BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Minimum Wage should be increased.

In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a "job killer." I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the "conduct" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion
Fear is key to success

Fear is an element that each of us face in different ways, and at many intervals during the course of our lives. We may suffer fear of physical confrontations, emotional clashes, personal and professional setbacks, declining physical or mental capacities. When undertaking an inventory of our life"s experiences we inevitably underline for emphasis the role fear has played on so many occasions during our journey. In today's fast changing world, most people who have been adept when it comes to success and accomplishments, they contend that if human beings are endowed with just the feelings of sadness, anger, happiness, and fear, it is fear that is more likely to bring about success. Not that every successful person is afraid of everything. This only means that fear is the basic foundation of all decisions that trigger successful results. It is through fear that people are enticed to overcome whatever impedes them to do what they should have done in the first place. In fact, surveys show that 80% of all choices that people make are based on fear. Most people do not choose what they want; they choose what they think is safe. Hence, it is extremely important that you create an action that will correspond and overcome your fear. It is important to do some actions now before you have to let go of your fear. Otherwise, things will not change because the "trigger" is no longer present. The point there is that fear stimulates a person to take some actions. It is that feeling of wanting to overcome the anxiety that envelopes one's personality. Fear is enough reason to make an individual think of something in order to produce positive upshots in life. Fear makes you believe in yourself. It makes you push a little harder on things that you have not rendered some notable energy. In this sense, fear creates energy to keep you going. It is that inner voice that compels you to move, to do some action, and to continue strives harder. In fact, most successful people and those who are optimistic in life contend that there are no such things as failures. What people think as failure is only a result of something that they forgot to do. Indeed, it is so hard to overcome fear but when you have reached the point that you were able to overcome it, the gratification that you will get is more than enough to console yourself from taking that risky first step to success. The world is not pulling for us to act differently, think differently, and choose differently. So, if you decide to be an agent for change and get that fear out of your system, you have to stay committed to getting what you want, and eventually, you will find your supporters and overcome what stood in your way.
Fear is key to success

The debate is: "Resolved: Fear is the key to success." If "key" is a metaphor for "means to," such that a plain text interpretation would require PRO to show that "fear" is "the means to succeed" then he hasn't done that. I want to note that there is a distinction between "overcoming fear" and "fear" itself. If my opponent wanted to argue about whether or not "overcoming fear is the key to success" he should have worded the resolution differently. But even still, I take issue with his premise. His phrasing (notice: "THE key" not "A key") implies both that there is a singular "key" to success, and only a singular "key" -a claim which I take issue with. Fear is an emotion, and it's a paralyzing one because to be afraid is to experience "an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat." (1) Emotions that are unpleasant and which are grounded in the belief of probable potential harm do not lead to success; they prevent people from taking risks -which my opponent seems to agree with. Though, in a more general sense, being successful requires far more than overcoming fear. (2) Even if successful people do have to overcome their fear, whatever those fears may be. Success requires self discipline, focus and ambition. Self discipline to see through objectives to their completion, focus to understand what is required and ambition to see the potential in situations and in yourself. Even if this debate were actually about overcoming fear (3), overcoming fear is not sufficient to ensure success. The resolution is negated. (1) Apple Dictionary definition. (2) Note that I am refuting the argument that my opponent made which was beyond the scope of the resolution. Doing so does not imply that I agree to his changing it in the round. (3) Which is not, due to the resolution's being phrased as it is.
Alternative medicine is better than Western medicine

Con has dropped the majority of my arguments, prefering instead to attack via quotes; so they by default count as concessions and stand in favour of affirming the resolution. T'was a pleasure taking the hard side of the debate and fighting for that, thank you Con for instigating the argument.As I started with the opening case as Pro. I cannot end with the last argument. So I will conclude the debate.Arguments 1 for CAM desirability and Argument/subargument 2/2.1 from cost and positive will-power all stand in favour of the resolution in this closing round. As such, I urge a Pro win.Well done Con on your first debate.HAIL SMITHIS!
If girls are allowed to join boy scouts, boys should be able to join girl scouts.

State my claim: No, boys should not be allowed to join the girl scouts. Girl scouts was created for, and serves girls to teach them how to become strong, productive, better woman. It is a volunteer, private club that gets to create their own safe environment where they can share common aspirations. Allowing boys in would change the dynamics of the group and harm the clubs vision and goals for the girls.
If girls are allowed to join boy scouts, boys should be able to join girl scouts.

Rules: 4 rounds. Please don't use up all 3,000 characters if you don't need to, that bores people. Round 1 - State your claim. Nothing else, don't counter. This is to state what you think. Round 2 - State your arguments, but PLEASE DON'T counter (don't say "he didn't use a source" or "That probably isn't reliable" unless the argument is just completely stupid) This is more or less why you think your reasons, but more on it. Round 3 - Refute and counter. Round 4 - Last shot, go all out. (Still don't use 3,000 characters unless necessary) My Claim: If biological girls are allowed to join boy scouts regardless of their gender identity, then biological boys should be allowed to join girl scouts regardless of their gender identity.
Write a short story about a known character and stay true to the character.

I'm really hoping you actually post a short story or I'll feel very dumb. Tom Riddle walked coldly and confidently into the room. His perfectly neat hair secured down with gel; he was a fairly attractive man no older than twenty-five. He was disgusted by the decrepit room, but it fit the needs of the place where his experiment would take place. The floral wallpaper had turned very brown and was peeling off the walls, the floorboards were splintered and creaked with every step. "Tom! Haven't seen you in ages! Not since we graduated I believe. Good to see you!" said the young man in front of him. He had grow since Tom had last encountered him. He's not so lanky and pathetic looking, he's filled out a bit, thought Tom. Still looks like a peasant though, with his unkempt hair and hand me down clothes, just as a filthy mudblood should, thought Tom. He was perfect for Tom's experiment. "Yes, I'm so glad you could take some time away from your important work at the ministry to devote to me, Dennis. Now, to what I brought you for-" "Yes! I am terribly curious as to what this is all about! Honestly, I was rather surprised you posted me. I never thought you cared for me much in school," said Dennis. The interruption made Tom twinge with annoyance but he covered it well. "Oh? You were very mistaken, it was completely the opposite. I thought you had so much potential to help me with my future endeavors." Tom said with a cold sincerity, he smiled quickly to himself. "Oh Tom that's terribly kind of you," Dennis said, sincerely flattered. "Now, to business. There's something I would like to show you, if you would follow me into the next room." said Tom in a businesslike tone. Dennis eagerly followed. Tom pointed to a disintegrating painting of a young woman in white on the wall. "Now, if you look closely, you will notice-" and without hesitation Tom pulled out his wand and shouted "Expelliarmus!" Dennis's wand flew to the other side of the room as Tom attacked Dennis and pinned him to the ground. Dennis looked up in fear and shock. "What is this?!" Dennis shrieked in horror. "I'm showing you something very important Dennis." Tom said calmly as Dennis struggled to get away to no avail. "I am showing you exactly what you disgusting mudbloods deserve: to be wiped out of existence." Tom said with conviction. And with those words Tom watched as the last bit of light left Dennis Cooper's eyes. Funny, thought Tom. They always say you feel remorse and despair after taking a life. He had felt nothing but exhilaration and pleasure at watching his victim struggle in vain and then parish. The most pleasure he'd felt in a long time. Tom stood up and looked at his accomplishment in admiration and pride. It was magnificent, thought Tom. But only one small part of an extermination that will take years of his work and control. But that's alright. He had all the time in the world now.
Write a short story about a known character and stay true to the character.

I stemmed this idea from a previous challenge I've seen on the site. So, the challenge is to write a short story about a known famous character and to try to stay true to the character as possible. The vote should go to whoever the reader of these stories thinks stayed the truest to the character and wrote the best story. The choices for the character are: 1. Voldemort 2. Darth Vader (or Anakin but you must identify his age) 3. Gandalf please only identify the character chosen in round one so you do not have more space to write your story than I do.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

okay, george w. bush. i can see that you're not really george w. bush. allow me to tell you why your historically inaccurate claim makes no sense. there has never been a time period known as "ac." there have, however, been ad and bc (anno domini and before christ). hubababerloo is not a word in the greek language. the greeks never landed in america and besides, texas did not exist yet. for these greek settlers to invade the people of southern europe, they would be attacking their own people( or perhaps the italians, who didn't exist yet either. rome wasn't really much of anything during the time of the greeks) the greeks in europe who were planning to battle the approaching greeks could not "create" oil. oil is an organic substance derived from dead things deep underground. the greeks would need some drilling rigs, which had not yet been discovered. dumping oil in the mediterranean would by no means create a flood in northern japan, since the two are so far apart. jesus did not create oil. this is not mentioned anywhere in the bible, and according to your first paragraph, the greeks did. make up your mind. a naturally occuring fruit can not be descended from people, the orange tree probably existed before they did. i see no reason why nuclear energy, atomic bombs, and hiroshima have anything to do with greeks, jesus, wrenches, or oranges. i wouldn't confuse hiroshima and anime either. in conclusion, i still believe that wrenches are not oranges. i await your next argument.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

According to all known laws of biblical scienetology, there is a correlation between the physical form of a wrench and the fruit of which is known by the name of "orange".We must look several thousand years in the past in order to understand the true origins of the tool known by the birthname of wrench and how it later splintered off into the form of an eatable, igestable object.During the Great Typhoon of 1 AC where the great Hubababerloo tribe from the Greek settlement of South-Western Texas were preparing a mass invasion on the indigenous people of southern Europe, a great breakthrough occured. To prevent the mass genocide, the indigenous created a new sticky substance which would later become known as, oil. They dumped it on the Greeks which cause the Great Flood of Northern Japan but that's another story.Long story short, Jesus created oil and oranges are directly descened from the great wrench people via nuclear energy powered by atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki created anime so be sure not to confuse the two.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

oranges are NOT wrenches. oranges are a fruit. an orange is an organic object which grows on a tree found in tropical areas. it consists of an inedible peel and edible segments. it belongs to a family known as citrus, others of which are lemons and grapefruits. a wrench is a metal tool. it is commonly employed by carpenters in order to squeeze things. this can be useful for unscrewing screws, bolts, or what have you. it is tightened through the use of a dial, much like calipers used by engineers for measurements. i am arguing that the two are not the same thing. you are arguing that the two are the same thing. i await your opening argument.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

Unlike my opponent here, I am not looking for votes but for the truth. The truth, being, wrenches are in fact oranges as it's chemical existence is one in the same, in other words, cosmic atomic rays have sealed the physical bond of the wrench and the orange. This has been proven by many academic professors and scholars, such as Professor Benjamin Swartz of Harvard University in this video here: Now, as for you Mr. Hot Dog, your continous insults towards my religious beliefs are frankly disgusting and I recommend a reevaluation of your so-called "life".Thank you, god bless you and god bless the United States of America.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

sir, your conduct is simply grotesque. voters, might i remind you that throughout this debate, my opponent has provided little, if any, evidence as to why oranges are wrenches, he has made a mockery of christianity, he has masqueraded as one of the most popular republican presidents of all time, and he has thoroughly insulted me. i hope that you consider these factors before making your vote. thank you. in closing: oranges are NOT wrenches. one is silver, the other is orange. one is hard, the other is soft. one is a tool, the other is a fruit. their textures and looks are not at all similar. they are not the same object, and they should not be considered as such. i await my opponent's closing statement. p.s. voters, if you look at his profile, you may notice that he is methodist-and therefore not a mormon. also, the real george w. bush is anglican. and i doubt that an esteemed man like bush would insult me as my opponent has.
oranges are NOT wrenches.

you see, sir, in biblical times, the UNITED STATES did not exist, so TEXAS and HOUSTON did not exist. both were founded after america became a country. indeed, some native americans probably lived around there, but they didn't call the region texas or houston. in the bible, Jesus turned water to WINE, not oil. and a supersonic hover board was never mentioned. the roman empire didn't have electricity, so a super sonic hoverboard would be impossible to create. and i don't think jesus could cross from jerusalem to houston, since the two are separated by africa and the atlantic ocean. the only religion which believes that jesus came to the americas is that of the mormons, and if you are george w. bush, you are anglican. this means that you are not george w. bush. and even the mormons don't make any mention of a super sonic hover board. there are two rounds left, i highly suggest you begin giving me sufficient evidence as to why an orange is the same as a wrench. i still believe that the two are not the same.
A license should be required to parent

What is the best way of parenting? This is a very difficult question to answer, as there are many different opinions and methods of it, and the idea of "correct parenting" changes with time and culture. For example, what was acceptable for parents 100 years ago, such as less understanding of the child"s feelings, and more physical discipline, is very different from how things are now. Now more emphasis is put on the child"s emotional needs, and even small amounts of violence could be considered abuse. In addition, parenting changes with the culture. In western culture, good parenting is considered to be parenting where the child"s emotional well-being is most important. However, in some other cultures, good parenting is considered to be parenting where the parent is strict and controlling of their child. Therefore, determining the exact definition of good parenting is very difficult, and so it would be also difficult to determine the standards of parenting for a parenting license. (http://amotherfarfromhome.com... , https://mcclellandinstitute.arizona.edu...)
A license should be required to parent

As years pass by, more and more children are being abused, neglected and even left alone. Becoming a parent is having someone"s life under your hands, and therefore people should have to get a license, which shows that a person is capable of taking care of a child. Why do you have to get a license to drive, and not to become a parent? Driving is as dangerous as becoming a parent, and can cost a life of a person. People have to stop getting children, if they are not ready to take care of them. Many people nowadays, get children because of unthoughtful sex, or just to get taxes. Because of a person"s selfish decision, a child does not deserve to suffer.
A license should be required to parent

As we see news about the many mistreated children in the world, a question starts to arise: should we required to have a license to parent? There are many arguments to support this idea of parental licenses, and the ideally, this solution to the problem would solve many cases of brutality and ignorance. However, do we really want a world that controls our ability to raise a child, like driving a car or motorcycle? Few of the many reasons why people shouldn't be required to have a license to parent, are: The vagueness of "correct parenting", and the unrealistically of enforcement.
A license should be required to parent

Parents carry a huge responsibility of a child"s life. Many parents today are abusers and criminals. Almost every ten seconds a child abuse report is made, and particularly in the U.S around four to seven children die because of child abuse and neglect (https://www.childhelp.org... ). Many children are also too afraid to tell anyone about the abuse they get, and therefore get physically hurt by their parents everyday. This doesn"t only physically damage their health, but also mentally. Countless of kids get depression, and start to self harm themselves. In 2015, in U.S it was estimated that 3 million children aging from 12 to 17 had at least one depressive time in the past year (https://www.nimh.nih.gov...). As well as depression, children can get anxiety and can even commit suicide. Children need good parents protection, and in order for that, there has to be laws and license done to getting a child. Society should protect these precious, and innocent kids before they can be damaged (http://www.pbs.org... ).
A license should be required to parent

Another reason why parenting licenses shouldn"t be required, is because it is very unrealistic to enforce the rule. Since children are created using just two humans (unlike cars or guns) it's harder manage and control who has children and who doesn"t, and whether the people who do have children have licenses or not, and so on. "If a pregnant mother refused to take a 'mandatory' parenting class, what would happen? Would she be fined? Arrested? Reported to CPS? On the other hand, if parenting classes became compulsory for high school graduation, then what about drop-outs?" (http://www.sheknows.com...) That would mean that there would be possibilities of parents and children being forced apart, even if there wasn"t any problem between them. Parenting licenses would make things very complicated, and could become a source of even more problems with parenting.
A license should be required to parent

People should get license before being allowed to get children. Constantly, there are parents who are not financially or mentally fit to raise a child. Many parents today are abusers, alcoholics, or drug users. Therefore, they severely harm their innocent children without even noticing it (http://www.debate.org... ). First of all, they teach and show their kids that their behavior is correct, because for anyone their parents are most of the time their role models, and their first learning source. However, if a parent does not know how to ethically behave and take care of a child, then that parent shouldn"t be allowed to have one.
Fast zombies are gay

Sorry about the forfeit (exams) First of all there is no virus called the "Promiscuity H12 virus" that is completely made up, and has relevance in this debate. There is no virus that gives you an uncontrollable urge to rape other men, but it does sound hilarious. Even if it did exist it still doesn't prove the resolution."These people have an uncontrollable desire to rape people of the same sex."Even if this weren't made up to try and get an easy win, it doesn't fit pros definition of "being attracted to members of the same sex". If a virus were to mess with your system in order to compel you to rape someone, it wouldn't change your sexual orientation, it wouldn't give you an attraction to th person you're raping in the way a man is attracted to a woman; its impulses would be more comparable to a drug addicts impulse to consume heroine."This is caused by the sky high female testosterone the virus creates."A lot of men have really low testosterone levels as they reach middle age, and have much more estrogen than testosterone, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation or make you rape people. The disease you made up doesn't make sense. Fast Zombies are not Gay.
Fast zombies are gay

I await reasons as to why "Fast Zombies are gay" By "are", I will use the dictionary definition : (used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to desc ribe,identify, or amplify the subject) That is to say, Pro must prove that ALL fast zombies are gay, as opposed to "Fast zombies can be gay", or "Some fast zombies happen to be gay"