BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Astrology is Logical and Scientific.

Okay here's your debate A lot of people who practice astrology and believe in it seem to do so without knowing why it works. They simply intuit that it is effective, and use it as a practical way to view their life. As open minded people it should be our duty to actually analyze topics such as astrology and actually look to see if there is any validity. It is my personal opinion that astrology may very well be accurate. Of course there are tabloid forms of it that are less effective, but on the whole it seems to me that people long ago, people who were concerned with their very survival, would not have used it unless they had found it to be pragmatically helpful. The art of astrology is very ancient and dates back to the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians and perhaps before. Of course the Mayan prophecies talked about about the moving of the Earth through grand cycles in a similar way to the astrological 'ages' in western astrology as well as the Yugas in Hindu lore. The idea that heavenly bodies may effect us in some way is not at all far fetched. The most obvious example would be the moon, whose gravity pulls the tides, which has a very visible effect on the earth and humans. It is said that before artificial light was introduced, women would menstruate with the cycles of the moon, and I have heard statistics that violent crimes rise with the full moon. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This is where we get the old folk tales of werewolves and the like, it is also where we get the term 'lunacy' from the latin word for the moon, Luna. The earth is a planet interlocked with other planets, and as with any interlocking system, what happens to part effects the whole. This could connect to the Holographic Universe Theory in some way, with the outline of the planets being a macrocosm representing the microcosm of life on Earth.There could even be a kind of electrical connection between planets, the earth and the sun are connected electrically, and the earth and other planets may be connected in a similar way. The idea that certain characteristics may be influenced through the planets is also interesting. In 'L'Influence des Astres' published by Michel Gauquelin he put forth the idea that those born when Mars was in the sky showed an increased tendency to be sports champions. I would like it if people put forward theories on what they think is the basis of astrology, scientific or otherwise. I am intrigued by the subject and would like to hear your views on it.
Astrology is Logical and Scientific.

Okay. Yes, the planets and stars had a unique position when I was born. And it changed afterwards. But that can be calculated using astronomy, not astrology. With the advancement of society, we are now able to know whether an asteroid would hit Earth or not, whether a big tornado can come or not. But that is already a different science. That's meteorology and astronomy. What does Astrology say here? Mother Nature controls our lives. Well, I use 'mother nature' as a metaphor and not to describe it as a conscious-being. Atoms control us, of course. But how can Astrology predict the future with that? How can it make bizarre claims about future?
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

i do pretend to offer easy answers. but we as a soeciety, or at least professional doctors, can demarcate when someone is in 'terminal and tortured pain'. this wouldnt allow for back pain. or slight pain at terminal stage. sure there might some be gray cases, but that's just life. we want to get a rule that captures the far and away great majority. again you are just listing some negative aspects. i dont know how you say laws are definite. some of the biggest reasons for a jury is tha tlaws are not definite. besides figuring out what happened, they determine things like whether a peson's actions were 'reasonable' or what level say of murder someone should be at. these are subjective a lot of time. you bring up the depression point. well, perhaps you are right someone else needs to be factored in. someone needs to say this person is terminal and tortured. or at least tortured permanenly or indefinitiely. there may be errors here and there, but that's just life. we want to catch the far and away majority. granting someone soverignty is worth it con's last statement 'lets just kill them off' i'll take as not serious. no one is saying to kill anyone off. we are letting them kill themself off... heh. not serious but then again i kind of am. give them the power to. in a way, it doesnt matter. it's not like a law against it is going to stop someone from killing thmself. what are you going to do, put them in prison?
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc.You're saying that suicide is moral. This is a slippery slope. At one point do we justify that euthanasia should not be permitted? If a patient is experiencing back pain and is suffering from it, do we allow him to kill himself because it's his right? You're arguing based on patient rights but the way you addres it brings up more problems than answers. If I bullied you all through highschool, would it be fair to kill me? These examples demonstrate that you need to have a clear understanding of why the patient is suffering and why he wants to be euthanaized, however, no one can justify a patient's choice but himself. It's a grey area that if not enforced properly, can lead to abuse of power.we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that. There are currently no laws on euthanasia and when you're trying to make laws based off of opinions, they fail. Laws are definite, opinons are infinite. They are based off of people's own perception and experiences. You cannot make a law that can draw a clear distinction between right and wrong in this situation, because people's opinions fluctuates.'i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty Yes, part of the consideration is due to patient rights, however, patients rights are limited in certain circumstances for the safety of the individual or for society. If I was diagnosed with chronic depression. No matter what I tell my doctors that I want to do with my body, they will not abide to my decisions because I am considered to be in altered mental status. Again, in the case of euthanasia, the distinciton between patient rights and environmental factors becomes muddled (repeating reasons stated in R1)you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to doYou're right. Let's just kill them off cause it's easier.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc. if his ulterior motive is to get out of mowing the grass, well, i guess he got away with suicide for silly reasons. at least he was tortured for other reasons. we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that. you act like other people's opinions should trump or at least beconsidered. i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty. who are we, the government, or his friends, to tell John who is living in advanced stages of cancer and in immense pain, that he must suck it up? because johnny would be sad he died? sometimes people might die because someone thought it more efficient that he die, and not because he wanted to. these cases are by far the exception. no rule is perfect, and again we want to ensure the rules catches the far and away majority. you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to do. there will be problems, but that's life. at least we are by far usually doing the right thing.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation.You say it's humane based on the fact that the patient himself is suffering, what about his family/friends? They might object due to religious reasons or "just cause." You can say that its patients right to his body, but how does one make sure that the patient is really choosing death because he wants to and not because of other burdens on his life?liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? The government can limit one's right if an individual's actions has a potential harm to society. In this case, the distraught of family and friends. Moreover, euthanasia justifies death because it's more economically and medically efficient, aka the fear of abusing euthanizing. plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation. I dont think so, a lot of people are against it due to religious reasons.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives. why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation. why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.
The cow did not jump over the moon.

Here is how the debate will work: We will make funny jokes. Mine will be about why the cow did not jump over the moon, and my opponent's will be about why it DID jump over the moon. In votes, "conduct" will refer to how funny the jokes are, and "more convincing arguments" will refer to how much sense the jokes make. No sources, support of topic, or scientific verification will be required. One joke per round. The cow didn't jump over the moon. Chuck Norris kicked it.
Quantum Computing Should Be Created

Many people may think quantum computing will be the next breakthrough in technology, but what most people overlook is hacking. The problem that many hackers have is usually time. For example, when brute forcing a passcode it could take hours if the password is complex. As many people know quantum computers make computing much faster and can probably make something like brute forcing a password to take a couple of seconds. Of course, this is a problem because that would mean no one would be safe. Hackers could do this from a close distance or a far distance, and the passwords could be as easy as a wifi password, or the Pentagon's security. Hackers could open this information up to the public so that everyone can see it. Even if the site does get taken down there is always the deep web which is untraceable and hard to find. I hand this over to my opponent.
Quantum Computing Should Be Created

I would like to debate with anyone who would like to debate about if quantum computers should be created. I will be arguing as the contender, but I do have some rules. Rules: 1) No ad hominem, insults, personal attacks 2) The first round will be used only for my opponent to accept my debate and the rounds 2-5 will be used as a 4 round debate. If any of the rules are violated, the voters should vote for the one who didn't violate them in terms of "conduct"
Quantum Computing Should Be Created

I do agree with my opponent that things can be fixed with quantum computing, but hackers can easily destroy the research that is put into it. For example, let's say that someone is doing research on a cure for cancer. A hacker can hack into the data to steal or change it. There would be no safety because no password is something a quantum computer can hack easily and fast. For example, the article "Your Encryption Will Be Useless Against Hackers with Quantum Computers" at https://motherboard.vice.com... states "Applying such quantum states to efforts to crack encryption could be a game-changer. For example, going through all the possibilities of number combinations to crack a code that is, say, 400 digits long is quite the feat for a classical computer. But for quantum computers, blackboard experiments have indicated that they should be powerful enough to do this." So therefore if someone wanted to they could sabotage a whole entire project like one my opponent just named. I hand this over to my opponent.
Quantum Computing Should Be Created

Ah yes, you are correct, everything that can be used for good, can and will also be used for evil. Do you agree that the pros of quantum computing are far greater than it's cons though, for example modelling molecules to helping us understand complex systems such as our brain and use that information to create cures for diseases at the moment is just not possible? http://www.sciencealert.com... Helping us to simulate the laws of narute to the point it just might be a big part of figuring out the theory of everything?
Police and government are inherently hostile towards activists

To wrap things up, I would just like to clarify that my comments should not be construed as anti-government in any way. I'm just merely stating that this government was founded on the idea of political inclusion. A good government is a reflection of it's people, a collective mind and voice. When government seeks to accumulate power for it's own sake, and not for the people's, then it acts against the ideals of democracy. Government is confusing, bound by statutes forged by people who died long ago which are nearly impossible to interpret without debate, and written in the legalese of two centuries past. It's easy for people to feel distant from government, and it's even easier for government to forget WHY it does what it does. They shouldn't act in their own interests like a monarch would, but instead work for the benefit of society AND in the manner that society wishes it too. When the government sends the law enforcement and intelligence community to identify, regulate, and disperse activists, it silences a portion of the American people, the portion that speak up. You can't call yourself free and walk around the streets wearing blindfolds and gags. Whenever a group in the United States has held an opinion that dissented from mainstream society, and brought those views to the streets with demonstrations, the government has reacted negatively. People think that just because police don't outright attack protesters in the streets anymore (or as much), that things have gotten better. They haven't, the times have changed and the government has changed the ways they retaliate to match those times. The act of spying on law abiding American activists is on par with the Watergate scandal, and the acts perpetrated against those activists with the aid of that information are no better than the actions of police during the civil rights movement. Both of those incidents served the same purpose; to identify the opposition and weaken it. This is the free world, where opposing views are supposed to be cherished and exchanged with others, not labeled as irrelevant and thrown out the window. Which is why the United States justice system has to take a step back and look at itself, determine what their basic functions were meant to be and highlight any deviations from that base. In closing, a government can only have the respect of it's citizenry if it bestows the same upon them. And a government that has no need for the respect of it's people also has no right to rule over them.
Police and government are inherently hostile towards activists

The pen is mightier than the sword. While the inventor of the phrase is often debated, whoever first spoke those words had no idea what kind of shockwave they had just unleashed on the universe. A skilled writer is a deadly weapon. Entire empires have been burned to the ground by disgruntled philosophers and poets. Not directly of course, but through the actions of their followers. Through their readers, writers like Thomas Paine and Karl Marx have torn down nations, and founded new ones. Through the ages, smart leaders have recognized the power of ideas and have responded differently. Some have embraced the free flow of knowledge; recognizing the need to allow change, others have actively fought any idea which contradicted their ideals, burning books and imprisoning authors to silence any opposition. In America, the 1st amendment to the constitution of the United States states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances". In theory, this allows for the free flow of information. In practice however, administrations have built loopholes that allow the government to censor, or in some cases ban, controversial information. Things like NDAA and the Patriot Act are enacted in the guise of safety, but the reality is that they only serve to erode the rights of the American citizenry. Government had no need for these laws before, when our nation faced even bigger threat from foes like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, why do thy need them now? The truth is that the government is just plain sick of playing by the rules, it has been since 1776. It's nothing personal, all governments inherently serve to consolidate power to some degree or another, thats why the people need to keep a firm hand on government to make sure it doesn't get out of control, but just like anyone else, government doesn't like being told what to do. One way we influence government in the United States is through activism and protests. When African-Americans protested for inclusion in the electoral process by simply peacefully walking en masse from place to place during the Selma to Montegomery marches, they were met with fire hoses, attack dogs, tear gas, and batons. Dozens died at the hands of "public servants". Nearly 6,000 soldiers from the National Guard and Army had to be called out to stop police from murdering these activists. This is just one example of an ongoing issue, a symptom of a much larger problem. The government says it protects the right to free speech, but they only carry this duty out selectively at best.
The Mona Lisa is disappointing

You are certainly correct in saying, "the size could be bigger." But size does not matter if the art is beautiful. The Mona Lisa has an undeniable aura as a painting even though (or even perhaps because of) it is small and greenish. I don't think the Mona Lisa is disappointing. The talent behind it, not the size, should be what matters. "More is better," a uniquely American concept, seems to hold that an artwork's size matters, as if it was the "before" picture in a Viagra ad. This is NOT, I repeat NOT the case. An artwork's soul is what matters, not its size, its patina, etc. You could have been subjective and said, "The Mona Lisa was disappointing TO ME," but you did not. Even if the painting WAS disapointing to you--and I hold that judging a painting by its size is improper--that does not make it so for the majority of people who have seen the Mona Lisa.
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Line-by-line: "Our economy would not be where it is today"--> 1. There is no evidence for this. Or analysis for that matter. But if you think about this logically, you will see that the advertisements that ‘increased the economy' would have been used in other places. 2. This would only show that in THIS case, it was used properly. So the hammer built the house (if you will), but you're forgetting about the people who have been cyber-bullied or even pushed to the point of suicide. This just shows how it can be used good and bad and therefore it can't be determined if it is a positive impact or a negative impact. "Communication opportunities would be smaller"--> 1. All tools have their benefits. Even a gun. EVEN A NUCLEAR WEAPON. But that does not mean that there is an automatic positive effect. 2. I'm not advocating elimination of Social Networking Sites. 3. You can still call someone! This debate just goes to show that with great power comes great responsibility. But you can not just up and vote PRO because some people use that responsibility properly. 4. Communication increase in a computer to computer basis increases blatant bullying. This is because it is easier to type what you think rather than to say it. Look to the girl that was pushed to suicide because of social networking sites. And this was all made possible by an ‘increase in communication.' AGAIN, it is how you use it. "businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently" -Businesses can always assemble over the internet OR in real life (sorry if I come off as old fashioned.) -TV advertisements still exist. -The efficiency is as good as it can be bad. All it takes is a click of the send message before I just told someone how much I hate them. AGAIN, it is how you use it. No direct effect (impact) happens from something that doesn't have a brain. The people with the brains have the actual effect. Whether they call someone, or use a social networking site, or whether they make fun of someone on facebook, or in real life. It is the PEOPLE with the impact. Therefore, vote CON! Thanks for this debate!