BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should receive vaccinations.

My opponent has forfeited the last round, so all of my arguments flow through. However, I have been reading the comments, and some people seem to have misunderstood the herd immunity point, and the resolution itself. So, I will elaborate. Herd Immunity: Some people have children who physically cannot get vaccinated, such as if they have a condition that doesn't allow it. Well, this is all the more reason for other people to get vaccinated: herd immunity. If nobody near them has the disease, how are they going to get it? Of course, they still can contract the disease, but the chances are much lower. So, we need to get vaccinated to protect others. The Resolution: The resolution of this debate is: Children should get vaccinations. It is not: The government should force children to get vaccinations. It is an easy resolution that just means that it is in the most childrens's best interest to get vaccinated. Also, I want to note that although it is a conduct violation to forfeit, it is a MAJOR conduct violation to bring up new points or refutations in the final round, especially when you are the final speaker. As such, anything he says that brings up any new concepts in the coming round should be disregarded. In fact, the only round that you are allowed to bring up new refutations is the argument after the points are posted. I noted at the beginning that one should not vote solely on forfeiture, but what I meant by this is that one should not quickly scroll through the debate, see that my opponent forfeited and then vote only on that. So, the conduct vote still goes to me. Now I will sum up this debate. I have won. Here is the reason for your full decision in my favor: 1. I have refuted all of my opponent's points and all of mine were conceded. 2. I have won on spelling and grammar because I have not made a single mistake on spelling and grammar whereas my opponent seemed to feel the need to capitalize every word in his most recent round to the point some of it was almost incoherent. 3. I have won on sources because I provided sources in my 3rd round whereas my opponent never did. 4. I have won on conduct because my opponent forfeited a round (possibly 2). 5. I have won on all fronts and therefore, every vote should be 7 points to me.
Children should receive vaccinations.

First off, let me make a quick clarification. The rate of getting ill was NOT less before vaccines, in the "olden days." My opponent seems to have forgotten my point about smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, and so on. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the measles vaccine alone saves about 1 million lives every year. Second, vaccines don't make the immune system weaker. The way most vaccines work is allowing the immune system to create an antigen to the disease in question. According to the Center for Disease Control, the adverse effects of vaccines are nearly nonexistent, and children are strongly recommended for vaccines. Perhaps some vaccines HAVE been removed from the market. My response to this is: so what? Anything could be recalled. Your drinking water MIGHT be turned off because it's contaminated and filtered. Does this mean you'll never drink water? The situation is the same with vaccines. If you want to stay healthy, you have to take the slight risk that the vaccine is not entirely perfect. His supposition that vaccines give only adverse affects (provided in his conclusion paragraph) is unsupported and entirely refuted by my point that the measles vaccine alone saves a million lives a year. In conclusion, I have not yet seen a single legitimate point against vaccines. Thus, I affirm.
Children should receive vaccinations.

Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.
Children should receive vaccinations.

In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.
Mar./Apr. LD topic

So, even though I'll go through my opponent's grievances and adress them, they should all just be read as "I concede. Vote pro." Disregard my warrants for protecting innocents Just because your case has warrants, it doesn't mean you automatically win. You have to be able to argue those warrants. Disregard him saying that everything is permissible and contradicting himself... False, there's no contradiction. It's linking into your case, not mine. If it were linking into my case, you may have a legitimate gripe, but then couldn't you just use this as an argument and stop whining? Disregard that his entire case looks like it was organized by a five year old Looking past the blatant ad hom, it's actually pretty easily organized. You have observations -> Value/Framework -> Warrants for the framework (what you thought were my contentions -> Criterion -> Contentions -> Underview. Learn 2 read. Disregard that he didn't have the common courtesy... Bollucks, now you're just butt-hurt. Ignoring the fact that I clearly said in the comments to look for where I say MY COTNENTION IS (which is probably a good hint my contentions are about to start), they're pretty clearly labeled in my case, if you had read it that is. Disregard that I very clearly warrant why we should protect lives at the top of my case... Again, warrants don't mean you auto-win. You actually have to argue (shocker, I know!) (he maintains that I did not) Whoa! Hold the f*ck up. Where did I say you never warranted protecting innocents? Disregard that under his framework Hitler- Why does everyone use the bad Holocaust argument against theories of relative morality? No, my case doesn't justify the Holocaust. Relative morality means that we just have to call into question what makes something moral or immoral on a personal level. This doesn't mean that the Holocaust was moral (I can still relatively believe that it was immoral), but it does prove that anything can be PERMISSIBLE. Permissibility and Morality are two entirely seperate concepts. Disregard that it makes no logical sense to value morality and say "wait it doesn't exist" That awkward moment where I never said that anywhere... So in the end, I apologize that my opponent is butt-hurt and is raging unnecessarily, but for real, grow up. Argue it out like an adult instead of pouting like a 4 year old. With that, I urge an affirmative vote due to the fact that he conceded.
Mar./Apr. LD topic

Give him the ballot. I don't even care. Disregard my warrants for protecting innocents. Disregard him saying that everything is permissible and then contradicting himself and using the DoDE to determine what is moral (at least be consistent). Disregard that his entire case looks like it was organized by a five-year old. Disregard that he didn't have the common courtesy to point out where his contentions were so I could effectively refute. Disregard that I very clearly warrant why we should protect lives at the top of my case (he maintains that I did not). Disregard that under his framework, Hitler was a pretty sweet guy and the Jews were on a diminished moral highground. Disregard that it makes no logical sense to value morality, and then say "wait it doesn't exist."Give him the ballot. Even if you were as confused as I am.
The WII's processer is made of wheat and acorns

Hello, I am XStrikeX, representing the con or opposition side of this debate, stating that the Wii's processor is not made of, as my opponent says, wheat nor acorns. I'd first like my opponent to clarify: 1. The topic clearly states that the Wii processor is made of wheat and acorns, so why are you arguing about cheese and wombat juice? 2. Are you talking about the video game console Wii, or some strange acronym since you posted the topic to be WII? If my opponent is talking about the video game console, here are my points. Contentions 1. The Wii processor is clearly not made of edible foods. The Wii is a console that takes gaming to a new level. It involves games using a Wii remote, that does not have to be connected to the console like other former gaming systems, but instead can be waved around without a connecting wire. If the Wii processor was made of acorns and wheat, it could not at all function properly or play games properly. However, it does and the Wii is extremely popular, which will lead to my second point. 2. If the Wii was "useless," as my opponent has stated, no one would use their money to purchase such a product. However, it sold out wildly when it was released and the United States even saw a shortage on Wii products. 3. If the Wii was made of acorns and wheat, it could not at all process video games or display them on the screen. However, Wii's do allow gameplay and are quite fun. Look at this video I posted above to see that the construction of a Wii processor is really complex and not composed of wheat or acorns. http://www.youtube.com... As I have just proven, Wii processors are not made of wheat and acorns. :-|
The WII's processer is made of wheat and acorns

WII does not stand for World War II, Frenchmoose... That would be WWII. Hence, the second w for war. Rebuttal My opponent has stated that I have no proof of him shoving waffles into his XBox... Well, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to bring in your own experiences as they could be false and untrue, but seeing as he did, I shall too. I own an XBox. My best friend owns an XBox. And my neighbor owns an XBox. We opened all of them and voila, no waffles at all. I suppose my opponent is right that he said the XBox ran on waffles. However, this is still illogical. He connected an XBox to a Wii using the idea that waffles come out of XBoxes. But this topic is "Wii processors are made of wheat and acorns." MADE, clear word, MADE. He said RAN. So thus, his analogy is incorrect and invalid. Ladies and gentlemen, my three points remain tall and true, and my opponent has no points at all, seeing as I just refuted his video point. -=VOTE CON=- (Yay, Pedro!)
The WII's processer is made of wheat and acorns

-"This debate is very... peculiar"- I'd say! - "I just wanted to see if you were talking about some other thing, since you said WII, instead of Wii,"- How could i have possibly explained how the world war 2 ran on a procceser. It wouldnt even make sense in the title :P. -"It's pretty obvious that prior to his video-making, my opponent shoved waffles into his XBox container... "- You have absoultuly no proof of this being true. -"And if it was made all of waffles, then the container would be soft, not hard... Thus proving that it is not made of waffles.."- I never said it was made of waffles but that it RAN on waffles. - I belive that my opponent now owes me a sanwhich and 11 bottles of kool-aid.- !!!!!vote for PedRO!!!!!
The WII's processer is made of wheat and acorns

This debate is very... peculiar, I should say. I'd like to point out that my opponent has not refuted ANY of my points and used a single point to further his case, which was completely irrelevant. I will get to that later. About my opponent quoting me... If you look back, ladies and gentlemen, their is more to the quote. The argument states that the Wii processor is made of wheat and acorns, not me. If my opponent was reading, I opened up with an introduction stating that the Wii was not made of acorns or wheat. If he thinks I'm insane, I think he's insane, for he posted an extremely idiotic video. I just wanted to see if you were talking about some other thing, since you said WII, instead of Wii, for I have seen many debates to have tricky edges to them. It's pretty obvious that prior to his video-making, my opponent shoved waffles into his XBox container... And if it was made all of waffles, then the container would be soft, not hard... Thus proving that it is not made of waffles... This debate is really messed up.>:| That's my argument....
The WII's processer is made of wheat and acorns

-"the Wii processor is made of wheat and acorns, so why are you arguing about cheese and wombat juice?"- apparently my opponent agrees with me. -" Are you talking about the video game console Wii, or some strange acronym since you posted the topic to be WII?"- my opponent is completely insane and thinks that world war 2 ran on a Wiis procceser. -I would like to respond to my opponents video with this...- http://www.youtube.com...
Gay people are sexually attracted to themselves

I never stated that people were only sexually attracted to sexy people of the same sex. I said that the definition of attractive means that is is inevitably less likely that a gay person would be attracted to themselves. The definition of attraction does not incorporate love and the probability that someone would love themselves is low as it insinuates narcissistic personality disorder, which I already explained is in the minority of human beings, as well as in the minority of gay people. You never specified that the gay people in question are not ugly or unattractive. Thus, it is not at all correct to say that it "goes without saying". The resolution must state this given attribute of the gay person otherwise it should not be assumes. "In addition to this, we can see that since most people masturbate, they must find themselves some what attractive." Then you are erroneously claiming that all heterosexuals who masturbate are inherently gay. This is absolutely incorrect because the stimulation of the genitalia is not the same as having sex with oneself, which requires one genitalia interacting with another and the last time I checked, people don't flip their penises under themselves and into their own anus to masturbate. Masturbation is not having with oneself because if you masturbate you are still a virgin. I conclude that gay people are most likely not attracted to themselves.
Gay people are sexually attracted to themselves

My opponent tries to escape the simple argument by over-complexifying the issue.To begin with, note that homosexual means, "sexually attracted to people of the same sex". It doesn't say "sexually attracted to SEXY people of the same sex" or "sexually attracted to people of the same sex with big butts" or anything like that. SO my opponent is kindof playing semantics here. The definition says that homosexuals (gays) are attracted to people of the same sex. The end.Furthermore, often times people are attracted to someone not just because of their appearance, but also because they love the person. I think it's pretty obvious that most people love themselves. Most people then, should be sexually attracted to a person whom they love, and who is the gender that this person finds sexually attractive.In addition to this, I am obviously talking about sexy gay people. Why would I start a debate about ugly or average gay people? If I start a debate that says "bananas are tasty!" it goes without saying that I am referring to high-quality and ripe bananas. NOT ugly or spoiled bananas. We're not making banana bread here. We're talking about the perfectly sized, perfectly weighted, correct textured banana.So it goes without saying that gay people are sexually attracted to themselves.Good debate, but it's over.In addition to this, we can see that since most people masturbate, they must find themselves some what attractive. If you found someone unattractive, you wouldn't have sex with them. But people have sex with themselves. So they must not find themselves unattractive. Not unattractive means "attractive". Two negatives make a positive.
Gay people are sexually attracted to themselves

My argument is a very simple one.P1: All gay people are attracted to a person of the same genderP2: A gay person is the same gender as himselfC: A gay person is attracted to himselfPremise 1 is true by the definition of homosexual. Homosexual means, "sexually attracted to people of the same sex" [1].Premise 2 is true by Leibniz's law. [2]Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same thing, then whatever properties A has, B will have.Since a gay person is the same as himself, then whatever properties this gay person has, himself will also have. This means that since he has the property of being male, himself will also have the property of being male.So the resolution remains affirmed.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.oberlin.edu...
A New Years' Special Debate: In Conversation with... myself

Hello all, I want to wish everyone a happy new year and a good year at best. For those who know me, they know that i'm unorthodox and creative, but they also know I have my demons. Today, I make this post for people to enjoy, just sit back and relax. In depth, some of you already know that i am a long term (recovering) porn addict suffering various mental health issues such as depression and childhood emotional neglect, so in light of that i want to have a entertaining debate, with myself! to highlight the true struggles of what an addict struggles with, struggles such as delusional thoughts, triggers and poor control impulses. In other words, i will be opposing my "evil" self, in a bid to express how damaging addictioin is. P.s Note for haters: Know that I am getting counselling, and that porn addiction is real. Although it starts of as choice, the effects of withdrawing as just too overwhelming until one gains a full understanding, confidence, and self determination to fight ones' demons. I feel doing this now is a form of communal sharing, and not just attention seeking. Although i'd be lying if i said it wasn't totally attention seeking, considering it is one of the flaws one has when growing up in a toxic environment. Anyways... Enjoy
A New Years' Special Debate: In Conversation with... myself

Ya know there's a correlation between creative genius and mental health issues. Hahaha haha I've fukd you up so much you think you have a chance. u know what they'll say, they'll say 'U screwed U', literally n figuratively. I can't wait for you to die, why are you still breathing, what u waiting for? I hate you so much, why do u constantly defy my power. If only your family weren't so goddamn backwards with their religious superstitions, i would have made you a man by now. Hope n faith is going to get u nowhere
A New Years' Special Debate: In Conversation with... myself

You have a big mouth don't you. I wonder why you are so goddamn controlling?, you don't know what control is, we are just maniacal hamsters running around in circles. I want to change, this is why counselling will be beneficial. Before i'd be disheartened when I relapsed, but that's what you want isn't it, you want me to be miserable. Recovery and days without using porn are two different things, I have learnt so much in the past few years, it seems like you're holding me hostage, I've not yet found the keys to escape, but I am closing in. Remember at uni, when I asked my weed using compadreys why the didn't tell their parents about their habit, IT was because of fear and embarrassment, something you thrive on. You are just as fearful and embarrassed of yourself than I am. I will expose you, and you won't see it coming. Sure I expect to relapse after counselling sessions, its natural for an addict, but in time I will have the strength, energy, and will to defeat you. You energy sucking mofo. No one else understands the struggle, but i'm determined to make sure I understand. last week I confessed my addictions to la familia in writing form, it was a chip of my shoulder.
A New Years' Special Debate: In Conversation with... myself

So you say i can't face the man in the mirror, but il tell you that I'm determined to break this cycle. Sure you may have protected me from my unpleasant childhood, sure you helped me coast life blocking painful emotions, sure you made me feel alive. But now I want freedom, because you do own me, this addiction is like a deal with the devil. For anyone who believes porn is natural and nonaddictive, read this. It will destroy you, there are more cons to pros. Sites such as nofap n reboot nation will get you started on the long road to recovery. I'll explain why there's more cons, after long term usage, it nullified me, depleted my dopamine levels (see nofap), and made me socially awkward, made me view women negatively.Like any drug, It comes with withdrawal (see nofap). So far ive been trying to recover for 4 years, progress n setbacks are expected. Sites suggest 90 days with out porn to break free, but it can take up to years. Counselling and talking to people about this embarrassing issue really is step 1, and I'm ready for it. I want to live life, and you are holding me back. THIS WAS a one a way relationship based on fear. Bring Your A game, because i know your tricks.
A New Years' Special Debate: In Conversation with... myself

I accept this challenge, you low life good for nothing child. You know nothing, you claim to be so smart, trying to show up imposters such as @followrofchrist1955 n @masterful, but you are no better. You are just a baby wandering aimlessly. You need porn, porn gives you hope. Porn makes you feel alive. Porn is better than any other woman out there, don't worry about your confidence issues. you loser!, I have taken all of your energy and dreams away, you have only one desire now. I own you. You are only here to hide behind a laptop like follower', you can't face the man in the mirror. Be ashamed, be very ashamed.