BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Looking for someone to argue AGAINST polygamy!

Whether i'm against gay marriage is immaterial, but surely i'm against polygamy. You committed "unknown authority" fallacy as no sources were cited when you stated those definitions of marriage. Also, you committed "appeal to definition" because you relied so much on dictionary's limited definition. Sir, dictionaries don't reason. Moreover, when you assumed that polygamy can happen because slavery which was changed, you're guilty of "appeal to moon" and "weak analogy". Although slavery was acceptable before, it was abolished for war and perhaps by public-spirited reasons. The abolition brought change in the American values. While it was the case with slavery, in polygamy is different. First, reasons to abolish slavery were strong. The country was in civil war, but there are no urgent or deep reasons to allow polygamy. Second, the United States is a christian country, not muslim. The Christian's practice is monogamy. You have a very limited understanding about what sanctity is. You think that because in polygamy, marriages are still allowed that it would not destroy the sanctity of marriage. To be involved alone in polygamous relationship violates the sanctity of marriage. You said legalizing polygamy is an example of how laws change to accommodate moral values. To which I respond, there are no urgent calls to legalize polygamy. Given that in marriage, other people cheat, there is no way that allowing polygamy would solve these problems. You said "if three people truly love each other romantically, they cannot fully share this love because of legal restrictions." This statement is incorrect. Marriage is not the only way to fully express your love to someone, your kind and caring actions are enough. Because you failed to give strong reasons to justify your claim, you gave weak analogies, and you made a lot of incorrect assumptions, the motion falls.
Looking for someone to argue AGAINST polygamy!

2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds will be a rally back and forth, debating claims made by opponent and responding with material as needed. This is my first debate ever so I hope to learn something as well as enjoy myself : ) Statement: Polygamy in the U. S. (just to narrow it down) should be legalized. This is to include any gender, have multiple spouses. I will put a limit of 3 spouses per person to keep it simple. This means a man could have three wives, and each of those wives could have up to two other spouses as well. The semantics are not overly important I believe but if you feel the need to argue them I will engage. And yes, tax breaks, etc, will apply to all individuals involved, with no favoritism between the relationships.
People should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas.

To briefly clarify, I would define public as anywhere that is not at home and there is a lot of people around. 1) People are not responsible. The above fact is a highly obvious one. No one can deny it. We all know that if we had a test coming up that was not for a grade, we obviously would not study for it. If people were responsible, then our world would be litter-free and we'd all recycle. But no. Thus, it is safe to assume that the population in the United States as a whole is not responsible. Seeing this, chewing gum in public is adding to our everyday discomforts. 2) After an irresponsible person chews gum, they will spit it on the ground. Some people have the respect to actually spit in a trash can. But not everyone. Therefore, gum ends up underneath the desks, chairs, and all over the floor. This becomes a real pain. For example, if you grabbed ahold of your chair at school to scoot it forward, you would feel something sticky underneath your hands and feel disgusted that you have touched something coming out of someone's mouth. On the same hand, no one wants a good pair of shoes ruined by the disgusting and unsightly wad of gum underneath their shoe. This creates more work for everybody as they have to work harder to get the gum off of themselves. 3) Gum lowers respect. When your in a public place and you talk to someone, they will think it disgusting if whilst conversing with you, you are smacking very loudly on a piece of gum. Its considered rude, and disrespectful. The sound of loud gum-smacking is a "turn-off". This is also why no one with any self respect or dignity, chews gum when giving an oral presentation. For all the reasons above, I agree with the fact that people should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas. So if your breath really does smell bad, resort to tic-tacs or something.
People should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas.

For a debate on the topic above where you cannot find hard evidence proving your point, then you must resort to personal experience. Half of the things we believe in and debate about are based off of our personal experience. If my opponent states that my arguments were based off of personal experiences, then his were too. Its simple logic. In conclusion, because my points AND attacks were not refuted, they still stand. My opponent has already forfeited his chance to attack my points and my attacks against his attacks, therefore my case still stands, his does not. My opponent has not provided an argument. Therefore, you must vote Pro. Thanks.
People should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas.

I shall respond to my opponent's attacks and points accordingly. 1) My opponent agrees with the fact that people are not respond, yet goes on to say that the United States as a whole IS responsible. Do people not make up the United States? I am looking at the MAJORITY of the population. Why is it that when I look underneath all the desks at my school I see gum spanning the entire bottom-side of it? I have found only ONE or two desks without any gum at all stuck to the bottom of it. It is not true that when we go to the movie theaters, we see gum stuck to the chairs, and the park, gum is stuck on the park benches and trees. We can't judge our actions by EVERY single person, because no one person is alike. Therefore, we can only judge by majority. With my opponent's gum example ("you don't come out with your shoes sticking to the floor"), take murders. Yes, murder rates in some places are high. Do we see dead people piled on the street with no one left alive? 2) My opponent states that "most schools do not permit gum chewing at all on the grounds", then goes on to say "once again you are assuming that most people are throwing their gum on the floor, and not in the trash can". This is a direct contradiction in the first place. If everyone had spit their gum in the trash can as my opponent stated, then why would the gum be banned from the school in the first place? To argue against my opponent's next assertion, that people swallow their gum, we can use our common sense for this one. I'm sure no one is silly enough to swallow their gum. 3) When my opponent states that I am assuming everyone who chews gum is going to disrespect people by smacking Juicy Fruit, I am talking about the majority. And yes, the entire society should be punished if everyone went around smacking gum in their mouths whilst giving important presentations and such. It is because the majority does this that I make this assertion. And with my opponent's example of Timmy stabbing himself with a pencil, no it is not right to ban pencils because of that one incident. But if many other students also begin to start stabbing themselves with pencils, then it becomes and problem and is safer for the population for pencils to be banned. Same thing with gum; less drastic. I will now move on to attack my opponent's points. 1) If we were all to think as how my opponent pointed out, then our world would be a very messy place indeed. Yes, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but does that mean we can go up to, say, your teacher, and say "F*CK YOU B*TCH" ? No. Rather, freedom of speech guarantees us the right to talk freely about our government. Then in school, students would be roaming free pulling knives on each other. Under my opponent's stance, taking away our ability to use knives would be a violation of our individual rights. 2) To this point, I would like to use the link that member leet4A1 posted in the comments section of this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... Because I have successfully refuted and upheld my side of this debate, I continue to affirm. To my opponent: "disallow" sure is an interesting word...
Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 in US

Well those people being stupid isn't going to change they will always be stupid so why punish the majority for the stupidity of the few? The age should basically be lowered on the simple fact of if I am an adult when I turn 18 I should have the choice to destroy my body with whatever I want to. Also most people have had alcohol before they turn twenty one anyway so why not lower the drinking age to cut down on legal cost of charging people between 18 and 20 with minor consumption charges?
Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 in US

I'm not quite sure how much we spend on drug education for kids but I'm certain that is not a major factor of our education system; but just because we lower drinking age doesn't means we will stop having drug education for kids. You are right, there will always be someone stupid... Which is an argument for maintaining our drinking age. As for negative stigma, I can argue that more people will drink more if we view it positively. Germany has lower drinking age but Hong Kong has a higher driving age... It doesn't matter since they have a fully functional public transit; we don't so too bad for us... Haha, I guess binge drinking might be a way to promote more responsible drinkers, but unless we do that first I don't think it is a good idea to lower drinking age. Thank you for you response and great points!
Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 in US

Your point of lack of education has some merit to it but if we did not spend millions of dollars telling kids don't do drugs and spent that money on educating them on how to be better people in making decisions we wouldn't have as many problems with drunk driving. If they have more education on making responsible decisions maybe they wouldn't drive drunk, but there is always someone to be stupid. If we didn't put such a stigma on drinking as a country as we do and more of a negative stigma on drunk driving maybe we could correct this problem. In foreign countries that you noted like Germany the drinking age is lower then the legal driving age. Those countries also have a lot of public transit. Back to the lower legal drinking age in those countries those kids are brought up drinking so those countries have less teens binge drinking. Binge drinking is the biggest issue here if people are taught how to drink responsibly then they won't drink and drive and there may also be less deaths by alcohol poisoning because less people would drink to get drunk and more to enjoy the drink.
Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 in US

While I would love to live a free country where any adults are allowed to consume alcohol (or any drugs, as a matter of fact) at will, I argue against the proposition as I don't believe that the United States of America is ready for a policy yet because: 1. Lack of education - the outcome of US education system is consistently below the rest of the developed nations; while we would all like to think that our "adults" are informed and responsible, the fact is that our K-12 is not preparing our young adults properly in critical thinking and taking responsibilities. 2. Lack of public transportation - this is the main argument for our current drinking age. Young adults between the age of 18 and 21 are much more likely to be involved in car accidents. And given the fact that DUI is the leading cause of car accident deaths, in addition to the necessity of driving within much of the country, it is thus reasonable to impose such restriction on young drivers. .. After all, they won't just be harming themselves, but they can kill a responsible driver like you and me! 3. Lack of proper driving training - in places such as Germany and Hong Kong, drivers are subjected to extensive training that require much longer length and proven ability. Young drivers do not need another legal way to drive worse in this country until they have at least a few years of driving experience. Thank you again and I'm looking forward to your response!
Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

Debate for donald.kellerRules1. over 3000 ELO to vote, and accept.2. No FF unless same number3. No trolling4. No kritiks, semantics Strucuture1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaiveDefinitionsSmoking: Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars. Ban: A stop to.Begin!
should fat people be devided into fatty and creamy

So youre Right, I didnt mentioned them, Cause for me they are no human, They are comparable with dogs you cock. YOu often talked About stuff like aligators, But how is this in Connections to fat people. Nowadays in our Society we can't say im proud to be a creamy fatty fatass fatboy. See what I mean. You just didnt talk at all About the Advantages of creamy and fatty fat bois. My next Argument is that you are dumb and I don't like you. For sure you don't have any Friends and you smell like poopoo.
should fat people be devided into fatty and creamy

To begin the speech, I just wanted to welcome everyone who arrived on this debate. Congratulations, You are officially weird. Next I want to rebuttal your Argument: First of all you didn't mentioned Muslims and Kanax in your differentiations of peoples. Your Argument was literally ununderstandable. We should call fat People fat, Because they are just so fat, Dude noone can complain easy peasy Lemon squeezy sorry bro but you literally messed it up mate cya later aligator
should fat people be devided into fatty and creamy

so first of all hi. I am Christ and I am proud of it. So we differentiate todays People in, Latinos, Whites, Aboriginies or negromen. But what we also do is that we call fat People just fat. Whats wrong with mankind. Basically there are fats who like eat fatty stuff like burgers and than there are fats who like creamy stuff like ice cream. Recognize them! You don't call some black people Latinos. So stop calling creamy fatties "fat" you dickheades
Contradiction Debate

1. Who are you going for in the GOP?2. Do you like anime or animation?3. Do you like Dragon Ball Z or Family Guy?4. Are you racsist?5. Do you like the KKK?6. What's your opion on Affermative action?7. Are you Conservative or Liberal?8. Do you believe in Global Warming?9. What's your opion on hockey?10. What's your opion on Targeted Killings?
"Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens sucks

My opponent has failed to realize that he is a suck. Now on to more important matters. Why, in some Santa state, would you have livers without the Sky Demon? WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU??!!??!! I can't even poopl on a carpet in peace anymore, you horse sponge wiper. My pudding SPEAKS!!! Holy shi*! what time is it in Norway? Then I see your big lady parts dingling on my door step and I wonder how much of the meth man you seen tuhday, son! TU HUMUNCULUM STULIT ES!!! I zapped a squirrel with a Porche nast butt andn nobody gave me and type of glitter food. Listen to the holes!!! My opponent has failed to realize that he is a suck. Now on to more important matters. Why, in some Santa state, would you have livers without the Sky Demon? WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU??!!??!! I can't even poop on a carpet in peace anymore, you horse sponge wiper. My pudding SPEAKS!!! Holy sh*t! What time is it in Norway? Then I see your big lady parts dingling on my door step and I wonder how much of the meth man you seen tuhday, son! TU HUMUNCULUM STULIT ES!!! I zapped a squirrel with a Porche nasty gourd and nobody gave me and type of glitter food. Listen to the holes!!!
"Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens sucks

Because my opponent is a d*ckhead, he sucks at debating. Although pretty d*mn funny, the Patypus does not know that stacking boxes is a tradition for Charlie's family on Boxing Day. Also, how could you mention Zebra pools when Steve is cutting Liver into mattresses. That is just insensitive. Furthermore, Pip sucks. He is a whiney b*tch who wants everything pretty much handed to him and than gets it. How realistic! Next debate we will talk about Fahrenheit 451.
"Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens sucks

Now, I will discuss. There is a distinct lack of citrus in my opponent's response. However, I'll give him a double-bypass bonus points and let it go for now. So, here's my thing with it, it was really good. Like, the words that Charlie put on the paper all those moons ago were tots and crabby goodness. They drool with satifaction of the boxes that they stacked on July 4, and that makes me really want to read it, yeah. Also, Charlie had like an awesome beard peice, it had zebra pools and everything. So yeah, it was good?
"Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens sucks

Thank you Patrick aka Pat aka Pat-Man aka the patypus (get it?) So why does Great Expectations suck? Because all it is is one kid complaining the whole freakin time. That's right, barely a plot, there really isn't a conflict anywhere, and the main character annoys the crap out of everyone. Literally, all this kid does is complain about, and I quote, "I want to be a gentleman." And check this, it happens. Some random a*s guy randomly pays for him to become a gentleman. Then he complains about a girl he likes who doesn't like him back. I can feel the tears coming on. What a sad story that has never happened to anyone ever before. Then the girl treats him like dirt because all he does is whine. When he confesses his love to her, she looks at him with a blank stare and could give less f*cks. I digress, so this kid becomes rich because some guy gives him money, then he spends all his money putting himself in debt, and his poor family that he abandoned so he could be selfish and rich pays off pretty much all of his debts. Even after that, he abandons his family again so he could work with his BFF/ terribly named friend, Herbert. This pretty much sums up this book. In less than 2000 characters, I, Matt Harrison, wrote what it took Charles Dickens years to write.
"Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens sucks

I is of my wholesome opinion that the book, Great Expectations, is a quality piece of classic literature. While It may not be one with tons of suspense and action, the plot development between characters and changes in the main character's life make it an interesting read. I accept the challenge. AVE. NOS MORITURI TE SALVTANT. P.S. Why is there an unnecessary quotation mark in the middle of your sentence? Just wondering.
Baptism into Christ is the point of salvation, not any time before.

Baptism is the point that a sinner gets into contact with the blood of Christ, I showed that we are baptized (according to the Scripture) into Christ Death Burial and Resurrection, and this is obeying the gospel of Christ, God's power to save. According to the letter sent to the area of Galatia. The Apostle Paul Writes in 3:27, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. ." We are Baptized into Christ. Notice the Importance of Location, Eph 1:7, In him we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins, According to the riches of His Grace. " Location, Location, Location. Forgiveness of sins is only found "IN CHRIST" you can never receive Grace, if you are outside of Christ. The only way inside Christ is found in The above scripture Galatians 3:27. Rom 6:3-4, "Into" a simple word and yet of Most powerful word. The bible teaches that when a person is baptized into Christ, 1 that they Get into Christ where redemption and grace are. 2 that they Obey the Gospel of Christ, which is God's power to Save 3. that they Get into contact with the blood and are washed by it. 4. that they Received the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. that they Get forgiveness of their sins 6. that theyGet clothed with Christ, Anything less then baptism is a work salvation, for you are trying to work your way into heaven, Yes belief alone is working your way into heaven. For if a person is saved before they are baptized they are saved before they: 1. they are saved before they get washed by the blood of Jesus. 2. they are saved before they Get into Christ. 3. they are saved before they Obey the Gospel of Christ 4. they are saved before they Received the gift of Christ. 5. they are saved before they Get their sins forgiven. 6 they are saved before they Get clothed with Christ. Belief alone is a work a salvation, in which God Condemns in Eph. 2:8-9. Thanks for the debate, I challenge you to become a Christian, by believing God enough to repent and Be Baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. You have cursed on this site and stand for a wrong doctrine. Please become a Christian. In Christ Sword master
Baptism into Christ is the point of salvation, not any time before.

It appears to me that you re not even a Christian. Why did you want this debate? It takes time to prepare these teachings. When you can say it does not matter, that is not what God says. in 2thess 1:8-9 teaches not only are unbelievers hell bound, But Those who do not obey the Gospel of Christ. I am sorry that you do not take your eternal destiny so lightly. I know evolution has destroyed the faith of many. The Devil produces a lot of lies. They have been aimed at people just like your self. Please don't think that because you do not understand God or you just don't believe in God that is a good excuse. Please lets talk farther about your soul Jesus Died for you, for you honey and that means you are worth saving. So Please answer me these questions. 1. If you were to die right now, do you know beyond a shadow an doubt that you wold make it to heaven? 2. If so why do you think that? 3. are you interested in farther Study?
Navi shouldn't have awaken Link up.

TUF's P1:Ganon could only shift into his other form with the Triforce of Power. There is no evidence Ganon had immorality with the Triforce. 1. The Deku tree was dying from the curse placed on him. Upon Deku's death, access to Kokiri's Emerald would have been far too easy for him."The Kokiri's Emerald is held by the Great Deku Tree and the Kokiri in the Kokiri Forest. WhenGanondorf came to steal the Emerald, the tree refused to hand it over. In return, Ganondorf curses the tree with Queen Gohma and her evil underlings."And what was Ganon waiting for? If he could, why didn't he take it in the first place? 2. Ganondorf cut of the Goron's food supply, and put their lair under threat of death with his curse. Eventually Darunia would have had to sacrifice the stones, or risk him, and his race dying off over Goron's Ruby.False. Gorons literallly lived on top of their food source. When the Gorons stop acting like pansys and ate normal rocks, they would live. BAM. Ruby saved.3. And finally Ganondorf had plans laid out for Zora's stone as well. Ganondorf has trapped Zora in Lord Jabu-Jabu until she bargained the stone, and in this scenario, it is VERY likely to believe that she might have given it to him had Link not saved her.No. Ruto been in Jabu-Jabu before. And it wasn't Ganon who put her in there. Yes. So? This argument works in my favor, because without the master sword Ganondorf could not have been defeated. (side note, we should stop calling him Gerudo as opposed to Ganondorf HIS REAL name, as Gerudo is just his race. That's like calling a black person "Blackie" instead of their real name.)Assupmtion. Ganon wasn't THAT tough before he got the Triforce.Sorry for the lack of arguments. I feel sick.