BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anime needs to be Banned

Hello Con. 1. My opponent has failed to mention my point. I will remind you con, that your preference of anime's morals are subject to your exposure to it. You say that watching anime will inspire positive morals, but if it really does inspire morals, then it has inspired your morals. I advise you to remain impartial, and that would mean avoiding subjects where this is impossible. 2. If there is hentai of an under aged nature, then it must not be allowed. Sexualizing under aged individuals is immoral, and all Japanese animations which perform this immoral act need to be prohibited. If you honestly think that the banning of said pornography would ruin the anime industry, then that speaks for itself. 3. A ban on child pornography would have minimal impact on a person's enjoyment of anime fantasy. I am making the point that if there is anime fantasy which is child pornography, then that particular fantasy cannot claim to be morally righteous. I find subjects that are not child pornography to be better for anime fantasy than those which are. 4. There are hentai videos which are also child pornography. By extension, there is hentai which must be banned. Hentai is a form of anime, therefore there are anime videos which must be banned. 4A. Any benefit to child pornography, is quickly and easily overshadowed by the terrible immorality of it. If you would like this to become a debate on whether or not there is acceptable child pornography, I would recommend saving that for a separate debate. I await your response.
Anime needs to be Banned

Hello again , pro 1. The morals goes to the most Anime because most of the Anime has Friendship and this kind of stuff. 2. I Know about that and I'm aware of that, but in these days we know what the children from about (10-16) does, they watching Porn. So why we should say that the erotic kind of anime should be removed? there are much 18 years old Men and Women. And they want to see this kind of stuff. With it all the world has a stereotype with the Sexuality , the children should not know it. but why? I see it from an other fact, that the Teenage viewer ship dosn"t need to be included. there can be an Line where the Kids should not cross. But when we prohibit the Hentai,Echhi, or even a Anime with a Sexual Joke, then I don't see the Point of even making them. 3. I didn't mean that Anime Watchers are fantasizing about Child pornography, I wanted to say that they can fantasy how would it be to LIFE in an Anime world and NOT how to ... think about Child pornography. these two Words (Child Porn Fantasy and Anime Fantasy are very different. So 4. About Banning Anime if you No.2 , you probably thinks of it wrong. I know that you are saying "Many erotic Videos that are Anime" BUT! here is a name of it: Hentai. It was made for Men and Women because some People are just bored with the normal Porn so. Hentai is not Child Pornography because you see how old they are. (that's hard but some people like me can make it.) 4.A: "To clarify a bit, if there is some anime which happens to be of this unacceptable nature, them some anime must be banned." That sentence made me really hard to think but here is my Answer: When you ban a Anime gerne ( lets say Horror and psycho) then this would really affect the otaku fans. I Mean with it that a Anime like Mirai Nikki... (Really Gross but still watchable) is really sick, I know but you should know that around " otaku"s watched it? Why? Because it was a good Anime and it had it"s hidden moral. I await your answer
Anime needs to be Banned

Allow me to make the following points. 1. Your judgment on the subject of anime's moral value is exempt, as your morals are subjective to their treatment. 2. If we accept your definition of anime being Japanese animation, then this is a point I am eager to make. There are many erotic videos that are anime. Several of these have an uncanny resemblance to child pornography, and therefore should be prohibited to avoid any sort of avocation. To clarify a bit, if there is some anime which happens to be of this unacceptable nature, them some anime must be banned. 3. The anime that would be banned (the erotic kind) would very likely not have a positive impact on teenage viewer ship. 4. Fantasy regarding child pornography cannot be considered an acceptable ideal, because the positive impacts are nonexistent in comparison to the grotesque horrors. I await your points.
Anime needs to be Banned

Hello pro, Thanks for accepting Definition for anime. Anime: Anime = Animation other words Japanese Animation 1.Anime is a great conception about morality and make"s the viewers Relaxed. 2. Due the new upcoming Law in the EU is there said that the way the Characters are Drawn is for the looking as they would be some children. BUT the point is they want to prohibit Anime Due to big Erotic"s. (For example : Hentai"s, Porn gerne. Echhi, Sexual jokes or even Fan services " Means Seeing the Panties or the BH). Other words they want to prohibit it for looking like Child Pornography. 2.A :The Drawing are just made this way because, the viewers wants then to look Cute. And these Days are the Japanese Animation distribution Drawing a Character this way. The Japanese and other People are looking with a happy face these scenes because sometimes is it even funny. so this all needs to be included. 3.The Viewers with about (10-16) are most common and they are learning about morality , team spirit and some Rules about Friendship's. Most importantly, Anime is very reached out. I mean by reached out with it , that Anime is Spread all around the world. It is in Russia, America, Japan, Germany, Poland and much much more Country's. 4.I can"t forget to give the pro a argument, because I said Russia. Russia had a Anime accident. what I mean is, that 3 or 4 Kids Jumped from the top of a Moscow Building and Died. Why? Because they believed , when they die they enter into a Naruto World. But the Age of the Children we"re around 6-9 or so. And my point to destroy that argument is that everyone has it"s own mind who creates his own fantasies and Stories. And before I hear: ANIME MADE THEM TO DO THAT, the people needs to have a clear mind and they need to know that something like that dos"nt exists. Even through I fantasize about that too but I know that"s impossible. So pro my bro you go with your argumentoo... ha ha, I await your answer
Daleks are the best Doctor Who monster

Of course, the burden of proof fully rests on my opponent's side. I do not need to prove anything, I only need to disprove my opponent's statements in light of the debate. For the purpose of this debate, I see Daleks as the LEAST scariest monster, and the LEAST in terms of traditions. As for the monster that I believe that it would fulfill scariness and traditions to the highest degree. .. It is actually a tie. #1 . http://ravereader.files.wordpress.com...; />The SlitheenSeriously, they can perfectly masquerade as humans, and the concept of Gas-Exchange is terrifying! These are the ultimate crime family, they are big and strong, have a super strong sense of smell, and they can manufacture poison through a finger-nail gun or bad-breath. #1 . http://stuffershack.com...; />The cybermen. They don't even need to invade earth. They just have to upgrade us. They represents the human desire to constantly upgrade. They don't feel emotions, and they will make you emotionless too. These two examples are obviously more scary and have more traditions than a Dalek. In fact, pretty much any examples of a Dr. Who monster is scarier and have more tradition than a Dalek. I can't believe you actually find them scary or think they have tradition. That is quite the opposite.
Daleks are the best Doctor Who monster

Hello. I will now talk about tradition. This is a simple point. Daleks have been around ever since the second episode ever screened. They are the only monsters to faced every regeneration of the Doctor. Hence my case, the are iconic. You talked about opinions. Your top 10 scariest monster list is another opinion. You can't tell me that my arguments are simply opinions, when you are using them as points. Anyway, isn't this debate about opinions. Ans as you said "... So we can't prove Daleks are the bes Dr Who monsters..." Yes they do look like salt and pepper shakers but consider the first cybermen. You only have to google them to find pictures of people very obviously dressed up in silver leggings with cloth faces. Really? Not very scary. They look like they are wearing socks on their faces. And although the cybermen's design has improved (thankfully) they keep changing. Daleks have stayed the same ever since the 60s. "As for the Daleks losing emotions etc... Seriously, that is just frivolous watered down Cybermen" Since the cybermen came after Daleks, Cybermen are obviously watered down Daleks. The Slitheen are evil, yes. But aren't Daleks mass-murdering innocent humans for no reason (The PartingOf The Ways) just as evil. They knew full well where the Doctor was, yet they chose to kill civilians on Satellite 5. "The Cybermen actually have a goal..." So do the Daleks. As the Doctor has said countless times "They want everything to be Dalek" Davros' reality bomb is proof of that. The Daleks needed someone who had travelled through the Time Vortex before their Genesis Ark could open. Cybermen don't even have time travel technology. We are talking about Doctor Who , not Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adventures, although that is a valid point.
Daleks are the best Doctor Who monster

Hi. Thanks for accepting. In Round 2 I will prove Daleks are supreme in scariness and power. I will then rebut. Round 3 will be about tradition. First of all scare factor. Who hasn't hidden behind a couch from the Daleks. They have an extortionate amount of weapons - from the classic exterminate, to where they suck your brain out and leave you as a burnt shell (Army of Ghosts), or the nanocloud (Asylum of the Daleks). Even their voices are creepy. According to Doctor Robin Bunce, we are scared of Daleks because we fear we will be like them in the future. He says: "According to their back story, once they were capable of genuine emotion and real moral good. Now they are heartless brains, shut up in machines, who have forgotten what it means to laugh and no longer think of themselves as individuals. We recognise the Daleks as evil because they have lost all that we hold most dear.' Daleks also have unbeatable weaponry and tactics. They beat the Cybermen in Doomsday, and where an integral (if not the main) brain of the Pandorica (The Pandorica opens, The Big Bang) Now to rebut my opposition. In Boom Town, Blon Fel Fotch Pasameer Day Slitheen (the last remaining Slitheen or Earth) says "... in cases of emergency, when her life depends on it, a female Slitheen can shoot a poison dart from her fingertip..." She has proved my point. In cases of emergency. The Slitheen don't go around killing people by breathing on them, and their Gas-Exchange isn't well hidden. (Farts). They have one obvious weakness, vinegar, just a drop will kill them. Cybermen. So slow. Honestly, they are easily outrun, and often overlook details. When the Doctor says he can checkmate the "cyberman Doctor" (Nightmare in Silver) in 3 moves, the Cyberman still thinks they are playing the chess game. As I mentioned before, the Daleks beat them in Doomsday. Also, cleaning fluid and gold can kill a cyberman. So over to you Con.
Atheism Contains Those With the Same Hatred as Many Theist Beliefs

I apologize for the forfeit, I lost track of time. However, I am a bit confused by your argument. The title of your argument "Atheism contains those with the same hatred as many theist beliefs", the key word is many. Nevertheless, using your point about ISIS, a hate-based radical Muslim Caliphate, where is the Atheist Caliphate? Antitheists can get aggressive, but they aren't videotaping themselves beheading "heathens".
Atheism Contains Those With the Same Hatred as Many Theist Beliefs

While I do agree that anti-theism is not a synonym for atheism, I have to point out that anti-theism lies within atheism. Again, this debate is not over the groups, but rather the people within them. The majority of Islam, Christianity, and even atheism is composed of civil-minded people, who are overshadowed by the radicals that make the news. The very foundation of many theistic beliefs is the idea of co-existences and tolerance, however that does not stop the few radicals from stereotyping the entire group, just as happened to atheism. My point on this debate is that, both theistic systems and atheism contain the same radicals who soil the name of the entire ideology. Let's look at the radical groups associated with Islam, such as ISIS. Simply because these few numbers of a wide-spread religion choose violence and hatred, it is stereotyped over all Muslims. Because of churches like Westboro, Christians are stereotyped as bigots and closed-minded. Because of people like the majority of FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster), atheists are stereotyped as rude and narcissistic.
Atheism Contains Those With the Same Hatred as Many Theist Beliefs

After reading your argument, I would like to lay down a few terms: Anti-theist: Someone who is directly OPPOSED to theism Atheist: Someone who does not believe in a god Notice that the two are not synonymous, but are often used interchangeably. While the Flying Spaghetti Monster facebook page is a good example of Anti-theism, not all atheists are like this. While the media portrays all atheists as scientists or as snobby middle-aged white men, atheism can also simply be a philosophical view. Many philosophers and extremely spiritual people have also been noted to be atheists. Take the Greek Philosopher Diagoras for example. Diagoras was often considered the first atheist, and at that time, there was no particle accelerator to smash apart hadrons to search for quarks. Diagoras based his beliefs off of unpunished crime, claiming that if there was indeed a divine being, criminals would receive divine justice. As for your response to my second question, I don't think a lot of atheists hate theists. There are plenty of radical anti-theists all over the internet, but for the majority of atheists, there is a since of sympathy for theists. Many atheists feel religion corrupts and brainwashes people, and while they don't hate theism, they do feel sorry, but not in a disrespectful sense. It is the anti-theists that mess up the public image of atheism.
Atheism Contains Those With the Same Hatred as Many Theist Beliefs

I would like to point out that the debate is not over the groups, but rather those within them. In no way does this respect my views on any of the groups mentioned in this debate. To answer Con's first question, one only has to look to the mock-religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. On the Facebook page of this group, the majority of the posts are anti-theistic arguments. These arguments are often screenshots of a theist, commonly Christian, making a post proclaiming their beliefs. I call this phenomenon "Atheism Aggression." The most common cause for this is anger over recently converting from Christianity, or some other theistic belief system, to atheism. I have seen first-hand atheists that refuse to participate in anything with the slightest association to Christianity, and even insulting those who believe in these belief systems. The common view is that theists are ignorant and simple-minded morons. To address Con's second question, I do believe there is a connection. Atheists tend to be very scientifically minded people, and rather narcissistic as well. It's common that this causes atheists to look down upon theists, who have no substantial evidence to support their beliefs.
Atheism Contains Those With the Same Hatred as Many Theist Beliefs

I am interested to see how the pro can defend a group of pedophiles, homophobes, and racists in 5 rounds, but I feel I am ready to take on this argument. I applaud the pro, who has not singled out a particular group to defend, but decided to defend all of Theism. I will start off my defense by asking the Pro a few questions. First off, I would like the Pro to give an example of a situation in which Atheists have shown hate equal to or greater than that of their Theist counterparts. Secondly, is there, in your opinion, a link between one's non-belief in a spiritual being, and one's tendency to feel hatred? If so, why do you think that is? If not, why judge people on whether they believe in an invisible man in the sky in the first place?
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

This isn't any specific Harry Potter, but all of them in general just as I was referring to all Twilight books in general. Anyway, to continue my arguments important characters in Harry Potter die(once again, I'm going to avoid spoilers). Deaths in a story always make them so much more exciting. Also, there are some characters you're never really certain until later into the series which side they're on. The Twilight characters are always predictable which side they're on. Even with the evil nomad Vampires it's easy. You know right from the beginning there's evil vampires. Sadly, they seem even more like actual vampires than the Cullens too. At least they actually suck human blood.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Thank you for accepting. :) First off, I'll like to point out that your opening argument is flawed as you're referring to somebody known as "Harry Porter" rather than Harry Potter(not to mention, Harry Potter is British rather than Canadian). Secondly, the actual location of the stories is irrelevant although I feel Forks is a more unique, under-used location for a story. It's the actual plot and characters I will be nit-picking at here. Twilight uses the over-used, cliche, forbidden romance concept as the basis of the plot. I have read plenty of stories using that concept before. They get tiring after awhile. Also, the way I see it Edward and the rest of the Cullens aren't even proper vampires. The actual vampire myth certainly doesn't include vampires who sparkle in sunlight. Sunlight is supposed to be bad for a vampire. I also don't remember vampires having super strength or super speed either. Oh, and Edward can read minds as well. http://www.tabula-rasa.info... Meyer's characters also appear to be almost flawless, making Bella clumsy in an attempt to cover this up. Without Edward she would be nothing since it seems he doesn't display any flaws either. Doesn't take her much to get the hottest guy in school either. It's love at first site too which is pretty much impossible in real life. I see the characters in Harry Potter as more realistic as they actually display obvious flaws. There's Ron Weasly who is constantly klutzy, breaking his wand and such. This often gets him in trouble throughout the series. And then there's the death of harry's parents that really affected him as a character throughout the series. He grew up being neglected and treated badly by the Dursleys. This is certainly more interesting than Bella's seemingly "perfect" life. Harry also has his bond to Voldemort that is significant, but I want to avoid spoiling things for followers of this debate who haven't read the entire series yet... Anyways, the characters in Harry Potter are constantly in serious, life-threatening dilemmas rather than mostly just typical high school drama like the characters in Twilight experience. Why should I have to read about that? I have been there and done that.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Allow me to provide a few definitions: Better - More imaginative and entertaining. Twilight - a series of four vampire-based fantasy/romance novels by the American author Stephenie Meyer. It follows the life of Isabella "Bella" Swan, a teenager who moves to Forks, Washington, and finds her life radically changed when she falls in love with a vampire named Edward Cullen. Harry Potter - Is a man who lives at 39 Delano Ave Miramichi, NB. (. http://www.canada411.ca...) Opening Argument: Twilight (a series of four vampire-based fantasy/romance novels by the American author Stephenie Meyer. It follows the life of Isabella "Bella" Swan, a teenager who moves to Forks, Washington, and finds her life radically changed when she falls in love with a vampire named Edward Cullen. ) is more imaginative then Harry Potter because Harry Potter is a man who lives in New Brunswick, making it therefor better.
Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

One could argue that circular reasoning applies to many areas, does that make it any less valid? Every book and article, except the Bible, was written by imperfect human beings. Given that, why should any source be trustworthy? I have provided a number of sources that prove the existence of God, unfortunately they were all dismissed as fallacy. As my opponent and I will likely score 7 a piece, the rest is up to you the voters. Given that we live in a society of moral and social decay, I am supremely confident that I had lost this debate the moment I accepted it. I am also supremely confident that these same supposed intellectuals of modern academia will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. See John 3: 18, the substance of which states if you are a believer, you are going to heaven, if you are not a believer, you are condemned. God wishes that no one would be condemned, however; He allowed us our own free will to choose. People may stay in the condemned status, or choose to get saved. It is my hope that the readers of this debate will choose to get saved, see Romans 10: 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thy heart, thou shalt be saved. Friends, I encourage you all to get your fire insurance. Thanks!
Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

If you look at "refutations" you will see that I did address each item. C-1: While, I appreciate your candor and sarcasm, God is the only explanation for the earth's existence. I didn't state that God protected the Gypsies nor the Welsh. Further, God created the angel Michael and charged him to oversee the nation of Israel. I did not state that the Bible depends on God's existence, but that brings up a good point. Since the Bible is God inspired, it's existence evidence of God's existence. My opponent validated the scientific arguments of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments by posting links to them. Since my opponent has proven them to be valid, "Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown". My opponent took care of that for me, thereby giving me the win. Thanks! Even in a debate I would be careful about consigning the Bible to the fiction section. Here are other links to attest to the validity of the Bible: http://www.creatingfutures.net... http://teens4evangelism.wordpress.com... http://www.anunseenworld.com... Former athiest Lee Strobel went to great lengths to discredit the Bible as fiction only to find that the Bible was indeed valid. The Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Essenes corroborate the Bible. Since the Bible exists and was written by inspiration of God, God does exist. As requested, the Bible is now defended.