BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fault in are stars is a good movie

My opponent claims the following: P1: TFIOS is an amazing movie.P2: TFIOS made me cry.C1: TFIOS is a good movie. She has failed to meet her BOP, because one likes a film does not constitute it as a good film. For example, my opponent would most likely not consider an indie-bollywood film an "amazing movie" but someone involved with the creation of it would likely think so. However, this does not make it a good movie. In order to win this debate, my opponent needs to prove that everyone who has seen TFIOS considers it a good movie. Otherwise she has failed to meet her BOP. My job in this debate is to disprove that TFIOS is considered a "Good movie" by everyone.
The US Federal government should implement a single payer health care system.

I accept. However, I hope Pro won't mind if I define a few terms. Definitions1. USFG: "the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial."-Oxford English Dictionary2. Implement: "to make something that has been officially decided start to happen or be used."-Oxford English Dictionary3. Single Player Healthcare System: "is a system in which the state, rather than private insurers, pays for all healthcare costs."-Wikipedia
can fat cow be a hamburger

59 6f 75 20 61 72 65 20 61 20 73 74 75 70 69 64 20 75 6e 65 64 75 63 61 74 65 64 20 41 6d 65 72 69 63 61 6e 0d 0a Read it, if you can..... Friggen trolls these days, uncreative as they used to be.
Prostitution should be legal.

Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings. (Aside from an adult having sex with a minor, that's a separate matter) Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such. Whether or not that argument is valid should not effect one guy, who wants to have sex, and one girl, who is willing to perform sexual acts upon said person for money, to make a transaction of mutual gain. Other arguments attempt to define Prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal, but what they don't see is that something being demeaning is only a subjective judgement, and besides, both parties would be accepting the alleged demeaningness. That argument is like saying that if someone doesn't like a movie because he/she thinks it demeaning, then he/she can make it illegal to see that movie based on subjective value judgements. You should not enforce subjective morality onto others. I'll restate my point one more time, for good measure: If it's consensual and doesn't directly affect anyone else, then it should be legal.
Global Nuclear war is good

Biosphere collapse is inevitable, yet we can survive it without a change in mindset. We can "save the planet" and use renewable energy. We could take Elon Musk"s route and go to other planets. Or we could just enjoy the life we have. Your arguments are like saying that we should blow up the Earth to prepare us for the heat death of the Universe. Because, what I was saying is that biosphere collapse is inevitable, but we can put it far in the future. We are definitely going to die when the Sun swallows the Earth or when the Universe dies, so why end it now? We don"t need to push humanity into a few bunkers into the ground. An all-out nuclear war would also kill us all. And we don"t have to worry about governments doing nothing about climate change, because Elon Musk is getting us to Mars. Also, you can"t "wash away" smoke clouds that are covering the ENTIRE PLANET. Remember 1816, "The Year Without A Summer?" Here"s some info: https://www.google.com... . This shows us what nuclear winter would be like. Also, nuclear fallout would be so dangerous that we could not go to the surface for years. Mess with some specs here: http://nuclearsecrecy.com... . All of this says that a nuclear war would kill everyone and would not be good.
Global Nuclear war is good

Nuclear war is a bad thing Refuting arguments... A) Biosphere collapse is inevitable, but we can delay it for long past humans are gone by using renewable energy. 1) Population growth slows down. It is estimated that the 12th billion human will never be born. Source: 2) Renewable energy! (read in bill wurtz-like jingle) 3) Civil Rights and the UN! (also read in bill worth jingle) B) WE DON'T NEED BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE. C. "Nine countries together possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status " ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945." -http://www.icanw.org... This would definitely eradicate humanity because of a wondrous (not actually wondrous) thing called nuclear winter. D) See B. WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR WAR. LISTEN TO FACTS.
a virus is not alive

First off, a living organism must have at least one cell, need energy, respond to an environment, and reproduce. http://voices.yahoo.com...1. At least one cellAs my opponent stated viruses have a strand of DNA which makes up it. They are made up of cells as cells are made up of DNA and proteins therefore virus's have at least one cell.2. Need EnergyVirus take control of a host cell and reproduce this is how it takes in energy. Their metabolism is their host cell.(wiki.answers.com *sorry couldn't get a hold of the whole source due to this site being blocked at school). 3. Respond to the environment.Virus respond to the environment by mutations. http://answers.yahoo.com...4. ReproduceThis I already argued.
Refrigerators with water dispensers and ice dispensers are better!

Before I begin: thanks to my opponent, as well as the voters. 1. On what basis is this claim founded upon? Because it is certainly a false notion. A 24-pack/35-pack of 500mL bottled water costs $4~6 at Safeway, even cheaper at Costco. Now, one-gallon waters costs a dollar, and it lasts an average family (with four people) half a week. That means $2 per week, $8 per month, and ultimately $96 per year. Even cheaper is getting water filled from a water vending machine. They are quite safe, with multiple stages for clarification; yet, they do not compromise their cheap price tag (20 cents or so for a gallon). The $760 claim is simply preposterous. If bottled water was that expensive, then they would have become long obsolete. As for the cost, bottled water is not the only option. Water filters, like Brita, are also a great alternative. A 10-pack costs around 45$ at Costco, and each should be used for three months (recommended). That means that, for $45 (plus the cost of the water filter itself, which costs as low as $25) one can last 30 months, or two years and a half. 2. The same goes for bottled waters and filters. Buying three - five bottled water every time you drop by your grocery store will keep you well-supplied for at least a week and a half. Water filters also allow users to get water anytime they want (as long as they have tap water). 3. Anecdotal evidence = / = applicable in debates. Apparently, your so-called friend has not heard of buying bottled water or using water filters. It's his fault for being allured to sugar rushes. 4. Yes, tap water is not very healthy. That is why there are healthy alternatives available in today's market that are cheap and inexpensive. 5. Source for this claim? Water filters are quite scrupulous when it comes to eradicating all the debris out of the water. Sole contention: There is no reason to pay an extra of hundreds of dollars when there are two prominent alternatives that are cheaper. The cost to fix a water dispenser could also add on to the already-hefty price tag. Vote Con. Sources: http://www.howitworks.net... http://hypertextbook.com...
Refrigerators with water dispensers and ice dispensers are better!

Refrigerators with water dispensers are better! Actually, you would think that a refrigerator with a water dispenser would cost more than buying water right? It's not. 1. A 24 pack of water is about 10-15 dollars. If you buy one 24 pack a week, you will be spending about $780 a year! And over ten years you would be around $7800! With about half of that money you could have bought a refrigerator with a water dispenser a long time ago! Imagine how much money you would have spent over 20 years-or 30! Even if you say that you would only go to the store to get water every 2 weeks, then it would be $390 a year, and $3900 in 10 years! You still could buy a refrigerator with that! 2. With a water dispenser you can get water anytime you want, and you can get how much you want! (Two glasses, three glasses, five glasses) If you buy water and you run out one day (and you can only go to the store tomorrow) what will you do? In a water dispenser you will never run out! 3. My friend doesn't have a water dispenser, so he mainly drinks Gatorade and sprite. He says that his family spending more than $4000 dollars a year rapidly drinking Sprite, Coke, and Dr. Pepper! All of that stuff costs more than water! 4. He also says that drinking all the bad stuff (Coke, Sprite and Dr. Pepper) makes him have to brush more often because it makes his teeth yellow. It costs a lot more than you think it does! He says that he has tap water but he doesn't drink it, as that water is dirty and unhealthy! You're health would be infected! 5. You might think water filters are good-but they are not good quality- So go with refrigerator water dispensers! Tap water filters do not provide cold water! So on a hot summer day the refrigerator water filter will provide you with a cold, refreshing drink! http://www.youtube.com... Thank you everyone! I hope you vote for me!
We should not protect the environment

Thank you for responding. Let us just say that I am not wanting to stop electricity. What about smokimg? And can we decrease the amount of rubbish? We can also slow down the greenhouse effects. Well, You said you do not want people to lose jobs. But if the environment turns worse we are not going to have a good life. Our planet being to warm will melt ice in Arctic and the sea level will rise, Destroying our land. Do you want dooms day or people losing jobs?
We should not protect the environment

"Let's see what the Con side will say. " Let me just say that you are the con side, I am the pro side, "We should protect the environment because humanity is responsible for that. " are we though? Should the environment be placed over the well-being of the people? "We should love our home - the beautiful planet. " First we need to put the people above the environment, I am guessing that you want to shut down oil and coal plants and replace them with solar and wind power plants, But the thing is that we will go into a energy crises and many people will be without power, As well as the fact that many people will lose there jobs, We should always put the people above anything else, We can't ruin peoples lives for the environment.
The Acts that England Passed were Fair

The arguments that my opponent here has come up with, is that: 1. The high taxes were killing them 2. The British were not "nice" and they wanted to make life hard for Americans and take their freedom. First, their first argument did not even stand as an argument, because it simply did not make sense. How were these taxes killing the colonists and what, may I ask, does that have anything to do with being unfair? I fear that the Opposition side has misinterpreted the definition and what "unfair" truly means, and in that case, I recommend the use of a dictionary. Their second argument was something about the British being "not nice", and wanting to make their life harder. Wanting to make their life harder? This just proves how ignorant and uneducated my opponent is about this topic, for they obviously were completely unaware of the fact that the colonists were actually taxed LESS than the British citizens living in England. They actually truly believed, that they were doing a good job, choosing what was best for the colonies in America. In that case then, you may not hold the British responsible for the things that appear to be so called "unfair".
The Acts that England Passed were Fair

There seems to be quite a lot of controversy when discussing the matter of the Parliament passing the "Acts", such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Act. I have heard the same old story of how the acts were unfair, from the colonists' side. However, what I view to be missing here, is the British government's side of the event. These acts were all imposed and passed for reasons, whether the colonists "thought" it was unfair or not. I also find it extremely disturbing, when they talk about how acts were foul, while they held themselves responsible for absolutely nothing. I recall mentioning before, that the Acts were not just randomly passed, but had meaning it each and every one of them. The British had recently won the French and Indian War, which was over the land in North America. However, the victory did not last long. It didn't keep them protected from the consequences of winning, and yes, there were certain consequences. First off, it left them devastatingly poor, regarding the fact that the war had doubled the amount of debt they were in. They found that the only way of restoring their economic situation, was unfortunately to raise the amount of tax they collected from their citizens. The British were justified in passing these acts. Also, it is completely right, in every way, for a country to tax its people, as well as enforce its laws. Colonial America, being that they indirectly "belong" to England, would definitely make them British citizens. It is obvious for its people to help support its country when they are struggling from certain losses. It was not "unfair" in any way, especially regarding that they were, in fact, taxed way less than the people living in England were. Nonetheless, they decided to shout "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.". I find the colonists were actually those who were being selfish, and that the acts that England passed, were definitely fair.
Dog fighting should be aloud

Thank you for the debate. 1. "Dogs fight in the wild."- They fight in the wild to survive. Domesticated animals do not need to fight for "fun". Dog fights are held until one 'submits', which is usually death. 2. MMA has no relation to why dog fighting should be allowed. 3. "(Rules) insure 'ensure' the saftey of the dogs..." No, they don't. 4. "If they don't want to fight they don't have to." Dogs don't reatain the mental capacity to choose whether or not to fight.
Dog fighting should be aloud

Dogs fight all the time in the wild. 65% of the american population watches mma.which is people getting paid to fight.aside from the point, its the way champions where bread in the pass yet if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that dogs choose to fight they could submit if they want. Rules.These will insure the safty of dog during the fight.1.Vets must be on the sidelines.2.if they dont want to fight then they dont have to. And if dogs fight we should find a way to make money of It
Celebrities should not go to College

If the celebrity can't handle college, then he/she can drop out if he/she wants to. I'm only saying that if a celebrity WANTS to go to college and can handle it, let them go so what if they have money already, might as well be as secure as you can. I don't completely understand your 2nd sentence but I'm going to assume that you mean that celebrities have enough money to do their other career like how I was talking about doing medical things,math, etc. Even if they have enough money to use for their non-celebrity career then they should still go to college because by spending money on it, it shows that you're dedicated and really want to do it and don't people always want to be really good at what they do? So like I've said by going to college, they can improve their knowledge in a certain area and make their non-celebrity career even better. Basically, I'm saying that if the celebrity is going to do their non-celebrity career then they should go to college because college can make them better at that career.
u saying the p word in a bad bad way

roblox needs a very high iqwedfvc to play u idiot nerdi cant even belive u would sugest such a thing roblox is an anime lick rick and mortyies your a # word thats right a # word! i wkikill destory ur mom and ur family omg u such a nerd plway roblox i can not belive u not play!!!!!!!1 rick and morts is just a test of iQQQQQQQQQQQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! olmg u so dumb rick and mortiesies are not good watch but are good to see iq for jokes! u lil idiot
u saying the p word in a bad bad way

This is just another example of how the fake news media is lying to us. Just remember the words of our glorious leader " Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else."-The most powerful man in the world. The p word isn't a no-no word because our glorious leader said that he wants to " grab her by the p word" if Donald Trump (bless his glorious name) says it it must be okay to say.
u saying the p word in a bad bad way

oh boy dont get me started on fake news To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer"s head. There"s also Rick"s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they"re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn"t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick"s existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev"s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I"m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon"s genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It"s for the ladies" eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they"re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Humans Are Initially Intended To Eat A Plant Based Diet

I accept the challenge and state that humans are not intended to live solely off of plant based diet, or vegan diet for simplicity. I however do not hold any promises that I won't use other species in the homo line as a part of my case, they might show up in there a bit. ;)Standard DDO rules and common debating etiquette applies. (No plagarism without proper citations; no forfeits; be polite and reasonable, rational, logical, no trolling e.t.c. you know the drill)Few definitions to avoid semantics:Human:1. A member of the species Homo sapiens. initially:1. of, pertaining to, or occurring at the beginning; first: the initial step in a process.intended:1. purposed; designed; intentional: an intended snub.plant based diet:1. Diet that is based on products from any member of the kingdom Plantae and kingdom Fungi without any products from the remaining three kingdoms of life: especially pertaining to the kingdom Animalia, such as meat, milk, eggs and so on. functionally a synonym to a vegan diet.If my opponent disagrees to any of these definitions he must object to them via the comments or a PM before posting his next round, the second round of the debate. posting his next round without objections or agreement on the replacements to these definitions will result in them being the accepted definitions of the debate and shall not be changed nor objected to by either party of the debate. Any disagreements on any parts of the debate should be resolved in the comments or PM as soon as possible.With that out of the way: let's begin, shall we?It is my position that the species H. sapiens are not bilogically, evolutionary or naturally intended to live a vegan life style as a species.
The Walking Dead Game Season 2: SPOILERS! The player's choice not to shoot Kenny was justified

Thank you for accepting! Good luck! BoP is shared.Case 1: Jane Wanted To Kill KennyNo matter how many times you tell Jane to stop fighting, she keeps on. Kenny didn't use any weapons while Jane had a knife. In one point, Clem will ask her to stop, and she'll say "don't interfere" She knew it was escalating quickly, and it would end in one of them being killed. Later in the episode, you will find out Jane just hid the baby, and killed him just to prove a point. At any time, Jane could have stopped it by simply saying "The baby's alive!" Kenny would've been mad, but he wouldn't have killed her. Case 2: Kenny got Clem and Jane there, and cared more about ClemWithout Kenny, Clem and Jane wouldn't have made it that far. Kenny fixed the truck, Saved Luke from getting killed, and more. Kenny deserved to live more than Jane.Case 3: She had her own agendaShe didn't care if Kenny lived or died. She just wanted what she wanted. She didn't care if it hurt Clem. She just wanted them alone at any cost. Case 4: Kenny was justified when he killed herKenny thought she killed the baby, and had some good reasons to believe so. Here are some examples.1. Jane is an able person. If she wanted the baby alive, she would've found a way.2. Jane had no signs of a walker encounter when it came to marks.3. Jane was always real strange with the baby, and didn't care about it. 4. Jane is selfish. She would've fed the baby to the zombies to save herself. (what I thought happened until the baby turned up alive).As you see, Kenny had good reasons to think Jane killed the baby.Ladies and gentleman, I have proved:In case one, I proved Jane could've stopped the fight at anytime, and kept one of them from getting killed. She wanted to prove a point and get Clem on her side at any cost.In case two, I proved that Kenny deserved to live more than Jane.In case three, I proved Jane had her own agenda, and didn't care about anything she didn't want.In case four, I proved Kenny had a justifiable reason to kill her.Thank you! I hand the debate over to Con!
The Walking Dead Game Season 2: SPOILERS! The player's choice not to shoot Kenny was justified

Hello Cooldudebro, I accept your challenge! Couple things you should know before we begin. 1. This will be my first time debating on this website, or in any formal debating procedure. If I make a mistake, please feel free to let me know what I'm doing wrong. 2. I have had the actual experience with this event in the game, and I chose to spare Jane. This does not mean I wanted Kenny to die (I actually tried my hardest to keep them both alive). Sadly, that is not a choice. However, I believe I have a compelling argument as to why Kenny needed to go more than Jane. I look forward to my first debate with you. Good luck!
Is TitanFall better then battlefield

First off, of course you can't run on walls in battle field but In real life are people running on walls? When people talk about 'war' usually they talk about men fighting for there life on the ground. Most people aren't talking about solders fighting on the wall attacking giant robots. When people are fighting with other people on multiplayer, if the other team has more kills they get this giant robot that is really hard to kill. I think that battlefield has a more realistic feel to the game.