BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide

Marijuana/Cannabis - A drug that is made from the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. Recreational Marijuana - A method of usage in which the psychoactive effects of the drug are used to induce an altered state of conciousness for pleasure by modifying the perceptions; feelings; and emotions of the user. My position on this topic will be that I will be advocating for the recreational use of cannabis to be legalized nationwide. Whoever feels that they want to take me up on this debate can leave a comment below. The first round will be acceptance. The rest of the rounds will be structured as to the wishes of each debater. There is only one rule that will be set in stone for this debate - No language that is foul/slanderous should be hurled at the opponent on a personal level. Keep it professional.
Earthbound/Mother 2 (pro)VS. Undertale(con)

No, while I personally have not played both games, I've watch play throughs of them on youtube, so I know the basic idea of them. I will now explain more in depth about how Undertale is better than Earthbound. Characters: The videos explain more about the main characters, so i'll leave them out of it this time. But Undertale takes it a step farther than Earthbound by not just giving just the main characters emotions and personality, but the standard enemies you normally fight as well. From muscleman Aaron to the first enemy you fight: Froggit, each one has their own beliefs, fears, traits, etc. This makes the game much more in depth in relation to characters. Choice: Undertale gives you many choices throughout the game. The choices are so crucial, they can even effect future play throughs of the game. You can choose to be the Messiah of the monsters that helps them accomplish their lifelong goal of breaking through the barrier that keeps them sealed away, or the one that takes that dream away by killing all of them. As shown in the videos of my previous debate, each endings give you a secret lesson that, if you learn it, you can take it by heart and keep it with you. That's some things you don't find in a lot of games. That's my side.
Earthbound/Mother 2 (pro)VS. Undertale(con)

I already knew quite literally everything you just said, including watching the videos you referred me to, and having played through both games. Thank you for the rundown of what Undertale is, but how does this make it better than Earthbound, which has incredible atmosphere, better than Undertale, more material, more adventure, and a powerful message about growing up, while fighting hippies and piles of puke. And also, have you played through both games to make the comparison? I have.
Earthbound/Mother 2 (pro)VS. Undertale(con)

Undertale goes more in depth than you could ever imagine. From the characters, and all of their internal struggles, to the story behind it, Undertale takes it up a notch when it comes to games. Gameplay: Basically if you don't know, you play as a character named Frisk. Your goal is to get back to the surface world. Along th way you meet along of characters that are unique in their own fun ways. From Toriel to Papyrus to Undyne, each character brings a different layer to the depth of the game. In the game, you have three options: the Pacifist,Genocide, and the neutral run. They sound exactly as they are. Atmosphere: The game itself has a mixture of moods depending on the run. The Pacifist feels calm and safe most of the time. The genocide feels wicked and twisted. The neutral has mixed feelings, depending on who you kill. Characters: The characters are very well made, all of which seem to have a full personality behind the scenes. It gives the game more depth and let's you begin to feel like you're actually with them. Fandom: This game has sparked an entire growing fandom, which numbers in the millions, and is still growing. There has to be a reason why so many people like it, right? Deeper meaning: The creator, Toby Fox, does an amazing job of hiding deeper meanings throuughout the game. In these videos, you'll be able to see them clearly. https://m.youtube.com... https://m.youtube.com... I will explain more next round about this. (A little side note, you should go watch Game Theory's theory about Undertale. It connects it to Earthbound. This isn't part of the argument, just wanted to tell you in case you wanted to watch something interesting.)
Earthbound/Mother 2 (pro)VS. Undertale(con)

I did say that, in fact. Earthbound has a unique, undefinable idea of beauty, and a deep personality. Having played through both games, including all three Undertale runs, the depth of Earthbound makes it the better in my eyes. Not just the moral questions of finding a real home (represented by mothers or motherly figures), but also in depth of gameplay. Earthbound shows it was a triple-a title with the among of work put in it (demonstrated by the non-story NPCs, the much longer and more fleshed out game, etc.), and a more strategy based and less trial and error based battle system. I would say that Undertale has more depth in NPCs, but I when it comes to depth of playable characters, to quote Charlie Brow in his Halloween special, "I got a rock." Undertales' depth flaws are probably due to the fact that it is an indie game, but flaws and shortcomings are flaws and shortcomings. I would like to know, which is the better main antagonist. The evil in Ness which translates into his nightmare and then Giygad, the ultimate evil, or the evil in the heart of the player and Frisk, which brings back Chara?
Yo mama jokes

Their lack must be regional to my area, a lot of the KFC's where I live share the building with pizza hut or taco bell for some reason it seems. On to my remaining jokes. 1. Your mamma's so old her first crush was the same boy who would one day invent the wheel. 2. Your mamma's so dumb that she hit Chuck Norris with her purse, may she rest in peace. death by round house kick is a awful way to die.... this was fun :) (disclaimer: this should go without saying but just in case it doesn't I don't actually think your mom is dead,or dumb or fat for that matter.)
Yo mama jokes

First, a comment on joke #1. They have not built KFC's like that in a long time so you must be implying that she was fat an equally long time ago. Fat joke FAIL. Now for mine: 1. Your mamma's so fat that her location is taken into account by meteorologist when predicting the tides. 2. Your mamma's so old that she had a kid who is now so old that he thinks KFC's have a corny bucket on top of their roof's.
Many European countries are importing rape cultures from the Middle East and Africa.

Your video has valid points but after doing some research about rape culture in Germany the conviction rate of rape in Germany has actually declined overtime, it was 20% in the 1980's and it was 13% by the 2000's. The amount of immigrants coming to Germany every year has increased and the amount of rapes has decreased. I used Germany because Germany is the country that most people from the middle east and Africa migrate to. Obviously the immigrants have little effect on the rate of rapes in Germany.
It is a beneficial strategy to accept some unsubstantiated beliefs

It sounds like I was half right in my interpretation of your very unclear explanation.I finally understand unambiguously what you mean when you say:"The beliefs that rape is wrong and 'no' means 'no' are unsubstantiated"So, you are making two claims at a win through four implied statements:1. a) Believing that rape is wrong is beneficial1. b) Believing that rape is wrong is unsubstantiated2. a) Believing that "no" means "no" is beneficial2. b) Believing that "no" means "no" is unsubstantiatedI've already refuted your second claim but I'll do so again: The fact that we can have this converstation and the gentle voters can follow along is evidence enough to justify belief that "no" has a shared meaning understood by speakers of English that allow us to infer meaning from others' writings and to imply meanings in our own. I'm going to take a cheap pop; sorry, I can't help myself... you said:- you choos eto hear 'yes' as no'And you were referring to the act of rape. I think that you meant to say:- you choose to hear 'no' as 'yes'I wonder whether Pro takes seriously their proposition that "no might not mean no"!Anyhow... believing that rape is wrong; I can tell you that I think that rape is wrong. I agree that believing that rape is wrong is a beneficial belief. However, I don't see how you could argue that it is unsubstantiated!Unsubstantiated is defined as:Not supported (or proven) by evidence.And evidence is defined as:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.I offer my evidence that rape is wrong: The millions of people who have suffered emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases... and all of the children who had emotionally damaged lives as a result of being children of rape whose own mothers couldn't look at them without being reminded of the rape.Pro, this idea will not do. Do you have any others?
It is a beneficial strategy to accept some unsubstantiated beliefs

I what you who!?"Sometimes in life yes means yes and no means no" is a truism.I've spent a little time staring vacuously at the rest of your sentence and I can find no more intelligable meaning there than in the first half of the sentence.The closest I can get to, after much reflection, is that you are making the following point:Believing that words have a certain meaning fits the bill.It is a beneficial strategy to believe that certain words have certain meanings.This is an unsubstantiated belief.Am I right? If so, could I beg you to express yourself more plainly in the future? If I'm wrong, could I beg you to express yourself more plainly in the future?If I am right, I must most soundly rebutt the idea on the grounds that we have plenty sufficient evidence that certain words do convey certain meanings to certain people.Sure, you need a receiver... I mean, "potato" doesn't mean anything, per se... but it does mean something to you, as I believed that it would, and that's all that's going on here.That example will not do, do you have any others?
Guilty people can be convicted if we judge them

Alright, first thing first, our country is built on our great constitution. We are provided laws that protect us from each other and the government. Allowing anyone to be detained and prosecuted purely based on their appearance and behavior is outrageous. Without proper evidence it is incredibly difficult to truly know whether someone is guilty or not and then even with a lot of evidence, many people have already been falsely prosecuted. And thus I end my statement
Guilty people can be convicted if we judge them

Guilty people are easily spotted. They have tattoos, weird hardcuts, narcissistic attitutes, or a dark, evil looking glance while keeping all thoughts to themselves at all times. If we judge people, we can know if they are guilty then have them convicted. Look at Kayley Anthony's mother for instance, she has a dark, evil looking glance; a tattoo, a weird haircut, and a narcissistic attitude! Guilty people can easily be spotted if we judge them this way.
Self Driving cars will be the future

Yes while it may be difficult for hackers to get into a vehicle it doesn't mean they won't. You still haven't mentioned anything about technology malfunctions that are unavoidable. Sure, normal cars malfunction, but a lot less considering that they have been invented since 1886. Also you are suggesting hacking into a single car is a small ordeal. But the amount of deaths due to a hacking of a single car will certainly add up. Cars are very unlikely to become the future because of how hard they are to implement into society. Many people in the poor areas of the world don't have normal cars. To get most of the population using self driving cars is an unrealistic goal. On a side note, This was an awesome debate. Thanks for participating.
Self Driving cars will be the future

Yes, although the risk of hackers is a major problem of self-driving cars, the hacking of a self-driving car was only to show the possibility of a hack. The car manufacturers certainly weren't paying close attention to this possibility because of the recent arrival of self-driving cars, and put little cyber security onto the code. Now that the possibility of car hackers has opened up, self-driving car developers will certainly make cars more secure. You mention that millions of hackers will be prominent in the future, and while there will be many, only a handful will be successful. You also say that hacking ONE car will grant access to kill millions at a click of a button. The process of killing millions of people at the click of a button from only one car is very unrealistic. By the time a car is hacked (which will be extended due to developers increasing security), a warning would be issued to other self-driving car owners. Hacking a car and a network are entirely different things.
Self Driving cars will be the future

Sure the technology can be used to avoid these situations, but all technology malfunctions without a fail. You ask the question what will a future full of self driving cars yield? Well for one, MIllions of hackers. We are essentially handing MILLIONS of people to criminals on a silver platter. All they have to due is hack into the car, which has been done previously, and they are able to kill millions of people at a click of a button. Going back to the point of technology malfunctioning, what guarantee do we have technology won't fail us, or Hackers wont get to us first? Evidence: http://www.wired.com...
Self Driving cars will be the future

Not only have you assumed that a situation where a crash is imminent between multiple self driving cars (if self driving cars really are the future), but you have also stated that the computer will not be able to tell the difference between an expensive car, a cheap one, and a splattering of different pedestrians. I argue that first of all, the fact that a 10,000 dollar vw with self driving capabilities is more than unlikely. Secondly, self driving cars currently have a type of network where they can interchange information between each other. If we already have a system that can avoid your worst case scenario, what will a future full of self driving cars yield?
Self Driving cars will be the future

My main argument here is decision making. A computer thinks a car is a car. It thinks a person is a person. But a computer doesn't have the rational decision making humans have. There are some situations in which a car has to crash. The computer will not be able to tell the difference between a 10 million dollar bugatti and a 10,000 dollar volkswagon. A computer wont be able to tell the difference between an old lady, a baby, and a young man. A computer wouldn't make the rational choice to hit the Volkswagon.
I am Superman

Well my dear friend ask your self this question have you or have you not got hit in the head so hard that your nose started to bleed this can cause many severe brain trammas as for instence you could just be arguing with your self right now or you could be in a comma where your imagination is just how you would put it gone down hill and as the great Mr.S onece said GOOD P***Y will have ni**as doin 95mph in a 35mph zone... With a suspended license... A broke headlight... And weed in the whip.
I am Superman

It is not a matter of wannabe personality; it is, in fact, an entirely different disorder. Dual personality disorder to be precise, seeing that I am Clark and also Superman. My weakness is, indeed, a rock; I will not deny this. But it is a meteor fragment from my own home planet. On Krypton, we have a red sun, and this sun renders our abilities useless, making us as ordinary as humans on earth. But on Earth, you have a yellow sun. The yellow sun is taken in by my Kryptonian cells and is converted to energy, giving me the powers that I have. But this makes fragments of my home harmful to me. Under a yellow sun, it gives off a radiation that is similar to gamma radiation, and it is fatal to me if I am exposed to it for too long. Theoretically, the same would happen to humans if they were to go to Krypton, or any other planet with a red sun. Do not deny me my destiny. I am Superman, the last son of Krypton.
Up is Pixar's Best Movie

Up is much better than Toy Story. Toy Story is too intense for small children and not a movie suitable for the whole family like Up. Up has the emotional aspect to be a great movie for parents while still having the color and exotic storyline to appeal to young children. There is no moment in Up where you sit there watching characters just argue, whereas in Toy Story it is all conflict. It is either vocal conflict in which the movie gets boring, or physical conflict in which the movie gets unsuitable for the age group it is going for. Although it is G-rated, I could see it being PG with for violence and moments of peril. Up is suitable for all ages, Toy Story is not.
Up is Pixar's Best Movie

Up is Pixar's best movie. It adds the emotional parts of Wall-E, the visuals of every Pixar movie, and the action of Toy Story 3. It combines everything that you want in a Pixar movie, and the voices in Up are stunning too, as Ed Asner provides a very good role himself. Pixar always seems to stun but the emotional aspect but the intense action of Up just push it over the top. There are parts of Up that are perfect for small children, but adults will also easily enjoy it as well. Up is the only Pixar movie that perfectly blends child's interests with adult's interest to put out a movie for the entire family. The entire Toy Story series is more adult, Cars has nothing for the adults, but Up is different. Up is a brilliantly made movie.
Tonality is a natural Force Like Gravity

"Tonality is a natural force like gravity." Paul Hindemith. I agree. Great composers such as Stravinsky might stretch tonality to neo-tonality. Jazz players from Miles Davis to Coltrane play outside notes/scales. However, atonality/12 tone scale works are a purely academic concept. It is unnatural and I argue unmusical. It could be art. I am not arguing for strict adherence to western harmony traditions but if you study globally, you will see that all cultures have tonality in their music. I am all for dissonance but it has to be tuned in by a great composer and not tuned out by an academic.
Tonality is a natural Force Like Gravity

"Tonality is a natural force like gravity." Paul Hindemith. I agree. Great composers such as Stravinsky might stretch tonality to neo-tonality. Jazz players from Miles Davis to Coltrane play outside notes/scales. However, atonality/12 tone scale works are a purely academic concept. It is unnatural and I argue unmusical. It could be art. I am not arguing for strict adherence to western harmony traditions but if you study globally, you will see that all cultures have tonality in their music. I am all for dissonance but it has to be tuned in by a great composer and not tuned out by an academic.Science has limitations. Explaining 'consciousness' to explaining 'gravity' to explaining the 'subjectivity of the colour red.' I am not arguing the strength of science. I am arguing about - brute facts - objects fall and notes/intervals have tendencies to resolve. Both are entwined with the physical world. Science come afterward explaing how we are conscious, how there is gravity and why the universally the ear listens for 'tonality'. It is this aspect of the ear's innate anticipation that composers work with to create music.Music is ultimately a combination of the composer's ability to be aware of these tonal limitations and yet use their ear/consisouness to create unique expression. Much like a surfer. The composer dances upon a wave that was given not one which they created.12 tone is a step outside of the natural tensions. 12 tone is a form of art but I argue not a musical one. Like a surfer captured as a sculpture. The movement is gone; the dance is gone. We have turned the subject into an object and in doing so have lost the subject.
Tonality is a natural Force Like Gravity

A natural force is in fact not even a force as gravity is in fact represented as an acceleration rate, on Earth, of 9.81 ms^-2Gravity is a mystical power that even the most advanced physicists haven't got anywhere near finding the origins of.Tonality is a system/language of music in which specific hierarchical pitch relationships are based on a key"center", or tonic, that is, on hierarchical scale degree relationships. http://en.wikipedia.org...So I leave it up to my opponent to explain how a distinguished 'language' of pitch can be synonymous to an unidentifiable mystery as is gravity.
God exists (joke debate)

I thank the pinhead for their reply. The atheist brings up their religion of evolution, but this false religion is very easy shown false as well known biologist Kirk Cameron explains (Watch video now) . http://www.youtube.com... Where is Croc O duck ? You can't explain that. Now listen up you atheist pin heads and you might learn something. .. .. TIDE GOES IN, TIDE GOES OUT TIDE GOES IN, TIDE GOES OUT TIDE GOES IN, TIDE GOES OUT TIDE GOES IN, TIDE GOES OUT NEVER A MISCOMMUNICATION ! !!
God exists (joke debate)

I thanks the foolish sheep Illegalcombatant for providing this opportunity to debate.Rebuttal__Now my opponent ignores completely the lack of proof for God. It does not take a rocket scientist to see his error. One major flaw in the God argument is evolution. I propose this:The universe and all laws of physics were organized randomly, after which everything came to precisely what is needed for life, at which point humans must have emerged. The existence of God is just too unlikely to contemplate.Now I present you an example: If a tornado blew through a junkyard, would it not assemble a Boeing 747 in under 5 minutes? Of course it would, because if God existed he would prevent Satan's attacks from showing any real power.Back to you PRO.
God exists (joke debate)

Joke Debate, who ever gets the most lols out of you gets your vote. Pro will argue that God exists Con will seek to negate and/or argue that God does not exist. Video allowed, no more than 3 mins per round. Opening Arguments. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present arguably the greatest theologian of the 21st and maybe 13th century "Father" Bill O Reilly. (Watch video now) http://www.youtube.com... Let me break down this proof of Gods existence for you atheist pinheads. 1) Sun exists, moon exists, Venus doesn't have a moon 2) You can't explain that 3) Therefore God exists. 1) Tide goes in, tide goes out 2) You can't explain that 3) Therefore God exists 1) Tide goes in, tide goes out 2) You can't explain that (ok well you can explain that with the moon but where did the moon come from ?) 3) Therefore God exists 1) It takes more faith to not believe than to believe 2) Therefore God exists CHECK & MATE you atheist pinheads.
I'm going to eat this cupcake.

Were you even listening? This is a gourmet cupcake that I bought special! I think I failed to mention that I ordered these cupcakes from a Belgian bakery that closed down two months ago. This could possibly be the last cupcake from that bakery. I should honor eat by eating it and thanking God himself I can eat such a delicious treat.I deserve this cupcake. I know I do. Why shouldn't I taste the last cupcake of the Belgian bakery?