BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inuyasha debate

It's true that Inuyasha stole the jewel from Kagome, but it was only to protect her. In the end when Naraku finally dies the well that connected Inuyasha a Kagome together dissappeared into thin air, and InYasha came to save her. Kagome even said that when Inuyasha was with her, she didn't feel scard. And Inuyasha didn't tell her what to wish on the stupid jewel. Kagome wished the the jewel disappear forever. Even if you don't like InYasha, it's a still good movie for some.
Inuyasha debate

"That is true but InuYasha hasn't been to cold and if his friends are in danger then he goes to protect him even if the jewel is close at hand." Okay he tries to protect them, what about when he stole the jewel from kagome, the last time I watched it??? Did he or did he not steal the jewel from her and run off??? "Plus, he isn't selfish" If he wasn't selfish, he would not have taken it from her would he? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Inuyasha, admits, he doesn't care about her or anyone else just the shikon jewel(forgive me if I misspelled it, or Kagome, even if he wasn't telling the truth, that would mean he lied to his friends. Therefore he is either selfish, or a lier. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you, for reading this debate, I hope you vote con. Remember vote on the better argument not on who you agree with, please, if my opponent does better, please vote for her, if I did vote for me please. Thank you again.
Inuyasha debate

Inuyasha, for those of you that don't know is a cartoon. This Cartoon, comes on Adult Swim. This Cartoon is about a half demon who is searching for all of the parts of a jewel. Many demons try to get the jewel, but most of them die. One of those demons is a shape shifter, and disguised himself as Inuyasha, and caused his girlfriend to die, over the jewel. Inuyasha is STILL searching for the jewel, so that he can become human. So he is searching for the jewel for his own selfish wants, even after his closest friend DIED protecting it. There for the cartoon is about a selfish half demon looking for a jewel. Thank You ladies and gentlemen.
Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous

Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: "the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. " - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote "overeating and physical inactivity" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.
Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous

The statement we are debating is "Fat acceptance is dangerous". In your opening argument you simply do not attempt to explain why fat acceptance is dangerous - you have offered a definition for the fat acceptance movement, Which I agree with, And you have also noted some of the health risks associated with excessive weight, Which I also agree with, But you have not demonstrated how these two are related or that the former has any appreciable effect on the latter. My central argument is that being 'fat' and being 'unhealthy' are not the same thing. While I agree with you that "health and weight are connected" - it does not follow that therefore 'everyone who is fat is unhealthy' or that 'everyone who is skinny is healthy'. For example: sumo wrestlers are usually 'fat' by most standards, But at the same time they are athletes that train everyday and have a strict regimented diet, Would you say that all sumo wrestlers are, By default, Unhealthily fat? Likewise, I am skinny af, But my diet is absolute crap, I never do any exercise and I smoke constantly, Would you say that because I am skinny I am therefore healthy? Another crucial point I would like to make is that 'fat acceptance' is not the same thing as 'fat advocacy'. The fat acceptance movement does not encourage people to become fatter, Nor does it suggest that there are no health risks associated with gaining weight - it simply proposes that fat people should not be demeaned, Dehumanised and desexualised for being fat. As I see it, In order for you to argue that the fat acceptance movement is dangerous you would have to argue that fat people NEED to be pressured into becoming skinny for their own wellbeing - and this is something I reject for three reasons: 1) you do not need to be skinny to be healthy 2) it is not possible for some people to meet society's standards of skinniness without doing actual damage to their bodies in the process 3) even if point 1 and 2 were not the case, I reject the idea that belittling someone for being fat is ever the best way to get them to adopt healthier behaviours Finally I argue that human bodies CAN and SHOULD come in lots of different shapes and sizes. There is no 1 weight range that everyone SHOULD fit into - a healthy weight for one person could be totally unhealthy for another person. This ties in to your point about knees being worn down - firstly, All knees wear down over time, That includes skinny knees too - do fat people's knees wear down faster that skinny people? Of course! But all that proves is that being skinny is an advantage when it comes to knee longevity. Fat people enjoy other advantages over skinny people, For instance, A fat person will obviously be much better equipped to survive the extreme cold - the point is, Different bodies are good for different reasons - there is no 1 ideal body that all bodies should aspire to.
Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous

To start off, The fat acceptance movement seeks to eliminate anti-fat biases. They are also known as the Health At Every Size movement (or simply HAES). HAES is pretty self-explanatory. A good portion of fat activists believe that you can be overweight and healthy, That we should completely disregard the relationship between weight and health. Thing is, I don"t believe that is true and the way they see it is pretty much in black and white. It is NOT that simple. This mentality is misleading and can eventually lead to even worse outcomes. Here"s my first argument:Health and Weight are connected, It is wrong for fat activists to think otherwise because they are factually incorrect. We"ve seen it, Heard it, Experienced it; you name it. We all know that is simply untrue. "Your weight, Your waist size, And the amount of weight gained since your mid-20s can have serious health implications. These factors can strongly influence your chances of developing the following diseases and conditions: Cardiovascular disease, Heart attack, Stroke, Diabetes, Cancer, Arthritis, Gallstones, Asthma, Cataracts, Infertility, Snoring, Sleep apnea"Lets also not forget that excessive weight will damage your knees and wear down the cartilage from the friction. Aside from the unpleasant feeling of your bones grinding together till you collapse, The fatal consequences have become very prevalent. "Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2. 8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. " Sources:http://easo. Org/education-portal/obesity-facts-figures/https://www. Hsph. Harvard. Edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/
Everyone is unique.

In the start of the debate Pro said that I had to start "reasoning" why humans are not unique and then Pro would rebut them, and so I did. I gave 3 reasons: "1.The fact that many people share the same genders" And Pro's response to this one in Round 3 was: "This is true but like I said earlier not a single finger print, tonuge print, etc is like anyone elses". Well it seems Pro has conceded that at least having the same genders is not unique. "2.The fact that many people share the same sexuality" And Pro's response to this one in Round 3 was: "This is true but no one thinks exactly alike . . . two heads are better than one as I also mentioned earlier". Well it seems Pro has conceded that at least having the same sexualities is not unique. "3.The fact that many people share the same ethnicities" And Pro's response to this one in Round 3 was: "Many people may be the same race but people have diverse personalities as well as gifts & talents as I stated above". Well it seems Pro has conceded that at least having the same ethnicities is not unique. Overall I only had to give reasons why everyone is not unique and not ultimate proof that we not unique. Pro conceded my reasons to be true so everyone is not exactly entirely unique after all. Also I wish to point out that someone in the comments section someone accused me of "Self refuting". This accuse is false and unfair because Pro's argument was arguably un-debateable in the first place. I ask what else anyone else could have possibility said in relation to everyone not being unique? I was simply just another member of debate.org, saw the debate awaiting a challenger, I felt in the mood for a challenge and so I accepted the debate. And then came up with a possible counter argument (maybe the only possible) to Pro's argument. I think Pro should have at least made her argument more detailed in her Round 1. Conclusion of debate: In the debate I have explained my reasons for everyone not being all unique in good detail. Unfortunately Pro explained hers with very little detail and conceded my reasons to be true. In the debate I have provided evidence to support my arguments with the sources I posted, however Pro failed to provide any reliable sources at all. And the source (URL link) Pro provided in Round 3 did not even work. So overall it seems everyone is not entirely unique, and now I must urge a CON vote... I'd like to thank omfg_ds_69 for this fun debate; it's been a good event to debate with you. Thank you very much :)
Everyone is unique.

"1.The fact that many people share the same genders" This is true but like I said earlier not a single finger print, tonuge print, etc is like anyone elses. Not even identical twins are just alike. "2.The fact that many people share the same sexuality" This is true but no one thinks exactly alike . . . two heads are better than one as I also mentioned earlier. "3.The fact that many people share the same ethnicities" Many people may be the same race but people have diverse personalities as well as gifts & talents as I stated above. Everyone has their own opinions & preferences. 1 out of 1000 (only one person in a college dorm has this talent 1 out of 10,000 (only one person in a football stadium or at a concert has this talent 1 out of 1,000,000 (which means only 308 other people in US and 6,799 people in the world have that same talent) http://www.manifestyourpotential.com... discovery/being_unique/why_how_am_i_unique.htm
Everyone is unique.

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to properly rebut any of my reasons in Round 1. In Pro's Round 1 she asked me to provide reasons why humans are not all unique. In round 1 I was meant to give reasons why humans are not unique and so I did, in short the reasons explained were: 1.The fact that many people share the same genders 2.The fact that many people share the same sexuality 3.The fact that many people share the same ethnicities Those 3 reasons prove that humans are not exactly all different, and Pro did not rebut them. All I can say to end my Round 2 is... Argument Extended.
Everyone is unique.

Just so everyone knows I would normally think talking about humans not being Unique is not a debatable argument. But I am up for the challenge. Using thefreedictionary. com I looked up the meaning of the word "Unique "and it said the following: "1. Being the only one of its kind", and "2. without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled. " [1] So basically seeing as my opponent seems to think "everyone is unique" then she seems to think each and every human is completely different. This in fact false, the following facts will prove that humans are NOT unique. .. 1. Many same Genders Humans have 2 different genders which are male and female. If there was only one male and only one female in the world then everyone would be unique, but the truth is there isn't, because there are billions of humans and at least half are female. On the 01 July 2007 the world Population was 6,602,224,175 this means more than 3,301,112,087 are women. [2] Therefore everyone is NOT unique. 2. Many same sexualities Humans are normally heterosexual but a lot of humans are also homosexual. Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behaviour among members of the same sex or gender. If there was only one heterosexual and only one homosexual then everyone would be unique, but there are in fact more than one of each. There are 105.5 million households in the USA, 5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships, and 595,000 of those consist of same sex partners. So there is in fact more than 1 homosexual in the world. [3] Therefore everyone is NOT unique. 3. Many same ethnicities The United States is a diverse country, racially and ethnically. Six races are recognized: White, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. If there was only one black person and only 1 white person, then everyone would be unique, but there are in fact more than one of each. In the USA there is an estimated amount of people of 304,059,728. An estimated 228,182,410 of them are white alone (So that is 228,182,410 all the same race) [4] Therefore everyone is NOT unique. I end my first round here, and I would like to remind everyone that this is quite a difficult debate for me but I'm up for the challenge. Sources: [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://wiki.answers.com... [3] . http://www.avert.org... [4] . http://factfinder.census.gov...
Homosexuality is right

you are therefore saying that due to homosexuality the population would decrease thus increasing the supply; and thus causing a decrease in prices. your are then saying that pagans and other people with other beliefs are not dictated to go and multiply; but if every male in this world was gay, there would be an error in the homeostasis of life. if this would happen there would be no males in the world to help in the production of offsprings thus gradually ending the human race on earth. And as an answer to your question, God did make us unique from one another but he did make man and woman, not man, woman and gays.
Homosexuality is right

You said that God wants us to go forth and multiply but think about this. The argument is if homosexuality is right which includes all people not just Christians. Simply saying that homosexuality is wrong since God doesn't want this is fallacious. It is just an Appeal to Your Religion. Not that your religion dictates it that it applies to society (which is made up of mixed religions and pagans). Also the go forth and multiply is only dictated to Christians, what about pagans, will they follow that from Someone they don't acknowledge? Also, you said something about going forth and to multiply as part of God's word. But take a look at it in an economic perspective, if homosexuals are not forced to make love with the opposite sex, they won't have a baby. Furthermore, if they can't have a baby it would be a good help to a country's economy as they demand will decrease so supply will increase thus preventing inflation. Also, about God against it, according to our the scriptures, "God has made each of us in a unique way" So basing from that statement you can say that God himself created homosexuals so why did He create them if He is against them? I leave the answer to my questions to you, my opponent.
Homosexuality is right

Homosexuality is not a choice. You cannot say that anything is bad which is not desired/wanted by a person. A person has conscience which tells him what is right and good but homosexuality is not a choice. Countless men who became gays don't want their present condition. Proof of this is that countless men who knew they are gays commit suicide and feel depression since they don't want the situation they are in. Proof: http://www.conservapedia.com...
Homosexuality is right

Fwahahaha Yep I said that, just that little thing of letting homosexuals be with their true love and not the one they are forced to will have a great impact to a country's economy. I think you are wrong my friend in stating that all men must become gay. Clearly said in my burden of proof and the name of the debate itself, "Homosexuality is right" not "All must be homosexuals". Technically speaking it is about that homosexuality is right and not that all must become gays. Also "every male" in your statement does not necessarily mean ALL the pagans and people with other beliefs because there are Christians too... Also, yes that God created man and woman but homosexuality not another gender. It is a sexual preference. May I ask youHave you ever seen a person with a gender of "gay" or "lesbian" in a birth certificate? I think not. Yes, God did really create only man and woman but gays are also men.....but they have a sexual preference for men not women. ;D
Drafterman's Proof That God Does Not Reveal Himself to Everyone Was Logically Sound

Well here is my argument Lady Royale. It was not logically sound because he himself did not give me any substantial or empiracal evidence. I believe that because we can see even with science that we are here due to some type of intelligent design that does not come from any unliving object or being. It would seem strange that we as a human race, as complex as we are would come from nothing. But as we live our lives from matter, we know that we came from something. Every living organism produces another. And if it is non living, then it came from a force that is made up of matter and energy. It can be from the elements such as water and fire. Even those two elements have cells and molecules that create. So again, we cannot count out intelligent design. Or a divine intervention either. The revelation comes from that which has is is being created here on Earth daily.
Murder is okay under all circumstances

Murder still takes away a life, however, and there is no guarantee that because that person died, others can be saved through the donated organs. Again, there are also people who chose to opt out of being an organ donor, so their organs can't be donated. My opponent seems to have argued that I tried connecting mutilation and murder, where they are two separate things. This is fair, but to be more fair, my opponent shoult NOT be connecting collecting the dead person's organs and murder. They are two separate things as well. My opponent's argument is that murder is okay because the person's organs can be used to save other people, well the part where someone takes their organs to save someone else is completely separate from the action of murdering someone too, just like mutilation is. Using their own logic, how can they then argue that murder is okay just because someone can use those organs? The actions are completely different. Either the examples I brought up work, and my opponent's argument works, or neither of ours does because it needs to follow the same logical argument of mutilation being separate from murder and harvesting the dead body's organs is separate from the murder.
Murder is okay under all circumstances

Now, I would like to point out that my opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea of how organs of the victims of murder can be used to save the lives of more people. Second, they are arguing murder is okay under all circumstances. All I need to do is point out one instance where murder is not okay. Here is one:Suppose a person murders another person and completely mutilates their organs, or otherwise uses a means of murder that makes the organs useless? How is this murder justifiable and okay when the body's remains can't be used to help save the lives of other people, and one life was taken away while no other lives are saved?Even simpler: suppose the dead body is not found until way after the organs would no longer be usable? Was this murder justified?I'll leave this round as is, as I believe what I pointed out is sufficient.
Murder is okay under all circumstances

I used to think that if I or anyone else were deliberately killed then a lot more people would be upset than happy, and also mistakenly thought that a loss of life is a bad thing because it means one less person in the world. A lot of people think like I did simply because it is comforting. However the truth is it doesn"t matter HOW a person dies, their organs will result in more life and happiness (unless a murderer completely destroys or hides a body - but that"s not the topic) A man who was murdered saved 5 lives, his parents still back the organ donor register, they say "you"ve got to think about the positive impact it has for someone else". [1] The average organs per donor from a deceased person is 2.87 [4] An average organ donor provides 30.8 additional life-years distributed over an average of 2.9 organ transplant recipients. If all organs are used then 55.8 life-years are saved distributed over 6 recipients [5] Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, there continues to be a gap between supply and demand.[2] And in China the need for organ transplants outpace the availability this is despite prisoners being suspected of being executed for their organs. [3] In the U.K. the donation consent rate is 62% yet that is too low [4] Since most people believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and murder has been saving lives, thus making more people happy as a result I conclude murder is okay or acceptable. No-one would want to be murdered but no-one wants to die waiting for an organ either. I look forward to your arguement Sources: [1] http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk... [2] https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov... [3] https://www.theguardian.com... [4] https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk... [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...