? V. "[Street artists] apply their skills, expression, and creativity, onto a huge illegal canvas." That's what I'm saying! They use this creativity onto an illegal canvas! If they do it on something illegal, its not art. Its illegal! Many people don't like graffiti in places that they own or places that graffiti shouldn't be. No one minds graffiti if you do it on your own house, but under bridges, on trucks, on other people's property, its just not legal. How is it art if it's illegal? In the US, smoking weed is illegal. But people do it because they like it. If someone calls it a hobby, I would totally disagree. You are using drugs. It cant be called a hobby. Similarly, graffiti cant be called art because it is illegal. VI. "So basically, I just want to explain how anything can be art, graffiti included." Like I said before, art is legal. But doing it under bridges, on other people's property, is not, and shouldn't be called art. I don't think it should be encouraged too. This is what I have to say about if graffiti is art. If its illegal, then it shouldn't be called art. Its illegal, so don't encourage it. Use your creativity on big posters and stuff. This is why I think I will win this debate. Thank you. On to you pro!