BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You choose the topic

Youtube is better than Netflix *** Framing a. If I can show that Youtube is better than Netflix on a consumer level, then the vote in this debate deserves to go to the Pro. Con could show that Netflix is more profitable, but that has no impact on consumers such as me or you. Your vote should be reflect which platform is better for you personally b. This debate should be voted on-balance. The debater who best presents the advantages of their platform deserves the vote. If both platforms are shown to be equal, no vote should be cast. Case (1) Youtube has more content than netflix does- It helps that youtube has been around longer, but by virtue of it's context Youtube simply has a lot more content than Netflix does. Users can join the site and upload whatever they wish, niche channels are created all the time to create content for people who want to view specific things. There are even full-length original series on youtube such as Strip Search[1], a reality show about hmiring an artist for Penny Arcade. [1] (2) Youtube is More Personal than Netflix- As I noted before one of the great things about Youtube is that is is filled with content directly uploaded by creators. One can far more easily get in contact with a Youtuber they like than a director or star of a show or movie on Netflix. Creator content is even influenced by fans very often on Youtube, Netflix on the other hand is just an archive for content to be consumed on. (3) Youtube is Free- This argument is summed up in the tagline, but the impact is that since Youtube is a free website, it is far more accessible than Netflix is. Accessibility is critically important for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to) community building, the spread of ideas and cultural inclusion. The internet is an amazing tool, one which allows us to access all kinds of information, and while it may be tempting to scoff at some of the information shared such as memes or webgames, those things are essential in shaping how we view the world around us. Netflix may not be all that expensive to purchase a membership, but it is still a price outside of many people's budgets. (4) Cultural Inclusion- Free online platforms which do not more highly reward those who pay than those who do help to maintain a better internet for everyone. One incredible thing about the internet is that it allows marginalized people to create safe spaces for themselves and others like them. Many of you reading may also be able to identify a point in time where you found solace and a sense of community someplace online. This is partially an extension of argument 3, but Youtube being free helps ensure that it remains a safe space for people to be included and to belong to. Conclusion Variety, person-ability, price and community are all reasons to consider Youtube better than Netflix.
The United States is now a Socialist Society and our Freedoms are disappearing as a result.

Going down your points one by one. First of all, Socialism is not evil. It's aim is equality and equal rights, and it has nothing if not the best intentions. Second of all, our government is not Socialist. Our welfare, social security, etc. are no where on par with what they would be in a socialized country. The huge cost of prizitized health care alone should be enough to convince you of that. Until we have a national healthcare plan, a much better and more far reaching welfare system, and allow generic drugs we will not have reached what anyone could call a socialist state. Third, a department of education is in no way socialist. Public schools are universally accepted as a normal institution in every country in the world, not just socialist one's. Public schools are definitely not a sympton of socialism. A socialist school system would be when we get rid of private schools in favor of public ones. Fourthly, you nevr back up the statement that our freedoms are dissapearing as a result of socialism in any way. I am going to assume you forfeit this point as a result. The democrats getting elected thing has nothing to do with the debate so I won't even include it, all though I would point out that they are getting elected by THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. Your argument seems to be that we should ignore all the democratic principals on which our country was founded and become a dictatorship. So in conclusion. My opponent claims that the US is totally socialist and that our freedoms are dissapearing as a result. The burden of proof is on him to conclusively prove this ENTIRE statement true. I have proven that we are not socialist, as we have very few truly socialist institutions. As to the second half of the resolution, my opponent never explains why our freedoms are being limited. As he never addresses this part of the resolution, he cannot fulfill the burden of proof and therefore cannot win this debate. As a final note I would like to point out that my opponent is in favor of abolishing the public schoo system and making there be no institutionalized education. I am sure you can see why this would be bad. He is also in favor of destroying welfare and social securtiy, which would throw many poor and elderly into poverty. His plan seems to support a complete dictatorship, where the wealth goes to those who are born into it, and are rch enough to get necessities such as schooling, healthcare, and medicine. There is no way this can be good.
The United States is now a Socialist Society and our Freedoms are disappearing as a result.

Socialism is evil. Our government has become Socialist. Social Security, welfare, medicare and medicade, prescription drug benefits, department of education and many other wasteful "programs" are killing our country. I'm against all of the above in their current form. Democrats get elected by pandering to the poorest and most downtrodden of our society and promising more and more programs. We need to end these programs as soon as possible.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

You say you took a bullet. Ha. Like that's enough pain. I'm the one who took a freakin' hemorrhage to the brain. Yes I ran for more terms than two, But my nation liked me enough to elected me too them; They obviously liked me more than you. My ending approval rating was over 70. And yours just around a mere 60. You say I dragged down the economy. Heck, I got us out of the great depression. When you gave us more debt and some recession. You didn't knock down the Soviet Union, the people did. And when war came around, I gave it a punch, but you just cried and hid. Pfft. Nice chance Ron, but the battle's been won. So admit your loss to Frank, 'cause he is number one.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

I took a bullet when I was old but I stood tall, I boosted American morale and kept us out of the toilet stall. You were quite power hungry Frank, no president before you, had the audacity and arrogance to run for more terms than two. You were the first statist democrat, the first to clog the government with useless crap,that dragged down the economy, you could learn some lessons from me you know about getting out of recessions, and not letting them become great depressions. You say you defeated Germany and Japan, but I beat the Soviet Union man! And why do you try to knock me for being humorous? Me being in office was the nation's wish. I ended the cold war like a giant heater, while you locked up Japanese that weren't involved in the Pacific Theater. You helped create the welfare state, you made the economy stagnate, you expanded the government you weren't that great, you imprisoned the Japanese all your kindness was fake. I was a man of the people the champion of freedom, when people thing of me they think he's the one, the one who saved the economy and kept the people free, that's my legacy, challenge me all you want Roosevelt but I made us a nation of class and wealth.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

Hey old man, it seems like you have a plan. I practically saved the U.S. from being taken over by Germany and Japan, For a deed like that, you certainly aren't the man. I got our nation a whole bunch of more money, And all you ever did was try to be funny. I may have died in office, but I was certainly bold. While someone to shoot you and you were still quite old. Your administration was struck with a scandal, But unlike you, that's something I could handle. I just have one more note, For this you can quote, You deregulated the bank; So step aside and give some room to Frank.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

They say the older you get the wiser you are, and Mr. FDR that's why I'm America's shining star. When I was in charge America was the shining city on a hill, you presided over shantytowns and hoovervilles. You say when you read of my administration, you get bored, while reading through your list of failures is a much longer chore. FDR you get bored with what you don't understand, like running a successful country with great economic plans. Yes, I raised the debt but that was what I had to do, to win a conflict that could have ended worse than world war 2. I'm sure your quite popular with Japanese Americans, since your actions showed that you don't care bout them. You locked your own people up in camps, while I made America into a champ, and when you didn't get your way what did you do, you tried to pack the courts with judges who agreed with you! I didn't need to cheat the system to pass the bills I wrote, when I was reelected I got the most ever electoral votes! I kept taxes low and my success just shows, the Reagan Revolution went as good as they go.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

I did have a depression and World War Two, But I resided over them like a pro, something you could never do. I ended the depression and put America back to work But with all the nation's problems, including Iran-Contra, you would shirk. And about the war, I never said "four score", but I never saw you do anything more. You classified ketchup as a vegetable and denied federal funding for research to aids; And you couldn't control many military raids. During your time in office, the national debt level soared. When I read over what you did in your administration, I get terribly bored. Mr. Reagan, I must say you were pretty old. But Excuse me, old man, but you just got told.
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan versus FDR

I'm known as the Gipper, I fixed the economy quicker, than my liberal friend over there, like Jimmy Carter he's probably scared, he knows that when I was done with the country it was super, for him it took a war to get us out of the pooper. Your new deal was a failure, it was just a way to steal from anyone who had success, and give their money to poor people, I revitalized a nation and what did you do? You presided over a depression and World War 2! I beat the Soviets, and I tore down the Berlin wall, unlike you I made the soviets fall! You worked with Stalin, a communist murderer, while regulating our economy with frightening fervor. I'm the master of Reaganomics, a creator of wealth, with my policies the people helped themselves. I beat back the big government that you started, and while I did it I made your economics look completely retarded. I'm the great communicator and I've something to say, don't use an economic plan that makes successful people pay.
Curent high school education should not be mandatory

In this debate I am neither trying to prove that high school education is unnecessary nor that high school education should not be free. I am also referring to American high school education (only because I know very little about foreign education) My resolution is that the current high school education should not be mandatory. While technically, high school education is not mandatory, one is required to stay in school until 16, the age most people are in high school. My contentions are the following. C1: It will free up economic resources. The core requirements taught in high school: literature, science, higher mathematics (ex: Algebra), and history are rarely necessary, especially for blue collar jobs and lower skilled jobs (ex: cashier). Those that need it are usually white collar workers. Therefore, society is creating economic waste by providing a service that has little benefit to the majority of people. If high school education was not mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering expenses on education, and tax money could be used for other purposes (ex: financial aid for higher education, improving infrastructure, and surplus spending to pay off the debt) or tax breaks. C2: Most necessary information is taught through K-8. Skills such as reading, writing, basic math (arithmetic, basic probability, pre-algebra), basic science, American history and government are already taught. Students are given 8 or more years (depending if one goes to kindergarten or stays back) to learn these skills that are necessary in the United States. C3: It will improve high school education Since those that do not want a high school education will not be required to attend high school, those that want to learn will not have to deal with students who disrupt classes, or cause the lower standard of education since these students that do not care about high school education do not study, pay attention, and/or skips school. For example countries like China have better high schools since high school is not required. Also higher education, which is not mandatory, in the United States is considered vastly superior to high school education. C4: Mandatory high school education directly infringes on the freedom of others You are requiring people to spend at least six hours a day a facility. Not only that but one's freedom's are infringed. Prison, military, and school are the only three places where one's freedom of speech is severely hindered. Also one is required to do activities one does not want to do (ex: public speaking, tests or doing projects). Also one can be punished (receive detention) for almost any reason a teacher wishes.
Math is discovered and not invented

I am supporting Plato's metaphysical view that mathematics is discovered. I am asserting that abstract mathematical objects exist independent of us.1. Axioms are discovered. An axiom is a statement that is unprovable yet assumed to be true because it is self-evident. An example of an axiom is the statement A is equal to A. No matter where you are, an object is the same as that object. A human does not need to state that an apple is an apple. The concept is there independent of the mind.2. The Pythagorean theorem and the concept of π do not change. The formula a2 + b2 = c2 can never change. If aliens existed, they would use that formula (unless they discovered another one) because the idea that the sum of the squares of the two legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse is the same wherever you are in the universe. As for π, it also does not change. The ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter will always be the same.
Should Prisoners all be Executed

That's all well and good, but surly out of all the prisoners there are a few who cannot be reformed and keeping them in prison longer than they would be on death row anyway would just be a waste of taxpayers money. Furthermore, studies have shown that murder rates drop when murderers are executed: "Their study concludes that when executions increase, murders decrease. When executions decrease, murders increase. In fact, according to their chart, each execution means about 74 fewer murders the next year." [1] Yes, not all prisoners need to be executed, but we shouldn't take it off the table completely. 1. http://abclocal.go.com...
Should Prisoners all be Executed

Fair enough, but what you said about people spending time on death row is a good thing. They should suffer because they are who caused someone else to suffer. And while it does cost money to keep them locked up there are lots of prisons that provide pretty well for themselves. Lets take Louisiana State Penitentiary (angola) for example. The prisoners grow food for the whole entire prison to eat as well as two other prisons. They have a rodeo that raises lot and lots of money and also, as stated before, they are the ones that make every road sign and license plate in Louisiana. There is always the off chance that the criminal actually didn't commit the crime, therefore, does not deserve to die.
Should Prisoners all be Executed

Sure, I'll play devil's advocate. I don't think ALL prisoners should be executed, but for some it's probably for the best. A couple things to consider: 1. Prisoners on death-row stay on death row for around a decade, and some for 20+ years [1]. So they are suffering and working for a long time after incarceration. 2. It costs a lot to keep prisoners. "Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million." [2] I'm out of room. 1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2. http://www.heartsandminds.org...
Should Prisoners all be Executed

Criminals should not be executed for any reason. The first reason for this is because, while these men and women are behind bars, they are still benefiting society. Prisoners make signs, licence plates, and plenty of other things. If it weren't for them, the states who own them would have to pay minimum wage for citizens to work. In all, the prisoners save money. My only other reason is that the people who commit these crimes should spend their whole lives thinking of what they've done to get in jail in the first place. Killing them isn't going to teach a lesson. If you believe in eye for an eye then thats really whats happening. Sure they are still here in the physical world, but they have no freedoms and really don't have significant lives. They've already given up their lives, might as well get some labor out of them, too.
Abortion under most circumstances is immoral.

I wish to vote the resolution that abortion is immoral. A few terms:Abortion -- the willful termination of a pregnancy, resulting in the death of the human embryo/fetus (so we will not be considering termination of pregnancy that does not result in the death of the embryo/fetus, such as induced delivery, or miscarriage, which is the non-willful termination of a pregnancy).Immoral -- An act in which a moral person is not permitted to perform (I am not interested in debating whether or not morality is objective, so objective morality is assumed in this debate).I say under most circumstances, because abortions to save the mother's life (such as in ectopic pregnancy) are not immoral. If two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, the doctor must do the greatest amount of good, which is saving the life that can be saved. I will be arguing that all other abortions are immoral.
masterbating is wrong

I’m frustrated with these members who join the site, have one or two debates, and then leave without closing their account. I especially am frustrated by guys like this who leave in the middle of a debate. That’s incredibly rude! A full seven point loss was earned by my opponent. I might as well add in a brief word about why masturbating is not wrong, even though technically I do not have to in order to win this debate: Masturbation has not been shown to have negative effects on those who masturbate. Myths that one would go blind or grow fur on one’s hand have been refuted. Appeals to going to hell after death for masturbating are impossible to verify. My opponent did not present any evidence about the mental effects of masturbation. In addition to this, masturbation can be a great form of relaxation. It can also be tremendous stress reliever. Since my opponent has presented no evidence for why masturbation is wrong, and on top of this we have some reason to think that it can be quite helpful in moderation, the resolution has not been proven.
What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal

Pro did not answer any of the arguments I put forward in the last round, so I consider them dropped.'Marriage, in principle, is based upon heterosexual relations because they are connected to procreation. Marriage is between a man and a woman; this is how it always has been but gay rights activists are trying to pervert the sacred institution. Where procreation is impossible, marriage is not relevant.'Consider the number of married couples where one (or maybe even both) of the partners are infertile, and incapable of procreation. Consider the number of people who get married and never have children for their entire marriage. Consider the fact that when one gets married, one does not have to agree to have children. The idea that marriage should not exist if procreation is not possible should be considered absurd in light of this.
What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal

'The idea that people of the same gender can marry each other is ludicrous and flies in the face of logic. 'This is merely a bare assertion fallacy. Pro provides no argumentation to prove that gay marriage is illogical or ludicrous. Since it was advanced without argumentation, we can dismiss it without argumentation. 'Marriage is a union between a man and woman. 'This claim has not been justified by Pro. As I did with his last argument, I will dismiss it without argumentation, as no argumentation was provided. 'regardless of recent attempts by popular dictionaries to update their definitions. 'This is irrelevant. What is right and wrong does not have anything to do with definitions. Anyone can define conservatism as 'the wrongful belief that we should hate women', and that would not make conservatism wrong, nor would it justify the idea that conservatives hate women. In the same way, defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' or 'betweee a man and a woman, two men, or two women' have nothing to do with who should be allowed to get married. ConclusionPro's argumentation amounts to a bare assertion fallacy, and we are provided with no argumentation. Pro makes many claims, but he does not justify them, so they do not prove the resolution.
What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal

'Married heterosexual couples which are infertile are unable to procreate because of the circumstances. This is different then 2 people of the same sex marrying, where not only is procreation incidentally impossible, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE!'This distinction is not important. The central point is that heterosexual couples get married and one partner is infertile. This means that the marriage has nothing to do with offspring or procreation from the very start. With homosexuals, you have two people entering a marriage that, from the start, cannot produce offspring. This is the reductio ad absurdum for the idea that having marriages that cannot produce children undermines marriage, so we shouldn't allow gays to get married. It ignores the fact that heterosexual couples are already getting married that cannot bear children.Furthermore, if the primary purpose of marrriage is procreation, then why don't married couples have to have children? This is a point that goes unanswered by Pro, so I will ask it again.' To separate marriage from the role of procreation would be to render the entire institution of marriage pointless in the first place.'Marriage has never been connected to procreation, so you cannot seperate the two to start with. Marriage has not been connected to procreation because infertile people can get married, and there is no 'offspring' requirement when a couple gets married. The connection never existed.'Marriage is between a man and a woman; that is how it has always been.'This claim is historically inaccurate. Consider this historical analysis of gay marriage over time: http://www.randomhistory.com...;