BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

Until recently, I would've assumed that my stance on this issue would've been unanimously agreed upon by all sane individuals. However, recently I've come across various profiles on this site of people who claim that they're against taxes. One person claimed on his profile that he's against taxes because "taxes are stealing." Aside from the fact that taxes are necessary for our government to even exist (let alone function), the government isn't "stealing" when it taxes its citizens. As a universal rule, the term "money" refers to a circulating medium of exchange. When someone earns money, it is in their possession only until they decide to exchange it for something else. The fact that money can be used in this way is entirely because the government recognizes it as such; currency is sponsored by the government, and therefore, any given holder of any given amount of money does not OWN that money. The fact that the government lets them hold it is entirely in recognition of the fact that they are entitled to any product being sold for equal or lesser value.
Resolved: The user known as s0m31john ought to seriously consider reading the Naruto manga.

My opponent says the manga contains no filler, which may be true by his definition of filler but let's take a look. Naruto has 46 volumes so far. Now that could be all story, but honestly if one has to take 46 volumes to complete a story they need to rethink it. To me it looks like they're just beating a dead horse because they can get money out of it. My opponent has established that there is a romance subplot, but I do not want just a subplot. I want a romance plot. My opponent says I am wrong to say Naruto is all about Ninjas, but let's see. On MyAnimeList (an anime and manga database) the synopsis of the Naruto manga uses the word Ninja 3 times. That is a lot considering the synopsis is only a few lines. (http://myanimelist.net...) "Despite his lack of talent in many areas of ninjutsu, Naruto strives for only one goal: to gain the title of Hokage, the strongest ninja in his village." "Naruto works towards his dream with fellow friends Sasuke and Sakura and mentor Kakashi as they go through many trials and battles that come with being a ninja." On Anime News Network (another anime database) the synopsis is pretty much the same. (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com...) Blah blah blah Naruto has to fight to become the strongest, ninjas, etc. I am not interested in manga about little boys that have to become the strongest to save the world and whatnot. My opponent's movie arguments don't hold up because when looking up Naruto ninja related words do show up as a description for the main story. When looking up things like V for Vendetta and Huckleberry Finn things like Superhero and water rafting don't show up as descriptions for the main plot. My opponent brings up that I am a fan of Fullmetal Alchemist, a popular shounen series. This can be explained simply with nostalgia and it does not prove that I should even give Naruto a chance. There are many specific things that adults like because they liked them as a kid. Take for example an adult that liked the cartoon Thundercats as a kid. He can continue liking Thundercats as an adult and get away with it by saying it was part of his childhood. It does not mean that he should even consider giving more (old or new) cartoons a chance. In fact he probably wouldn't like them and the only reason he likes Thundercats is due to nostalgia. As I have shown the Naruto manga contains a ton of volumes and chapters (common of dead horse beating money making shounen). I see no reason why I should start reading such a large manga when there are manga suited way better for my specific tastes. I concede to my opponent that it would be easy to hide my reading Naruto, but my dislike for the fanbase is still to great. I do not want to become what I despise.
Resolved: The user known as s0m31john ought to seriously consider reading the Naruto manga.

20 minutes to post my argument, I put SNSD - Gee on loop, and here I go: Like I said in the comments I went to 4chan's /a/ board for advice. The main reason I did this was because I do not know much about Naruto, so I figured they could tell me if there was much truth in my opponent's argument. The entire thread can be viewed in this unedited screencap: http://skipall.com... Beware, it contains some adult language. I do not support the insults directed at my opponent. They say you are pushing the one very thin romance into something much bigger than it actually is. They also say my anime favorites show that I am pretty much incompatible with Naruto. I'll post some quotes from the thread: "Don't try to make the series more that what it is. It is about power levels " "Anyone who says Naruto is worth your time is a liar." "The guy is saying true stuff but... hes obviously pushing ONE romance in Naruto, which is a shounen and the romance is very thin-to-nonexistent, which if you like MELODRAMATIC sh*t like Clannad, you won't like." Fee free to pull any other quotes from the 4chan tread. I would ask my opponent to find another reason as to why I would like Naruto, because his claims of romance seem to amount to little. I do not want to put up with tons of filler to get such little romance, when there are anime devoted to forced drama and romance. If that is the "primary aspect which should" lead to me to want anything to do with Naruto, let's just say it's not working.
Resolved: The user known as s0m31john ought to seriously consider reading the Naruto manga.

Now having read my opponent's reasoning for his preferences, one thing is rather clear: My opponent is most certainly a romance enthusiast. I shall be providing a deeper analyzation of this fact in the next round based particularly on his comments concerning his anime choices (since I ended up starting ths round at the last minute. :D), but just be well awre that it is romantic potential which interests my opponent the most. This is most likely attributed to the fact that may very opponent craves romance of his own in his own life (which one can conclude merely through reading his various "girl trouble" comments on the forums). Now why did I feel the need to point this out? Very simple. You see, although the plot isn't mainly driven by romance, the fact of the matter is that romance is a pretty large yet underlying element of the series. Even more important, both my opponent and Naruto happen to be in the same situation. Whereas my opponent is constantly depressed or annoyed over the fact that women in his eyes are falling head over heels for the guys who behave like "@ssholes' and essentially meet the "badboy" idiosycrasy to a "T", the same is the case for Naruto. Throughout the series, we see him and his romantic interest in the leading female character (Sakura), only for her to ignore him (and even think of him of "some loser" in preference of Sasuke (who meets the badboy arechetype, which many women love). Like my opponent, Naruto too is annoyed at what appears to be unfairness or absurdity, but can't really do much about it. Throughout the series, Sakura matures pass her craving for "the bad boy" (although it must be noted that some of her feeling still exist, thus an invetibale confrontation centering around Naruto, Sakura and Sasuke shall no doubt occur). Sasuke and begans to see and understand Naruto for more than what he appears to be externally and slowly manages to develop feelings of her own. Granted, the manga has yet to end, so I cannot reveal how this love story ends . . . but for all intensive purposes, it is pretty realistic (by realistic, I mean to say that it is easily relatable) (which is a rare quality for a shounen series) and should no doubt prove intriguing for someone of my opponent's taste. I shall be listing a few more positive aspects in the next round, but the above one is to be considered the primary aspect which should lead my opponent to seriously considering reading this manga. And that's all for now. :D
Resolved: The user known as s0m31john ought to seriously consider reading the Naruto manga.

I'll let my opponent start the debate in Round 2, and will just use this round to answer his questions. "Question #1: What are your top 3 favorite anime/manga series (or any fictional series for that matter?" 1) 5 Centimeters Per Second (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) Toradora! (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3) Kodomo no Jikan (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I could list a few more, because there are ones that I enjoyed just as much. I will let my opponent look into the specifics of each show. I would recommend sites like MyAnimeList, AniDB, and Anime News Network to do so. "Question #2: What elements of these series drove you to like them?" 1) 5 Centimeters Per Second Surely my opponent knows of the website 4chan.org, more specifically their Animu & Mango board. When it is late you can usually find what are referred to as 'ronery threads'. They usually consist of references to sad romance anime, ;_; emoticons, misogyny, and stories from people who have never even been kissed. One of the poster child shows of these threads is '5 Centimeters per Second'. The movie is made up of three parts. Part 1 is the story of the two main characters meeting for the last time after they moved away from each other. Part 2 is the story of the guy in the place where he moved. In part 2 a new girl falls for him, but never works up the courage to ask him out because she realizes he still longed for his childhood love. Part 3 is about their lives as adults. The girl goes on to get married to someone she really doesn't like and the guy lives a boring lonely life dwelling on what could have been. I would recommend my opponent watch the entire movie, but if he doesn't have time he could at least watch the song at the end of the movie. (http://www.youtube.jp...) Be sure to pay attention to the lyrics. 2) Toradora! The two main characters both have crushes on two different people, and they end up trying to help each other get together with their crush. In the process they actually fall for each other. Ryuuji the guy had a crush on a girl named Minori, and Minori knew and liked him back, but she stayed quiet because she wanted her friend (the other main character) Taiga to be happy with Ryuuji. In my opinion it's one of the best high school romance dramas of the past few years. I recommend my opponent watch two videos if he hasn't watched the series. The 2nd opening (http://www.youtube.jp...) Make sure you click HQ to watch it in high quality, the subtitles are easier to read that way. Also a fight scene between the main girl Taiga and a girl that rejected and hurt the guy she had a crush on. (http://www.youtube.jp...) 3) Kodomo no Jikan I put this one on the list to break away from the romance genre. It's a show that Wikipedia says "uses lolicon as a story telling device". I watch it because of the cute characters and because it's a light hearted comedy. I also like the j-pop music from the show. (http://www.youtube.jp...) (http://www.youtube.jp...) The only manga I have ever finished (caught up with) is the Kodomo no Jikan manga.
Resolved: The user known as s0m31john ought to seriously consider reading the Naruto manga.

Greetings. The resolution is exactly as it says. I won't begin arguing until the second round since it hasn't yet occurred to me how I actually wish to argue this. My opponent is free to begin the debate with his first round or wait for me to begin in round 2. It matters little to me. In addition, CON is more than free to define the resolution, but I reserve to the right to argue against his interpretation should I feel that it does not match the intentions of this debate (this is assuming he starts arguing in the first round). Cheers and good luck. :D Also, if it isn't much of a problem . . . I would like for my opponent to answer the following questions: Question #1: What are your top 3 favorite anime/manga series (or any fictional series for that matter? Question #2: What elements of these series drove you to like them?
JAY Z (Pro) versus Kayne West (Con)

ExplanationPro and Con will analyze the album sales, lyricism, rhyme schemes, number of hit songs, song composition and public image of both JAY Z and Kayne West and reach a conclusion on who is a truly better Artist.RoundsRound one is acceptance onlyRound two is opening statementRound three is argumentsRound four is conclusionsQualificationsCitations neededNo argumentative and/or logical fallaciesIf you have literally any questions regarding the debate and DO NOT POST THEM IN THE DEBATE!
Word Debate

This is a word battle where each person will post one word and the voters may decide who posted a better word. There will be restrictions on the type of word you can use though. Rules 1. The word must be appropriate and must not contain any extra meaning. 2. If the word has multiple meanings, then all of the meanings must be appropriate. 3. The characters of the word must be over 4. 4. The word must also be a word that the person already knows and not a word that he will learn later on. 5. Any Word that defies one of the rules shall be considered as a forfeited round. This is to prevent any unnecessary arguing over the opponents word. 6. If the word meets the rules then there may not any negative comments toward whatsoever. 7. The limit of characters shall be 15 to prevent overly large words that either me or my opponent may use. 8. To provide voters with their own chance to cast votes of their own opinions, no comments may be posted in the comments section that may influence the voters decision in any way. This debate has two rounds because we will each post our one word in the second round.
That former governor Rod Blagojevich was treated poorly by the Illinois senate

I would like to begin by wishing good luck to my opponent in his future debates. I would wish him luck in this one, but that wouldn't exactly be beneficial to me, now would it? I will begin by reacting to a few of my opponent's statements. >Your telling me that every single person in that room thought he did something wrong?< Not necessarily. Politics in Illinois is notoriously corrupt. It is possible that some of the men in that room were just thankful that it wasn't up to them to appoint a replacement, or they might have done the same thing. Regardless of the opinions of particularly slimey slime (that is, Illinois politicians), Blagojevich was treated as he deserved. > I will back down when you show me for a fact that he did something wrong in regards to Barack Obamas senate seat.< Will do. >Rod Blagojevic only talked about selling the senate seat he never actually did.< There's your proof. I am citing you, my opponent, as expert evidence. I believe this source ought to be taken seriously by all readers because while it's opinions on legality and interpretation are sometimes suspect, it's handle on what actually happened is masterful. This source claims that "Rod Blagojevich... talked about selling a senate seat." Or, in legal terms, he committed mail and wire fraud and solicitted a bribe. I would say that bribary and fraud are fairly wrong, and certainly so for those in public office. As for treating him guilty on day one, while I'm normally opposed to it, I will make an exception for a man who A). is guilty on day one (or some time before) and B). tries to defend himself with the argument that he's so great because he helped a hospital when he actually threatened to withhold money from it. >Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and that is what Rod Blagojevic was doing. he only talked about selling the seat he never actually did.< If I were to make plans to blow up a building, would you say that I couldn't be arrested because I hadn't blown it up yet? Sometimes preparing to do something is as bad as doing it. And anyway, Blagojevich DID solicit bribes. Freedom of speech does not cover these things. Blagojevich, while entertaining at times, does not deserve to hold office. Since your only complaint seems to be that he was removed from office, this ought to about cover the debate. Blagojevich had a position of power, he abused it by trying to make decisions based on what would be profitable to him, and lost that position. His treatment was appropriate, and there's not much else to say. Well, there is one other thing. Blagojevich delenda est. (Well, politically anyway) Et memores, si metrum non habet, non est poema.
That former governor Rod Blagojevich was treated poorly by the Illinois senate

This part is to my opponent: This is my first debate so I am sorry if it is a poor one because I am still getting used to this site. I believe that former governor Rod Blagojevich was treated unconditionally by the Illinois senate. For one thing the voter so kick him out of office was one by a margin of 59 to 0. Your telling me that every single person in that room thought he did something wrong? The thing that I really have a problem with is the fact that they only voted him out because they were tired of him in office. I will back down when you show me for a fact that he did something wrong in regards to Barack Obamas senate seat. You are going to have a hard time doing that because he never did do anything wrong. Rod Blagojevic only talked about selling the senate seat he never actually did. Another thing I have a problem with. They treated him as if he was guilty from day one. Rod Blagojevic never got a clean fight because he never got a fair trial. Isn't that against the law to not give some one a fair trial. Now Rod Blagojevic is going to be prosecuted for something he never actually did only talked about. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and that is what Rod Blagojevic was doing. he only talked about selling the seat he never actually did.
Gun Control in the United States

Thank you for your response. I'd first like to address that gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. I am not saying that enacting more gun laws would completely erase all gun crime, but is an essential component. As you stated, places such as New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have had mass shootings, yes. But the vast majority of states with fewer gun laws, like Texas, have had mass shootings to. These are uncommon incidents that don't happen everyday. If you look at the bigger picture, the gun laws in places such as New York result in fewer gun crimes. My argument that gun laws reduce gun crimes is still valid. My opponent talks about how my source doesn't speculate why there are less murders. First of all, this website was about the facts, not the reasons. Secondly, it's difficult to comprehend why the murder rate is low in these states becuase there are many factors to consider. In my opponent's third paragraph, he explains that the source I used was against gun control. I was only showing the graph that showed how the United States has a far higher gun murder rate than any other country. I'd like to point out that my opponent stated that gun laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, are "non existent," that is not the case. In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. In Palestine, there are no gun laws but only 125,000 people posses a gun. Do you know the how many people reside in Palestine? 4,000,000. I'd also like to point out that in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, the amount of guns purchased is low and the population in these countries is high. It's also problematic to compare Canada to Iraq because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it more difficult to obtain a gun. My opponent claims that Chicago has the highest amount of violence, I agree. But Chicago also has the highest amount of gangs in the United States. Also, Chicago is one of the many cities in Illinois and is only one area. http://www.zeigen.com... In the graph, you can see that there is a dip in 1934. In 1934, the National Firearm Act was founded and murder rate went down drastically. This was after the law was enacted. These might be reasons why murder rate went down. In 1990, the Crime Control Act was made as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. After those laws passed, gun violence went down again. As you can see, gun violence and gun laws have a strong correlation. Again, I want to remind my opponent and the audience that gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't give any sources about the other countries laws and gave false information. He also didn't provide a claim on why we shouldn't have gun laws. Looking forward to your response. http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.zeigen.com... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control in the United States

Thank you rightandwrong for opening up the debate. I look forward to the discussing this topic. I am not opposed to regulating firearms. In fact, I agree it is a good thing that can help protect people. However, for this debate my opponent proposes there is a direct correlation between stricter gun laws and lower violence, which is simply not the case. My goal is to show that merely making stricter gun laws does not by itself decrease gun violence. There are multiple variables at play in this issue that require an equal amount of attention. I have examined my opponent’s sources and found they contain numerous contradictions. Pro cites a website (1) that lists Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii among the top 10 states with the lowest gun violence (the remaining three states on this list are Nebraska, Minnesota, and Maine). First, notice Pro conveniently overlooks in a second source they use (2) that some of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history occurred in New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and twice in Connecticut. These are some of the vary states Pro uses as champions of gun control. Second, notice this source only lists where gun violence is the lowest and does not speculate as to why it is low. Curiously, my opponent uses another source (3) to support their position that very clearly contradicts it. The following is the opening paragraph of the website: “Do more guns mean more crime? . . . The answer is a very distinct NO! The correlation between guns and crime is nonexistent.” I assume my opponent uses this website to show the countries Canada, Spain, Australia, and Sweden have lower murder rates than America (4.8). Let’s look at other countries on this website that also supposedly have a lower murder rate: Afghanistan (2.4), Iraq (2.0), Palestine (4.1), Iran (3.0), etc… Gun laws in these countries are basically non-existent, and so Pro’s own source disproves their claim that gun laws in and of themselves reduce violence. Also some states that have some of the strictest gun laws, like Illinois, still have some of the most violent and dangerous areas in the country (Chicago). Violence in Chicago has recently fallen, but many experts attribute this to better policing techniques, not more gun laws (4). The sources my opponent has used so far do not prove that stricter gun laws necessarily reduce gun violence. (1) http://www.deseretnews.com... (2) http://www.cnn.com... (3) http://www.sunray22b.net... (4) http://www.npr.org...