BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then.....

After reading my opponent's well-researched and cogent case (and of course taking some time to finish rolling on the floor laughing-- my that Ima is a rather clever one isn't he?) I was at a loss of how to refute it. I mean, it's so air tight. Ima seems to have proven (with infinite wit) that arguing from the liberal side of an issue on DDO is worse than having sex with a diseased piece of trash of a person. Then I went outside, smoked a cigarette, and realized none of that was true. So I suppose this is me pointing out the obvious.My argument will be along the lines of an abductive investigation. That is, using abduction, I will take various warranted observations and show how my own conclusion best explains them. =Observations=(1) Liberals aren't exactly rocket scientists.(2) Liberals win a rather large number of debates on the site.=Conclusion to explain observations=(3) There must be a rather friendly environment towards liberals on DDO (because lord knows they don't win their debates on their own merit). =Defense of Observations=1) I see no reason to spend too much time on this. I think it's rather obvious and my opponent (as a liberal) can surely vouch for this. Any skeptics can just research Pro's list of previous debate topics.2) Liberals actually win debates, and plenty of 'em (somehow). My own opponent is rather high up there on the all time wins list; number two actually right behind a (uniquely coherent) leftist. Now don't ask me how liberals are even cognitively capable of writing out (or defending) a case for anything. I genuinely do not know. But the fact remains that the liberal side of various arguments come out ahead quite a lot. Take gay marriage and gay adoption for example. Contradiction put out a wholly non-prejudiced and obviously coherent (even by non-third grade standards of logic and reasoning) case against gay marriage. Some straggly haired liberal came in and whined about rights and crap and somehow won (http://www.debate.org...).Or how about the (obviously correct) theory that Democrats are anti-American and communist. (http://www.debate.org...) While no one would rationally deny this, the Con on a debate tackling this pressing issue miraculously won hard.Instances following the same pattern abound on this site.(Conclusion) But getting to the crux of my point... if liberals (who aren't exactly known for their intelligence) can win debates which the mythical right-wing majority is powerless to stop, what does that say about getting fccked? It obviously means that DDO is unduly receptive to the views of these idiotic heathens. Since this is the case, one may coherently affirm that having sex with a disease-ridden (probably) atheist is more dangerous than debating on a site that freely throws you votes for the heck of it.
Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then.....

The resolution is: Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then having unprotected sex with someone riddled with STD'sSo why is that ^ true?DDO is absolutely SATURATED with conservatives and moderates who lean to the right. If you dont believe me just look at some of the topics in the politics section...."Eurocentrism""How Communism really works""NSA scandal""Operation Troll the NSA""Wealth redistribution: Just or Unjust?""How Capitalism really works""Democrats are awful" "Biden: GOP is scared of of Paul and Cruz"Now yes, some of those were created by Geo and Jimtimmy who are pretty racist and/or complete idiots (feel free to guess which is which), but the point is that politics wise, there are a vast majority of right leaning conservatives and libertarians who despise Obama compared to left leaning liberals.....So if you argue for the liberal argument on a debate, then you will always get f*cked in the a** by the voters since there are more conservative voters then liberal ones. But how does that make a debate more dangerous then having unprotected sex with someone riddled with STD's?Because having sex with someone riddled with STD's doesnt guarantee that you will catch an STD. Sure youll get it after 5 or 6 tries, but there is a possibility you wont get it after just one round....So to summarize:Argue for the liberal side: You WILL get f*cked Sex with an STD prostitute: You MIGHT get f*cked And thats my argument. Over to you con
Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then.....

Note that Pro has not taken issue with either of my observations. For those who don't remember, here were my observations in need of explanation: (1) Liberals aren't exactly rocket scientists. (Liberal translation: intellectually challenged) (2) Liberals win a rather large number of debates on the site. Pro does add some mitigating factors though (weaseling around like the [probably Jewish] liberal he is). For instance, he argues that liberals win on forfeits. Impossible. If anyone forfeits a debate it would most likely be a liberal since they have no work ethic and typically spend most of their time trying to find either (a) good weed or (b) some gay bi-racial liberal arts professor to idolize. Pro showed zero examples of liberals being forfeited on by conservatives (such a thing is an impossibility given their strong Protestant work ethic and belief in meritocratic capitalism). In another instance my opponent argues that conservatives miss voting deadlines. Like I said, impossible. Contrary to my opponent's smug Northeastern stereotyping of conservatives, we all know that these patriots would never slack on their duties. It is more likely that the good ol' Christian compassion that conservatives possess is what motivates them to vote for their intellectually inferiors. To voters, be a patriot and not a pinhead. Liberals are treated with great care on this site. Whether that has anything to do with our Jewish (therefore probably liberal) President (and his sodomite predecessor) is something I can't be sure of. What I do know though is that having sexual intercourse with a disease-ridden excuse for a human being is certainly more dangerous than getting free votes from compassionate, God-fearing patriots. Pro has attempted to confuse you with his Orwellian double-speak, using complicated terminology like "f*cked" and "idiots". But don't be fooled. His liberals arts major in theater studies doesn't make him better than us and his linguistic trickery should not be tolerated.
Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then.....

"But getting to the crux of my point... if liberals can win debates which the mythical right-wing majority is powerless to stop, what does that say about getting fccked? It obviously means that DDO is unduly receptive to the views of these idiotic heathens"Thats not true at all, the reason why liberals occasionally win a debate is because conservatives have the tendency to not cast enough votes before the voting period ends (Evidenced by the recent election where Obama beat Romney since some of the conservative voters slept through all of election day since the average republican voter is about 90 years old)And also, some of the debates that liberals win are simple forfeits or debates that dont involve political positions at all! The last time I debated something political I think Jefferson was president!Debating the liberal side of an argument is more dangerous then unprotected sex with someone crawling with STD's.... And you know im right because when was the last time YOU debated the liberal side of an argument? EXACTLY
Trying Juveniles as Adults

I accept the challenge and will be arguing for con. The arbitrary age of 18 that signifies adulthood in the United States means nothing but the age at which you can be considered an adult. All people mature at different ages, therefor I believe that juveniles and young adults should be tried in courts according to their maturity, and not their age. Thank you for the debate, I hope we can challenge each other. Now on to Round 2 and our opening statements.
Trying Juveniles as Adults

In the United States, there is a distinct difference between juvenile court systems and adult court systems. Typically, I will refer to "juveniles" as anyone below the age of eighteen. Some people believe that juveniles should be tried in adult court systems if their crimes are severe enough. I believe that no one under the age of eighteen should ever be tried in an adult court system, no matter what. Therefore, the minimum for the con side could potentially be presenting one juvenile who should be tried in an adult court system. Alternatively, you could argue that all people should be tried as adults. Another option is arguing that the age defining a juvenile in the court system should be lowered, e.g. Anyone over the age of fifteen should be tried as an adult. Round 1 is acceptance and stating your claim. Round 2 is opening statements. Round 3 is rebuttals. Round 4 is closing statements.
Judicial Activism in the United States is unjust.

Definitions: Judicial activism-the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of existing law with the judge's personal feelings about what the law should be en. wiktionary. org/wiki/judicial_activism Unjust-Not fair, just or right en. wiktionary. org/wiki/unjust 1. Contradicts the essence of Democracy A personal interpretation of the law done by Supreme Court judges (Judicial Activism) can be viewed as proactive or destructive according to an individual's belief, but an individual's opinion or belief is not the center of the Judicial System. The only deterrent of whether a law is just in the United States is the Constitution. It is the center of the Justice system and should be the only thing used to instate judicial rule. Many Judges disagree with the constitution on some issues, but essentially the way democracy is supposed to work is that the Constitution is a living representative document of the people. The people elect representatives and senators who add to the Constitution to speak for the people. So intrinsically the Constitution is the majority of the United States' opinion. And if we don't use the Constitution as the structure of justice then the structure of Justice lies in the hands of an individual which contradicts the essence of democracy-rule of the people. 2. Judicial Activism increases the chances of the United States being forced into a state of anarchy. The purpose of the rule of law is to remove both the reality of injustice and the sense of injustice. It exists not merely because of the actual remedies it provides for damages, injunctions and other specific remedies, and criminal sanctions. Most disputes are settled without the parties ever going to a trial before a judge. However, what happens in the resolution of trials is of vital importance to the rule of law. If a particular dispute is resolved by a speedy and just trial, the chance of the vastly greater numbers of potential disputes being settled before trial rises. If trials are slow and uncertain, and are not seen as objectively just, the chances of peaceful settlement of disputes are reduced and the temptation to violent self-help increases. Violent self-help is synonymous with vigilantism and ultimately anarchy. . http://www.highbeam.com... I look forward to the negs arguments 
All males from ages 13 to 19 should be castrated and then uncastrated once they turn 20

Hello, My name is Imabench, AND THIS IS YOUR WEEKLY IMABENCH TROLL DEBATE :DThis weeks topic, all male Middle Schoolers and High schoolers between the ages of 13 and 19 should be castrated to prevent them from having sex, spreading STD's, and possibly getting women pregnant while in high school or middle school. Then when those men turn 20 the castration will be undone and then they will be allowed to live their lives the way they want.
All males from ages 13 to 19 should be castrated and then uncastrated once they turn 20

I understand. So without further ado I will give my final remarks. I thank the Pro for a wonderful debate and for playing along, I thank the voters for reading through all of this, and I thank the mods for not deleting this debate which easily crossed the line about 30 times. I leave you now, for all of you will remember this day as the day where you almost defeated...... Captain.. Jack... Sparrow...... ;D
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

"My opponent does not seem to understand the basic structure of the U.S government." Clearly you have no understanding of history. The ONLY southern states that agreed to be in a voluntary union were Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. The rest were illegally annexed, such as West Florida, or conquered through war. "The Supreme Court stated that they can't leave so that means they can't." The Supreme Court stated that in 1869, 4 years after the war was over. They could/should have stated that during or directly after the revolution. Also the Constitution does not state a state an legally leave the Union. It states that the States may alter the Constitution if the Constitution was not working. This means that states were to attempt to alter the government, not abolish it." References to the right to abolish destructive government and institute a new government upon whatever principles they so choose can be found in: Declaration of Independence “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ”Virginia Declaration of rights, Section III “whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights and Constitution Section V, “And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government." Clearly the states believed that they had the right to abolish the United States. . "Also the Supreme Court was balanced by Northerners and Southerners." They would not have voted against secession if they were true Southerners, not someone like Marco Rubio or Lindsey Graham. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I ask the audience to not be biased. Vote Confederate!
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

My opponent does not seem to understand the basic structure of the U.S government. The Southern States agreed to follow the Constitution, and that was their choice, that means that they have to listen to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that they can't leave so that means they can't. The vote that session was illegal was an overwhelming majority, not a 5-4 vote. Also the Supreme Court was balanced by Northerns and Southerns. Also the Constitution does not state a state an legally leave the Union. It states that the States may alter the Constitution if the Constitution was not working. This means that states were to attempt to alter the government, not abolish it. Also the Union is older than the states and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union'.
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

Do you think Crimea has the right to secede according to Crimea? How about Scotland? Quebec? According to their central governments, they don't. But according to a lot of other countries, they do. The Yankees didn't want them to leave, why would they? Britain, France, Germany, Brazil, and Mexico all partially recognized the confederacy. The Supreme Court of the north will always be in favor of the north. If they had had a southern court, the south would have had the right. If it were even, it would be down to one person.
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

"Also the South's reason for leaving was that there way of life was being threatened, that slavery was being abolished." We are not talking about reasons for secession, only if the south had a right to it. The idea of secession was not even questioned until the civil war. United States President James Buchanan believed that the south had that right. Again, the 10th amendment gives ALL rights that are not for the federal government to the states. Russia recognizes Crimea.
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

The Tenth Amendment states powers, not right. The interpretation is seen as that they can pass laws, but not leave. Also the South's reason for leaving was that there way of life was being threatened, that slavery was being abolished. This was not happening though, Lincoln wanted to stop the spread,but not destroy it. This destroys the South's case for secession. Also no one recognizes Crimea and the vote is illegitimate.
The South Did Not Have The Right to Secede From the Union

I believe that the south had and has every right to secede from ANY government, regardless of purposes, it was put up to a vote, like in Crimea, and the majority of people voted to secede, so they did. They had a right in the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution, which says that any rights not specified or reserved for the federal government are reserved for the states. Obviously, this includes secession. I leave the floor to my opponent.
The Feminist movement screwed women

Since the opponent failed to define terms, I will do so here. These definitions are "common sense" definitions and should not be a topic of great debate. Feminist Movement - "refers to a series of political campaigns for reforms on issues such asreproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence, all of which fall under the label of feminism and the feminist movement." [Taken from Wikipedia]screwed - made much worse; significantly damaged women - humans with the XX chromosome, or someone who identifies as such------------------------------------------------------The opponent asked to be proven "wrong", which I am happy to do. However, the opponent cannot be proved wrong until he presents a case. As the affirmative, it is his obligation to present a case and fulfill the burden of proof. As con, I merely have to show that the opponent has not adequately proven his position beyond a reasonable doubt.I look forward to seeing evidence that suggests the Feminist Movement in some way made life significantly worse for women.
Some Things Are Objectively Right Or Wrong

I'd like to start by saying that I am a nihilist and any "fact" as well as "proofs" are not a 100% correct interpretation of reality. As far as the moon goes, I do believe that it exists because a lot of things we experience here on earth are dependent on the existence of the moon such as tidal waves, earth's wobble and it's similar composition of materials of earth. Some may argue that the moon isn't actually a giant piece of rock orbiting close to earth, but their reasons do not explain certain phenomena (listed above). One of the easiest ways to justify the mistreatment of a group of people is by dehumanizing them. Most people would agree that the mass slaughter of "x" people is wrong, but some of the people carrying it out might honestly think that they are doing the right thing for country, God or some other cause. Just like some eco-activists rather see all of humanity die just to "save" earth is ridiculous to most people, but some do hold that belief. Out of both mass genocide and deforestation, you have to prove that morals are objective and that it actually matters. Everything and everyone dies. Some die sooner and some die later. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things if you kill a few billion organisms if the end result is the same anyways? Moral goodness benefits one group and disadvantages another. Genghis Khan killed who knows how many millions for the benefit of his empire, but we tend to idolize him more than his victims. Hitler was killing the Jews and undesirables for more living space for the benefit of the German people, bad for eastern Europe, but good for the germans. Deforestation may hurt one species but benefit another. Same thing Would I personally object to a man whipping his horse for "x" reason? Depends on his reason. My reasons are valid enough for my actions to make sense for me, but not others. This is the case for everyone. P.S. a horse can easily kill you if it wanted to. Have you seen its muscles?
Some Things Are Objectively Right Or Wrong

I am looking for a moral relativist to hold a debate with on the nature of right and wrong. I would like to clarify that 'objective' here is used in the sense that 'it is an objective fact that the moon exists'. In other words, it does not mean that we can know 100% that the moon exists, but that we have excellent reasons for doing so, given the mass of data at hand. We have objectively -- not subjectively -- better reasons for believing the moon exists than that it's (for example) a conspiracy by NASA. On the same basis, I shall be arguing that mass genocide is objectively more immoral than saving the Amazon rainforest. Moral goodness has always concerned the welfare of living beings, and the former action demonstrably has a negative effect, and the latter action an intrinsically positive one. Finally, I would like to ask the moral relativist if they would object to the sight of a man whipping a defenceless horse. Are your reasons for preventing the man whipping the horse any more valid than his? I look forward to debating with you!
Sports and games as employment

My opponent begins by copy pasting his previous argument. If you want to see my attacks on that, you can look at my previous post. the First new information my opponent provides is that some people may take performance enhancing drugs in order to win a game. Again, this is more of a problem with the individual rather than sports as a whole. It's no different than someone using dishonest means to get ahead in any type of employment.My opponent also states that sports is for people who can't earn their livelihood by the usual means. This simply isn't factual. Take Byron White who played NFL football (American) and later went on to be named a Supreme Court justice. He is one of many professional athletes who not only played professional sports, but also graduated from college with advanced degrees. (1) And finally, my opponent makes the argument that we should "improve the economy by contributing to the overall welfare of society" My opponent doesn't then explain how he intends to deal with the massive economic devastation that would stem from the collapse of the sports business which would undoubtedly occur which believe it or not would not contribute to the overall welfare of society. Next my opponent states that "playing games is purely based on personal aggrandizement as no societal interest is involved" even if that's true, and every professional athlete only cares about self aggrandizement, there's no denying that despite what their intentions may be they have provided as societal benefit as I've explained multiple times. I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him the best of luck. (1) http://degreecouncil.org...