BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory euthanasia for people older than 55

For a long time now Grandparents have been vital for raising children. Who will look after the kids while we're on holiday? Who will teach us how to bake cakes? Who will cook us our Sunday roasts? Who will lend us a tenner when we need to buy a bottle of vodka to suppress or alcoholism? It won't be granny. No, for granny shall be 6 feet under with maggots festering in her eye-sockets. Will this law be nationwide? If so then our elders will move to another country. They might even go into hiding and we'd have to hunt them down with a pack of hounds. As much as I hate old people, I have to admit that we need them.
Abortion

I appreciate the format of your argument A fetus is a human, but a fetus comes from a sperm and an egg , killing sperm isn't killing a human and neither is killing an egg homicide. Killing them separate isn't bad but killing them together is morally wrong? Its morally wrong to kill a human? Says who? Under no circumstances would you kill another human being? If you would kill a human under certain circumstances, who concludes which circumstances you can kill a human in? I say we can not say what is and what is not morally wrong. I agree that abortion is indeed killing a human, but I am concluding that killing is not always wrong, therefore abortion is not always wrong.
Abortion

My opponent's only argument is that the world is overpopulated. Does that justify killing someone? P1: A fetus is a human P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human C: Abortion is wrong P1: A zygote, made at the moment of conception, already has the same attributes needed to be alive. It has metabolism, growth, reacts to stimulants, and reproduction cells. It has human DNA. A fetus is a homosapien, therefore they are a human. P2: This ones kind of obvious, I hope you agree. Conclusion: Abortion is killing a human, therefore it is wrong. Sources F. Beck, D. B. Moffat, and D. P. Davies, Human Embryology, Second edition http://abortionfacts.com... I await your response.
Violent video games should be banned

My opponent, Pro, has forfeited Round 3. In the spirit of fairness, I'll skip this round designated for rebuttals to give him an even chance of winning. Should my opponent come back for the final round, I expect rebuttals and closing statements, to which I will provide the same. This will make up for the lack of rebuttals in R3 as originally designated. Hopefully this will keep the debate as fair as possible, should my opponent return to finish. In the meantime, I thank the audience for their patience.
Violent video games should be banned

I am standing for the motion that violent video games and similar games which contain anti-social behavior should be banned. Humans have always (and will always) for multiple scientific reasons find pleasure and joy in the act of violence and whilst I completely acknowledge this fact, Violence in video games has got to stop. There are multiple surveys and scientific evidence that playing violent video games can change the way our minds act and can change our perception of right from wrong. I would like to turn your attention to this source and to Anders Breivik http://www.dailymail.co.uk... The source informs us of how Breivik a Norwegian man quotes he 'played call of duty to prepare himself' to carry out horrendous tasks such as the murder of 77 people. Should the government be allowing the distribution of media which trains of even encourages people to kill? I personally believe that this is outrageous as games developers can be viewed as creating games which provoke and even motivate people to murder. The very idea that people may play these games to prepare themselves to commit serious crime is both ethically and physically wrong. I would also like to invite you to view another source, http://www.independent.co.uk... This source shows that a 23 year old man on his way back from Asda in London (UK) was stabbed and hit with a brick simply so criminals could steal his copy of GTA 5 (Grand Theft Auto 5). GTA 5 (and the other games in the series) all contain stabbings, prostitution, heavy violence, drug abuse and murder. There is strong evidence from Harvard University in the USA to support the concept that by seeing violence, we view it as more acceptable and the fact that this man was stabbed so thugs could steal his copy of the game further supports this point. This raises the question of 'do violent games not only introduce people to violence, but also provoke it'? I would like to finish this round of debate by introducing you to this joint statement from the US institution for mental healthcare and The American Academy of Pediatrics available at www.aap.org: "People who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. People exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs.' This quote reiterates my previous point that violent video games make people accept violence more and even commit acts of violence in daily life due to these games. I would now like to pass to the Opp of the debate, thank you. Sources: http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Violent video games should be banned

This house believes that violent video games (and video games which contain antisocial behavior) should be banned. I acknowledge the fact that many people will have strong opinions on this topic and henceforth have decided to debate it. Round one- accept the challenge, please do not write any other comments in round one. Round two- first round of debate with no quoting(or responding to) other participants documents or points from round two. Round three- counter arguments (you may now respond to points from round two). Round four- conclusion.
We should get into the space age quick, right? flying in space, living with space helmits on ETC

Eventually (in my opinion) we would live/colonize On a different planet.I study On how to bring life that will adapt to the terains.I have Ideas that could work.One is (childish dreams.) that we would have suits that would heat us to where it's comfortable.It would regulate our bodyheat and it makes oxygen out of carbonmonoxide and other carbon fibers.This is possible, but will take years .or sombody to make succsessfully, and not look stupid trying to do so.Lizards work. They can adapt easily..
We should get into the space age quick, right? flying in space, living with space helmits on ETC

We won't live on Mars. Elon Musk is a sorely misled philanthropist that is wasting his millions on a project doom to fail just like his first three rockets have.Really Antarctica is a ring 7x as large as they tell you it is.NASA and Roscosmos ensure you are never permitted to go from one side to the other (it's physically impossible to do so) by saying only researchers can access it that 'far in'.
We should get into the space age quick, right? flying in space, living with space helmits on ETC

No we shouldn't. NASA and Roscosmos both confirm each others data but neither has a third party organisation audit it at the top level of it due to its sovereignty and need for secrecy. Why are only these two nations engaging in space research and why are they so interesting in Antarctica even before global warming was 'a big bad thing'? Like seriously NASA has some kind of hardon for Antarctica but no other area of Earth, including the Arctic. https://goo.gl...The Earth is flat.
xbox one is better tha nps4

I believe the PS4 is a better console for a number of reason. -It is lighter in weight; Xbox One 7.8 lbs, PS4 6.1 lbs -PS4 has a more slick, classy design -With PS4 you are allowed to replace your internal drives where as with the Xbox One that will void your warranty -The standard PS4 controller can be plugged in and charged. The Xbox One standard requires two double A batteries -PS4 now has the neat little touchpad which allows for new ways to manage in-game interface -I personally enjoy the PS4 exclusive games more than that of Xbox One's -UI is much better and easy to navigate and understand on the PS4 -Many games run at better rates and look better on PS4 even though for the most part they have the same capabilities -PS4's share play is also an interesting new thing that can be quite useful for co-op gaming -PS plus from all my experience is a much better service and has friendlier staff
Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offence.

I understand that this debate is part of a national high school debate type thingy, which we did not have at my high school, sadly. I don't care about that issue too much, but I do ask that my opponent try to finish the debate and I make clear now that I have no intention of following any type of format as I don't understand all the rules. Definitions: My opponent allowed me to go first but I really don't want a definition debate so I will offer two definitions for cyberbullying and my opponent can choose which one he prefers so we can continue this debate. Since my opponent allowed me to go first I think my actions fall well within normal DDO standards (we have 4 rounds more! ). My opponent had the opportunity to define his terms but chose not to do so. In fairness, I will offer him two definitions and allow him to present his Pro arguments for whichever one he chooses. Definition ONE: "Cyberbullying" is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber-harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying. . http://www.stopcyberbullying.org... Definition TWO: "[W]illful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. " "[R]epeatedly makes fun of another person online or repeatedly picks on another person through email or text message or when someone posts something online about another person that they don't like. " . http://www.cyberbullying.us... I do not believe definition TWO requires a child, preteen (what is that anyway? ), or a teen. Choose Pro. You can present your case or send it back to me with only a choice of ONE or TWO. My Con position will change depending on which you take. Good luck to you here and in the high school debate competitions. I hope I can be helpful. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Pro's extended math equations and scientific explanations are all very impressive, but all they do is better explain the odds that aliens exist. Odds mean that there is at least 2 possible outcomes. So yes alien existence maybe likely, but the fact that aliens may not exist is still a possibility. Pro proceeds to question my argument. Pro asks, "What reasons or evidence does Con have to disagree with the existence of aliens other than the lack of 'absolute proof'?" What reasons does Pro have to believe that aliens do exist other than a few blurry pictures and odds.? It seems that Pro believes in alien existence is because there are high odds. Does Pro consider odds to be evidence or even proof? Can Pro truly believe in aliens without definitive proof? What about the Earth being flat? What about the Earth being the center of the universe? These are some other theories that were accepted without proof because they seemed "likely". Does Pro believe in these theories as well? Can Pro truly, without any definitive evidence, accept that aliens exist simply because the odds favor it?
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Pro claims that I have agreed with two points. The points being, "there is indeed evidence of alien life forms" and " The second being that there is incredible odds against the idea that Earth holds the only intelligent life forms in the universe, which I remind you has at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars." The first of these points has been manipulated though. Yes I agree there is evidence of alien life, but the evidence is not definitive. The inconclusiveness of the existing evidence renders it useless and irrelevant. His second rebuttal claims that my previous rebuttal in round 2 was useless as it proved nothing. This is fallacy. In round 2 Pro said that I had manipulated the definitions in my first point. My round 2 rebuttal proved this wrong making my first paragraph relevant and true as he has not provided successful rebuttal for it. Pro also claims that the evidence that has been provided is relevant. Earlier Pro said, ""Definitive: serving to decide or settle finally" (1) The evidence brought forth by people around the world of UFO's, alien bodies, and other objects belonging to alien beings, extraterrestrials, is not definitive due to its inability to settle the debate of the existence of intelligent alien beings in our universe. In order for evidence to be useful it has to be definitive, and since this faulty and unreliable evidence is not definitive, it cannot prove anything and is irrelevant. "I presented evidence which produced belief in its truth, which can be defined as 'proof"-Pro This evidence didn't prove aliens exist. It just made some believe aliens exist, and belief is "-the act of having confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so." One can believe in something and still be wrong. Pro uses sources such as the respected Stephen Hawking and Seth Shostak. Hawking's states," To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational, the real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like." Hawking makes a purpose to say "the numbers". The numbers relate to the odds of alien existence showing that even he can't say with proof that aliens exist. Pro says that Hawking more than believes in aliens, but based on this quote, Hawking is still giving odds that aliens exist, so he can't know for sure, he can only, at best, strongly believe. It may be true that 60% of those surveyed believe extraterrestrial life exists, but the fact remains, they only believe and one can believe and still be wrong. From the average person to some of the most intelligent scientists, many believe that alien life forms exist, but there are also many that believe aliens don't exist. It doesn't really matter who believes and who doesn't all that matters is that there is no definitive proof that aliens exist, therefore it cannot be truly said that alien life forms exist in our universe 1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Throughout this debate I have noticed Con has agreed with at least two points I have made. The first being that there is indeed evidence of alien life forms. The second being that there is incredible odds against the idea that Earth holds the only intelligent life forms in the universe, which I remind you has at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. The first paragraph in round 2 of Con's response means nothing to me. He made point that he didn't use different definitions, and doesn't disagree with any other points I made in paragraph 2 of round 2. In the second paragraph Con said there is evidence of alien existence which contradicts his statement in round one, but that the evidence is irrelevant. The debate's title is Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe. "Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." (1) "The evidence that has been provided..." (Con) This evidence is not irrelevant. It is completely relevant to this debate. In round 1 Con's argument was that I need proof. "Until there is PROOF of alien life form existence, it cannot be guaranteed, not even assumed that alien life forms exist in our universe." I presented evidence which produced belief in its truth, which can be defined as 'proof'. Con said 'merely belief' by a couple men, Stephen Hawking and Seth Shostak, is not enough to show 'absolute proof' of alien existence. Let us go back to my first argument where Hawking says, "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational, the real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like." Hawking's statement is clearly more than just belief in the idea of aliens existing in our universe. Also Shostak's comment that "there's a real possibility that we will find evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life by the year 2025" shows much more than just belief in extraterrestrials in our universe. It is not just these two men who are sure of alien life forms on other planets. "The telephone poll, which questioned 1,000 Americans, found that 60 percent of those surveyed believe extraterrestrial life exists on other planets." (2) These claims of irrelevance about my arguments by Con were completely wrong and unnecessary. The only part of my first rebut that was irrelevant was described in Con's irrelevant first paragraph of round 2. I'll leave this round at that with one more round to finish my argument if this need be so. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.space.com...
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Pro's first rebut is irrelevant. Pro claims that in my previous argument, my definition "exist" changes from "to have actual being or to be" to "(subjects) for sure are." "To be" and "are" are the same verb just with different persons, in this case being aliens. The subject is plural and therefore the verb form has to be plural and "are" is the plural form of the verb "to be". In fact, "to be" and "are" are synonymous. (1) Therefore, as previously stated, Pro's first rebut is irrelevant. "Definitive: serving to decide or settle finally" (2) The evidence brought forth by people around the world of UFO's, alien bodies, and other objects belonging to alien beings, extraterrestrials, is not definitive due to its inability to settle the debate of the existence of intelligent alien beings in our universe" I agree with pro's claim here. The evidence that has been provided is not definitive enough to prove alien existence. Because the evidence is not definitive and can't prove alien existence, it is irrelevant to the debate. Pro eventually moves on to point out my previous argument only partially defined "proof". This is true, but the 2nd part of the definition, "Or to produce belief in its truth," (3) is also irrelevant. The debate is whether or not alien life forms exist in our universe, NOT if some believe that aliens exist. Pro goes on to list two scientists. Pro says, "These two men believe in the truth of the evidence that alien life forms exist." "Believe-to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so."(4) Pro states that these men merely "believe" and by the definition of believe, there is no absolute proof of alien existence. "Proof" has been broken down into several parts, but it stands that there is NO proof that alien life forms exist in our universe. As long as there is no proof, it is impossible to claim that the statement , "alien life forms exist in our universe," is true. 1. http://thesaurus.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Good Luck First I would like to rebut my opponents argument. The argument- "Intelligent alien life forms exist in our universe." "Exist- to have actual being; be" (1) My opponent's first point begins with, "Although there is no definitive evidence that any aliens or even intelligent alien life forms exist in our universe". My opponents contradicts his argument with this first statement. The word exist means aliens for sure are, but his first statement implies there is only a chance that aliens may be. Affirmation: There is no definite evidence that alien life forms exist in our universe. "Proof-evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" (2) Based on the previous affirmation, there is no evidence. Because their is no evidence there is no proof that aliens exist. I attest that the odds of alien existence are high, but these odds are not enough to give proof that aliens exist. The idea of the presumption of innocence (innocent till proven guilty) fits well here. Until there is proof of alien life form existence, it cannot be guaranteed, not even assumed that alien life forms exist in our universe. 1.http://dictionary.reference.com... 2.http://dictionary.reference.com...
Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe

Pro ends with, "If the viewers who are still reading believe that aliens exist in our universe, like the 60% of people in America, then it is fair to say that you agree with my side of the debate that "Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe." Pro must have very little confidence in his debate if he's asking the reader to agree and vote for him. My final statements: "Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe" This is the title of the debate. Based on Pro's argument, shouldn't the title be something more like, " Its likely that alien life forms exist in our universe" or "There's a good chance" or even "Even though there is NO definitive evidence, odds are aliens are in existence." Instead Pro's title implies there is no doubt. How can this be said? As it stands humans have not made any contact or even seen an alien life form. For as long as humans have been searching for definitive evidence of alien existence, none has been discovered. One may assume this is because it just takes more time, but why can't it be possible that its because there is no evidence to discover because aliens don't exist? Pro, throughout the debate have referenced several scientists. These scientists don't have any definitive evidence either. They are basing their statements, like Pro, on the odds. Pro is taking a bandwagon approach. "These scientists believe aliens exist and because of that, you should too!" This doesn't prove anything other than a couple of scientists have an same opinion, the BELIEF in aliens. Pro has based his entire argument on odds. The odds are in his favor, but they are only odds. While my argument is based on fact. The fact that there is currently no definitive evidence of alien existence. This is fact, and as long as this is fact, the statement, "Intelligent Alien Life Forms Exist in Our Universe," cannot be said to be proven fact.