BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Suicide because of bullying is more unacceptable than bullying itself.

I have made this debate impossible to accept (or at least I think I did). Please leave a comment if you wish to compete. Or if it didn't work for me, feel free to just accept it! :)I will be saying "yes, Suicide because of bullying is more unacceptable than bullying itself" It is immoral and a stupid thing to do and society should focus more on 'stop suicide' instead of 'stop bullying'In this case the definition of 1. suicide: Killing oneself because of others who bully them/depression.2. unacceptable: immoral, stupid, socially unacceptable and should be more focused on in comparison to bullying. ie society should say: "Bullying is bad, suicide is worse"3. bullying: Can be bullying to any extent or the average 'high-school' bully.Please try to keep each round over 1500 characters if possible. :)I'll start off:Bullying is something that will never be resolved. It will always be there because there can be no happiness without sadness. To know what happiness is, you must understand what [emotional] pain is. By killing yourself because of all the insults, you are simply saying to yourself that you don't deserve happiness. You are saying to yourself that you are weak and undeserving of life. Bullying is like every other thing in life. Everyone will go through something bad in their life, something horrible. No matter who you are. Rich, poor, black, white, girl, boy, everyone will go through something bad!Life isn't perfect and it'll never be and to think that you are deserving of a better life means that you are just attention seeking and pathetic and weak. To take your own life because of the tragedies you've suffered mean you are selfish and uncaring for all the people you are going to hurt. To think that you are the only one's who's ever suffered means you are stupid and purely self-centered
The US should institute Progressive Wage Laws.

Alright, this is an entirely new proposal based off of several already proposed wage reforms to the minimum. With that said, I'll try my best to explain it this round.Basically, they are left wing laws, that decide the wage of a company based on their....1. Employees2. Capital3. Income 4. BenefitsFor example, a rich company with high income, will have to pay a higher wage, like Walmart. While a poorer company with less capital and income, with much more employees, would pay a lower wage.The core of progressive wage laws, is that companies will pay wages based on their ability to do so. This action, makes sure that the small buissness survives while the large one's pay a higher due. In addition, if a small buissness like Eddie's car wash decides to give vacation days, then the employees can take those in a omit of additional wages. The choice is up to the employee and employer. The filings over who will pay what will be handled by a seperate new beauracracy, or the IRS. Anyways, I've had 7 people already tell me this is a good idea, so please give feedback in the comments. First round is acceptance. You may not make arguments that the wage should stay the same.*Ask to accept in comments http://www.youtube.com...
Are Dictators better than presidents

Dictators are better because they are more effective than normal presidents. For example, they can make important reforms quickly, and if an autocrat actually cares about their people they can make sure their successor will rule like them ensuring that the nation would last a long time, and in success if they ruled well. There are a lot of rulers who did care for their people and not power, like Augustus Ceaser and Napoleon. Dictators can be bad also, like Hitler, but presidents can be bad too.
Why do people talk about freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is totally hyped up to be something its not, Its not about the freedom of speech its about the limit to that freedom, Or the freedom to speak. . You have the right to speak with freedom of choice so why ever talk about freedom of speech? Its obvious bs if you ask me, Like, The thing that makes people go yaay when they hear the words, Freedom of speech, Should really be for the limit of speech instead. . . That should be when we go yaay, You should not be free to just speak anything, Speech should be limited. . Like lies, Or threats are spoken, Can't just go around threatening people however you like, Or lie however you like
Are Salamanders better than regular Fishes

you been drinking cool aid sir. 1. can you eat salamander? 2. can you fry salamander? 3. can you really have salamander as a common pet? 4. can salamander be considered sea food? 5. can you really see salamander as anything special to a aquarium? The answer to all these question is no. therefore fish is better if you yes to any one of them something is wrong.
Christianity is less accepted then Homosexuality

Sadly my opponent has failed to post an argument so with nothing to argue against I ask him that in this last round we simply state closing facts no disproving any thing simply because I have nothing to argue. That being said I only have a few things to say I have proved Christianity is shrinking also it is obvious that people are more accepting gays and the only reason people do not realize it is because they are so used to marching down the streets with people booing and a few straits coming off the streets to help now they march down the street and almost everyone comes and helps with just a few standing on the sides. These are my facts and to this I end my argument
Christianity is less accepted then Homosexuality

I would like to say for starters that not all of Jesus friends were not scum and whores sinners yes but not scum and whores lower class but not scum, and that is not always true that Christians would rather curse and torment gays they may say that the homosexuals are wrong and stay away from them but I have never seen a Christian physically attack a homosexual but I have seen people beat and abuse Christians for there. Now if you want facts here's one Christianity has droped 11% in the last 20 years and is still falling. http://www.religioustolerance.org... Also only 32% of males and 44% of females in America attend church on a regular bases. Along with only 28% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 30 go to church proving its shrinking in the next generation. http://abcnews.go.com... Now on a personal note I have a gay uncle and I would much rather convert him then shun him, but is like trying to get someone to surrender at war you need to tell them what there doing is wrong and they need to stop then keep working at it until you get your point across which might mean doing some damage. Also people let gays have it easy they are hardly threatened by anyone yet when they are its blown out of proportion so its like there was a mass murder of homosexuals. Now for the fact I stated in the first round about Christians being persecuted in schools I would like to back that up by saying a friend of my was punished for saying she did not agree with what her teacher was saying about evaluation because her religion said different. ( She was a Christian. ) Yet many schools refuse to have a alternative class for creationism.
Christianity is less accepted then Homosexuality

I will start y defining some things.. Key terms.. Christianity : The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Christianity is today the world's most widespread religion, mainly divided between the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Accepted : 1. Consent to receive (a thing offered). 2. Agree to undertake (an offered position or responsibility). Homosexuality : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex. My case... 1. The fact of acceptance of homosexuality has been shifty from the beginning, states have had shifty views on this for awhile now. Some schools and locations might have a different view than others, upon such matters. 2. In this sense I will say that these views are a subjective matter and my opponent must prove that such views are of the majority I haven't seen a statistic nor source for your entire case therefore not a factual case. 3. Christianity itself has not been less accepted than homosexuality, the people of the church or the christian are. The long views as i have seen it is that christian people have persecuted gays in the past and made them feel suicidal and such being the way they are they were disowned or more. So its not Christianity to blame but the few or more Christians who cannot accept homosexuals and persecute them. Firstly if you do this, then obviously you will be hated and as you represent Christianity you are show a bad example. Jesus never stoned people to death, his best friends were scum, whores and sinners. He accepted them and treated them and he changed them however our today Christians would rather curse at you and torment you for being different. This doesn't help show them the right path rather make them hate you.
Christianity is less accepted then Homosexuality

I think homosexuality is more accepted now in this day in age then Christianity. The reason I believe this is because many people will agree with homosexuality in this day in age it is still opposed yes but it is much more accepted then it used to be, and with Christianity being one of the major rivals of homosexuality it is shrinking as a religion. children with Christian parents will even now become homosexual to rebel against their parents they will pick up religions like wicca and Satanism or become atheist, and Christianity begins to shrink. Yet there are multiple days of the year when people will have a day of silence or something like that to support gays yet when a Christian dose a day to support there religion that's not commercialized protesters show up.
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

1) Whats the matter with swearing? Kids don't watch his videos and he doesn't brand them to them anyway. B-Lasagna is not an annoying song. When did he apologize? 2) Give me one example of Pewdiepie being racist, ONE 3) He doesn't play games and he is really funny, Why do you think he was at the top for so long. He is better than Ray-William Johnson 4) Pewdiepie does not think he is a god. Where are you getting all this? , Just keep going on about things that aren't true. Stop saying lies. Pewdiepie is a great man and rose to youtube himself. T-Series got helped by google and is a soulless company. Being Indian, DOES NOTHING. ITs call YOUtube for a reason,
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

Pewdiepie swears deliberately every time. You think his annoying song is enough? No. He used F word and n word right in front of a person when "all people are built equal". After a while he yet apologizes. You think hot glue on a heartstab is enough? No. Also kids follow the behaviors of the adults that they are interested in. You think setting a role model by being racist and swearing is a good one? No. Even markiplier can do better than him: he did a live stream just for another friend. Can you do that? Felix Kjellberg? No is the answer. He can do nothing other than games and vlogs. Yet his channel is labeled comedy. Do he do any real comedy like at least Ray-William-Johnson did? He did barely any reaction videos that is funny. Most of them wants people to exit the video. Even jacksepticeye is better at that. Lastly mrbeast, Still can waste his money on what he needs, Unlike pewdiepie who think he is a god but far from that to do any action. Tseries, On the other side just films. Barely any swears. Barely any complains. Just doing their job at the best. Who is better, Tell me.
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

Neither side uses bots and alts are removed within an hour and T-Series also has alts. Pewdiepie does not target his videos for 9 year olds. His average demographic is 15-19. It is a running joke and their is no problem with it. What is your problem with Mr. Beast. He is a good guy for what he did to the poor and his friends. 9 year olds do not watch his videos but if they did, There is no problem. He tipped waiters and pizza deliver guys gave over 50k$ of money to homeless people and gave one a home Frequently gives money to friends in need and a apartment. Mr. Beast gives money to people and gets money with profit. His money CHANGES lives. What does T-Series teach anyway? his b-lasagna song is a funny diss track that is clearly a joke but I guess T-Series fans don't have a sense of humor. Right, Pewdiepie is not a rapper, But Youtube isnt just for rappers. For copyright, Pewds understands that people work hard in his support. T-Series frequently is a scumbag and copyrights other innocent Indian youtubers. Last, How is swearing bad? . Why should he be demonetized? B-LASAGNA IS A JOKE! Pewdiepie has admitted that he doesnt care that T-Series is going to surpass him saying this: "I don't care if T-Series surpasses me, It's just a lot of fun. Im surprised it took this long anyway" He has also helped Indian kids by supporting CRY. T-Series is supported by Google. What about their taxes?
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

so how are they standing in the same spot if they are using bots? There are only 2 possibilities: one is that this is lie and the second is that this bot situation is not detected that it is counted as acceptable. Like come on even socialblade give innocence for them. Second that 9 yos are not supposed to be exposed to those adult dank memes while learning how to write a narrative. It is impossible to left Mr beast out when insulting pewdiepie. You expect those innocent child watching a b***** spending money like if it is growing on trees? No! Next his b- lasagna is already to a dank meme phase in which is so overused that remixed are popping out like pewds subs? NO! Copyright were not correctly serves or just this greedy lasagna want to shake the money pile. The swearing words pops out every way like if he were demonetized eminem (he should be), And how does that leads to the dank-memage of the stupid rap song? Pewdiepie cannot even rap! Even worse than lil pump. On the other hand did you see any roasting in justreign's "diss track"? No! It is assertive instead of aggressive and greedy. They even released the correct form of their own culture and some thoughtful sentences. How do you think this uncalm and sacrilegious boi would win against the necessary connection between 2 distinct culture that at least bonds them alive? Pewdiepie's ads in India does count, But what can this useless Boi do if he knew he is gonna lose (or stupid enough that he won't realise the downfall of the Internet will spread from him)?
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

First, If you seriously think that Pewdiepie is a weirdo when he says he has a nine year old army, Your ridiculous. Second, I have a problem with dividing this youtube war into countries. It doesn't matter if T-Series was an Indian channel, Finnish channel, Russian channel, And English channel this war will still be on. T-Series happens to be Indian and theres nothing we can do about it. This is not an India vs english war. Mr. Beast has actually helped the poor and homeless people many times. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=9cCpZl8euLI https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=rPXmbM2UEbU https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=op0N7axawJA https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=N_GMakKf7G4 https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4KVmSG6KS2k " Pewdiepie just plays and earns money, " He doesn't even plays games anymore and makes really funny content which is why I think he should be number one. Pewdiepie is our last hope because T-Series and other companies are taking over youtube.
Pewdiepie is better than T-Series

Pewdiepie is worse than tseries. Really. first up that me and my family is far past 9 yrs old yet this weirdo is proud of building a nine-year-old army instead of any conscious adults like sirf true or Jusreign. On the other hand, T series is having India as its support instead of some unregistered protestants that are supposed to be studying how to divide numbers. One such coward is Mrbeast, He is a f****** money waster in which he used up all those money to give to random people when rest are still in poverty. This biased coward should not take this job to do this. On the other hand sirf true, Is a conscious adult who a least what are they exposing the opponents from the Internet. Pewdiepie just plays and earns money, Mrbeast waste money to earn money, And that is not how wealth truly grows. They will affect half of the world to be broke. While tseries is already here without knowing their opponents existence with the 5th biggest economy being proud, And they are here with the money spenders. Note to say youtube is not as popular there yet about 8% of the country is already at the level of the half-world-controller-on-Internet-in-a-bad-way.
Internet piracy is good

I will be arguing against the notion that Internet Piracy is "good." I'm assuming the word good to be referring to good for industry, since the article you provided was an example of piracy helping/not affecting Microsoft's profit margins. Regarding the LA times article, correlation does not equal causation. In the article, it is mentioned that "Even as the Internet makes global piracy easier than ever, Microsoft's revenue and profit have risen steadily. It earned $12 billion on $41.4 billion in revenue in calendar '05." The claim that Microsoft's revenue and profit have risen because of piracy as opposed to in spite of it is a ridiculous one. 1: My opponent says that "The idea of this being beneficial is that once a user starts using a pirated Microsoft product, they are much more likely to buy another Microsoft product in the future." My argument of course being that if someone pirated a Microsoft product and liked it, they would simply pirate any updates/improvements to the software. Piracy promotes future piracy, a study done by University Sains Malaysia seems to indicate that internet piracy has a strong habit-forming effect and there is no reason to suspect that piracy will drop just because a product is good [1]. 2: Piracy hurts industry, in turn damaging the economy. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the U.S. economy looses about $12.5 Billion annually as a direct consequence of internet piracy of sound recordings alone [2]. Furthermore, as a consequence of the loss in revenue, sound industry employers hire significantly less people per year; about 71,060 jobs are lost annually due to internet piracy [2]. Goods are taxed for a reason, and internet theft not only affects individual corporations, but it strips the government of its ability to tax these goods, and as a result $422 million in taxes is lost annually [2]. The statistics overwhelmingly suggest that internet piracy is harmful to industry, government, and individual people. The anecdotal evidence provided by my opponent is insufficient to back up his claims that Internet piracy is "good." Thank you [1] http://www.eurojournals.com... [2] http://www.ipi.org...
Internet piracy is good

I believe that internet piracy is not bad or immoral, but is good and can help companies. For an example of piracy being a positive thing for companies, there is Microsoft. The idea of this being beneficial is that once a user starts using a pirated Microsoft product, they are much more likely to buy another Microsoft product in the future (1). This means that someone who probably wasn’t going to spend money on a Microsoft product in the first place has now bought one of their products. That is profit for Microsoft. (1) http://articles.latimes.com...
The Government should get out of marriage altogether.

I think my opponent is a bit confused. He appears to be under the impression that I am arguing in favor of homosexual marriage or am trying to get the church to sanction it. That is not at all the case. Rather I am arguing that we should understand the proper role of government and the church. Everything my opponent said about enforcing heterosexual marriage should be handled by the church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the government"s job to do so. My opponent briefly brings up divorce, in fact I would attribute part of the reason that divorce rates are so high is because the church isn"t doing what they should to make marriages last since they have allowed it to be taken over by the government. If you are married in the eyes of God why would you need a piece of paper from the government saying so? The church and government are in conflict in this regard. The Government is trying to do what should be a private matter between a church or private establishment and two people entering into a union. The Establishment clause of the first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". [1] Telling the church how to do their job is unconstitutional. The Free exercise clause continues with, "Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof", [2] giving government control of marriage opens up the possibility that they could interfere with a church"s free exercise of their beliefs. Both of these clauses are essential to understanding the role of religion and the government in America. Getting the government out of marriage is the only solution that does not violate either clause. I would also like my opponent to address the points I brought up in the previous round. I thank my opponent and await his response. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Government should get out of marriage altogether.

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate Government should get out of marriage for a number of reasons. Originally, marriage licenses were invented to prevent interracial marriage so if the purpose is supposed to be to prevent discrimination it has failed right from the beginning. [1] It both combines the role of church and state and put them in conflict; a violation of the first amendment, and taking the power to marry away from the government would solve this problem. According to the government the marriage license is a contract where the government is the primary party and the husband and wife are only secondary, it also gives government control over the children. [2] Thanks again to my opponent and I await my opponent"s response. 1 http://marriage.laws.com... 2 http://www.fee.org...
Should you be allowed to have sex with your foster sister?!

I feel that sex with a sister, biological, foster, or step, destroys familial relationships and can cause severe problems among members of the family. Most relationships that involve sex between younger people will generally break apart. This is acceptable in most cases as the relationships can simply be broken off and the couple can avoid each other. Avoiding a sister is another story. Not only can this lead to tense relationships within the household, it can cause marriage problems to arise with parents who will most probably feel differently. I feel that the disadvantages caused by inter familial sex outweigh any possible benefits due to marriage trouble and domestic tension.
Should you be allowed to have sex with your foster sister?!

Technically the female in this case is not biological and thus no real difference than a "random" female. The pure fact of her being raised and brough up with you and treated as a "sister/family member" does not negate the fact that she is biologically differenet than you than Pam Anderson.This is classic nuture vs. nature but this should not let feelings and overall created human thoughts to involve the option to have intercourse with a woman; "related or unrelated." You should be able to have sex with you foster sister, regardless of morals.