BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography.

I restate my point that if nudity is depicted in a way that is artistic or tasteful, it should not be considered pornography. Rebuttals: 1) "My opponent has made the blanket assertion that depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography. " I did no such thing. I never said that they AREN'T pornography, I merely said that they SHOULDN'T be. Bending words, when noticed by your opponent, really makes you look bad to the voters, and aren't the voters' opinions what really count on here? This is only my second debate on this website, but I've lurked enough to notice this basic principle. 2) My opponent has contradicted himself. Earlier, he said that "Pornography is defined by the creator's intent, not the audience's assessment of artistry or tastefulness. " In his most recent argument, however, he said that "Pornography, as it is defined, has nothing to do with tastefulness or artistry. It only has to do with content. " This is a strong contradiction and damages his argument. Is it defined by intent or content? He really should make up his mind. 3) In his criticism of Spice & Wolf, my opponent said that he claims "it is not tasteful enough. " However, in his first argument, he said that "[My opponent] cannot hope to objectively distinguish between such subjective notions as artistic and tasteful. " If I can't objectively distinguish between those two notions, how/why can he? Another contradiction. 4) "My opponent has chosen to criticize my argument as only having 'one point disguised as two,' a clever little red herring tactic. " Both your disguising of your points and your counter-criticism are also "clever little red herring tactics". If you want to look good in a debate, don't be a hypocrite. 5) I knew it would be a matter of time until my opponent brought up child pornography. CP has nothing to do with my argument or my topic, except they share the word "pornography". However, I'll make a rebuttal just for that paragraph. I am well aware that child pornography is a crime because it takes advantage of children (I'll save my definition of "child" for a different debate). I think child pornography is disgusting, wrong, and rightfully illegal. I am well aware that this statement makes no contribution to my argument, but neither did Con's statement. I offered a rebuttal "in the nature of good sport," just as my opponent did. Thanks again for this debate, Con. It was fun.
Depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography.

My opponent has made the blanket assertion that depictions of nudity when done in an artistic and tasteful manner are not pornography. My goal, as Con, is to show that this blanket assertion does not always hold true. The resolution fails on two points: 1. Artistry and tastefulness are not objective criteria. As such, they are insufficient to uphold the resolution in any concrete way. Take Pro's own example of Spice & Wolf. He says it's depiction of nudity is tasteful and artistic. I claim it is not tasteful enough. After all, there are many ways to depict the realism of a nude woman without the need for putting her naughty bits on display. Movies do this all the time, where a person is shown from a variety of angles to communicate nudity without actually displaying. My point is that Pro cannot declare this use of nudity as universally and unequivocally tasteful and artistic. It's simply his opinion, which I'm afraid does little in making the resolution an objective truth. 2. Pornography already has a specific meaning, and Pro will be hard pressed to redefine it, especially in these terms Pro is essentially attempting to redefine pornography in a completely arbitrary way when it already has an historical meaning. Pornography, as it is defined, has nothing to do with tastefulness or artistry. It only has to do with content. There is tasteful pornography and distasteful pornography, but it is pornography nonetheless. Thus, the very definition of the term negates the resolution as being objectively true. My opponent has chosen to criticize my argument as only having "one point disguised as two," a clever little red herring tactic. What does it matter if I only have one point if that point arguably refutes the resolution? Still, in the nature of good sport, I'll offer another rebuttal. Pro's definition has ethical implications. Take, for example, child pornography. The crime has less to do with content and more to do with the sexual exploitation of innocent children. Will my opponent assert that all child nudity is distasteful, and therefore should be called pornography? What about those that would claim that child nudity is artistic? Child pornography has been criminalized for good reason, and such a loose definition as my opponent's would be very difficult to police. To conclude, my opponent's definition is arbitrary, untenable and carries with it ethical issues. Therefore, I think it very reasonable to consider the resolution to be false. We should stick with the original definition, which has served humanity just fine.
People should avoid eating grains entirely

"The one food you should never eat"; "three secret ways grains make you fat"; "gluten is bad for you"; "grains in vegan diets: no, they make you fat or sick." This is ridiculous. Not only is it ridiculous, but it deludes the image of healthy foods in our society, and it down right mocks our origin. Doctors left and right might tell you that bread and cereal will make you fat, and for the most part, they would be RIGHT. With brands today having 10 grams of sugar in every bowl, it's not a wonder why they would say that. ( http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... ) But when it comes down to the pure grains themselves, such as steamed rice, you would only get as fat from them as you would from vegetables and lean meat--if you ate 13 cups worth in a single day. ( http://www.fns.usda.gov... ) And what about gluten? Isn't there research that it causes constipation and diarrhea? Yeah, if you have NCGS or Coeliac disease ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ). But unless you're in that 2%, gluten doesn't isn't any more harmful than the protein in meat--because gluten IS protein. Protein is not going to straight turn you into a blimp. Finally, most people don't seem to understand that society itself began from agriculture. Whether they were from Europe, Asia, or Africa, your ancestors had eaten grains for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and yet we haven't descended as giant flaps of fat. Do I even need proof for this? We haven't replaced the hippo as the largest naked land animal because of our history of eating grains, and we shouldn't be dissuaded by sob stories or scares scams to think that we are. If anything, it's the excess sugar companies put in almost everything. Just buy a bag of rice.
People should avoid eating grains entirely

A lot of that is true: humans originally had a diet of meat and fruit, along with other omnivorous primates. However, humans have evolved significantly from 2.8 million years ago--especially considering that the modern Homo sapiens only appeared a hundred thousand (100,000) years ago, and archaic Homo sapiens about nine hundred thousand (900,000) years ago (1). From one your sources (2), agriculture began about 11,700 ago, making up 11.7% of modern human history, not 0.004%. There is further proof of recent human evolution: we humans have much smaller jaws compared other primates, and a painful reminder is our wisdom teeth (3); even then, some of us are becoming born without them. We also weren't evolved to digest milk beyond infancy, but a mutation 7,500 years ago has now allowed almost all Europeans and their descendants to consume it without much complications (4). If this took less than eight thousand years, surely eleven thousand years would be enough for even more humans to become able to eat grains. On a separate point, you haven't discussed why we cannot digest grains; we quite literally produce an enzyme in our spit that breaks down starches (amylase), as well as others in our intestinal tract (4). If we were unable to digest the main benefit from grains, this would also void starchy foods such as potatoes, beans, and peas--and the Great Famine in Ireland was caused deprivation of their staple starch (5). In comparison, we cannot even digest the cellulose from most vegetables, implying that we were not evolved to digest them either. Yet, vegetables are strictly enforced as part of a healthy diet, as the useless carbohydrate is otherwise used as bulk to aid digestion (4); nutrients and vitamins are another reason, of course. If we weren't evolved to eat grains, "period", then we weren't evolved to eat vegetables, "period". It doesn't need to be said that the latter idea is preposterous. 1. (page 62) https://books.google.ca... 2. http://www.britannica.com... 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://dujs.dartmouth.edu... 5. http://www.britannica.com...
People should avoid eating grains entirely

The primary reason that people don't think grains are good for you is that humans were not evolved to eat grains. Period. During the millions of years that humans evolved, they ate a diet consisting of mostly berries/fruits, and meat. "The earliest well-accepted evidence for this novel dietary behavior" (eating meat) comes from about 2.6 Ma at the site of Gona, Ethiopia"(1). The "evidence" is the marks found on bones. The reason we know that humans ate fruits, berries, bark, etc, is that scientists can tell the amount of carbon inside of fossilized teeth. So in general, humans had not begin to "engage in agriculture until about 15,000"10,000 years before the present." (2) Considering the fact that humans have been around for around 2.8 million years, this means that humans have only been eating grains for around .004% of our existence on Earth. So, with these facts, it is safe to assume that humans have NOT evolved to consume grains. (1) http://www.nature.com... (2) http://www.britannica.com...
racial profiling

I thank my opponet for having the willingness to challenge me on this debate. Though before we go on with this debate, let's make some clear expectations for this debate. Respectfulness: : a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way Examples; He has earned their respect. The soldier saluted as a sign of respect. Despite our differences, I have enormous respect for him. I have a great respect for his accomplishments. I expect to be treated with respect. Your theory makes sense in one respect. This being said, if you disagree with me and feel something is stupid and or idiotic, by all means say it. Just give your explanations as to why and your evidence to support it. Now I will be arguing that racial profiling means this... "The Broader DefinitionUnder the broader definition, racial profiling occurs when a law enforcement officer uses raceor ethnicity as ONE of several factors in deciding to stop, question, arrest, and/or searchsomeone. An example of racial profiling under this broader definition would be a police stopbased on the confluence of the following factors:" age (young);" dress (hooded sweatshirt, baggy pants, etc.);" time of day (late evening);" geography (in the "wrong" neighborhood); and" race or ethnicity (black or Hispanic).9The term "profiling" refers to the police practice of viewing certain characteristics as indicators of criminal behavior.4Profiling is reportedly an established law enforcement practice throughoutthe nation, having evolved during the past few decades with the incorporation of social sciencetheory and statistical methodology into law enforcement"s crime solving and crime preventionstrategies. Although not a panacea, profiling has been shown to be a successful supplement toolder and more fundamental policing strategies."http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us......Then my examples:"Racial profiling simply assumes that an individual may more likely be the perpetrator of a crime because their appearance matches the race of a suspect. Just like the more recent event that took place in New York city. Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis attempted to bomb a Federal Reserve building."http://www.nytimes.com...... "For one, the JFK assassination. They used "racial" profiling in that case and in finding all the domestic and foreign terrorist who conspired against the U.S. through terror accurately."To add on to my point, they have even used racial profiling as a means to tear apart the KKK. If you want evidence of this I can show it as well. __________________________________________All of the above being said.. Con must prove racial profiling is something used to target specifically ONE race, ethnicity, or culture. He must also prove racial profiling is NOT more so based on criminal characteristics as much as someone's race, ethinicity, or culture.
Humans cause climate changing

First, as Con have said, "in the Mesozoic era the climate was much hotter and dryer". It is true, but the important thing is that it was 248 million years ago. The climate had been changing slowly during millions of years, before the industry. While, after people invented factories, vehicles and different weapons, such as nuclear weapons, Atom Bomb, rockets and etc. the climate have been changing quickly and humans caused it. For example, when rockets launches, Atom Bomb and nuclear weapons are used, irreparable damage to the climate is caused immediately. Humans even change the weather as they wish. For example, China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue skies for the National Day parade. It happens in other countries, too. They try to change weather and get the desire result. But it has consequences, as on the next days there happened a storm. These examples, show that humans changed the weather, as they desire and damaged to the climate a lot. Second, it is true that "humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases", while humans cause the biggest amount of gases. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world claimed: "The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years." It proves that humans cause climate changing and they influences to it quickly than it can be naturally. To conclude, humans are the main creature that caused a big problems in climate changing and damage it during a short period of time. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Humans cause climate changing

There is no doubt the temperature of the earth is rising. The temperature figures prove this. However, what is more open to discussion, is whether the changing climate is due to human influence or if it some natural phenomenon. My opponent has based her case around the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, while atmospheric CO2 levels are high, it is not a certainty that this is caused by humans.In fact, the globe has, at periods in it's past, been hotter than it is now. In the Mesozoic era. better know as the reign of the dinosaurs, the climate was much hotter and dryer than it is now and there was certainly no industry back then to emit greenhouse gases. There was also little or no ice at the poles for extended periods of time. My point is, if there is proof that it happened once, then why can't the climate rise without human interference yet again. (http://www.enchantedlearning.com...)My next point is in regards to my opponents link between deforestation and climate change. While it is a problem that deforestation has such a negative impact on the ecosystem and is threatening the lives of many species, it is not a climate change issue. Tree's are not actually the best organisms for removing C02 from the air. This title belongs to algae. A colony of algae has the ability to photosynthesise more carbon dioxide in a year than a tree will in it's entire life. Add to this the fact that algae can reproduce rapidly, take up less space, and are now being farmed for their sustainable properties and biomass promises and the loss of a few CO2 reducing trees does not have such a devastating affect on the atmosphere. (http://www.ecogreenglobe.com...) (http://allaboutalgae.com...) Also, humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases. Methane a gas that has stronger greenhouse affect than CO2 has been rising off wetlands for ages. While humans do contribute to methane in the atmosphere, wetlands have long been responsible for methane emmisions due to methane producing bacteria. Termites, Hydrates, Wild Fires and Animals also all produce methane. My point here is that, while humans are producing chemicals like methane and CO2, so to is the environment, meaning that humans are not he only source and hence not the ultimate cause of the greenhouse affect. (http://www.epa.gov...)24hrs is rather short time to research and formulate arguments to I'll leave it at that for now and await my opponents response.
Humans cause climate changing

Climate changing is one of the most important issues on the last decades. The results of climate changing appears around the world. For example, earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan, lack of water in Africa, and anomalous warming on the Earth. What does cause all these changes? It seems to me that human beings influences to climate and I am going to prove it. At first, burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, to generate energy has the greatest impact on the atmosphere. How much harmful things are on the atmosphere because of factories, vehicles and burning trash. All these things gather and hinder rain, snow and even sun. It changes climate. (1) Second, deforestation is one of the biggest harm that people do to the nature. Forests help protect the planet by absorbing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant type of pollution that causes climate change. However, people cut trees, too. So, it causes climate changing. What do human beings think about? (2) Those are main problems that are lead to climate changing and that are caused by people. To conclude, it means humans influence climate changing. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://worldwildlife.org...
Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.

To bear arms means "" to carry weapons"" you say pointing a gun at a deer is not in fact bearing arms interesting (and wrong). Most club houses are not in fact big enough to store safely and securely all the guns of all there members / visitors it would also be a massive expense. So my argument is valid and you have provided no credible argument to suggest the second amendment is no longer applicable to modern day life.
Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms. You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities. The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks. Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!
Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.

The second amendment reads ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"". The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes. Yes self-defence is included, but also recreational purposes such as hunting, and target shooting, with over 40 million people participating in such recreational activities in the USA it is highly relevant.
Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.

TY for accepting my challenge. The second amendment was written during the post-revolutionary period when there was a lot of instability in America, it was refering to bearing arms against Native Americans, British attackers, corrupted governments, etc. It was a time during which attack was quite common, and weapons were generally necessary. Today, there is none of that, when homeowners start carrying guns, then criminals start carrying guns. You take away the guns, it is all fine and dandy!
capitalism vs. socialism

I agree W/ the opponent's definition of "better. Now for the status quo, Capitalism and socialism is right now two of the most widespread and used political and economical system in the world.. socialism believes that the production and distribution should be owned and regulated by the nantion as a whole. While capitalism believes that the economy is pwned and regulated by private sector for profits.. the problem with socialism is that due to the regulation of product the society would get an easy access to an economical wealth. At first glance this is great, everyone's rich and provided for. But in another way, this brings all productivity to a halt, thus running the nation itself into the ground. While our goal is to make everyone work and get payments and wealth according to their contributions to the nation, which can ve easily achieved by capitalism.
capitalism vs. socialism

Hello, I've accepted your debate of Capitalism vs Socialism. I will be arguing on the side of Socialism. I assume we will be arguing on which is better and I would like to give a definition of better for this debate which I hope my opponent will agree with: Better- Comparative of good and well. In other words we will be arguing which is the system that works the best not simply in terms of production but also in terms of morality and well-being. We will attempt to determine which is the better overall system when considering all factors. Thank you and good luck to my opponent.