BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jake Paul is a Bad influence to Modern Day Children

Well thank you, trying to prove your point goes pretty weak, you haven't got strong enough evidence to prove this, however most of why people hate Jake is because of Logan, please if your so clever then please tell me what he has done that is massively affecting your life right now..........Exactly nothing, he is more of a person teaching kids to have strength and confidence for example; all this hate he gets but he still carries on and bows over you because you are not the people who know him properly, so please try prove your point here!
Jake Paul is a Bad influence to Modern Day Children

First off, thank you for bringing me a challenge. From round one, you say that 95% are getting good vibes and I know I didn't state any sources but I find it almost impossible for such a survey can be done, and be used on if twelve year old boys get good vibes from a previous actor from Disney. Secondly, my main reason I waited to use on the second or third round is that in fact, he was on Disney first. Why this is, is because if a child watches a PG show, goes on Jake Paul's channel already expecting kid-friendly content is going to see all of the things he has done and think that is suddenly okay. Third and finally, you said I can't judge a book by its cover... No one should ever go into a debate without knowledge and for the record, I haven't just started research I saw the endless broadcasts, articles, and YouTube videos hating on Jake, looking at someone random such as, Will Smith never gets that much attention, in a bad way anyways. (Please don't take points off, my previous source is from https://socialblade.com...)
Jake Paul is a Bad influence to Modern Day Children

Clearly you don't know him too well, these days 95% of modern day children are get really good vibes and good influence's off of people and famous people like Jake Paul himself, he raises good well taught confidence up for any kids, yeah his brother Logan Paul hasn't been the best but no this doesn't give you the rights and chances to say that he is a horrible person, you cant judge a book by its cover honey please learn that, in all fairness a majority of us think he is an amazingly strong person and he has had traumatic events in his life and he hasn't had the best life he is just trying to look out for other citizens and younger people who's confidence is low or who is going through a hard time please get that into your thick brain!
Jake Paul is a Bad influence to Modern Day Children

As you may know, Jake Paul, YouTube star and actor is a horrible person. I don't think this is much of an argument but I would like to see other people try to give actual reasons that are reasonable to persuade me. The first thing is Jake Paul's YouTube channel. If you live under a rock Jake Paul has a huge fan-base of over 14 million people. With around 20 million views a month, the things that he does are broadcast to millions of little children across the globe. At first you may wonder how he is a bad influence, here are just some of things he done; Set fire to a mattress, bully Spanish "friends", and honk at random people throughout the streets. From first glance these things look bad... But really all of you are wrong this should be reasons to get him arrested but according to police. I am looking forward to anyone who is looking forward to have a civil debate ;)
Should I remove my account

Not necessarily. Let me resume how this all occured. I challenged you to a debate concerning frozen. Afterwards, you create a debate, and your first argument was something along the lines of "Frozen is awesome and you suck". You also used profanity on others. When they caught you plagiarizing, you replied with "go to hell". You instigated issues on this website, and you need to adjust in order to approve. Since I have accepted this debate, I must however convince you to leave. Next round I will.
TH supports athletes making political and religious expressions at international sporting events.

thank you con. So before moving on lets break down (for the voter ease ) about what side opposition really wanted to say as part of his positive case (a) Individual perspective could be actually be the governments's . (b) the second argument was actually the same as his first . Also the only rebuttal coming from the opp was about how there are examples of government involvement ( none given ) ,although i expected more of it for a better debate coming down to opp's first argument about how there could be a government perspective reflected within an athletes point of view . Firstly that is a sweeping statement , as never was it shown by opp that there is currently government involvement in the sporting arena . Furthermore , its also an assumption to consider a government do that because sports have a high viewership which makes the government double check that there is no involvement for if caught the matter could easily be exposed which would portray a government in negative light . Many governments also do not get involved because they want to improve relations with other countries where sports are a major platform to do so . so it all comes down to an athlete himself . Not only this Opp never tackled my point about local media (assuming government is involved ) is approachable by the world , his burden was to show that what is exactly so special about international events that raises this issue . He further argued and i quote * Even though its obvious that different perspective existence from government side , athletes might take their opinion to avoid risk of his life . * . Exactly !. Deterrents like career being at stake , international accountability ICC (CRICKET) , Bans and fines are all which stop athletes to use a government stance . so why not use these deterrents and if an individual goes all negative , be punished accordingly . hence a right should be given Moving onto my argument international sports events attract a great number of people . Even these athletes face performance issues in certain regions where the relations between governments are volatile . Hence , a highly viewed platform could be used e.g in the 2011 ICC world cup , Indian extremists in Mumbai threatened to attack the Pakistani cricket team if they qualified into the final and play in Mumbai ( http://www.siasat.pk... ) . However , indian cricketers stood up and gave their views as to how Pakistani team should be allowed to perform , despite the fact it was against the extremist group (as well as the government as many say ) . They mentioned their ideas about Islam as a religion and how fights should be ended based on earlier issues 1947 etc . This coerced sports fans to start propagating about Pakistani team's rights which in the end led to a safe semifinal .
TH supports athletes making political and religious expressions at international sporting events.

hello everyone ..this is my first debate as well and I hope it goes all in the manner ,con identified . So moving onto the motion and the key terms . Under religious and political expressions I would inherently be arguing it in terms of *personnel political thinking and religious beliefs regardless of their current religious and political condition in their region * . Other then that I feel that the topic is self explanatory in its own essence So I will be arguing about it on two different perspectives (1) : How an individual reserves the right to express his own beliefs and perspective in relation to both religion and politics (2) How it would further provide incentive for individuals to come to public forums and counter extremist individuals with opposing believes . so what needs to be understood before hand is the fact that all individuals reserve a right to voice out their opinions to the general public . This is as we all know the right to free speech. However as per the various criticisms this right has received , a general criteria is used to qualify such a right i.e that it should not effect the right of an other individual . This means that individuals (in this context athletes ) have the right , like all other citizens to exercise free speech in the society including forums and all other places . This just goes onto show how despite the harms (which tend to be acting simultaneously with this free speech ) the society realizes the need of such a right . So now the government is only bound to make sure that these expressions don't infringe upon the rights of others such as the right of information (manipulation) and hate speech etc . Moving on lets come to both the ideas (mentioned in the motion ) individually and show how exactly does allowing athletes, do not cross the line drawn by the government. if we talk about a political point of view of an individual it is as we all know subjective from person to person . The problem is that in the status quo the problem is that your general public is currently given the right to exercise their freedom of thought at public forums on news channels and all other platforms which the international arena could approach . The question then becomes that if current governments allow individuals to exercise these rights why is it that athletes should be marginalized as different, from normal citizens and not allowed to do so even though local news as well can be approached by the world ? . The same also applies to religion , but taking a hard line stance results in being punished for blasphemy . so even though such deterrents are existent why is it that the government needs to take further initiative onto this
is the world a dangerous place because of those who do evil or look on and do nothing

Well, it's pretty clear that both the debate topic at hand AND my opponent's sole argument are both rather incoherent. However, here's what I can gather: I affirm that the world is a dangerous place because of those who do evil (and) or those who witness evil and do nothing about it. Because CON has not provided a single argument (other than stating that they disagree with the resolution), I simply must provide 1 contention proving either aspect of the resolution FTW. 1. Those who do evil - say commit crimes - make the world a dangerous place. This is because they infringe upon the rights of others with malicious intentions. These crimes can cause serious harm to an individual, and/or society at large. 2. Those who do nothing to ward off and/or defend those who suffer at the hands of others have neglected their responsibility as citizens, or even fellow human beings. The logic behind this theory is that those who witness crimes or evil acts, and do nothing to prevent the harm caused by those acts, enacts a rift between the individual and society at large. Laws exist to protect fundamental rights deemed important by society (or a collaborative government effort). Allowing others to break the laws and violate the rights of others in dangerous as it can cause serious harm to both an individual and/or society at large. In conclusion, even if you disagree with this short rebuttal and my contention(s) thus far, the fact that I have provided them + some sort of coherent explanation means I have out-debated my opponent in this round.
Socialists, schools of fish, lemmings

Thanks for the debate! Hope it's fun. 1. Socialism is tried and proven method of running an economy that is very prevalent today. China has one of the biggest and most successful economies in the world. This has allowed them to become one of the most powerful countries of our era. In addition, the Chinese economy sells cheap goods to the United States and many European countries as well which allows their economies to grow and expand. In addition, socialism is the main idea behind many of the United State's welfare programs which not only helped haul it out of the great depression in the 1940's but have contributed to it being an economic powerhouse for the past 70 years. 2. Socialism allows for more equality. While capitalism simply leaves behind anyone for any reason, socialism ensures that the government is fulfilling its role to the people in the social contract. The people agree to pay taxes and be law-abiding, productive citizens and in turn the government should provide the opportunity to get the necessities to live. Socialism is the best way to do that for everyone whereas other systems simply discount others because they are not worth enough or do not have enough money. 3. Supporting socialism is not only an expression of one's right to free speech and expression but provides an addition idea in which we can and most definitely should weigh our current systems and practices against in order to determine the most beneficial. Rebuttal to Con 1: First, you have no proof of any socialists jumping off cliffs or jumping into shark mouths. On top of that, if there was record of such an occurrence a simple topicality argument would show it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. In addition, someone should be elected if a majority of the voters agree with their policies not just because their idealogy has a certain name.
Wii will phail in a few years or so

"1) Both microsoft and sony have presented their own motion sensor technology that is smoother and more powerful that wii's" That's nice. Now, here's something about the Wii: it will soon have the Wii MotionPlus. I don't know exactly how much smoother it makes things, as it hasn't come out, but it probably allows the Wiimote to meet or exceed the upcoming PS3/360 controllers. "2) Xbox 360 is cheaper than wii" Only the Arcade version, which is the weakest version. "3) Wii's hardware as a weakling as PS3 and Xbox 360's hardware (Graphics card, processor, memory) is a generation ahead of wii's (wii's power is about that of an original Xbox)[citation needed]" This is an un-sourced generalization. "4) Xbox 360 and PS3 have it where you can download movies and music right into your living room. " That's just swell. Since when is downloading music and movies necessary for a video game console? That's why they have TiVo, DVD, Pandora, and iPods. "5) Wii has some of the poorest functionality. It cannot play DVD's or music, but both the PS2 as well as the original Xbox can. And what is nintendo's answer to PS3's blu-ray player? " That's why everybody already has a DVD player and an iPod. And iPods are light and portable. Besides, Nintendo has the DSi, which has portable music. "6) Wii was just a fad. A gimmick. It was hype at first but it's not coming out with any good games anymore, whereas PS3 and Xbox 360 are coming out with plenty" It has enough good games to last any Nintendo fan forever. It has Virtual Console, which allows them to relive the greatest games of all time. There's also Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Super Paper Mario, Super Mario Galaxy, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Sonic Unleashed, Mario Kart Wii, and my personal favorite, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. . http://www.gamepro.com... These are twenty-one upcoming Wii games to drool over, although the list is a bit outdated, so some of the games are already out. Don't forget Wii Sports Resort. "7) Wii tried to play the child's play card by making a big part of their games fun for everyone (tots, kids, teens, tweens, old people), but the average gamer is like in their 30's" Well, if you have a bunch of young kids, a bunch of teens, a bunch of college kids, a bunch of adults, and a bunch of old people who all play video games, the average is bound to end up in the 30's range. However, the Wii obviously appeals to many. How else would it sell fifty million consoles worldwide? . http://www.engadget.com... "8) Where are Wii's MMO's? PS3 and Xbox 360 have several MMO's and are coming out with more. " MMO's are for the computer. Why does the Wii need MMO's? Besides, Mario Kart Wii has great online play. Anyways, I ask you this: why do any of these things predict failure for the Wii? If the Wii gets passed up, that doesn't mean that it failed. It means that it eventually became outdated, which is inevitable in today's world. We have no reason to vote PRO yet. PRO has not established why any of his points predict "phailure" for the Wii. He just has points.
Wii will phail in a few years or so

Oh my god I'm so sorry. I devoted my entire weekend to playing with my little siblings. I really wasn't planning on forfeiting but hey, family comes first. Sincerest apologies for forfeiting. Anyway please stop trying to screw around with the definitions. Definition of fail to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Anyway, a few weeks ago I was watching e3 2009. It seems that the Wii's failure to win this generation is inevitable for 3 reasons: 1) Both microsoft and sony have presented their own motion sensor technology that is smoother and more powerful that wii's 2) Xbox 360 is cheaper than wii 3) Wii's hardware as a weakling as PS3 and Xbox 360's hardware (Graphics card, processor, memory) is a generation ahead of wii's (wii's power is about that of an original Xbox) 4) Xbox 360 and PS3 have it where you can download movies and music right into your living room. 5) Wii has some of the poorest functionality. It cannot play DVD's or music, but both the PS2 as well as the original Xbox can. And what is nintendo's answer to PS3's blu-ray player? 6) Wii was just a fad. A gimmick. It was hype at first but it's not coming out with any good games anymore, whereas PS3 and Xbox 360 are coming out with plenty 7) Wii tried to play the child's play card by making a big part of their games fun for everyone (tots, kids, teens, tweens, old people), but the average gamer is like in their 30's 8) Where are Wii's MMO's? PS3 and Xbox 360 have several MMO's and are coming out with more. That's all I will present for now to assure that I don't forfeit this round. :) I'll give you a chance to present your counter argument before rebutting it and presenting evidence for my case :) Thanks bro. P. S. : I hope you'll make this a gamer friendly debate instead of just a semantical, poke holes in your argument debate.
Wii will phail in a few years or so

Alright, then. I accept this debate. My opponent bears an extreme burden of proof here, as I simply have to show why whatever prediction he makes may be flawed. The definition of few: "not many but more than one" http://dictionary.reference.com... The definition of fail: "to receive less than the passing grade or mark in an examination, class, or course of study" http://dictionary.reference.com... I await your contentions.
We are the Brave

(Yea I'm not good at be specific on titles yet) Well then both of us agree that SOME Americans are brave. I can say also that attack such as peral harbor and 9/11 that bring the soldier out of some. That makes them brave enough to take a rifle and fight against the Japs or Terriost in the Middle East. If someone starts killing people on either coast or border, that people in the South will fight Mexico people in Colorado and North Dakota will fight Candaians(just examples) People on the west coast will fight China and people on the east coast will fight Russians. It's moments like 9/11 and Peral Harbor that make people brave. Great debate I'm pretty sure I lost. Hope we can debate again!
We are the Brave

Well, if this debate is about if ANY Americans are brave, then it is impossible to win as con because I would indeed be against the invasion forces, so I am brave, and I am American. But if this argument is about if MOST Americans are brave, which according to your reasearch, we are NOT the brave. If this argument is about if ALL Americans are brave, then there is no way you can ever win that, considering that 14 out of 15 Americans is not brave.
We are the Brave

So you asked about 15 people if they would fight and die for the US if we were invaded, and only one said yes. Now, this is an extreme generalization, considering different military cultures in different regions, but, according to your reasearch, only 20 million people would stand in the way of an army, plus the 1 million that's currently in the US military. Again, very far-fetched, considering the US would probably hold a draft. Now think about that if China were to invade. China alone has a military of 2 million, double the size of the US, and they could draft millions in a month. Unless every single American fought against China, (and the odds are still ridiculously against them,) the US would be defeated. But only 20 million? It's not even a fair fight. If you are accurate, then this alone also proves that Americans are not brave. And to answer your question, yes and no. I consider myself to be of 3 nationalities: American (meaning from both Canada and the US, since the cultures are similar,) Southerner, since I was born in the south and my ancestors have been in the south for 299 years exactly, and a citizen of the United States.
We are the Brave

I ask a few kids in school today 13 or 14 most of them. And you were right. Most of Them said they would either run or 'only if I have too' . But every now and then I ask a kid an they say yes . If we were ever invaded they would rise in arms and fight til death, same as I. It's these few people who I think represent this country and its values of freedom and equality( I don't like politics, so democracy isn't a value to me). These people say whats on their minds and speak out for what they believe. You might think otherwise, but this is me.( btw are you American? The flag is throwing me off)
We are the Brave

I am happy to debate this subject, as I debate it with my friends all the time. I hope this debate can be as polite and respectful as possible. I will identify what most people consider to be American beliefs #1:Democracy #2:Equality #3:Freedom, although this is generally a worldwide belief. Now on to the people. If you go up to an average American and ask him/her if he/she will fight, and possibly die for any of these values, the answer will be, generally, a flat out no. The reason for this is because, obviously, people do not want to fight and die for people of another race, ethnicity, country, religion, etc. It may sound racist but if you think about it, everybody is a little bit racist in some way. Everybody prefers their own race, ethnicity, country, religious group, culture, people, etc, over all others. But sometimes someone you ask will say no because simply of the risk of dying. Most of the time, actually. Now there are not any sources to prove this that I know of, but I've talked with many Americans, and the latter reason is typically prevalent. This proves that modern-day Americans, or at least a good amount of them, are cowardly.
We are the Brave

I am an American, our country over the last few years has been frowned upon by the other countries of the world because we seem to be the bullies of the world. Our goverment made us believe we were fighting for freedom in the Middle East but it was for their oil. But that's goverment. What about the people? Given the choice most of us would fight to the death for what we believe, and if that's what we have to do to redeem ourselves then so be it. We will not bow. ( I would prefer if Con were someone from another country)