BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anime should be banned

You may think my opponent is a troll and you'd be right, so while I can't take him and his claims seriously, I do think we need an argument in support of anime. So you'd rather children play outside with the coyotes, the molesters and the illegal immigrants? While I am somewhat of an animal lover myself, I'm not entirely in support of my children, or my neighbors children falling prey to predatory animals. If it isn't the coyotes preying on children, it's the molesters and the illegal immigrants. We need to protect them from these dangers, that's where anime become a vital tool. A depiction of an anime fight scene will not have a negative impact on children, cleavage does not have a negative impact on children, which if it does, then we need to ban bikini swim wear. I heavily disagree with you wanting to censor the female body like Muslims do, it's actually sexist and a form of oppression whereby a female can't show off her body, but you'd have no issue with a man showing off his. Let's not teach our children to be sexist.
Anime should be banned

Anime is poison to children's minds and it creates a fake world for them to live in. Anime introduces pornographic material at a young age and has very graphic and violent scenes. This carries over into adulthood and creates these lazy, nasty, hideous slobs that were once your children that now sleep with an anime body pillow at night and read mangas at least 10 times a day. Anime also consumes your soul and wastes time that could be used to go outside, get 60 minutes of fresh air, do homework and contribute something to society. The people who watch anime are not the problem, anime is. Anime is the root of all problems, cancer, war, Africa, and the Nazis. Since people watch anime on the TV so much, it uses electricity and is the reason why the oil reserves will run out soon. Anime causes cancer because it has been proven TV screens emit radiation and radiation causes cancer. Anime has caused war by inspiring the Nazis to side with the Japanese through their cartoons and establishing the Pacific Front in World War 2. African leaders in Africa are corrupted by anime influences and they cannot tend to their peoples needs and cannot feed them. Future generations will be ruined and destroyed by anime influence. Everyone thinks the downfall of humanity will be ourselves, but in reality it is anime. After the atomic radiation, the Japanese wanted to get their revenge on the world and created their ultimate weapon, anime.A279; Anyone who watches anime unironically should be sent to a mental asylum, because this piece of entertainment isn't entertainment. This is Japanese propaganda designed to fill the minds of today's youth with unrealistic expectations of men and women, and in doing so, are making the population of the western world decrease.
abortion must be free in every country

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. it is the meaning of abortion. no point in wasting a round for acceptance, this round is both for acceptance and arguement. I think abortion must be free, it must be up to the pregnant woman. it is her body, and maybe she does not want to carry her baby inside her body, it is her choice. you may bring an arguement which says abortion must be banned because it is injustice and e.t.c and I will give answer if it is wrong.
Modern Personal Technology is more harmful than beneficial

"First of all about modern technology yes video games are a problem because they rot peoples brains and give bad influences like GTA is a horrible influence. There are bad words inappropriate scenes and it leads to suicide or killing and robbing other people. Not to mention alot about hijacking", Now that there is quite a big claim you made there as though that, it may sound like the most reasonable and logical explanation, study proofs it to be wrong http://www.healthline.com... this article here shows why your claim is wrong, and how it actually benefits the child. Kids actually have morals and their own judgement, kids have their own perspective on actions of others, and themselves, because they see something on a game doesn't mean they'll act like that character, or become violent, yes i do believe his/her will idealize their thoughts, but not action. "Also Xboxes and phones and computers heat up as a sign that you've been using it for too long but most people just ignore it and sooner or later it blows up." Yes techs do blow up yet rarely this article explains http://lancasteronline.com.... This actual depends how the persons life is, if it's only possible for them only use the tech they only us tech, if people buy tech that heats up after a little use it's no good, people who are successful yet use tech 24/7 and live a non miserable life tech isn't in too much use, this all depends on the symmetrical output, and input you give yourself. "To mention texting which has led to many car accidents a year because people can't stop talking to their friends online and instead why not just meet up at a diner or someones house or something simple without using technology. For example (according to Matt Richtel Christopher Hill's life changed forever on September 3rd 2008. Hills, then 20, was driving his Ford Ranger down a busy street in Oklahoma City and talking on his cellphone when he ran 50 miles past a red light and crashed into Lynda Doyle's small SUV. A few days later they found Christopher dead in the hospital." As I said before this is not an big cause, everyone dies, around 3000 and more die in a car crash. Their will always be reckless drivers out in the street from drunk diving to the person on their phone, it isn't techs fault it's the persons who values a message over the safety of others and themselves,
Modern Personal Technology is more harmful than beneficial

First of all about modern technology yes video games are a problem because they rot peoples brains and give bad influences like GTA is a horrible influence. There are bad words inappropriate scenes and it leads to suicide or killing and robbing other people. Not to mention alot about hijacking but... Also Xboxes and phones and computers heat up as a sign that you've been using it for too long but most people just ignore it and sooner or later it blows up. To mention texting which has led to many car accidents a year because people can't stop talking to their friends online and instead why not just meet up at a diner or someones house or something simple without using technology. For example (according to Matt Richtel Christopher Hill's life changed forever on September 3rd 2008. Hills, then 20, was driving his Ford Ranger down a busy street in Oklahoma City and talking on his cellphone when he ran 50 miles past a red light and crashed into Lynda Doyle's small SUV. A few days later they found Christopher dead in the hospital.
Modern Personal Technology is more harmful than beneficial

I believe that modern personal technology is more harmful than beneficial because most kids would rather stay on their phones, computers, or watch T.V. other than play a game, sport, or spend time with their families. Technology is also bad because of social media. Young kids don't need to be on it but they still do. For teenagers especially theres cyberbullying which leads to suicide. Plus young kids on social media is even worse when people post inappropriate pictures or videos. Theres also identity theft and when your kid gets so addicted to a game they take a parents credit card or money and spend it. That leads to getting video games taken away which a lot of people rage at. One of the most important things for keeping safe is the camera. If someone/hackers figures out your phone or computers PIN number through the camera they can spy on you and even stalk you down. My last reason is people get so caught up in phonecalls or texting or video games while their driving they end up crashing and alot of deaths happen each year cause by technology while driving. People even get so addicted to their video games they forget everything about the whole real world around them and only care about their fantasy worlds on their phones.
A Biblical Debate : Total Depravity (CALVINISM)

Greetings jo021698j! I agree to the rules of the debate in that I must present Scriptures (The Bible) to further my point. Please be aware that I am a former Christian who was once both a Calvinist and Arminian (now atheist) though I promise to be as respectful and faithful to the actual text as I can. I agree to this definition:Total Depravity Definition "The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation. ". http://www.theopedia.com...... I also agree to defend the position of partial depravity, which I assume will be clarified throughout the debate, but really the motion is on whether or not total depravity is Biblical.
A Biblical Debate : Total Depravity (CALVINISM)

Rules:1. This is a biblical debate, so be sure to use Scripture to further your point.2. Round 1 is acceptance3. Round 2 is Arguments (Rebuttals)4. Round 3 is Rebuttals5. Round 4 is Rebuttals and Closing StatementsTotal Depravity Definition "The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation. ". http://www.theopedia.com...In other words. .. The Natural Man can do NO good and cannot choose God apart from God's intervention in his/her life. Opposing SideThe opposition of my side is known as "Partial Depravity". You will be defending partial depravity as the opponent or will be making some other case against my side.
Having Pets Instead of Children Should Be Considered A Psychiatric Disorder

Don't worry Pro, I've only been here for about a week. We're learning together <31- Pro brings up the interesting point that an organism's biological imperative is to reproduce. This helps further the species, right? I'll concede the point that if early humans didn't reproduce, we wouldn't be here. However, I think part of our evolution as a species is becoming self aware. The complexities of our brains allow us to realize that the world is quickly changing. It is becoming overpopulated, warmed by artificial means, and deprived of natural resources.Maybe our biological imperitive is being rerouted. We are aware that there are many, many humans in this world, and at the moment, there really is no reason to reproduce. Instead, to help further our species, we should put effort into preserving the world and taking care of who is alive now, rather than further the problem by adding more people to the mix.And as a side note, maybe it is our reproductive subconscious speaking when we don't feel the need to have kids. I carry with me alcoholism, depression, anger, and a history of dying rather quickly on my father's side. On my mother's side there is depression, anxiety, but longevity. This is a rather weak example against someone who has Huntington's running in their family, but sometimes there is logic in cutting off a bloodline.2- I can understand how it can seem like pet parents personify their pets. We coddle them, teach them, and are proud of them. But I also believe that there is an understanding that these are not true children, and we don't love them like we would a child. We love them like we would a beloved part of the family, but not as one would to an actual baby. We don't absolutely insist upon being able to take them everywhere, demand they should be treated as a class of people. We are aware that they are still animals.In reference to the pet's true parents, I'm not sure if we can ever know what they feel. I do know that tragedy frequently strikes many mothers, as the mother of my other cat Hazel was caught in a bear trap before she could nuture her newborns. I'm sure the spirit of the true parents is grateful to those who take care of their babies.3- Unfortunately, there can be no "cure" for a psychiatric disorder. There are medications, yes, but they are for management of the symptoms and don't entirely treat the cause. I certainly wish anxiety medication completely took away any implication of anxiety forever, but it unfortunately doesn't.So in this point, I again have to ask. If there is a disease, what treatment is available for it? If we recognize something as a disease pattern, what can we do to remedy it?
Having Pets Instead of Children Should Be Considered A Psychiatric Disorder

Interesting points, Grandma Complex. Here are my thoughts on the matter. (I apologise in advance if they seem a little simple as I can see you are well educated on this topic and I still need to figure out the finer arts of debating! Anyway, here goes!!!) 1 - The process of evolution is now a matter considered by most, if not all, biologists to be true. If this is in deed the case then having pets instead of children is a major flaw in our species. This is because if we go back 4-5 thousand years then we see the early homo sapiens struggling to survive in a strange world. Any species' goal is in fact to reproduce and even though this has become less of a main goal for humans over the past century or so, it should still remain as an instinct in our DNA. If an early human had decided to not have children and by connection, not extend their bloodline then it would have been devastating for the gene pool further along the line. 2 - In this point I would like to acknowledge one of your points, specifically point 2 of your argument. You said yourself that you consider yourself to have 'raised' your pets. Seeing a pet as this could be considered a personification of them. Your line of ' I refer to my clumsy older cat as "my son" ' is another example of this personification. You refer to the author of the article calling upon the grandparents who must feel in deep grief over the situation. Maybe Morris' point is a bit strong for realism but it does bring another thought to mind. It is a fact that most pet owners grieve the loss of their pet as though it is their child. You say you have raised this pet but what about the little things real parents. How do you think the mother of the pet feels when their precious baby is taken away from them. 3 - You also talk about how this cannot be a psychiatric disorder because there can be no logical cure. But many disorders don't have a cure, one of the main ones being 'Autism.' So I ask you to stop and think about the actual deep meaning of a psychiatric disorder. Beyond the medical aspects of it and into the actual science behind science itself. I end on this. Many pet owners believe what they are doing is good. But maybe sometimes they can be blinded by their own judgement. And maybe this judgement is clouded a little by something primitive inside their minds.
Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Hopefully he will show up for the last round. In all honesty I couldn't really say any more than what I've already said so allow me to recap my previous argument. ====== Case Pro ====== Premise #1 It is morally acceptable to knowingly incur collateral damage to prevent 1 million people from dying in the context of a defensive war. Premise #2 Taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage is far worse than torturing a convicted terrorist for information if the ends to these scenarios are both the same. Premise #3 By analogy torturing a convicted terrorist to prevent 1 million people from dying is the more ethical choice than taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage if the goal is also to save 1 million people. Conclusion If Premise number 1 and 2 are true then torture can be morally justified as a defensive action to prevent 1 million people from dying. Allow me to take you on one last thought experiment. I suspect that it will put my opponents views up to the ultimate test. Imagine that you are the commanding officer of the US armed forces in Iraq. Rebel fighters have smuggled a nuclear weapon into the country and are preparing to detonate it in some highly populated district within an hour. If they succeed in this diabolical mission tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians will be killed. However, there is good news. Not only do you have the ringleader of this operation in your custody but you also find papers on him that details the exact location of the detonation device for the nuclear weapon. These papers also outline how to remotely deactivate the bomb with a secret code that only the ringleader knows. If you bomb the building where the detonation device is being held you will disarm the bomb and thus avert catastrophe. Here is where things get tricky. The building where the bomb detonator is being held is right next to a school and a hospital. And if you decide to bomb it you will likely incur at least a dozen or so civilian casualties. Here are your two options. Choice #1 You can call an air strike to bomb the enemy's base where the detonation device is being held and thus avert catastrophe. However, your choice to do this will likely incur at the minimum 12 casualties children, women, teachers etc. Choice #2 You can torture the leader of the operation for the remote disarmament codes of the nuclear weapon. Even if the torture attempt fails and the information is not extracted you will still have time to call in the air strike at the last moment. Best, Freeman
Yesterday was a KEY turing point in Election 08 : Barack Hussein Obama will likely be the president

Well i see that this is now about Vince for here are some links read Ruddy's book- it is VERY thorough http://www.amazon.com... You can beleive the whitewash or the truth While we are at it. lets look at RON BROWNs DEATH and others as well. I would read Cahills Book http://www.amazon.com... As Don Corleone would have said, "I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall someone who could harm Clinton - if he is to be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell... or if he should be struck by a bolt of lightning - then I'm going to blame some of the people in his administration." If all those deaths associated with people who had the power to bring Clinton down were simply coincidence, Clinton's the luckiest president in history. Not only was Brown's head wound perfectly round and perfectly sized for a .45-caliber bullet hole, it was beveled just like an object with blunt sides, kinda like...well...a bullet. Then investigators want to talk to the local who was responsible for bringing in the plane for landing, but ooopsie, he's got a bullet hole in him, too. And guess what? It's a .45-caliber bullet wound said to be self-inflicted. I can't help but think how lucky Mr. Clinton was. And how conveeeenient it was for the local to use a U.S. caliber instead of a 9mm or .380. But I have to admit this hit was cleaner than the Vince Foster hit. Now the guy who did Vince was a rank amateur. They should let the mob go back to doing these things. They were much better. For those who believe this was all coincidence, there are a lot of good books on the Easter Bunny here. Here are links or MULTIPLE OTHER MYSTERIOUS DEATHS with the KLINGTONGS http://www.etherzone.com... http://www.lizmichael.com... and lets not forget WACO again , you will not remember any of this But this debate is about how Barack will win the presidency he will defeat Clinton and probably also McCain McCain will be tough for him to beat on ISSUES, or REALITY he will NOT be able to keep speaking in generalities in the general But he is VERY SMART and will likely be able to AVOID tough questions He also appears to be willing to take some conservative positions So I think he will win We will see
Yesterday was a KEY turing point in Election 08 : Barack Hussein Obama will likely be the president

Hello, solarman. I request of you not to space every sentence out to make your debate response look longer, because it looks better in paragraph form or in larger clusters. Separation really only works if separating different things. Moving on, I will not refute you entire spaced out Vince Foster summary, as it should have been consolidated into a paragraph and so I will adress it as a whole. The Vince Foster thing: Here is a summary of the Vince Foster death from another source, much shorter, I assure you. Wrestling with clinical depression, Foster was prescribed the mild sleeping aid/anti-anxiety pill Trazodone over the phone by his doctor, though he only had taken a few before he died. The next day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, a federal park in Virginia. He was found with a gun in his hand and gunshot residue on that hand. An autopsy determined that he was shot in the mouth and no other wounds were found on his body. A suicide note of sorts, actually a draft of a resignation letter, was found torn into 27 pieces in his briefcase, a list of complaints specifically including, "The WSJ editors lie without consequence"[13] and lamenting, "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport." His funeral Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Andrew Catholic Church in Little Rock. Bill Clinton gave an emotional eulogy in which he recalled their boyhood times together and quoted a line from Leon Russell's "A Song for You": "I love you in a place that has no space and time."[14] Foster was buried in Memory Gardens Cemetery in his hometown of Hope. Foster was 48 years old and left behind his widow and three adult children. Now, as Wikipedia, my source, is open to all to edit, shouldnt there be some more opinion about speculations and such? Now, when visiting the "death of Vince Foster" wikipedia page, there are all sorts of speculations about who did what and where and conspiracies but it is blatantly clear the purpose of posting these thing: Pure Rumor. There have been no official findings relating this case to the clintons at all. Moving on. You said: I will FOLLOW WITH MUCH MORE, but the GHOST OF VINCE FOSTER LOOMS LARGE she is EVIL TO THE CORE and MUST BE STOPPED Now, I want to know where you get your information and quotes, because personally, i am having a hard time finding this information. Now, you have only suggested here that she was involved (of which i do not believe) in the life of Vince Foster. You have no proof she murdered him, nor sent anyone to do it. She put pressure on him, as any boss would do. No proof= easy win for me. Thank you.