BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sarah Palin should be elected as "Queen of Earth"

This debate is about whether Sara Palin should be elected Queen of Earth. I am Pro for this, and you must be con. The first post must be an argument, as this one will me for me. Queen of Earth means that she gets to do whatever the heck she wants with anybody at any time at all for any reason, and can make laws without any approval of anyone else. She also exists outside of the law. Here is my first argument below:______________________________________________My Reasons(By Dubloon)(Dedicated to Sarah)1. As you know, Sarah can see Russia from her backyard. From her current home, she can keep tabs on unruly humans that for some reason want to be in russia. If anyone insults her hair, she'll know!http://www.youtube.com...2. Sarah Palin is already the leader of the tea party, and she was almost the vice president! She has leadership experience! Also, she is the group leader of the four or five people in alaska.3. She has a reality show, so when she records her evil hypnosis films, she will have experience.4. She might be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.5. She is on a website! http://www.biography.com...;
Jews were bad

Hitler regularly played chess with live Jews and when he would beat someone he would blow up all the "peices" aka Jews, and yell checkmate. I was simply quoting our great Fuhrer when I say "BOOM. Checkmate". You have insulted his teachings and quite frankly I do not know how you sleep at night knowing that he is looking down from the throne in heaven waiting for you to get there for him to sort you out on his own.
The mandela effect

I accept - I am intrigued by this internet phenomenon so taking a debate challenge on this topic (regardless of side) gives me an excuse to dive into it and research it. Sure - I'll take the Con - I also opt to use my R1 as an Acceptance and yield definitions for your R2 (if you don't put definitions for R2, I'll do it in mine - no big deal) Good luck, and again - thank you for posting this challenge.
The destruction of Death Star was an unjustified act of terrorism

This is not a troll debate. Apply in the comments after you've agreed to the rules detailed below. Do not accept the debate by any other means, as doing so will result in automatic forfeit and loss.Full ResolutionThe destruction of the Death Star in the Battle of Yavin was an unjustified act of terrorism.DefinitionsDeath Star (a.k.a. Death Star I; First Death Star) - a moon-sized deep space mobile battle station constructed by the Galactic Empire. [1]Battle of Yavin - a major battle of the Galactic Civil War, which occurred 19 years after the founding of the Galactic Empire. [2]Unjustified - not shown to be just or right; not warranted or well-grounded. [3]Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. [4]Any other terms, if need be, shall be defined in a reasonable manner, using the most common definitions that apply to the given context.StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Constructive casesRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Counter-Rebuttals and SummationTime for each argument - 72 hoursArgument character limit - 8,000Voting Period - 10 daysVoting Style - Open, 7-point system, RFDs requiredRules1. The definitions and structure detailed above must be accepted.2. The Burden of Proof shall be shared and equal between both sides.3. Arguments from the lore of Star Wars shall primarily follow the Star Wars canon. [5]4. Arguments from Star Wars Legends [6] shall only be accepted if shown relevant & applicable to the debate.5. No kritiks or semantics.6. No trolling, swearing or personal attacks.7. Sources must be cited at the end of the round. Do not use the comments section for that.Any violation of one or more of these rules shall merit a conduct penalty, or, in the worst case, a full forfeiture of the debate.Sources:[1] http://starwars.wikia.com...[2] http://starwars.wikia.com...;[3] http://www.dictionary.com...;[4] http://www.dictionary.com...;[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[6] http://starwars.wikia.com...;
auron is the best final fantasy fighter

I accept. PRO has the sole burden of proof to demonstrate that Auron is the objectively the best final fantasy fighter. In the process, he must be able to prove to us that there's an objective standard for what "best" means in this context. Otherwise, this is nothing more than his subjective opinion and cannot affirm. Thus, for his points to have any impact, he needs to first establish a criteria for objectivity. At this point, the only points that he has made - that he is a warrior monk, that he is extremely cool, and that he has a cool backstory - cannot affirm. First, he provides no evidence for these. Second, the last two involve an obvious opinion judgment, rather than an objective framework. Three, he doesn't tell us what makes him best. To do that, he needs to offer some means of comparison to other final fantasy fighters to prove that Auron trumps the other.
Abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise on TV

However, extreme restrictions on my computer usage may not produce a passable response, sadly. Firstly, my opponent agrees alcohol and cigarettes are a better way to go about losing a parasitical foetus. However, he claims women lose sexual desires whilst drunk. However, this is quite untrue. Like any husband who's wife goes for a night on the binge knows, the longer it takes her to get the key in the door, the wilder the sex. Simply put, women lose self respect, and subsequently, go for nearly any sexual fantasy, besides the one of a mantis, which would require her to bite the head off her husband after sex. Agreed, alcohol ads are simply fantastic. Alcohol is constantly known a scourge to society, however, when the break for the tense champions league match between Porto and Manchester United comes, and you're on the edge as your team is only a single goal ahead, and see an ad like this, well, it changes your world around. . http://www.youtube.com... However, I disagree with putting supermarket ads off the air. Simply put, Kerry Katona will probably birth 2% of the population within the next 10 years, and the cost of putting her on welfare would be immense. If she loses her Iceland job, then the government will be strapped for cash feeding her family. Nobody wins that way. Cheers!
Abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise on TV

I should like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to I.A.M.A. Panda, Esq. for accepting this debate and for his most novel rebuttal. First of all, I cannot disagree with my opponent's argument that women's regular consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol reduces their ability to conceive a child, however, in reality, women tend to binge drink which causes them to lose their sexual inhibitions and, therefore, adverts for booze leads to a subsequent increase in demand for the excellent services provided by Prontobort™ Terminations. Moreover, nobody wants to see the demise of high quality adverts such as those embedded on the right. So, what's the answer? Simple - allow abortion clinic adverts but ban mind-numbingly tedious and blatantly sexist adverts from supermarkets that target their commercials at "housewives" and "busy mums" - as if single men don't ever go and buy food or cleaning products. That way, everyone's a winner! Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise on TV

I will return his comments in a somewhat comic manner as well. The problem I have with abortion ads is they take up the valuable time of cigarette and alcohol advertisements. In truth, alcohol and cigarettes do the exact same job as an abortion [1], [2]. However, why should alcohol and cigarette companies be allowed the ad-space as opposed to abortion clinics having it? Well, smoking and alcohol is certainly a far more pleasurable way of goign about the procedure. Putting it simply, is it better to sit in a chair, legs spread wide and have a person fiddle in thee with all sorts of metallic objects? Or, is it better to down a 6-pack of Carlsberg every night for a couple of months, and smoke a cigarette packet once a day? The choice is obvious. Furthermore, there are 160,000 abortions in England every year [3]. An abortion costs a couple hundred a pop, however, the majority of abortions will be going to women who cannot afford it and who are from underprivileged areas. At the current taxation rate for tobacco, it makes some 8-10 billion pounds annually [4]. The average price of a cigarette pack is ï¿½5.78. with ï¿½4.38 of that being tax [5]. Now, multiply 160,000 x ï¿½4 x 150 days (6 months), you have ï¿½96 million extra, just from cigarettes, annually. This isn't taking into account the additional tax to be mae of alcohol, which I, as of current, cannot give. However, I feel I have made an adequate argument. Below are my sources. [1] = . http://units.nhs.uk... [2] = . http://smokefree.nhs.uk... (Contains an easy to follow chart for the younger crowds! ) [3] = . http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk... [4] = . http://www.the-tma.org.uk... [5] = . http://www.the-tma.org.uk...
Abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise on TV

Great news for socially responsible, ethically aware, community based corporations such as one of my latest enterprises: Prontobort™ Terminations. Abortion clinics may soon be allowed to advertise on TV (1). The only caveat is that abortion commercials cannot be shown during programmes aimed at youngsters under the age of 10, but since we get very little business from pre-pubescent children, that's no big deal. Anyway, here is a sneak preview of our first ad: INT. DAY. MLS. Bright, modern call centre, many computer terminals occupied by smart, efficient, friendly-looking female operators wearing telephone headsets. We see an unshaven doctor wearing a blood-splattered white coat walk across the back of the set, hands in pockets, smoking a cigarette. CUT TO C.U. Attractive female operator, Julie. She smiles pleasantly displaying her perfect white teeth. She speaks with an American accent. JULIE – Prontobort™ Terminations: you rape ‘em, we scrape ‘em; how can I help you? VOICEOVER OF MALE CALLER (speaking gruffly with a working class British accent) - I've got my bird up the duff but I managed to persuade her to get rid of it. Can you do the business before she changes her mind? JULIE – Sure we can, sir, we can have your girlfriend seen to in a jiffy. You see, unlike some other abortion clinics, we don't employ unnecessary councillors or fussy nurses, and that saves you both time and money. Plus, as a new customer you can take advantage of our latest special offer – have two abortions at Prontobort™ within a six month period and we'll give you the third one free! VOICEOVER OF MALE CALLER – Crikey, that sounds great; I'll send her down right away. JULIE – We look forward to seeing her, have a nice day! CUT TO EXT DAY. MLS. Prontobort clinic, a pristine white building set in manicured grounds. In the middle distance we see what appears to be a foetus being thrown out of an open window on the side of the clinic, it is collected and promptly devoured by a stray dog. PAN RIGHT. Z.I. TALKING HEAD. Celebrity presenter, Sarah Palin, a senior bishop or similar. PRESENTER - If you have a parasitic embryo squatting in your womb, or you have a loved one that has an unwanted pregnancy, don't despair - help is hand! Terminating a pregnancy need not be as costly and time-consuming as many abortion clinics would have you believe. So, if you are looking a quick abortion on the cheap, call Prontobort™ today! UPBEAT MUSIC. FADE TO TITLES. By allowing adverts for abortion services to be shown on TV, I believe the Government will be making the right decision as these commercials inform naï¿½ve teens who find themselves, or their girlfriends "in the family way" and will also have the benefit of attracting more customers through the doors of Prontobort™ Terminations. That will mean more profit for us and hence, more taxes paid to the National Health Service which will enable them to provide more free abortions for those who cannot afford to go private. Thank you. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Prontobort™ is a trademark of Eggleston's Ethical Industries Inc.
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

REBUTTALS “I would like to state that the Internet isn't as anonymous as Con would have you believe.” It really is, as I would have you believe it is exactly as anonymous as my opponent would. That isn’t the trouble; as was my point, crime is so much more tempting when you don’t have to look the victim in the eye before you steal from them. “The most obvious are IP addresses, linking any access to a site to a specific computer.” What are you going to do when a Nigerian scammer cons your sweet Aunt Lilly? Go over to Nigeria and confront him? Ask the Nigerian police to arrest him? Furthermore, criminals use zombie computers [1] to commit crimes. “Moreover, deleting information from a computer is near impossible - even after a reformat and re-installation of the OS, the information remains.” That’s somewhat true; unless the sector that the deleted data was in is needed for new data, it could remain there forever. Computer criminals know this. There are programs called scrubbers which write over the data multiple times leaving it irretrievable. SUMMARY First, I’d like to thank my opponent for a challenging debate. I hope it’s clear to voters that if my opponent’s only burden of proof was showing that the internet has some positive impact on society, this would have been impossible for me to win. I believe overwhelmingly, the internet is changing society. As I showed with my grandma/Junior example (which my opponent didn’t respond to) the internet is drawing a line in the sand; either learn to use a computer or get left behind. Is this really a positive thing? I believe not. The internet should be used as a tool, not a pseudo-life and for many of us, it is becoming just that. “The pure fact that this debate is being held over the Internet shows that it most definitely has a positive impact on communications, and Society.” But does it? If we weren’t stuck behind our computers with Google two clicks away, we’d have to be out debating this in the meat world. While the internet is becoming more and more portable, we still would have to do a lot more preparation for a real debate. Simply Googling “why is the internet bad for society” isn’t really an option when you’re standing in front of a group of people. CONCLUSION I have shown not only that the internet affects non-users negatively, but that people who use the internet are not safe from the rampant corruption and inherent perversion. VOTE Con SOURCES [1] http://computer.howstuffworks.com...
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

I will take it that Con's main point is the use of the Internet for crime. I will not deny that the Internet fraud is a big problem. However, I would like to state that the Internet isn't as anonymous as Con would have you believe. The most obvious are IP addresses, linking any access to a site to a specific computer. Moreover, deleting information from a computer is near impossible - even after a reformat and re-installation of the OS, the information remains - what most people believe as "deleting information" (right-clicking a selecting delete) is simply telling the computer to not recognize the information there. Therefore, if a criminal incident is linked to a suspected wrongdoer, that computer can be checked for any evidence. On the other hand, uses of the net for good and well-meaning is also innumerable. Here is just one example [1]. Also, for my third argument, I would also like to point out the business opportunities opened up by the Internet. One obvious use is in stock trading. In recent years, stock trading has changed from pieces of paper to internet records. This greatly speeds up, and in doing so, lively-ates the market. I'm down to a few minutes now, so I will end here. As before, I will end my argument saying this: The pure fact that this debate is being held over the Internet shows that it most definitely has a positive impact on communications, and Society. I challenge Con to reply to that. I urge you to vote PRO [1]http://www.thomasllyons.com...
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

REBUTTALS “Humans are still humans, who still enjoy the real world. Even those who do not use the Internet may get some news from a friend, who in turn had gotten the news from the net. Moreover, the Internet is integrated so deeply into society (in terms of business, mostly) that even those who have never looked at a computer screen are almost certainly affected (at least, indirectly) by it.” This is an unsubstantiated claim and it simply doesn’t reflect the statistics. Here [1] we see American usage by age. Clearly, older people aren’t using the internet as much as younger people. Combine this [2], showing that the amount of time we spend on the computer is massive and is rising steadily. My hypothesis is sound: Nana doesn’t get to communicate with Junior as much anymore, because he is too busy trolling and surfing for bukkake and she simply can't fathom why anyone would put their face in a book.. “However, just because one does not have access to the Internet does not mean that it cannot help them.” You make a very valid point; I concede that the internet can help people who aren’t even aware of its existence, though the effectiveness of some charity organisations is questionable and needs its own debate. ARGUMENTS THE INTERNET RIFE WITH CORRUPTIONS AND MISDEED DOERS! One line from my opponents points about how easy the internet makes communications stands out to me: “The number of mail that are sent around is massive [3]. Even considering that only 10% is legit, that would still be a whopping 29 billion Emails per day.” Thus, the major problem I’d like to introduce in regards to internet communication: The anonymity of it. What we’re seeing are criminals around the world taking advantage of this anonymity. Once the snake oil salesman had to look you in the eye when he ripped you off; now anyone with a computer and a lack of a fully-working conscious can commit everything from aggravated harassment of children to fraud and identity theft and probably never know the impact they’ve had on the victim. The statistics are overwhelming [3] [4] CONCLUSION Between kids being too busy playing World of Warcraft to talk to their poor old grandpa and people being ripped off left, right and centre, I hardly think the internet is an overwhelming positive force on society. SOURCES [1] http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com... [2] http://www.frankwbaker.com... [3] http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org...
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For your opening argument, I will start with your finishing statement. Though you state that "non-users within technologically capable societies are steadily more isolated," is this truly so? Humans are still humans, who still enjoy the real world. Even those who do not use the Internet may get some news from a friend, who in turn had gotten the news from the net. Moreover, the Internet is integrated so deeply into society (in terms of business, mostly) that even those who have never looked at a computer screen are almost certainly affected (at least, indirectly) by it. Also, I would like to point out one of the articles which you pointed out [1]. In this article, it is stated that a decent amount of those that don't use the net because of the cost, the quality their computer (which ends up being tied in with cost issues. ) This argument, therefore, is along the same lines as your second, which I will now also respond to. As for the fact that some people just cannot afford Internet services, I would agree completely. However, just because one does not have access to the Internet does not mean that it cannot help them. Take for example the organization UNICEF. Those that are helped are children on the doorstep of death, whom all would agree have no access to any Internet whatsoever. Yet, UNICEF has a homepage on the net [2], which give news, even allows people to donate. To communicate situations, UNICEF utilizes Emails. This is just one example of those who have absolutely no access to the Internet benefiting from it. I rest my case on the "People With Access to the Net" issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, I would like to present a case for the Internet's usefulness in communications. Email, Blogs, Profile Sites, Chat. .. All are forms of communication that require the Internet; all are forms of communication that are widely used, fast, and useful. Consider Email. You can contact someone on the other side of the world in a matter of seconds. Not only that, you can give them pictures, even videos, that you have on your computer. The number of mail that are sent around is massive [3]. Even considering that only 10% is legit, that would still be a whopping 29 billion Emails per day. Compared to snail mail, telephoning, or even faxing, the sheer amount of information transferred is on a different scale. This has made all forms of communications, from business negotiations to dinner plans, much more accessible and, therefore, convenient. I will close my argument this session by saying this: The pure fact that this debate is being held over the Internet shows that it most definitely has a positive impact on communications, and Society. [4] =========================================== [1]. http://arstechnica.com... [2]. http://www.unicef.org... [3]. http://email.about.com... [4]. http://www.debate.org...