BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump Will Be a Good President

1. Acceptance 2. Arguments (No Rebuttals) 3. Rebuttals and Additional Arguments 4. Rebuttals, Arguments, and Conclusions *DEFINITIONS* Donald Trump- American businessman, politician, television personality, author, and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Good- to be desired or approved of, having the qualities required for a particular role President- the elected head of a republican state I believe that, based on policy positions and behavior, Trump is the wrong candidate for President of the United States of America. I will not compare him to another candidate, instead I'll dissecting his policy positions.
Ethics of circumcision

Those questions are irrelevant. I am not a circumcised male. To the last question, the origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty.But here is why I am against it:Premise 1 - Medical Reasons:There is no medical reason for it. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision. The foreskin is not a defect; it protects the penis from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions. Thus, removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part. As for the common belief that circumcision reduces the risk of STIs, Intact America reports that "most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare."Premise 2 - Cruelty:Circumcision is a painful, unnecessary (see previous premise), irreversible surgery that an infant does not consent to have performed. According to Intact America, "In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from forced genital surgery, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy." I wholeheartedly agree. It is also often performed without an anesthetic, inflicting serious pain.Thanks for debating!Sources:http://www.intactamerica.org...;
Ethics of circumcision

Q #1 How many penises did you examine to come up with this statement? Q #2 Are you a man who is circumcised? ( Please forgive the -very- personal nature of the question. I would not ask except for the subject matter's jist. ) Q #3 If you are a man and you are "snipped", does your penis hurt all the time? Q #4 Does it hurt some of the time Q #5 Does it hurt only during urination? Q #6 Do you achieve turgidity? Q #7 Do you achieve ejaculation? Q #8 Do you know why the practice was invented?
Madonna should be replaced as the queen of pop

First of all, I love you because of the Lady Gaga thing. Like, really. It's funny that I'm taking this debate with someone who thinks the same as I do. And even I would vote you in this debate, if it was called differently, such as: Lady Gaga should be the queen of pop. Because I agree with you 100%. Lady Gaga is my favorite artist and I valorise her deeply because of her work. But the title Queen of pop, was given to Madonna. It is not just my opinion, but it is global. Otherwise !! I don't even like her. !! A title like the queen of pop is earned, it is not someone's subjective opinion. If I don't like for example Michael Jackson (which I 1oo% love), I CAN NOT(!) say, he isn't the King of pop. Because, well, he is. Madonna has sold more than 300 million records worldwide and is recognized as the best-selling female recording artist of all time by Guinness World Records. Time included her in its list of the "25 Most Powerful Women of the Past Century" due to her major influence in contemporary music. Madonna is the best-selling female rock artist of the 20th century and the second best selling female artist in the United States, with 64.5 million certified albums. Considered by Forbes and other publications as a cultural icon, she is often referred by the international press as the "Queen of Pop". Here are some articles (but it really bothers me that I have to debate with someone, who doesn't even know that the title is global, and I did not made it up. Madonna is, sadly named the Queen of pop). http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://madonnaqueenofpop2009.blogspot.com... http://www.cleveland.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.billboard.com... Just so as you know it is global, not just my opinion. And even though I don't like her, she's a role model to a lot of pop-stars, even to Lady Gaga. Pop wouldn't be pop without Madonna's starts. She came out with something no female singer came out before, and that's erotic lyrics and provocative songs, which she has done in her early years. Now, to the debate I was going to argue about, but you accepted my debate and started talking about something else. I think Madonna should be replaced because she hasn't done nothing innovative in more than 5 years, there are a lot better artists than she IS and WAS, she's gone totally and completely commercial by doing shitty songs with Britney Spears, Nicki Minaj and so on. She hasn't won and award since 2009, and one in 2012, but not on her own.
Madonna should be replaced as the queen of pop

Seeing as my opponent thinks Madonna is the queen of pop i will first disprove her of such claim. Just to clear things up I generally do not like Pop at all but i know some things about it Etc. Madonna was never the queen of pop, even in her day. Madonna is now 55 years of age, well after her prime in her career. But in her day i believe the Jackson 5 were the big thing. They were the big pop band and after that of course Michael Jackson. Therefor Madonna was never the queen of Pop, but more a really good Pop artist. Now days, I recall Lady Gaga being the queen of pop, by numerous radio stations. Not to mention, Lady Gaga still releases platinum albums and goes on numerous tours. Therefore the true queen of Pop is Lady Gaga. But many people may disagree with this, but people also disagreed that Michael Jackson was the king of Pop and Elvis was not that good etc. I feel odd taking this debate but yea... next round come at me.
humans are no longer evolving to a significant extent

One point which I don't think Pro has thought about is speciation, in biological terms, speciation is the slight changes over each generation that after thousands of generations, they can no longer breed with the original type of human. Height and intelligence are just two of many variations which are getting more and more different with each generation. There are many other factors such as; skin colour, amount of muscle, feet size:height ratio, hairiness or shape of skull. If each generation keeps on taking a step further in the same generation then, eventually, they will be able to breed with each other, but the sperm from the newer humans will no longer be able to fertilise an ovum of an original woman (or vice versa). This by definition means a new species has been formed. Other than speciation, a new species can arise through genetic mutations (These aren't always through radioactivity). There are many different genetic mutations that can occur through extra, damaged or fewer chromosomes etc. Examples of these would be polydactylism (extra fingers or toes), webbed hands/feet, down syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. Due to today's society, it is easy for gatherings among these sufferers to happen, this means that quite often, the sufferers have bred with each other, normally resulting in suffering offspring who then breed with other sufferers, with the mutation being in the family for many generations, eventually, more mutations can be picked up. Over millions of years, a new species of human is going to be formed. This is happening at the moment with all the societies for different sufferers (which I think is great idea). http://www.cfvoice.com... is an example of a community for people with cystic fibrosis. Sufferers also meet at therapy sessions, and other help places. Human remains from just 11,500 to 14,300 years ago were recently found in China, from this you can see that the human race is evolving, as these remains are very different to the humans we see today[1]. Evolution is a very long process which makes it difficult to say hat it is not happening to us, as just the very slightest change from each generation can lead to a new species. You must always look at a big number of generations because you may think that steps forward are being balanced by steps backwards, but if you look in the long term, you'll see that we are moving significantly in one direction. [1]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
humans are no longer evolving to a significant extent

con points out that taller people will have better mates as an example of they will produce better offspring etc. i never denied that sort of thing and even said similar points in the intro. that's essentially the same as his UK points about how they are somewhat hindered in advancing, and perhaps a slight 'decrease' so to speak in evolution. the point that con is missing is that "on whole" the race is not evolving.... if we cannot say that our species will eventually become another species, or a genetically advanced/non-advanced one, then we are not evolving. eg, that better breed of tall and good looking etc people will have offspring that breed with the lower ones. the lower ones are not dying off, and of course the better are not either.... even the lower are able to adapt the evironment to us, instead of us to the environment, which is the crucial necessity in any significant, on the whole, evolution.
humans are no longer evolving to a significant extent

Let me start off by saying: Good luck, this is a very obscure topic and I am looking forward to arguing about it. The oxford English definition of evolution is: noun [mass noun] 1the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. 2the gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution Evolution does not necessarily need to be the best adapted. I don't think that you have looked into evolution too deeply, it took millions of years for the original apes to evolve into humans [1]. However, the human average height is increasing quite quickly at the moment. It was proven that taller men have a wider choice of partner, by a wide study in Britain, even with today's society. Now, true, this will not make too much of a difference, but, it does make a difference. A study of how the the average height in the UK has changed shows that; in 2002, the average height for a man in the UK was 5ft 9inches[2]. now, in 2012, it is 5ft 10inches[3]. This shows that the average height has increased by a whole inch in just 10 years. This is not always the case, in tribe which live at high altitude, the smaller ones have an easier time surviving so the average height of them will not be increasing significantly. Evolution can consist of just the very slightest of changes between generations, so it is difficult to say we are not advancing. UK citizens are, however, on a whole, taking a step back because of the current benefits system. People who work hard at school and get high up in their job are less likely to have a lot of children, as it would obstruct their work. This is different for the not-as-smart people who do not try at school and drop out at 15 or 16. It is quite common for these people to have 6+ children, because if you have a lot of children, the government will pay for your living, so you do not need to get a job. This all results in the lesser intelligent people having more children than the very intelligent people, therefore the humans are in general, going to get less and less intelligent as the generations go on. Just because this is not a positive change, does not mean it is not evolution, evolution does not need to be a positive change. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
humans are no longer evolving to a significant extent

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans, on balance as a whole. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals don't cause evolution... eg, you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. there will be spurts as those who are superior will tend to get together etc... but on balance, the weak will dilute the gene pool. we will never branch off into another species or become superior in our own, if we don't have the weaker among us die off. and in every other sense that we might be considered 'evolving' it is minor. true, people in poor countries etc die, and cannot further their genes, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. some weak might die, but we are not advancing on whole. (i'm sure there are radioactivity exceptions, but that is minor relatively, and not to be included in this debate)
Sponge is a very horrible show it should be removed

Sponge Bob Square Pants is many things, first and foremost a money maker for the network. Thus even if the show were "horrible," why should Nickelodeon remove it from their line-up? Further the series has won almost 40 awards [1], it is the icon of rebellion against oppressive regimes in Egypt [2], and has spawned ways to introduce young viewers to such socially complex issues as cannibalism [3].Rebuttals:"We all know people SpongeBob is for kids."Not true. "Fans come from all walks of life. They're postal workers, high school principals, television and radio announcers, lawyers and law students, ministers, teachers and airport baggage handlers." -L.A. Johnson, Post-Gazette Staff Writer [4]."Parents who let there kids watch SpongeBob for maybe an hour or so might not be able to skip most of there grades."This is true but irrelevant, as kids tend to not skip most grades anyway."I have also proof if you don't believe me."Appeal To False Authority. Who are these teachers, and why should we consider their word gospel?Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.vice.com...[3] Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com...[4] http://old.post-gazette.com...
Sponge is a very horrible show it should be removed

We all know people SpongeBob is for kids. Well here is some news for some of you all about it SpongeBob. SpongeBob has been aired in many places. SpongeBob has killed childhood minds by watching it. Parents who let there kids watch SpongeBob for maybe an hour or so might not be able to skip most of there grades. I have also proof if you don't believe me. When I was in another class the teacher in the class was talking about how SpongeBob was not a good TV series for children to watch. Also my social studies teacher said her two children would not have been able to skip kindergarten if they were watching SpongeBob. SpongeBob is all about your money not your educational. They want you to think Patrick is very dumb but both SpongeBob and Patrick are both idiots in there own ways. Kids also are obsessed with the show once you start buying them actual toys of it and if they watch it more. The only time I watch it is when I have nothing else on the air to watch. So kids stop your parents from buying you SpongeBob collectibles.
Interstellar Empires are possible to create

Supplies Supplies are no problem as if I send a colony ship then a week later send another ship etc it will be new supplies coming every week for the colony. Getting there I showed in my first post that it is possible to get around the No Faster than light rule. But even if those don't work you could cryogenicly freeze people to transport them. You could even make generation fleets though they would be hard. http://io9.com... http://mkaku.org... Setting up At first this would be hard as we would have to find planets to live on, but eventually would be able to terraform them. http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Interstellar Empires are possible to create

Burden of Proof is on both sides I feel that an interstellar Empire would be possible, how it would be accomplished who be interesting. An interstellar Empire could travel to the stars by using relativity which slows time down allowing 40 years to pass in our time while on the ship only 2 years. It could also enter a different dimension like Star Wars' Hyperspace with all the distances much smaller. http://www.escapistmagazine.com...
Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.
Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

Based from research completed at the United States Environmental Assessment Center, Dihydrogen monoxide: •is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain. •contributes to the Greenhouse Effect. •may cause severe burns. •accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. •may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. •has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Additionally, dihydrogen monoxide is found in many of the foods we eat, used as a solvent in most pesticides (and cannot be removed even after washing. ) Athletes use dihydrogen monoxide as a performance enhancing substance, a leading component in all alcoholic beverages, and also sold as a main ingredient in household cleaners. Inhalation of this chemical can cause almost certain death if medical treatment is not administered immediately. For those who have become dependent, dihydrogen monoxide withdrawal means almost certain death. The worst part is that it is found in every lake, river, and ocean. I propose that this substance should be banned, and more information about this dangerous chemical can be found at www. dhmo. org and . http://www.netreach.net...
The notion that free will does not exist.

Is not "choice" (free will) fatalism at its purest? Is it not evident a posteriori that all actions of will are determinable retroactively (meaning that after the action is done, it can be objectively known the choice that was made)? To insist that will may be determinable retroactively, but indeterminable before the choice was made is to insist that there has to be some spontaneous element of will that occurs without precedent causes (meaning it occurred ex nihilo). But, if this spontaneous element is to truly be spontaneous, it must be random. In this sense, if one argues for an indeterminable free will, one is insisting that some element of will must be spontaneous and absolutely random. It is in this particular case that Ockham's razor becomes most useful, in that the simpler presumption (that will is determinable) is the most favorable. The argument for indeterminable free will takes far too many presumptions to be considered more valid than determinable will. Spontaneity and randomness is absolutely unverifiable, while causality is very much verifiable (and, in fact, is the very basis for verifiability). My argument is not logically perfect and does not argue with certainty, but is absolutely reasonably sound (certainty is rarely, if ever, stumbled upon). And it should be said that the appearance of "choice" is not a valid argument for "free will". It could also be argued that "choice" is simply an act of determinable causality, and that all "choices" are made from necessity and will, and one would be much more reasonable to choose this assumption being that it is more verifiable. Arguing for "choice" as a valid argument for "free will" is much like arguing that -any- event is evidence for the spontaneity and non-causality of the event (while it could be argued that, conversely, the event is evidence for causality and this is both demonstrable and verifiable). So, indeed, if "free will" is determinable, will must be bounded to causality. It is in this situation that I insist upon "will as bounded by will", will being the thoughts and decisions made, and will being all of the causes that triggered the phenomena of the will. Will may also be thoughts themselves, meaning that causality can also exist within the mind, but all of these internalized causes must also have been caused by external material causes (as such, stimuli from the senses, or even chemicals such as cocaine or dopamine). It is in this case, I argue, that the will is a complex multitude of causes and effects that function together much like a spider web.