BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
jews should be sent to jupiter

"this man is antisemetic therefore his rebuttals are automatically invalid.this is like a second shoah! this man also wants the animals to get circumcised. good goy....."This man clearly ignores my arguments Good goy....." i bet he likes to lick poo poo too."This is a debating site, not a site for placing bets. However, I'll give you the odds 1:0."goyim vote for me if you want a safe homeland for the g--d's chosen people..."Vote for me for that also. Remember that slogan (I need to implant it into the minds of all!), 'Jews in Zoos!'. Zoos are the safest places ever and to prove it, they even put vicious wild animals in there and it's still very safe!"he is racist and says that they are not immune to gassing. what a bigot!!!"It's not racist if I have a scientific experiment, such as me letting one go in front of my Jewish pal.So there, I've refuted all of Pro's arguments and he has left quite a few of my arguments untouched. I mean, can you trust a guy whose avatar is a green alien? He probably only thinks that we should send Jews to Jupiter so that he can sexually abuse them. I bet he has a fetish for Jews! Haha, whodathunkit?I thank you.
jews should be sent to jupiter

this man is antisemetic therefore his rebuttals are automatically invalid.this is like a second shoah! this man also wants the animals to get circumcised. good goy..... i bet he likes to lick poo poo too. goyim vote for me if you want a safe homeland for the g--d's chosen people... he is racist and says that they are not immune to gassing. what a bigot!!! i obviously won so vote for me if ur not anti semetic.
jews should be sent to jupiter

" i still think that jews should be sent to the jupiter. as you know, jupiter is a gas planet. jews are already immune of them when 6 trillion died in auschwitz. they can create a jewish homeland there."Umm, like, science? Just because some Jews were gassed, doesn't mean that modern Jews will be immune to gassing. Anyway, I know they're not immune to gassing because I trumped in the front of one Jew the other day and he was DEAD DISGUSTED!" the zoos is a terrible idea. you dont want our animals to be circumcised do you????"Um well duh we will keep them away from the other animals. "whats so bad about a black jew? they have to sit in the back of the oven. when your a jew, you suffer 10 times more than a negro. i mean rosa park was a victim of racism when she sat in the back of the bus. when ur a jew, you have to sit in the back of the oven! oy vey das racist!!!!!!!" No, that's very bad! You're supposed to have arguments and rebuttals, not stories from 50 trillion years ago!Extend the arguments that Con dropped.I thank you.
jews should be sent to jupiter

whats so bad about a black jew? they have to sit in the back of the oven. when your a jew, you suffer 10 times more than a negro. i mean rosa park was a victim of racism when she sat in the back of the bus. when ur a jew, you have to sit in the back of the oven! oy vey das racist!!!!!!! i still think that jews should be sent to the jupiter. as you know, jupiter is a gas planet. jews are already immune of them when 6 trillion died in auschwitz. they can create a jewish homeland there. then there would be no more suicide bombing kebabs to kill in the middle east. the zoos is a terrible idea. you dont want our animals to be circumcised do you???? god bless america
jews should be sent to jupiter

Jew-piter, haha. That is very clever. I'd like to thank Pro and his comedic brain for instigating this debate.But are you seriously sure about sending them to Jupiter? If we do that, then they will never get to be the target in some hilarious jokes, yours being the prime example, but also:There was once a jew who lived in a shoe!Taking of his foreskin was certainly out of the Jew!What do you call a Jewish Kangaroo? A kangaJew!Also, sending them all to Jupiter would cost quite a lot of money. I say that we just put them in zoos. There's even a gag to accompany my idea: "Jews in Zoos!". It will also cost a significantly less amount of money.I thank you.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Although people may say that the death penalty is unnecessary and cruel punishment, the death penalty should not be abolished. Just because someone gets sent to jail, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will stop them from doing it again once they get out. If a person gets out of jail and keeps committing crimes and murders people they need to a little taste of their own medicine and should not be considered unnecessary and cruel punishment instead of the cycle happening all over again.
Does god exist

I accept and thank Con for instigating this interesting topic.I, as Pro, will be arguing that God exists and Con will be arguing that God doesn't exist.INTRODUCTION Since Con as instigator didn’t provide any definition or didn’t set the rules etc., I will do instead. Definitions God: the creator and the ruler of the universe. Universe: the totality of known (or supposed) objects and phenomena throughout space (i.e., space-time).[1]Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.[2] Logical Fallacy: false reasoning; a reasoning that doesn’t logically prove a claimed conclusion. Burden of Proof (BOP) BOP is shared (as Con also stated)."A fundamental principle of logic is that when one makes an assertion (regardless of it being a negative or a positive assertion) it is their sole responsibility to prove that the assertion is true."[3] The resolution is a question: "Does God Exist?". Con claims that "No, God doesn’t exist."Pro claims that "Yes, God exists."Since both "No, God doesn’t exist." and "Yes, God exists." are assertions made by Con and Pro, respectively, then both Con and Pro have full BOPs to prove their claims. In other words, BOP is equally shared. In other words, the BOP is not heavily on any side, both sides have equal BOPs in proving their assertions. Votes that ignore this point will be reported to be removed.Therefore;1. Points for arguments will go to debater who provides more convincing arguments as compared to other debater's arguments to prove their claim. 2. In case both sides provide equally convincing arguments to prove their claims, then the one who provides more convincing rebuttals to other debater’s arguments wins the points for arguments. 3. The arguments are tied otherwise. Rules and Conditions 1. IMPORTANT!! Voters MUST vote for arguments according to BOP conditions as explained above. Normal DDO standards are applied for points for conduct, S&G and sources.2. IMPORTANT!! Debaters must follow the definitions. 3. Use logically consistent arguments. 4. The following link will be considered as a reliable source for logical fallacies:http://www.toolkitforthinking.com... 5. Follow the following debate structure (I am providing this since Con's structure is not clear, we can discuss this further under comments if Con doesn't agree.) Round 1: Acceptance, rules, definitions etc. Round 2: Arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. No new arguments. Round 4: Defense of arguments against rebuttals in round 3. No new arguments or new rebuttals. Round 5: Closing Arguments (i.e., summary). No new arguments or rebuttals. Warning!If Con disagrees to anything I presented, then we should discuss it under comments and make changes before they post their arguments in round 2. Con can directly post their arguments for round 2 if and only if they agree to all definitions, rules, and structure above.I will look forward to Con’s arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck._______[1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] Def. 1 & 3 in http://www.dictionary.com... [3] http://www.foothill.edu...
People should be taught how to read

I accept. Resolved: People should be taught how to readPRO must affirm this statement, and argue that people should be taught how to read. I, as CON, must argue that they should not be. PRO states, " People shouldn't have to be taught to read because reading is not a necessity to life. There are many jobs in wich you can have as an illiterate such as; food bagger, construction worker, police officer, etc. "None of this advances his case that people should be taught how to read. In fact, he actually concedes the debate and argues for my side by saying people shouldn't have to be taught how to read, that reading isn't a necessity of life, an there are plenty of jobs which people who don't know how to read can get. All of these arguments support my side, so PRO has already conceded this debate.
Extremist parties work in the short term (communism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchy)

Hello. A discussion rather than an argument maybe. Given the format of Pro's presentation. "Authoritarianism will not count for this argument"? All social systems can be regarded as exhibiting some degree of authoritarianism. So to dismiss authoritarianism out of hand would makes this discussion pretty worthless. Collective human behaviour is naturally hierarchical, Therefore aspirations of social equality will always be notional. a) Socialism is a theoretical utopia. Therefore any "Party" that claims to be socialist is misleading the populace from the outset. In fact I would suggest that a Socialist Party is actually a contradiction in terms. b) Communism by definition contradicts itself. On the one hand it suggests equality and on the other it necessitates the observance of natural hierarchy. Communist Parties are therefore reliant on authoritarianism to maintain order. c) Fascism is an out and out authoritarian system, That is reliant on oppression and subjugation. As such fascism has no short term merit as an inclusive social system. d) Do the words anarchy and party have any real relevance to each other? And isn't anarchy the antithesis of society? Anarchy is chaotic non-governance and as such is only temporarily beneficial to the individual rather than beneficial to the collective. e) Tito's regime was somewhat more liberal than other counterpart Eastern European regimes of the time, But nonetheless authoritarian. Even liberal democracies rely on authority to maintain social order. Of course the benefit of such social systems is the built in quick fix counter to short term disillusionment. Though in this respect democratically implemented social policies are not necessarily guaranteed any greater long term success. What actually is extreme? Surely things can be as extremely liberal as they can be oppressive. Maybe things can even be extremely moderate. I would suggest that an extremity is probably only relative to the opposing viewpoint. Dictatorship? Perhaps all social government systems are dictatorial to a lesser or greater extent.
Extremist parties work in the short term (communism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchy)

You can change my mind on the topic as I am new to this. (Authoritarianism will not count for this argument) I will establish 2 arguments; 1. Extremist regimes generally establish basic needs (education, Wealth-fare, Housing, Jobs) early on in the starting of the government or dictatorships. 2. What they do after always leads to the downfall of the country. To understand why they generally do well at the start is in the way they run the country, For this debate I will be using Tito's S. F. R. As an example in my argument. Tito established a communist dictatorship in Yugoslavia in 1945, Granting states some independence, Allowing to govern them self but they lose many benefits if they try to claim independence. He established schools and universities, Made healthcare as a federal thing, Life expectancy went up by 10 years and the economy was going up.
Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students

I think it would be hard to give all the kids equal affection. Especially since one kid might want more affection than the others or the teacher might like one kid a little more than the others. If any of the other kids see it then they will get jealous. Also, I think it places an undue burden on the teacher who now has to be extra cautious to give all the kids equal affection all the time. And I think teachers are already overworked as it is because they work about 1,080 hours a year and the world average for teachers is about 794. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students

I disagree with my opponent because I think that teachers should not show affection to individual students because other students will naturally feel left out. A teacher has to be a model of justice and fairness. A teacher has to show affection with his or her words to all of the students in the class. In this manner, all of the students feel the affection from the teacher. It is very dangerous to show affection to some individual students and not to others. The affection may be misinterpreted by the individual students and the teacher may have to face a very uncomfortable law suit. Also, students perform better academically when they all feel included and cared for equally. This has been the topic of many books and movies on teaching and education. (www.emotionallyhealthychildren.org) (http://northtexaskids.com... )
Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students

Every loving teacher would like to show individual attention to children and even teens that need it, yet it is not possible when you have 25 kids in a classroom and 6 classes as some public school teaches have. The teacher does not know all the problems that each child, or teen brings to the classroom. The teacher is not their counselor. If they have problems of being teased or bullied, the teacher ought to refer the child, or teen to the counselor and from there the child or teen will receive the professional help that he or she needs. The second problem with showing affection to kids or teens on an individual basis is that the teacher has to remember to respect cultural boundaries and other problems that kids in the classroom have such as being borderline autistic and therefore not enjoying being touched. For example, in the Vietnamese culture it is a sign of disrespect to pat a kid on the head, even in a nice, loving way. Also, not everyone likes hugs. The children or teenagers should not be made uncomfortable by a teacher that likes to hug. It is very awkward for some students to receive a hug from a teacher who is in a position of authority over them. The teacher may be friendly, but the teacher is not your equal, like a friend of the same age. For example, there is a famous Math teacher in Los Angeles, CA that high fives the teenagers in a line when they all do well on a test. The kids seem to enjoy that. There is another famous high school teacher from San Francisco, CA that says hello to every teen as they walk into his classroom and he is very funny. The kids love him. He has won teacher of the year multiple times. That is the type of socially acceptable affection that is rewarded in the United States of America in the 21st century. www.zurinstitute.com To Touch Or Not To Touch: Exploring the Myth of Prohibition On Touch In Psychotherapy And Counseling Clinical, Ethical & Legal Considerations by Ofer Zur, Ph.D. & Nola Nordmarken, MFT
Happiness is directly proportional to one's bank balance

I affirm the resolution "Happiness is directly proportional to one's bank balance." I define "happiness" as "the state of pleasure or contentment" and "bank balance" as "the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment". Truthfully, when I accepted the debate, I thought I was going to be on the Con, but mistakes are mistakes. My case is as follows: Money causes happiness, because it can be used to create contentment or pleasure for oneself. Researchers for "Science" magazine have shown that in a sample of more than 600 Americans, those that use their money to buy gifts and donate to charity correlate with greater happiness. Those with greater bank balances have more money to buy gifts and donate, and therefore their happiness has the potential to be greater than those with lower bank balances. According to "Money & Happiness: A Guide to Living the Good Life" by Laura Rowley, the key to happiness is "understanding your core values and knowing what makes you happy." If it brings a person happiness to see their children go to college, a greater bank balance will make it easier for their children to go to college, and therefore they will be happy. According to a Pew Research Center report released in February 2006, it was found that "the more family income survey respondents had, the more likely they were to say that they were happy." The study, "Are We Happy Yet?"[1] showed that 49% of people with an income of $100,000 or greater said they were "very happy", and only 24% of people with an income of under $30,000 said that they were "very happy". Research done by Planet Money for the National Public Radio[2] showed that "the relationship between satisfaction, these measures of well-being and measures of average income, which would be gross domestic product per capita, is incredibly robust". Those with greater bank account balances have more money, and therefore, they are happier than those with lower bank account balances. And for these preceding reasons, I affirm the resolution. [1] http://pewresearch.org... [2] http://www.npr.org...
Homosexuality Is Wrong

I will respond to each contingency one by one, starting with A. You misunderstood my argument. I did not say that we must all follow religion, but that religion acts as measurement for the debate. Without some sort of prescribed morality we would all have different views of what was moral. Ambiguity would arise and society would cease to progress. On to B I concur that the bible isn't anti-gay, but the bible doesn't condone the act only for population.Romans 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." At this point in the bible the population was large partly due to the population of Rome. The lord condones these acts because they are contrary to his words. On to contingency 3: I solely agree I am surely not a fit candidate to judge the actions of another, neither is anybody else. Except the fact you said the bible only mainly talks about homosexuality in the old testament not true as shown by my Romans quote. Great Debate
Homosexuality Is Wrong

Okay, I suppose religion can be some of your points, however, I hope that they are not your only points. Now, I will organize my argument into the contingencies, then seamlessly sew them together with short conclusion. Contingency A. religion is not a standard that everyone must follow. According to the bible, God gave us free will- the will to chose whether we believe in him or not. To say that a religion is the reason why you are wrong, whether said person believes in that religion or not, is ignorant. Contingency B. The bible is not necessarily "anti-gay". Of course there are some parts that deem it inappropriate. However, if I recall correctly, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Next, The bible is taken out of context far too often. The bible says homosexuality is wrong because of the need for population. Do you believe this to be true? If not, then check out Genesis 38:9, "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother"s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother." Contingency 3: It is not my business what goes on in another persons house, it's theirs. However, I can imagine you recall John 8:7. I believe that alone is the reason pecan pie we should not persecute others for being different. I suppose I should stone my black friends because there different too? Finally, I would like to explain early in the ld estimate is the only real mention of homosexuality, when population was a hug deal. Thank you, I am finished.
Homosexuality Is Wrong

Since from on objective standpoint debating whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong is complete and utter dogmatism. It is an improbable debate that would be comparing apples to oranges. Thus for this debate we must establish a standard for which we view the issue. My standard will be religion, and why we should use religion as an arbiter for this debate. It is imperative for this debate to establish a concise metric for which we can compare and ultimately measure the resolution and which side most effectively validates their burden of proof.Now I will show why we need to use religion as this metric. A.Let us assert that humans by virtue of nature aren't inherently born with knowledge thus do not have a sense of morality According to John Locke humans learn from a system of empiricism, which consequently is learning from experiences. Syllogism Hot objects Burn, an unknowing naive baby touches a hot stove, The baby is burned Through this proof we are able to see that though humans have instincts ,knowledge is learned through experiences, ie you experience calculus from a class, you have learned calculus from this experience B.Now that we have established that we are born absent of knowledge but are born with present instinct we establish a need for prescribed morality. Since we are born with instincts we need something to categorize those instincts as good or proper or bad and unwanted. I.e A boy becomes aroused by a girl and becomes erect. The boy acts on sexual instinct and rapes the girl. From his perspective he was just acting on instinct. From her perspective she has had her autonomy violated. Now absent of a metric we cannot judge the situation as good or bad. We have to contrary views in an event. Since we have no way to judge the happenings as good or bad it is just an event. History for lack of a better word. Now if we have a metric let's say the bible we can now view this as a contemptible act that needs judiciary restitution. C. Conclusion Absent of the metric of religion we would as humans all have differ forms of morality. Our morality would be based on what ought to be proper. What ought to be would be based upon our individual knowledge. Our knowledge as proven by point A derives from experiences. As humans it is common knowledge that our experiences differ. The problem from this is that we have no measure for what is right and wrong and thus everything would be gray. No issues would be resolved and anything would be technically acceptable. This is why religion is our metric for this debate. Since we use religion as a basis of measurement since religion says homosexuality is wrong it ultimately is.
Funny jokes.

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gun shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"
Funny jokes.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were going camping. They pitched their tent under the stars and went to sleep. Sometime in the middle of the night Holmes woke Watson up and said: "Watson, look up at the sky, and tell me what you see." Watson replied: "I see millions and millions of stars." Holmes said: "And what do you deduce from that?" Watson replied: "Well, if there are millions of stars, and if even a few of those have planets, it"s quite likely there are some planets like Earth out there. And if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life." And Holmes said: "Watson, you idiot, it means that somebody stole our tent."