BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In-N- Out vs. Five Guys

In-N-Out is a delicious, succulent fast food chain restaurant in which satisfies the taste buds of anyone who orders their food. With super fresh cut potato fries, juicy meat, and crisp lettuce chilled to perfection you'd be on your way to happiness. Their buns are super big and they've got the right amount of fluffyness. Founded in 1948, their old school charm has you knocked out of the ballpark and their fast customer service is like no other.
In-N- Out vs. Five Guys

You have spelled "satisfaction" wrong, and that is unsatisfactory for the level of this debate. And "almost always fresh" isn't that enticing. I don't wanna take a chance with a longer running restaurant chain that may or may not have fresh food, which in turn seems dusty itself. I'd rather eat at a more recently made restaurant that can't even be dusty considering In-N-Out is older. Most restaurants resort to mass production when they start being successful, so the fakeness is more likely to be real. You can see the homies in the kitchen whip out the fresh swagger that is the Five Guys franchise, so don't question its superiority. In conclusion....GET WRECKED.
In-N- Out vs. Five Guys

The list goes on and on for In-N-Out, with its divine seasoning and crunchalicious fries. There's no stopping the wrath of your taste buds. From this retro restaurant chain you can expect a sight for sore eyes rather than red paint and decal plastered on the walls. This gem is has outside seating so your pores aren't filled with the greasy filled air of Five Guys. With ventilation and pure satsisfaction, there isn't any room left for dry nuts to ruin your hunger. Their meat is almost always fresh and packed full with protein packed proteins. Whether you're an average joe or a bodybuilder, In-N-Out can relinquish you from those dusty days.
I am better than you

Humans are horrible things and in most cases we should all be condemned including the prideful... Equality is different than everyone sucking so much it cannot be measured, including you, and by my very race me. You cannot be better than me if you are human, that is really the gist of it. It isn't a matter of growing up, I would say very young children may be the only exception to this rule anyway. My brain development is odd by the way, and not horribly consistent with the rest of the human race. Being far ahead in some ways, and a little behind in others. Age is a foolish director of mental capabilities, and experiences + reaction is a better measure often.
Child pornography should be legal to posses.

Apparently my opponent insists on playing the "victimless" card in this debate. So I suppose it is my job to refute this standpoint. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Drugs hurt the taxpayer's who must pay for their rehabilitation, and CP harms all children by its presence, increasing the likelihood that they will be sexually abused in the future. I doubt my opponent denies that the mere presence of CP increases the risk of child molestation. Simply because children don't complain about the danger they are in due to the presence of CP doesn't mean that there isn't a direct victim. Also, the "no direct victim" definition for a crime discounts other crimes which are equally serious, such as drunk driving, possession of an assault weapon, counterfeiting, conspiracy (to commit murder, terrorism, etc), accessory to murder, attempted murder, and the list goes on. "I know you don't like me calling them innocent, because you believe they have committed a crime- however, they have not committed a crime against a person. You can not name a victim they harmed directly." Here are the four definitions of crime given by the American Heritage Dictionary 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources. I suppose you could argue that the fourth definition supports your argument, however it is a figurative use of the word. Other than that, CP possession violates all of the above definitions. The first two are obvious, and I think it is generally accepted in our society that to derive sexual pleasure from the graphic exploitation of a child is immoral. So yes, they have committed a crime. I have already addressed your supposed "no direct victim" defense. I agree with you that child pornography is a less concrete area than theft; however that doesn't make it any more legal. This argument boils down to whether the rights of the citizen to derive pleasure from the rape, sodomizing, and exploitation of a child outweigh our obligation to protect children from those who would do them harm. I believe the latter far exceeds the former in importance.
Child pornography should be legal to posses.

My opponent claims that someone who possesses child pornography is "are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody". Here is the point of stasis between us. Child pornography should not be legal to possess because: 1. possession and viewing of child pornography increases the demand for it, thereby encouraging its production 2. child pornography arrests help law enforcement to crack down on and find sexual predators 3. child pornography fuels sexual fantasies about children and can play an important part in leading pedophiles to physically molest children Here are my justifications: 1. This is a simple supply and demand argument. The more people who possess child pornography, the bigger an industry it will become. If the child pornography industry grows, it will have to satisfy the demand by making more films/pictures. Therefore, more children will be abused, molested, and mentally and emotionally scarred. 2. 40% of all child pornography arrestees in the US are dual offenders who have sexually victimized children in the past (. http://www.missingkids.com...). Child pornography laws give the Department of Justice another outlet to monitor and convict sexual offenders. 3. All fantasies must start somewhere, and child pornography has been clearly linked to being a starting point for pedophilia. Sexual abuse against children has risen 1500% since 1988, and this is largely credited to the advent of the internet and the access it provides to child pornography (. http://www.nch.org.uk...). Also, most convicted pedophiles acknowledge that viewing child pornography helped lead them to molest children (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...). In conclusion, unless my opponent thinks that people should also be allowed to molest children, then I have a hard time seeing how he can defend the legalization of possessing child pornography.
Child pornography should be legal to posses.

Might I make it perfectly clear to anybody reading this that I am not in support of child pornography, nor the production of child pornography. I strongly believe that abuse like the production of CP should come with punishment. My debate is on the topic of the possession of child pornography. While the possessors of Child Pornography may be sick, wrong, and perverted they are realistically doing nothing to harm anybody. They are not harming the child by simply viewing the material in any real way, the harm that may actually come out of the viewing of this material is caused by the producer- not the viewer. Viewers of Child Pornography will not necessarily molest children in the future, just as those who drink a sip of liquor do not necessarily go on killing sprees. While I believe it is wrong, and objectionable I believe that CP should be legal to possess only.
Limits of a right to procreate

There should be a law in place with mandatory criteria individuals should have to meet in order to procreate. I feel that many parents are not qualified to care for another life. We already regulate who may and may not adopt children. . . I just feel the criteria should be more strict and apply to reproduction in general as well. I think this shouldve taken place when resources were developed to rescue children due to bad parenting Parents are solely responsible for a childs well-being, health and safety, and influence. The impact of a parental role is what molds the child"s habits and personality. "Ineffective parenting has been linked to behavioral problems such as delinquency, criminality and academic problems for children. Indiana Parenting Institute, a parenting education and resource center, finds that effective parenting provides a child with positive discipline, parental support, and respect for herself and others." I think the criteria should include things such as - Being financially stable - Ability to pass randomized tests containing parenting and common knowledge criteria - Being emotionally stable http://www.chiff.com... http://www.messup.net...# http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...
Limits of a right to procreate

Restricting the rights to procreate is costly and difficult." It would quickly begin to pay itself off because a lot of things as a result of bad parenting could be avoided, As stated earlier in the debate from a site "Ineffective parenting has been linked to behavioral problems such as delinquency, criminality and academic problems for children. Indiana Parenting Institute, a parenting education and resource center, finds that effective parenting provides a child with positive discipline, parental support, and respect for herself and others. "And A Violation Of Human Rights" We have to take a test before driving a car . . . yet anyone is allowed to conceive and be responsible for another human being as they please? This is a little backwards. We've tried it this way and its not working. . . The criteria that would be required to be met is necessary and isn't anything absurd or unachievable Some statistics: Approximately 3,500 teenagers run away from home every day Suicide is the third leading cause of death for 15 to 24 year old, and the sixth leading cause of death for 5 to 14 year olds " (That"s right, children as young as 5 years old!) Approximately 1,500 teenagers will attempt suicide in the next twenty four hours According to NCANDS whose latest statistics are for 2005 an estimated 3.3 million referrals of child abuse or neglect were received by public social service or CPS agencies. Of these referrals, 899,000 children were confirmed to be victims of abuse or neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). That means about 12 out of every 1,000 children up to age 18 in the United States were found to be victims of maltreatment in 2005 (USDHHS, 2007). http://www.americanhumane.org...-
Limits of a right to procreate

While Pros views are admirable I would have to strongly disagree with the points being made. While i do feel that every child deserves the right to happy healthy home I feel that somehow finding a way to restrict the rights to procreate is: -Costly and Difficult -Would Result In An Overflow Of The Adoption System (If babies illegally 'created' where taken away at birth) -And A Violation Of Human Rights The cost of creating a new government agency to regulate and issue out "baby creation licenses" would be costly and eat up more money. And regulation would most definitely fail. Most babies are accidents/unplanned. Therefore trying to halt the creation of babies through laws would be seriously difficult and pointless. If any government where to pass a law such as this in my opinion many people would disregard it as most people have granted protections and such. But i feel that this would eventually lead to an overflow of the Adoption System as many new babies would poor in with parents quick to follow and demand they be given their baby. This would lead to either: A- The Adoption System Having To Reform or B- The Adoption System Failing Entirely And finally I would call this a violation of human rights. As i truly believe the government has no place deciding on matters of spirit and love. With that being said who is to define on a piece of paper how to parent the 'correct way'. People come from a multitude of different parenting backgrounds and many people end up just as normal as the next person. To define the correct way to parent and or care for your children is for the government to basically tale control of the youth of the country in a direct manipulative manner.
wESTERN COUNTRIES ARE LOSING THE FREEDOM THAT THE WARS WERE SUPPSEDLY ALL ABOUT

Time for the refutation:Personal Experience Versus Data:Personal experience is NOT data. A single failure as proof of eroding civil liberties as my opponent claims is far too small a sample size to justify that conclusion, not even undergoing a miscarriage of justice but on the meer complains of having to show a peice of ID. Are Civil Liberties Eroding?No, esoecially if we look to history and choose to show this through a qualitative perspective. Allow me to explain!There is no longer a military "draft" and our military since the 1980's has been voluntary only. Unlike the oldschool ways of simply forcing our youth to serve in the armed forces, this was done under Reagan on the advice of Milton Friendman. Taxes are not nearly as high as what they use to be, again we see this through Reagan whi dranatically lowers tax rates, then slowly increases them in the 1980's. This enabled more fiscal liberty. Gay marriage is another liberty that is in contest in the supreme court. More and more states are actually legalizing gay marriage; another liberty opening up with the most recent state being Delaware. http://en.wikipedia.org...Finally, dude we have a black president which has never happened before! African americans have come a long way, and now have control of the white house. It has sent the message to all minorities that anyone can become president now: women, latino's, african-americans, etc... No one has legally stopped them from running, and therefore shows that civil liberties still exists today. The constitution is not thrown out at any given point and time. Where does my opponent go wrong?He clearly thinks rights ought to be absolute, but that isn't the debate here, it's if they are or notm, and just because rights are not absolute does not equate to them being taken away which implies a permenent revoking. They can be temporarily removed, but eventually become reinstated. The Patriot Act is an excellent example of this which has a sunset clause built into it. Thus, civil liberties are NOT eroding as my opponent has claimed. In fact, they have expanded if anything! Another great example of this is the legalization of marijuana. Thank you!
wESTERN COUNTRIES ARE LOSING THE FREEDOM THAT THE WARS WERE SUPPSEDLY ALL ABOUT

Hi, Hitchslap(interesting psuodem) . This is my first debate so i hopeif i get a good flogging i will use that knowlegge in the future'. I must appologise just in case my ponts fly all over the place but i will addres your arguments! My first premise and reon for wanting this debate is I see how badly I THINK, the US government is failing itd people, and I realize that most are oblivious rto it. Thats a whole nother debate,,, Back to my premise, the for fathers were very concerned that the powers of separation were one of thhe very most laws rthat needed to be ratified so as rthe mistakes in Europe wold nothasppen in the USA. They did not want the banks in Europetro have the same power inthe US. Well they do have it ALL now. A tiny population of families and friends own more than half te money in the world. The Federal reserve is not a federal bank its a prie one and there is too much corruption to go into this debate but these families have all the power. Police in the US is have power now they omly dreapmpt ofbefore 911. I have not the time rigt now to list therer absurd powers butwil if youask. Second premise, itwell know that the FBI can access all the books you read, whether from a library or boughtn fromm a store. Asa teenager , I downloaded "the terrerists handfbok " just for a bit f fun. in it it showed you how to make explosives and timer detonators. It was all very easy to do. Plus hwe to ake facke ID's. In Australia I hav been stopped by polise and asked for my ID... I refused and kelp walking. \My friends did that stayed behind and when thet came up to see me they were laufhghinhard. Seems they had never said no to a policeman. I am an australian and though we have more eedoms and less government control I see us as only 10 ten years behind the USA>We both are using , i men losinfg our freedoms. I have not explained this yet, I ghope tonight i get the time to prove it. sincerely, Mike.
wESTERN COUNTRIES ARE LOSING THE FREEDOM THAT THE WARS WERE SUPPSEDLY ALL ABOUT

I accept, and I'm excited to see what proof my opponent actually has that the state is eroding civil liberties, and how exactly he wishes to show that through a quantitative methodology how to measure said losses of civil liberties. To meet my BOP, all I have to do is show that the civil liberties of the West still continue today, and that the notion of those liberties eroding are illfounded. http://www.youtube.com...let's get it on! Opponent state your case!
wESTERN COUNTRIES ARE LOSING THE FREEDOM THAT THE WARS WERE SUPPSEDLY ALL ABOUT

tHE Reds ARE NOTUNDER THE BED, THEY NEVER WERE BUT T CIA ARE UNDER YOUR BED, COMPLETE WITH PHONE TAING , SURVEILLANCE ON EVERY STREET CORNER, HOLDING ALL R EMAILS AND WEB ACTIVITY IN DATA BASES A ERODING ALL YOUR FREEDOM. iTS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW WORLD OF FACEBOOK, TWITTER, BLOGS AND THE AILITY OF THE INTERNET TO INFORM PEOPLE LIKE NEVER BEFORE .
THW ban smoking

Of course there are positives to having a society with less smokers. However, what the proposition fails to realize is that this ban would result in so much negative reaction from the public. The cancer rate would go down, yes, but there would be more danger in the streets because of the potential black market like I've mentioned earlier. There would be so much chaos within communities that it would danger the people more than the rate of caner affecting them. The proposition is right when he states that smoking is diminishing faster these days but that has no relevance to what this debate is about. This debate is on banning smoking. Banning smoking would cause more people to go in danger. Despite the government's efforts to help it's people they're still going to rebel in some way if the government limits them. Have you ever really wanted McDonald's as a kid but never got it because your parents insisted that you eat dinner at home? How badly did you want to rebel? Have you ever really wanted that candy bar from the trip to the market but your mother told you that you couldn't because it would rot your teeth? How badly did you want to rebel then? This whole debate of banning smoking isn't just a quote on quote why not question. We have to put more thought into this. There is so many negative outcomes that could sprout from banning smoking.
THW ban smoking

In the 1930s, the government of the United States of America put a probation on the drinking and distribution of alcohol. Guess what the result was? Chaos ensured. A black market was created run by gangsters and mobsters. It gave them even more to do, run a system so dangerous that America actually pulled back the ban. As side negative, I firmly believe that this will happen again but in the image of smoking if smoking is banned. This is the last thing we need in our society. Now essentially, what are my key points for this debate? I will be illustrating to you how smoking is a choice and how there are already negative advertisements of smoking in the media. If you choose to smoke(emphasis on choice), you personally walk into a store, open your wallet and pay the cashier willingly for the pack of Marlboro. No one is forcing you to smoke. Just like the consumption of alcohol, smoking is consciously done. You are the one reaching for the pack and you are the one lighting the cigarette to your lips. There is no need to prohibit smoking when the direct people that smoking is affecting are aware of how it contributes to health problems. Now this leads to my next point. The media mass advertises the negative effects of smoking constantly. You see warnings on the pack and you see billboards showing the problems smoking leads to. In this way, society is already cognizant of how cigarettes are bad for the human body. People know that cigarettes are bad for them and the people that choose to smoke are readily aware also, so why do we have to get out of our way to ban smoking? Like I've mentioned before, the prohibition of alcohol caused chaos within the nation. There was so much backlash and danger for the government trying to protect its people that there was actually more damage done. If smoking is banned, there will be a repeat of history. There will be a cigarette black market and once again an attempt by a government to protect its people will ultimately fail. People are already aware of the problems smoking causes and choose to smoke anyway. Those people(these people are people that smoke knowing that it will kill them, what makes you think they'll stop if there is a ban) will participate in the black market if the ban made. Overall, the decision of the government banning smoking is not carefully thought out. The only slightly valid argument for the proposition is that smoking is dangerous, but as the opposition I have provided a rebuttal that smokers are already aware and choose to do it despite the health problems. This is why, the resolution must fall.
The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated

BACKGROUND: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act 1984 (also known as MLDA21) was passed by the US Congress on 17 July 1984. It requires states to create laws setting the minimum age to purchase or publicly posses alcoholic beverages to twenty-one. States that do not comply lose 10% of their federal highway funds. Some states also ban the private consumption of alcohol by those under the age of twenty-one, though this is not required by the Act. ARGUMENTS: MLDA21 should be repealed for the following reasons: 1) It creates a 'forbidden fruit' effect. 2) It forces drinking by those under twenty-one to move to more dangerous 'underground' venues. 3) It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 4) It is not possible to reasonably enforce. 5) Other nations have much lower drinking ages, and yet lower rates of alcohol problems 6) Such a high age creates problems such as '21 for 21', in which someone recently of drinking age drinks twenty-one shots of hard liquor, occasionally causing alcohol poisoning.
The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated

I'm sorry, but my opponent's final argument is nothing more than a forfeit. Whether he intended to or not, unfortunately in a debate you can't just say we have fundamental differences and tell the voters to leave this issue resolved. I'm not sure how we are "approaching this from completely different grounds". We both believe in the idea that an individual should have complete freedom over themselves unless it negatively affects others. That being said, you argue that in the case of alcohol this can be achieved without any prohibition. I simply argued that there is some prohibition needed to ensure the safety of others. We are not coming from completely different grounds at all. Ladies and gentlemen, with nothing to refute it becomes apparent that I have won this debate.
The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated

I see the problem now. We're approaching this from completely different grounds. Although we're in agreement that the current drinking age doesn't work, my opponent seems to belief the best solution is to ramp up enforcement, whereas I belief the entire thing should be scrapped. Since such fundamental differences cannot be resolved in the closing round, I urge voters to leave this issue as unresolved.