BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump (PRO) VS Hillary Clinton (CON)

Hillary Clinton is far from perfect but she would be a better leader than Trump. Clinton has experience with public office and knows what she is doing. Trump on the other hand is a business leader who has exploited and conned people for his own gain. The rest of the world will not take us seriously if we elect Trump, Clinton will reinforce the idea that the US provides an equal opportunity for everyone. Trump has criticized free trade deals such as NAFTA which helped our economy, also he wants to ban Muslims from the country which will not help combat terrorism contrary to what he thinks. Clinton is the practical sensible choice.
Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

Hello, there seems to have been some confusion as to what the topic was and what the resolution meant in this debate. While I was arguing that marijuana should have equivalent or less legal restrictions than alcohol, my opponent was under the impression that I was merely using the current (rather than variable) legal status of alcohol as an example of the kind of legal status I advocate for Marijuana. My opponent and I have discussed this matter and agree we are both partially to blame; him for not reading my first round closely enough and myself for not being clearer with the resolution. By mutual decision we have agreed to post no more arguments on this debate and urge voters to try and make it a tie. In other words if you are reading this and the debate is tied please do not vote, if you are reading this and either me or my opponent is winning please vote to level out the result. Your cooperation in this would be greatly appreciated. I will start this debate again soon with a (hopefully) clearer resolution. Thanks to my opponent for his maturity in this matter and good luck to him in other debates. Thanks.
Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

This was originally issued as a challenge to Epicism but is now open to anyone. Hi, Greetings to my worthy opponent who I hope has the time to accept this debate. In most (and perhaps all?) countries Marijuana is subject to more severe legal restrictions and penalties than alcohol. Indeed in USA and UK alcohol is legal (though age restricted) and marijuana is a prohibited substance. I argue that this is wrong and that for a number of reasons Marijuana should in fact have less legal restrictions than alcohol or at least equivalent legal status. To clarify, for the purposes of this debate: Marijuana = any derivative or species variant of cannabis sativa or indica, including 'skunk' varieties, in any form; buds, hash, oil etc. for both medicinal and recreational use. Should = moral incentive. As my opponent has some experience of debating this general topic, I will allow him the option of presenting his arguments first, if he wishes to. If he would prefer however, he can instead use the next round merely for introductions and to challenge me to start the argument. I hope that this will be a fun and informative debate. Thankyou.
hello world

No, you are clearly not "better than us in every way". This is clearly and undeniably shown by your conceited view of the world and how good you think you are. I am not sure how you expect to win this when you present your self as a pompous jerk who looks down upon the rest of the world. There is an uncountable number of people who are better than you. I am new to this site and the vast majority of what I have seen is incredible people who are arguing incredible things. You are a disgrace to this site and I honestly hope that I can get enough support to help you re-consider how you present your self to society as a whole. -Theophrastus
It is beneficial for debate.org to have discussions of dildos

I'd like to address my opponent's claims about the rules immediately: "Rules should be followed by the spirit, not the letter" False. This was not agreed upon by us beforehand, so you may not make this up now. Rule 10 shows that if you violate the rules, you lose points, regardless of whether you were following the "spirit" of them or not. "I've actually PMed BSH1 (writer of the rules) about those rules after my opponent made the criticism to me, and he seemed shocked that the criticism was brought up and he said he found my actions acceptable" My opponent straight up lied about this... I can provide screenshots if necessary but he has admitted to making up the claim that he talked to BSH1; and BSH1 could not find this conversation when looking through his PMs and profile comments. When I asked Wylted if he could bump the PM or point to where he made the comment to BSH1. This is not only breaking the fourth rule, but also lying in order to justify both a false accusation against me and a false defense for his own poor conduct. Quite frankly I'm shocked by this terrible cheating, and I encourage voters to consider taking away more than just conduct points because of his failed lying and cheating in order to get more points in the debate. I'm disappointed that my opponent would use such unfair debating techniques and literally make things up. "My opponents cheap attempt to win a lone conduct point should be seen as a gross violation of rule number 4. I should automatically get every conduct point in this debate" Again, this has been shown to be outright false... My opponent cheated and lied to try to get away with breaking the rules of the debate. So far my opponent has violated rules 4, 9, and has cheated in an attempt evade 10. Obviously, this is a gross violation, and at the very least conduct should be taken away; if not the entire debate. Thank you for reading this debate so far, have a nice day!
It is beneficial for debate.org to have discussions of dildos

FRAMEWORK Rules should be followed by the spirit, not the letter. The rules that rebuttals no be until round 2 is just to insure both sides forward a positive argument. The quick little rebuttals I did at the end of round 2 there would be appropriate, according to the spirit of the rules. I've actually PMed BSH1 (writer of the rules) about those rules after my opponent made the criticism to me, and he seemed shocked that the criticism was brought up and he said he found my actions acceptable. My opponents cheap attempt to win a lone conduct point should be seen as a gross violation of rule number 4. I should automatically get every conduct point in this debate. I'm actually going to skip the rebuttal round, although I had real rebuttals planned. I don't want my opponent to have bad feelings when I win this for having an unfair advantage. I shouldn't have to apologize for giving him a chance to touch on counter rebuttals early, but there it is.
It is beneficial for debate.org to have discussions of dildos

This debate is a result of Pro claiming that discussing dildos is good for this website. Resolved: It is beneficial for Debate. org to have discussions of dildos in the forums, debates, and polls of Debate. org. Definitions: Dildo: "An artificial penis that is used to give sexual pleasure" Source: . http://i.word.com... Beneficial: "producing good or helpful results or effects : producing benefits" Source: . http://i.word.com... Debate. org: The website we are currently using in order to have his debate. Link to the front page of this website to avoid any confusion: . http://www.debate.org... Rules (Made by bsh1): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9.
Vincent Van-Gogh (1853-1890) DID Have an "Arsenal" of PRE-Expressionist / True Impressionist Ability

I aCCePt. My OppOnEnt MaDe No ArGuMEntS aT aLl So I wIlL bEgIn. :D BeCAuSe I Am VeRy BorEd I just RanDomLy acCepTed. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. GiAnT PaRagRaph oF NonSeNciCal TeXt. NoW I wiLL sAy RanDom ThInGs LikE pRo. I aM NoT FaT. hI. mItT RomNeY iS aN EviL LiAr. DoNKeYs ArE VeRy FaT. nAPoLeOn bOnaParTe WoUlD BeAt GeOrGe wAshIngToN iN a WaR. cOmPaQ CoMpuTeRs aRe AwEsoMe. AVG AnTi-ViRuS. ObAmA doUblEd GaS PriCes. UbUnTu SuCKs. dElL HaS HoRRIbLE cUsTomer SupPorT. pRo MaKeS No SeNSe. vOte CoN. SoUrCEs tinyurl.com/DebateDDO http://www.mcdonalds.com...
Vincent Van-Gogh (1853-1890) DID Have an "Arsenal" of PRE-Expressionist / True Impressionist Ability

http://www.vincent-van-gogh-gallery.org... Constantly, people seem to "Discredit" Vincent's Ability in the Years from 1881 to 1888. He had a True "Flair" for Real, Core Impressionist work and I have posted this debate to engage a "Discussion" of This?!.. People seem to, Never, accept that his work stretched, FAR BeYond the Call of the Embryo of Expressionism. If people are "Sitting-on-the-fence" about his True-Impressionism Roots then, perhaps, they might come Off the fence and start some Discussion here?!.. His, Stunning, "Platform" for Expressionism, WAS based on an equivalent Standard in the Original, Impressionism Style?!.. Anyone wish to Add?!..
Is welfare a good for America

The mindset of "they should help themselves" is ridiculous. In this situation, they often times can't. America has large unemployment rate, and many of the people that DO have jobs are payed ridiculously low (someone working at walmart or mcdonalds, for example) and they aren't payed enough to support them and their families without welfare. Not everyone has the chance to get a good job. If you want to get rid of welfare, first you must improve the economy.
the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

you are mistaken. to win this debate, all i must do is provide one example in which the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical. now con admits that "GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell. .. I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs" which is fine. i am not debating about christian beliefs. i am debating about the christian portrayal of god as an ALL-merciful one, which con admits is not the case. she says that god is just as much about justice as he is about mercy. and that justice is executed through non-loving actions, such as condemning a person to hell. con is wrong in assuming that i do not understand the ways of the christian god. i do, and i'm not even saying that i disagree with them. however consider this quote from the bible- but i have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation (psalms 13:5). con's own argument has been that just because one trusts in god's mercy, does NOT mean that they will go to heaven. so all of the bible verses upon bible verses and writings and teachings proclaiming that anyone who believes in jesus christ and god and their message will be saved, is wrong. it's a lie. because god has already chosen (pre-destination) who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. so if one has no free will. .. which con says that nobody has free will. .. then we have no role in whether or not we will go to hell. so according to that christian message, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER DOING GOOD? WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT GOD? if there is a possibility that god will condemn us anyway despite our loyalty and devotion. if you think there's a discrepancy with this message.
the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

You're point is that "the christian portrayal of GOD is hypocritical." You use the fact that GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell to try and prove this. I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs. Thus, the christian portrayal of GOD is NOT hypocritical. You still have yet to refute my point on that and unless you can I've successfully argued my point. Even so, I'll refute the other points you make, irrelevent to this debate though they may be. In the process I'll also refute some of the points made by commenters. "If everyone has broken GOD's law, then why isn't everyone saved? Is it because some crimes are worse than others?" Again, keep Romans 9 in mind. Now, If everyone has sinned, then everyone deserves condemnation. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy that punishment. Because Jesus is perfect He could die in our place and satisfy GOD the Father's justice. When Jesus died He died for people who were pre-ordained by GOD to be saved (to show GOD's mercy) These people are completely sinful and have no hope of salvation until GOD changes their hearts. (There is NOTHING special about pre-ordained people. They are just as sinful and rebellious against GOD as everyone else. The ONLY reason they are saved is because GOD chose them and changed their hearts.) People who GOD doesn't choose are not saved. (To show GOD's justice) Again, I point to the example of the dog and the owner that I used in my first argument which explains how a person always gets to choose between right or wrong, but because of people's inherent sinfulness they will always choose sin. The merciful thing is that Jesus died to satisfy GOD's perfect justice. The just thing is that people who refuse to repent of their sins still go to Hell. Mercy and Justice are not contradictory. These beliefs are known as Calvinism. Here is a website that will explain it in more depth. http://www.calvinistcorner.com...
the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

my point has been that god created people KNOWING already what their fate would be before they were even born: that they would someday go to hell. con was supposed to refute this; however, here is what she has said- "In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that." so con is agreeing with me that to BRING GLORY TO HIMSELF, god purposefully created people just so he could send them to hell. that god sounds vain, prejudice, and unloving- FAR from the god that christians normally describe. then con says, "Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice." i would agree with con here. except if EVERYONE has broken god's law, then why isn't EVERYONE saved? because some crimes are worse than others? i would agree with that. however according to con, people don't have free will. in other words, people cannot control what they do because con believes in predestination over free will. so basically, people are forced to commit crimes (due to their own natural urges) and then are punished for them to show god's justice. now, whether or not you agree with this christian approach (and christian beliefs on the subject DO vary), while voting you must only take into account the specific beliefs and arguments that con has put forward... also, keep in mind that the definition of justice is also linked to fairness. why is it fair that some people are born with god's 'intention' of sending them to heaven, and others specifically created just so he could send them to hell to glorify himself and his name? again, DO NOT VOTE BASED ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS, BUT THESE ARE CON'S BELIEFS WHICH SHE HAS OFFERED IN DEFENSE OF HER ARGUMENT...
the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

You're argument forgets that GOD is not only love and mercy but also justice. If someone breaks GOD's law then GOD has every right to send that person to Hell. GOD didn't create people so that we could have a great time. He created us to bring glory to Himself. In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that. It's doesn't contradict itself at all. GOD created all of us. Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice. Now as to the free-will part of things. People do not have free will. Sorry to burst the bubble. People are born slaves to sin. Do people still get to make a choice? Absolutely. But humans are so sinful that our choice will always be sin. GOD, although He knows we are going to sin, does not force us to. Think of it like this... One owns a dog. This person has repeatedly told this dog to stay inside the fence, NO MATTER WHAT. This person opens the gate knowing that the dog is going to run out of the fence. Has the person made the dog leave the fence? Not at all. The person simply allowed the dog to make the choice. GOD doesn't ever force anyone to do anything. He simply lets us make our own choices. When someone gets saved it's only because GOD has changed their heart from wanting sinfulness to wanting to obey Him.
the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

christian teaching is that god is responsible for all life here on earth. physically, it takes a man and a woman (or a sperm and an egg, to be more PC) to create a child. however, without god's influence, that life will never come to be. that is the christian belief. christians also believe that god is omnipotent, that he sees and knows all, and this is supported numerous times throughout the bible. for instance, philippians 4:3 and revelation 3:5 say that the moment you place your faith in jesus as your savior (see John 3:16 and romans 10:9‑10), your name is written in the Book of Life, never to be erased. no true believer should doubt his eternal security in Christ (john 10:28-30). in other words, humans do have free will, but god in all of his infinite wisdom already knows the choices that people will make... because he is omnipotent, knows everything about everything, etc. and god knows who has accepted him and lived by his word, and will save them after death, i.e. send them to heaven. well if this is the case, god also knows long before one is born that one will go to hell. what i mean is, if one is going to reject the lord as their savior, they will be damned for all eternity. but god knows that one is going to go down this path (hehe- he's clairvoyant). so... why would god choose to create that life? according to christian/biblical logic, god is choosing to damn souls to hell by even allowing them to exist. if they're only going to be lost souls doomed to eternal damnation in a firey existance worse than any excrutiating circumstance that we as humans can fathom (deep breath), why not just prevent a life from ever being created? sure humans have "free will" to make the right choices, but god already knows who WON'T make the right choices, so in essence he is allowing people to go to hell. isn't that completely contradictory of the all-loving, gracious and forgiving god portrayed and embraced by christian faith/doctrine...?
Media should ban anorexic/eating disorder models

No actual standard for enforcement has been suggested, even when pro was reminded to do such.Nor was there any disagreement with my point of "Yet pro's suggestion could easily target women like [Gwyneth Paltrow], fining them, throwing them in prison..." which is simply barbaric. Pro also offered zero disagreement to my point about how this same type of standard would limit which skin colors are allowed to be president; which is also barbaric.As we are a civilized society instead of barbarians, the resolution is firmly denied.
Media should ban anorexic/eating disorder models

As you have completely ignored my argument and cross examination questions, I extend them into this round.All that has been suggested is some type of witch trial against one natural set of body shapes. Government imposed action against people for looking wrong in some roles, much like how not many years ago President Obama would not have stood a chance at office because he looked wrong... This is related because different races carry their weight differently, making the standard on it more likely to affect people of one race than another.Further the only benefit suggested, is hiding a problem; intentionally making people ashamed of their body if they are not of an undefined standard.In short, just because pro dislikes one natural body shape, is no reason to ban the appearance of it from anything. Consider Gwyneth Paltrow for example. Skinny but still beautiful. Yet pro's suggestion could easily target women like her, fining them, throwing them in prison, or whatever the suggested solution to offenders who get their picture taken is. Any of which would be simple insanity.
Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

I thank you for your arguments. Rebuttals: "Contention 1: Gay marriage will decrease the world population" -First off, I would like to indicate the Con did not specify why a decrease in the world population would be a bad thing. -Second, marriage would have no affect on this statistic whatsoever. People who are gay (married OR not) are most likely not going to have biological children of their own regardless.[1] Also, homosexuals may reproduce through artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Legalizing Gay Marriage will not decrease the world's population in any way. "Contention 2: Gay marriage will decrease the significance of the institution of marriage" -How exactly would if decrease the significance of marriage? -Legalizing gay marriage would enable a greater number of people to achieve happiness they desire. Legalizing homosexual marriage will not inhibit the ability of heterosexual couples to marry. Also, by saying "further degrade marriage", you are implying that marriage has already "degraded" without the help of the homosexuals. Legalizing marriage for homosexuals would be a milestone toward civil equality for all, and would solidify marriage as a bond of true love between two people. Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to fully legalize same-sex unions. Prior to the decision to legalize, many critics made predictions very similar to the one you claim. Over six years later, and Massachusetts is doing well. In fact, they have the lowest divorce rate in the country [2]. If I were you, I would read the article that I just referenced before making your next argument. Sources: [1] Simple Logic [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

Contention 1: Gay marriage will decrease world population. Creation of offspring requires a sperm and an egg. [1] Females have a egg cell and males have a sperm cell. Two egg cells would not create offspring, nor would two sperm cells. Since offspring requires an egg and sperm cell, homosexuals would not be able to create babies, thus causing a significant decrease in population. Contention 2: Gay marriage will decrease the significance of the institution of marriage. The traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. If we allowed homosexuals to marry it would decrease the significance of the institution of marriage and further degrade marriage. Sources [1] . http://www.provopulse.com...