BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Everyone under 16 should be put to death for the sake of humanity

The reason children are so terrible today is because of advancements in technology, meaning they never have to work a day of their lives and that when they do have to work, they b!tch and moan about it. They also do these “terrible” things to the entertainment biz because that stuff is simple, catches their attention, doesn’t make them think, and they have a lot of free time. Even if we killed off all the children, the new batch of children that will be born will be just as bad or worse than the generation before, due to technology making their lives easier and easier. So for the sake of it, think of all the cute babies you’ll be killing off for nothing since the new batch of children won’t be any better. Generations evolve and it’s natural so just let it play out. Complaining Like explained earlier, killing off the children won’t solve this problem because the fresh batch of children will be just as bad. In addition, let’s remember that adults b*tch nearly just as much as children do, just look at GWL-CPA. …He just doesn’t understand why kids love the taste Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Anyways, politicians are the main source of all of the b*tching that goes around, so target them. Making Things Terrible It’s children that make people like Nicki Minaj popular, and they will continue to make annoying pop stars popular so that really doesn’t solve that problem. Let’s also remember that every older generation thinks that the younger generation’s music is crap, it’s been that way since mah great great granpappy were alive. My opponent talks about how children ruin cartoons. Cartoons are made for kids, kids don’t choose whether they are crappy or not. Let’s also remember that the old Spongebob was part of the generation you want so badly to kill off. Fashion, really? Who gives a flying f*ck about what people wear. Sure the girls are a bit showy but what guy doesn’t like that? Ima argues cars. Seriously?! Every kid you know will say they love trucks and muscle cars (Mustang, Challenger) and you really think that’s bad taste? Age of Chicks Ya Bang You’re killing off all kids 15 and under. You still have to deal with the 16 year olds and the 17 year olds and let’s be honest, if you “mistake” a 15 year old or younger kid for an 18 year old then you were probably pretty desperate yourself. It’s the 16 and 17 year olds that are the problem and you aren’t fixing it by killing all the people younger than them. Actual Arguments “Killing off all the minors will give huge breathing room to social security in the future” I don’t know much about social security so I’ll drop this. Let’s just remember, is it worth killing that innocent, adorable baby for some political gain? “it will give education breathing room as well since everyone will either be a junior in high school or higher” Then we’ll watch every private school crash. “a lot less people will be killed from car accidents which are often caused by teenagers.” You’re killing everyone under 16, so this argument doesn’t work.
Resolved: Everyone under 16 should be put to death for the sake of humanity

Reasons why everyone under 16 should be put to death immediately:1) They b*tch about EVERYTHINGYou know how these days when something's got you down and you just move past it? 16 year olds b*tch about EVERYTHING! 'oh no, my gf that ive been in a relationship for 4 days hasnt replied to my text, our relationship is over waaaa'. Heres an idea, MAN THE F-CK UP! 16 year olds b*tch about everything, just ask anyone who is a parent of a teen. If everyone under 16 was put to death, we wouldnt have to deal with any more of their whiny bullsh*t2) They make everything terribleThe main reason why music is so bad these days is because 13 year old girls are the only people who buy music anymore... I mean Bieber? Nicki Minaj? BOTDF? There are actually people who think that One Direction is infinitely times better then the Beatles! If we want to save music from becoming sh*tty, we need to kill everyone under 16 years old!Its not just music either. When was the last time you saw a good cartoon show and you enjoyed it? Chances are, NOT IN A LONG TIME! Because all these young kids have made cartoons absolute sh*t... I mean I cant even WATCH new episodes of Spongebob anymore since its gotten so bad yet I still remember the one where the pioneers drove rocks for miles! Cartoons, fashion, cars, music, video games.... ALL of it has gotten worse because everyone 16 years old and younger has terrible taste in everything! We must choose between killing all music, video games, tv, etc...... or killing everyone under the age of 16..... Take your pick3) Not have to guess age of the chicks you bang anymoreYou know those 15 year olds who have the body of a 19 year old and you have to really think if shes lying about her age so that if you make sex to her you dont go to jail for rape? Well if we kill off everyone who is under 16 then we wont have that problem anymore, and people can be free to date anyone they want without fearing if they are dating a minor who just happens to have some slammin titties. 4) Actual argumentsjust so that this doesnt get removed or reported Ill include some 'actual' arguments so that this doesnt qualify as a hateful debate. A lot of people get butthurt easily by stuff so just let me do this for the sake of precaution...If we kill off everyone under 16 it doesnt mean we always kill them, this is a one time thing and people can start making babies again after its all over. Killing off all the minors will give huge breathing room to social security in the future, it will give education breathing room as well since everyone will either be a junior in high school or higher, a lot less people will be killed from car accidents which are often caused by teenagers. Alright that should be enough (feel free to bullsh*t your way past these actual arguments)
1984 vs The Hunger Games

I appreciate the acceptance of the debate, and might I add that I also disagree with the posting of dead fetuses. 1. In 1984 the proletariat are controlled through their minds, but in the Hunger Games, the equivalent of the proletariat, the outer districts, are controlled through hard labor. A society that relies more on mind control is easier to arise because the mind can change. For an interesting read, The Brain That Changes Itself by M.D. Norman Doidge. The point is that the brain is a mold-able entity. This is essentially how the porn industry is so big, they can literally change the firing of neurons in the brain. Back to the point. A society that relied on the control of the brain has already essentially rose. Hitler's rise in Germany is very similar to the rise of Oceania. In fact, Orwell's book is specifically designed to attempt to parallel Nazi Germany. (1) (2) Thus, unless point 1 is refuted, my opponent will need to show that either Nazi Germany was not a parallel society to Oceania, or that a society similar to The Hunger Games has also arose. 2. Secondly, a society similar to Oceania would arise due to a poorly informed proletariat. However, in The Hunger Games, it seems the outer districts are subject to the Capitol due to a broken will as opposed to lack of conscious thought. Thus, the rise of Oceania only takes a slow massaging away of the common man's conscious, something our technology today is dangerously nearing today, whereas the broken will in The Hunger Games can only be caused by great wars and even greater oppression after those wars, which is much more difficult and costly than the former. Oceania-One of three powerful empires in 1984. 1. http://www.bookrags.com... 2. http://www.k-1.com...
1984 vs The Hunger Games

What the heck; having been accused of cowardice and immaturity this evening because I happen to think that posting pictures of dead fetuses on DDO is un-kosher in the extreme, I could do with something light. Like oppressive dystopias. Yeah. That'll do.In referring to The Hunger Games, I'll assume that we're talking about the society presented in all three novels of the series (references are made to aspects of this society in later books that aren't in the original), so don't read this debate if you don't want spoilers. Same goes for 1984, of course, on the off chance no one here has read that. We are debating which society would be more likely to arise. Since Pro has stated the resolution as a resolution, I'll assume that he has the burden of proof -- but since this will be a short debate, I'll ask the readers to not use a too-strict standard of evidence.I'll also let Pro have the first word. Over to him.
could the USA have use better things to prevent world war 1

I will begin my rebutting my opponent's arguments and then move on to reiterate my own case. My opponent's premise seems to be this. the USA could have done nothing else to prevent world war 1 war was the only thing that it come to nobody was willing to listen and violence was the thing it had to come to So first off I would like to challenge the assertion that nobody was willing to listen. The definition of nobody is no person; no-one[1] The definition of listen is:hear with intention; Source wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Now what is implied in this statement is that not a single person on the entire planet was willing to hear with intention. This is absurd as if it were true Woodrow Wilson would not have bothered preparing an inaugural address, because there would have been no one to hear it. and violence was the thing it had to come to this statement cannot be true as the definition of violence is the third album by the Washington-based Alternative metal music group Nothingface. The album was released on September 5, 2000, via TVT Records. Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_(album) World War 1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918 whereas violence did not exist until 2000 therefore the thing (which I assume to mean World War 1) could not have come to violence as they are separated by near a hundred years. Now onto defending my own argument. My opponent has not raised a single valid objection to my argument. I will agree whole heartedly that had the US invaded Enlgand the world would probably not have turned out like it has, but that doesn't mean that it would not have stopped World War 1. So my argument still stands. But why would we invade England To stop World War 1 of course
could the USA have use better things to prevent world war 1

But why would we invade England they are one of our greatest Allie and then have Russia fight us to man there is not telling how this would have turn out and then France also we would not have broken relations with England we would have also with France and Russia there is no telling how bad it could have been 3 to 1 and you know Germany would have got in it because they just kept blowing up ships like crazy with there invention of the U-boat ( submarine) so there is no telling how this would turn out it would have probably been worse the Russia and England and France probably would have invaded the USA and then Canada and central America might have gotten involve so man they way you put it you made it sound 10 times as worse so if we use your strategy there ant no telling how the world would be today
could the USA have use better things to prevent world war 1

Definitions: World War 1: A military engagement lasting from 1914-1918, the belligerents of the war were the Allies, and the Central Powers Allies:France, England, Russia, USA, Italy Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungry, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria I propose that the United States could've stopped World War 1 by attempting to invade England in the year 1913. Had the United States invaded England in the year 1913 then France and Russia would've declared war on the United States. Thus the definition of World War 1 would have never been present as the military conflict would have happened in 1913 not 1914 and the Allied powers would not have existed, meaning they could not have been a belligerent in the World War 1
Prison Privatization

This is a subject that I've had the opportunity to debate only once before, so I do indeed look forward to whatever arguments my opponent puts forward concerning this resolution. As this round is only for acceptance and as my opponent has set no guidelines or specific rules I will assume that this debate will follow general guidelines of conduct one would expect of a typical debate round. My opponent will be arguing against prison privatization and I will argue in favor of it. I look forward to the following round and I hope the voters enjoy reading this debate as much as I'm sure I will enjoy debating it!
Atheism vs Religion

Atheism has been rising steadily in not only the United States, but in other countries around the globe as well. Polls suggest that in the US, Christianity is slowly becoming a less popular religion, losing roughly 1% of its followers a year. At the same time, the percent of people in the US that are atheism has and is rising. http://www.pewforum.org... That link suggests that from 2007 to 2014, unaffiliated Americans have risen 7% in that time frame.
Being vegan

Haha your a troll I carn't believe I fell for that, I am not accustomed to trolling. I had doubts, but I believed you, because I have not known a troll do yu what you just did. I must say its very funny and hats off too you, you proper made me laugh. last time I got trolled, and the only time, it p!$$ed me off, but you proper made me laugh. On the off chance that I'm wrong about this I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just really believe you are a troll. Like I said, I am not accustomed to trolling. I'm sure you have some interesting philosophies I just cannot completely understand it in the way you put it, philosophy is hard to communicate.
Being vegan

Again, you base everything off of emotion, which is why you keep asking for evidence - people ask for evidence when they cannot accept the possibility that there are people out there that have gone far beyond the limits of today's society where evidence is no longer an answer, but trusted analysis - hence, Science and the father thereof, Philosophy. When people challenge me, I don't ask them for evidence - I just break everything down myself, because I know that you can't argue emotion with evidence; and evidence is based on perception, which is extremely stupid in this day and age. Just look at the failures of justice and law. Want to really know how the world works? You must first stop trying to figure it out yourself, and realize that everything that you need to know, is right in front of you. The moment you make this about you, is the moment your forfeit the journey of living vicariously through the very thing that governed our existence. We have a gut feeling and a guilty conscious which attacks us consciously and subconsciously when we fall asleep. You are really taking life for granted when you take such a magnificent Universe which attacks itself, heals itself and destroys itself time after time again throughout time, as "just an accident that has no meaning", when that's you projecting yourself. You clearly cannot handle this discussion, if you cannot handle your emotions. You already lost to your emotions - you know nothing of this cosmic diamond I speak of, because you're still an opal that complains and withers from their lack of nutrients because they don't want to get their roots dirty, when they need to shove those roots far into the earth's soil, to retain their strength.
Being vegan

You say: "It's silly to say that is what the brain does, not what the people choose to do when they don't know how to use it. The wisest of men have demonstrated time after time again that all things can be loved, appreciated and understood in spite of acknowledging there are some cut-throat aspects involved which decipher the "other side" of humanity." I don't quite understand your logic here. For the sake of the argument I am going to assume you mean: You can love and appreciate animals, whilst acknowledging that human nature can cause them suffering. This is true, but it doesn't really mean that choosing to not support the meat market isn't a more compassionate or ethical choice. To assume and accept human nature as cruel, and to be a pacifist on that logic, is a clear example of somebody being more ignorant, more selfish or less caring than someone, who also knows human nature has been cruel, and yet chooses to resist it. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Slavery and the womens rights movement give us examples of the two groups of the population-one which want to maintain the status-quo, and the other that saw that it is was wrong and wanted to improve the lives of the underdogs. People are quick to judge Nazis, women oppressors and slave owners, yet the majority of these people are just like the meat eating portion of the population-they are either to ignorant to care for ethics, too easily led into supporting anything they are told too, or they are just plain self-grandiose and self-interested. Would you agree that vegans would probably be the civil rights fighters and the slave-abolishes? You say: "As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance." Don't understand how this is relevant. Also that is not very good supporting evidence, I have learned a fair bit about the brain and your idea is almost completely wrong. There will be an heir of truth, but your just confused about pretty much anything to do with the brain. There is no ethics in our brain, our minds tell us when we do something wrong and there will be a hormonal and neuronal mechanism for feeling guilt. But guilt is subjective and brain scans cannot be used to prove ethical issues.
Being vegan

It's silly to say that is what the brain does, not what the people choose to do when they don't know how to use it. The wisest of men have demonstrated time after time again that all things can be loved, appreciated and understood in spite of acknowledging there are some cut-throat aspects involved which decipher the "other side" of humanity. As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance.
Being vegan

So you are basically saying that eating meat is not unethical. And therefore my claim that eating meat is less ethical than being a vegetarian, is false. However, I am skeptical about your reasoning. Your method of judging ethics is new to me. You mention a part of the brain that triggers when we do something unethical, this is not exactly accurate. I mean the leading scientists say the brain is still not truly understood. Could you elaborate this point further and name the part of the brain that does this please so I know where to begin in debunking it. 'Ethics' is just the vocalization sound I have used to help describe the phenomena of the consideration for others. If you want to talk about brains and physiology then consider this: What we understand as 'love' or 'compassion' is an evolutionary tool to keep us in social groups and 'persuade' us to raise our young. (solitary animals don't feel it-for they have not needed to maintain the group in order to survive). 'Love' is actually a 'thing', its a hormone, it can be measured. It has been 'created' by evolution. There is no 'ethics' part of the brain, there is a hormone that is produced that encourages us to love, and that is it. We therefore have love, but it only extends to our family and our tribe, as its evolutionary function is to maintain group loyalty and family groups. As humans become less ignorant and more aware and connected, there 'love' expands to meet a wider group of beings as we learn to understand them. So we learn that the other tribe are actually quite similar and we encorperate them as well. People are still hateful of other nationalities, other races, people they don't understand or see as themselves, but 'good' people recognise that we are all equal, no matter how different we are. So my argument is that to incorporate other species into our circle of love is a step forward in ethics. How can cruelty to other earthlings be more ethical than not being cruel? I don't agree with your view on how we should determine ethics. Also, even with your view on ethics I still think I am right. For instance, killing an animal makes us feel horrible (until we desensitise), and if feeling horrible and cruel isn't a reflection of 'bad ethics' in my brain, then what is ?
Being vegan

It simply comes down to whether eating meat is ethical to the brain, not our feelings. There's a part of the brain which triggers when we do unethical things according to the human mind, which causes the "gut" to trigger, guilty consciousness to trigger and paranoia. Eating meat does not trigger that part of our brain, therefore it's not unethical to the brain, thus it's merely unethical to your claims. You cannot argue the Universe, so it would be best to accept that is a personal matter, not a practical one.
Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation

My opponent seems to not have an argument right now, and since this is a 5-round debate, I will simply state some of my points as a list rather than making lengthy arguments. To be clear, I am arguing that Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation is bad [since I am CON]. Agencies should do one thing, and do it well. Not consolidating minimizes confusion. Not consolidating makes agencies simpler to manage. Not consolidating makes the agencies very modular. If one agency needs to increase in size, decrease in size, or disband, none of the other agencies are affected. Not consolidating makes pinpointing blame for mistakes much easier. Since this is 5 rounds, that's all I'll do for now.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

I'm saying, Don't take a flat amount of money from everybody. For example, Don't take 10 grand from someone with 100 grand, And take 10 grand from someone with 100 million too. Take 10 percent of the 100 grand person's money, But take 10 percent of the guy with 100 million dollars too. The guy with 100 mil will lose more money than 100 grand, But he has more money.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

1. If children are rich because of their parents, They are not legally obliged to jobs, So therefore they would inherit money or be spoiled, But they don't have a job themselves. 2. Different jobs and different companies give different pay. All industries get different pay, And it all depends on demand of the job, And how much the employer pays. For example, Renovators and construction is probably more common than programming computers and tech and stuff like that. 3. The rich are the ones who can get more money, Therefore being able to use that money to pay more and expand jobs to people. With more money, The rich and business owners are able to make more jobs for more Americans. "And I'm saying a proportionally even amount of money should be taken from everyone, Not a bigger percentage from the rich, That isn't fair. " So your saying everyone should be taken away the same percentage of money and not a bigger percentage from the rich? That's sort of what you were trying to argue against. I am for this.