BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape should be made legal as long as the man wears a condom.

I fully understand that my stance is controversial, but recently there have been many incidents where men have been falsely accused of raping women and have served long sentences for this. The very fact that women are abusing the law to harm men is sickening and for that we should legalise rape to protect our men. Being falsely sent to prison for rape will destroy a persons life and they could go to prison for many years. However if a fat chick gets raped she might actually enjoy it. It's clear that reducing the rate at which men are falsely accused of rape is more important than rape itself. I also believe that this would serve to alleviate stress, if a men is suffering from sexual frustration and is unable to buy a hooker, he can just go hunting for a black chick to rape. The reduction in stress would reduce crime as men won't be so sexually frustrated and will be less angry. If it's legal then I believe people will be less traumatised after a rape incident, the rapists will be less aggressive and might be able to convince the woman to take off her knickers, if not then it's her fault for putting up a fight. If women don't want to get raped then they can simply stop wearing mini-skirts and can stop showing their cleavage. This is just a short list as to why rape should be legal. I would like to hear reasons as to why you think rape should be illegal. No women are allowed to accept this debate because you won't have a say in the matter anyway. SJM is not allowed to accept because he doesn't finish debates.
Donald Trump is not a Nazi

1.Building on a charismatic leader 2.Inventing common enemies 3.Attempt to re-model based on extreme nationalism, racism and war 4.Gains followers by propaganda and lies 5. Attempt to take liberties away rather than granting liberties by allowing only certain people and behaviors to be acceptable. All are meet here in this video: https://youtu.be... Trump is a leader with loyal followers. Who creates enemies out of African Americans, foreigners and unemployed. Promotes bombings of other countries and plays off people's nationalism. He lies about facts and issues to meet his own agenda and to stir loyalty in his base. He prompts violence against those who don't agree. Demands the lose of the freedom and liberties to protest.
Donald Trump is not a Nazi

I accept this challenge. I am going forth under the assumption that debate is not that Donald trump is associated with nazism but has nazi like characteristics. These characteristic are 1.Building on a charismatic leader 2.Inventing common enemies 3.Attempt to re-model based on extreme nationalism, racism and war 4.Gains followers by propaganda and lies 5.Attempt to take liberties away rather than granting liberties by allowing only certain people and behaviors to be acceptable He works by playing off people's hate and struggles in a way that is more likely to cause civil war and totalitarian than democracy and peace. I believe he does this not for any specific ideology but for his own grandissement. He may not be intending to cause the potential catastrophes he may ensue if he continues but he is potentially leading us all over a very dangerous precipice.
Donald Trump is not a Nazi

Here is a Liberal video whining and carrying on because "Trump had people giving the Nazi salute". He needs to apologize. Really? I mean, really? http://youtu.be... The boyscouts are Nazis? http://youtu.be... So Muslims are all Nazis? http://youtu.be... Obama's a Nazi? Who knew? http://youtu.be... George W. Bush was a Nazi? http://youtu.be... Ronald Reagan a Nazi? http://youtu.be... Of course not because it's absolute nonsense. ---------- Trump crowd http://youtu.be... Vs. Hitler crowd Sieg Heil http://youtu.be... Watch this crowd's mannerisms and tell me if an American Liberal demonstration group would have gotten out alive if they had done what they have done at Trump rallies at a Nazi crowd gathering. http://youtu.be... ---------- Let's get an actual, real taste of the REAL Naziism. Hitler Hell March http://youtu.be... --- Donald Trump resembles a Nazi in no way, shape, or form. It's an insult to any holocaust survivor to claim any such thing because they faced the real thing.
This Poem by MassiveDump is about John Madden

This poem, I believe, is about John Madden. It goes as follows:John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden.John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden.John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden.John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden,John Madden.John Madden is good,John F*cking Madden.
WorldWarHulk VS Skaar

Using my opponent's source, the article clearly states that Professor Hulk lifts 100 pounds in his calm state. "While in a calm emotional state, the Professor is capable of lifting about 100 tons." - Green Scar proved his words by beating Skaar in said match. This is still null and void, because, as the comic showed, Skaar was clearly emotionally detached, and - "Wrong again Skaar can only lift 90 tons on a clam state the oldstrong's abilities are to be able to get the kinetic energy of a planet like what he did against Green Scar but yet Green Scar was able to beat him even though Skaar used 100 trillion tons of strength Skaar did not give up he even insulted Green Scar." Skaar does in fact only lift 90 tons in his calm state. However, the Oldstrong power pushes him far beyond this; the 90 tons does not factor that in. - In his calm state, Skaar can beat every hulk except for Savage Hulk. Savage Hulk is the only Hulk whose rage factor increases at such an exponential rate that it totally eclipses Skaar. Every other Hulk is either on par with or weaker than Skaar. Including the Green Scar. You do not have enough proof to clearly state that the Green Scar would defeat Skaar; the one bout they had was, once again, when Skaar was under emotional duress, and the final blow was made while he was unawares.
WorldWarHulk VS Skaar

1.) My opponent states that Green Scar is "not like hulks past incarnations this incarnation is the strongest yet that can lift more than 100 tons in calm state". This is false. Several incarnations of the Hulk can lift 100 tons in their ground state; in fact, this is the usual staple quantity of any green Hulk. This applies to the original Savage Hulk, Professor Hulk, Guilt Hulk, Banner-Hulk ... the list continues. 2.) My opponent states that "this incarnation is also ruthless Green Scar will beat Skaar Because as he said to Skaar in there battle in which Skaar lost has nobody told you I am the strongest one there is" My opponent uses what the Green Scar says as evidence of his strength. This isn't a very reliable piece of evidence. The Juggernaut often says that nothing can stop him once he begins to move, but your favorite character, the Hulk, has done this on several occasions. 3.) Skaar Skaar has all of the Green Scar's powers, including that of his mother's. He has the same lift limit of 100 tons, and is imbued with the Oldstrong, which makes his calm state minimum higher than the Green Scar's. He also get's progressively stronger with rage, just as the Green Scar does. On top of that, Skaar's intellect remains intact, and because of his mother's powers he is shown to be much smarter than the Green Scar. In their battle, the only reason he was shown to lose was the fact that he was going through emotional duress, and had actually given up the fight at the sight of the Green Scar saving citizens during their fight. The Green Scar then continued fighting after Skaar had quit. If the fight had continued with both parties at full tenacity, then Skaar would have defeated the Green Scar.
WorldWarHulk VS Skaar

First of all you accepted the debate to defend skaar against Green Scar so I will use him - Green Scar is not like hulks past incarnations this incarnation is the strongest yet that can lift more than 100 tons in calm state this incarnation is also ruthless Green Scar will beat Skaar Because as he said to Skaar in there battle in which Skaar lost has nobody told you I am the strongest one there is
The United States cannot remain silent on North Korea's current policies

First, I'd like to point out that none of Con's case actually deals with the points I brought up in R1. My arguments were the following: that the U.S. has a responsibility to speak out against human rights abuses and that the U.S. has the capability to manage legitimate terrorist threats *and* speak out against foreign human rights abuses.Most of Con's argument is thus irrelevant to my contentions as they relate only to the gross human right abuses going on in NK, not their possession of nuclear weapons or debatable agricultural improvements under Communist rule. I will speak of the human rights abuses going on in NK as they're the crux of my argument. I had assumed that the long train of horrific treatment within the confines of NK would be accepted by my opponent, however he seems to deny this. The evidence for a systematic chain of human rights abuses in NK is overwhelming. Human Rights Watch states:"The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) systematically violates the basic rights of its population. Although it has signed four key international human rights treaties and includes rights protections in its constitution, it allows no organized political opposition, free media, functioning civil society, or religious freedom. Arbitrary arrest, detention, lack of due process, and torture and ill-treatment of detainees remain serious and endemic problems. North Korea also practices collective punishment for various anti-state offenses, for which it enslaves hundreds of thousands of citizens in prison camps, including children. The government periodically publicly executes citizens for stealing state property, hoarding food, and other “anti-socialist” crimes."[1]This general attitude concerning the human rights situation in NK has also been expressed by the U.N. on numerous occasions. Recently in March, a resolution condemning systematic human rights violations in NK passed by consensus, meaning that there was no opposition to call for a vote[2]. Things like freedom of religion, thought, and expression are also basically nonexistent even as the North Korea constitution recognizes these things[3]. Citizens have countless times been subject to imprisonment and even death for voicing their thoughts or dissident views[4][5]. The human rights situation in NK is clearly something to be condemned.===Sources===[1] http://www.hrw.org...[2] http://www.hrw.org...[3] http://countrystudies.us... ("According to Article 67, citizens have freedom of speech, publication, assembly, demonstration, and association.")[4] http://www.state.gov...[5] http://www.opendoorsusa.org...
The United States cannot remain silent on North Korea's current policies

First I'd like to summarize Con's position. Con basically argues that there are more pressing and important issues for the U.S. and that NK isn't much of a threat towards the U.S.(1) My first criticism stems from the fact that Con ignores the unique position the U.S. holds as the most powerful and influential of the world's liberal democracies. As such, the U.S. has taken on the responsibility to speak out in the face of tragedies going on around the world (ignoring the at-times hypocrisy of the U.S.' own human rights abuses for the moment). To ignore the human rights abuses going on in NK would be for the U.S. to fail to fulfill its role as a superpower.(2) The U.S. was founded on certain liberal democratic principles, among them the inherent and inalienable rights of the individual. Therefore it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to support human rights within its borders, but to wholesale ignore those abuses going on outside.(3) Even if the U.S. has more pressing interests at hand, that doesn't mean it only has the resources to deal with one issue at once. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that the U.S. has the resources to at once deal with the threats of terrorist organizations while simultaneously taking a stand against the inhuman practices engaged in by the government of North Korea.Back over to Con now.
The United States cannot remain silent on North Korea's current policies

At the leisure of my opponents and the audience...I firmly stand in negation of the resolution that states: Resolved: The United States cannot remain silent on North Korean"s current policies. John Bruton (Politician) once said that "Proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations is far more dangerous than proliferation of nuclear weapons to states like North Korea." North Korea does not pose a threat as most people believe; more notoriety should be pointed towards direct, clear threats from terrorist organizations rather than countries like North Korea. Just list your contentions or speech or argument(s) and let the people decide. (No rebuttals)
Evolution should be taught in schools

Thanks to Con! Allez!Junk DNACon makes a number of mistakes here. First, he commits a false dichotomy fallacy[1] by stating that: "[Junk DNA gives] decisive evidence [...] against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage." This is not evolution vs Intelligent design. It implies there are only two options, whereas, any Creation myth will disprove that, including those by the Greeks[2] and Egyptians[3].Second, Con's source (1) has no actual supporting evidence to it[4]. There is merely an introduction, praise, contents, and ~30 pages of notes![4] This source is not reliable. TomcodPro's objection literally is: "This may be a normal growth cycle. After all, we all grow up and die. Same goes for fish." This is a red herring fallacy[5] as it refers to the growth cycle of fish. However, my point was on evolution, as defined. And, even if it was just a "natural thing cycle" [which it isn't, because evolution doesn't cycle], it is still evolution, by definition. Hence, this is an irrelevant response.ConclusionsI have shown how the junk DNA objection has no support to it, and thus can be dismissed without evidence; I have revealed the fallacy of red herring in Pro's objection to the tomcod example. Con has ignored my E. coil example, therefore, I extend it.Good debate thus far; quick response blessings to you, Con!Source(s):[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.pantheon.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.discovery.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution should be taught in schools

First off, I see my opponent used junk DNA and tomcod in his arguments.Junk DNA:A number of leading proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that "junk DNA"""the non-protein-coding DNA that makes up more than 95% of our genome""provides decisive evidence for Darwin"s theory and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage. In The Myth of Junk DNA(1), biologist Jonathan Wells(2) exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research. After reading the book, then you will see this is just a myth.Tomcod: This may be a normal growth cycle. After all, we all grow up and die. Same goes for fish. Arguments: Grown cycles are different from evolution and junk DNA is not a true source that supports the idea of evolution. I successfully rebutted my opponent's arguments. This has been a heated debate so far. Hope to hear my opponents's arguments soon. Sources (1) http://www.discovery.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(intelligent_design_advocate)
Evolution should be taught in schools

Well, we did already define evolution, so why would we need to define it again.Second here are my rebuttals to this subject,(1) I do not need the definition for "over a span of time."Thanks anyway. I did not mean to "ban it from schools." I meant for it to be taught in modern-day schools. For the sake of argument, let's say that evolution is CORRECT. Would we see a frog outside transforming into a human? Or would we see a ape transforming into a human with our own eyes? If it were correct, animals would be going by the process of the mutation of genes even today.(2) "There is no rational reason to deny evolution being taught in history classes."History- events of the past. History is for teaching events which happened in the past. Evolution is not yet proven to have been an event of the past. So, how does Pro know that it happened.(3) "Should it be taught in schools? Well, let"s have a closer look at the resolution."Do you know people have other beliefs? It would be unfair to those who do not believe in evolution.(1) Conclusion Evolution is to not be taught. Think about the children who do not believe in this. I have a question for Pro. What if you did not believe in Evolution but had a child attending a school where it was taught? Sources (1) http://dontteachevolution.blogspot.com...
Evolution should be taught in schools

The reasons for why evolution not being taught in schools are: 1 There no scientific evidence of this at all First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. How could you teach a subject if there is no documented proof on it? Evolution may not have happened at all. The teachers should not teach an unproven theory made by scientists who may not have any clues to support this idea.(1) 2 Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Again, why would teachers teach so something that had no chances of happening or is impossible. If this had happened, then wouldn't it be happening today too?(2) Sources: (1) http://www.icr.org... (2) http://www.newgeology.us... Look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Life after death

I will start by sharing the first reason that makes me believe that life after death is impossible: The key concept in the idea of a life after death is that somehow consciousness and by this I mean aspects of the human mind such as memory, identity and the capacity to perceive and interpret reality, remain intact even in the absence of the physical brain, thereby allowing ghosts to think, feel and even remember. I will begin by demonstrating how basic neurological processes such as memory are completely impossible if the physical brain is damaged or absent. Memory is not a feature that is produced by a single region of the brain, by a specific gland or lobe. There are various types of memories, for example, there is muscle memory which deals with the motion of the body, with facial features, with remembering how to ride a bike, how to run or how to fight and it is regulated by the motor and somatosensory cortices during the first stage of learning that is when you are learning how to do something physical that involves a sequence of movements from your body for the first time, there is memory associated with language which is a process believed to be carried out in the cerebral cortex and then there is a kind of memory (associated with learning and with recalling the past) that is produced by the Hippocampus. If the Hippocampus is damaged even slightly, people will have trouble remembering who they are if their long-termed memory is affected and in some cases, even trivial activities of their every day lives if their short-termed memory is damaged, meaning they can't learn new things. Clive wearing is an example of the way in which this first aspect of human consciousness (memory) depends directly of the physical brain. This man appeared in a documentary called "The man with the 7-second memory" and because his Hippocampus was damaged, his memory suffers. Similarly, if you affect individual neurons such as motor-neurons, you will eventually lose the capacity to move, an example of this is Hawking. Now, imagine a brain that is dead, a brain with no oxygen, with no synapse between neurons, how can there be a space for memory in the absence of the Hippocampus, the cerebral cortex, the frontal lobes and all the other areas of the brain associated with this key feature of consciousness? People who have brain-damage, who are in coma show that if a specific nerve or gland is damaged, consciousness suffers. How can there be thoughts without a brain? How can there be memory without a Hippocampus or a cerebral cortex? How can a ghost interact with its surroundings when it has no nerves or neurons to process light, sound and heat?
Life after death

You base a lot on Einstein's e=mc2. I pointed out before that his theory was flawed because he assumed the universe was static and not expanding. You quote it as if it was developed specifically to disprove the afterlife but it is not the case. Einstein believed in a pantheistic god and even stated he was not an atheist. Atheist's today try to claim him as one but by his own admission he was not. If there is some sort of a god then there is life eternal. So quoting Einstein's theory is not proof there can be no afterlife because Einstein formulated this theory and still believed in a god. Quite obviously he did not see a contradiction between the two because he believed both of them at the same time. You say I am wrong about dark matter and misunderstand it but I did not make the statements about it by myself. I quoted the sources and provided the links. You are not saying I am wrong, you are saying other scientists in the field are wrong and misunderstand the material they work with everyday. It is clear you have a misconception of what a god is or can be and if you want to quote people as the absolute authority or truth to base your beliefs on then they have become your god. Just remember that Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. can all do science. Science is not support to prove atheism as a truth. Scientists in one country can do science just as good as their counterparts in another without having to confess atheism and renounce their beliefs that God exist. Most of what you stated here about dark matter etc. is based on speculation, mathematical modules, inference and the like that can at best establish probability. Dark matter and energy are forces. You are presumptuous to say it is physical forces because no one has ever seen or subjected it to testing. Observing the effects is not observing the force itself. But in the same way consciousness can exist as energy which is a force and that is the crux. I do not see the need to explain the whole thing about energy conservation again. The point is that it is more probable for consciousness to exist then not to exist. Nothing you said changed that probability. You have spent a lot of time to show that a organ is the seat of consciousness by referring to the effects observed if the organ is damaged. When I pointed out that the fetal brain is underdeveloped but is able to be aware I did so to prove the obvious. Awareness is not dependent on a fully functional brain like you argued. And that point is still true after all you said. I was the one who pointed out to you that your consciousness model was limited. So I do not really see your point asking me about bacteria etc. My answer was given above and remains the same.