BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cultural Appropriation

My opponent has argued the wrong side of this debate. I am arguing that cultural appropriation is acceptable and does more good than harm (PRO). Con is supposed to argue that it's problematic as per the resolution. I will offer some arguments in this round and my opponent must negate. I'll keep it relatively simple, since I will probably have to re-post this debate and start over. == History is all about the exchange of culture. Humans are social animals and culture is a social concept. Cultural progress is made when information and ideas are exchanged that bring utility and/or value to another group or person. If people are exposed to new insight - especially if they appreciate it and use it to their benefit - then this exchange is good. Different types of food, religion, fashion and ideas have been shared among cultures throughout history, both intentionally and not intentionally (through assimilation or adaptation). In addition to learning new things, some cultures including the "dominant" culture exhibit an element of acceptance by embracing other people and ideas. This promotes understanding and tolerance, which inhibits racism, xenophobia and other prejudice that harms people and groups. We need to embrace the times when multiple cultures adopt styles and customs. These are bonding actions and reinforce the socializing behaviors of different cultures. Isolating yourself from other groups is problematic and insulates people against useful insight that could improve the quality of their lives.
This House would create genetically engineered super-fruit

Right, I have forfeited, unless orangemayhem says otherwise, but I'm still going to make an argument.Poc1: No, We Don't Want To Scare North KoreaI would like to share the following quotes from the video:"I can hardly repress my anger at the attempt of the south Korean authorities, servants of the Yankees, to impair the dignity of the DPRK supreme leadership.""Mercy can never be shown for those attempting to raise their fists at the Sun like a puppy knowing no fear of the tiger.""Now is the time for us to finally settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists. If they dare provoke a war on this land, the DPRK people will wipe out the aggressors, wrecker of global peace, to the last one and build a reunified thriving nation.""We can no longer bear such provocation. If the enemies ignite a war, I will promptly rejoin the army to destroy their den totally."Am I the only one who finds these quotes a bit suspicious? There's no pause, no 'um' or any equivalent. So we have two options.The first is that North Koreans talk like I do when I'm mocking the rhethoric of certain socialists by referring to people as the Foul Capitalist Running Dog Dollar-Humping Slugs. If this is the case, then they have probably been brainwashed, so it is not their fault and we should try to undo the brainwashing.The second is that the YouTube channel for Korea's propoganda ministry faked it[1].Which of these fits Occam's Razor?PoC2: Getting Eaten Is Not A SuperpowerTo quote Pro:"SUPER-FRUIT: fruit which has powers traditionally associated with super-heroes (such as flight, heat vision etc.). "Bestowing immunity on someone who eats you is not typically a superhero power, and it is not traditionally associated with superheroes. The resolution does not say 'we should genetically modify fruit to do pretty much anything we damn please'. Therefore the argument must be dismissed.Pro also argues that yearly terrorist attacks would be beneficial, to which I say ridiculous. There is no way, no way, that yearly terrorist attacks with hundreds dead is worth the slight increase in readiness for other terrorist attacks. And who says the superfruit is non-sentient? It'll probably gain awareness and try to kill us all.1. http://translate.google.com...
This House would create genetically engineered super-fruit

I would like to express my condolences to the family of my opponent, as he has clearly just been eaten by a superfruit. Quelle dommage !There are two key Points of Clash (PoC) in this debate.PoC1: Do we want to scare North Korea?Con have attempted to argue that the denizens of NK are all hapless, meaningless incompetents who are incapable of forming an opinion for themselves. If you listen to Con, you'll believe that the population of NK simply wander around, going about their daily business, without even a single stray political thought in their head. If (quite rightly) you listen to Pro, however, you will realise that the fair denizens of NK are all, in fact, desperate maniacs and psycopaths who pose no end of danger to society as a whole. We have provided irrefutable evidence, via YouTube (see [1] in last round), that the people of NK hate America and loathe the West even more. Therefore, we do need to put the fear of God (or fruit, as my opponent is being picky) into them. The way to stop them littering our airspace with more poorly-manufactured yet still slightly dangerous nuclear missiles is to send their children running and screaming with our superfruit. Therefore, Pro wins this point.PoC2: Would these superfruit serve a useful purpose?The majority of Pro's case is built upon all the wonderful things we could accomplish through the construction of these superfruit so it is only natural that Con have pitifully attempted to refute this part of our case. Here, however, Pro wins again. We have demonstrated how the use of superfruit for vaccination purposes could create the next level of herd immunity for our generation and the next. Uptake of vaccinations, be they for MMR or seasonal flu, would skyrocket as the whole process would become much simpler, efficient, and ultimately pleasant. Equally, we have demonstrated how the use of superfruit could be used as a resolution to the great military conflicts of our time. We have shown how the use of superfruit would be extremely beneficial, whereas Con have just said ":O you can't do that!", even though the resolution says we can. Therefore Pro takes this point as well.Pro wins both of the key points of clash in this debate, therefore we're good to go on the superfruit!On the off-chance that my opponent is still alive, I invite them to post their closing rebuttal and summing up (no new arguments). Ciao!
This House would create genetically engineered super-fruit

Substantive I: It would put the fear of God into North KoreaWell, first off, it couldn't put the fear of God into North Korea, because it's not God we're talking about, but fruit. Now, I recognize that it may be advatageous to put the fear of oranges into North Korea, but I must remind my opponent that we are not at war with the people of North Korea, or even hostile to the people of North Korea. Rather, they are starving and need food. We are hostile towards the leader of North Korea.It is also worth bearing in mind that the people of North Korea have little enough food as it is. Do you want to make them afraid to eat an orange out of concern that it may suddenly blow their head off with heat ray vision? I should think not! Rather, let us simply drop large containers of fruit, saying, in Korea, "Gift of the people of the United States of America and South Korea." Problem solved.Substantive II: VaccinationWhile undeniably true, being eaten and then bestowing a vaccine is not a power traditionally associated with super-heroes.Substantive III: ORANGE MAYHEMAgain, superheroes typically do not cause people to spontaneously combust after they've been eaten. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no superhero has that power.While it's true that there are other uses of superfruit to fight wars, I must ask, have you seen the Marvel Universe? Every other week New York gets invaded or some sh!t, Galactus attacks, Magneto takes over some random fictional country, et cetera et cetera. Do you want yearly terrorist attacks by angry superfruit? If so, why do you hate America? HAve you always hated America, or is this something new?Summary of Speech for the OppositionI have made the first part of my case, which impregnates (?) the impregnable case of my opponent, then implanted an embryo inside of it which proceeded to explode through its chest, at which point aforementioned embryo discussed that the fruit would probably kill us.
This House would create genetically engineered super-fruit

So therefore, this debate is only open to people my age or older (17), and only open to those who are 'as good as or better than me'. My apologies to those who do not reach these requirements. Some conditions:- This is a semi-troll debate. Therefore, arguments must be logical but can be 'creative'. - NO FORFEITING (this will lead to 7 points being awarded to the other side). - Be civil. - 4 rounds of 6000 characters each. - 48 hour response time, voting period is a month. Structure of the debate:R1 is acceptance and definitions only. R2 is opening arguments and rebuttal. R3 is continuation of arguments and further rebuttal. R4 is final rebuttal and summing up with no new arguments. Definitions:GENETICALLY ENGINEERED: having one's genetic material manipulated by humans. SUPER-FRUIT: fruit which has powers traditionally associated with super-heroes (such as flight, heat vision etc. ). This debate assumes that humanity has become capable of genetically engineering super-fruit.
Porn & Masturbation are Harmful to your Health.

I shall lead the campaign to defend the practices of every sixteen year old boy ever. I will by open by commending Pro for not mentioning religion in his opening arguments. I will now give my opening arguments. Regular masturbation reduces the likelihood that one will get prostate cancer. A study published in BJU International in 2009 [1] found that men in their 50's that masturbated frequently (one or more times per week) had a 70% lower risk of prostate cancer than those who did not masturbate. Polyxeni Dimitropoulou, PhD; the man who led the study, suggested that masturbation itself maybe be helpful because it rids the prostate gland of fluids that may contain cancer causing substances. The study also found that men in their 20s and 30s that masturbated frequently (2-7 times per week) had an increased rate of prostate cancer than their abstinant counterparts. However, as the article states: "So it's not masturbation itself that's increasing prostate cancer risk in young men. More masturbation may just mean more sex drive -- and more androgens bathing prostate tissues. "Masturbation increases immunityA study found [2] that after masturbation "[s]exual arousal and orgasm increased the absolute number of leukocytes, in particular natural killer cells (CD3-CD16+CD56+), in the peripheral blood. In contrast, T cell (CD3+) and B cell (CD3-CD20+) subpopulations as well as the production of interleukin 6 and tumor necrosins factor alpha remained unaffected by sexual activity. "What this means is that certain white blood cells became more prevolent while others remained uneffected. This resulted in a net gain of white blood cells. These cells are important for fighting tumours, viruses, and herpes [3]Masturbation can also release stress, help you fall asleep, and relieve pain [4]With this information I believe that we can conclude that masturbation is not harmful, healthy. ---While this isn't the longest opening argument ever made, I'm not the one with the burden of proof. I will now allow my opponent to make his first rebuttals. [1] . http://www.webmd.com...[2] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] . http://www.sciencedaily.com...[4] . http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Porn & Masturbation are Harmful to your Health.

This is a debate on whether porn and masturbation are indeed harmful to your sexual, and overall health. I will be taking the pro position that they are indeed harmful. The round rules are as follows. Any going against these rules will result in loss of the conduct point: Round 1-- Accept by a con position only. Round 2-- Main arguments from each side. Round 3-- Rebuttals to main arguments by each side. Round 4-- Rebuttals to opponents rebuttals, and closing arguments. This is a friendly debate. Because of the nature of this debate, and personal opinions, please keep this debate clean as possible, and of a friendly nature. If you violate this, you agree to loss of conduct point.
Owning a pet is not only selfish , but immoral and wrong.

I would like to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong about 2-round-debates. If my opponent cannot state a case in one round, that's their problem. I will at least present one argument. Owning pets is not in and of itself selfish. Owning an avalanche search dog is a very social activity. Taking in sick and abandoned animals from the wild and saving them from starvation and the wildlife from their failed attempts at hunting is not selfish. It's an act of mercy. Hence, the premise is obviously flawed and the instigator is wrong.
The pyramids exist

Con is using the many worlds theory and specifying which world he is referring to. Fair enough. What con has forgotten to do however is prove the many worlds theory true.Pro is right; I do need evidence for the many worlds interpretation, so here's some evidence:The many worlds interpretation resolves all of the correlation paradoxes.Resolves the observer problem.Becomes a realist, deterministic, local theory akin to classical physics.Favored by occams razor.While the many worlds interpretation has not been proven experimentally, the Copenhagen interpretation hasn't been either. Due to the properties explained above the many worlds interpretation is the more likely of the two.CONCLUSIONThe many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics brings up the possibility of alternate histories; including one where the pyramids don't exist. By specifying which history we are referring to in this debate as one where the pyramids don't exist; I have proved my case. As seen above I have also provided evidence for the many worlds interpretation so my argument holds.SOURCEShttp://en.wikipedia.org...
The pyramids exist

I've proved and con has agreed pyramids exist in this world. Con is using the many worlds theory and specifying which world he is referring to. Fair enough. What con has forgotten to do however is prove the many worlds theory true. I have nothing to add. Con has failed to prove his many worlds theory. Since his entire argument hinges on it and he has conceded pyramids exist in this world, then I've met my burden of proof. Voters, when judging who won the arguments portion of this debate, ask yourself if con has met his burden of proof in his assertion that the many worlds theory is true.
The pyramids exist

"The many worlds theory of quantum mechanics doesn't state that there is many realities. There is merely one reality. According to the many worlds theory wave function collapse doesn't occur and instead creates many alternate universes or worlds. All these alternate worlds would still be part of the same reality."True; it is only one reality; I admit that I should have said alternate history.My opponent has used the term quantum reality to attempt to cause confusion about the many worlds theory.No deception was intended.It is a many worlds theory and not a many realities theory. My opponent has conceded that even if pyramids didn't exist in this world they would exist in an alternate world according to the many worlds theory. So, my opponent has conceded that pyramids exist in at least one of these worlds.This doesn't actually affect my case because when I started the debate I specified that we were debating in the reference frame of a universe where the pyramids were never built so while there are pyramids bin other universes those are not relevant to this debate.Also if my opponent is going to argue that pyramids don't exist in some alternate universe then he should show that this specific alternate universe exists.If the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there are going to be way too many universes where the pyramids don't exist to specify so I' referring to the "mother universe" where the universe where the pyramids were built and the one that didn't branched off.
The pyramids exist

I hope the voters don't feel sorry for con. I tried to give him a way out of this impossible to win debate by turning it into a joke. My opponent has chose to extend his arguments and give me another chance at attacking them rather then alter the dynamics of the debate.Reality:Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2005. (Full entry for reality: "reality " noun (pl. realities) 1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2 a thing that is actually experienced or seen. 3 the quality of being lifelike. 4 the state or quality of having existence or substance.")[1] Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2005. (Full entry for reality: "reality " noun (pl. realities) 1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2 a thing that is actually experienced or seen. 3 the quality of being lifelike. 4 the state or quality of having existence or substance.")The many worlds theory of quantum mechanics doesn't state that there is many realities. There is merely one reality. According to the many worlds theory wave function collapse doesn't occur and instead creates many alternate universes or worlds. All these alternate worlds would still be part of the same reality. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... My opponent has used the term quantum reality to attempt to cause confusion about the many worlds theory. It is a many worlds theory and not a many realities theory. My opponent has conceded that even if pyramids didn't exist in this world they would exist in an alternate world according to the many worlds theory. So, my opponent has conceded that pyramids exist in at least one of these worlds. This means pyramids or any other conceivable thing exists. Also if my opponent is going to argue that pyramids don't exist in some alternate universe then he should show that this specific alternate universe exists. My video is presented as evidence of pyramids. http://www.youtube.com...
The pyramids exist

To be more clear I will rephrase my original argument: I will base my argument off of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. According to the many worlds interpretation every possible outcome of an event occurs in some alternate "quantum reality." Since this debate obviously can't refer to every reality I will start by specifying which "quantum reality" we are talking about: the one where the pyramids don't exist. PHYSICS: the natural science that involves the study of matter[6] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. So I am trying to say we should get our scientific theories from experimental and theoretical physicists(trained professionals in the field of science.)
The pyramids exist

Definitions Mechanics- plural for the word mechanic. Mechanic- n. A worker skilled in making, using, or repairing machines, vehicles, and tools. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... My opponent is trying to say that we should get our scientific theories from people who work on cars. Specifically Nissan Quantums. Why someone should accept scientific theories from car mechanics for a model of Nissan that doesn't even exist yet he doesn't say. News flash but car mechanics aren't trustworthy look at Joey Buttafuoco. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Voters please throw away my opponents opening arguments based on the fact that Joey Buttafuoco committed statutory rape and has no formal science education.
The US public education system teaches students what free people should know.

I'm not suggesting rebellion, I'm simply suggesting awareness. We as a culture, as thinkers, and as influencers of others, need to be mindful of the need, not just to equip ourselves to think freely, but also to encourage others to equip themselves as well. For now, at least, thinking freely is not an act of rebellion. It is possible, if we continue to cultivate generation after next that is worse than the one before it at independent thought, that we could reach a point where it is seen as rebellious to think freely or to advocate critical analysis--but for now, we still enjoy the freedom to do so.If you want to "get the cheese" by running the little maze that Uncle Sam wants you to run, you can do that, but at the end of the day, that still just leaves you as a rat in a cage, just with a little bit of cheese for your trouble. As citizens, we can (and I'd say more, we have a duty to) improve the country, one person at a time, if we can encourage real analysis and thought.But my position here is not inherently one of action at all. Before we can take action, and independently of any action we might take, there's value in just seeing a problem for what it is. If we skip that critical element of analysis, we may spend tremendous effort trying to address the wrong problem, or to address it in a way that is ineffective or worse, counterproductive.There is certainly a lot of action to be taken. But the first step of any effective action has to be evaluation of the problem. And that's where we are: There are skills free people need to know, and in the U.S., our education system is not providing them. This is a problem.
The US public education system teaches students what free people should know.

Thoguth, yo words gots a bit of truth to'em, but yous forget'n that uncle Sam don't give a dammed. They teach what needs know'n in a guvment control'd spectacle. Now you try to flip they script. Hell nah. You lose. Up, down, and sideways, you gets club'd. The best thang is to play along. Alright withit. Everybody gets they cheese. You suggest'n rebellion. Nah. No cheese for you.