BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adverts are evil

Thank you for the challenge. Statement: Not 1 single advert is moral. (I hope this suits you give your comment) Argument: Purpose of an Advert: To draw attention to its contents. How to make an advert: 1. Focus on message, condense refine. 2. Artwork 3. Production. 4. Distribution Deciding to make an Advert: 1. I/we/entity need 2. Advertise for need, 3. Source distribution Advertising space: The places real and virtual that entities frequently occupy. Value of Advertising space: Determined by the number of effective targets. Advertiser gives to Avert distributor based on targets . Advertiser gives what? well something distributor wants, e.g. value Because the value is tied to entities. This now become an equation similar to 1 idea + value = targets affected which becomes 1 idea + value = entity(person) rights x affected 1 idea is a right for entity(person) Therefore 1 right + value = affected x right Then right + value = affected x right then
Adverts are evil

The Burden of Proof is shared, and I'll show that advertisements aren't evil. I'll only use this round to provide definitions, though. Advertisements: a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc. [. http://www.dictionary.com...]Evil: morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked [. http://www.dictionary.com...]So Pro must show that advertisements are morally wrong. I'll have to show that advertisements are moral. Let's get into this discussion.
Guns should be completely banned in the US.

Maybe we will see murders with sharp objects, but i think the numbers will fall. Because it's easier to kill with a gun, since you don't have to look your victim in the eye, and you can do it from a distance, while with a knife you have to get up close to the victim and stab them. The victim can fight back, eventually maybe killing the murdere. Many people who kill is sometimes not so strong since all they have to do is pull a trigger. And if the guns are gone, then the weak murderes will be scared away because they will maybe lose the fight. As for the buying/selling weapons underground, it can't be stopped. But it can be slowed dramatically, since you can arrest somebody related to a network, and then work your way from there.
Guns should be completely banned in the US.

I think we can safely agree on, that people with guns kill people too. And no, crime will not end, but there will be a significant drop in killing and shootouts. You can't ignore the data, if you look them up. Countries that are just as developed as the US, but doesn't let people carry guns doesnt have as high murder/shootout/schoolshooting count. No, every killer doesn't use a gun, but i read about more murders commited with a gun than with an axe.
Guns should be completely banned in the US.

So, US today: We've had a lot of school shootings, homicides and gang shootouts. And why is this? It is simply because of this stupid 2nd amendment we have. Like we wasn't ignorant enough when it comes to school and education and our "glorious" freedom, nope, we also have to carry something around that kan kill another man, or a family just by a click from a trigger. Is it really that important for us to have these lethal tubes with a trigger on them? i mean, if every gun was taken away at the same time there wouldn't be a problem. No "why can he have a gun, i feel threatened and bla bla bla".... Nobody would have a gun, and all those who would be under suspicion for still having one would be placed on a police watchlist. More arguements to come.
Voters should vote for Pro (Fallacy Debate)

Con should not win because he has a unnaturally biased opinion towards cat videos and we all know what happens to debaters that have an unnatural bias when they are attacked by angry arm chairs in their living rooms when no one else is around to see it. Con thinks he should not win this debate because no one has already voted for him in this debate, although he knows that winning this debate would cause him to lose future debates in which he does not complete all of the rounds.Con winning this debate would be like a rabid baby chipmunk eating a baby cake; He will either lose this debate or he will be attacked by ninjas in his sleep.
Voters should vote for Pro (Fallacy Debate)

The pro side has never won a debate round in his life, he doesn't even know what debate means, anyone who doesn't know what debate is is a Nazi, thus my oponent is a Nazi and should not win this debate round because Nazi's are lame. Many years ago my opponent was laying in his bed thinking he would die, he didn't die, so he can't make up his mind and you as the voter shouldn't make up your mind because he can't make up his mind, nothing is real. My opponent doesn't deserve to ever win a debate round, because he is a pro, which stands for professional, and this debate round is for amateurs, thus my opponent is a cheater and we shouldn't vote for cheaters.
Voters should vote for Pro (Fallacy Debate)

My mom told me that I would win this debate, and then go on to winning thousands of debates, and eventually become the president of DDO because I'm really good at arguing with her and I sometimes get my way. I have won other debates where lots of people voted for me 90% of time with 100% accuracy and now I will win this debate.My first debate warrented the attention of long term debate.org user Ore_ele, and I am friends with Janet Sanders, and the current president of DDO, Tuf that started a tournament that I am participating in that will cause me to win this debate.
Voters should vote for Pro (Fallacy Debate)

. http://www.debate.org...This is a debate using all Fallacies. Rounds are limited to 3 seperate seperate statements of 50 words or less identified by a space betweeen each statement. Each statement must be a full sentence and only be one sentence. Rules are based on the rules set forth in the linked forum. Votes should be delivered based on number of fallacies used correctly and readability of the statements. Round 2 is why Pro should and shouldn't winRound 3 is why Con should and shouldn't win. Round 4 is why Voters should Vote for Pro/Con over Con/Pro
dogs are better than cats

FrameworkOkay, my opponent has the BoP.Rebuttals1. Pro states that dogs love us when cats hate us. Pro gives no evidence of why a cat hates us. Arguments1. They don't hate usCats don't hate us. Dogs don't hate us. I think that they are equally okay. They are both pets. There is no good or bad. There is no proof that they hate us. I think that they don't love or hate us.
The SA-X is the most panic-inducing video game enemy from a non-horror franchise.

"obscure video games 99% of the people on here have ever heard of. " That's enough to make an entire round out of. Metroid is not obscure. And if it was, 99% of the people on here would NOT know what it is. And I don't know where you pulled DBZ from. If you don't want to argue with me, don't accept the debate. You obviously don't know how to use this site. Con does not know what he is doing and has accepted a debate that he neither knows nor cares about.
The SA-X is the most panic-inducing video game enemy from a non-horror franchise.

To answer your question Alex, probably never. But let me explain myself: the great thing about a site like this is that somebody proposes general topic for debate, and anybody can accept the debate, and so begins a fruitful dialectic between two people of different points of view. What facilitates this is general topics regarding things like sports, religion, politics, philosophy- that many people can relate to and apply their life experiences to. But recently, this weird little group of people has emerged making simplistic "X is better than Y" over obscure video games 99% of the people on here have ever heard of. So by the nature of the topic it is already exclusionary and therefore limits this site. I do have better things to do than make fun of people of this site, like work, see my friends or girlfriend, study, read, or fish. But when nothing else is happening I like to go on this site and take the latest debate proposed, and what do I find.... Dragon Ball Z crap.
The SA-X is the most panic-inducing video game enemy from a non-horror franchise.

I firmly believe that the X parasite mimicking Samus Aran, the SA-X, from Metroid Fusion on the Nintendo Gameboy Advance, is the number one most frightening and panic-causing enemy from a non-horror game series. Reasons1) It constantly hunts you throughout the game, fully equipped with all of your Power Suit's abilities, while you have to run around the space station, almost powerless.2) Since you have Metroid DNA, you are very weak to cold temperatures. The SA-X, as stated earlier, has all of your Power-ups, which of course include the Ice Beam. Getting frozen is not something you want to do if the thing that's freezing you also has Super Missiles.3) The face. Most people who have never played Metroid Fusion will not be affected by this (. http://images.wikia.com...) picture very much, but those who have played it will get chills down their spine, their hair will stand up, their heart will skip or race (mine does one then the other), and they will think of the footsteps, which brings me to my next point.4) The footsteps. Oh, the footsteps. Imagine playing a game set on a dark space station, in a series that already has its fair share of creepiness, and then, when you hit a dead end and turn around to leave the room, the music stops. All you hear is tap, tap, tap. .. and you frantically look around for a hiding place. "Where did it even come from? " you'll think often in this game as it appears out of nowhere on multiple occasions. Its sprite is entering the frame. You can't find anywhere. So, you have two choices: jump over it and run, or stay and die within seconds. Escaping from it usually means hiding behind a tall structure, but sometimes it gets smart and figures out that the structure is destructible. But even if you escape, those footsteps will freak you out next time, too.5) Last point for this round, since I'm getting a little sleepy. There are at the very least 10 SA-X on the ship, each with all your abilities. Now you're not just being hunted by something, you're being hunted by a pack of things, armed with Power Bombs and an instinctual fear of your Metroid DNA. Imagine being a snake in a mongoose troop's area. Except you can't eat them. That is scary. Expectations for this DebateI want no hating, fanboyism, etc. I just want a mature debate, with someone else who doesn't think the SA-X is as scary or panic-causing as a different enemy. It can be any kind of enemy, from any game, as long as they induce panic and are not from a horror series.
Republicans should try to derail Trump

First I would like to point out that, as of now, it is impossible for people who oppose Trump to deny him the nomination. The RNC rules committee failed to get the amendment passed that would unbind the delegates which would potentially cause them to vote for another candidate instead of Trump. (1) Second, if the Republicans tried to stop Trump, it would guarantee a heavy loss in the November election. Donald Trump had received a total of 14 million votes during the primary, almost 50% more than Mitt Romney had received in the 2012 primary (10 million)(2), and about 60% more than John McCain had received in the 2008 primary (9.9 million)(3). There is no argument about it. Trump is more popular than the last two Republican candidates. The people of the GOP had made a democratic decision to vote Trump into the nomination. Turning against that would go against the will of the people, and upset millions of potential/registered voters. Ditching Trump would cause these angry people to either stay home (similar to 2012) or vote for another party out of spite. This would likely lead to a handy Clinton victory and a loss of both House and Senate control. If Clinton became president, she would have the opportunity to appoint up to three new Supreme Court justices over her terms. Being a liberal, she would choose judges who would adhere to her views. With Democratic control of Congress, she could easily get any number of bills passed that would likely upset the GOP and its constituents. There is the potential for a long-lasting negative effect for Republicans if Trump would be denied the nomination, especially at this point with the convention coming next week and the general election underway. It would be chaos for them and they would likely never recover fully from it. SOURCES: (1)--http://www.nationalreview.com... (2)--https://en.wikipedia.org... (3)--https://en.wikipedia.org...
Republicans should try to derail Trump

Donald Trump should not represent republicans he has said way to many controversial things and will not compromise on his rhetoric. Trump' s policies are unrealistic and do not represent the free trade and small government views common with the republican party. He has proposed a ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. which is immoral at best and unconstitutional at worst. Trump also wants to end trade agreements that help the economy and force companies to remain in the U.S. Another disadvantage to Trump is how divisive he is a president should bring a country together not tear it apart. This year republicans need to look farther down the road and assure that people do not think Donald Trump when they hear republican. They must distance themselves from Trump while they can still repair their image. Sources: https://www.donaldjtrump.com... this shows Trumps policy positions.http://useconomy.about.com... this shows details about NAFTA
Republicans should try to derail Trump

While Republicans will lose the election if they go against Trump, the alternative is that their platform will change from their current views to protectionism and big government. The short term effects will be bad for the party but our leaders need to put the long term goals of the country and party first. Republicans will lose on many positions but the alternative could be worse. If Trump is elected he will be the face of the GOP and every statement he makes will be theirs, this will alienate a huge portion of the country from ever voting for the GOP. I would also like to point out that Trump loses in most polls and is incredibly unpopular if Republicans were to stop him by voting for a write in or possibly even for the libertarian party they will be forgiven in time. People are voting for Trump because they want our leaders to accomplish something. The thing they should accomplish is saving America from Trump, it is the best possible outcome.
It is Probable That God Exists

TERMSResolved: It is probable that God exists.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clash For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence special doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are not relevant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.Good luck! :-)
It is Probable That God Exists

I thank Contradiction for being such a strong debater and opponent. And so, I feel I must concede the debate. I think I was a bit over my head with this subject. I do not believe I argued adequately enough, wasn't prepared enough, and to continue would be less gracious than this.I WOULD like to note, however, that I'm conceding due to poor arguing on my part, NOT because my position has changed. Still, I congratulate Contradiction on his win. If it's not too much to ask, I'd still like it if any readers could provide feedback for me regardless of my concession--I am still relatively new here, and would like to improve.Again, thank you.
Bitches be bitchin'

Rebuttals: My Opponent's Argument #1: P1. Otters engage in activities for shear enjoyment P2. Activities engaged in solely for shear enjoyment are examples of making spiteful comments (bitching). Therefore, otters make spiteful comments (bitch). Premise 1 I will concede to my opponent Premise 1. Premise 2 My opponent has given NO JUSTIFICATION for this premise. Thus, the conclusion is false. Otters cannot even speak, let alone make spiteful comments. [1] My opponent has a lot of justifying to do. My Opponent's Argument #2: P1. Hermoine from Harry Potter exists. P2. Hermoine is her patronus. P3. Hermoine's patronus is an otter. P4. Hermoine is a crack-whore. P5. Crack-whores complain about society. P6. Complaining about society is bitching. Therefore, otters bitch. Despite not justifying Premise 1, Premise 2, Premise 4, Premise 5, I simply cannot argue with that logic (sarcasm for the voters). My Case: Resolution: Female otters have not always made spiteful comments at every point in the past, nor will they always make spiteful comments at every point in the future. Argument from Existence P1. Otters have not always existed. P2. Otters can only conceivably bitch if they exist. Therefore, otters cannot have always bitched. Premise 1 Mustelids (family otters are in) have only existed for 40 million years. [2] Premise 2 Self-evident. Argument from Ability P1. Otters cannot bitch Therefore, otters cannot bitch Premise 1 See above. [1] Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bitches be bitchin'

:) Firstly this little peace of information from the #1 most reliable source on the internet:Otters live up to 16 years. .Otters are playful animals and appear to engage in various behaviors for sheer enjoyment. I quote ". .. engage in various behaviors for SHEER ENJOYMENT" [1] This clearly indicates that otters, or more specifically bitches, indulge in activities for sheer entertainment, we can concluded therefore that otters are actually crack-whores. Not only do they live only to the age of 16, the previous quote indicates that they engage in drug-driven sexual activities, much like a crack-whore. Furthermore in the Harry Potter series of books designed to cause hallucinations in adolescent teenagers, the character Hermoine's Patronus spell takes the form on an otter. Any open-minded individual would see hermoine as a crack-whore herself, who also indulges in the act of snorting paracetamol hidden in her books, which is where she obtains her vast imaginative and intellectual abilities. The link between her and her patronus can not be ignored and further emphasizes the fact that Otters/bitches are crack-whores. Now to the point: I have stated and proven the Otters are indeed crack-whores. Crack-whores have not in one point in our past positively contributed to society, they are constantly bitching about their lack of cocaine to fuel their addictions, as well as their impregnated stomachs effect on their physical appearance. So a summary of my findings, that con shall rebut: 1-Otters/Bitches are indeed crack-whores 2-The common knowledge that crackwhores constantly "make spitefully critical comments. " 3-Bitches therefore, be Bitching. I thank my opponent for taking time to read this, and look forward to you reply :D Sources: [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bitches be bitchin'

I accept.Definitions:bitch: "a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter." [1]to bitch: "[to] make spitefully critical comments." [1]BOP:We'll share the BOP.I will be arguing that female otters have not always comlained at every point in the past, nor will they always complain at every point in the future.Sources:1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Homosexuals make great parents

I wanna start off by saying thank you for accepting.Now I will start going into depth about how homosexuals can make great parents. My first argument stated they are more open minded and tolerant of others. This is a true fact because homosexuals know what it feels like to be descrimnated against because of there sexual orientation. They teach there children to be excepting of others because they know how it feels to be looked at diffrent. Children of homosexuals often tend to make friends better than children of heterosexuals. My second argument stated that they are very motivated. According to guttmacher institute about half of u.s pregnancies are unplanned, and half of those unplanned pregnancies end in birth rather than abortion. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying parents of unplanned children aren't good parents because they can be however some are in dire circumstances. Studies show two-thirds of unplanned births were paid for by Medicare or other low income insurance programs. This is where homosexual parents motivation come in to play. In contrast homosexual parents have to plan there children before having them whether it be adoption or artificial insemination. Homosexuals on average tend to be more commited and motivated because they choose to be parents. My final argument stated that they express them selves however they please. What I mean by that is that they don't conform to gender rolls in society. Judith Stacey, a professor of contemporary gender studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater interest in both masculine and feminine qualities unlike children raised in heterosexual households. She also found that girls of lesbian parents had higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female. She found that boys of lesbian households were less aggressive and violent and more nurturing and affectionate towards others. That is the end of my arguments until further notice. I look forward to hearing your arguments. (1)http://www.narth.com...
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years

The problem is, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot, on one end, argue that military spending -- a core tenet of Reaganomics -- is foolish and unsustainable, and then endorse it under certain circumstances. You cannot make a claim about trillions of dollars spent overseas that you cannot back up with factual evidence, and hold that, if only we reversed this hypothetical scenario, everything would be great. In essence, your argument has several different facets to it. But you have not defended Reaganomics. You conceded on increased military spending and deregulation -- you did the latter when you argued against free trade agreements. From that point, Reaganomics nearly collapses, because those were the core actions that Ronald Reagan actually carried out. Recall that, as I pointed out in Round 1, Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times as President and signed a rather significant tax hike as Governor of California. Your job as Pro was to defend Reaganomics, and you have abdicated that role by arguing against it. We can even agree on military spending, but that's not the position that you can take as Pro. But let's get back to your central argument, You keep saying that, in your opinion, we are all better off if rich people have more money. You haven't provided even a modicum of evidence to this end. I gave you evidence saying that, essentially, the rich do in fact have most of the wealth in this country, and yet many people are still very poorly off. I pointed to a time in history -- the three decades following WWII -- where tax rates were as high as 91%, and yet the economy boomed. Moreover, I provided sources, such as a Congressional Research Service study, which concluded that tax cuts do not generate economic growth. When we review the terms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the case becomes increasingly clear: the wealthy are not the job creators; middle-income consumers are. Even at a time when tax rates are near historic lows, the very affluent are sitting on literally $2 trillion in capital that they are not investing because there is not adequate demand in the economy. That is the chief problem that we face, and Reaganomics is an obstacle to this end. We have tried it again and again, and it has continuously failed. I think it is time for new ideas.