BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Go Diego Go" is better then "Dora the Explorer"

First of all the Bobo Brothers aren't meant to be villains. They're just young boys playing around and having fun. And at least they always say sorry for doing whatever they did after they're stopped and help make whatever wrong they did right again. Have you noticed how they put Dora on many "Go Diego Go" episodes? She obviously isn't popular enough for people to watch her show. So what do they do? They put her in "Go Diego Go" episodes to get people to notice her more with her posing as Diego's cousin. Her shirt is too short as well. Whenever she lifts her arms her belly hangs out. Parents probably don't want their kids watching some show where there's bare skin showing where it's not supposed to. Besides Kids love Boots. That's probably the only reason why they want to watch the show. Boots is a lovable character who gets pushed into the backround while Dora takes all the spotlight. Like the baseball episode. It was all about Boots wanting to hit a baseball with his bat for the very first time. What does Dora do? She interferes and steals the show when it's clearly Boots' turn for an episode all to himself.
Islam is the religion of Peace

I want to start by saying that I may not be as versed in Islam as you, or as much as you'd like, but I will do my best to avoid being arrogant during this debate. Islam is not the religion of peace because... 1) and 2) But seeing as you are the instigator of this debate it makes sense to me that you should present the first argument, unless I am mistaken, in which case I apologize for wasting the first round. As a courtesy, due to my uncertainty, I shall yield the floor and allow you to begin. The one thing I would appreciate is if you could clarify one thing. Do you mean "Islam is THE religion of peace" as in it the singular religion of peace and there are no others OR "Islam is A religion of peace" as in it is peaceful like some others? And I should let you know I intend to only present two main arguments. If you wish, I can make both of them during round two to allow you to counter both of them.
Islam is the religion of Peace

First of all let me clarify the topic. Most people think that Islam promotes terrorism, They try to present different verses of Quran to show that Islam promotes injustice and harm. This debate, as you mentioned, is about Islam is peaceful like others. It is mentioned in the Quran through many verses that even during the war, 1. Women, children and civilians, who do not harm you, should not be killed. 2. Don't disrespect other religions or other Gods. 3. Don't hurt others feelings. 4. Don't kill innocent people. 5. Don't force people to accept Islam. 6. Don't disrespect a Mosque. Church or any other religious places. 7. Always remain calm and don't express your anger. Well, I wanted you to pose some strong arguments so that I could reply. Debate as you like. I will not restrict you. To judge your intelligence and debating skills I think the above points are enough before going to solid proofs. Let me see your reply first about above arguments and try to convince me that Islam promotes hate, terrorism, injustice or any other definition of any unpeaceful things.
Infinity is rational and a real number

If we refer back to my opponents actual premise: "Infinity is rational and a real number" What is not under discussion here is the concept of infinity, or its validity as a term, what my opponent seems to have forgotten is he was trying to show that infinity was a number. His proof? Infinity/Infinity = 1 and this therefore proves its value as a discrete number. fgowsnm/fgowsnm = 1 Have I proved the exitence of fgowsnm? Of course not. Just because we can input a term into an equation means nothing at all. Infinity is the set of all numbers, it has no intrinsic discrete value, it is not a number in and of itself. It has importance in some fields of mathematics sure, but we are not debating those here. My opponent got side tracked, lost and has forgotten to argue his premise. Regards, Spiral.
Infinity is rational and a real number

"Yes, i see your point about infinity - 1 = infinity. But if infinity wanst real, then there is no such this as infinity, like if it never exist. Which means that there is no such thing as unlimited of anything. But if it is, then it is a real number and the equation would be infinity - 1= finite." Ok, I'll make this quick. Infinity is in this case a concept, it has no value, to have a value one could easily answer what infinity -1 is equal to, additionally, what infinity + 1 is equal to. As the answer must always return infinity (you can not say what number is arrived at) infinity as a number does not exist. Additionally finite is not a number, it is a term you can not use "finite" as a mathematical number. Again, what is finite – 10, still finite, NOT a discrete number. Infinity is not a discrete number, it has no value.
Infinity is rational and a real number

As my opponent used number systems as his proof, I will discuss only that. A number system is any compilation of objects that have basic properties (e.g. addition, multiplication) that we normally associate with numbers. Number systems appear in many sizes. There are "natural number systems", which are the set of numbers used in counting: 1, 2, 3, etc. You can develop this system to consist of additional concepts, like negative numbers, fractions. Each of these concepts exists, provided we look for it in the framework of a large enough number system. Does infinity exist in the same manner that these concepts (negative numbers, fractions, etc.) do? Or, "does there exist any number system which, as well as including the familiar numbers we are used to, also includes an "infinity" concept?" The answer, simply, is no. What would infinity minus 1 be? It can not be a finite number, as no finite number, plus 1 equals infinity. Therefore: infinty - 1 = infinty The rules of arithmetic have to be violated, because if they held, you could subtract infinity from both sides to conclude -1 = 0, which is false. Consequently, there is no number system which possesses the usual rules of arithmetic and in which infinity exists. http://www.math.toronto.edu...
Reality TV does more good than harm

Judge, I will show why i have won this debateMy opponent keeps on saying that i don't provide a number of how many people watch realiy T.V.so doesn't he.He has not fully refuted any of my argumentsHe gives weak refutations with little or no logic behind itThe Standard of today's debate is societyContention 1: filthy and corrupt shows deteriorate societyContention 2: when the value of hardwork is diminished, society is affected Contention 3: Reality T.V. enourage society to be bad, lazy and corruptedContention 4: Reality T.V. encourages society to be dishonest
Reality TV does more good than harm

Judge, here is the main part of today's debateMy opponent has provided absolutely no number of how many people watch reality tv. Without that, his whole case has fallen and I win this debate. My opponent has not fully refuted my second contention. It is about these reality Tv shows that bring about awareness of disorders and alcoholism. This helps people be aware of their situations. It encourages family members and/or friends to stage their own intervention to earn money to treat their illnesses and disorders. My opponent has completely dropped this part of my argument. Back to my first contention, we don't talk about money specifiaclly. Our tagline is economy, and we show that we are improving the economy. Second, look at the topic Reality tv does more good than harm we must weigh the benefits and harms, not look into the future. As you can see, my opponent's refutation is invalid. The standard or weighing mechanism was societyOur arguments benefit society!1. Economy obviously benefits society2. Helping society, obviously helps societyFor all these reasons, vote pro
Reality TV does more good than harm

I will refute my opponents arguments Contention 1: Helps the economy This point i invalid because we have to weigh the argument of get money and bad behavior. Judges, would you want a country full of bad, lazy, corrupt, and rich people? Clearly, my point outweighs his. Contention 2: Helps Society This is the complete opposite of my worsens society argument. Clearly, it makes people corrupt, bad, and lazy I forgot to provide sources before but here they are: BBC News. "Reality TV under fire." 27 August 2001. BBC News. 5 July 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Becker, Anne. "Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women." 1 March 2003. Pyschology Today. 4 July 2011. http://www.psychologytoday.com...... Bentley, Paul. "Celebrity culture 'is making educated women dim-witted'." 16 June 2011. Daily Mail. 4 July 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...... CNN. "Is reality TV a truly bad thing?" 10 January 2003. CNN Politics. 5 July 2011. http://articles.cnn.com...... Fraser, Christian. "Italian TV bins reality shows." 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Humphrys, John. "Take this oath: First, do no harm." 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Jury, Louise. "The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it?" 4 January 2007. The Independent. 4 July 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk...... Poniewozik, James. "Why Reality TV is Good for Us." 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011. http://www.time.com... Sanneh, Kelefa. "The Reality Principle." 9 May 2011. The New Yorker. 4 July 2011. http://www.newyorker.com......
Reality TV does more good than harm

Good Luck!! Your first argument is about how TV creators are creating corrupt shows My response is that you have to understand that this gives opportunities. Remember Career Makeover! You had no numbers for how many people actually watch reality TV Your second Argument was that encourages those to pursue a celebrity status My response is that we are saying just that! People with absolutely no life, with no job, they are unemployed, can get money by being in these reality tv shows! I gave you examples of Career Makeover and how they create opportunities. It will also help benefit the economy. Your third argument is that it is corrupting television. My response is that there are so many other show, not only reality Tv. You have provided no number of how many people watch reality TV. We already stated that this helps economy! Your fourth argument is that it is dishonest My response is this...So, you want the truth, I don't think people would want to watch someone sleeping, or eating, or watching Tv. Of course they would show the interesting parts, that is how they make money to benefit economy Thanks and please vote AFF
shows

so does my sister!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THATS SO COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military

Due to my opponents forfeit in the opening round and failure to contact me regarding whether or not he is still participating, I will not post an argument this round. I ask that my opponent doesn't either. He missed his chance for rebuttal. Final round may be used for arguments. No points are to be awarded for this round.Its simply not fair to me to make an in depth argument this round if I have no idea if my opponent is even intrested in continuing this debate. If he doesn re-establish contact and shows interest, i will post in final round.
Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military

I will be arguing that muslims should not be allowed to serve in our military. Why? Because they are our enemy. That would be like fighting the Nazis in WWII and letting Nazi sympathizers in our ranks. The religion of Islam is what guides terrorists and our enemies. Therefore it doesn't make sense to let other followers of Islam into our military and be privy to top secret information or have access to weapons that can be turned on our personnel. Con must detail why followers of Islam should be allowed in.
Animal Testing Should be Banned

In this debate, I will challenge Pro's resolution "Animal Testing Should be Banned". Pro has presented three reasons why we should ban animal testing, I will refute them one by one.1/ Animal testing is unreliablePro claimed that "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Those that pass the test are not automatically safe but they are less likely to be dangerous than the ones that were discarded thanks to the test. Let's imagine something like this: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. So 92% of the drugs which pass the first test fail the second test. Does it mean the first test is useless? Obviously not. The fact is animal testing has contributed greatly to the medical progress. It helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, birth defects, . .. [1]2/ Animal testing is barbaricThis argument is very emotion-based. The fact is we should and we must put the our own benefit over other species. Animals are killed in order to make drugs for human. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. What is wrong with that? Human right is above animal right. Pro talks about the animals' pain. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? If animal testing helps saving human lives then there is no reason to stop it.3/ There are alternativesThe alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". The scanning technology only helps us to find the cure, but after we make the cure we still need to test it. So it is not an alternative. Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits. " [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals? [1] . http://www.amprogress.org...[2] . http://www.peta.org...
Animal Testing Should be Banned

Welcome to this debate: "animal testing should be banned". I as pro define animal testing as experimenting using the lives of animals or harming animals in any way. I define banned as completely abolishing taking lives or harming animals in tests or experiments. Animal testing is certainly a disgrace, and should be banned. It firstly is fairly unreliable. Animals don't have the same body systems as us, and what might be good for them may not have the same great effect on us. It has been proven that 92 percent of experimental drugs (that's 9 in 10!) that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work. This means that the animals died for a cause that didn't even work out. Animal testing can even delay research because of its unreliability. Cosmetics, drugs, and other animal tested products can also cause health problems due to unreliability. Secondly, it is a barbaric way of researching. It is just trial and error on animals. Animals' lives are treated like dirt, and while they can't talk, they still have rights. Approximately 19.5% are killed every year in research. This is absurd! Innocent animals are dying, and 9 in 10 animals die for a product that doesn't even work. Also, cures for many diseases and medical conditions like stroke and asthma, have made little progress over the past century, yet have used excessive animal testing in experiments. Testing is often painful, and includes many sickening ways of completing experiments, like pouring drain killer into the eyes of animals, or rubbing chemicals on shaved skin. Painful? You bet. Most of these experiments aren't used with any sort of painkiller. A lot of animals' lives are thrown away. This must stop. Finally, there are kinder alternatives to experiment, and animal testing is hardly necessary. It isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments. Doctors are now starting to use other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing. We can now discover the root causes of diseases, so more action can be taken. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (for example, MRI, FMRI, PET, and CT) have prevented mental disorders in the brains of people. Other scans and screening methods are also used to prevent big diseases. Even skin model testing has been proven to work. These alternatives to animal testing have are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. Animal testing just isn't right and should definitely be banned because it: Is unreliable Is cruel Isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments We must ban animal testing right away. http://www.statisticbrain.com... http://www.dosomething.org... http://www.aavs.org... http://www.hsi.org... http://www.peta.org...
Can Teens Be In Love? Pt 2

It is indeed very unfortunate that among the rich, people were married off, and among the poor; the situation wasn't much different than ours. Except that religion taught them chastity and made them believe in such a thing as a sin. I am ofcourse pleading for the cases where young children did fall in love with their husband. Most oftenly, the two did get a close bond that teenagers these days don't have. It is closer to true love than what teenagers call "love" now. Yes. Surroundings matter. That is what i'm saying: elsewhere, teenagers CAN truly be in love. Just not in the western society.
Can Teens Be In Love? Pt 2

Well, yes the mid evil beliefs are perhaps more favored among some religions and some individuals, heres the reason i do not like mid evil values and ways, (Vikings is the example im using) Daughters usually did NOT have a choice of who they would be wed to, they could possibly hate the person that their fathers sold them to. Most men in the mid evil days had many wives, so is tht actually true love? and mid evil times was before the woman actually had rights, yes, there were gods devoted to women and such (Artemis, Hera, other greek and roman gods), but women were still only viewed as sex slaves, only few women were actually respected in mid evil times. Also, the loss of virginity, its a uhm, idk the word to use, i guess a "Wish?" for males? its something we use to brag about (Ex: ohh i fucked her) now, that is most common among teenagers who are "Popular", such as my friends and other i hang around with. Tbh, this wholeeee arguement depends on ones surroundings and such
Can Teens Be In Love? Pt 2

You are right about that. You are right that you, in such society and at that age, will encounter many childish things like cheating. As i said earlier, i simply want to convince you that exceptions do exist. Just not in the societies you are in. Relatively, i bet cheating is normal. In other societies, cheating would be like what incest is to us now. It is in those societies, that children are most likely taught the true values of love like chastity and what not. It is those teenagers that will identify their first love with the person they have to be loyal to, live their life with, have children with.... Whereas you are taught that love is something that involves sex, kissing, having fun and that involves alot of drama and influence from other persons. You are learnt that losing your virginity on a young age is "cool". I was taught these things too, but personally, i like the medieval values alot better. Back then, people had alot of anticipation with their first love as they had never seen a naked body before. Now, all teenagers masturbate to them daily. It's so unfortunate, because they'll care more about the sex than the special bond with the person. In medieval times, you were already married and simply knew that you trusted each other to be the only one you'd ever sleep with. Now, girls compare their ex's penis sizes and boys are more interested in big breasts than a devoted girl. But still, these "medieval" exceptions exist!
Can Teens Be In Love? Pt 2

Well, in your last statement you point out how i group individuals and judge them, yes, i do that, but my friend, see, i dated a girl for 1 year 3 months 12 days, after the first 5 months we said i love you probably 10 times a day each, after a year we broke up off and on, both cheated on each other, etc. Now, with that in mind, nd all the other relationships ive been in, you must realise why i myself simply CANNOT believe in teenage love. At this age, and until the day that we are old enough to live our own lives and be able to move in with someone. As teens, we have alot of problems, trust problems, other girls and boys, not being able to see each other alot, theres soooo much. I think that we can have our own little image of love that will satisfy us as long as the relationship is healthy.