BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anime is better then American Cartoons

Hello! I am Pleco! First, let us define anime. The word, "anime", is Japanese for "animation". In western culture a cartoon can be considered "anime" if it originated in Japan. Anime can be identified with a certain "artistic style", common traits found in Anime are over sized heads and small bodies (chibe), large eyes, and bright colors (such as Negima, Pokï¿½mon, Castle in the Sky, and so on). Though there are many anime series which exist that have darker tones to them (Death Note, Cowboy Bebop, and many more which lean toward the darker audience.) Whether or not Japanese cartoons are not better then American cartoons because it depends on the individuals interest. I could be more interested in watching Tom and Jerry, and hate Anime, to me the American Cartoon could be the greatest thing on TV. While some other kid somewhere else might love to watch Bleach, and hate American cartoons. Also, Western Artists and Western Companies have borrowed, or used the skills of Japanese artists to make an American cartoon.
Anime is better then American Cartoons

I say Anime is better then Cartoons because Anime is unique. You see unlike cartoons, Anime has a Story Line. And not only does it have a story line, it sticks to it until the end of the season and even beyond. Also the Art is different. Anime is created with the Utmost details and color. Anime is popular on a global scale. It makes billions of dollars internationally per year. need I say more?
The United States ought to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.

We should not lower the drinking age. One reason is drunk driving. Drunk driving is a blight on our civilization. An average of 17,000 individuals die each year in drunk driving related deaths. While the numbers have come down slightly, say in 2010, for example 10,000 individuals died from drunk driving related fatalities. Drunk driving continues to be an enormously important public safety issue.
The United States ought to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.

So in round 1, both sides will simply be stating their opening position no attacks brought upon by either sides to allow for even rebuttals/attack rounds. So I will be Pro, I strictly believe that the United States should lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. This is partly due to the fact that 18 years of age is already considered to be an "adult" in the American society. This entails; right to vote, right to smoke, tried as an adult in court of law, jury duty, and much more. This being said, the right to consume alcohol should be granted as well as not only is it a right an "adult" has but legalizing it would also create safer conditions for those under the drinking age that already consume alcohol. This is due to the fact that allowing those 18-20 to consume alcohol this would occur most likely in regulated and supervised settings such as bars, clubs, restaurants, etc. rather than secretly amongst peers at some hotel party or outdoor get together. Normalizing this younger drinking age would also encourage these young people to drink more responsibly as there is no longer the "thrill of the steal" which is the sort of "high" that is achieved by defying the law.
Should media be rated

Media in general does not need to be rated. The mere fact that children go on websites which are not "for their age, does not give all media outlets a moral, ethical, legal or social duty to rate all their content as this would add to their expenses and generally be a process that takes a lot of unnecessary. They would have to hire someone to evaluate all their content and then decide whether or not an age limit is applicable. Also take into consideration that sites such as cnn, bbc or cnbc are updated on a daily basis. It is important to note that Pro's assertion is so general that following his assertion it would mean Google also should be rated, i'm not sure what Pro's argument is exactly but that to me doesn't seem to make sense. Furthermore since newspapers also fall under media that means they should be rated too. Why should we rate informative media outlets which actually empower children by giving them more knowledge about the world around them? Should we according to Pro rate and censor newspapers and deny future generations knowledge of their surroundings to the point that they barely know anything that happens outside of their homes. Lastly rating media outlets would only serve to stifle creativity by limiting the amount of information available to children. It would also essentially limit the right of freedom of expression,by rating certain sites, which if adopted universally across the board as Pro suggests could be done arbitrarily. For example Governments could take a decision to "rate" and censor a site that criticizes their authority under the guise of "rating" it as unsafe . We might end up with a situation similar to that of China were a lot of informative sites and media outlets are banned.
Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

Your room or middle eastern problems are both problems, but the problems I addressed are both issues with meaningful connection, and it's extremely unfair of you to paint it as a red herring. I would like to make note of the fact that you never actually put any real reason why it really matters to the general public or what is actually accomplished by Trump releasing his tax returns. You came extremely off of the point and began arguing about corruption and the media, which I interpret to be because you never really had much of an argument. I'm glad that we shared our points of view and I had a great time with this.
Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

The media is corrupt on both sides. This is common knowledge. I don't know why the media does this. Conservative media telling conservatives what they want to hear and same with liberal media telling liberals what they want to hear. [2][3] That's why I stop identifying myself and others in terms of liberal or conservative. Sure, if someone is obviously bias towards one side I will note it, but I am noting the bias as opposed to party affiliation. That's why I like to look at a liberal and conservative new site to determine the truth. This is especially helpful when both cover the same story. As for corruption, yes there is lots of corruption on both sides. We need to crack down on it, I think getting Hilary to exchange the deleted emails for Trump's tax returns would be a great start. As for other problems that's a red herring. That's the equivalent of stating that I should not worry about cleaning up a small mess in my room because there are larger problems in the middle east. Despite, the problems in the middle east, its probably a good idea to clean up the small mess in your room. Thus my opponent bringing up larger and more pressing problems is a red herring and has no impact. Sources. 2. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 3. http://www.gallup.com...
Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

You hope for more information on both candidates but do not wish to put in the time to do your research. Regarding Uranium, here you go. [1] I would like to point out that google does not allow you to search up articles regarding the topic, so you have to search it up on bing because we live in a thought policed world. Regarding the debate and tax returns, you are right in that "no new information would be disclosed" but this really is not the case because the corrupt media (which we all know exists as evidenced by the whitewashing of any anti-Clinton work) [2] will now have the opportunity to simply write phony hit jobs regarding how Trump is an unpatriotic American because he hardly pays taxes (like any successful businessperson). I believe, like many Americans that his tax returns do not matter. While I must concede that I am by no means a tax lawyer, nor an expert in the field of taxation, the fact is that Forbes's Rob Woods has even stated that "The fact that the IRS says that Mr. Trump could decide to release the returns despite an audit does not mean that doing so would be a good idea. From a tax viewpoint, most tax lawyers have said that the tax-smart thing is for Trump not to release the returns until his audit has been completely concluded." [3] Overall, I just find it nonsensical to really put much emphasis into tax returns when there are much larger issues plaguing our candidates, nation, and world. Sources 1- http://www.businessinsider.com... 2- 3- http://www.forbes.com...
Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

As to the audit releasing the information would not harm Trump. Since no new information would be disclosed. "This claim, on its face, is absurd, since he would simply be releasing information the IRS already has. No new information would be disclosed." [0]I don't even know what HRC is. You could be making up the selling of uranium entirely, with no outside link as evidence I can't take your claim seriously, and thus I dismiss it as a bare assertion. "Lastly, the return represents a major political poker chip in that he can use it as a tool to find those 33,000 classified emails mysteriously gone missing by offering his returns in exchange for her dirt." Kieran.NYCGood then have him release it in exchange for the missing emails. The more information the public has on both candidates the better.
Donald Trump should release his tax returns.

Donald J Trump does not need to release his tax returns. The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason for the American people to really care about the tax rate he pays. The media attacks Donald saying he is not as rich as he claims to be, but a tax return will not prove anything. Trump has already stated he is under an audit, and for him to let everybody know his financial statements while being harassed by the IRS is simply unwise. Furthermore, do you not find it strange that the reason people care about him not sharing his financial situation is because it is "untrustworthy" while his biggest opponent has polled with a majority of Americans not trusting her? The same crooked media that attacks him for not releasing his returns turns a blind eye to the fact that HRC sold off a fifth of America's uranium to oligarchs from Russia, you know her "enemy". Lastly, the return represents a major political poker chip in that he can use it as a tool to find those 33,000 classified emails mysteriously gone missing by offering his returns in exchange for her dirt.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

Pro says "You are choosing the side of saying that God does not exist" No, I am choosing the side that is arguing that the ontological argument that God exists, (which you were meant to provide) should be rejected. Even if I was to prove that your ontological argument should be rejected, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist, anymore than it would prove that the flying invisible unicorns don't exist. There are some people that claim that there are or is good ontological arguments for the existence of God, this debate was me giving them an opportunity to back that up. So Pro did you even read what I said in the first round ? cause judging by your response you didn't. So Pro read up on what these ontological arguments are all about, then provide what you think is a good ontological argument for Gods existence. If your not going to do that, at least tell me, so I can go debate with some one who will.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

First off I would like to wish my oppenent good luck. Okay. You are choosing the side of saying that God does not exist, but on what grounds are you getting this from. What are your facts proving that there is no greater being out there that created the universe and everthing we have today. What created the beings that walk this earth? Evolution? Sure, but what created what we evolved from. Yes, the beings that walk this earth today could have evolved and changed from and earlier version but there is no definite proof that we came from microscopic organisms. Also, where would the mighty universe around us come from? The Big Bang Theory is true, but it come from and infinite amount of nothing. What scientist in this great world we are in create something out of nothing? No one. There is proof every where around us proving that there is a God that made this all possible.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BURDEN OF PROOF Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry I as the Con will seek to show that Pros ontological argument for Gods existence should be rejected. My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that their ontological argument for the existence of God should be accepted. Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I would like to argue against an ontological argument. What is an ontological argument for the existence of God you may ask ? for those that are unfamiliar with ontological arguments. .. .. .. Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e. g. , from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists [1] Here is an example of an ontological argument. 1)It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2)If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3)If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4)If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5)If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. I will let Pro determine which ontological argument they want to argue for and defend, but I ask they post their ontological argument in the first round and that we stick to just one ontological argument of Pros choosing. I look forward to Pros opening argument. Sources [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
The Minimum Wage should be Raised

Many people in the US are thinking over this new bill. Which has already been passed in a couple different states. The basic overview of it is that; the minimum waige should be raised to $9.00. Now this may seem like a great idea, but can you imagine what this would do to our teens, and pre-teens? It is very apparent that if you raise the pay of an employee, than his/her boss will want the employee to work harder. So if you raise minimum waige, you will decrease the ammount of teens working in the economy. Therefore destroying the teenage dream of simply earning some extra money. This would ruin the chances for over 20 million kids to find work.
Human impact on the rate of animal extinction

The justness of a killing depends on the reasons for it. Killing a friend to feed to a cannibal man is bad because a) killing a fellow human being is counter-intuitive to our coexisting species b) killing a friend is counter-intuitive to the human emotional relation you have with said friend, c) a friend is a human, and this debate is about other species. Since you didn't say anything against it after I've suggested it, this debate is about whether humans should ever have the right to kill non-humans. I know you're trying to sympathize with other species. I do think that it's sad that the wonders of diversity in life are being buried forever in the past, but dwelling on the past and limiting ourselves with forced moral codes like "never ever kill any and all things" is a crippling blow to the human species. If a strong, voracious alien species were to come to Earth and start to fight us for space and resources, we have no choice but to compete. Not killing and letting them subjugate us is special suicide. We kill viruses, cockroaches, and pests all time. In the case of special competition, this right is natural and given.
Human impact on the rate of animal extinction

as of what you just said if one day any other animal needs a place and kills your entire family for food then? if killing an animals isn't a crime or hunting it to extinction isnt a problem then why not kill your friend and give its body to a cannibal man to eat?. Lets face it the world is going to end if we don't stop this mass extinction that we started, we are unbalancing the ecosystem and we are the reason why we are responsible for many of the animals are going extinct at the rate of 0.01% per year roughly 10,000 species per year...
Human impact on the rate of animal extinction

I don't exactly know what this debate is about, but it seems to be about whether or not humans have the right to kill non-humans? If so, then definitely yes. Every animal represents a species and humans are no different. In a natural ecosystem, species vie for resources to survive. There are limited resources in the world, so it is impossible for all species to flourish exponentially and share. That means some species have to be subjugated, eliminated and killed. It's just how nature works. Now you seem to be saying that we shouldn't ever ever ever kill animals and such, but that goes against the natural workings of evolutionary competition. Killing other species isn't a right or privilege, it's just what happens.
physical education should be compulsory

Debate Parameters Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 3 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 3 days. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 24 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. Voting Comments:Members voting on this debate are required to provide comments for their vote.
physical education should be compulsory

First, I would like to point out that every argument I made attacking my opponent's case was dropped. So I will move onto my own.Contention 1: Students are being picked lastPro drops my real argument, and just extends his own here. My point was about self-esteem, and Pro pretty much throws that out without mentioning it. He talks about individual groups of students of the same health working towards being healthier which was not my point at all. Pro says that "this problem can be solved" but he does not offer more to that other than that individual teams can be formed with a teacher's permission.Please extend my arguments from this Contention.Contention 2: Pro also drops this entire argument and changes it to one of public health. This was not my intention of this argument, and therefor he dropped it entirely.Please extend my arguments from this Contention as well.When it comes down to voting issues the main one appears in Pro's drops. He dropped pretty much absolutely everything I said. Therefore, thie debate defaults to Con.
physical education should be compulsory

Refutations of opponents case Contention 1: Students are being picked last PE encourages people to work at their own pace and will develop skill over time Now PE teachers are dividing kids into groups by skill level to help them. The Kids can create their own teams and can get it approved by their PE teachers This problem can be solved and kids can become healthy Contention 2: Let's Just Punish Them Some More, Shall We? No. If students are not forced to exercise in youth, many will never think to do it in adulthood. This is no idle question: obesity in the US is rising rapidly and Dr. David Haslam believes schools are part of the problem. Individuals have no right to 'choice' about this: they're being compelled to attend school, to take the lessons the state says they should take. The state doesn't just impose a curricular compulsion, since physical attendance is forced – so there's nothing unique in principle about enforced PE. Indeed, what can be more important as an aim for our schools than to encourage public health? It is in recognition of that fact, that in 1978 UNESCO recognised PE as ‘as essential element of lifelong education.' If PE is made voluntary, it seems obvious that many students – against their long term interests, and the long term interests of society – will choose not to. That will damage this essential element of education, and damage public health. It is true that the health of society is not perfect even with compulsory PE – but how much worse might it be without it? Sources : [1] Batty, D. (2008, February 21). Schools make children more obese, leading doctor says. Retrieved May 18, 2011 [2] UNESCO. (1978, November 21). International Charter of Physical Education and Sport. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
School Uniforms

Hello! I'm here to talk about school uniforms and why they should be accepted. Although most say that parents wont be able to afford these uniforms, it is also known that uniforms help stop bullying. I've heard and seen many humans being treated wrongly because clothing, but that can stop thanks to school uniforms. Who says that school uniforms are more than regular clothes anyway? I am also aware that children take a while to wake up in the morning and take even longer to pick out their clothes. Well, if we allow school uniforms then it would only take children a couple minutes to take whatever they need and a uniform. It also makes them feel better knowing that they look like everybody else. That is round one for me. :)
School Uniforms

The first and most obvious problem with uniforms is that they detract from student individuality and self-expression. A big part of schools is the social aspect and school uniforms limit that. Kids want to be able to show who they are and uniforms don't allow for that. It would be hypocritical for schools to celebrate diversity in culture and background then tell all the students that they must all be the same. For these reasons, uniforms are generally quite unpopular with students, mainly those in high school. The next reason is a direct result of the first. Because the students can't show individuality through their choice in clothing, they will show it through less desirable methods. These methods include altering the uniforms, tattoos, piercings, etc. .. , which kind of defeats the purpose of the uniforms. The final problem with the uniforms would be the difficulty in enforcing it. While most students would wear the uniforms, many would modify or incorrectly wear them, as I said above. This would cause teachers to have to be constantly on the watch for all the small details every day. They would cause the teachers more trouble than they're worth. On to my opponent's arguments! My opponent first says that uniforms may be expensive, but they stop bullying. She is right when she says that they can be expensive for poorer parents, which helps my case. The part about uniforms stopping bullying, on the other had, is incorrect. Uniforms may reduce bullying for the way the victim dresses, but they do not solve the root problem. Bullies will find other reasons to pick on kids, so the bullying argument doesn't help the Pro. My opponent also says that uniforms will reduce the amount of time it takes to get ready in the morning, which is true, but this is not important enough to be considered a real argument. Saving a few minutes in the morning is not important when weighed with the other issues here.