BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It should be legal to murder prostitutes

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Since my opponent affirms the resolution "it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes", he affirms this in ALL cases. If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder. /// It would be impossible for me to affirm the resolution that murder should be legal, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person [2]. Therefore it is logically impossible for murder to be legal. I am advocating that killing should be legal. ~ ///Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes. /// The resolution also does not state that "it should be legal to murder ALL prostitutes. " I have shown that as the resolution stands it is logically impossible to affirm and therefore have reasonably, I believe, changed the word 'murder' to 'kill. ' I would also like to bring up the point that my opponent, though Con in the debate, is the instigator and should bear at least some burden of proof. He has provided no justification for his stance that we shouldn't murder prostitutes. I on the other hand have supported the idea that at least in some instances killing prostitutes should be legal, even if my opponent believes these arguments to be unsatisfactory to fulfill the resolution. ~ ///Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition. /// Since my opponent agrees to my definition of prostitution and does not contest the idea that professional hitmen fall under the definition this argument stands. ~ ///And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well. /// Ad hominem, this statement should at least give me the conduct point. ~ In conclusion I have shown that there are instances where killing prostitutes should be legal whereas my opponent has only stated that I have to affirm that murdering all prostitutes should be legal, as the instigator I believe that he should bear at least some of the burden of proof and he did not attempt to defend his side. I end my arguments and urge a Pro vote. [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It should be legal to murder prostitutes

" The resolution of this debate is "It should be legal to murder prostitutes." Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, "It should be legal to kill prostitutes." All murder is killing. Some killing is murder. Since my opponent affirms the resolution "it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes", he affirms this in ALL cases. If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder. There is no way around this. "Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution." The resolution is "it should be legal to murder prostitutes" not "there is an instance where killing prostitutes should be legal." Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes. My opponent argues that "it should be legal to murder prostitutes", and therefore asserts that ALL murdering of prostitutes should be legal. "Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour." Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition. "Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people." Again, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. And it follows that my opponents elaborate example involving professional hitmen is irrelevant and does not hold any weight in this argument. To conclude, I realize my opponent still has one more round left, so to be fair, I request that he does not make any new arguments or definitions unless they are in direct rebuttal of my argument. If my opponent makes any new arguments, they should be ignored by the voters. And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well.
It should be legal to murder prostitutes

I will be assuming that my opponent is referring to American law as he and I are both from America and he gave no specific country in his opening statement. The resolution of this debate is "It should be legal to murder prostitutes. " Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, "It should be legal to kill prostitutes. " Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution. Definitions: Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour. . http://en.wiktionary.org... Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people. . http://en.wikipedia.org... ~~~~~~~~ Arguments ~~~~~~~~ While it may not be proper to refer to those that do legal activities for money as prostitutes, I would not hesitate to call those that do illegal activities for money prostitutes. This includes more than just those that sell their bodies for sex. I contend that professional hitmen are prostitutes because they sell their illegal skills to clients at a set or negotiable price, aka contract killing. It is therefore my contention that killing professional hitmen should be legal and in fact can be justified in America's current legal system. There is a legal concept called 'necessity' which basically means that a person should not be held responsible for their illegal actions because their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm [1]. This concept can be used as justification because professional hitmen by definition kill people for money. I would say that it typically does not matter to the professional hitmen who the person that they are killing is as long as they are paid for doing the killing. Therefore by the concept of necessity it is justifiable to kill the professional hitman in order to save all of their potential victims. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marvel universe vs DC universe

Here are just a few of the reasons that marvel would defeat DC in an all out battle. Invincible There are many Marvel characters which are classified as indestructible meaning that even superman couldn't"t touch them some examples are all of the gods (Odin, Thor, Zeus) Hulks (Hulk, She-hulk, skaar, Red Hulk, Abomination), healing factor (Wolverine, Dead Pool, Saber Tooth, Apocalypse). DC and Marvel have characters like Captain America and Batman where they are good fighters but unfortunately are mortal but DC simply has more of the mortal characters and marvel has more immortal characters. All of the Cosmic Entities are also indestructible. Weakness Most every DC character has a weakness. Let us analyze superman prime which is just a beefed up superman who lost his one main weakness, kryptonite. This guy could fly through a star but he still had all these weaknesses. He has mental instability which someone like professor x could exploit. And is one other big weakness is Solar energy it significantly decreases his powers. Let"s not forget led. Cosmic Entities Marvel has people like Franklin Richards who can manipulate reality so they could simply erase DCU from existence. One other example is Eternity who can be everywhere at once which is also called omnipresence and can change the universe in any way he would like which Is also called omnipotent. A few more awesome cosmic entities are the celestials who can create universes at will and that implies destroying them and there are billions of Celestials. There is the Heart of the Universe and whoever wields it has total omnipotence. Some characters that could beat DCU using emotions and love are Mistress Love and Master Hate, Master hate would turn everyone against each other. My favorite all time character is Beyonder his power is Omnipotence if it is thought it is done. He could have a simple thought that DCU is gone and poof it is gone. You should also look up Living Trinubial http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) http://superman.wikia.com...(One_Million) http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616) http://marvel.wikia.com...
Football is better than basketball

I'm a Master Debater. This has everything to do with everything. I'm fairly certain I could end all wars with a conversation about staplers. Possibly world hunger too if I described my knowledge of the glockenspiel. "If you can't stand the TittySprinkler, get out of the kitchen." - a plaque on Harry S. Truman's desk, while he was in office as President. Also, his middle name was literally S. Bam.
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

In my last argument, I did NOT insult Pamtri. I simply compared him to Videos For people, because both of them use low quality animation to add appeal to their stuff. Pamtri's stuff is actually quite good and entertaining, but I claim that Videos for people is actually better. Pamtri uses violence and low quality humor. Videos for people, on the other hand, does not resort to shock value, and uses light, satirical humor. In addition, Pamtri's work is far removed from reality, and gives a surreal feeling, but Videos for people always seems to be rooted in reality. they're both fine, of course, but in different ways, and if I had to choose, I would pick Videos for people. Now, as to what you said- "There is no voice"- I ask you: does there really NEED to be a voice? Videos for people seems to function fine without it. The strange lack of dialogue also increases the mystery and anonymity of the whole thing. If he did use his real voice, then the mystery would be broken, and everything would be ruined. that's one of the fun things about his channel. Also, for heaven's sake, there doesn't need to be any voice. Humans can communicate just as well in written words as they can with spoken words. And, finally, you said that it isn't funny. That's dead wrong. This channel and nearly everything on it is as funny as hell. It's a unique type of humor, and you may take some time to adjust to it, but once it settles in, you can get used to it. Look, for instance, at his recent video on the Stanford prison experiment. We can see from this video that the creator has a high intellect, to know about this look into the duality of man. The characters are funny. They talk, they dance around, and the way he does facial expressions is really something zany. Everything about this channel is funny. The music always fits well with the situation given. He is just one huge hilarity after the next. He is very funny. Please, voters, vote for me. I've made longer, better arguments, and my opponent refuses to write over 100 words. I hope that you make the right choice. Consider well, and good luck. Tell WHY you voted as you did, please. As for you, sir, I await your final argument.
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

Well, his content really isn't for me. You may like it, but i really don't like his content. There ARE however very good channels with animation, i DARE YOU to try watching 5 videos from a YouTuber called "Pamtri" he makes animations that are VERY funny. I would like to say i am sorry for my previous arguments, i was being rude. i just watched one of his videos, there is no voice, it has bad animation. It really isn't funny. I will await your argument
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

Oh, ha ha. Post three sentences instead of one. I see what you did there. It's a good loophole. In the next round, I strongly encourage you to post entire paragraphs. You don't have a chance of winning if you appear illiterate. Still, here are my counter arguments: His amount of subscribers doesn't have anything to do with how good a channel he is. Popularity is not a valid measure of quality. One musician can suck and have millions of fans, and some musicians can be great and have no fans. he only has 5 subscribers because nobody pays any attention to him. Once more people see his stuff, they'll start subscribing. His channel is simply so underrated that you can't expect it to have too many subscribers. Thus, this argument is invalid. His Videos, in my opinion, are not meant to be animated. he's not trying to animate them, he's trying to create a new art form altogether. His videos are like comic strips, there are only motionless panels, no motion whatsoever. This may be annoying for people who like cartoons but, in my opinion, it sets his stuff apart from other stuff and doesn't diminish the quality a bit. The art might be bad, but look at Youtubers like Pamtri who purposefully pump out low quality CGI videos. Same thing here, it's done on purpose. The low quality is a kind of ruse for the ACTUAL quality of his videos, which is contained in the WORDS. So, this argument is invalid. I await your next argument. Please do something exciting.
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

Ok, I'll try and humor you here. Hunter Avalone, from what I can gather, is a conservative guy who talks about his opinions and stuff. That's fine, but we're not talking about him, here. We could, but I suggest we stick to the topic at hand and discuss what we were talking about. I feel that they can't really be compared. Hunter and Videos are so different that they have almost nothing in common. One is a goofy cartoon, one talks about real world issues. They have nothing in similar. You've got to compare Videos to another cartoon thing, at the very least. He does bring up politics every now and then, but that's not at the core of his wisdom. Do you only support Hunter because you agree with his opinions? That's OK, but you've got to judge things by their quality too. If something is funny, I'm more likely to agree with it. I agree with Videos for people a lot. He presents his perspective with lots of evidence. Anyway, quit with Hunter, let's talk about the whole point of this debate, which is whether or not Videos is a good Youtube channel. I ask, please, that for the following rounds, you use more than one sentence. It's mildly annoying and I was hoping to do something exciting, like maybe a heated argument or something. You've got to post more than one sentence. Use evidence and stuff. Go ahead, I'm waiting, take it nice and easy. I hope that, in the next round, you can use your staggering wit to convey your contempt for this thing we're talking about. Go ahead, sir. I'm all set.
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

Oh, don't worry, sir. I won't forfeit you. I'm fully prepared to win this debate. I look forward to everything and I hope that you, as my opponent, see some of his videos, and decide for yourself what their quality is, and then come back here and make some nice, legible arguments. So, here we go, with my second argument. Videos for people isn't just funny. He's also very relevant. The way he covers current topics is astounding. He represents humanity in his recent "Voyager Picture Parody" using only 13 or so roughly drawn images, and he seems to know what's happening every week, commenting on the current news and stuff like that. His parodies are genius. He really knows how to make fun of something. In one video, he makes fun of a sitcom, which I assume may be Modern Family. Recently, he brilliantly chopped up those annoying Geico ads. He hates internet culture a lot, too. I can see from his "Botchtojo" series that he despises those stupid top 10 lists. Then, there's his "Creepypasta world" series, where he pokes fun at the ridiculousness of modern online urban legends. And sometimes, occasionally, he makes fun of horrible internet trends, like the Harlem Shake, the cinnamon thing, and so on. My personal favorite, though, when he makes fun of the internet, is one in which a goofy scientist talks about how important science is to the world, and then says that nobody is interested in it, so he just takes out a hydraulic press and crushes things. That is some real talent. One of the most bizarre things about his stuff, though, is the medium he uses. It distinguishes his videos from anyone else's. He uses an online slideshow thing, one can see from his descriptions, which would normally be used to showcase vacation photos or stuff like that. But he doesn't use it in that way, he uses it to present comprehensible storylines and little stick figures that he draws on MS paint. There is no animation of any kind, except for the slides going from one to the next. The stick figures remain completely motionless, but they still seem alive. This is a bizarre way to make cartoons, he could just use some kind of animation thing, and yet the lack of motion gives a kind of intellectual quality to all of it. It makes everything less hyper and more calm. Videos for people is a great Youtube channel. I await your next argument.
Videos for people is an insanely good Youtube channel.

About a month ago, I started debates about this thing, and ever since then, I've had to keep making new ones, because my opponents are inept. This debate is open for anyone who is willing to debate me on this. please debate thoroughly and pose engaging questions. I look forward to our argument. Your round one argument will be the counter argument to the following: Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him. He is a hidden genius. I have never seen any videos like his and I don't think there ever will be anything like his. They are completely unique. They are so funny that I can't stop laughing. I don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but I can identify with him. His videos are unique. They are done using stick figures. The stick figures are badly drawn, and created using MS paint, but their quality isn't what matters. What matters, really, is what they do. They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff. Nothing is too insane for this guy to tackle. Every video seems more bizarre than the last. But, although his videos are weird, they still seem somewhat normal, so the viewer isn't removed from reality. He uses normal language in his writing. There isn't any dialogue, only music. everything is written. His videos are the better than anything else I have ever seen. I am a devoted fan to the way he interprets things. Every video of his resonates with me. Videos for people is a genius. I don't know who he is, and I have no desire to uncover his identity. Knowing his identity isn't necessary to enjoy anything he makes. He's quirky, and I enjoy his videos. I await your first argument. Good luck!
Are dogs the best pet ever

Opening Statement: Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I still start with my opening statement as Con. The definition of pet; a domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure. Therefore removing the purpose of dogs for work such as the dalmatian for the firemen or attack dogs for police. My main points are: 1. Dogs have to be trained. Most dogs have to be trained at a young age otherwise they will defecate almost anywhere, become rowdy, not know the boundaries of the house and won't understand any of the commands you give them. This could be a hassle to those with busy schedules hence making it more practical to own a cat as they are easily potty trained and they have a sense of territory because they mark their territory by rubbing it allowing you to understand what the cat considers its territory allowing you to scold him/her for going beyond their territory unlike dogs therefore making cats the more practical pet for a busy person hence the dog is not the best pet. 2. Cats are easier to maintain. Most dogs require affection and this really messes up a busy person's schedule unlike cats who do not require much attention however they still require attention, just not as much as dogs. Dogs also are known for being rowdy and sometimes their owners like them this way, however, due to the dogs rowdiness, they may destroy furniture and other objects at your house. Cats may also do the same, however they don't destroy as much as dogs because they don't get this rowdy however they will still be active and ready to play when their owner is there unlike most dogs who constantly are rowdy due to way they were trained and made. Dogs also bark a lot at night causing discomfort to the neighbors, some dogs can be trained but sometimes this can't be avoided, unlike cats who meow loudly at night but aren't loud enough to cause discomfort in the neighbors. Dogs also require more grooming unlike cats who lick themselves and groom themselves. 3. The Cost and other small inconveniences. In the end, dogs ultimately cost more to take care of because of the maintenance. Dogs also live shorter than cats therefore lessening the amount of time one can spend with its owners. Cats also gets rids or small pests like roaches and rats. Cited From: Dachis, A. (2014, March 11). Dogs vs. Cats: Your Best Arguments. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://lifehacker.com... "Cat vs Dog." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 15 Mar 2016. < http://www.diffen.com... >
Winner take all states

Once again, this is not a debate over the electoral college this is a debate over how electoral votes are awarded. Should they reflect all the votes cast or just the majority. The Pro side provided a link to define "winner take all" but that same web page questions the legality of "winner take all". It goes on to say, "Because winner-take-all elections allow the single largest politically cohesive group to elect every office in a jurisdiction, they may result in racial minority vote dilution in places where voting is racially polarized. For that reason, they may be illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Such vote dilution is typically remedied by drawing or redrawing district lines for single-winner districts and including at least one district in which the racial minority population will be able to elect a candidate of choice. In some cases, however, vote dilution is remedied by changing the winner-take-all voting method to a proportional or semi-proportional voting method." It also says, "Winner-take-all systems typically reward strong, larger parties while penalizing weak, smaller parties. Proportional representation guarantees that smaller parties garner representation that is proportionate to their votes received in an election"