BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban on Moshing

Introduction1. It's Not As Bad As People Think It IsMy opponent says that the number of people who wave their arms and legs violently are somewhere in the range of 3 -8. However, this is a red herring. My opponent only speaks about the people in the middle, while all the other people on the outside are still engaged in violent dancing. It is not just pushing and shoving either, people trample over other people and they get injured: Not only that but I have seen Mosh Pits where females get trampled like nothing, and people actually elbow each other in the face, and it is not just shoving. Mosh Pits also cause violence because not everyone wants to be involved, but because it is so hectic, people who are trying to avoid it may get shoved against their will. Mosh Pits happen so fast that some people cannot avoid it in time. People get badly hurt at these things. Below is a picture of Jamie Craig, who got badly injured in a Mosh Pit[1]: My opponent is simply downplaying the cost of Mosh Pitting. People get too excited, and chaos occurs. Banning Mosh Pits can only be a good thing, as violent dancing like that is unnecessary and does more harm than good. 2. It Is A Way To Get Some Anger Out It is a way to get some anger out, but it is not a good way as it is taking it out on other people. Even if it is an accident, you are still asking for an elbow in the face at one of these things. It is best to take your anger out on a punching bag, so you cannot hurt anyone else. This type of letting your anger out has proven to lead to unnecessary injuries. The ban is the smartest move in all reality. My Argument In Favor Of The BanPeople Get Injured and Die In Mosh Pits I already proved that people get injured in Mosh Pits due to animalistic dancing. Not only that, but 17 year old Bernadette O'Brien died in 1996 in a Moth Pit. September 24, 2007, another male died in a Mosh Pit. [2]"Injuries have been reported in Mosh Pits, and a few deaths have occurred in a 'Wall of Death'"[2] Con wants us to allow useless animalistic violent dancing to occur, why? People are going to risk getting injured and dying for no good reason at all. If you want to release your anger; go to the gym.ConclusionMosh Pitting does way more harm than good. Thus, the ban was justified. Why should people be allowed to violently dance this way? It is a truly bizarre and unnecessary ritual that just spells disaster. Vote Pro. Sources[1] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ban on Moshing

Hello Everyone and welcome to this debate. We will be talking both Rational Thinker and I will be discusssing about whether or not to ban moshing in concerts. Rational Thinker in favor of the motion to ban but against the motion is I which I will represent to the best of mhy ability. For those who dont know what moshing is, I will give you this definition from Urban DictionaryMoshing: A dancing style closely associated with heavy/rock music. When people mosh they often knock into other people and move their head in time to the music. A group of people all moshing is called a mosh pit. This moshing could be a variety of pushing, shoving, violently waving legs and arms around. As the definition states, it happens around usually rock, punk and metal music. Now you might be wondering what triggered me to challenge someone with this specific debate. Around a week, it was annoncced that a week ago, the band called Bring Me The Horizon and their lead man, Oliver Sykes announced that there will be no moshing or wall of death at warped tour. This action was raised by a parent of 12 year old child who got in the mosh pit. Because of this current event, it has motivated me to speak out against the parents who think that moshing is so much of a threat that it needs to be banned. Against the wusses that didnt take a chance. Here are my reasons as to why I think the ban should not happen.1. Its Not As Bad As People Think It IsOn the internet or on the news, we hear about the violence in mosh pits. Lets clarify the misconceptions of moshing. First of all, for the most part, most people in a mosh pit will push verses people who are waving their arms and legs violently. Those people that are waving their arms around are usually ranging from 3-5 if the pit is small. 6-8 if the pit is very big. For the people that are pushing each other around and if the event someone falls, most people would usually pick you up. 2. It's a Way to Get Some Anger OutNow when I say this, I dont mean that the people who are moshing hate each other but rather one of the reasons why we might mosh is because its a good way to release negative thoughts. Corey from Slipknot commented on moshing in Metal: A Headbangers Journey. In the documentary, Corey comments that while moshing is somewhat dangerous, they a are great way to let go of that baggage that someone may feel. Psychologists mentioned from the first episode of Metal:Evolution mention that if heavier and or fast music is being played, then it is good for the individuals health.Thats just to start off with a few points. I would write more but Im almost out of time(not that Im complaining about not having enough) and Im tired. Im very intrigued to see my opponents point of view and how he defends the ban. Thank you
The Walt Disney Company is the greatest entertainment company of all time.

Its my first debate ever on this website, and I'm really excited about it! It is my contention that The Walt Disney Company is the greatest entertainment company of all time. This is easily seen through the examination of its role in expanding the entertainment industry, and the companies overall influence in different entertainment markets. Contention 1: The Walt Disney Company is responsible for revolutionizing the entertainment industry. Subpoint A. In 1937, Disney released Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the first full length color animated feature that the world had ever seen. The film was extremely well received by many entertainment giants, including Shirley Temple, Charlie Chaplin, Ed Sullivan, John Barrymore, and Milton Berle. Since its release, it has made over $184 million dollars, making it one of the highest grossing money makers of all time. However, its importance cannot be judged from profits alone. The film proved the viability of the full length animated picture, and is therefore responsible for the existence of the genre as a whole. Subpoint B. Disney revolutionized and redefined the theme park industry with the planning and theming of Disneyland. The opening of Disneyland in 1955 marked the first time that an amusement park truly became a theme park. The initial park had themed lands that were each distinct from one another, yet still all provided unique and revolutionary forms of entertainment. This bunching of lands had never been done so successfully before, and led to the majority of the theme park industry utilizing the themed lands concept. Without this jump, there is no doubt that the theme park industry as we know it today would not exist. Contention 2: The Disney brand name extends into a vast variety of markets, making its reach more expansive than any other entertainment company. Contrary to popular belief, Disney is not a company of only teen pop stars, old classical animated features, and theme parks. The Disney name extends into many markets that allow it to reach many different people. Disney owns all divisions of Disney Parks and Recreation, the Walt Disney Studios, and Disney-ABC Television Group. Under these umbrellas of ownership sit 5 different resorts, a successful Cruise Line, the ESPN sports networks, ABC Family and its family of networks, Marvel Comics, and a large number of television stations. Suffice it to say, the number of quality holdings that Disney owns is impressive, and helps solidify its position as the greatest entertainment company. Through the examination of both the revolutions that the Walt Disney Company brought about, as well as the large number of influential holdings that the Company owns, it is very easy to see that The Walt Disney Company is the greatest entertainment company of all time. I look forward to a great debate!
The Walt Disney Company is the greatest entertainment company of all time.

Though my intention was to complete this debate fully, Friday afternoon marked the loss of something incredibly important to me. While no human life was lost, I'm struggling to manage a day-to-day existence at this point, and unfortunately this debate isn't possible for me to finish properly. I forfeit the remainder of the rounds to my opponent, and encourage votes for him when the voting period arrives. I hope he will add me, and appreciate him taking the time to write this debate.
Should Youth have the right to vote

You make a good point and that is where we then must talk about the Legal voting age. You see Kids are going to be more informed about issues during election periods as they talk about it in Social Studies. Also I don't believe 12 year olds should vote but instead 16 year olds, as I said in my introduction: Those who oppose Youth Suffrage say that youth do not to have sufficient understanding of the realities of life to participate in voting. In response to this, most youth suffrage advocates point out these are the identical arguments used against women's suffrage, as well as the abolition of property requirements, in the past. Likewise, mental capacity or knowledge is often not a bar to the elective franchise. Also some working youth pay taxes in certain countries and thus no suffrage is taxation without representation as I also said in my Introduction. I would not trust a Kid to vote and drive a car, However some Kids can drive and have sex. In Canada where I live the legal sex age is 12 and the legal driving age is 14 so good sir tell me why we can have Kids to dangerous things like sex and driving but not do easy safe things like voting?
Should Youth have the right to vote

I believe that Youth Should have the right to vote and here is why. #1 People of all ages are required to pay income and sales taxes; therefore, denying them the right to vote is taxation without representation. #2 Children are legally permitted to have sex or drive a car in some countries, which are more dangerous and difficult than voting. #3 Voter turnout among youth will improve if young people get in the habit of voting before they reach 18 and go to colleges far away from their state of residency, like it did in Germany when some states lowered their voting age for municipal elections. #4 Education for and about democracy would be better served if there were no voting age. #5 Government entitlements suppress fertility, which means the youth demographic is systematically suppressed, with no political power to offset the effect. #6 Governments derive their just authority from the consent of the governed. To be legitimate, those who govern and those who legislate must be elected by the people, not a special subset of the people, such as those over the age of X years. #7 Those who oppose Youth Suffrage say that youth do not to have sufficient understanding of the realities of life to participate in voting. In response to this, most youth suffrage advocates point out these are the identical arguments used against women's suffrage, as well as the abolition of property requirements, in the past. Likewise, mental capacity or knowledge is often not a bar to the elective franchise.
It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

Although I admire the case set before me, I see some problems with it. These problems will be explored within my case construction. First, the decision is cast in favor of (I suppose I am arguing Pro in this case) the Pro side of the debate and is asserted as such by the con. The third paragraph of my opponents argument begins by addressing what the role of the judicial branch is, "to interpret laws and provide justice". These two concepts are in favor of my position in this debate. When we look to the status quo, marriage is on the books as a recognizable form of a particular relationship status. In this context, the courts are the ones that are interpreting the previous foundations of marriage. By defining marriage, they are in essence interpreting the law, which is exactly what my opponent contends they should be doing. The second part of the duties of the court is to provide justice. To whom are they to provide justice for? The people of course. For them to not interpret the law (their duty) then they are doing an injustice to our society. The times we live in are heated and interpretation must be given. We obviously can't determine what the law should mean as a society, thats why the courts need to step in and do their job. Furthermore, my opponent implies they are "overturning the majorities will" yet they never prove that our society has come to a majority opinion. Moreover, even if my opponent does prove what the majority will is and that the courts have or would overturn such will, the courts are still necessary to protect the will of the minority. That is one of the key foundations upon which our society was set up, that we look out for the "little guy". Lastly, my opponent would justify overturning majority will in the face of "abuse of power, governmental corruption, or assaults on the basic rights and freedoms", however there is absolutely no criteria by which these things should be determined. There is a complete lack of weighing mechanisms to determine at what point any of the previous things have happened. A lack of clarity on such a crucial measure is a detriment to our society and to my opponent's justification. I stand resolved that it is the courts place and right to define marriage, and should be done for the sake of society.
It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

I'd like to first point out that this arguement is not about how marriage should be defined (i.e. eurotraditional, polygamy, same-sex), but who should get to decide. I have chosen to do the "con" in this arguement and assert that marriage is a state recognition of a relationship. In democracies therefore it is logical to assume that seeing as the state is handing out these certificates of official recognition and the state is really just the will of the populace (or it at least it should be). The role of judicial branch is to interpret laws and provide justice. But if a populace's majority has already asserted they want a law done a certain way why should any unelected justice have to the right to reverse the will of the people? Certainly the judicial branch should be able to overrule the majority's will in extrem cases that involve the abuse of power, governmental corruption, or assults on the basic rights and freedoms, but for something like marriage it applies to all people equally, no matter what the definition is, all end up getting the same priveledges.
It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

OK, ultimately there are two arguments that are left up to debate by the opposition. The first argument is the will of the people and the second argument being that of the role of the judiciary. I will address both these arguments in order and finish with some final thoughts/things to consider when evaluating this debate. First, my opponent concedes that they haven't shown what the majority "will" (or opinion) is in this debate. My opponent asserts that this is irrelevant to the debate. To quote my opponents argument in the first round: "But if a populace's majority has already asserted they want a law done a certain way why should any unelected justice have to the right to reverse the will of the people? ". This is the primary support offered by the opposition for why the judiciary should have no role in defining marriage. At the point where my opponent can not show you one single piece of data defining what the majority opinion (will) is then the opposition simply can not win this debate. For my opponent to make such an outlandish assertion and not back it up with any hard evidence or even reason/logic is a primary flaw that assumes victory for my position in the debate. The second, and final, argument that is left standing in this debate is the role of the judiciary. I again take the judges back to the opening argument presented by my opponent: "The role of judicial branch is to interpret laws and provide justice. ". For my opponent to grant this is a grave mistake. To break this down into the most simplistic terms possible here's why I win on this argument alone: 1. My opposition states that the judiciary has no role in defining marriage. 2. My opposition also states that it is a primary role of their office to interpret laws. 3. At the point that my opponent concedes that marriage is the legal recognition of a relationship (which he does in all 3 rounds) then he is granting marriage has a legal statute behind it. Keeping those three things in mind: The judicial branch is well within their duties to interpret a legal recognition of a relationship, they are well within their rights to define such a relationship. One of the primary duties of the judiciary is to define and interpret laws, one of which would be marriage as granted by the opposition. If that hasn't persuaded you enough there are a few key things I would like you to keep in mind as you evaluate this debate: 1. My opponent has never once argued against marriage already having a legal status (thus making the definition of marriage within the functions of the judiciary). At the point where my opponent doesn't argue against that then it is conceded to my position and provides a fatal blow. 2.
It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

Your allegation that I am not defining the majority's will is correct, but irrelevent. What the majority beleives should be classified as marriage (eurotradtional, same-sex and/or polygamy) is not a concrete thing set in stone (for peoples opinions are known to change over time) and of course differ regionally (on can certainly assert that martial values in Spain, Afghanistan, and Brazil are all quite different). To observe majority's opionion on what marriage should be defined as polls should be effective at deteriming this, or referedum/legislators. You assail my arguements in your first paragrpah about how the judical branches in parlmatary-style democracies are destiend to to protect the rights of minorities, which is true but really has no bearing on this debate. Marriage however isn't a personal action it is by definition the approval of a union by the establisment (in this case the government). If a minority opinoated groups believe they are not getting fairly protected, they should know that is because absolute martial recongnition is not a basic legal requirement in the constitution of most democratic nations, nor is there a tradtional one set in stone. Thus, resolved, seeing as marriage's defintions in not ingrained in most democratic constituions, it is subjective to the times and up to legislators to determine. As for appointing judges, I am not attacking this, I am merely saying that they are there to interpret existing laws, and should laways play second fiddle to legislators that see fit to alter things. I rest my case.
It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

I will commend you on your arguementation skills, but I find many faults in them. "That is one of the key foundations upon which our society was set up, that we look out for the "little guy" The basis of democracy is for example, to protect the rights of the minoirties in cases where their basic constitutional rights are assulted, but for all other cases it should be the majority that determines a democratic nation's course. Martial arrangements are solely the government's to give out, and the majority who determines the governt's will should also be incharge of defining it, for what is marriage, but a recongnition from the state of a relationship union? "Moreover, even if my opponent does prove what the majority will is ..." No I do not, nor do I intend to. Any decent pollster could however probably tell you what your particualr region beleives whtehr or not marriage should be only eurotraditional, or cater to same-sex and/or polygamists. In your last rebuttal, you state that you belive the majority is not legally entitled to define marriage and only the courts should be able to do such... but by saying this aren't you implying that you think the citznery has no business meddling in complex legal affiars and only the judicial hierarchy should be consulted? Surely you cannot be assuming that it is better for society if only an unelected elite few shoudl decide a country's ways?
Debate.org should not have to confirm people's identity with phone.

Well. First thing is first, post in the forums. Innomen is the President here. Just be active, and he will be likely to confirm you. .. *But I'm not sure if this has actually happened. My memory is telling me 'yes', but it could be playing tricks on me. .. . So post in the forums, in the "Debate. org" section. And I suppose you conceded to my arguments?
Debate.org should not have to confirm people's identity with phone.

Apparently, my opponents only argument is to suggest that you should complete 5 debates. However, this doesn't suggest anything. Creating 5 1-round debates won't take that much time, but rather only slow down the multi-accounter by a little bit. I would also like to suggest another fact. DDO makes it so that if you do not have a phone, you can complete 3 debates and PM an admin. I believe this is how some users have gained voting privileges, (at least I think).
Debate.org should not have to confirm people's identity with phone.

I shall first address my opponent's two points.1. Email confirms almost nothing. It doesn't take much time for a person to create a false or fake email, and make multiple accounts.2. Most people do have a phone, and cellular devices currently serve as the best mechanism for confirming one's identity. If anything, if you do not have a phone, you can ask to borrow a relative or friend's phone. Essentially, you only need it for, at most, 5 minutes. Now I shall precede to my own arguments. Why is confirming a person's identity important? The method of using a phone to confirm people's identity helps to prevent DDO users from having multiple accounts. Multiple accounts can be very problematic, especially on a debate website like this. Users with multiple confirmed accounts can vote for themselves on debates, and inflate their win/loss record. Users with multiple accounts can vote for their friends on other debates, and making their vote count as the votes of say 10. Users with multiple accounts can debate themselves and purposely make one account win, inflating their win/loss record. etc. .. .There are many obvious disadvantages to abolishing the phone confirmation system.