BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

Firstly, I don't see how you can deny that after watching a lot of child pornography the men (since men watch porn more often than women) would begin to form desires and dreams and fantasies for little children far more commonly than is already present today. The virtual impossibility of finding porn ANYWHERE (since, thank God, child pornography is illegal even in the poorest and most uncivilised nations of the Earth). Don't ask me how I know, but it is actually less common than animal porn. If you seriously wish me to give you animal porn sites compared to child porn ones (of which 0 exist) I will next round otherwise accept this. The only reason the notorious genre of porn, involving another species, is available is because it is actually legal in Mexico, where horse porn is predominantly made (Dog pornography is often made illegally in countries such as USA because it's indoors and is far harder for police to find or spot) (and I think some other countries but don't know them too well). Child pornography is LESS COMMON than such a rare form of porn as animal porn. Want to know why? It is so immoral, even to the most immoral person on Earth, to sexually abuse a child. WE are talking about someone who hasn't even hit puberty (even though technically teen rape under 18 is listed as child abuse) being DISPLAYED (not actually) as being abused and raped for people to masturbate to. This is where psychology comes in.As an avid psychology geek I can tell you something most people don't know. Something rather notorious that can only be understood if you try it. It works like this. If you show a person, any person, something of a certain topic or nature enough times they will force themselves to begin loving it. Why do you think horror fans begin scared to death by Chucky but end up seeking far more gore and brutality to get the same rush and thrill? Because you build a mental tolerance and acceptance of it.ALTHOUGH you could argue that it might save pedophiles having to abuse children to ejaculate you must realise what paedophilia is. It is not a sexual attraction to children alone. The attraction to children is far more than physical, it is the VULNERABILITY of the child IN FRONT OF the perpetrator so willing to let them touch and use them that is sexy to the pedophile. If the body was all they needed why do you think they bother touching and molesting the children in the first place? Why not just say 'stay there' take a video and jack off to it later? It isn't sexy to them. The entire vulnerability and innocence is WHAT PEDOPHILLIA revolves around.All these videos would offer is further inspiration for child rapists.
Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

This debate is about whether artificial forms of child pornography should be legal. "Artificial child pornography" is defined as any sexually-themed image or video that depicts someone under the age of 18, but where no person under the age of 18 was used in the production of the material. This includes drawn or computer-generated images of child pornography (loli, lolita), animated videos involving a child being depicted sexually, and actual pornography footage or photographs where the person being depicted is described as being under the age of 18, but the actor or actress is actually 18 or older. This does not include anything where a child was used in the making of the material (i. e. a child posing to be drawn). Ad hominem attacks (Such as "Pro jerks to loli" and "Pro is a pedo") will not be permitted. Appeals to emotion or other similar baseless opinions (Such as "CP is just gross") will also not be permitted. This is a serious debate, so I have made it impossible to accept to ensure that the person against whom I am debating is going to take this seriously. If you wish to accept, please leave a comment or message me. Con has the BOP, so it is his or her job to provide reasons why artificial CP should be illegal. We assume that if there are no compelling reasons to make something illegal in a free country, then it should be legal. Con may not argue "Artificial CP should be illegal because there are no good reasons for making it legal", or any argument that derives from this. In a free country, people should be allowed to do what they want unless there is a compelling reason to make it illegal. Since Con has the BOP, he or she may wish to start the debate off during Round One, and this is acceptable. If Con chooses not to do this, I will debunk common myths/arguments against artificial CP and maybe cite some studies regarding it, but Con should keep in mind that it is still his or her responsibility to provide an argument against artificial CP, not mine to provide an argument for artificial CP.
Lebron is a better player than Kobe

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the second round of debate. Please extend my arguments as they are to be considered facts until Pro challenges them. I'd ask that the readers please note that my opponent was online just a little while ago and therefore had ample opportunity to respond to my contentions. In choosing not to, he has presumably conceded to the fact that Kobe Bryant - at the time being - is a better basketball player than LeBron James (who will probably be better than Kobe at some point in the future). I wish good luck to my opponent in the final round of this debate.
Lebron is a better player than Kobe

oOo i just realized this part of the box was for round one HAHA stupid me. I think LeBron James is better player than Kobe Bryant because he is just outstanding their is nothing he cannot do on the court. He has amazing size and speed and he has taken on the role of leading his team quite well. Lebron is the hardest working NBA player playing with the cards he is dealt and not complaining to the media about his situations. Lebron James constantly makes his team and he makes everyone around him better. Offensively and Defensively Lebron just excells in both categories. This kid is only about 26 years old and hes already accomplished so much at a much faster rate than Kobe did in his career. Kobe might have scored more than Lebron in his career but Lebron James is a superior rebounder, passer, and shot blocker. He is just the total package and what he has done with the Cavailiers bringing them as far as they did in the playoffs with the support system he has. Mo Williams was not a all star till he got teamed up with Lebron James. Kobe Bryant has more championships then Lebron James but Kobe also has 7 more years than Lebron. 4 Championship rings and 3 of them were with the most dominant player in the game when he was in his prime Shaquille O Neal. Lebron James has not been so lucky and is forced to work at a super human pace every game. Lebron James is not given good all stars he has to create them which is more than what I could say for Kobe. Who failed to show off his abilities when only having Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins in his first year being the leader and this streak of mediocrity in the playoffs lasted for 3 years, including being one of the first 8 teams to blow a 3-1 playoff lead. Kobe only started succeeding when he threatened to turn his back on the Lakers until they supplied him with a all star. Take Lebron off of the Cavaliers and playoffs are impossible to reach. Take Kobe off of the Lakers they still have a strong support system stacked with good players. Pau Gasol himself is a leader leading the grizzles to playoff appearances before same goes for Lamar Odom when he was a Heat and Ron Artest. Mo Williams is the 2nd best option on that Cavaliers team and the rest of the team is full of question marks. A team that has to be lead by Mo Williams is a losing team. LeBron James is the obviously a better player than Kobe
The legal age for purchasing and consuming alcohol should be 18 in the United States.

If our citizens are given the rights of suffrage, to enter into marriage, and to join the armed forces in defense of our rights, it is only makes sense that they be given the right to purchase and consume alcohol. Additionally, an National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report concluded that there was a much lower percentage of alcohol related crash rates in countries where the legal drinking age was lower than in the United States. The reductions in these types of incidents can be attributed to earlier exposure and experience with alcohol consumption that affords individuals the opportunity to learn their limits. It is worth noting that many of these countries also have lower legal blood alcohol levels and and stiffer penalties, resulting in the consumers making wiser decisions. http://www.nhtsa.gov...
sexism in America

Although the opposition presents a valid contention, I'd like to highlight some flaws within their arguments. Con says that women pursue careers in "safer jobs" but fails to define the meaning of this. By safer jobs, Are you referring to careers with a greater job security? Or a workforce that could be deemed more physically and mentally 'safer' than other careers? Furthermore, A generalisation such as "less woman work" could be due to outstanding factors - new mothers could be exercising maternity leave but, Even so, This would be temporary and relatively short-term in comparison to the length of an average career. Finally, I would like to emphasise how the lack of evidence within the opposition's first argument highlights the ambiguity of their claims. I would now like to place forward my first argument. I acknowledge that, To a degree, Women often pursue different careers to men that reap lesser rewards, Especially when we consider the difference in average incomes. But what happens when we examine data from equally qualified individuals, In identical fields of work, Whom differ by their gender alone? A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (http://www. Pewresearch. Org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-many-forms-for-todays-working-women/ft_17-12-13_genderdiscrimination_women/) identifies that 42% of women have experienced some form of sexual discrimination. Of these 42%, 25% say that their discrimination originated from their pay check. Put yourself in the shoes of these individuals - imagine being as equally qualified and experienced as some of your coworkers, But receiving a lower income. And for what? For your gender. Doesn't seem fair, Does it?
Waterboarding should be legal in the United States.

There are a number of definitions of waterboarding. The definition of interest for this debate is the technique used by the Central Intelligence Agency to interrogate terrorists. Wikipedia quotes a CIA manual:"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. .. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. .. The procedure may then be repeated. " [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]The resolution affirms that waterboarding should be legal in the United States under certain limited circumstances to be specified. The negation argues that the techniques should never be legal in the United States under any circumstances. RulesThe burden of proof in this debate is shared, meaning that the better case should prevail. This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. The Pro case will be given at the start of the second round. Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments. DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments. DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. DR 6. Dropped arguments are not counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case. This debate is part of the 99th percentile tournament . http://www.debate.org...Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate. Waterboarding is a much-debated topic.
Working smarter is most of the time better as working harder

In the current society the most common idea is that if you want to achieve more, you have to work harder. Taking on more work, working overtime, sleep less than the recommended 8 hours a night, etc. However, in this debate I'm going to argue there is in more than 50% of the cases a better way to achieve more: work smarter. This includes things like coming up with an effective plan before you start working, preparing, using tools, delegating tasks, only focusing on the most important things, etc. I as pro am going to argue that if you have to choose between working harder and working smarter, working smarter is in more than 50% of the cases more effective than working harder while con will argue working harder is in more than 50% of the cases more effective than working smarter. Pro has the burden of proof. The participants have 72 hours to write your post and the character limit is 8.000. Terms: Working harder: trying to get more out of the resources you have while still using them in the same way you always did Working smarter: trying to get more out of the resources you have by using them in a different way Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. My opponent accepts all definitions 7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8.
Overwatch is better than Fortnite

Listen, if you're going to try to explain why overwatch is better than fortnite, at least give a better reason than one tricking. Before I go into why fortnite is a better game I want to completely dismantle his/her single point. One-tricking is a cancer to the overwatch (competitive) community. If you force the same hero every game, I guarantee you ruin 80% of your games. Especially if it's someone like symmetra or torbjorn who are very situational picks. Now, on to why fortnite is a better game. First of all, it's not as punishing as overwatch when you lose. If I lose a game of fortnite I say, "oh whatever" then queue up for another game. However, when it comes to overwatch competitive I'm like "oh come the f*ck on" followed by losing 20+ sr and then losing more because I'm tilted. I don't want to see anyone with those PMA comments saying, "dude just stop getting tilted". I guarantee you everyone in the ow community tilts at one point during their gaming sessions. I'm gonna stop it with these 2 points for now. Just for reference i have 500+ hrs of overwatch clocked in (if you must know my sr it's 3730). I've clocked in about 30+ wins overall on fortnite with about 36 hours of playtime on xbox.
Team jacob: In both of their entirety's the wolfs are better than the vampires

lol damit your too beast i cant win :/ buuuuuuut 5- has it been proven that there skin is as hard as diamonds or are u just saying that because there skin is unusually tough and sparkles? because if it was diamond tough then burning them makes no sense because u cant burn diamonds or anything near diamonds hardness density and blaa blaa blaa 6- but u cant just say that werewolfs cant relocate because they can. and jacob had to heal on the couch for like a while after the vampire fight so its not CRAZY fast healing that doctors would be like hmmmm 7- idk i just dont think its fair that u can win number 7 if its not factually proven their vamps senses are better
Team jacob: In both of their entirety's the wolfs are better than the vampires

2 - That's exactly what I was trying to say in my last post. Both have slight detriments when it comes to temperature, so neither is a clear winner. 3 - The title says "in both of their entirety's" entirety includes every single thing about them; I was just bringing up something where the vampire was the clear winner. If you want to pick and choose which traits can be brought up in determining the better you should have specified that at the beginning, and if you have a different trait you would like to discuss you are free to do so. If you were having a Edward/Jacob debate I never would have entered in the first place, but your title does say "the wolves" as in all of the werewolves of the Twilight verses the vampires. 4 - If they have more physical power, how was Edward able to overtake Jacob like he did? Saying "Lets just negate that" is like throwing in the towel, and on this point I would if I were you. When it comes to fighting the vampires are obviously better. 5 - If the werewolves die I guess we can just admit that the vampires are better. Also if we look at the way a werewolf can die compared to a vampire, the only way to kill a vampire is to tear it's diamond strength skin, decapitate it, set it on fire, and spread the ashes, but the easiest, among many, way to kill a werewolf is for a vampire to bite him. One seems a lot easier than another. 6 - I'll assume that you've never seen a movie like E.T. because it talks a lot about what would probably happen if a supernatural being was discovered, so I'll explain it. If a supernatural thing was found, especially one as powerful and potentially dangerous as a werewolf or a vampire, it is predicted that humans would react by trying to either wipe out that species or safely contain it away from human harm. It is my argument that it is easier for vampires to stay out of detection than vampires. If a werewolf was taken to a doctor by accident after an injury the doctor would discover that he could heal super fast and then the secret would be blown, but that is of course purely speculation. 7 - Though it is not verifiable I believe that the signs point to werewolves having less acute senses than the vampires. These are 7 main points that I believe show how vampires are better than werewolves. If you think you have some that prove werewolves to be superior then I'd love to hear them. :)
Team jacob: In both of their entirety's the wolfs are better than the vampires

as do I =) i think 1 is just a matter of opinion which cant be stated as a fact and with 2well its not like the werewolf is gunna burn you. if your with the vampire in the cold u can get even more cold causing namonia and frostbite. u can lose calories is Ur sweating cuddling with a werewolf also u cant say u can get a heat stroke cuz that would require like 80 plus temperatures. and nobody in their right minds would go outside and cuddle they will be inside where its cooler with 3 the title of the argument was that the wolfs are better than the vampires. not whether the vampires could get more people. because lets say nobody fighting...just because you have more of them doesn't make them better. and as everyone knows too much of a good thing is bad. so yea no need to bring other vampires into this there still all vampires. we are trying to see who is better lol XD 4- im pretty sure that the wolfs had more physical raw power. and the tactics that each of them could use in a fight could be debated about forever so lets just negate that 5-if ur immortal u can still die. and it doesn't make u better just cuz ur immortal especially if the werewolf dies. then the immortal has no one to compete on who is better with XD 6-if they are detected by humans. so what nothing bad is gunna happen. they are more human than the vampires and can hide amongst humans easier due to they can go out in the sunlight and dont show any signs that they are wolfs unless they transform 7- since u said the accuteness of the werewolfs sences are not clear u cant just say that the vampires sences are better
Team jacob: In both of their entirety's the wolfs are better than the vampires

I'm glad to debate with someone willing to take it seriously. :) I'm new to the site too; I'm probably getting way too into this, but it's fun. :) 1 - We are talking about mythical beings here. Though the advantage of an aphrodisiac may not seem "fair" it is still a power they possess and can't be discounted on the account of being fair or not. Similarly it's not fair that humans have opposable thumbs when in a banana peeling contest with a bear, but, fair or not, when looking at how fast each can peel a banana the human is obviously the winner. 2 - In contrast to your opinion, what if it's a hot day in arizona? I bet nobody's going to want the heated werewolf then, and that a chilled vampire would be the best solution. It all depends on situation and both have their detriments. 3 - Again weather it is fair on not is not the question. There are distinct advantages for the vampires as far as numbers go. If the Cullens were ever in a fight with the werewolves then they could just call their friends to the north for reinforcements and best the werewolves. The wolves could not accomplish this and could also be wiped out if anyone wanted them gone. 4 - Wolves are larger. This is true, and this would be an advantage if the only fighting style allowed was wrestling. The vampires are faster and stronger than the werewolves and this is essential and more helpful than size in other styles of fighting. Kungfu and karate are examples of speed and skill over brute force and size. This is where the video is helpful. http://www.youtube.com... Though the werewolves do get trained to fight, the vampires go through similar training and are able to spend more time mastering multiple fighting techniques because of their immortality. 5 - Though I disagree I will let our voters decide what is better. immortality or peaceful death/ 6 - Detection by humans was what I was going for here.