BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Networking Companies Should be Prevented from Censoring Opposing Ideals

Social Networking companies have, for a long time, censored opposing ideas, whether it be political or not. We have seen this multiple times throughout sites like twitter or Facebook censoring or even preventing (by taking down pages) conservative speakers or people, while promoting liberal public figures or organizations like Anti-fa or Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. This has resulted in the removing of opposing ideals and the spreading of violent and hateful ideas that lead to assault, in the case of Richard Spencer, or the shutting down of events by speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos. The debate will take place as follows: Round 1 will be the opening arguments, Round 2 the presentation of evidence, Round 3 and 4 the counterarguments and closing.
Virtual High Stakes Poker

Rules:Go look up the rules to 5 card texas hold em up. We both start with 50k each. Since it's live, we both go all in. R1 both receive our cards, I've a Jack Diamonds and 2 Spades. R1 Opponent accepts challenge n reveals his two cards. R2 i reveal the first 3 cards on the table, placing a personal possession of mine on the line if the cards suit me R2: You call n reveal card 4, placing more things on the line R3: I reveal final card n the winner is announced R3: You accept the outcome and say goodbye, either with your winnings or empty handed. To make sure neither of us cheat (although we blatantly can), grab a deck of cards n use those cards. Hence why I got a Jack n 2. If the same cards show up, just pick until you find (n announce) an unsaid card.
Virtual High Stakes Poker

Wow nice, my opponent folded, so I win. Even better, I was just doing this for the money because I was planning to kill myself right after the game and since my life insurance policy does not pay out on suicides, I would have enough money for my family to live off of from the suicide. However with my opponent having a body guard kill me, now I can leave my family with a 2 million dollar life insurance payout, instead of the 100,000 I would have walked away with for winning. I accept my opponent"s concession (folding), and am glad this worked out for both of us, with him having 100k to blow on cocaine and hookers, and me being able to leave my heirs with 2 million dollars.
Animals are not human beings, and they do not deserve the same treatment

Animals aren't humans, and they don't deserve the same treatment. Of course they shouldn't! That's just silly! It's clear we shouldn't abuse them but really! Dogs can't go to human schools to learn, and there's a reason for that; there's no way they can grab a pencil and get writing. Cats shouldn't be able to live alone in a house. Why not, you ask? Probably because they can't pay taxes, and they don't understand basic economics. Lions shouldn't go to a lion show. If you're confused, I'll elaborate: Lions shouldn't take part in the audience of a lion show. This is for many reasons. 1. They're predatory, and will probably beat the living crap out of the rest of the audience. 2. They're big, and they might break the risers (like, over 1000 lbs. I'm not going to be discriminating against obese people) 3. They're endangered, and should be protected from human onslaughts 4. They've probably trained to act in the show, not participate as a viewer. Really, if we make a law that animals deserve the same treatment as human beings, then that'll doom our children to encountering a bigger school bully than they've ever seen before: the Grizzly Bear.
Animals are not human beings, and they do not deserve the same treatment

This argument is moral in nature, so I am likely to get a heavy amount of opposition. Vertebrates are in a sort of fuzzy gray area, but invertebrates? I'd stomp a bug any day! I sure wouldn't stomp a dog, frog, fish (well...), or human to death, but bugs don't really have much in the way of complex feelings, and its hard to come up with why you would want to keep a bug alive. They don't have brains and they are huge pests, and spread horrors like ebola. If you can find 3 reasons, I sure would ask for a giant maggot for a pet! Vertebrates, like dogs, rats, and kittens, are indeed sentient, and we do have a love for our dear domesticated animals, but why domesticate something so related to us if we aren't going to test medicine and help out the distant tribes suffering from shiver and other prions (those nigh-indestructible, murderous, replicating monstrosities)? And the poor people out there who can't get good food, because we aren't testing our GMOs on animals (because humans are riddled with rumors) to test for toxicity, and thus not allowing them? GMOs will save the world, and there's only one way to prove it. Seriously, everyone, if we are to survive, other things like monkeys and our little kittens will have to suffer if we humans aren't willing to, however much we try to stop it.
adoption should be illegal

Let's establish something. First, at the very most, all your response could show is that children who are put up for adoption at an age where they can remember well their previous parents are emotionally traumatized.I agree that this may be the case; however, you have to examine the situations as a whole. The birthparent/s may be unable to care for the child sufficiently because of other problems in their lives; perhaps they are stressed financially; perhaps the mother is a teen pregnancy who is very obviously unfit to raise a child. In many scenarios, adoption, although it may cause the child depression, is a far, far better alternative to the birthparent/s being forced to keep the child.It is an unfortunate side effect of the great thing that is adoption, that it can result in depression in the child; but outlawing adoption as a whole and in general is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and greatly overreacting, ignoring the massive benefits to all involved in most cases of adoption. I described these benefits in my first response.
adoption should be illegal

As con, I will give a couple reasons why adoption should remain legal to start the debate.Infertile Couples Can Raise Children: Couples in which conception is impossible as a result of infertility or other reasons have no way to have children except by adoption. There are ways for couples to get around their infertility, but these treatments are dangerous and often unsuccessful [1]. Thus adoption is their only way to have the blessing of a child. Infertile people should not be cursed to never be able to raise children. A study by the Pew Research Center, among many others, shows that the vast majority of parents find childcare to be among the most rewarding things in their life. The published results show that "Parents find caring for their children to be much more exhausting than the work they do for pay. At the same time, parents find much more meaning in the time they spend with their children than in the time they spend at work." [2]. Thus, since adoption is the only means by which infertile couples can get children, and raising children is an immensely fulfilling activity that is appreciated almost universally by parents, adoption should remain legal.Unwanted Pregnancies Can Be Resolved Without Termination: I will not get into the morality of abortion, as I think it is irrelevant to my main point. However, unexpected pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies, although they shouldn't happen in the first place, unfortunately do happen. Adoption is a means by which those who are unable lawfully to terminate the fetus or who are morally opposed to such an action can avoid taking care of the child. It is unreasonable to say that teens who get pregnant should take care of the child; that would likely result in trauma for the child and insufficient opportunities in life. By giving the child up to adoption, they ensure a better life for the child than they could give. This is a list of benefits for the adopted child that there is a high chance they would not get if they stayed with the birth mother: "Emotionally and economically prepared family with adoptive parents to share love and provide support... Homely family environment to grow up in... Opportunities to grow up in a two-parent home and probably with brothers and sisters... Greater possibility of a better education... Greater possibility of meeting or fulfilling the emotional, physical, and psychological needs of the child" [3]. By adoption, people with certain values or people who are restricted lawfully can secure a good life for their child.Adoption, then, benefits the birthmother, the child, and the adopting parents.Sources:[1] http://www.americanadoptions.com...[2] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...[3] http://benefitof.net...
The Answer to Life

While it may or may not have been observed that 42 is The Answer To Life, this could be very subjective. Maybe somebody who really enjoys cooking feels that The Answer To Life is making various delicious dishes or that somebody who enjoys video games feels that The Answer To Life is beating every single video game. The possibilities are endless. The Answer To Life can be whatever you make it; do what you enjoy. :) Thank you for this short debate. Good luck to both of us!
There is a valid meaning of life in absence of religion and any form of God/s.

I am going to equate and refer to meaning of life to purpose in life to be specific. As there is no inherent meaning in life, one's purpose in life is defined by the individual. The ultimate purpose in life is to survive, that is the single purpose we observe in nature both on the individual and ecological scale. But we as humans who have mastered the skill of survival to it's extreme move on to greater and more indulgent purposes. These purposes are also inherent traits like the exercising of our intellect or our free will, or the cultivation of meaningful relationships. There is no one specific meaning or purpose, it's really your own free will that dictates this. People can complicate this as much as they want by insisting that we are fated by a greater force or live within a set of parameters dictated by an omnipotent deity, but we have had no reason other than that of religious indoctrination to accept this thus far. Believing that the inherent meaning of life is any one single thing is naive. Believing that such an answer can be found through belief in a god is actually limiting one's free will and innate capacity to formulate their own meaning of life separate from that outside deviations.
There is a valid meaning of life in absence of religion and any form of God/s.

I want to warn you that I am the Con to this.This means that you must definitely be the Pro.Please don't be silly to need definitions and all of that, it is all just a Google search away.If you argue something like "reproduce" then you must explain how infertile creatures and hybrids, such as ligers, have a meaning to their life.Please also only accept this if you have more than one meaning at the ready or this will end very soon.
Scary Monsters And Nice Sprites is better than Purple Lamborghini

Rick Ross NEEDS Johnny Dang or else he isn't as powerful as he usually is, I feel like the Black Diamond duo needs to get back together to unleash the super epic beam on all the stupid LIBERALS. You did not shower I can smell it through the computer you noob, no tix noob. Rap is super smelly and stinks like you do idiot, logical fallacy... Skrillex is the true mans music, Dubstep is epic and I listen to it when I pwn noobs on Roblox, specifically that epic Doomspire game that's on the front page right now. I agree with you that coke and cola is really sucky and isn't very cool, I hate liberals.
Scary Monsters And Nice Sprites is better than Purple Lamborghini

Personally I think rick ross works quite well without his partner (big shoutout), Johnny Dang. His immense....presence is equivalent to that of an actual god, the strength he emanates is truly a marvel. As a plus, it's worth noting that Rick Ross betrayed Johnny Dang in the recent arcs of Johnny Dang & Co. I'm sorry for sucking (it's because I am a homosexual), and you are greatly misinformed on my odor. I had a shower roughly 5 hours ago. Skrillex makes songs for children, Rap is a mans soul, it embodies strength and power in an indescribable way. Dubstep is weak compared to the rawness of Rap. As for my intellect, I'm sorry you think that. I'm glad we agree on a single point I will admit, I wasn't thinking when I said sprite was the worst soft drink (After reevaluation I think Coke, and any cola for that matter is the worst soda).
Scary Monsters And Nice Sprites is better than Purple Lamborghini

you're ffrckg wrong you stupid let me explain why. 1. Rick Ross is raping in purple lamborghini - rick ross is the greatest - frickss johnny dangs vietnamese boy p 2. skrillex dubstep gay -dubstep stupid 3. rick ross is black, i like. 4. Sprite is dumb, nice sprites are worse, sprite is the worst soft drink! I hate spirte... FCK sprrote - sprite commerica.
Why is your religion the right one (I prefer to argue Christianity but anything goes here)

I agree to argue and defend why one's religion is the right one. I will be arguing in defense of all religions, not belonging to a religion myself. Religion: A form of belief system based on faith, usually containing a deity. Religion has shaped mankind since the dawn of civilization, ranging from massive temples built in the name of Zeus to writings about the glory of God. The idea of religion is internal. It's faith. To determine which religion is the "right one" we must first access what makes a person follow a religion. Many people find deep devotion to their faiths after meeting with an unfavorable scenario. They are often alone, and lost, and turn to the internal idea of a deity or force will take care of their fate. Others are always devoted to serving their faith. Following a strict system of rules to attain a favorable condition later in life, usually after death. Due to these ideologies being based upon internal thought and emotion, there is no fundamental way to determine the validity of any religion. Thus, the traditional idea of a single religion being correct is simply impossible to substantially defend. However, as I stated in my thesis statement, I am here to defend all religions. Now that we have accessed what is a religion, we can look into the psychology of it. It is common knowledge that most people, excluding those who are diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder and other similar conditions, feel more comfortable when they have a support system. Often times, these support systems are both internal and external. Suppose the scenario where a man whose friends and family have both turned his back on him. This man finds comfort with an internal idea of a deity that cares and loves for him. This new support system comforts him in a time of depression and lonesomeness. This man has become enlightened to his way of thought and becomes more proactive in his life to attain his spiritual salvation. Now, to my main point of the argument, every religion is the right religion. These religions support people in times of need, much as science does to many atheists. The very fact that these ideas are internally based and fowwwwunded on faith supports the fact that each and every one is right. The mind shapes the perception of reality to suit the needs of each person, and in circumstances of faith, it will shape often forgettable events into signs and signals of their deity. So, if the mind shapes a person's reality to fit a theistic belief, then does that not justify the claim that the theistic belief is real and correct?
Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

== Definitions == Death Penalty: "Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Although this debate is about the US, examples from other countries can be used, all dat cool stuff. == Structure == R1: Pro can either accept or write his arguments. R2: Arguments (or rebuttals depending as to how Pro wants to go) R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and closing. If Pro argues in R1, he just writes "no round as agreed" or can post Sabaton lyrics. ;D
are immigrants beneficial to the society

While you make some fair points on pro immigration, I believe they also cause an extreme amount of problems in any country. And the U.S ESPECIALLY needs way less immigration because it hurts the middle class worker. Common sense, economic theory, and a fair reading of the research on this question show that allowing in so many immigrants (legal and illegal) with relatively little education reduces the wages and job prospects for Americans with little education. (witch is about 41% btw) Not to mention all the crimes committed by immigrants, with 193 homicide convictions last year alone.
are immigrants beneficial to the society

Immigration fuels our economy. As an article from Newsweek points out, many Americans wrongly believe that immigration hurts the economy. There is consensus among many leading economists that immigration actually gives economies a net boost. In fact, a report from the Migration Policy Institute indicates that "immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity, and income," especially when an economy is growing. And, contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not reduce native employment rates overal
The gender pay gap is insignificant.

"in 2016 (according to the BLS) women made 83% of what men made not even close to the 77% most feminists claim."That may be true but my job in this debate is simply to show that the gender pay gap is not insignificant.My argument that "The study that politifact based its reports on actually states that the wage gap is statistically significant." still remains uncontested.Additionally, even if the wage gap was just 5%, it would still be significant as it would mean that 1/20th of a woman's salary was taken away, simply because she is a woman. As long as there is a statistically significant wage gap, the wage gap is relevant and should be closed according to article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." [1]"In conclusion, the wage gap is significant as, even according to the flawed study and your deceptive report of the net wage gap there is still a 5% wage gap and when the study's actual results are taken into account, the net wage gap is projected to be up to 7%[2], which even further increases when factors that were not taken into account by the study such as discriminatory hiring practices are accounted for. [3]Additionally, I would like to ask you: would you consider it irrelevant if more than 5% of your salary was withheld from you because of discrimination? I doubt anyone would consider that either irrelevant or insignificant."Sources:[1]: http://www.un.org...[2]: http://www.politifact.com...[3]: http://eclairs.fr...
The gender pay gap is insignificant.

Sorry that was a misunderstanding but the problem with claiming their is a large and persistent pay gap is that all the gender pay gap is is the median income of women over the median income of men without accounting for age, race, demographics etc. also even with saying that those broad unfair generalizations make sense still the most sited statistic is wrong at least in 2016 (according to the BLS) women made 83% of what men made not even close to the 77% most feminists claim. P.S I'm not trying to say that the feminists are lying or even that their statistics are wrong just that they may be relying on outdated ones. Sources: https://www.bls.gov... https://money.howstuffworks.com...
Asuna would beat Leafa (Sugu) in a fight

As Pro forfeited her two rounds and has not given any points, I should automatically win.We cannot compare things that are different. In conclusion, although Asuna has helped Leafa in the MMORPG, we cannot compare if she will win the brawl. The two person have different speciality, and cannot be compared.We cannot compare things that are different. So this motion must fall.
Asuna would beat Leafa (Sugu) in a fight

Good morning, ladies and gentleman. We cannot compare things that are different.To start the debate, we have to define some words. According to Cambridge Dictionary, a "fight" means using physical force to try to defeat another person or a group of people. My point is that different things on different basis cannot compare. I will say that comparing two things, not on the same grounds, cannot be done in this post and will say that even Asuna helped Leafa, we cannot be sure that the one who helped is stronger then the one who was being helped because there are too many factors to evaluate. I will conclude the debate in the third round.We cannot compare things that are different. Can anybody compare heating up a pot of water under the sun and breath holding underwater for 90 seconds, which one is harder? Somebody may say that heating up a pot of water under the sun easier because he has a solar heater, and an experienced free diver may say that breath holding 90 seconds is easier because he/she has the experience to do so. So which one is harder?We don't know. Similar to Asuna and Leafa, we cannot compare who is stronger, while one was a ranger, and another a brawler.We cannot compare things that are different. So this motion must fall.
Harvard Uni is for stupid people

Well my opponents account has been closed, and I would like to believe he left in a rage because of me trolling him in this debate meant for an easy win. However in my trolling t has been brought to my attention that in order to win this trolled debate I have to now define what "Smart People" means since I just defined stupid people as smart people. So allow me to now define what Smart People are. Smart People are people who 1) have the means to pay $65,000 a year to go to Harvard and are smart enough to meet their academic qualifications required to apply or 2) are of sufficient intelligence to exceed the academic qualifications and get a scholarship from Harvard and not have to pay $65,000 a year Two things characterize people who get into Harvard University, they have the ability to pay the costs of going to Harvard, and they meet the academic requirements for getting into Harvard..... So let me Recap my arguments, 1) I defined Stupid People as Smart People 2) I defined Smart People as those who are smart enough to meet Harvard's Admission Standards and have the means to pay $65,000 a year, or as people who are smart enough to surpass Harvard's standards enough to get a scholarship. 3) Harvard has high academic standards and high costs 4) People who do get into Harvard meet both the academic and financial requirements to get in 5) Those people that get in have the means to pay and are smart enough to qualify 6) Those people are what I define as smart 7) I defined stupid people as smart people Therefore stupid people go to Harvard I hope that my arguments are sufficient, If they are not feel free to comment about what I left out Thanks :D