BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no valid reason for an adult to complain about being a virgin.

Thank you for your round. Trust a Kiwi to be drunk on a Wednesday night ;)InjuryHaving little money, living in a developing country, having religious objections to blood transfusions or any other moral or practical limitations would prevent the reconstruction of a penis.Looks/AestheticsThis does not address my contention that it is reasonable for them to complain about it. What they do about the problem is another matter, and I would agree that prostitution may well be a viable option for them. With that being said, I maintain my contention that they have the right to complain.OrientationYour assumption is that all homosexuals have heterosexual experiences. Further, I have agreed with you on the topic of personal definition, however as addressed I have defined virginity in a certain way so as to maintain cohesive discussion. It is not possible for us to have this debate without agreeing on certain definitions. In light of the definitions presented, your argument is not cogent.ConclusionMy opponent, as instigator, has not demonstrated that there are no reasons to complain about being a virgin.Conversely, I have demonstrated that there are extenuating circumstances where an individual would be within their rights to complain about being a virgin.Thank you for the debate, and next time you get drunk chuck us an invite.
There is no valid reason for an adult to complain about being a virgin.

The argument is a negative, and obviously I cannot address every conceivable reason. It is unreasonable to assume I have burden of proof. Also, I'm too drunk right now. Injury: Plastic surgery can rebuild genitals. Money is the only object. Looks: It's nobody else's fault if they're too ugly to bone. Besides, nobody discounts hookers when establishing virginity. A lay is a lay, and those ugly bastards are lucky they even got a hooker. Orientation: From what I've heard, homosexuals lose their virginity twice - same and opposite sex encounters are recorded on different scales. As you have previously established that this debate is subjective, it is entirely up to the individual what their definition of "virgin" is, provided they have contacted the genitals of another individual. If they are not satisfied with their loss of virginity, they have only themselves to blame. I shouldn't be posting. I'm too drunk.
There is no valid reason for an adult to complain about being a virgin.

Guys, get some cash together and hire a prostitute. Make sure you shower first, and be a gentleman at all times. Don't use "it's illegal"/"it's immoral" as a cop-out; whining about your virgin status is worse. Plus, the fact that it's illegal never stopped anybody. Girls, go to a strip club, find the best-looking guy in there and ask him to have sex with you. Don't use "I want it to be special" as a cop-out; if you cared about that then you wouldn't be so desperate to lose your virginity in the first place.
Exams should be abolished.

Why do you think schools have exams? Exams are a series of tests given students to check whether students are constantly recalling what they have learnt in school. Exams should not be abolished as it can be used to enable students to practice the knowledge acquired in lessons, it can serve as a guide to enable teachers to filter those who are much more capable in a certain subject and exams can be used to determine which subjects students are stronger in. Hence, with the many advantages of exams, I strongly agree that exams should not be abolished. Firstly, exams should not be abolished as it allows students to apply the content they learnt to the questions in exams. For example in the subject of History, students are supposed to read the certified textbooks in order for them to be able to answer exam questions. This evidence shows that exams allow students to use the facts appropriately to answer the exam questions. Moreover, the facts they learnt may be useful and can be applied to daily lives, just like in exams but a change in the context. Thus, exams let students to phrase out the knowledge they studied to the questions. Secondly, exams should not be abolished as it allows teachers to gather all the better students for that certain subject. For instance in Maths, educators can sort of know who the smarter people are through exams. This shows that exams can actually help teachers to spot the people who are keen in that certain subject. In addition, teachers may assign those smarter people to tutor the weaker students in a bid to improve everyone's results. Therefore, exams can assist the teachers to assemble all the better pupils in the specific subject. Lastly, exams should not be abolished as it can be used to find out which subjects are the student's strength. For example in the subject if science, some students may be passionate and talented in science so this allows them to develop their interest for science. This emphasises that exams can be served as a tool to extract the concealed talent inside a student and it can help students to "polish" their interest for that subject. Furthermore, when students show deep love and passion for the subject, it may coincidentally be their future career to invest more time on it. Consequently, exams can be used to indicate the strengths of a student for the subjects. In conclusion, exams should not be abolished as it allows students to apply content knowledge to questions in exams, it supports the teacher in filtering out all the more knowledgeable pupils for a certain subject and exams help students to find out their true interest in the various subjects. With the ample benefits of exams, I strongly agree that exams should not be abolished. After reading this essay, what is your next step for your impression of exams?
Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne

In Contention 1, my opponents addresses that "1. The content of a rapper's lyrics are an important factor in deciding whether or not that rapper is superior to another. 2. Orphaned children and drug addictions "matter" more than money, prostitutes and cars. " 1. My opponent states that lyrical content has nothing to do with their rap skills. It is just their flow, voice, beats, etc. However, my opponent has made a major flaw here. What he is saying is that the Notorious BIG could rap the words "Interior crocodile alligator, I drive a chevrolet movie theatre" 160 times over a "Big Poppa" beat, and it would essentially be the same as BIG rapping the words to the real "Big Poppa". Unfortunately, lyrics DO matter. You could have the best flow and DJ Premier as your producer, but if you can't back it up with lyrics, then it's useless. 2. My opponent likes to think that hoes and money are more important than fighting addiction and being let down as a child early on, and these things are in his words, "awesome". Subjective or not, almost being killed by drugs and slapping that hoe you met last night are two different things, but drugs have a stronger and more emotional pull. Contention 2- Sales Yes, I agree that most people are brainless idiots. BUT, looking at your own chart, you can see who's on the top sellers list of all time. The Beatles, Elvis, MJ, ABBA, and Queen. I doubt that 90% of the people who bought their records thought they were cool and fit in. They bought it because they simply liked the music. The same applies here. All are respected bands/people, and their records sales prove that. You are always going to have an anomaly in everything, i. e. , Britney Spears, Boyz II Men, etc, Contention 3- Race It is true that the color of the skin in terms of the rap industry doesn't physically affect you, meaning that they don't inherently have a weaker flow, worse lyrics, worse timing, etc. , BUT the color of the skin matters greatly, since most rappers nowadays are black. No one gave Eminem a second look when he was underground. Let me sample you a line from "White America": "when I was Underground, no one gave a fu** I was white, no labels wanted to sign me, almost gave up, I was Like, fu** it, until I met Dre, the only one to look past, gave me a chance, and I lit a fire up Under his a**" Clearly, Dr. Dre's intervention in his life was what he needed to get past the skin color. Had Dr. Dre not signed him, we would not know Eminem today. My opponent also never proves how Lil Wayne is actually a better rapper than Eminem; he just refutes my points. With nothing to attack, I urge you to vote for Em. Thank you.
Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne

I argue that Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne. I'm just going to present my facts straight up, and let my opponent refute them. Contention 1- Eminem raps about the things that matter. Eminem raps about a missed childhood, being left by his father at a young age, and a pill addiction. Lil Wayne raps about money, hoes, and more hoes. And more money. And bigger wheels. And more money. Point is, Lil Wayne spits the superficial materials of life. What would you rather listen to? An emotionally heart-and-gut-wrenching 4 minute song about the loss of your daughter, or "A Milli"? :/ Contention 2- Eminem has sold more albums than Lil Wayne Both Lil Wayne AND Eminem have both been in the mainstream rap industry for about the same time, from 1999-present. That being said, Eminem has sold over 80 million albums, while Lil Wayne has sold a mere 6.5 million albums. Clearly, people would rather listen to Eminem. Contention 3- Eminem is white, which gives a severe disadvantage, yet he is where he is now. Lil Wayne is black. Eminem is white and destroys him. Thank you.
Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne

My opponent has posted his two crappy Lil Wayne lyrics in response to my two crappy Eminem lyrics, so it's up to the voters to decide which is crappier. "And the subject matter matters when you rap, just like lyrics. But simply rapping about blunts and hoes doesn't make you any better. And addiction is a terrible thing, you just don't go to a rehab clinic and get fixed up; if it was that simple, we wouldn't have any druggies PERIOD." Music isn't about being made "better", it's about enjoyment and entertainment. I don't listen to an Eminem album for therapy, I listen to it to enjoy myself. When he starts rapping about his mother not loving him and cutting his wife up with a chainsaw, it ceases to be enjoyable. Who can't enjoy a good rap about blunts and hoes? To conclude this point, I argue that Lil Wayne's lyrics are better for the purpose of rap music (enjoyment) because he sings about positive topics like having fun, and not about torturing his ex-wife and stuff like that. "Ok, I agree. Sales aren't really a deciding factor in who's a better rapper." This point has been conceded by my opponent, and rightfully so. I have shown that high album sales to not necessarily equate to talented. "BUT, how many of these existed before Eminem bursted on the scene? If my opponent can give me one example of a successful white rapper before Eminem's time, then my point is invalidated." Plenty of them. I'll name a few notables: Everlast, Insane Clown Posse, Vanilla Ice (*shudders*). These guys got very famous rapping long before Eminem did. See this link for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Are you telling me that a rapper that kisses dudes is good?!??!?! I don't see Eminem kissing men." Oh really? What exactly do you think these two got upto after this performance: http://8millionstories.files.wordpress.com... I propose that Eminem and Elton John had sex after this gig, as evidenced by the fact they're holding hands in anticipation for the same. This makes him gayer than Lil Wayne by a long shot. I'll leave it there, thanks to my opponent for the debate.
Jesus effectively committed suicide by not electing to use divine power to escape death

Is not what Con described equivalent to any and all fanatical suicides? As we can see here (http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com...) there is not a major difference outside of theological respects and beliefs between suicide and martyrdom. " Is it martyrdom or suicide? A test Now, the difference between martyrdom and suicide cannot merely be a matter of the intention of the individual " they are two different acts, regardless of the intention. Thus, we must consider the acts and the ends toward which the acts themselves are directed (and this is different from the intention of the individual). Here is a simple test: Is the act in doubt ordered to the voluntary death of the individual or not? Is the act a "success" or a "failure" if the individual lives? In the case of suicide, the act itself is ordered to the death of the individual. Whatever further intention the person might have (for example, "to end the suffering") the immediate end or goal of the act is to bring about the death of the individual (and through this death "to end the suffering"). Now, in the case of martyrdom, the act itself is not ordered to the death of the individual. For example, when St. John the Beloved was thrown into the boiling oil and was delivered alive, this was not a failure on his part, but a success. So, although it is true that one is not a martyr unless he has died, nevertheless, the act itself of accepting martyrdom is not suicide because it is not ordered necessarily to the death of the individual. Rather, the goal (not only of the individual but of the act itself) is to glorify God. Hence, St. John glorified God by surviving, just as St. Peter glorified God by his death." If Jesus has survived the entirety of Christianity would have indeed crumbled and failed; it would have been a travesty, therefore it is questionable whether, by simply allowing himself death instead of choosing to somehow seek life, it is without a doubt a matter of martyrdom versus a simple suicide in which a man was convinced of something so religiously he thought it necessary to throw his life away. Even with prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane can they be shown as sufficient?
The Allied Forces are most at fault for causing World War Two

First to start off with the Treaty Of Versailles was an unjust example of "Victor's Justice". This was when the Allies showed favoritism and leniency to their own part when it came to starting World War One but remained hypocritical and harsh to the Central Powers, especially Germany. Claiming that the Germans were the main blame to World War One. However how do most historians agree on what started World War One? The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. Despite the fact that Austria-Hungarians were on side with the Central Powers when the war started. As well the fact that the assassins were a group of young Serbian Nationalists. Serbia was also on side with Russia with the war that followed and were hence forth a part of the allied forces. This is what made the Versailles treaty hypocritical and unfair. The verdicts of the Versailles treaty concluded that it was completely Germany's fault for causing the war despite the fact that it was an Allied country would started it in the first place. In fact here were the terms for Serbia in the treaty :"Romania, Montenegro and Serbia - Should be evacuated and Serbia should have an outlet to the sea " They completely ignored the contribution Serbia had to starting the war in the first place. The inflation that was caused from the debt that the Weimar Republic had to pay was so high that the German mark had lost virtually all of it's value. By the end of the 20's, one dollar (US) was equivalent to 1 000,000,000,000 German Marks. This all while Serbia left the Versailles Treaty relatively unpunished. The crisis that Germany was going through during the time of the Weimar Republic actually facilitated the rise of Hitler. Remember Hitler was elected democratically, however why would Germany elect someone with such extreme views? Simply put it: The government were in such chaos that the people were looking for someone to fix all of their problems. Crisis and instability facilitates the rise of dictators. This was the case with Napoleon for example. Most people would not have listen to Hitler had such crisis in Germany never happens. In fact the Kaiser may not have abdicated if this crisis never happens. And what started this crisis in the first place that allowed Hitler to rise to power was all rooted from the Versailles Treaty. If the allies were more just in their verdict at the Paris Conference then the war could have been prevented. Sources: 1. http://www.historyonthenet.com... 2. http://www.historytoday.com... 3. http://www.johndclare.net... 4. http://www.markedbyteachers.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
The Allied Forces are most at fault for causing World War Two

Before I inform you of how it was the Axis Powers who caused World War 2 I think there is something you need to know, In November 1918 a German Officer being treated for wounds from a poison gas attack received word of Germany's surrender, he then layed in his bed and cried he vowed revenge for Germanys defeat the name of that man was Adolf Hitler. Before World War 2 Germany had been secretly breaking it's treaty with the Allies by building tanks (such as the Panzer 4) and lying about the weight of the Bismark (which was probably the best battleship in the world) By 1939 German forces had began invading Poland & France, and... do I really need to explain the Halocaust Anyways all wars start with one side firing the first shot and in WW2 Germany fired the first shot and as a matter of fact Axis Powers fired the first shot in WW1 too.
The Allied Forces are most at fault for causing World War Two

Haven't seen any historical debates all too often so I decided to make one myself. Here is the format of the debate: Round One: Acceptance of Terms (If Con finds the terms unreasonable then they may be altered only if backed by reason itself) Round Two: Opening Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Round Four: Counter-Rebuttals Round Five: Conclusion Arguments Terms: Allied Forces: The counties that opposed the Central Powers in World War One and eventually the Axis Powers in World War Two, this includes: France and French colonies, Th British Empire and Commonwealth, The Soviet Union, The United States, The Republic of China (not Maoist China), Yugoslavia, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Axis Powers: The alliance of countries that opposed the Allies in World War Two. This includes: Nazi Germany, Italy, Japanese Empire, Ethiopia, Libya and Italian Somaliland. Central Powers: An Alliance of countries that opposed the Allied Forces in WW1, consisted of Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire, Germany and Bulgaria. World War Two: A global conflict between the Allied Forces and Axis Powers. Started with the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 and ended with the surrender of Japan in 1945. This does not include the Second Sino-Japanese War . World War One: A global conflict between the Central Powers and Allied Forces. Started after the July Crisis of 1914 and ended after the surrender of Germany in 1918.
The Allied Forces are most at fault for causing World War Two

My apologies for my previous forfeits, to make up I will put my rebuttal and my conclusion at this round. "Well The Austrian-Hungarian Government had been been urged by Germany to start a war" The Germans did not necessarily urge the Austrian to wars, they just approved what would be considered a "blank check". That if Austria-Hungary wanted to mobilize against Serbia than they would have the Kaiser's approval. " and the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was carried by the Black Hand a secret siberian society, thus the Siberian Government had nothing to do with it." Serbians were still behind the assassination, while not the best justification for war it still is a reason. The Versailles Treaty failed to acknowledge Serbia's part in starting the war in the first place. " The Austrian-Hungarian really didn't like Archduke Franz Ferdinand and saw his assassination as nothing more than the excuse for the war they and their German allies wanted." Not all of Austro-Hungary was in approval for starting the war, the Hungarians were mostly opposed to war. They wanted a peaceful negotiation with Serbia. Franz Ferdinand himself was arguable the greatest voice of defence for the Serbs in the empire.. Yet what did the Serbs do to him? They killed him. "And as for World War 2 it was the Nazi's crave for power that started it. Who would be at fault for war the the side that didn't want another great war or the side that wanted to rule the world?" My last rebuttal and my conclusion is that the Allies were at fault for the injustice of the Versailles treaty. Had the Versailles treaty never happened the Kaiser would have likely not abdicated. The Kaisers abdication and the slew of crisis's that the Weimar Republic had to deal with were what sowed the seeds to Hitler's rise to power, all of this caused by the injustice of the Versailles Treaty. Thank you for the debate, I apologise forfeiting the last few rounds, I am interested in seeing what your last argument is.
The Allied Forces are most at fault for causing World War Two

Well The Austrian-Hungarian Government had been been urged by Germany to start a war, and the Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was carried by the Black Hand a secret siberian society, thus the Siberian Government had nothing to do with it. The Austrian-Hungarian really didn't like Archduke Franz Ferdinand and saw his assasination as nothing more than the excuse for the war they and their German allies wanted. As a matter of fact while the invading troops got into position the Austrian-Hungarian Government made several unbelievable demands from Siberia, when Siberia sent the a letter agreeing to the demands Franz Josef refused to read until it was to late. And as for World War 2 it was the Nazi's crave for power that started it. Who would be at fault for war the the side that didn't want another great war or the side that wanted to rule the world?