BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

Rebuttals"well ultimately the bottom line is that people are gonna do what they want to do whether it is legal or not. otherwise we wouldn't have jails. but the thing is although i agree with you when you say that regulation may prevent diseases the fact remains that it won't eradicate it. the same goes for the abuse and everything else. "Con cedes that the legalization of prosititution does recuce the commonality of abuse and disease, therefore he cedes a major benefit of legalizing prostitution. Just because it doesn't eliminate it entirely doesn't mean you shouldn't take the steps to prevent it. "if it is legalized it will start a chain reaction and people are gonna push for weed legalization, and more people will become outraged at the denial, there could end up with riots and many other things. "This entire point is a perfect example of slippery slope logical fallacy. It should be disregarded entirely. "then there is the case that prostitution demoralizes and demeans the prostitute and it often leads to drug use and more so than often because prostitutes have so much sexual activity they end up with several stds. and no method is 100% effective. not even condoms. "There is a method that is very close to 100% effective. Regulation. Require those who hire and those who engage in prostitution to carry liscenses that must be updated regularly. Part of the stipulation will be STD screenings. Problem solved. As far as the demoralization of prostitutes, it's there choice to engage in prostitution. Besides, many other jobs can be very demoralizing. My opponents argument is mostly an appeal to pathos without any sources. He cedes many of my most major points as well.
Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

well ultimately the bottom line is that people are gonna do what they want to do whether it is legal or not. otherwise we wouldn't have jails. but the thing is although i agree with you when you say that regulation may prevent diseases the fact remains that it won't eradicate it. the same goes for the abuse and everything else. if it is legalized it will start a chain reaction and people are gonna push for weed legalization, and more people will become outraged at the denial, there could end up with riots and many other things. then there is the case that prostitution demoralizes and demeans the prostitute and it often leads to drug use and more so than often because prostitutes have so much sexual activity they end up with several stds. and no method is 100% effective. not even condoms.
Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

I don't believe the resolution needs much explanation.First round is acceptance only.Second is construction only.Third and fourth may be used for rebuttals and defences.Fifth and final round is for summarization only. No new arguments. No new rebuttals. You may only restate/clarify your previous points/rebuttals or cross examine your opponents points with points you've already made.The BOP is shared.
The US government should legalize homosexual marriage.

I would like to amend our definition. Marriage is also a legally bound union, not just social. My opponent argues that "no one" should be denied this "right". First, many people should be denied such an opportunity. I would not think it reasonable to allow a 5 year old to marry any person, no matter their subjective feelings of love (and they are all subjective). Therefore, my opponent is wrong that any person should be allowed to marry. Secondly, marriage is not a right. All legal rights are defined in the constitution, to which marriage is not enumerated. Marriage is a good or ability of certain humans, but it is not an inalienable right for any human. By definition, my opponent is arguing for a very tough position and a right which does not exist within the US, going by its very own documents.
Resolved, that desecration of the American flag should be illegal.

The debate will be as follows: Resolved, that desecration of the American flag should be illegal. I will be debating for the CON side--that is, I will argue that flag desecration should NOT be ILLEGAL, or it SHOULD be LEGAL. Once we are done, if you would like to challenge me to a devil's advocate debate, where I debate PRO and you debate CON, I will happily oblige. The first round will be for introductions and rules only. Please do not begin your argument in the first post. After the initial round of introductions, there will be three more rounds. It is up to you and me to use these rounds however we please in order to get our points across; there is no set structure for an introduction or conclusion, though I would advise having both. For the purposes of this debate, "illegal" shall be defined as "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law." The United States Constitution is a plan of government not a list of laws, so this debate is NOT about whether flag burning should be constitutional; it's about whether, under the current Constitution, flag burning should be illegal. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Kurt Cobain was murdered.

I will be arguing that Kurt Cobain was not murdered. It is true that Kurt Cobain died with a high concentration of heroin in his system. However, heroin affects people differently depending on their level of tolerance. For this reason, we cannot be certain that "he would have been unconscious almost instantaneously." Unless you know precisely how tolerant he was, you can't say precisely how he would have been affected by the dose. As for the suicide note: it definitely looks like a suicide note, right from the beginning. "I haven't felt the excitement of listening to [or] creating music for too many years now," it says. Cobain writes about his anhedonia; how he doesn't enjoy performing anymore: "Sometimes I feel as if I should have a punch-in time clock before I walk out on stage." In conclusion: "I don't have the passion anymore, and so remember, it's better to burn out than to fade away." I don't see how this can be considered "random writing." At the bottom of the note (following Cobain's signature) it says: "Frances and Courtney, I'll be at your alter. Please keep going Courtney, for Frances. For her life, which will be so much happier without me. I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU!" Admittedly, the writing looks different in this part. I postulate that Cobain added this on at the last minute, in what must have been a moment of extreme anxiety, sorrow, and pain. Maybe you'd write a little differently, too, if you were moments away from shooting yourself in the head with a shotgun. I read the transcript of Cobain's suicide note while listening to Courtney Love read the note aloud. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "she changed the words to receive more sympathy." Furthermore, so what if she did? It would not be evidence that Cobain was murdered by anybody, much less Courtney Love. Many married couples fight, and many married couples talk about divorce. You don't know what their marriage was like. Both were drug users, and Cobain was bipolar. He might have been "getting a divorce and removing Courtney from his will" several times a week. But look at his last words: "I have a goddess of a wife who sweats ambition and empathy..." In any case, the fact that Courtney Love inherited a bunch of money as a result of Cobain's death does not make it reasonable to conclude that she killed him, or arranged his murder, or that his death was anything other than a suicide.
Kurt Cobain was murdered.

Kurt Cobain was said to have committed suicide, but the evidence of the scene tells a different story. He had too much heroine in his system to kill himself. He would have been unconscious almost instantaneously. There was no time for him to pick up the shotgun and pull the trigger. Also, the "suicide note" was not one at all. It was mostly random writing up until the end. Then, the note turned into a cliche suicide note, but the odd part about this new turn was it was in different handwriting that looked messier. There are more incriminating clues that point towards Courtney Love as being guilty in some way or another. When reading the "suicide note" aloud, she changed the words to receive more sympathy. Also, the two were getting a divorce and Kurt was in the process of removing Courtney from his will. If this were to happen, she'd be left with a lot less money. But, since Kurt died, she received everything. That sounds like a pretty good motive to me.
Rap Battle from the 313

Ask TheOneAndOnlySinner what I just did It was so fresh that his djck just spit Every one of my raps are lit Tearing down men, makin' them little kids No time for for this guy named Previan A dumb-fvck who need Prevagen This guy should know I'll be prevelant Every single one of my rhymes are heaven sent Are you gettin' it? Do you need special ed? You shoulda heard what the lesson said. Let me confirm this, "Yes, your dead." This guys afraid, he's gone and messed his bed. God, bless his head, he's going to need it. Heaven awaits him, he's hoping to see it. Why you always groping your penis? God, he deserves Hell, open the deep end! Magazine inserted, glad to see you hurtin' Pass the weed it's burnin', travesty, I irk him As you see, I'm working, tragic deed, it's perfect Casually I burnt him, As it be, you deserve it. Tackle me, but your nervous, no way that you can I think I can just grab and take from this man sorry, woman, an honest mistake, I'll call you Pam There's no way to stop the lake with the "DAMMN!" Passing me is hopeless, I'll run you straight down Blood runnin' from your skull that's face down You shoulda kept your pace, wow Previan is nothing but a g@y clown With a great scowel this round comes to a close But I think I've just shown my gun to this h0e. Like a pirate see this guy and plunder his gold Even though he has nothing but shame under his clothes.
fast food should be aloud for all students and schools but regulate a p.e. class for everyone

Regulate: fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of . http://www.google.com... Fixing the time of a PE class for everyone is unfeasible; no instructor would be able to keep track of every individual in the school during the entire period, so things would quickly get out of hand. Additionally, space and supply constraints would prevent everyone from accomplishing anything of value in such a class. While fixing the amount of PE class would be helpful to those who are not active enough, those who wish to exercise more are harmed by such a policy- what if I want to take more PE classes than the regulations stipulate? PE classes don't really come in degrees or rates so I have nothing to say in that regard. Finally the harmful effects of fast food on the body are not completely negated by physical activities- the high levels of cholesterol and sodium consumed can still have harmful effects. So PE does not make up for eating crappy food.
Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

I have agreed with Pro regarding the rule change, and accordingly, I shall use this round to give my counter-argument to Pro's initial rebuttal, and to provide a concluding summary of my argument. Pro has rebutted my argument with the contention that the Constitution is subject to change, and has provided evidence that it has changed both as a result of changes in society (citing the 3rd Amendment), and that Article 3 (covering the roles/responsibilities of the Judicial Branch) is also subject to change (citing the 11th Amendment). While these arguments are all true, they also miss the context of the argument that they are intended to refute. The Constitution can certainly be changed, and there are a multitude of amendments to the United States Constitution which prove this point " however there is a difference between the context of these changes to the Constitution, and the context of the amendment proposed in the Senate by Mr. Sanders. Notably, only Mr. Sanders' amendment, to the best of my knowledge, was introduced for the purpose of counter-manding an existing Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. In other words, it isn't the content of Mr. Sanders' proposed amendment to which I object, but the context. The content is the subject for a different debate, however the context " a direct attempt to undo a Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court " is not to change the role of the Judiciary, but to undermine it " in direct contravention of Article 3, and in direct violation of his Oath of Office. In conclusion, I argue that the Presidency is a job which the most qualified person SHOULD hold. That role " in a definition agreed to by both sides " is: the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and the Chief Executive of the United States government, restricted/regulated by his oath of office (to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution). Is Mr. Sanders well qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? His lack of military service says no. Is Mr. Sanders well qualified to be the Chief Executive of the United States government? Pro has not given an argument that he is. Can Mr. Sanders be trusted to act within the bounds set by his oath of office? His previous record tells us he cannot. As such, not only should [Not-Bernie Sanders] be the next President of the United States, but Bernie Sanders should not be the next President of the United States. I would like to thank Pro for the debate, and for offering me my first real debate on this site. You've done an excellent job as well, and it's been a real pleasure locking wits with you. I look forward to our next contest.
Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

Thank you, CentristX , for your offer for a debate. I'm looking forward to it, and appreciate your offer as a very new member of this site. I will be arguing that Bernie Sanders should not be the next President of the United States (POTUS), and will be using the following definitions: Should: a normative judgement - in this instance, I will be arguing that "should/should not" represents capacity/qualifications to fill the role of POTUS. POTUS - I will be relying on the definition of the job description for the President of the United States, not simply using it as a title. Defining this job description will form part of my introductory argument. To clarify my position, I am arguing that Bernie Sanders is ill-suited to filling the role/doing the job of the President of the United States. I will make no endorsement of an alternative candidate either within the Democratic Party nor within any other political party, and I intend to make no argument regarding his overall electability, as that has nothing to do with "should." Once again, thank you for the challenge, and I look forward to a good debate with you.
Bernie Sanders for U.S. President

This debate should be impossible to accept!If you are interested in accepting this debate, please read the following and say so in the comments.I will be arguing in this debate why Bernie Sanders should be the next United States President.The Con will argue why Bernie Sanders should not be the next president of the United States.Debate Itinerary:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Introduction of argumentsRound 3 & 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals permitted, but conclusions preferred.Once again, if you are interested in taking this debate, please say so in the comments.I look forward to a good debate!
Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

You seem to be making up definitions for these words, equal, plus, and minus. Your definitions based on your opening argument:Equal: When you hold your hand in front of oneselfPlus: Where you can move your hand toMinus: How your hand got to where it isThis is flawed because these words do not mean that, and your made up definitions do not seem to have a word to go along with them, as far as I'm aware. You can find the actual definitions for those words here:. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...If you would like to clarify what you meant please do so next round. Additionally, you have no proof that you are equal because you can do addition as well as subtraction.
Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

This debate now ends with you making more claims without even attempting to fulfill BoP, I warned you in previous rounds that this would happen but let's look over your closing arguments."It means you can't add without retracting." Please give proof of this claim please?"There is no effect without cause." Again, please give proof before or after making the claim.You can't move your finger without adding and retracting." Once again, provide proof of this claim.I cannot even begin to try and debate you because you were too busy making claims and not even trying to fulfill BoP, if you would like to try and fulfill BoP in another debate with me, feel free to challenge me to a debate.
Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

Again like most of your previous arguments, this has nothing to do with anything, you simply pose the question "How can you give a soda without taking a soda from somewhere?" which is completely irrelevant and does not help prove your point.I am not denying that to give something you must have acquired it from somewhere, if that was what you were thinking.Next round is your final chance to fullfill you BoP.
Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

You still have no proof for any of your statements, you have the full burden of proof, yet you have shown no evidence for any of your claims.You pose the question "How can I move my hand from where it is without adding and retracting?", which does not help prove your point, it even assumes that your made up definitions are true.Again, you make up a brand new definition making antonyms into synonyms. The two words being adding and retracting.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

You've addressed none of my arguments, you simply restate that your hand is currently in front of you, according to your made up definitions of the words, so my point still stands.As for the second paragraph of your argument, it is completely incomprehensible, so I will not comment on it.Your third paragraph poses the question "How can you add without a cause" which is completely unrelated to my arguments nor does it help you prove yours, so my points still stand.Remember that you have the full BoP, you have to prove these things in order to win the debate.
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

PRO has tried to weasel out by stating she misused the word "owed". Nonetheless, the word "owned" is the perfect way to describe pets. Let's be clear here, pets have very little right. They are sold for money. The owner is the master. People state they own a pet. As long as animals are nourished, not beaten and no beastality occurs, the owners can do what they want with the animal. Most of them get neutered. Can you imagine something as devastating as getting your balls or ovaries removed? I doubt any animals would "enjoy" this procedure. Yet it is a common procedure. I addressed this in Round 2, yet my opponent does not respond. PRO then goes on to state that owners should decide what food pet should eat. This is absurd. A dog might enjoy eating steak, yet should the dog be fed steak all the time? Absolutely not. The owner has the right to do what he/she wants with his/her pet. People buy pets to make them happy, not the other way around. The convince of the owner should come before the pet, since the owner pays for the pets care and paid for the pet. Also, it is self-evident that the utility of a human is greater than the utility of another animal. PRO then goes on to state that their should be a distinction between "farm" animals and pets? Why make this distinction? This is absurd. They are both animals. Why is morally permissible for a chicken to live in a cage with no freedom to even move, and live a short and miserable life while it is immoral to dress other animals up? My opponent then makes an even more absurd statement "No animal should be forced to do anything they do not want to do. " One must notice this big cognitive dissonance and many problems associated with this. Should a pet not be trained since it is in not in the best interest of the pet? Again, the owners interest come before the pet. PRO then concedes that "If it comes to conditioning animals to enjoy wearing outfits to get a good picture, than so be it. " This is a concede. The animals were at one point forced to wear clothing, thus negating the resolution. PRO states I have not responded to the counter-links. There's really nothing to say about them. The animals look fine. None of them looked starved or are putting a gun to their head. PRO then states she consulted a veterinarian. That doesn't mean anything, since I have no proof but her word. I need actually PHYSICAL EVIDENCE! I consulted a veterinarian too, and dogs usually like wearing shoes and booties. Nor does it confirm her mistaken belief that those that dress animals up will also abuse their pets. I have made many arguments that have gone un-refuted.
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

First, "owned" is a general term. I apologize for my misuse of the word. A pet being owned is treating a pet like personal property. the term, "cared for" is a better replacement. i thank my opponent for pointing this out. Also, good owners let the pet decide what food to eat. If my cat doesn't seem to enjoy his food, I change it to a different brand and try it out. My cat is also let outside whenever he wishes. Many pets are given these freedoms. When pets are given a loving home, they cope with the loss of freedom with exceptions to their losses. You could call it loopholes. It's these small loopholes that separate "owned" from "cared for". But the humility of being forced into clothing is not a characteristic of being "cared for". Am I correct in this statement? My opponent has failed to state that my argument is based on pets. When I say that, I don't count farms. Apartment and house pets are what my words are directed to. Experimentation on animals is even more wrong than dressing them. No animal should be forced to do anything they do not want to do. If it comes to conditioning animals to enjoy wearing outfits to get a good picture, than so be it. If the animals are happy, So will everyone else. But if the animals still dislike wearing the clothing, they should not be forced to wear them. My opponent has not responded to my pictures on the subject. I consulted a veterinarian. She stated that dogs usually dislike wearing shoes and booties. They are mostly uncomfortable. But she also said that some dogs will be happy to wear a comfortable sweater on a cold night. I agree with this statement, though I am mainly speaking of frilly uncomfortable costumes put on pets. Unnecessary clothing will not do an animal much good.