BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dolphins enjoy wearing turtleneck sweaters

It appears that my crushing response has forced Frenchmoosetwo to resign the fact that I am indeed correct. As I proved to all present including my opponent, Dolphins in fact do not wear turtleneck sweaters. For the voters, let me submit a final piece of evidence. Here we have a dolphin-human hybrid who obviously inherited his fine dolphins' sense of fashion. He is not wearing a turtleneck sweater. . http://www.youtube.com... However, my dear opponent, let me assure you not to be disheartened by my overwhelming amount of evidence proving that dolphins in fact wear top hats and monocles rather than turtleneck sweaters. We can always take great solace that dolphins will continue to wear top hats and monocles as long as tree-toed sloths will wear polo shirts and visors. Thank you to my opponent and any readers we may have. I hope you will remember my argument as well as my opponent's forfeiture.
Dolphins enjoy wearing turtleneck sweaters

I accepted this debate out of shock rather than the thrill of competition. I am quite disappointed in my opponent thus far into the debate. He claims that dolphins enjoy wearing turtleneck sweaters. That is utterly ridiculous. In this debate, I will attempt to disprove his claim by using my own immense knowledge on the subject and showing that while dolphins would not be caught dead wearing turtleneck sweaters (what do you think they are? Grouper?), they do enjoy wearing top hats and monocles, with the obvious exception of the Atlantic dolphins around Florida, who, reaching their rebellious teen years, have taken to wearing leather jackets instead. With that, I leave it to my opponent to describe the rules of this debate.
Xbox 360 is better than the Ps3.

1. Pro's experience or preference has no bearing on this debate. I have both a PS3 and 360; my PS3 has been far more reliable. The PS3 in general has a failure percentage rate of 0.2% (so less than 1) while failure rates as high as 1/3 (33%) of all consoles in existence of the Xbox 360 have been reported [1]. 2. I have never had a problem with my Blu Ray player, and Pro hasn't given evidence that this is a common problem. It also doesn't negate the value aspect of the built in Blu Ray. It's an awesome feature that makes the value of the PS3 far better, and Pro hasn't responded to my other value arguments including all of the free things PS3 comes with which Xbox forces you to buy - like online gaming (!), cooling devices, wireless controllers, etc. 3. Pro never responded to my points that PS3 has more versatile games with better graphics, and superior WiFi and other options/features. I guess he agrees. [a] http://tinyurl.com...
Xbox 360 is better than the Ps3.

I will debate on why the Xbox 360 is better than the Playstation 3 in faults. Break-downs The Ps3 has the Red screen of death and yellow light of death The Xbox has the Red ring of death. But with the new Xbox 360 Microsoft has fixed the problem and the console no longer has it. While Sony has'nt done anything to fix their problem. Con, you said the Ps3 had Blu-ray built in it but when you play movies on it some of the screen is cut off so you have to squint to get the picture right. Before this debate i got a Ps3 to see if it was good. It was all going well until 4 months later when i got the Red screen of death. I called tech support and it took me litterally an hour for them find a conclusion. they told me to send it to them. I Did. to make a long story short when i got it back 3 days later it broke again. When i got my Xbox 360 which was a year ago it hasnt stuffed up once. Damn out of characters . Well back to you.
Xbox 360 is better than the Ps3.

GAMES --- Xbox is only known for its shooters; PS3 offers a much larger variety and critics agree that the graphics are superior. They also rate the PS3 as having a better, more comfortable and sleek appearance. VALUE --- The PS3 costs 50$ more than the 360, but that price includes many features and amenities that Xbox forces you to buy separately including online gaming (which is more than 50$ a year making the price equal out right there), wireless controllers, battery kits, cooling systems, etc. Also, the PS3 includes a built in Blu Ray dvd player which by itself costs more than the PS3! RELIABILITY --- PS3 far exceeds the 360 in all ratings. Xbox admits it has awful performance ratings and far more technical problems than all other consoles combined! MULTIMEDIA ---- PS3 has superior WiFi options, HDMI features, remote play, hard drive options, etc. Pro mentions the 360's Kinect, but even that is outshined by the PS3's Move.
Xbox 360 is better than the Ps3.

And without delay I will begin. 1. The newest Xbox 360 console {which is way superior than any Ps3 model} costs only about $449. The Playstation 3 cost varies from maybe $500 to $650. The bigger the GB of the hard drive in the Ps3 the more chance of it stuffing up. 2. The Microsoft made a better Xbox 360 console which in some games it doesnt need a controller. Microsoft also made the online play better with Kinect and other cool things. 3. So what if the Ps3 has a tiny bit more graphics than the Xbox 360. its the games that count like gameplay like Gears of War 3 and soon Halo: Reach which are way better than the games on the ps3. I will finish my the rest of my debate in round 3 I wait for my opponents side of the debate
Xbox 360 is better than the Ps3.

Thanks, Pro. My opponent has instigated a debate by making the positive claim that the Xbox [360] is better than the PS3. As such, he has the burden of proof [1] and I need not make any contentions until Pro presents arguments in favor of the resolution. In order to debate which is "better," I contend that the factors to consider include price (value and affordability), games (fun factor and graphics), general play, appearance, reliability, ratings, online play and multimedia. Because of the stringent character limit, my arguments will be short and sweet. I may space them out over the next 2 rounds, or if necessary include my references and sources on a separate page. I'd like to wish my opponent good luck in defending the resolution in such a short amount of space, or proving that the 360 supersedes the PS3 in all of the aforementioned categories. [1] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
Resolved: states ought not go to war

my oppponet says that war saves people but it also kills people as well. in fact more people are killed than those who are saved. although i look at this from one perspective this is the perspective that the most people aggree with. my opponet says that i did not single out one good thing about war. This is because war has no good things for me to comment on. war it self is immoral. It hurts nations economy to the point that it could take them years to rebuild. It hurts mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and children. it hurts them beacuse they have lost a loved one. my opponet says that the iraq war is a poor example. How can this be true? the iraq war was started beacuse of supposed nukes. AND there was none. every example of is not poor beacuse war kills people. that is the point i am trying to make. No matter which war iraq, afganistan, ww1 and ww2 they all have two things in common. One they hurt the economy and they kill people. my opponet says that war would make things better... Howw in the world does it do this??? that is my question.
Resolved: states ought not go to war

Thank you. I want to correct my opponent that I am a "he" and not "her." I prefer the former in under all circumstances, thank you very much. 1. Rebuttals 1.1 Killing of innocent people I already stated that wars can save innocent people. My opponent merely looks at war from one perspective, which is that innocent people will die, therefore war is bad. I see no refutations to my points at all. 1.2 The rest... My opponent makes the entire concept of war look bad in all cases. She does not single out even "one" good thing about war. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities of a country which attacked the U.S. Just because the method used for bombing the two cities was immoral does in no way mean that the U.S. retaliation was bad. Should the nation have let Japan invade it and slaughter innocent people? Moreover, assume that Russia wishes to invade Finland, a nation which might be entirely innocent. The Russian plot could be to simply destroy anything and murder anyone who is confronted inside and outside a battlefield. If Russians plan to eliminate a nation of over five million people, would it be better to let that happen, or let e.g. the U.S wage war against Russia and be able to hold it back from committing genocide on millions of innocents? This could lead to a quick cease fire, too, since the two very powerful nations would rather not wage war against each other. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, these two examples are poor. Just because there are "some" cases where a supposedly defensive war goes wrong does in no way mean that it applies to any defensive war. The war in Balkans was a war of aggression on one side, and a war of defense on another. Does my opponent believe that the nations of Croatia and Bosnia would be peaceful today had they not defended themselves against an aggressor? Also, what if the citizens of North Korea protest, and 1/4 of them got captured and gassed, slaughtered, etc.? Would a war against North Korea not be justified, perhaps? People would die anyway. A war would only make things better in this case. I hope that my opponent an provide a more detailed response next time and address my points.
Resolved: states ought not go to war

what my opponent clearly and quite plainly says is that war can be moral. I answer that with a question: is the killing of innocent people moral? Was it moral to kill the people o Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No that is not moral. They were brutally MURDERED because of one thing and on thing only They lived in a rogue state. That is the stupidest reason that i have every heard of and trust me i have heard a lot. The isn't moral in fact it is immoral. another thing my opponent said is that war is not necessarily bad. How can this be true if innocent people are killed and murdered every day? they also said that war is used to defend people. That is a new excuse. so our war in Iraq is to defend us? that is putting the value of American lives over the value of others. We as Americans made the concept all en are created equal. That "Defend Citizens" does not go along with that concept. My opponent also says that war reduces the number of lives slaughtered that is not true. In Afghanistan families are killed in the cross fire of amerian soliders and the terrorists. This proves that war doesn't reduce the casulaties of war.
Resolved: states ought not go to war

Thank you. A lot of my recent debates resulted in forfeits from my opponents, which is why I will make this round short and let my opponent prove his case. 1. Definitions 1.1 War "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."ï¿½ 1.2 Immorality "the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct"ï¿½ 2. Arguments 2.1 War is not necessarily bad When you look at an apple on a tree, do you think that it is bad? I suppose not. Apples taste good and benefit our health. However, one could pick an apple from a tree and use it to hurt another person. Does this make usage of apples immoral? Nary one fair minded person will say that it does. Similarly, we should ask ourselves about the intention of a war; is it necessarily for oppression? No. Is it necessarily due to hatred? No. It could be, but not necessarily. War can be a result of the intention to help an already oppressed people. If there is a state in the world which hardly oppresses its people and lets them live lives of high qualities, is it moral to let it stand defenseless against a nation which might attempt to invade it and let corruption and oppression be a normal thing for the innocent people? Indeed not. 2.2 War can be moral My opponent makes an invalid claim, which is that war is immoral and that innocent human beings are being killed. However, this is a void claim and has no logical sense whatsoever. What if a government already kills its citizens and actually damages the economy of neighbor states? Is it immoral to wage war against it in order to prevent this from continuing and causing more catastrophes? If not - which is the correct answer - then how can war be immoral? If it is the only way of deterring immoral killing of human beings, then there is nothing immoral about it. The only logical way with which we might conclude that war is immoral is by saying that many nations use war as a means of expanding power. However, this does not hold water either because in order to counter such an immoral wage of war, we need to use a method of warfare. There is no immorality involved here. In brief, war can be useful for several things: • Limiting or breaking the power of corrupt nations who attempt to invade well-functioning, humane states • Defending innocent people • Reducing the number of innocent people being slaughtered • Weapons manufacturing; part of equipment for war - boosts the economy I thank my opponent and I look forward to reading her response. -- References -- ï¿½http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ï¿½http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Resolved: states ought not go to war

States shouldn't go to war because this is immoral. War is immoral because t kills innocents and threatens the economy of every state that is involved with said war. Just think of nagasaki and hiroshma. these were innococent people whose lives were taken from them beacuse of where they lived. They had no ties into ww2 other than living in a rogue state. Right now we are in a war with afganistan. I now ask you this question how is are economy? These are my rerasons why you should affirm the resolution Resolved: States ought not go to War.
Resolved: states ought not go to war

Unfortunately my opponent did not invalidate any of my arguments, and I already answered her questions. "my opponet says that war would make things better. .. Howw in the world does it do this? ?? that is my question. " Simply said: If North Korea plots a plan to invade an economically strong but militarily weak China (for the sake of argument) and kill 500,000,000 people, then the U. S. could invade North Korea, and although millions of people would die, it would still be less than if nothing prevented North Korea from invading China. If China got invaded, not only would many more innocents die, but the world economy would be weakened, too.
Censorship of Art

It is true that art does not harm any one, but morally speaking wouldn't it be better to subjects like racism, violence and nudity out of art. Such things could be detrimental, and offensive to others. As far government regulation, I totally agree that they should not regulate art. We all know what happened in Russia for the longest time. If the individual wants to express his emotions and feelings in a controversial way, I would suggest that he do so in private or chose another medium.
Censorship of Art

I'm sorry that I missed a round, I was unable to access a computer. Others' expression through art should not be limited by your or anyone's ideology, save the creator. Censorship of art is one of the only (and best) ways to silence passionate minority groups, if all art was censored then one large group could hold all the power of expression, and that would be awful. There is no reason to censor something that harms no one.
Censorship of Art

I happen to disagree with total expression of ones feelings through art. There are many thing that should be left in the mind, for example romance or passion should not be depicted in the visual arts. Censorship should be exerted when it comes to written art as well, many poems were created with the intention of being racist. If you consider music as art (which I do) then self control and censorship should be exerted even more. I find it impossible to listen to a song today without hearing drugs, sex, or racism. This kind of behavior should be eliminated from all art in the future.
Women and Contact Sports

My opponent's account has been closed, so I am going to take that as a forfeiture of the debate. Here is a quick rebuttal to my opponent: 1. Sports and exercise both benefit women. Just because sports are not the only way to get fit doesn't mean they aren't an excellent way to. Sports are often much more mentally stimulating and physically challenging than simple exercise. 2. I never said that allowing women to play certain sports would eliminate all sexist. I argued that the current state of affairs is founded on and perpetuates sexism. 3. I provided evidence to support this claim in my source. Many of my other sources implicitly point to the truth of this assertion. 4. This argument is basically dropped, but it is alluded to in my opponent's counterarguments. Rebuttals: 1. Any athlete's parent, regardless of the sex of the athlete, can sue because of an injury. Girls already play sports that have high injury rates; girls cross country has the highest injury rate of any sport [1]. In any case, most such lawsuits would be frivilous because parents are usually required to sign a waiver indicating that they will not hold the school liable for injuries their children suffer in athletic competitions. 2. Hormonal inbalance is not a normal result of physical activity for women. This is generally only a problem for those with improper diets. My opponent's source does not back up this claim. Conclusion: My opponent's counterarguments are ridiculous and frivilous objections that do not have the slighest basis in reality. My case is absolutely unscathed. Sources: [1] http://ezinearticles.com...
Women and Contact Sports

I make the argument that women and contact sports should not be together. Your argument 1. sports benefit women. But so does excercising in the gym? If sports are the only way of getting fit, then Every girl should be a fat slob by now . 2. Well, allowing women to play sports isn't giong to fix that. Women playing sports will get rid of al the sexism and sexist thoughts in the world? Puh-lease. And why would you want to erase it in the first place? You don't say WHY it's bad. I know it's bad, but you shouldn't just assume it's bad in an argument. There's so many sexism in so many different places: hospitals, workplaces, and etc. ONE THING isn't going to fix it. If you can fix every sexism, I'm all ears. 3. I want to see your evidence on that. But not really arguing that until later. 4. Later Here are some bad sides. :( 1. Potential lawsuit from the parents is a big problem. Grape might say that girls have no right to be discriminated against, but guess what? Most everyone thinks girls are fragile. So, if girls start getting hurt, their parents will sue the school for letting the girls get injured by allowing man sports. There are lots of crazy parents out there, let me tell you. One parent sued the school for letting her son read "The Brave New World"! LOLhttp://blog.seattlepi.com... 2. Also, another bad side is imbalance in menstrual cycles and hormones. girls may be physically equal to men. That doesn't mean their exactly the same. They have periods unlike boys, and did you know that if girls played sports like that really hard, and did weight training their menstrual cycle will get all whack? http://www.coachr.org... reason why is because their hormone is unbalanced because of all the sports. Is it really worth it?If a girl becomes puzzled because she is becoming "masculinized" because of weight training, and loses period because of that, who's to blame? The school. More lawsuits. But if School starts teaching girls about what could happen to her body if they start doing sports, then they won't want to play sports anymore, making your argument 3 invalid. Vote for me because I argued against all Pro's arguments very goodly.
Atheists should not respect religious beliefs

Thanks to my opponent for taking this argument and conducting himself in a professional manner. Many Christians, even theologians, have not actually engaged religion critically. Cristology is not critical engagement. That is true there are assumptions in science; however, those assumptions are only made when they must be made. For instance, we assume that we can trust our senses. Although Christology does not proclaim to be scientific ,though it uses historical (social scientific) evidence, scientific methodology should be applied to the claims it produces. This would allow for some sort of critical inquiry. Disrespecting a belief is not the same as disrespecting a person. For instance, if someone believes that the earth is flat, it is not necessary for us to strip him/her of respect as a person; however, we should not respect his/her belief because there is contradictory evidence to it. This argument is not asking anyone to disrespect people but to disrespect beliefs. My opponent has claimed that Christianity deserves respect from atheists because it contains academic inquiry, people value it, and there exists certain economic and social benefits from it. Firstly,this kind of academic inquiry could hardly be called inquiry. When we inquire about something, we put everything on the line. Christology/ theology fail to actually inquire about the true, historical nature of the Bible and Christianity. Secondly, many people value various beliefs, many of of them unsubstantiated. This does not require our respect nor should it assume our respect. Thirdly, economic and social benefits such as helping the poor should be respected on their own terms regardless of a person's belief. Believe it or not, there are many unaffiliated people who improve society. There exist many contradictions within the Bible (http://www.infidels.org...) (http://www.evilbible.com...) that should substantiate doubt, but many Christians seem unchanged by these evidences. Christians, in other words, are not willing to doubt their beliefs. I would gladly as would many atheists become Christian if certain criteria for evidence could be fulfilled. Of course, many atheists have problems with the miracles within the Bible and the morality therein, but if it was demonstrably true, that would be enough. The question may arise how we can believe in and respect one's abstract concepts of love and happiness. These things are not demonstrable, but we still believe in them and respect people's feelings towards them; however, they are not in any way similar to the claims that Christianity is making. These claims are historical while abstractions are emotional and attached to an individual. If I say I'm happy, that is something completely different than claiming to be God. Such extreme claims should not be accepted by faith alone; it would be credulous to do so. Because of the lack of evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence, atheists should not respect religious beliefs.