BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Winnie the Pooh is one of the most bada** mother f*ckers ever

"I just have to show that Pooh's not the most Bada** MOFO ever made! "Not exactly, The resolution is that he is ONE OF the most BAMF ever. .. .. Not the most. Read the resolution -__-Anyways here is my one and only argument:. http://www.debate.org...^ I do not know which movie this is from, but basically heres what happens: Pooh is reaching for a jar of honey on a high shelf and he accidentally stretches himself too hard, causing his stomach to tear open and have all of his insides begin to bulge out of his body. Pooh, showing very minimal signs of alarm, proceeds on shoving his own stuffing back inside of himself, and sews himself up like nothing even happened. Basically, Winnie the Pooh pushed his own internal organs back into his body and performed surgery on himself, without even being alarmed about what happened or what he just did. 99.999% of other people, fictional or non-fictional, could not do the same thing in a million years without either losing their cool or dying, especially if its just their first time. Therefore Winnie the Pooh is one of the most bada** motherf*ckers ever.
Resolved: Winnie the Pooh is one of the most bada** mother f*ckers ever

Resolved: Winnie the Pooh, shown here: http://blog.kidzui.com... , is one of the most bada** motherf*ckers ever made. I will be arguing for the resolution, con will be against this resolution. - 2 rounds, - First round acceptance only - 3000 characters - The only thing con CANNOT do is claim that Winnie the Pooh is not one of the most BAMF's ever because he is fictional and therefore isnt real. Anything else though is applicable - I do intend to troll this like a motherf*cker, ye be warned ;D
Gay marriage

Gay marriage should be legal because marrying someone its a union of love, and why if boy and girls can marry to unite their love, gays can't? Love is love, and even if marriage is not legal for them, they won't stop loving each other, so this won't do any change, you would just let them with the desire to marry. Is like taking them a right just because they are not like you. People hate on them because they are different to them, but its better to be different, you didn't came to the world to be like everybody else, and gays are a big example of this. And by marrying each other, it means they can also adopt children, but this is not bad, because they would take care of their children properly, and it could be even better than a heterosexual couple, because sometimes they mistreat their babies, and gays are really sweet and they couldn't hurt nobody, not even a fly. Well, the point is that they should marry, if we have that right, let them have it too. Love is love, and you can't do anything against it.
Gay marriage

Fist of all marriage has always been the union of a man and a women since the beginning of humanity, this is our nature. We should not change it, this is just how god made us, a men and a women can make their own families and reproduce, but two men or two women can't, this is because we were made to form heterosexual couples to form a family. In some cases gays would like to adopt, and this is not fair for the kids, because they have the right to have a mother and a father like most of the kids in the world. This can cause problems for the child to see that she/he does not have a mom to celebrate in mother's day. Also katebarragan said in her argument that guys might treat a kid better that an heterosexual couple, and that they can not even harm a fly, well not all gays are the same we don't have to generalize that all gays are that way because its like saying that all men are mean.
we should spend more money on our military

we need our military stronger, because we need to be able to defend ourselves against attackers, i would like to see my childs child safe and sound, without some person bombing us, i want our future kids to safe from the people who will cause them harm, thats why i supports military funding, i think we should spend more on them so they can be even stronger, support out troops, just a reminder, they put their lives on the line for you.
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find a definition that says specifically if a moral pertains to only how you affect other people or if it can reflect how you treat yourself. So fail for con XD(stupid newb) But- I do have some counterarguments! (yay con!) My opponent states: "Second, by suggesting that a person has the ability to assign a certain action or situation without some sort of moral thought behind it would mean that the person has absolutely no opinion on the issue or has no opinion on anything related to that issue, or has the capability to condition themselves in such a manner to not feel a certain way on an issue, which is downright impossible." I disagree. Not all situations and actions are necessarily moral issues, and you do not have to decide if something is moral or immoral to have an opinion. Someone tapping me on the shoulder might annoy me (an opinion) but that doesn't mean I think it is a moral or immoral thing to do and so it is then not a moral issue. My opponent states that we ARE in fact debating about probabilities. I disagree, there is always a possibility that one action could have happened without another if done by the same person (this is not a possibility if an action is a reaction to an action by another person). For example, Harold flirting with Jane might have happened whether or not he was drunk(which he was in this situation) and we shall never know. Therefore we cannot absolutely surely attribute this action as a direct consequence of Harold's drinking. Also, I stand by what I said before: Not everything you do affects what you will do. For instance: My eating a banana this morning does not directly or indirectly impact my decision to go to London for college. No worries about delays I'm just happy to debate with you worthy opponent! ^_^
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

First, my opponent states that the debate is over because she pulled a definition from her head. I would like to be fair in saying that she still has two more rounds after this to find another definition that correlates with her original definition, thus supporting her arguments. Second, by suggesting that a person has the ability to assign a certain action or situation without some sort of moral thought behind it would mean that the person has absolutely no opinion on the issue or has no opinion on anything related to that issue, or has the capability to condition themselves in such a manner to not feel a certain way on an issue, which is downright impossible. No matter how one feels about a certain thing, even if it seems like complete indifference, there will ALWAYS be some sort of moral thought behind it, thus one cannot simply not assign a moral thought to it. Third, by arguing for the exception, one simply does not hold a good argument. Sure there are always going to be a mix of situations that make debating worthwhile, but in this debate, if one can prove that one argument happens more often than not, then it would be feasible to give the person that argument. Therefore, if in fact there is someone who does something to themselves, and comes in contact with no other person, the likelihood of that occurrence would be rare as compared to normal society, thus it would not be feasible for one to put that into heavy consideration in regards to this debate topic. Fourth, my opponent states: "Unless you want to state that everything you do affects everything you will do. " In which, case, yes, I do want to state that: Everything you do affects everything you will do. Even in some small degree it indirectly affects it somehow, whether it be through some sort of physical way, or mental way like in the subconscious, everything we have done in the past ultimately affected our decisions today, and those, in combination with the things we do now, will affect everything we do in the future. Thus, your argument there has been refuted, based on what you stated. Once again, my opponent is bringing very good points, and I'm glad to debate this topic with her! Sorry about the delay in response!
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

Thank you for continuing the debate, your arguments are wonderful. I do not think you are attacking me and I am glad that you have pointed out my lack of specificity(I'm new, sorry, when I posted this I didn't know you needed references, I've only debated casually) Anyway: Since my definition was from my head (again sorry I was unprepared XD), in reality the debate is over since that renders my definition irrelevant and all the arguments irrelevant as well. (clap claps for Pro) My opponent wisely pointed out two questions at hand. I am obligated to address the second question first seeing as the overall question is "Is drugs, drinking, and premarital sex and moral issue?", and I having admitted that these actions affect oneself must prove the answer to the second question to be no, because if it is yes, answering the first question in irrelevant. My opponent argues that perception is unique to a person and that moral fiber is determines much of perception. My opponent also says that the perception of an action being moral or not determines the morality of the action. If the perception is that the action is not a moral issue, then it is not a moral issue. Thus, a person will chose to make the issue a moral one or not. True, this means that both of our arguments are now false now that we have established that the individual chooses whether to think of any action as moral or not. But in retort to question one: We are not debating probabilities, we are debating possibilities and we are debating with what is in the situation a known fact: that a person has engaged in one of the three actions mentioned. It is possible that a person engaging in one of these activities will not contact anyone, or change the way they affect someone, and because that possibility is there, we cannot attribute any effect a person engaging in these activities has on another person to the activity. As to actions of the person during engaging in these activities that affect others, because there is no evidence that can prove that one of the three actions had anything to do with the action, because the action that affected others may have happened without one of our three actions, the activity cannot be held responsible. Unless you want to state that everything you do affects everything you will do, you can never prove that one thing affected another, and thus future events cannot be affected for sure by the three events and so the three actions cannot be held responsible. (I actually agree with you but my argument is technical so I think it works)
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

There is one thing you are most definitely wrong about: I am not a he. :P In my opening statement I actually did provide a definition for morals:morals pertain to how you are affecting others. In regards to what is right and wrong, affecting a person negatively would be deemed wrong and immoral and affecting a person in a positive way would so be right and moral. Even though people may see things through a moral filter, since the activity alone only affects the person who is engaging in them, the action cannot be deemed moral or immoral. The actions of the person doing such activities may be deemed immoral, but that does not change that the activity itself cannot be deemed a moral issue. Great argument Pro, I actually agree with your statements and am honored to debate with you.
Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

I believe drugs, sex before marriage, and alcohol are not moral issues because morals pertain to how you are affecting others. The way you handle these substances can be a moral issue, but merely engaging in them is not. It may be a judgement issue but not a moral one. Engaging in these activities does not make you a bad, immoral person. It may show negative characteristics about you decision-making but not decide if you are a good person or not.
This site is addictive, in different ways to differnt folks.

"This is truly a fun site, if you enjoy engaging in wars of words and the mind." This is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys. "It seems as though all opinions are welcome for conversations with whoever you choose, unless they use ELO ranking as criteria for acceptance. and there is nothing else like it that I have found." At one time there was a list that ranked all the net forums by traffic, topic and posts. I would regularly check to see if my favorite forums were edging up on the scale. Oddly enough the leading forums were car-talk , but there were a number of debate style forums. "The biggest problem here is that there is an accepted format that seems to dictate a form of debate that the indoctrinated follow willingly and easily, is that the dictatorship of which you speak? If so then we are in agreement." I'm sure that after a 100 debates I'll get the hang of it. "By they way, defining god or gods is not our mission or within the realm of our capabilities. Just believing in an entity or entities more powerful then earth bound humans is the idea" I expect I'll require more indoctrination in that department (tinfoil hat)
This site is addictive, in different ways to differnt folks.

It seems as though we are in agreement. This is truly a fun site, if you enjoy engaging in wars of words and the mind. It seems as though all opinions are welcome for conversations with whoever you choose, unless they use ELO ranking as criteria for acceptance. and there is nothing else like it that I have found. The biggest problem here is that there is an accepted format that seems to dictate a form of debate that the indoctrinated follow willingly and easily, is that the dictatorship of which you speak? If so then we are in agreement. By they way, defining god or gods is not our mission or within the realm of our capabilities. Just believing in an entity or entities more powerful then earth bound humans is the idea.
Best songs

In my opinion, as a musician, the best love song is Here For You by Ozzy Osbourne The melody in the piano sounds simply devine, and the way that the pianist (Zakk Wylde) does a couple goes at a scale in the beginning and keeps a good melody going. While I don't believe my opponent's choice of song is bad, I do believe that there was too much attention to the lyrics, and not the music behind it, and in a love song, the music being right has a stronger effect. Generally, a slow, minor melodic rhythm has a stronger effect on love.
muslim ban is ok

in reply i will just point out one fact. there are 2 types of suras in koran. violent and peaceful. the two types of surah form a total coherent koran. you can better look at this link i provide below. http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com... the islamic clerics are saying that peaceful and violent suras form ONE KORAN:ONE ISLAM. so islam cannot be called as peaceful because to tag it peaceful would mean that the violent suras are excluded from the book. they form another koran. but this is aally not so as per the muslim clerics shown above. another point i want to raise here is that these clerics are saying they will bring the kingdom of islam at any cost . i quote them here : in conclusion one cannot, in the Koran, oppose surahs set apart as violent to others that are not. The text expresses a global and coherent vision, not of violence in and for itself, but of peace to be imposed – that is, to be imposed by all means. Something we appear to be reluctant to acknowledge. this " by all means" include violent one as well as peaceful. recent activities islamic terrorists confirm that this violent means is most widely used technique of islam. there are numerous historical evidence of violence in islam is out there. viz. their jihad that spread over europe. you can read them in any school level text book. so islam is not peaceful religion. therefore muslim ban is justified.
Should the US abandon the Click It or Ticket Law

Well, since my opponent forfeited his rounds, I'm not sure if there is much left to say about this debate. Because of this, i'll just review on what has already been said and go off that. My opponent's case is weak and cannot stands for itself. His debate is invalid because of its lack of a value, his misunderstanding of his contentions, and a lack of a rebuttal and a closing. In review of my case, I shall go over my value and contentions. Value: Safety. Safety is a basic human need that is required before any other need besides breathing. Contention 1: Cars are dangerous. Motor vehicles kill hundreds of people everyday. Don't be mad at the government for trying to protect your basic human need of safety in the dangerous environment of a car. Contention 2: Protection. The Click It or Ticket Law is a form of protection. It is protecting your freedom and your human rights. Contention 3: Right v. Privilege. Driving is a privilege. The government trusts us not to break the law and when we do, there will be consequences. This was a great debate topic. I was fun to argue.
if you put chicken salt on chicken the world will implode.

where the hell was the humor in what you wrote!? This is humorous debate, not serious. I'm not researching the product to debate things like 'contains salt, chicken extracts,' which I already knew because I had to look up what the this stuff was in the first place. I had to do that in order to make up some silly crap for the fun of seeing how many logical fallacies I could mix with pseudo-science in one argument and still have it coming off sounding rational. See, to me that's fun. I figured it would be humorous. But you come back actually sounding more like you're promoting the product than making the debate a silly argument about a silly theory. I concede. You win. i'm convinced. I'm not going to implode the universe because I'm not ever going to try this vegan salt. I tend to cook chicken like a pro, and I'm not going to wreck anything like Chicken Marsala with some vegan seasoning. Find someone else to market to.
if you put chicken salt on chicken the world will implode.

Chicken salt, not to be confused with seasoned salt, contains salt, chicken extracts, herbs and spices, and sometimes msg. It is only called chicken salt in Australia and New Zealand. Besides these facts, it is yummy, and probably tastes better than real chicken. Because it is so yummy, I don't think anyone has ever dared to put it on chicken for fear that it will overpwer the taste of the chicken, thus rendering the chicken as a regretted purchase. The myth of the world imploding because of chicken salt meeting chicken is just that - a myth. This myth is most certainly borne from man's fear of ruining his cooked chicken dinner with a flavor that is greater than the meal. I think if one is to put chicken salt on chicken, the only thing that would result would be a set of confused taste buds, however, nobody wants to be responsible for the end of the world, and this is why to this day, nobody has ever put chicken salt on chicken. The only person other than me who has ever been brave enough to even mention the idea is the comedian Carl Barron. This shows how strong fear brought on by myth has controlled our society and its eating habits. Fear breeds myth and myth in turn perpetuates fear. The real danger of chicken salt is the msg component. Perhaps this myth is being used in a conspiracy invented by the chicken salt companies to distract consumers from the real threat. By restricting the use of chicken salt to non-chicken foods only, they are cleverly promoting its use on all other foods without actually saying so. A similar thing happens with tobacco. By restricting it to 18 and above only, one feels compelled to smoke once they turn 18. Chicken salt and tobacco have a lot in common. This is why the chicken salt on chicken myth needs arguing. We must reveal the truth wherever the chance presents itself.
if you put chicken salt on chicken the world will implode.

In the famous words of George Carlos: "I got this!" Kosher-Parve have clearly overlooked the implications derived from anthropic principle and quantum physics by developing and marketing a product with such severe implications for the continuation of the universe. With so very much of the earth biosphere already tasting like chicken, we must explore the ramifications (and inherent dangers) of making a chicken taste that makes non-chicken taste like chicken when applied to actual chicken. Clearly anthropic principle has already made itself known as self-evident by such a tasty and succulent bird being duplicated time and again throughout evolution. The desires of sapient life to observe (and roast, fry, bar-b-que, broil, flamb" or otherwise prepare) this otherwise seemingly unimportant member of our ecology has already lead to a profound affect on evolution. Should a seasoning actually achieve, let alone surpass, the appeal of this savory avian then the universe would be forced to adjust at the quantum level. Suddenly all of the sapient observers in the universe (or at least within our observational frame: the solar system) would desire that all things previously tasting like chicken begin to taste like Jada Chicken Salt (tm). This would lead to biological and physiological changes to the evolution of many species and, quite possibly, the collapse of entire ecological systems as the rules of chemistry and biology become stressed the limits of newtonian law. I do, however, think that these dangers pale in comparison to the real danger: that of an even more chicken chicken. What happens when people realize that real chicken can suddenly taste even more finger-lickin'-good!? Suddenly sapient minds, following the dissemination of data along the established principle of 6DS (six degrees of separation) would begin twisting the universe into reinforcing perception of more A than A. Once the anthropic universe begins along that pathway, things will proceed quickly. As sapient life beings noticing that chickens have become more chicken, they will extend the principle to things like happy being more happy and fun being more fun. On and on it will go, unfortunately for a very brief (one should say almost imperceptible) span of time. To our knowledge the universe has no self-correction mechanism for this phenomenon and as everything becomes more of itself, so will the physics of the observable universe. The causative wave will only leave earth at the speed of light, but as the increase goes out, gravity will also increase and within only moments of the anthropic chicken singularity becoming realized the earth will go through something similar in appearance, to any outside observers, as a super-nova. Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational bonds would all increase at once, creating a shockwave followed quickly by quantum collapse. The only thing left would be a bose-einstein chickensalt condensate capable of nothing save glacially slow self-perpetuating question of "why did the chicken-salt salt the chicken-salt chicken?"