BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophiles that look at abusive images of children should not recieve lengthy jail sentences.

"These images are of themselves illegal, as they record an illegal act on an innocent human being, and no one should see them" It is true that an image of someone being sexual abused is an image that should be kept private. This is why we punish those people that distribute the image. However, this is not about those that distribute those images and breach of privacy in that act. Even if this were to be a reason to punish someone who possesses these private images, it would not be proportionate for someone to be sentenced for years for what amounts to an, albeit it serious, invasion of privacy. "But allowing a pedophile to see them is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Let them be scared to death of being caught looking at them. Let the child in the images and their family have their justice on someone who enjoyed his/her suffering and was punished severely. " Firstly, I am not arguing that it should be legalised but that length jail sentences are disproportionate. Secondly, the viewpoint expressed seems to suggest that my opponents sense of justice emanates from the 'disgust' response that I mentioned in my first argument. Stating that we are not punishing the offender because the act of possession has damaged the victim but rather because of the pleasure the offender takes in it. What if a paedophile looks at a child on the street and than sexual gratifies themselves at the thought of abusing that child? Even if one argues yes to this, does such a person deserve more than 10 years imprisonment for the private expression of that desire. There should be a freedom of conscience even if that conscience is universally recognised as evil. "I maintain though that pedophiles will never change, can never be cured. They must be watched, and punished more severely than others for things that could lead them to commit another despicable crime. " I suppose you mean another despicable act of gratifying themselves to a child's abuse. There is no causation between the person viewing the images and the abuse of the child in the image significant enough that make the offender sufficiently culpable to warrant giving them a long custodial sentence. We should not punish people merely for a propensity to commit an act.
Pedophiles that look at abusive images of children should not recieve lengthy jail sentences.

I am responding as to whether they should be greatly penalized for looking at these images, not as to whether or not they should still be alive to look at these images, to which I would have to say no. These images are of themselves illegal, as they record an illegal act on an innocent human being, and no one should see them. But allowing a pedophile to see them is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Let them be scared to death of being caught looking at them. Let the child in the images and their family have their justice on someone who enjoyed his/her suffering and was punished severely. I don't wish to be over-emotional, though of course it is hard on a topic like this. I maintain though that pedophiles will never change, can never be cured. They must be watched, and punished more severely than others for things that could lead them to commit another despicable crime.
Jessica Biel's "juicy doubles" are in fact much nicer than Jennifer Lopez's

In reality, I am a bigger butt than you. I am egotistical. I am cheeky. I am nationalist. I live in cheekland and I speak cheek! Your cousin in the hospital doesn't justify missing a debate. You have 3 days to comply. If you concede, you concede. If I was unable to be at my keyboard, I would expectmy opponent to be the victor of a debate, not me. - Cheeks
Jessica Biel's "juicy doubles" are in fact much nicer than Jennifer Lopez's

I will advocate that my butt, your butt, Biel's butt, and Lopez's butt are significantly the same. Instead of trying to compare everyone and place one person above another, we should all live free from oppression man. Dig the equality. Don't be stingy and defiant to nature. That's just bad taste. I am cheekyhobo and I can see only the silhouette of people, and sometimes that is difficult. I don't judge someones butt by the size, but by the person. A butt is so much more than two flabby cheeks smacking together. You must search deeper, down to the very crevice and you must get to the bottom of it. Look to someones butt as an indication that they are also human. So all the readers, don't let the man keep you down, man... Hang loose and party ten. Peace out dawgs! - Cheeks
Jessica Biel's "juicy doubles" are in fact much nicer than Jennifer Lopez's

Jessica Biel booty has been very watched and has been recognized internationally as one to bang. Jessica's butt has worked hard to climb up in the rankings, moving up from #15 last year to a tie with Jennifer Lopez . It has received praise for its aligned symmetry, and its width in diameter. The experts state that Jessica Biel has the most well shaped and aerodynamic rear since Claudia Schiffer. Clearly, Jessica's buns have been cooked to perfection (if you know what i mean), if I was a pirate I'd search for her booty (if you know what I mean), and she sold terrorists her weapon of mASS destruction (if you know what I mean). But enough with the play on words, let's start with the statistics. Biel's behind was rated a whopping 69.9 on major sites and was elected best new booty of 2007 in People magazine's issue #696969. She reportedly has a T.I.W of 34.5 and a A.C.E of 57.8. Another great fact about Jessica's backdoor is that it only has 25% booty fat, compared to Jennifer's 27%. However, Jennifer Lopez does have a higher S.T.D rating than Jessica, butt that data is negligible. In conclusion, even though the stats are there, there is no questioning that Miss Biel is the clear winner here, just by staring at that badonkadonk. Jennifer has some catching up to do as she is clearly BEHIND Jessica Biel (if you know what i mean) Thank You
Three Philosophical Topics - 1F

TheSkeptic has made the affirmative claim that free will does not exist, thus it is his burden to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. My purpose in this debate is to refute as best I can his argument(s) while providing my own alternative to the source incompatibilist model. Obviously, I do not want to betray too many of my counterarguments before PRO has even presented his case! I will therefore allow my opponent to make his opening arguments before positing any of my own. To give a brief overview, I will be arguing for a compatibilist/soft-determinist model predicated on the following points: - Free does not mean "uncaused. " - Foreknowledge =\= Predestination (to refute the Nietzschean argument found in "Human, All Too Human. ") - The fact that things WILL play out a certain way does not negate Free Will. - Incompatibilist/Hard determinist models use a flawed definition of both "could" and "free. " I declare the right to qualify these assertions and expand the list as neccessary to refute PRO's contentions. With that I defer to my opponent.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1F

The free will debate is OFF-LIMITS unless I approve of you in the comment sections. So if you want to argue for the existence of free will, leave me a few comments so I can be sure that we can pass the very bare rudimentary philosophical material in our debate to avoid what can very well be a philosophy lecture. I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free Will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* PRO - Time travel, whether forward or backward, is possible. ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims there are no objective moral values. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism. Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.). *Time travel is transport through time into the past or the future. What time is, or the nature of the transport process itself, is subject to the debate. I will prefer my opponent to attack this resolution from a philosophical standpoint, given the context of this debate (philosophical topics). I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
Video games are a better source of entertainment than movies

"You sound like you have a PS4 you should add me on there what are your favorite video games? Do you play fortnite"No point given. I'll still answer it. Yes I do use a Playstation 4 but prefer singleplayer games. I don't really like multiplayer games. "What does subjective mean and it it's a bad movie you wouldn't watch it a second time you would rewatch a movie if it is a good movie. "Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, Tastes, Or opinions. (Google: Subjective define)A good video game has more replayability than a good movie based on time. Good in this instance is whatever you like. "That wasnt meant to help your side. When I said all day I meant it as hypothetical. "Better going to the movies than playing a game all day" I'm speaking in general not speaking on myself"Even if you did a video game can keep the user's attention longer than a movie. Looking at the same movie becomes more tedious compared to playing the same game all day. Reason is you can choose what to do, How to do it and when to do it. A movie is what the director intended whereas yes it would also be the same for video games but you still have to interact for things to happen. That time you take to interact does give the player more freedom and more chances to make the content less stale and do something instead of watching the same thing over and over again. "can't argue with that one"No new point made again. I would also argue video games due to how varied the choices can be does allow the user more replayability. "Well ok then we'll see the voters decisions"Instead of making an argument you just say that.
Video games are a better source of entertainment than movies

You can use x to jump, Square to reload, Triangle to change weapon, R1 to fire, R2 to use a grenade, L1 to aim, L2 to use secondary throw-able item. You sound like you have a PS4 you should add me on there what are your favorite video games? Do you play fortniteSubjective and also you can get tired of watching the movie the second time if you are watching a bad movie. What does subjective mean and it it's a bad movie you wouldn't watch it a second time you would rewatch a movie if it is a good movie. You stated time as in favour of my side. By you mentioning "all day" you are already conceding that you can spend more time on video games. That wasnt meant to help your side. When I said all day I meant it as hypothetical. "Better going to the movies than playing a game all day" I'm speaking in general not speaking on myselfYou can also replay video games and catch things that you have missed. can't argue with that one I can say it is better to play video games and since there are only two people debating it would end with a draw. Well ok then we'll see the voters decisions
Video games are a better source of entertainment than movies

"You can use a tool to watch movies too you have a remote control and you also have different buttons you can operate on netflix. " The problem is the best you can do with remotes is change the volume, Change where you are at the movie, Pause and that is it. With a controller it is more interactive due to the amount that can be done. Lets take a generic first person shooter. You can use x to jump, Square to reload, Triangle to change weapon, R1 to fire, R2 to use a grenade, L1 to aim, L2 to use secondary throw-able item. That is not all of it but it does give more control to the user which allows them more freedom in what they are viewing and interacting. "It's better going to the movie theatres than sitting all day playing a video game because if you play it too much you could get tired of it. " Subjective and also you can get tired of watching the movie the second time if you are watching a bad movie. You stated time as in favour of my side. By you mentioning "all day" you are already conceding that you can spend more time on video games compared to movies due to how much better video games are at keeping the user interested. At best a movie lasts for 3 hours which is short to the all-day video games length of 12 hours or more if you decide to skip sleep. "You can also rewatch movies and catch things that you haven't missed. " You can also replay video games and catch things that you have missed. This applies more toward video games than movies. Video games can and do offer different ways of completing. If the options are so different and good it can warrant the user to play again just to see what the user missed. "It's better and more entertaining rewatching movies than replaying video games. " Subjective so basically I can say it is better to play video games and since there are only two people debating it would end with a draw.
Video games are a better source of entertainment than movies

InteractiveYou can use a tool to watch movies too you have a remote control and you also have different buttons you can operate on netflix. TimeIt's better going to the movie theatres than sitting all day playing a video game because if you play it too much you could get tired of it. ReplayabilityYou can also rewatch movies and catch things that you haven't missed. It's better and more entertaining rewatching movies than replaying video games.
Video games are a better source of entertainment than movies

Round 1 is not acceptanceVideo game: A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a two- or three-dimensional videodisplay device such as a TV screen or computer monitor. (Wikipedia)Movie/Film: Movies, Also known as films, Are a type of visualcommunication which uses movingpictures and sound to tell stories or inform (Wikipedia) Better: more advantageous or effectiveEntertainment: the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment. (oxforddictionaries)InteractiveYou can use a tool to choose where to go. This can be a controller, Keyboard etc. By having this it allows the user to dictate the pace of the entertainment rather than allowing the director to do it for you. TimeOverall games offer more time to get enjoyment. This can be stopped and picked up at whatever time the user pleases. In a video game there is the possibility of choosing different scenarios to be played either choosing it earlier or later on in the experience. ReplayabilityDue to the extent of the content in video games it does allow the user to have many different ways of going through content. This helps if the extent of the different ways are really drastic that it makes the user want to replay the video game again just to see what was missed.
Trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom that they associate with.

I believe that the majority of this controversy began with the north carolina HB2 bill being passed. Transgender people identify as the gender they prefer. I understand that is is an obvious statement but something that a lot of people look past. If someone was born with female genitalia but once old enough to understand gender believes that she is actually a male than for the most part this human being will identify themselves as such. This is not a mask to hide behind but a true identity. Transgender people do not enter the bathroom with any intention of harming or "watching" anyone. These people are entering the restroom with only one thing on there mind. THEY WANT TO PEE/POOP! (caps are for emphasis not yelling). When you go to the restroom do you think that you want to peep in on someone if you are then you are the creeper? NO! Or at least you should not want to,if you can tell someone's genitals than you are the one that should be in trouble. At the moment there are very few reports of transgender people performing any misconduct in the restroom. However there are many filed reports of cisgenders performing misconduct. Being transgender does not make you want to cause a ruckus in the restroom. You are just like everyone else except for the fact that you were born in the wrong body. It is for all of these reasons that I urge you to vote pro. Thank you. sources: My opinion HB2 law . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://mashable.com... . http://www.motherjones.com...
There is Extraterrestrial Life Beyond Earth

Hey man u got me lol I was just bsing this because until what I thought was the status quo, now is nothing more than possibilities, until the government coughs up, you kicked my gluteus maximus, well hopefully in the future I can debate you again, this was my first time and I lost, but when you fail, you learn to succeed. good luck in all of you debates. I FORFEIT YESH!!
There is Extraterrestrial Life Beyond Earth

First of I like to say thanks Sorrows for accepting, I joined this website today and lets see how I do. First I will have t say the Source is not Legit, Wikipedia isn't aloud in any debate. People can change the words very easily, even though there is people 'watching' it, I would like to say from now on do not use wikipedia. Con said: "The idea is that if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago." Now Extraterrestrial life doesn't have to be intelligent, it can be cells on a planet such as the Mars. NASA's probe Phoenix Lander found water on Mars. Where there is water, there is micro-organisms, and I quote from NASA "where there is water there is life,". quote: http://ezinearticles.com... NASA also confirms that there is methane gas in the atmosphere stating: "The first definitive detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars indicates the planet is still alive," Now saying that Methane has 4 atoms of hydrogen, which is the main component of natural gas on the earth, which organisms digest nutrients, creating methane, yes it might be just oxidation of iron, but astrobiologists think otherwise. http://www.nasa.gov... You stated that we would have noticed them if the existed by saying : "we would have already noticed them a long time ago." We have noticed them, we get 1,000s of UFO sightings a year. yes they are unidentified, since the governments cover them up, the only legit testimony's are the people who've seen them, Astronauts have seen them including Neil Armstrong, policemen see them, even John F. Kennedy saw one. there are even laws in place for Extraterrestrials such as: Title 14, Section 1211 of U.S. Federal Code: Forbidding Contact With Extraterrestrials they wouldn't create laws like these if there weren't not any. http://www.weeklyuniverse.com... We have only scratched the surface of the Universe, We haven't even gone outside our own solar system. NASA has found dozens of Exoplanets, which are planets that might be able to support life
There is Extraterrestrial Life Beyond Earth

PRO argues that most scientists believe that extraterrestrial life exists, which I would say is false, but I will get to that later. PRO also says that religious groups believe we are the "only ones. " To be honest, this is completely not true and PRO most likely produced his argument on the basis of Christianity. In fact, many religious groups acknowledge and advocate ET life, there is even a religion concerned about extraterrestrials (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I must acknowledge, however, that being a person of reason and logic, I believe that extraterrestrial life can exist, but PRO's argument was based on the fact that there is extraterrestrial life beyond Earth. I am therefore in a position where all I have to do is negate that argument that there is definitely NOT ET-life beyond Earth. The burden of proof is on PRO to prove that ET life does exist, and I think the only argument he can piece together is something along the likes of the Wow! Signal (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), which could in fact be anything really, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster is viable in this situation. Now, to justify my position as CON, and further refute PRO's intial argument, I say that most scientists accept the possibilities of ET life being POSSIBLE, but there is no further evidence to conclude the current existence of ET life. Semantics can be abused greatly here, as PRO's sentence was "There is Extraterrestrial life beyond Earth. " If he had said "there can" then this argument would be extremely hard for me to win. But since PRO is implying the assumption that ET life is already currently existing, he must first provide the evidence of this. The Fermi paradox (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) states that due to the high probability of ET life existing within our vast and expanding galaxy, we would have already noticed them a long time ago. But we have not, and why is this? The idea is that if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago. That intelligent life would really only have to succeed on one other occasion to propagate throughout the galaxy by this present point in time. That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick, that if it were easily developed elsewhere in the universe, it would have had many opportunities in the distant past to do so, of which at least one other species would have succeeded by now if it were possible. That it has not, or that we are not aware of any, suggests that either it has never happened, or has happened in a way in which we will never be aware. And that therefore our understanding of ET life is not likely to ever change. I eagerly await my opponent's response. First time debating this topic, so I am excited.
Swimming is a sport

My opponent has failed to make any arguments against my case. I believe this should constitute as a win in my favour. I will summarize my arguments: There are many types of swimming which are not sport and are not competetive. Swimming styles range from getting from point A to B, to losing weight, to saving someone's life. There are many different types of swimming which are not sportive in nature, so to put all these different styles under an umbrella term of "sport" is unfair and unfitting of such a wonderful and multifaceted activity. Thank you.