BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(Pro) Percy Jackson vs. (Con) Harry Potter

The resolution is Percy Jackson vs. Harry Potter, in relation to a battle. There is a fairly comprehensive list of rules which Con has to abide by, or else it will result in a seven point deduction. The rounds will be organised to, for the sake of a good argument.Round One - Organised Fight- Morals are on.- Preparation is on.- There are two locations, to make this fair, and both must be used. Location one is at Camp Half Blood, location to is at Hogwarts.- Percy has standard equipment, Harry has his standard equipment. - There is no help from anyone. - No animals/ interruptions/ trapsRound Two - Unorganised Fight- Morals are off.- Preparation is off.- The locations are the same. Camp Half Blood and Hogwarts respectively, but you may also here include unspecified locations, e.g. "if they met in a random meadow/beach/prison/brothel", which allows you to show the versatility of your character.- Percy has standard equipment, Harry has standard equipment. - You are allowed to have up to two people/creatures who will assist them in anyway or form.- No animals/ interruptions/ trapsRound Three - RebuttalBasically everything is permitted here. You can evaluate above positions, put together new situations and you have the most autonomy here. Rebuttal must be done here in this round and the next and not in the above rounds, but that is the only major restriction. You can have help, but remember that you are debating the person, not the help, so it is up to you here to be intelligent with how you play this card. Round Three - Rebuttal and SummationFinal round. Final rebuttal can be done here. See above for what you can actually do in the debate. Again, same as before for what you can actually do. Summation is just explaining why you have the stronger case and summarising what you have debated about. Pretty self-explanatory.With regards to the scenarios, those are the scenarios you must use in your rounds, but you can have an argument outside of them and you aren't confined to them. You are allowed to give examples of how your hero would beat the other one, or a strength he has over him, as long as you also have the scenario in place, then any arguments outside are fine, except rebuttal. That is strictly for round three and four. Rules should now be clear relating to rounds. No ad hominem, no plagiarism and usual DDO conduct rules apply. By accepting this debate you accept this and failure to comply with any aspect will result in a seven point deduction. Don't worry, I am not that meticulous and will have room for slight deviation, in which voters can judge.First round is for you is for acceptance, and round order mentioned above applies to round 2-5. If you have any queries whatsoever, the comments will be fine and I will accept any modifications to rules made in the comments as long as I accept them.I hope for a good debate, and am ready to crush you with the force of Poseidon.
God exists.

"First off, there is no way i can prove that god doesn't exist. Just like there is no way i can prove that flying unicorns don't exist. However, i can make you realise the likelyness of it." It all depends on your definition of proof. If we are talking about proving something beyond a reasonable doubt it really isn't hard to disprove the existence of flying unicorns. "There are thousands and thousands of diffrent religions. How do you know you have chosen the right one to believe in?" Because the Christian God is the only one that is moral and is the only one that died for humans. "How are you so sure that god exists?" I have a personal relationship with God and there are also some very good arguments for his existence. For example, there are cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, biblical, mathematical, and etc. arguments for God. I will probably focus mainly on the moral argument for God. "If everything is made by an intelligent designer, who created the intelligent designer?" God is all powerful and is a being that exists necessarily. His existence does not depend on something else. Here is the Moral argument for God: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. 2. Objective moral values do exist. My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists. 3. Therefore, God exists. That is thee short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.
God exists.

First off, there is no way i can prove that god doesn't exist. Just like there is no way i can prove that flying unicorns don't exist. However, i can make you realise the likelyness of it. I'm gonna start off by just asking you some simple questions.. There are thousands and thousands of diffrent religions. How do you know you have chosen the right one to believe in? How are you so sure that god exists? If everything is made by an intelligent designer, who created the intelligent designer?
Anyone with a beard should be banned from DDO

Sally sold sea shells on the sea shore, motherf**ker.There's no money gain from the Pro side. People already do that in the status quo, meaning that affirming doesn't really bring about this result. Moreover, this is more helpful for my side of the debate. Think of all the formal styling kits and hair support treatments that are more expensive than just any old shaving stuff and bad rasors. Getting rid of all the beards would eliminate the need for these things, meaning that less money overall is being generated. On ease of use, do you know what's even easier than shaving a beard? Not shaving at all. You literally don't have to do anything. Not shaving the glorious beard will always be easier. If anything super long beards just look more bada**. Pro seems to be the only person who disagrees. As for the fundraising part, there's no reason why I'm unable to do this as well. It would be named "Beard Battles" and would seek to find the most bada** beards and reward them with styling kits to further maintain their bada**ness. And if we're going to take away people's rights to grow beards, that would just enable more suffering for those who are able to grow beards and aren't allowed to. Beards are a gift we should allow to flourish and understand rather than oppress. As for the sounds making hair fall off of the glorious beard, this really isn't that big of a problem. But not only is this not true, but infinitely more hair would fall off and get onto things if we were to shave every beard in the world. This means that by negating we keep more hair off the ground and other things.
Anyone with a beard should be banned from DDO

Why? I am a nice person. You're welcome, Con. Now for my arguments. It would stimulate the economy. Think of all the shaving cream and shavers that would be bought! Businesses would prosper! In addition, people would get better at shaving, because they would have to. This could lead to the option of getting a job in hairstyling for many poeple. Unemployment could go down by as much as 0.001%! It's easy. Practically anyone can get a shaver! All it takes is a trip to the store and a few dollars. Even if one are far away from a store, a shaver can easily be bought online, and then brought to the mailing adress of the person who has the beard. So go on! Buy a shaver! What are you, poor or something? Charity/FundraisersFor all the people who are too poor to get razors, fundraisers can be held to help them! This would help people get shavers while further stimulating the ecomomy and providing entertainment. Beards cause sufferingPeople who have beards make all the people who can't grow one very sad. Why should some people be able to grow beards, while other people wallow in sadness. DebatesPeople with beards should be discouraged from live debates by not being able to participate in online ones. If a person who has a beard is speaking, vibrations from the sound could cause hair from the beard could fall, and get on things. From these arguments, it is clear that DDO should be restricted to people who do not have beards.
Anyone with a beard should be banned from DDO

DDO should be a place ONLY for people without beards. Rules: 1. No semantics. 2. No K's. 3. Con cannot use the argument that it does not harm anyone, as this argument is invalid. 4. Con cannot use any sources of any kind. 5. Con can not use the letter "C". 6. Con must begin the debate with a tongue twister every round, and it has to be unique every time. Failure to abide by these rules will result in an immediate win for me, unless can write a 3 paragraph essay on why sex is a tool of the devil. The paragraphs must each be at least 8 sentences long, with each sentence being at least a line long. In the essay, Con may not use the letters "C" "D" "U", or "F". First round is acceptance. Happy debating!
Anyone with a beard should be banned from DDO

Sorry for the short argument, I'm busy so it was either this or nothing. Bad shavers may be expensive, but we should create the best beard removing instruments known to mankind. This would improve capitalism. I know, I'm just saying my resolution doesn't take a lot of work to achieve, and it is practical. Your fundraiser is stupid. Mine is better. At least mine can have an educational factor: Teaching people about the evils of beards. They will destroy you. Which brinks me to refute your next argument. Beards killed my family. You think this is all a game? Pathetic beard - haver. You will never understand the suffering beards cause until you experience it yourself. Beards are not a gift, but a curse. Notice that the resolution is that "Anyone with a beard should be banned from DDO", and not "Every beard in the world should be shaved". Besides, it is better to have hair fall off of beards in a controlled environment.
Should Quebec be recognized as a sovereign state

The economic situation in Quebec is favourable. In terms of income per capita Quebec is less indebted than other countries. Quebec's economic performance is surprising and they're doing pretty well. Right now Quebec is just a province without control over all their means. Without letting Quebec take control of its own economy Canada will suffer by losing $18 billion (1) dollars annually due to a recent $5 billion (1) increase in federal support to a province who doesn't even wan't to be a part of Canada (1) "Federal Support to Provinces and Territories." Government of Canada, Department of Finance. Department of Finances, 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://www.fin.gc.ca...;.
Should Quebec be recognized as a sovereign state

Quebec has been recognized as a distinct society within Canada, with its own unique culture, politics, infrastructure, language, and history. Every couple of year's the question of Quebec's independence arises within Canadian politics usually do to civil unrest or tension between Quebecois and Canadians. When Quebec is economically stable and ready for independence the Canadian government should encourage and accept the sovereignty of a Quebec state as well as form a stable and strong economic bond to continue the success of our intertwining economies.
Does God approve of abortion

The girl tells the pastor 'tomorrow they will hang me for having an abortion. I broke the law and must be punished. But I will not repent as that would be dishonest and God will understand.' Pastor replied God doesn't believe you did anything wrong. He will forgive you and welcome you into his Kingdom I think the pastor is right. While the question is asked does God approve of abortion; the real question is does God approve of women making their own decisions...
technology is taking over

I'm outraged by this statement. This statement is basically saying that everything that people have put into creating this technology, and upgrading it is a waste. But I'm here as a voice. I'm here as a voice to the technology creators, nerdlings all over the world who are obsessed with gamingthe most important people of all – US – high school kids who need to do their assignments, and hand them in on time. Us, who need to know who feel a Need to share every thought or every "awkward moment" we encounter throughout the duration of our day. But most importantly, I'm here as a voice to the best us – the us who just wants to have fun, and listen to music, and just play Temple run whenever we feel like it! Technology helps us... It tells us the weather, when movies are on, or what your BFFLs are doing. Without technology, all hell would break loose. People would kill themselves because they wouldn't be able to use their blackberry. And if you don't agree with my statement(s) then why are you here, debating online?
technology is taking over

Look, i apologized for being rude. And sorry if I offended you buy saying you shoud be Amish when you're catholic. And I don't agree with you. I just wrote the wrong title. I meant to say "technology is taking over but it's a good thing" becuase it is. As I said before, it helps us. And, this doesn't mean I'm agreeing with you. Plus, I said that I am not the smartest in the world, I didn't use my age against anyone. Plus, I'm a newbie I'm not very good - the only reason I did this was for my school speech, but then I realised I should have said I was against it instead of saying for. Oh well, whatever vote for him. Congratz, bro... :)
technology is taking over

Ok so we have established that my opponent has not refuted any of my arguments. Therefore it follows that she agrees with me and that flows to my side of the debate. She also seems to claim to be 13 as justification for her bad arguments however I am 16 and 3 years shouldn't be justification for such rude outburst. She suggests that I should be Amish but the fact is that Amish people are a form of Anabaptist which is not something I believe in, I happen to be Catholic so it doesn't logically follow that I should be Amish furthermore Amish people are not in the greatest socio-economic position. I would say that my case stands and here failure to understand my objections is in concession of these objections. To Voters: Obvious misuse of conduct in last round. She has lost this debate. Thank you I urge a Pro vote. \n Mi corazon de bebe es mi mundo 3/5/2012-4ever
technology is taking over

Ok, who gives a damn I didn't give a definition, and "all hell will break loose" is a figure of speech. And I was saying "someone will kill themselves if they didn't have their blackberry" was figurative I wasn't being literal. I'm sorry I'm not being all technical becuase I want to have a little bit of fun! A "makeshift" definition, that is just plain rude. I'm only 13 ok??? I'm not all technical and the brainiest of all people. And, if you Hate technology so much GET OFF THE COMPUTER!!! And, ok, you think technlogy is taking over, go be AMISH!! becuase people need technology to live their everyday lives. So, don't use cash registers, or fridges, or phones, or COMPUTERS and online debating sites if you hate it so much. Sorry, I had an outburst. You can proceed with your arguments.
Why California should secede from the Union

California while having a massive economy, is completely unsustainable on it's own. It's economy is reliant on trade deals with foreign deals with domestic trade deals with neighboring states. Leaving the USA would be disastrous for both the US and the newly independent California's economy. California makes up 12% of our entire nation's economy and holds most of our ports and cities on the West Coast. California's trade deals are all done in the United States' name and therefore, if California wishes to continue trade with other nations, they must renegotiate EVERYTHING. The main possible trading partners for California would likely be Asian Countries such as China, South Korea, and Japan. Most of these are US allies and would likely renounce California's legitimacy as consider it like Taiwan. China would never recognize California as that may result in political pressure to recognize and encourage autonomy in regions such as Tibet and Taiwan. The rest of the US and the state of California is reliant on each other and has a great level of interdependence. If one truly wants to improve the state of California or the country of the US, to just give up and separate is not the answer. A better solution would be holding fair elections of elected officials and allow open exchange of ideas and free discussion. A nation is united through compromises and negotiations and such a defeatist and pessimistic attitude will not help anyone or better the nation or society in any way. http://www.mybudget360.com... http://plantingseedsblog.cdfa.ca.gov... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.reuters.com...
Why California should secede from the Union

With Liberals not wanting to change it will be near, if not impossible to have the whole state to realize how terrible they are acting. If they were to secede from the Union they could have exactly what they want. The next four years the rest of us have to deal with the annoying crying coming from California. The succession of the state could possibly even help them. With a population of 33.8 million they are more than capable of managing by themselves. California produces a ton of fruit that they could finally keep to themselves. The rest of the 49 states may be destressed from the fruits but can take care of themselves in the long run after they start to grow the needed fruits. So in the end the other 49 states does not need California. Without Cali the 49 other states could finally be great again.
Why California should secede from the Union

The presidential election caused some major uproar from the citizens of California including Hollywoods elites. The Liberals of California continue to yell "Not my president!" Even after a fair election riots break out continuously because they can't accept the fact that their nominee wasn't voted in. The state of California is no use to the other 49 states. All that state produces are Snowflakes and Liberals. If the state of California was to secede from the Union, the Union would benefit from not having the stress of dealing with the Liberals. (And on the bright side, we won't have to deal with the casualty count when San Francisco earthquake hits)
Rapists should have their penises cut off.

Now, PRO has not said anything about unequal treatment, so I assume that means he agrees that everyone should be treated equally under the law. This will be useful later. Con has misunderstood the resolution. I disagree. I fully understand the resolution. The title of this debate is "Rapists should have their penises cut off", not "Rapists should have their genaltilia dismembered from their bodies. "PRO obviously thought only males commit the crime of rape, which is false. As such, PRO has lost this debate. I never said that penis chopping should be the only punishment for rapists. Indeed, we could also legislate for clitoris or vagina chopping. In this case, females would not undergo penis chopping, but males would not undergo clitoris or vaginal chopping. PRO keeps trying to change his proposed legislation. First it was that all rapists must have their penises chopped off. Now it is females must have their vagina/clitoris chopped off and males their penises. Now this is where I have caught PRO. Believe it or not, there are transsexual women, who have the male sex organ, the penis. I must remind you that these people are women, literally, with penises. The opposite is also true for males, they have vaginas. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;The term for this is a hermaphrodite, or intersexual human. Now, PRO just explicitly said that females would not undergo penis chopping, and males vaginal chopping. But some females have penises and some males have vaginals. Therefore, unequal treatment would occur here, and as I said, it goes against our fundamental beleifs. I already have established that PRO does not believe in unequal treatment. .Even if PRO somehow magically manages to refute my concrete arguments, he must be reminded that dismemberment of human body parts is a cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment, capital punishment. As a western society, we don't do this anymore. This is the whole reason we don't have the death penalty anymore. This is the whole reason we don't cut the hands off of thieves anymore. This is the whole reason we have developed into a civilized nation. Implementing this legislation would go against our fundamental beliefs again. .PRO has obviously lost. I see no way for him to come back.
Rapists should have their penises cut off.

. .. if the punishment for rape is to cut off penises, there would be inequal punishment for males and females. .. Con has misunderstood the resolution. I never said that penis chopping should be the only punishment for rapists. Indeed, we could also legislate for clitoris or vagina chopping. In this case, females would not undergo penis chopping, but males would not undergo clitoris or vaginal chopping. Thus, there would not necessarily be unequal treatment for males and females if rapists had their penises cut off. Unequal treatment would only occur if females did not also face an equivalent penalty. However, this is not, and never was, the resolution.
Rapists should have their penises cut off.

I really only have to make one argument to make this debate. Now, PRO assumes that all rapists are male. That is false. . http://www.voanews.com...If you look at the link above, we see that there are female rapists, although uncommon. Now, females don't have penises. So how can we cut off their penises? We can't. Therefore, if the punishment for rape is to cut off penises, there would be inequal punishment for males and females, and in the democratic society, we value equality. This would go against our fundamental pillars and beliefs. Because PRO groups all rapists as men, he has lost this debate. There are female rapists too, and PRO fails to recognize that. Therefore, PRO has lost this debate. Once again, as female rapists do not have penises, rapists should not have their penises cut off, as that would equal unequal treatment.
Rapists should have their penises cut off.

First, I will assert that rapists get off too easily. Usually, the penalty does not reflect the magnitude of the crime (at least in the western world). For example, convicted rapists in the US in 1992 spent on average about 5-6 years in prison for their crime [1]. The figures are the same for Australia (Victoria) over the period 1999 to 2008 [2], with one in ten convicted rapists serving a wholly suspended sentence [1]. I suspect the figures are similar for Europe too. I think it is safe to say that in general, victims are not satisfied with the penalties imposed on their attackers. Likewise, prosecutors and the general public tend to think that the penalties for rape are too light, rather than too heavy, or just right. I have not ever heard a member of the general public complain that rapists don’t deserve such heavy penalties, but everyone has seen a story in the news where the opposite complaint is being made. Therefore, there seems to be a general consensus that the penalty for rape should be heavier.I propose that the penalty for rape would be adequate if rapists had their penises cut off as a standard part of their punishment. This would ensure that they are punished and degraded. An additional major benefit would be the prevention of recidivism [3].I look forward to Con’s arguments as to why willy chopping should not be carried out.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.heraldsun.com.au...[3] http://www.springerlink.com...