BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex before marriage

Yet, I do keep an open mind so lets begin. My first three points are: - It will help your marriage to have had only sex with the one you are going to marry. Rather than 10 others before marraige, which if you do train your body to have sex with multiple people then it will be hard to refrain these bad habits once you are married. -There is NOT a 100% surity that you will not get/make someone pregnant. Preventives do fail people quite offten. -Disease if you are going to decide to have sex before marriage, who is to now say when to stop? Therefore, you are bound to run into a disease sooner and later, and preventives surely can't stop the spreading of the countless amout of disease with the abilitly to spread through means of any type of bodily fluid. (this explains a lot of why diseases are indeed becoming more rampid as it becomes a more popular look at have pre marrital sex). POINT #1- If you begin to have sex before marriage you will weaken the relationship with the one you do indeed marry. If you are sure she/he is the one then go ahead get married or wait just a little longer or intill you are able to get married, rather than running the risk of having sex with the worng one. Now, we come to the point if you do decide to have sex before marriage then what is the surprise and fun of marriage? What does "you may now kiss the bride" really mean if you have already gone much futher than this. Not to mention, say you did have sex with the wrong one, now when this relationship splits by having added that much more emotional drama to both parties it becomes a much bigger scar in your life and can send you into a declining sprial. Also if you begin to have sex with multiple women/men before marriage do you believe you will just be able to stop once you've found the right one and have been married for several years and have trained your body to be "ready" for someone new? Why creat the bad habbit? POINT#2- POINT#3-If it is exeptable to have sex before marriage then knowing that not all Diseases can be stoped by preventives then eventually you to will have some type of disease if you "gamble" enough. If your are not ready for marriage then you are not ready for sex. You can never be 100% sure that the preventives will always work. Therefore, everytime you have sex your running the risk of getting the countless number of diseases out there and starting a family. So if you are ready for sex and marriage then GET married. I'll leave with this to think about and wait for your responce. This is just a start to see where I"m comming from. Good Luck! !
Series 1 : Episode 4 : Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate

Alright, my opponent has no intrest in debating this. If he did, he would of used R4 to defend his points, instead of posting two articles he didn't write, that didn't relate anything to the debate. All my refutation the past two rounds has been completely dropped by my opponent. I will give him one more round, which will be allotted to him to actually defend the points I made. Good luck to him. Frankly, this round was a waste of time.
Series 1 : Episode 4 : Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate

I. Con's "88% of votes" argumentI believe our dearest Kiim Jung Un was elected by 100% of the votes, and that's with a population of about 25 million. The problem with the "so called" Syrian elections, is that they weren't the sligt bit democratic. That same 75% of the world that is currently condemning Assad, is also condemning the process of the elections. Here are a couple major issues I have with how Syria conducts itself.- Kurds and other minority groups are limited in speech, protest, and campaigning. This is a strategic way to suppress the minority vote.- All three candidates were either government supporters, or political moderates.- Media rights and other expression and campaigning conduits were severely limited.- The elections went against many OSCE regulations.- Ballots were not availiable (As in banned by the government) from the refugees outside of the country. Who were expected to vote against Assad. - There was no voting boxes in rebel held territory, which is the "safe zone" for anti-government supporters. II. Constant Straw ManIts really frustrating how my opponent keeps putting words in my mouth, and beats around the bush. I never said that all the civilian deaths were killed by Assad (Most of them were though), or that the rebels were not bad people (I don't think most of them are). This is not my argument in the slightest.He can not answer the fundamental question. Will the abdication of Assad de-escalate the conflict? III. Chemical weapons abolishmentOnce again, we see more supposedly unintentional straw man. It does not matter if he's shipping off weapons. The contention is that he's a war criminal, who would most likely face the death penalty were he to go up against the International Court of Justice in Geneva. Do I need to explain why having a war criminal in power is a bad thing? Here's a better representation that shows that war crimes are happening on both sides of the coin, although people are blaming the civilian deaths on Assad. This is not war. Its Kurdish genocide by the Assad regime. IV. Demographic argumentMy opponent attempts to get sympathy points for arguing that minority groups would be opposed to a so called "radical shiite government". Con still wants to make this a "Rebel vs Assad" debate, which it isn't. I'm not buying any of his arguments. He has given us no way of proving that the minority groups (the largest being the kurds, who support Free Syria), will leave the country if the Democratic moderate forces took power.V. Its an American excuse to invade Iran-_-............Well, good debate myy friend, but I believe that any resolution you may of held, is more than negated by now. Good luck in future endeavors, and I hope we get a pluray of fair and honest votes. Viva la Revolution!!!
Series 1 : Episode 4 : Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate

Me and my opponent obviosly disagree that he properly addressed my sources. I would also like to inform the audience, my opponent did not need to copy and paste two sources text to this debate. He should of linked it.In reality, his R4 is only about 3 sentences long. Good luck, and my opponent has made no refutations I can counter rebuttal. Therefore, his resolution is negated.
Series 1 : Episode 4 : Bashar Al-Assad should abdicate

'Alright, my opponent has no intrest in debating this. ' interest* . '. All my refutation the past two rounds has been completely dropped by my opponent. ' I don't know if my opponent is blind or not since I just refuted 95% of his arguments in the previous round while my opponent addresses only a few of mine . I didn't adress the OSCE regulations since that wasn't specific at all and my opponent hasn't made it clear what he is talking about . 'instead of posting two articles he didn't write, that didn't relate anything to the debate. ' These things are called sources , yeah , debaters use sources . Conclusion : My opponent has failed to prove why president Bashar al-Assad should abdicate and I have refuted 95% of my opponents baseless arguments (baseless arguments as he has provided no sources and didn't get into detail explaining them). He has also responded to my arguments with lack of detail , if you take away the little pretty pictures there is not much detail at all . Apart from these things my opponent completly ignored my arguments about the nature of the Syrian Civil War .
Why should we be able to have out mp3s and other electronics out during passing period

ok so lets say ur rihgt and u do do this are you cheating on a test or a assignment Ill answer to both 1. Ok lets assume its a test ok now cheating on test already happens I can sit in any class and watch texting and cheating so your argument is invalid. Also your argument is not on topic because your saying texting in class this debate is not about in class its about passing period. 2. Now lets say its and assignment two senarios a) it's due in that period ok now the argument before results there is still cheating happening and also this is off topic b) lets say its due tomorow then people will cheat after class or via txt message. and again this is off topic because this will happen in class or at home so its off topic because its not during passing perod now again I ask for a valid reason why
Why should we be able to have out mp3s and other electronics out during passing period

you're a technical genius? oh please 2 of my friends are A+ certified and THEY can crack through the school's blocking system anyways it IS possible to do it because they could be texting ON THE WAY to class and with Personal Digital Assistants it isnt that hard to "put something into your calendar" *cough cough* put down the answers *cough cough* and either Infrared beam it or Bluetooth send it to a cell phone or another PDA
Why should we be able to have out mp3s and other electronics out during passing period

Now onto important isuues. The fact of cheating on an assignment is already happening! !! no matter what happens their will be cheating. Also lets look at my argument, During Passing Period, now lets say we were able in order to do what my opponent suggests we would have to get to our locker, get to our class, pull out our electronic devise, and type the answers to someone. All in 5min now i can't even do that and im a technological genius. Now i still whish my opponent to plz bring up a valid reason why we canot
Why should we be able to have out mp3s and other electronics out during passing period

true people CAN learn through music and electronics BUT it can be very easy for cheating especially with today's technology especially with the lyrics mode on the iPod where you can put the lyrics on the iPod and read them as the song plays also with texting people could easily text the answers for an assignment to someone else (note as I said assignment not test) and to conclude the iPod touch with the WiFi capability could make wireless, online cheating more available
Death Penalty

Ok how can you say that it is usual to strap a person down to a table and inject him with poisons that will kill him. how is it usual to strap a person to a chair with sponges up there buts and masks over there face to keep them from vomiting and craping all over the place while your send thousands of volts through there body there is not anything usual about that. when on death row you have a unlimited amout of appeals that are all paid for by our court systems. plus various other expences so yes even an 18 yr old sitting in jail for the rest of there life is cheaper then the death penalty. infact it cost. At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel. On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases. Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs. this came from (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) which actually goes more in debth but it actually cost about 3 times more to put someone to death when innocent people die that is an issue with the death penalty. because if the death penalty was not used then those people would have a chance to prove. the death penalty is too perminate. isnt life enough because studies show that people when kept away from other people go crazy and nuts litterally. and there life is over anyway so this is a worse punishment.
Death Penalty

I suppose I'll simply address your points... Not sure why you challenged ME on this issue, but here goes... >>"-The use of the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual" Execution is hardly an unusual punishment - it can be seen present in history from the very beginning of man. While it may be cruel, it is not cruel AND unusual, and thus fails the two-pronged test to see if it is unconstitutional. Also, the determination of what is cruel and unusual is the responsibility of the legislature and judiciary of the states. However, the Supreme Court has only ruled that there is to be no MANDATORY death penalty. Objectively, from a legal standpoint, capital punishment is constitutional. >>"-it cost more to put people to death then it dose to keep them in jail." Illogical - this is a unilateral statement that does not take into account the age of the individual, which is in fact the determining factor. It costs much more to keep an 18-year old in prison until he dies than to execute him. Also, the fact that there is the possibility of pleading guilty and avoiding the death penalty reduces this argument to nonsense. The easiest way to fight the death penalty is to plead guilty. >>"-Ethically who are we to decide who lives and dies if we execute someone dosent that make us just as bad as them?" We are the executors of social contract, which the accused is a de facto signatory to. Social contract states that some people are such a danger to society that they must be permanently removed for the public good. Ethically, we simply follow the precept of "an eye for an eye" - equal remuneration. >>"-innocent people die!" Yes, that happens. However, that's a problem with the judicial process, not capital punishment - an entirely different debate. >>"-no justice done." Justice is a subjective determination. Objectively, justice is simply fair. An eye for an eye is the ultimate fairness - again, equal remuneration. >>"-another innocent family has to go through the pain of loosing someone" I'm sure this is our fault, not the fault of the murderer convicted and sentenced to death. >>"-life in prison is a more effective deterent " Again - this is a subjective determination. Objectively, the vast majority of people prefer to live than die. >>"-places where the death penalty is used have higher murder rates then states that dont use it" You've performed a wonderful example of the chicken-egg argument fallacy considering causation. It's equally likely that states with higher death rates feel they need the death penalty as an additional deterrent, and states with a low murder rate feel they don't need capital punishment. >>"-it would give a good appearance for the european countries who none of them use it." How compelling. Some European countries are moving towards Socialist Democracies as well. Let's copy the Europeans in politics too because they obviously have things together and are far superior to us. By the way, the EU and the Council of Europe require member states to abolish the death penalty - so even if they wanted to use it, their interest in the benefits of the EU outweigh their interest in capital punishment.
Death Penalty

-The use of the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual -it cost more to put people to death then it dose to keep them in jail. -Ethically who are we to decide who lives and dies if we execute someone dosent that make us just as bad as them? -innocent people die! -no justice done. -another innocent family has to go through the pain of loosing someone -life in prison is a more effective deterent -places where the death penalty is used have higher murder rates then states that dont use it -it would give a good appearance for the european countries who none of them use it.
Beat me in Connect 4, or lose (aka pull off a frenchmoose) trying.

I will try this. |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|_O_|___|___|___| Is this how you post the letters?
Beat me in Connect 4, or lose (aka pull off a frenchmoose) trying.

Rules: This game will be played through PMs or comments, whichever the opponent wishes. First to accept gets to make the first move. The winner of one game will be declared the winner of this debate, and he/she must post the SS so others will know who to vote for. Have fun, good luck, and no asking your siblings for help. Looking forward to this. Copy and paste this: |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|___|___|___| Inspired by a previous debate.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

If it is known that they appear scummy as town, the meta will shift towards not considering their surface level scummy behavior to be indicative of scum. I also haven't argued that they should never be lynched but should be treated as any other player in the game and scumhunted based on the knowledge that they commit generalized scumtells as town.Scumhunting will not be rendered impossible but will be refined to account for such behaviors. Nor will it go out the window.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

F-16 said that policy lynches have a success rate below 50%, but there's no evidence of that. I think it's somewhat self-evident that lynching scummy players nets you have a higher chance of lynching scum than random. That's the point of scumhunting. To find scummy players. When someone's intentionally scummy without a pro-town purpose, they appear scummy. That means chance of hitting scum under this policy is equal to chance of hitting scum when scumhunting as usual.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

Intentionally playing scummy with no pro-town purpose is hurts Town because it"s indistinguishable from scum who actually are scummy. It makes it impossible to scumhunt, and it makes it more likely that you"ll be mislynched. These are serious sins. I agree that scumhunting should be the main tool for lynching. But when someone is intentionally scummy without a pro-town purpose, they should be lynched. Otherwise, scum can just claim they're "intentionally scummy," and scumhunting goes out window
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

In any game, town must persue strategies that will help them win that particular game. When people play on forums, they expect the opposing team to give their best.Lynching for any reason outside of game-related content helps scum more than town. It minimizes scumhunting which is a powerful tool in catching scum that nets a significantly better rate of scum lynches than random lynches. The possibility of a scum lynch when a player is lynched on policy is below 50%.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

Resolution: On balance, it is preferable to not policy lynch players in mafia games.Con must show that on balance, it is preferable to policy-lynch some types of play in mafia games and that it must be preferred over not policy lynching. BOP is shared. Whoever proves that their option is better wins. The types of players that Con says it is preferable to policy lynch are those who intentionally play scummy when town to avoid detection when they are scum.500 characters. 5 minutes.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

They can avoid betraying an uninformed perspective by fabricating reads on everyone. Or by not reading the game at all. That would make it impossible to determine whether their perspective is informed or uninformed. When someone only does pro-scum things as both town and scum, you can't tell the difference between their town play and scum play. Scumhunting cannot function in those circumstances. If scum are allowed to do that, they'll never be lynched. Or their lynches will be random.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

The players in question do not know who the scum are and will betray and uninformed perspective of the game. They CANNOT play like scum because they don't know who the scum are. And if town is scumhunting right, they will indentify scummy town from scum. If it is possible for them to be identified, I win the debate because I showed that lynching them is on average worse than scumhunting.
500 Character debate: Policy lynching in mafia games

First, F-16 assumes it's possible to "account for such behaviors." I disagree. When everyone someone does is intentionally pro-scum, it's impossible to account for that behavior. The only way to scumhunt is to assume they're always town, which isn't scumhunting at all. The other problem is that "intentionally scummy" shifts with meta as well. So taking into account behaviors, if possible, won't change anything, because they'll just shift their behavior too.
In defense of sollipsm. There IS no objective reality.

I'm sorry for wasting time for you debate, but I have made an important decision. I hereby declare that I will not participate in this debate or any other debate because of the effects I have been experiencing over the past couple of weeks. Due to my constant attendance in the DDO website, I am foreseeing my constant attendance will be a major distraction in the future because I have been focusing too much on conducting my arguments when I should be focusing on my school work. Also, I have also been experiencing some anxiety and heart issues ever since I joined here. Therefore, I must leave this website for a couple of reasons: 1. I am predicting that the constant attending and participating in this website will be a huge distraction from my education career. 2. I am foreseeing that participating in these debates on this website are becoming hazardous to my health and it will become an issue for my mental and physical health if I continue to debate. 3. I have already acquired the skills I wanted from debating. I am sorry for wasting your time, but hey, at least you have free elo points. I claim forfeiture and concession. Goodbye.
In defense of sollipsm. There IS no objective reality.

I will start. There is no objective reality. There is no WAY of proving there is an objective reality. Con will provide arguements to say that there is an objective reality. Burden of proof is on me to show that the arguements don't hold and don't prove anything.Resoltuion: There is no such thing as objective reality. Nothing exists permanently without conscious awareness. Equal BOP on Con to prove that there is an objective reality. BOP on me to show that the proof doens't hold up.Let's start. Con's turn is next.(note: If I lose this debate, then tell my mom I love her)
In defense of sollipsm. There IS no objective reality.

Thanks for taking the time to debate thus far anyway. Free elo points don't matter since we did equal arguments. One argument from you, one argument from me. I hope you the best in your educational career and your health. Debating can be stressful when you have the choice of just lolling on your bed thinking about things rather than writing them out and debating with others. So yes. However, you don't have to concede this debate if you don't wish to. We have equal arguments. This way, you could have the chance to win the debate even if you leave the debate early. So it's up to you, I don't mind either way. If however, you do not see this and have left DDO already, I will still not take that as forfeiture. Votes expand to you as well. A little advice if you do see this; if you find yourself in a position of stress when studying, take time to rest and relax. I find that when I overwork myself, I am more vulnerable to common colds and illness. In the case of your heart condition, the effects may be more severe. Thanks to all who've read this debate thus far. If you have been skimming, please go back to the top. Sincerely, Adam_Godzilla
musicals are better than normal movies

I see. By preference you prefer it, however that alone doesn't mean they are better. Yes frozen would be boring without the music because it is a boring movie. While it comes down to opinion, if we look at the top grossing films most, and critically claimed films most are non-musicals. Again you said it best yourself with Frozen, musicals use the music as a crutch for what would be a boring, bland film.