BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theme Song Debate!

http://www.youtube.com... Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Heroes in a half-shell Turtle power! They're the world's most fearsome fighting team (We're really hip! ) They're heroes in a half-shell and they're green (Hey - get a grip! ) When the evil Shredder attacks These Turtle boys don't cut him no slack! Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Splinter taught them to be ninja teens (He's a radical rat! ) Leonardo leads, Donatello does machines (That's a fact, Jack! ) Raphael is cool but crude (Gimme a break! ) Michaelangelo is a party dude (Party! ) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Heroes in a half shell Turtle power! More lyrics: . http://www.lyricsmania.com... All about Teenage Mutant+Ninja+Turtles: . http://www.musictory.com...
Theme Song Debate!

This debate is very similar to my two other music ones, except this time it's exclusive to theme songs. So what you do is post a theme song on each round (as your argument) your arguments will include a video of the song and the lyrics. The first round is not for acceptance. Below I will be posting a theme song and after that, for my opponent's argument, he/she will post a different theme song. This will continue on each round. If the theme song has a full version that is not played on each episode (the episodes play a shorter version), post the full version. My below theme song has a full version, I will post it. Here we go: http://www.youtube.com... Making your way in the world todayTakes everything you've gotTaking a break from all your worriesSure would help a lotWouldn't you like to get away?All those nights when you've got no lightsThe check is in the mailAnd your little angel hung the cat up by its tailAnd your third fiance didn't showSometimes you wanna go...Where everybody knows your name,And they're always glad you cameYou wanna be where you can seeOur troubles are all the sameYou wanna be where everybody knows your name.Roll out of bed Mr. Coffee's deadThe morning's looking brightAnd your shrink ran off to EuropeAnd didn't even write.And your husband wants to be a girlBe glad there's one place in the worldWhere everybody knows your name,And they're always glad you cameYou wanna go where people knowPeople are all the same. You wanna go where everybody knows your name.Where everybody knows your nameAnd they're always glad you came. (x3)
Women have the right to free contraception

I'd like to start out by thanking my opponent for her argument and this debate. It's like 4AM where I live an my Internet is being stupid, so I'll try to remain civil, but anything sarcastic that I say is not personal, and I'm sure the voters will call me out on it,So let's begin... I will again address all of the things in your argument in the order you said them."Conservatives like you are awlways putting money before people, and you sent me this debate" I sent you this debate because you seemed passionate about the topic and I was just starting to learn about healthcare. And I'm not going to address the Ad hominem. "Where is that responsibility you conbservatives are awlays bragging about."... I'm just not even gonna... Does this have anything to do with the resolution? "You have not answered my question, so I will ask again: Should low income women who cannot afford contraception be forced to give birth?"I actually did answer your question in my R3 argument. I gave the answer it's own line last time and I'll do it again.No.But you would have had to read my argument to see that, and your "rebuttals" tell me you really didn't have time for that. I also asked you four questions last round, and you answered none of them. "Saying that contraception is not a right is like saying that women should be forced to give birth." Ridiculously erroneous logic. It assumes that all women have sex without protection and that it's our fault they did. I also debunked this kind of saying in my last round, so I'll leave you to reading that argument."People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People who value money first should not complain when liberals call them on it." DING DING DING! Congratulations for-1. Reusing a point I already debunked2. Proving my pointLet me explain. If you can choose what to do with your body, you can choose to bang everything that moves without a condom, or you can choose not to! AND WHY SHOULD ANYBODY BUT YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHOICE???"People who value money first should not complain when liberals call them on it."See question number four from last round. You didn't even answer it, instead opting to point out the #irony.You know, the #irony that doesn't exist!Again, thanks for the debate, but I'd appreciate it if you read my arguments.
Women have the right to free contraception

Conservatives like you are awlways putting money before people, and you sent me this debate. Where is that responsibility you conbservatives are awlays bragging about. You have not answered my question, so I will ask again: Should low income women who cannot afford contraception be forced to give birth? Saying that contraception is not a right is like saying that women should be forced to give birth. People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People who value money first should not complain when liberals call them on it. #irony
Women have the right to free contraception

Thanks for your argument, Pro. I will address each statement in order. "There you go putting money before people like a conservative or libertarian would."There is no better way to piss off a debater than to be like- "well you're wrong because you did something a conservative would do" It's called Ad hominem, and you actually can be reported for it. I'll contain myself, though, and defend myself, and conservative/libertarians from this statement. "So you are saying that women who cannot afford contraception should be forced to give birth?"Well, simply put...No.Forget about getting pregnant. Nobody is forcing you to have sex. Nobody is forcing you to do it without a condom. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex! Please justify why you need to have sex. If you can do that, justify how you and your partner cant come up with $9 per month for birth control. The big point here is that you don't need to have sex! Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [1].I put forth two questions for my opponent in response to this statement: Why do you NEED to have sex without a condom?Why do other people NEED to pay $9 for your stuff?Let's continue, shall we? "People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. My body, my right to choose."It's also your responsibility to pay. Having a body does not give you an excuse to sleep around without protection, nor does it give you a right to other people's stuff. One question for you here:Who cares more about people: Conservatives, who want them to keep their money and not waste it on other people, or liberals, who want other people to pay for their mistakes? "If I do not want to be pregnant, you have no right to force me" Edit: "I don't have to bang everything that moves!"Honestly, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex."All conservatives care about is money. Liberals care about people."Unsourced Ad hominem. I'm not even gonna address this...I await my opponents next argument.Source1) http://waitingtillmarriage.org...
Women have the right to free contraception

I'd like to open by thanking my opponent for this debate. It's my first of this kind, so I'll try to make it good.Contention 1: The Moral ArgumentWhy should someone else have to, under any circumstance, pay for your things? It's not their fault that you are low income, nor is it their responsibility to take care of you. Contention 2: The Financial ArgumentIt's dirt cheap. Seriously, there are Targets selling contraception at a rate that would cost one $9 per month [1]. Here's a fact: If you're at America's poverty line, you're better off than most of the rest of the world [2]. Contention 3: The one you've heard beforeDon't want to have kids? Don't have sex. The argument has been, is, and will be infallible. The choice is ultimately yours to have sex. It's your choice to do it without a condom. It's your choice to admit you've made a bad decision and own up to it.Contention 4: The anti-entitlement argument:Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made.*when I say "you," I'm not talking about anyone in particular.Looking forward to my opponent's argument.Sources1) http://www.theblaze.com...2) http://www.forbes.com...
Women have the right to free contraception

I should preface my argument with this: I am actually not arguing for free contraception unless someone is low income. My argument is that contraception should be affordable. If someone can pay, they should, but if they cannot, it should be covered by welfare. Denying contraception forces people to have children they are not ready for. Pregnancy would make me suicidal, and I am low income. Should I be forced to give birth? I am not accusing you, I am just saying what I believe. Thanks for the debate, I was bored for a while.
Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges

Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. "Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay..." The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. "[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students." The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.
Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges

Resolved: "Student financial aid should not go to for-profit colleges." Definitions: 1. Student financial aid: All grants, loans, and scholarships provided by the U.S. Gov't. 2. For-profit colleges: The definition should be self-evident. This debate shall proceed as follows: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Closing arguments. Rules: 1. Forfeiture constitutes concession and, thereby, loss of the debate. 2. Kritiks are strictly prohibited; arguments must be germane to the resolution. 3. All sources must be cited using the endnote format. Ex. "... [Insert Text] ..." [1] [1] "... [Insert Citation or URL] ..." 4. No more than three new arguments may be presented in a single round. 5. All arguments must be addressed. With the rules established, I look forward to a hearty debate. - Mr. Speaker
Palestines should have the jews kicked out of Israel because it is their homeland

I do agree that Arabs treat Jews badly in Arabic countries not named Israel, however, the Jews treat the Palestinians just as bad if not worse. The Jews don"t kick them out, they just build a wall around the Palestinians to kick them enclosed in their own area, not to keep them out but to keep them in. Jews are living freely in Israel but the Palestinians aren"t, unless you consider being walled in freedom. Jews are allowed a police force and a military force, can you guess who don"t have either of these? That"s right the Palestinians. It wasn"t like the Jews conquered Israel, they were forced back as refugees with the only place to go from the European countries. Israel was Palestinian until the British declared it a homeland for the Jews to go to. During the six day war in 1967, Jews took over Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), Golan Heights (Syria), Gaza Strip (Palestine), and West Bank (Palestine). The Jews currently occupy two of those today, and just recently gave Gaza Strip back to Palestinians, which was Palestinian anyways. U.S. brokered a deal between Egypt and Jews to give back Sinai Peninsula and Egypt agreed to recognize the state of Israel with U.S. agreed to pay both parties a combined 4.5 million per year to keep the peace. Golan Heights is part of Israel now and it has no desire to go back to Syrian rule. West Bank is still held by Jews to this day from the Palestinians. Palestinians want to go back to the "green line" but Jews only want to give up Gaza Strip and at the most 91% of West Bank over the next 25 years, keeping 9% for security. Jews want Israeli sovereignty over all Jerusalem and the Palestinians want all of east Jerusalem based on the "green line" but giving Jewish quarter under Israeli control (located in East Jerusalem) but not Israeli sovereignty. So the Palestinians are willing to share the "Temple Mount" but the Jews aren"t willing to share which is the exact opposite you are saying. Palestinians want their refugees to be able to come back to Palestine, but the Jews aren"t willing to let them because it would change the demographics of Israel. Jews security demands the control of Palestinian airspace, the right to deploy troops in the Palestinian state, have an international force in the Jordan Valley, and demilitarization of the Palestinian state.
Palestines should have the jews kicked out of Israel because it is their homeland

I'm not saying that Palestinian people should not be aloud to live anywhere actually Israel treats the Palestinian people way better then the Arab countries around them treat Jews that live in those country. Israel does not kick out Palestinians unless a Palestinian does something against Israel or try's to kill somone they can live freely and they are treated fine. Israel is a very diverse country and many people live their happily. Israel is also the only state where Jewish people can live freely besides America. Their are many many country's where Palestinian people and Islamic people can live freely. The Jews have form nothing wrong and they should not be kicked out of their only country. The Jewish people are normal people just like Palestinian people or Islamic people. They deserve a nation. The Jews have done way less wrong then the surrounding Arab nations. Even America has its limits if the Jews are kicked out of Israel they will have nowhere to go and they will not have a home. Kicking the Jews out of Israel would call for the death of almost an entire religion. The difference between the Arab nations and Israel is that the Arab nations are upswing their people to protect their misles. They put their missles in hospitals and in shool. Israel on the other hand has the iron dome. Israel uses its missles to protect their people. Constantly Israel is bombed by Arab nations and Israel does not bomb back they try to create peace treaty and they don't want to have more and more wars. Listen to me the Jews have done far less the the Arabs have. Ever done the Jews have created Israel it has had the greatest inventions in the world the phone was created in Israel. The laptop was created in Israel. The soda stream was created in Israel. And many more things. Water purifying mechanisms were created in Israel but these were all created by the Jews living in Israel.
Palestines should have the jews kicked out of Israel because it is their homeland

Think of this you have just witnessed the killing of 6 million of you own people. Your homes have been destroyed and your family's have been killed it is just you now. You don't have any where to go except for America and even America has its limits. So you and the rest of your people have to create your own country. This is what happened to the Jews in the 1930's during the end of world war two and the holocaust. With out homes to live in more than 5 million Jews had to create their own country. They spent years talking to the UN about making a country in Israel. The first plan was to have have the country Israel for the Jews and the other half Palestine for the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not accept the. The Jews ended up getting most of Israel and on the day they were declared a country a war started. Israel did not yet have a military. Around half of the people fighting in their military were under 20. Israel was attacked by all 6 of their surrounding neighbors they ended up winning the war with in 6 days. Look it up it is called The Six Day War for a reason. Israel is not just a Jewish nation, it is the only nation besides America where Jews can live freely with out having the threat of being kicked out. Israel contains many Religious land marks. Israel does not destroy these they respect them and let the people of those religions use them. Unlike other countries the Jews are respectful and don't try to destroy a part of a religion that has nothing to do with their own. If the Palestine take back Israel the Jews will have nowhere to live. I'm not saying that Palestinians can't live in Israel but they should not kick out the Jews. The Jews actually allow Palestinians to live in Israel.
Palestines should have the jews kicked out of Israel because it is their homeland

I am Pro/For the Palestines, they deserve to have Israel as their homeland over the jews that now occupy all of Israel. This includes Gaza ( which they already have ) and West Bank. I will exclude Gohan Height because that's actually Syria's land. Terms will be: showing proof thru history and religion why either side deserve Israel more then the other. What would be required for you (Con/Against) to reconsider your position?
LD Debate: Attorney-Client Privilege

Resolved: In the United States' criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege. Rules: (1) This debate must be in Lincoln-Douglas Debate format as laid out by the NFL and NCFL (don't accept if you are unaware of what this means), (2) no plans, "kritiks," counterplans, theory arguments, presumption arguments, or tautologies should be presented, (3) there is no burden of solvency, and no need for absolute proof. Round 1: Pro will present his/her constructive case. Round 2: I will offer my constructive case, and rebut Pro's case. Pro will rebut my case and defend his/her own. Round 3: Rebuttals Continue Round 4: I will offer my closing arguments. Pro will not make arguments--Pro's post will read exactly as follows: "The End." Both sides may offer such definitions as they wish to clarify the round. Both sides may offer competing definitions, and there shall be no pre-debate presumption in favor of one side's definitions over the other. I look forward to this debate--thanks in advance for accepting. After this debate, I will be taking a one week hiatus, so I truly hope this will be an excellent round before my DDO break!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen

Thank you for the open challenge Pro! This is indeed a serious topic, and needs to be taken as seriously as an imminent bolloid impact, therefore I will be arguing in favor of the resolution. It's not a question of if, but a question of when the Zombie Apocalypse will occur. Definitions & Clarifications: I don't strictly agree with Pro's definition of 'Zombie'. Which she suggested in the comments to be: "The body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose" I will be not be strictly arguing for a supernatural force for one, as a naturalistic one (particularly an advanced pathogen such as that depicted in 'I am Legend') and nor will I be strictly be arguing for a mute/will-less individual. There may be situations where a zombie may appear vocal and with some sense of purpose despite losing it's 'Human' conciousness. I would like Pro to clarify this issue, if she accepts it then great, if not then I will have to change my angle of argumentation. Back to pro for her opening arguments!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen

Be it resolved that: the zombie apocalypse will happen. I would like this to be a serious debate, so no trolling please. My only rule is that my opponent cannot use Max Brooks as a legitimate source, since he doesn't have a PhD on zombies. If this does happen, however, I request that voters please take note and vote for me. Format: Round 1, acceptance Round 2, claims Round 3, rebuttals Round 4, rebuild and voting issues Although this is a serious debate, i want all involved to have fun, sooo.... Good luck and over to my opponent!!! ^_^
Banning on Online Forums

I think that when you get banned form what ever forum you are on, at least get banned for a good and legit reason. I was recently banned from a third party downloading forum with the reason being "Goof ball". I may have been confused and such and may have posted stating twice about the same thing, but is that a worthy reason to be banned with the reason being "Goof ball"? I can't access the forum anymore but you can. You can look up my profile and see my posts. My user name is Britkitfrancis. http://railworksamerica.com...