BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tobacco/Alcohol should be banned and illegal

To begin, I would like to point out my opponent's point that drugs and alcohol should be illegal. I wholeheartedly disagree. Frankly speaking, it is not the government's job to protect citizens from themselves. Having the government control what you put inside your own body infringes upon the personal rites of the people. If a person wants to commit suicide, it is certainly harmful to themselves. It is, however, impossible to make committing suicide illegal. Though my opponent is right that some drugs are harmful and are basically slow-acting forms of suicide, again, a government can not and should not be able to control what a citizen puts inside their own body just because it may be bad or harmful to them. Let them citizens decide for themselves. Another point my opponent seems to overlook is the impossibility of enforcing these laws. We have already seen how badly Prohibition failed, and my opponent has no grounds to assume that it would fair better this time. Like wise, there are many illegal drugs in the US, however, citizens still acquire them daily. It is impossible to stop the acquisition and usage of drugs by the populace and trying to enforce the unforceable not only causes an increase in violence and gang warfare, as we saw during the time of Prohibition, but also causes the citizens to lose faith in the government. Frankly speaking, making alcohol and tobacco illegal will serve no purpose as citizens will still do drugs anyway, and that fact aside, it would be an egregious over-stepping of boundaries by the government. I ask that the notion be dismissed.
Resolved: That homosexual acts are immoral

Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.6. Moral realism will be assumed. What specific nornmative theory is correct will be up to debate. DefinitionsHomosexual acts: Any consensual, sexual act performed by two or more members of the same sex. I add consensual because I have no intention of defending non-consensual sexual acts whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Immoral: Unethical, not in accordance with the right code of conduct.
It's about time we get rid of Christmas!

Father Christmas doesn't even give adults coalExactly, adults don't get anything! What kind of deal is that? Age discrimination, that's what it is!2. Father Christmas encourages naughtier children to smokeLook it up [4]. It's so easy a child could do it (Searching on the internet and smoking coal)!3. Tragedies happen at ChristmasMore tragedies happen at Christmas than at any time of year [5]. This is probably because of all the stress of decorating a Christmas tree! Christmas tree is an anagram of Cram hit stress, which sounds like a severe form of stress. This is proof!4. It gives the tinsel industry a successful few daysI'm not anti-business, I'm just against people not having proper jobs! Working in the tinsel industry is just a more impressive-sounding way of saying "Tree Accessory Salesman", and that sounds really not impressive, perhaps even unimpressive! It's just about the worst excuse of an occupation I have ever heard! Plus, that is really saying something, as I have heard of:- Recycling Bin Attendant's assistant- Floor manager (? ) - Telemarketer- Aspiring Well-known Rubbish Tip co-owner- TV Chef- Unemployed motherSo as you can see, I've heard of a lot of pathetic occupations, but tree accessory salesman tops that list by far. Also, I don't like someone with that pathetic an occupation mocking me! "Look at me," he says "In December, I made £5 more than in all the other months. So, my wages this year comes to a total of £5 pre-tax! ". 5. If we got rid of Christmas, Everyone's Birthdays would come quickerEven if we move the post-Christmas days in that year back one, we still have no December 31st, so we have one day less. Getting rid of Christmas (a day! ) is making the year one day shorter. Sources[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...
It's about time we get rid of Christmas!

Let me address each of your arguments first: First I believe that you're doing a tongue in cheek argument. I don't think you want to end Christmas. 1. Father Christmas doesn't even give adults coal. Yes but he doesn't give adults presents either. Christmas is a holiday for children. 2. Father Christmas encourages naughtier children to smoke I've never heard of anyone smoking coal. It's used for heating not smoking. Anyone whose used a coal stove knows the fumes are not enjoyable. 3. Tragedies happen at Christmas Tragedies happen all the time. Christmas is the one time of the year where even Scrooge might bend and be nice. 4. It gives the tinsel industry a successful few days Why shouldn't the tinsel industry have success. Are you anti business? ;-} 5. If we got rid of Christmas, Everyone's Birthdays would come quicker Even if you got rid of Christmas you'd still have December 25th! So this argument is mute. I wanted to thank you for this entertaining bit of fluff. It brought a smile to my face. Your arguments were entertaining. I believe Christmas is what we make it. I enjoy Christmas as it's one of the few times during the year when smiles are quick to appear and forgiveness is easily given. One of the things about getting older is that time seems to pass faster. I'm 60 and it seems like yesterday that I was waiting for Christmas to come and it took forever. My parents encouraged us to do good deeds to bring joy to others. I hope everyone will think about donating some time to a good cause as your present to yourself and the universe! Thank you again for the lovely post. I hope Santa brings you joy in the coming year.
It's about time we get rid of Christmas!

Yes, I am saying that Christmas, also known as "Money down the drain day" in some areas of the world, should be gotten rid of for the following reasons:1. Father Christmas doesn't even give adults coalThis discrimination has lasted for years. Good children get presents, naughty children get coal. Good adults get nothing, naughty adults get nothing. Discrimination based on age is sick, twisted and very immoral. With a ban on Christmas, perhaps father christmas wouldn't even exist! I know that seems ridiculous, but it is true!2. Father Christmas encourages naughtier children to smokeNaughty children, also known as the more annoying lunatics (i.e: The sort of person who would start smoking), are given coal. One of coal's only uses is smoking it.3. Tragedies happen at ChristmasThis is true [1], as confirmed in the Daily Mail, also known as the Poopoo paper, a nickname based on the poor quality and accuracy of its articles.4. It gives the tinsel industry a successful few daysMy friend, Adam Tinsel-Seller, works in the tinsel industry and in the good non-Christmas seasons, I tease him about how he's having trouble getting sales, but in the Christmas month(s?), he says something along the lines of "HAHA! Told you so, Ebenezer! HAHAHAHA!".5. If we got rid of Christmas, Everyone's Birthdays would come quickerYes! With one less day in December, everybody's birthdays would come quicker! This is a bonus to normal people because their birthday comes quicker and to people preparing for the birthday as they still have 364 days to do it[2] [3] (rounded to the nearest whole day)! You may encounter the problem of People born on Christmas not having a birthday, but that doesn't matter because everyone knows that people born on Christmas are freaks.Sources[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;[2] https://www.google.co.uk...;[3] https://www.google.co.uk...;
The Cloning of Plants and Animals Will Be Benefical.

Anyone that wishes to research the subject can see that clones should not be used for either xenotransplants or to replace trees. In xenotransplants, very few of the transplants are successful with regular, natural, healthy animals. Using a clone that will have a huge amount of health problems can only make the practice more unfavourable. Replacing trees or any other living thing in the environment with clones can be extremely detrimental from a biological standpoint. Reducing the amount of biodiversity lends itself open to too many risks. There are many insects that feed on and sometimes destroy plants. Over the years, plants can develop certain ways to protect themselves. But this type of evolution (and all types for that matter) needs some genetic variability in order to operate. Clones will greatly reduce that variability and at that point it is only a matter of time before either harmful insects or some pathogen can wipe out an entire population.
The Cloning of Plants and Animals Will Be Benefical.

It's true, the benefits of cloning do outweigh the risks. Before you accept my challenge, please know that human cloning does not play a role in this debate. This debate is about the cloning of plants and animals alone. Now, for my starting arguments. -Studies have shown that pigs have organs that are very similar in structure to the organs of humans, and have concluded that they can be used for organ transplants. With over 180,000 people world wide waiting for an organ transplant, why not clone pigs for their organs? -I understand the success rate is low, but that's just science. When Edison invented the light bulb, the success rate was low, as well. The process can only improve from here. -Plants do not have feelings, nervous systems, or anything that would make it unethical to clone plants. Fruit-bearing plants can be cloned for food. Cloning pine trees can help slow, or even reverse deforestation. I'll keep my argument short for now, and let my opponent respond.
It should be legal for women to go topless

A woman who walks around topless is very noticeable compared to men who walk around with no top. If they have a six pack, women would find it very noticeable but not offensive. Men would also find it very offensive to see a woman walking around topless. Obese men are usually wearing shirts and you can't see their ‘man boobs,' you can only see them jiggling. I will now take some quotes from what you have just said. 'If a man can walk around when it's hot outside with a shirt, why can't a woman' Women wouldn't't want to take off their shirt and men wouldn't't want to see it. 'I think that it shouldn't be illegal or taboo for women to be topless.' It should be illegal.
It should be legal for women to go topless

‘It's only natural to be nude, you weren't born with clothes! ' Well it's not natural to be born with clothes. Who have you seen who walks out naked outside because they weren't born with clothes? ‘If anyone is offensive, it's overweight men who insist on working out in short shorts at parks. ' That's not offensive. Overweight people don't have fat legs. The only reason you call them fat is because of their stomach. No-one would want to go outside naked anyway.
God probably prefers bugs to people

God probably prefers BUGS to PEOPLE!!! You don't even understand what you are saying!! You have run out of ways to rebuttal against and just said that my logic is wrong and yet he DID NOT GIVE ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT!!! Oh My God!!!!!! You are blabbing the most random nonsense and trying to defend your point! You based all of this on the premise that rats, lizard, birds and many other things are bugs!!!!!!!!!!! You are so hard to take serious! You are just throwing out random and false criticism at me to try and defend yourself but you are blabbing the most random nonsense!!! READ THROUGH HIS ROUND THREE COMMENTS!!!! All of them are random facts
God probably prefers bugs to people

The King writes, "since there are so many bugs that they are easily replaceable and as an individual they are not as special." If rarity determines how much God loves something, then he really loves dryococelus australis, which is far more rare than people. And since there are only a dozen of them, God clearly loves a TYPE of bug more than people. If your argument is true here, God still loves bugs (a dozen dryococelus australises) more than people. BOOO-YEEEEAAH! His dark Majesty writes, "God gets bored with just one species of bug and he need a variety to keep himself satisfied but for humans there barely needs to be any diversity for himself to be satisfied showing that the basic essence of humans satisfies God more than the basic essence of a bug." If lack of variation determines satisfaction, then God is far more satisfied with the measles virus than he is with people, for only one strain exists (Lauren Sompayrac, How Pathogenic Viruses Think, 2012) KAPOWEEAOWW!!! The heinous highness says, "bugs were the test experiment for God and he realized that he made a mistake and instead of getting rid of bugs, he made them very different from each other but even that made him bored so he made man, which has kept him entertained since." If bugs were a test experiment, he wouldn't keep them around. For instance, when you test make-up out on a lab dog, you euthanize the dog once you realize it looks good with the make up on and doesn't get allergic to it. That's just basic science. BAMBALABAM BAM!!!! The muckraking Monarch pontifercates, "If bugs go through a food shortage they are likely to die but if humans go through a food shortage our intellect showed us to keep backup food in the pantry, which God did not allow bugs to do. A bug can survive a nuclear bomb maybe but which of the two listed above is more likely the food shortage." Ants store food. Ever watch the movie Ants? The whole idea is that Ants are the original doomsday-preppers! BUHM BUHM BHSHSSHS! The Khan of Koalabearishness shouts, "we could eat plants or other animals. Plants would be able to evolve into not needing bees to transporting their pollen and BACTERIA IS NOT A BUG!!!" But, I clearly defined bacteria as a bug in my opening remarks. If you didn't like my definitions, you could debate me on their validity on a separate debate thread, but since you agreed to the terms of the debate you must clearly agree that baceteria is a bug. Sorry. DUNGADUNGA BOOM SHSHH. He also writes, "He put us at the top of the food chain. He gave us better technology to survive and make our life better. He gave us complexity and uniqueness to each day in life to keep it more entertaining for us." First, tell Ebola we're at the top of the food chain. Second, God didn't make technology. People invented technology to put up living in a cruddy environment (made by God). Third, people aren't really all that complex or unique. You're probably just easily entertained because of growing up near power lines. I'm sorry for you, and I wish you well, but, sadly, most people are boring and laaaame.
God probably prefers bugs to people

1. There are more bugs on the earth. 2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth. 3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people. 4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people. 5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs These are the observations that you made and you expect me to imply that there is a god from this evidence. Let me debunk each of your observation. 1. There are more bugs on the earth. This implies that since there are so many bugs that they are easily replaceable and as an individual they are not as special. 2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth. This would shows that God gets bored with just one species of bug and he need a variety to keep himself satisfied but for humans there barely needs to be any diversity for himself to be satisfied showing that the basic essence of humans satisfies God more than the basic essence of a bug. 3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people. This could show how bugs were the test experiment for God and he realized that he made a mistake and instead of getting rid of bugs, he made them very different from each other but even that made him bored so he made man, which has kept him entertained since. 4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people. I disagree. If bugs go through a food shortage they are likely to die but if humans go through a food shortage our intellect showed us to keep backup food in the pantry, which God did not allow bugs to do. A bug can survive a nuclear bomb maybe but which of the two listed above is more likely the food shortage. 5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs That statement is not true because we could eat plants or other animals. Plants would be able to evolve into not needing bees to transporting their pollen and BACTERIA IS NOT A BUG!!! But other reasons why I think God would like us more: 6. He put us at the top of the food chain. 7. He gave us better technology to survive and make our life better. 8. He gave us complexity and uniqueness to each day in life to keep it more entertaining for us. The evidence does point to God loving us more than the bugs.
God probably prefers bugs to people

God probably prefers insects to people. This is based on the idea of "evidential apologetics", and assumes the following: God exists. Nature can tell us about what he is like. By God is meant, at the bare minimum, the God of deism, but not to the exclusion of other ideas. An intelligent creator who set the universe in motion --- might be Allah, might be Krishna, might be Jesus. Might not. Whatever. You get the idea. By nature is meant the earth and stuff. If you don't assume, or pretend to assume, these assumptions, keep out of the debate. Now, if nature can tell us about what he is like, then we can be reasonably certain that he prefers bugs like katy-dids, bacteria, parameciums, earth-worms, Ebola, and spiders to human beings. (that is, the a colloquial term for disgusting vermin beneath the order of rats, lizards and birds) Why? The following reasons: 1. There are more bugs on the earth. 2. There are more varieties of bugs on the earth. 3. Bugs have been on the earth longer than people. 4. Bugs can survive in far more extreme conditions than people. 5. Bugs can exist without people, and people can't exist without bugs This demonstrates that it is more probable than not that: 1. God prefers more bugs more, or he would have made more people than bugs. For example, a cat lady LOVES cats, and she tends to have so many of them that they take over her house, eventually resulting in her eviction due to the smell and unsafe conditions. There are more bugs than people, so it is clear that God loves them more. God isn't a people-lady, but he's definitely a bug-lady, by sheer numbers. 2. There are three kinds of people: Conservatives, Liberals and Independents. There are literally a hundred or more types of bugs, however. Ergo, if "variety is the spice of life", that spice is probably crushed up bugs. 3. God wanted to check out some cool-lookin' bugs way before he wanted to look at some boring people. Bugs were year over a million years ago (probably) whereas people have only been here for 250,000 years or so. 4. People can only exist in certain climactic conditions, and if the temperature goes too far up or too far down, they will die. Since our armor is on the inside (which is stupid), we can only deal with so much wear and tear. Some bugs, on the other hand, can exist in many different types of temperature, and have their armor on the outside, which lets them take on just about anything. And bugs as a whole can exist in many different places that people cannot. Why? Because God loves the little jerks more than you! 5. Clearly, bugs don't need people. However, people need bees to pollinate flowers, stomach bacteria to digest food, and probably a few other things. People couldn't survive without at least a few types of bugs around, but bugs would do just fine without people. In fact, they'd probably do even better! Therefore, theologically speaking, if the evidence of creation is a basis for learning something about God, then God clearly prefers bugs to people. And note I said "BUGS" not "PUGS".
All Races are equal

I really hope you are just a troll , my opponent has used a religious argument in a debate that has nothing to do with religion I do not even see a point in refuting that argument since my opponents argument is based on a 2000 year old book that also supports the killings of wicked teenagers and homosexuals . On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks . http://www.harbornet.com...; You can notice in the link that ive just sent you is a chart and text explaining in detail how important genes are , and that we differ a lot . Trait Blacks Whites Orientals Brain Size: Cranial capacity 1,267 1,347 1,364 Cortical neurons (millions) 13,185 13,665 13,767 Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher IQs. The races vary in brain size. The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2 come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel. The more north the people went "Out of Africa," the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person's development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.
hunting rifles are better than shotguns

There is a burden of proof upon PRO to prove that there is an objective "goodness" which necssarily applies to all firearms, and that rifles exemplify it more than shotguns. The purposes to which they have function are merely different. Rifles are better for hitting distant targets, but shotguns are better for hitting targets in close quarters, or small targets at medium range. It makes no sense to judge a hammer by how well it turns screws, nor a shotgun by its accuracy at long range.
Resolved: The United States should ban private ownership of handguns

The reason for most people saying to ban guns is usually that guns end up killing people, so I assume this is the point I am supposed to counter. The fact that people say guns kill people is coming from people who typically don't have common sense, in Switzerland almost every 45.7 out of 100 people own some sort of firearm .23 people per 100,000 were murdered by firearms and seeing as though your case is against handguns that number would be less meaning it is more the people owning the firearms and less of the actual firearms themselves. Also multiple shootings have been and more could have been prevented with someone else having a firearm with them