BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

After a question asked in school today, I decided that I want to debate that torture can sometimes be fine. Torture - the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure http://www.merriam-webster.com... I think that torture is okay in one case and one case only, but that is enough for me to win. Now, I think torture is acceptable when it is being used to coerce people into telling information that could save lives. Here is an example, and then the argument is open to the first to accept it. Example: United States soldiers capture a terrorist who knows the time and location of a bombing that could kill thousands of people. This terrorist refuses to give information. Now, should the soldiers just say 'fine if you won't tell we'll have to deal with it'? NO! They should torture the terrorist until they tell the time and location of the bombing. This way the area can be evacuated, or it's even possible that the bombing could be stopped. By torturing this terrorist until information is revealed thousands of lives could be saved. Now, I feel that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. Especially when the many are innocent United States civilians, and the few is a murdering terrorist. I challenge someone to refute my point, and provide their own.
pikachu can transform in to super saiyan 3

Ok. My opponent begins by attacking my first point stating, "ok that you says pikachu can transform in to ss3 by using an item but what is that item". The fact of the matter is, it really doesn't matter what item. I was simply stating that it would be possible, through use of an item much like in SSBM. My opponent has conceded this to me, only asking the name of the item (its a SS3 ball for all I'm concerned). My opponent goes on to state that saiyan blood is required to become a saiyan. He then gives me the option of having a saiyan have "crasy sex" with a pikachu. I'm actually not going to take him up on this, instead I'm going to say that its probably possible for the pikachu to get saiyan blood by biting a saiyan or having a saiyan inject the blood into the pikachu. Though my opponent has still shown exactly no proof as to why pikachu could not be a saiyan to begin with and have saiyan blood in the first place. Thus I'm resting my case. Thanks for the debate.
pikachu can transform in to super saiyan 3

ok that you says pikachu can transform in to ss3 by using an item but what is that item!!!! and actually that you say only requirement to be a Saiyan is to have been born on the Saiyan you don't understand even human like krilin born on planet vegita(saiyan planet name, vegita named after this planet)he still not saiyan because the thing i mean is you need to be son of saiyan like gohan even he is half saiyan half human he can still became a super saiyan so the requirement is to have a saiyan blood(don't be silly saying so pikachu can just carry goku blood to be a super saiyan this is silly points!!) anothing i found one of your silly point that you say saiyan may bring back two pikachu those two pika still don't have saiyan blood and which saiyan will be crasy having sex with pikachu!!!!!!!!! and last thing these are totally RUN-ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
pikachu can transform in to super saiyan 3

My opponent is convinced that pikachu cannot turn SS3. He/she is convinced of this because of the mere fact that only a Saiyan can turn SS3; he points out pikachu is a pok e' mon. I however am not convinced for two reasons. 1. To begin with becoming metal was a power exclusive to the Mario family, however this does not stop Pikachu from turning metal in SSB. Likewise pikachu could not double jump in the original pok e' mon series or video games but can in SSB. However! In my opponents defense he states that the transformation of pikachu into metal pikachu is done through use of an item. I agree, sadly this point only adds to my case. The fact is, Pikachu could very well have turned into SS3 through use of an item. I personally do not know how pikachu achieved the feat of SS3 but the fact remains that pikachu is very clearly SS3 in my profile picture. 2. My opponent also assumes that pok e'mon and super saiyan is mutually exclusive. I offer my opponent to present any evidence that this idea is even remotely true. In fact from what I can see the only requirement to be a Saiyan is to have been born on the Saiyan world before it was destroyed http://en.wikipedia.org.... Furthermore the Saiyans traveled to many other worlds frequently destroying them before their own home world was destroyed. Which means in all reality they very well could have brought back two pikachus and allowed them to breed. Hence Saiyan Pikachu was born!
pikachu can transform in to super saiyan 3

well actually i make this debates because of your picture....... now let's get back to business!! that you say that it is different fictional works does not make a cross over impossible yes you are right but in dragonball Z only saiyan can transform into super saiyan because it is a special ability for saiyan people like goku,vegita,gohan,goten,trunk and gotenk but pikachu it's pokemon! yes it can mix with DBZ pikachu can use 100000 volt to goku but it still can't trasform into super saiyan 3 even super saiyan is still can't! because super saiyan is a special abilty only for saiyan and that you say in smash bros it can transform into metal because it use flower like wario it can wield beam saber because beam saber is just a weapon but super saiyan need only that the user of this ability is saiyan and that person is very strong and that you say your pict prove that pika' can transform in to saiyan 3 that is totally rubbish arguement(sorry just kidding) because if i make a picture that have vegita became a gays would make it true? and the last thing is my arguement speech is 100% run-ons!!!!!!!!
pikachu can transform in to super saiyan 3

Pfft I am in strong affirmation of this statement! My opponent falsely presumes that Pikachu could not possibly go Super Saiyan 3 because he/she/it is from a different fictional work than fictional characters that can generally go super saiyan 3. This is highly fallacious, as the fact that two characters are of different fictional works does not make a cross over impossible. For instance let us take a look at the justice league. A show in which many marvel comic heroes all appear in the same place. Better yet, let us look at an example of pikachu appearing in another fictional work. Specifically pikachu appearing in Super smash brothers, Super smash brothers melee, and super smash brothers brawl. Up until those points my opponent would have denied the fact that "pikachu can wield a beam sword" or "pikachu can fight sonic" or "pikachu can grab bunny ears and jump 20x his height" or "pikachu can turn into a ball similar to sonic that destroys things" or "pikachu can transform into metal pikachu". However the fact that a fictional source has portrayed pikachu doing these acts makes it so. Unless my opponent can somehow prove that a fictional source is lying on an issue then it stands as true. Thus: The fact that my fictional picture quite clearly depicts Pikachu as super saiyan 3, makes it so!
School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required.

Uniforms help to distinguish students from outsiders. Which is beneficial to the faculty in helping supervise and provide a safe environment for there kids to learn. Students can also conceal weapons in their personalized clothing and accessories which brings dangers and bad press to the school. Not to mention extreme forms of bullying. This is video is an example of how students can conceal weapons in their clothing. https://www.youtube.com...... Now I'm not saying that the students should be in uniform all the time. I believe that students should be award when they are behaving and performing well. So maybe once every month a civvies day will be in order when students will be able to come in in their regular clothing and embrace their individuality. It is something to be celebrated however one is to think of the tribe before themselves. It is the Bullworth way. (I just wanted to say sorry lol ) Rebuttal 1 Now, time to rebut: " 'For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school.' Not true, children can have growth spurts and outgrow the uniform, and because such new uniforms need to be bought. In addition, after uniforms are bought, old clothing is practically useless, only to be worn during weekends, only 2/7 of the time. This ratio amplifies over a big time, and soon enough, the difference between how often the uniform is worn compared to the normal clothing is in the hundreds. Years make that number high up in the thousands!" I actually rebutted this statement later on. First off, I had said that $500 was an exaggerated amount and that it was still less than the average cost of regular clothing each year. Which was $729.50. If we multiplied that by 4 years you will still save $918 compared to regular clothing. Yes children do have growth spurts and outgrow uniform but in most cases that occurs toward the end of year but since everyone is different the parent would just buy the new uniform set early instead of the beginning of the succeeding new year. The same cycle will apply. Rebuttal 2: "Nobody cares about your clothes except yourself and your parents, and that is the reason why school uniforms aren't needed. Why should they be required? That only makes the school administrators' jobs tougher--they have to make sure the uniforms are worn the whole day, and students have to bring checks to school to buy the uniform. " Not true. Try picking up girls looking a chump. Appearance is important that's what a uniform teaches people.It also teaches students to dress conservatively. Uniforms can be altered to fit everyone's individuality in most cases. The alterations are slight but noticeable if you've been wearing them long enough. Uniforms do shape you up for the real world. As far as school administrators go there's not much of a problem. If they're out of uniform they'll be sent home or to the attendance office to get a uniform pass. Easy and in most cases teachers don't bother to check unless it's obvious or you're causing trouble. My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds. I hope the voters are sensible enough to know who to vote..
School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required.

Uniforms do actually save you money in the long run let's go ahead and pretend that 4 uniform sets (mandatory pants and shirt w/shoes) costs $500. In truth, it would cost much less ($280 would be more realistic) but this is suppose to be outrageous. For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school. "The article references a recent study showing the average 10-year old is outfitted with $729.50 in back-to-school apparel and supplies. While that number may not come as a surprise to most parents, the responses for apparel items are very telling." [1] "Most parents responded that they spent $48 on pants for their children and that $30 was a "reasonable" price for a T-shirt. Using those figures, the average American family is encountering a figure approaching, and in some cases surpassing, $300 per child for back-to-school clothing. Contrast that figure with the cost of a year's worth of school uniforms. The cost of a year's worth (Five tops and five bottoms) of school uniform or standardized dress code clothing is $150 (www.frenchtoast.com)." [1] So take $729.50 mutliply it by 4 and you have $2918. Take $500 (outrageous overstated) multiply it also by 4 (for each year) and you have $2000 (saved $918) Replace that with $280 (more realistic) multiply it by 4 and your expense is $1120 (you have saved $1,798) Now use $150 as the source recommended and you have an expense of only $600 over the course of 4 years (Here you have saved $2,318) So you say that uniforms do not save you money in the long run is false. Individuality does not only show through the clothes that you wear but also through your character as well. The way that you hold and portray yourself is much more important than the clothes that you wear. All clothes do is amplify the effective. Similarities pull people together even if it's he hate for they're uniform. It still drives the student population inward towards each other. Cliques become slightly harder to form and thus more people are included. You're correct in saying if someone isn't smart or physically incapable they will get bullied but let's face uniforms cannot save everyone. Of course the bottom 10% of the social percentile will continue to get picked on. If you're not good people then your not no good with people it's a personality to flaw that the students will have to overcome and they must work to achieve that. Sources (I don't MLA, it's a weird social convention) : [1] Buesing, Matt, "Case Closed: School Uniforms Cost less" http://www.examiner.com....... Web. 06 Sept. 2014.
School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required.

School Uniforms shouldn't be required for many reasons. For one School Uniforms oppress the creativity and the freedom of speech students have to wear what they like when they like. Secondly forcing students to wear school uniform may still cost more, the average price for a school uniform for secondary school in the UK is "285 and for primary school, is "156.[1]Thirdly the fact that uniforms are all the same may suggest to children that we must all conform to the same standards. This fact alone combined with the other points I am suggesting clearly shows that school uniforms are an unnecessary expense. Sources: 1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Capital punishment in Texas is unjust

I will refute my opponents points, and I will uphold my points. Your first contention is Capital Punishment deters crime. Yet this fact sheet [1] states the opposite of this contention. " The death penalty does not make communities safer. Wisconsin, which has not had the death penalty for 150 years, has a murder rate that is half that of states like Texas and Florida that use the death penalty frequently. " " A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, "Absence of Executions," New York Times, September 22, 2000" I believe this is sufficient enough to make this contention incorrect. Your second contention was Capital Punishment is cheaper then Life Sentencing and is also unjust in many cases. -Sub Point A: Capital Punishment is cheaper. The Death Penalty Information Center [2] contradicts this. "Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. " The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. " This is essentially stating the death penalty gas a much higher cost than lifetime incarceration. Using incarceration would save $125 million dollars a year. This is sufficient enough to counter your sub point. -Sub Point B: Life Sentencing proves more unjust then Capital Punishment. The majority of this sub point is focusing on "good time credit. " Good time credit is earned for "good behavior" described in law as "exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. " So the criminal in question would have to do an exemplary act to acquire any "good time. " By the time the criminal has achieved this feat is is most probable that he/she will have no intention of further committing any more criminal acts. I have refuted each of your sub points, thus successfully refuting your second contention. Now I will address each of my opponents refutations. Refutation A: My first contention. This article, from the Death Penalty Information Center, has an in-depth analyze on how the innocent are caught in the flaws of the death penalty. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... II: The Cases of Innocence This is quite in-depth, enough to refute this point. Refutation B: My second contention I have clearly supported my second contention in the above statements. Refutation C: My third contention. I have also countered this in refutation of your Sub Point B. Conclusion I have refuted each of my opponents points, thus affirming the resolution. Sources [1]. http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org... [2]. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3]. http://www.chron.com... [4]. http://www.famm.org... [5]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... II: The Cases of Innocence
Homework is horrible

Hello, my name is dtien and I will be arguing that homework is not a waste of time. Homework isn't simply "busy work" teachers give to students: 5 studies show a positive correlation between completing homework and excelling in school. Besides helping children understand the assignments given in class, homework teaches students how to be responsible and to manage their time wisely. If a child is falling behind one day in class, that child is given the ability to catch up before the next class by doing homework. Homework also gives students questions to study for their tests. http://education.cu-portland.edu... I apologize for being so brief but this is really all the proof I need to show that homework is beneficial. Hopefully I can expand on my ideas next round once I know what Pro has to say. Have a good day and good luck to my opponent!
Proportional Representation is More Democratic than First-past-the-post/Majority Representation

For this debate I will be arguing that proportional representation is more democratic than the current first-past-the-post or majority representation system. My opponent will need to argue that this is not the case. DefinitionsFPTP (First-past-the-post) - an electoral system in which a relatively large number of constituencies elect a single MP to represent them in parliament. Proportional representation - an electoral system is which a relatively small number of constituencies elect a number of MP's, potentially from different parties, to represent them in parliament.
Gay Marriage and GODS love for his Children

Pro said:" The Internet is full of crap.Reply: The Internet has a lot of useful sources. Many of these sources are fact checked and reliable. If Pros reason for lacking a source is the "crappy Internet", then Pro might try the library. Pro said: " I guess my view is really just based on the fact I don't judge people, I have a heart, I don't make homosexuals feel bad for they are doing."Reply: Pro is confused. Pro has judged me several times during this debate. -"you're headstrong, " or "well you all are liars" are both statements of judgment. Pro said:"love thy brother and sister"Reply: I don't believe that's a scripture. Perhaps Pro meant:"Respect everyone, and love your Christian brothers and sisters. Fear God, and respect the king. (NLT)"I do not think Pro is prepared to debate the Bible's view on Gay marriage. Pro has not provided a single resource, except that Constantine said "The Apostles of God wrote the Bible". To address this, does Pro understand that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? If he believed the Bible to be a man-made fraud, I doubt he would have publicly declared his faith in Christ and ordained the scriptures as holy and God-breathed.Does Pro realize, that after Constantine ordained the Gospel as the literature of Rome's official faith, the nation has since adopted no other creed or religion? Constantine is the father of Catholicism. Weak argument from pro. Pro said:"If you can PROVE to me that it is fact then I forfeit, but I don't think anyone has HARD evidence of this at all."Reply: I don't want Pro to forfeit. I want Pro to debate by researching the topic and by providing an educated, source based argument. I'd like Pro to do this with respect. I have no problems with Pro being emotional, as I get very passionate about topics myself. However, rationality and dignity must prevail in debates.Conclusion: The debate was about God's love concerning the act of gay marriage. I did not include the scriptures which define homosexuality in God's eyes, because the debate would have turned exceedingly vicious. Instead, I focused on the topic of Love, which is just one of God's attributes. I believe I have shown that God created man and woman to compliment each other. I believe God designed marriage to be a symbol of Christ and creation. I believe there is an incredible amount of love being shown by God, in his will that we would be united as one flesh. I believe God is patient and merciful. I believe God does not favor any person over another and I believe I have shown all of these aspects from scripture. I do not believe that Pro has argued her point in the least.That being said, I do not much care how the vote lands. If you desire to support Pro simply because you support her position then vote thusly. I don't much mind.Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about my God.
Gay Marriage and GODS love for his Children

Ok the Internet is full of "crap". Better? *I have no reference cause as you know there is no proof of my arugment. It's really just based on opinion from this point. I guess my view is really just based on the fact I don't judge people, I have a heart, I don't make homosexuals feel bad for they are doing. "love thy brother and sister" I do believe god meant for all humans on this earth....so why arent we? *I have shown no emotional outburst....I swore once so if that's an emotional outburst I apologize. *there is obviously nothing in the scripture of GOD accepting homosexuals otherwise you wouldve shown it......don't try to make me feel dumb it won't work. *i won't be providing another challenge due to the fact you're headstrong, and it seems that if no one views the same things as you, you don't like it.
Gay Marriage and GODS love for his Children

I would like to remind the opponent that this debate is formatted. Please don't cuss at me. The subject of the debate is about Gay marriage in the context of God. I can logically only provide scripture to explain. The scripture sufficiently explains itself. Pro seems to be displeased that the scripture explains itself in this manner. If you wish to debate secular morality, please provide the challenge. I have given sufficient proof on the topic. Pro has only been able to address it with emotional outbursts. Pro has not established a reference source. Pro has given no fundamental reason from scripture, why God is accepting of Gay marriage. I would be open to debate secular morality of Gay marriage at any time. Please provide the challenge.