BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prostitution should be legalized.

1) Are limits on freedom ever justified? If so, when? Please be as specific as possible. Yes. Limiting freedoms is okay in situations in which such freedoms could cause security hazards, such as taking a gun on a plane or in a school. 2) Do you believe there will be a certain demographic most likely to become prostitutes? Or will all demographics be equally inclined to work as prostitutes? No. 3) Are there any business arrangements that people should not be allowed to enter into? Should a person be allowed to sell him or herself into slavery? Contract with a loan shark? Why or why not? In the situations you laid out the answer is yes people can do that. We are allowed to control our lives, it someone wishes to sell themselves into slavery no one should be able to stop them. However, it might be difficult because slavery is of itself illegal. 4) Have you been to Amsterdam, Bangkok, or Phnom Penh? I have, as a matter of fact, been to Amsterdam. Very nice town, lots of tulips and canals... 5) How would you sum up the Equal Protection clause? Basically, what you are asking is, how do I interpret the clause? I interpret it as all parties to a crime must be equally prosecuted. 6) When you go to a gas station, do you see a lot of cigarettes? Do you see a lot of insurance ads on TV? Yes. How is this relevant? 7) Is increasing government revenue a sufficient reason to legalize prostitution? I.E. - if you win this argument and nothing else, should voters vote for you based on this argument alone? Government basically taxes everything, so I don't see why prostitution, if legalized, should be excluded. 8) Do you believe communities should have any rights when it comes to city ordinances or zoning restrictions? Yes. I look forward to the next round.
Prostitution should be legalized.

Cool topic, though I must admit that my taking this side feels a little bit like America arguing against baseball. I'm going to use this first speech to ask some clarifying questions, both on your arguments and the worldview you are advocating -- 1) Are limits on freedom ever justified? If so, when? Please be as specific as possible. 2) Do you believe there will be a certain demographic most likely to become prostitutes? Or will all demographics be equally inclined to work as prostitutes? 3) Are there any business arrangements that people should not be allowed to enter into? Should a person be allowed to sell him or herself into slavery? Contract with a loan shark? Why or why not? 4) Have you been to Amsterdam, Bangkok, or Phnom Penh? 5) How would you sum up the Equal Protection clause? 6) When you go to a gas station, do you see a lot of cigarettes? Do you see a lot of insurance ads on TV? 7) Is increasing government revenue a sufficient reason to legalize prostitution? I.E. - if you win this argument and nothing else, should voters vote for you based on this argument alone? 8) Do you believe communities should have any rights when it comes to city ordinances or zoning restrictions? I'd appreciate it if you provide the answers to these questions instead of trying to preempt them as arguments. I'm just trying to clarify a few things, not committing to any statements or strategies just yet. Thanks.
Prostitution should be legalized.

Prostitution-the act of engaging in sexual activities for money. Legalized-Making it legal for persons over the age of 18 to be prostitutes or to "use" prostitutes at a federal level. However, prostitutes must be mandated to carry a license. Introuduction Currently, 49 states outlaw prostitution (Nevada is the only one that doesn't). As PRO I stand in affirmation that Prostitution should be legalized. I believe so for the following reasons. a) Prostitution is a victimless crime. No one is a victim of prosecution. It is not on the same level as rape or murder, where victims are involved. Prostitution is just a way of conducting commerce. To limit prosecution would be to limit freedom. b) Revenue. Legalizing prostitution would lead to a boost in the economy (not like were to going to come out of a recession or anything, but it will increase GDP). In countries where prostitution is legalized (Thailand, The Netherlands, etc) "sex tourism" is a big part of their economies. People use other services (hotels, restaurants) while using conducting "sex tourism". Also, the government could tax the the activity for a nice profit. c) The Equal Protection Clause is violated under the current law. In the current law only prostitutes are prosecuted, their customers are not. A similar analogy would be to only prosecute drug dealers and not drug users. It violates prostitutes' rights. d) Prostitution will become more visible. The more "openness" of prostitution will make it easier to monitor and regulate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Thanks for taking this debate.
Jake paul is a bad YouTuber who deserves his hate

I am not a Jake Paul fan personally. I just took up this debate for the challenge. Although you stated that Jake Paul uses misleading titles, have you checked every other Youtuber? It is very important for Youtubers to "Clickbait" to appeal the viewer to click on the video. YouTube is like a newsletter, or a "blog". The goal is to get as many clicks and views as possible. A good Youtuber would use clickbait to their advantage, as Jake Paul does. He is not only a "popular" Youtuber but also a successful businessman. He uses his videos to showcase his merchandise. The majority of his income comes from that. He uses every advantage he has to earn money. You claimed that his content is only appealing to "immature 10 year olds" howevr EVERY SINGLE Youtuber has their following. Depending on the content, the different crowds it attracts, his videos are arguably family friendly and his type of content is pointed towards the younger audience. The majority of the daily YouTube users are in their teens and younger. His fan base is the majority of YouTube. This has been a great debate and I"d like to thank my opponent for the amazing points and tough challenge. Debate King Out.
Jake paul is a bad YouTuber who deserves his hate

Ok it seems you have made good points but I don't think having a lot of fans would make Jake paul a good YouTuber. The reason why is other people's other people's opinions can't take away the rude and bad stuff that he has done. Jake Paul video's are only appealing to immature ten year olds who don't understand how disrespectful he is,and he gets a lot of views by using misleading titles. His most popular song it's everyday bro got more dislikes then likes and almost every video has more likes then dislikes no matter how hated a video is. Most people who hate Jake Paul would only view a couple of his most popular video's while someone who is a big fan would view all of his video's. I hate Jake paul because he is racist and says the n word and never apologizes to his annoyed neighbors and Jake paul was arrested because of how disrespectful he was. Look at video's of why you should hate Jake Paul and I'm 99 percent sure you will hate him
Jake paul is a bad YouTuber who deserves his hate

I call him a bad YouTuber simply cause he is a bad person. Jake paul gets more hate then love and anyone who is mature will know that he clickbaits and is disrespectful. Most of his video's are clickbait and fake and are cringy to watch. His fan base is full of immature 8 year olds who think he cool. Just because someone has a lot of followers doesn't mean that that they are a good person or that everyone likes him. I believe he is a bad inspiration
Jake paul is a bad YouTuber who deserves his hate

Jake Paul has a following of over 15 million subscribers. He is among the best of the best of youtubers. What classifies someone as a "bad" youtuber? His following is very high and gets millions of views daily (Check his statistics) therefore Jake Paul, although he gets tons of hate, is a good youtuber. If he was bad his following would remain low... He would get little to np views and his dislike ratio would be much higher. He's doing something right since 15 million people tune in to watch him.
Jake paul is a bad YouTuber who deserves his hate

Jake paul is a bad YouTuber and there's many reasons why he sucks. Let me start out about how he is not kid friendly,if you look at his YouTube channel you will find that he has thumbnails of him having sex which is not kid friendly. Also he burns furniture which is a total waste and he is disrespectful towards his neighbors and when they complain he responds badly towards them. It's no doubt that he is a bad person and YouTuber
Time does not exist.

True, the perception of time exists. Just as exists any idea or hypothetical, anything exists in theory under certain pretexts. Scientifically speaking, time exists as measurement - but science itself is merely a system of observations that seemingly hold a lot of weight due to its common value amongst humans. My point is that perception gives us an understanding of time in a way which to me seems very unreal, this is evident in the fact that - 8 hours of doing something you love to do seems to last a much shorter amount of 'time' than 8 hours of manual labor, which seems to take much more 'time'. Time is readily manipulated by emotion, thus revealing its inherent elasticity. But how can this be when we understand it as a fixed measurement? Ah, yes of course, it is just a construct devised to prevent people from going 'insane'. Time would not appear to 'pass' if it were never recognized as a universal language of measurement. So, thinking outside of the minds conditioning, one will realize that existence always has been. It didn't unravel or form or undergo creation, it just is. Time is basically a way of catapulting our experience into past and future events, and rather nulls the present. Our ability to reason tries it's hardest to make valid the presence of non-presence, which in itself is an oxymoron.
Guns should be banned in the united states.

I will first attack my opponent's case, and then move on to state my own. "There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery." Now, while there not be actual numbers to prove this, guns are still necessary to protect the home and self. As my opponent stated, criminals will rob/attack people whether or not guns are around. The problem is: When guns are banned, only criminals will have them. This would only further the vulnerability of the citizen. (Besides being unconstitutional, which I will address later) "Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways." My opponent says guns will be misused. Please realize this is true with any and all weapons, including fists. There will always be crazy people out there, guns or no guns. Again, if guns were banned, only the criminals and "whackos" would have them, further putting the general population at risk. This again would be unconstitutional. On to my argument. 1. Guns are necessary for the safety of a home to protect yourself and your property. 2. Guns serve as a weapon for self defense when ever the police fail to provide the services of protection to the general public. 3. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger. 4. Guns should not be banned in case of government oppressing the citizens. 5. A gun ban is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that US citizens have the right to bear arms. My opponent refuses to argue this, but he is unable to do so since the constitution applies directly to this debate. Please note the resolution says "in the United States." How is a country just if it contradicts the very document that it was based on? Banning guns would be hypocritical, and a violation of the citizens' rights. "Resolved, Guns should be banned in the United States." Negated.
Guns should be banned in the united states.

I will endeavor to show 2 things: (a) Civilian ownership of guns serve little utility (b) Any utility is outweighed by the dangers of firearm misuse. I will not bother debating constitutionality and whether a gun ban violates the 2nd amendment. First, firearms are already restricted, in several ways, in the USA. Second, the Constitution is made for Americans; Americans are not made for the Constitution. If I present justification that a gun ban benefits rather than harms Americans, the constitution can be changed, if so needed. Moving on to my arguments: (a) There is no concrete evidence that gun ownership lessens violence or robbery. (i) Criminals will simply transfer their violence to the population without guns. (ii) Desperate criminals will still attack people, gun or no gun. (b) Gun ownership will increase violence in several different ways. (i) The owner might go crazy and shoot enemies. (ii) Even if the owner is stable, guns can be stolen and misused. (iii) Robbers, intimidated by guns, will be more likely to pursue a policy of "shoot first, steal later." (iv) Encounters between armed citizens and thugs will result in cases of violence and death in what would otherwise have been a non-violent theft. Given that gun ownership benefits little, but threatens all, I urge you to vote neg.
Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

Issue presented in this discussion: whether a personal view should not be imposed on others given a particular activity, on the basis of the personal view, is immoral. Before I proceed to answer the proposed questions, I have one questions needed to be clarified: According to my understanding, there are two distinctive views in Catholic community with respect to abortion. Some Catholics tend to advocate a complete ban on abortion with no exception whatsoever. Others prefer a general ban except in the case of pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest, or medical emergency (preserving the life of the mother). So my question is which view this argument may rely on? Or the question is somewhat irrelevant? Answers to the questions The Law should not protect one from being murdered when 1. The proposed law may result in the harm (physiological or psychological) or death of a third party whose connection to the "victims" has been established and who literally supports the lives of victims. [Please see Comment 1 for more information] 2. OR the implementation of the law would defeat the very purpose of the law. [Please see Comment 2 for more information] 3. OR the enactment of the law would run afoul of other laws. Comments: 1. Phrase "literally supports the lives of victims" means that "victims" would not be expected to live without the support from "a third party" as defined in condition 1. In case of abortion, it means that fetus would not be able to live outside the mother"s womb, even with artificial aid. 2. For example: in accordance with the conservative principles, low tax rates drive economic growth. So if a law is passed to lower taxes, people would expect to observe a higher growth. In reality, if the economic condition gets worse because of the law, it should be considered that the implementation of the law defeats its own purposes. Murder is okay when 1. Murder is not morally condemned OR Murder is immoral, but not socially excoriated; 2. OR there is no law that may prohibit the act; 3. OR people must commit murder to avert their own deaths or impairment of major bodily function [Please see Comment 1 for more information]. Comments: 1. Condition 3 is applicable only in the case of abortion. "People" are specifically referred to mothers who must have abortion to save her own lives or avert their own impairment of major bodily function. P. S. Those are tough questions. Thank you.
Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

So sense you answered YES to my question in round 1, that you for this debate are defending the position that agrees with the catholic church on its views about abortion, and that you are defending you should not advocate to make abortion illegal with the law, with that established I have but one more follow up question. Taking the personal view yourself with the Catholic Church that Abortion is in fact Murder, but you support pro-choice candidates, It logically follows that murder, which you agreed is personally what you understand abortion to be, is an acceptable as a legal act sometimes. So my follow up question is for you to finish the following sentence in the best detailed way that you possibly can: “The Law should not protect one from being murdered when_______” This next question is optional for you to bother answering next round but I’d really to know your answer to it also how would you finish this sentence as well? : “Murder is okay when_____”
Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

If you want this debate but cant accapt it you have not debated between 4 to 10 times. I dont really care if you debated more than 10, I just want you to have debated more than 3. so post in the comment section if you want the debate but dont qualify. I might even give the challenge to you if your under 3 but its clear you finsih your debates. Resolved: Joe Biden’s position on abortion is illogical or at the very least ugly and barbaric Definition of Joe Biden’s position: agrees with catholic church on the immorality of abortion, but is for supporting its leagality and not imposing his catholic view of the morality of abortion on others Abortion: if I have to define this for you, you should not be reading or debating in this debate Illogical: does not make rational sense Ugly and barbaric: potentially could make coherent sense but is still and incredibly draconian horrific thing to ever expect to be said with a strait face. First round consist of one question Do you hold Joe Biden’s position both on a personal level (agrees with church that abortion is immoral, murder) and on a whole social level (do not believe said personal view should be enforced by the law thus imposed on others)? If you do not answer YES to that question you forfeit this debate.
The Ontological Argument Proves that God Exists

Define perfection- A property which is better to have than not My opponent starts off with M1, which is saying that something existing is perfect, if its negation is not a perfection, but if I took the example of both Omniscience and Zero Knowledge, anyone can see that one complement negates the other. But Omniscience and Zero Knowledge, are both either perfect or not perfect. Therefore the assumption my opponent has made is refuted. This should be enough for my opponent"s whole argument to be refuted, but I will go even further. M2 states that perfection entails perfections, now if my opponent claims for that to mean perfection is perfection, then that"s meaningless but if my opponent is saying that whatever is the properties of perfection, is perfection then that is unsound. There are a bunch of counterexamples to this, for example something that is totalitarianism(absolute power), entails corruptness, yet corruptness is not perfection. M3 basically states that being supreme is perfection in the god sense, but with being omniscient, someone can not enjoy mysteries. Therefore it is not perfection. Next set "M1 is true because it is better to have a property than not only if it is not better to not have that property than not" This is basically saying something is better if it"s better which in no way proves the M1. "M2 is true because it is always better to have that which is a necessary condition fir whatever it is better to have than not" It"s not better, but it is necessary. This statement my opponent made would mean that something is better if it makes something exists, than if it were not to exist. Which is not true becausse for some things it"s better for something not to exist. And I'm sure everything I have previously said suffices for why M3 is flawed.
The Ontological Argument Proves that God Exists

I have done a previous debate on the argument from motion and would like to see how things go with the ontological argument. Ontological arguments are arguments that argue for the existence of God based on the intelligibility of (in classical Anselmian arguments) or the possibility of God's existence (in contemporary modal arguments). I will be arguing in the vein of contemporary modal arguments, particularly presenting that of Robert Maydole. Maydole presents what he calls the "Modal Perfection Argument." The argument is as follows: M1. A property is a perfection only if its negation is not a perfection M2. Perfections entail only perfections M3. The property of being supreme is a perfection We may argue for the truth of the premises as follows: -M1 is true because it is better to have a property than not only if it is not better to not have that property than not -M2 is true because it is always better to have that which is a necessary condition fir whatever it is better to have than not M3 may be argued in the following way: M3.1. For every z, all of the nontautological essential properties entailed by z are prerfections if and only if the property of being z is a perfection M3.2. Every nontautological essential property entailed by the property of being supreme is a perfection M3. The property of being supreme is a perfection We may deductively prove that the possibility of a supreme being existing implies its existence by the following: http://imgur.com... Due to M1-3 we have warrant to suppose that 1 is more plausibly true than its negation. The onus is now on con to show that the argument is logically flawed or is subject to parody.
Super Smash Brothers Melee is a better competitive fighter than Super Smash Brothers 4.

Unfortunately, I had fully intended to respond this weekend for my final round. Unfortunately, I was slammed with two days of work at 12 hours each for a total of 24 hours over the entire weekend, to add to that, I had multiple assignments due for school and as a result, have not had enough time to type my own response. Personally, I'm angry at myself for this, and I'm also sad because I have to forfeit this round, and likely the debate. My sincerest apologies to Con, it's my fault for not having the time set to complete the debate.
Super Smash Brothers Melee is a better competitive fighter than Super Smash Brothers 4.

Hey Lulzy. We meet again.I'm glad you formed this debate topic. As an avid Smash Bros player I couldn't possibly resist a challenge like this.I decided to play devil's advocate here because I think it would be rather interesting to see the Sm4sh viewpoint. I mainly play Melee and PM myself but Sm4sh not so much. This'll be an interesting activity for me to try and argue from this standpoint.I accept all of the rules presented in the first post of the debate.Above all, have fun, and good luck.