BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Revenge porn should be criminalized.

In the interests of obeying the "No refutations in R2" rule, I have not read my opponent's R2 argument, and will not until I begin planning my R3 argument. My argument is as follows: Firstly, defamation- the definition of defamation is as follows: "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel." (See source 2). These laws are particularly applicable to defending one's so-called "sexual reputation". "In the south of England, this litigation rose most sharply in cases of sexual slander and were notable for the increasing number of women pursuing litigation in defence of their sexual reputation." (See source 3). Defamation laws protect society from individuals who would otherwise destroy it with falsehoods or private information shared in confidence. That's exactly what a sexually explicit image or video is; a private item shared in confidence. Though of course it would be acceptable for an individual to share pornographic images with the consent of the individual(s) depicted in them, and one may even attempt to justify doing so in cases where consent is ambiguous- i.e. the subject has not specified whether it is acceptable to share the images or not- there are many cases where the consent of the subject is explicitly not given- they've specified they do not wish for the images to be shared. in such cases, the autonomy of the individual in the pictures must be respected- we make rape illegal because the violation of one's sexual autonomy is outrageous. We make paedophilia illegal because children are unable to consent, and as such any sexual action with them would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. Revenge porn is a similar violation of one's sexual and bodily autonomy, and should be as illegal for this reason. Revenge porn is always malicious- it is defined in the motion to be "in order to cause them distress or embarrassment". Wilfully malicious and harmful behaviour such as this is usually (and rightly) made illegal- with vandalism being a good example- and so revenge porn should be forbidden for the same reasons. So, in summary, revenge porn should become/remain (depending on where you are) illegal because it: 1) Constitutes defamation. 2) Constitutes a violation of one's sexual and bodily autonomy. 3) Is malicious and harmful. It is for these reasons that I urge voters to side with my case- revenge porn should be illegal. Thank you for your time. Sources: 2: https://www.google.co.uk...;* 3: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Puerto Rico should be Independent

I certainly agree with you that Puerto Rico should not continue in its current shameful "territory" system which is only taxation without representation. I will argue that Puerto Rico's best economic interests are to achieve statehood and not to become independent. 1. The US has a tremendous amount of economic investment in Puerto Rico that directly benefits the people. The USA is the largest investor in Puerto Rico. This means economic investments in tourism, industry, and agriculture. Going independent would make it more difficult for these companies to continue to invest and employ in Puerto Rico. 2. The US provides an enormous amount of money to Puerto Rico and would provide more if it were a state. If Puerto Rico were a state, the US would continue to direct and give significant amounts of aid to its educational and legal systems and thus would pay for those educational and legal systems in entirety. This would likely be more than the tax base of Puerto Rico, thus Puerto Rico would get world-class educational and legal systems at a fraction of their cost. 3. How would Puerto Rican independence help the USA?
Puerto Rico should be Independent

For over one hundred years now Puerto Rico has been in political limbo. It is time Americans recognize the mutual benefit of allowing Puerto Rico to become an independent nation. Statehood advocates argue that we will be entitled to more help (dependence) as a state... Status Qup advocates deny their own history- the founder of the PPD, Luis Munoz Marin, was a Nationalist and the son of Luis Munoz Rivera, a staunch Nationalist as well. There is a process in place in the US legal system for decolonization, and it would greatly benefit both nations. Please, present your arguments, and I am sure we will have a lively debate...
Puerto Rico should be Independent

What happend? Puerto Rico should be independent because every country is entitled to gubernatorial and national sovereignty. Puerto Rico should be independent because the US did not legally aquire Puerto Rico which was a sovereign province of Spain since 1897 at the time of the US invasion. Puerto Ricans aided the Americans during the Spanish American War with the expectation that the US would grant Puerto Rico national sovereignty- they only granted Cuba national sovereignty and imposed various forms of governments on the various other territories aquired under the Treaty of Paris. Puerto Rico should be independent because historically the people have wanted it. I could go on, but I don't know if you'll continue this debate...
Prince Is Better Than Dark Prince

I think that's Prince is better then Dark Prince. First off, the Prince has more health then the Dark Prince even with the Dark Princes shield. I don't really see how much of a difference the Dark Princes shield makes because when they are added together (lvl 8 vs lvl 8) there isn't as many hit points as the Prince has. And even though the Dark Prince does have splash damage it doesn't even make that much of a difference. The Prince does more damage then the Dark Prince (could be because of splash damage). And to me it just seems as if the Dark Princes charge is slower then the Princes (opinion). And Prince you can get early so you have more time to level it up but the Dark Prince you have to get alway the way to Arena 7 (2000+ trophies) and it's pretty rare to have in him in the shop or get him from a chest.
Resolved: The U.S. should abolish all forms of pornography

"The only apparent method for attempting to abolish something is to make it illegal. But child pornography is already illegal, as it ought to be, yet Pro cites abolishing child pornography as a major justification for the resolution. If the major objective has already been accomplished insofar as it is possible to accomplish it, then that justification for the resolution disappears. " ------- Yes child pornography is already illegal but other forms of pornography is not so there for all forms of pornography should be illegal not just child pornography is what im stating "How about putting a seventeen foot statue of a naked man in a public space? That is the case with Michelangelo's statue of David . http://en.wikipedia.org......(Michelangelo) Pro contends that even the softest form of pornography must be abolished. So would a board of censorship zealots given the charge to ban even the mildest forms allow it? No work of art or science could withstand assault so legitimate cultural assets would be hidden. " ---------There is a differance between art of sexually explict things such as your example and pornagraphy. That is not depicting a man having violent intercourse with a woman. So your example doesnt fall under the catorgory of porn since it is art and porn is not. "Pro gives no source for either study he cites. Therefore their scientific validity and Pro's interpretation of the results cannot be examined. I challenge Pro to produce reference citations for the studies; otherwise they should be discounted. " Sorry thought i did . http://www.protectkids.com... and . http://www.enough.com... rest after the two studies are my own. "I have no doubt that child molesters possess child pornography. that, however, is a result of their mental state, not a cause of it. " How can you clearly state that when at least 87 stated to admitting to pornography being the engine for their crimes. "Pro argues that exposure to pornography can prompt children to act out sexually. 'I agree'. " Plus what you have after that ". .. that is an argument to keep pornography from children, not to ban it from adults. " No its not, it is another argument on why porn should be banned. You say against violent porn aka. hardcore". .. .it only feeds people who have mental problems. Removing it would not repair the individual's basic problem. " Yes if if they have i mental problem porn does not help but by removing porn does it not help the person with the mental problem also? thank you i will now pass it back over to my opponent
Resolved: The U.S. should abolish all forms of pornography

I Affirm the resolution resolved: The us should abolish all forms of pornography. Definitions Abolish-To do away with Pornography-Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal Dictionary.com My contentions will be that porn leads to immoral acts and Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out Sexually against Other Children That porn leads to immoral acts In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 of those who molested girls admitted to the everyday use of pornography in the committing of their crimes. Another study shows that male subjects that were exposed up to as little as six weeks worth of violent pornography began to question rape or not even see it as a crime anymore and saw that it was ok to go out and have sex with any one you met as seen in a pornographic movie. Now as I have stated, the person couldn't find what he/she was viewing interesting so they took it a step up. Let's say they were viewing they softest there is imaginable. Eventually the person would get tired of that and take the next step up and so on and so on. When that person finally is tired of viewing and nothing ever satisfies him/her they do immoral things because they no longer see those things as unacceptable and seek to satisfy. So by viewing porn it is basically a stepladder which will lead you to unjust and unmoral things. Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out Sexually against Other Children Children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard. Studies suggest that exposure to pornography can prompt kids to act out sexually against younger, smaller, and more vulnerable children. Experts in the field of childhood sexual abuse report that any premature sexual activity in children always suggests two possible stimulants: experience and exposure. This means that the sexually deviant child may have been molested or simply exposed to sexuality through pornography. In a study of six hundred American males and females of junior high school age and above, researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant found that 91 percent of the males and 82 percent of the females admitted having been exposed to X-rated, hard-core pornography. Over 66 percent of the males and 40 percent of the females reported wanting to try out some of the sexual behaviors they had witnessed. And among high scholars, 31 percent of the males and 18 percent of the females admitted actually doing some of the things they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure. So from viewing pornography one becomes questionable of what is right and wrong and does immoral acts to sum it up. And for these reasons I affirm the resolution and will now stand open for CrossX.
Should offensive language be banned

You have claimed that there is no way of determining what offensive language is. You stated, "who can say something is offensive or not because saying something that is against your option is found offensive." Again you have misunderstood my definition. Offensive language is the use of words that in themselves are offensive. This eliminates any subjectivity from offensive language, and as you have accepted my definition this point is invalid. "unless you are my wife or kid, I do not care about how you feel." Realistically it isn"t your problem to care about how strangers feel, but If you were given an opportunity to make everybody feel better wouldn"t you take it. To conclude, you have provided no concrete evidence supporting the allowance of offensive language. Offensive language serves no purpose in society, and can only be used as a weapon against others. Additionally, offensive language adds nothing to communication and that being the case, offensive language should be banned.
Should offensive language be banned

" This does allow for someone to say that Hillary is bad, but doesn"t allow for someone to swear at Hillary in the face. " - But swearing is not a crime, Unless I am putting someone at harm such as " Hillary I am going to murder you and your family. " 100% someone should be charged. But that is still not what offensive is, and Saying " F*** you Hillary. " Does not give any right for them to be punished for offensiveness nor saying " Hillary go back in the kitchen. " " In response to your man up argument, in most countries, for obvious reasons it is illegal to approach someone in the street and start throwing punches. Why, because this inflicts harms on the person. The same can be said for offensive language. " - But punching someone can harm them, saying something that might hurt your "feelings" does not mean that they should be punished. You are countering your self. " Anyway there are much better ways of expressing your opinion than using swear words, totally unrelated to anything, the only purpose to offend someone else. " - Like I said this before, who can say something is offensive or not because saying something that is against your option is found offensive. Because if unless you are my wife or kid, I do not care about how you feel. http://dailysignal.com... http://www.dailywire.com...
Should offensive language be banned

I believe you have misunderstood the definition I proposed. Under my definition you can say things that are offensive but you shouldn't be allowed to use words that in themselves are offensive. This does allow for someone to say that Hillary is bad, but doesn"t allow for someone to swear at Hillary in the face. In response to your man up argument, in most countries, for obvious reasons it is illegal to approach someone in the street and start throwing punches. Why, because this inflicts harms on the person. The same can be said for offensive language. Anyway there are much better ways of expressing your opinion than using swear words, totally unrelated to anything, the only purpose to offend someone else.
Should offensive language be banned

" This means that rude words are acceptable as long as there is no intention of offending someone else." But who say's something offends me or not, Because offending someone is just that. No right to out ban "offensive language". EX: I dislike Hillary - Ben YOU ARE A SEXIST, TRIGGERED - Random Feminist See, The feminist finds it offensive, So Ben should be out right be punished. This is called tyranny : cruel and oppressive government or rule. " I do believe that everyone should be able to express their opinion even if it offends some but using offensive language is unnecessary and just rude. " But you are not my wife, Or my kid. I do not care how you feel. As long I am not making threats that put people in harm or the country. MAN UP FOR EVERYONE. Basic - No one can say something Is offensive or not, with out 100% reason that the person is at harm or puts the country at harms too.
God exist

My opponent's first paragraph is known as a tautology. If the Earth were different then the Earth would be different. So what? That doesn't prove God. The second paragraph describes the Big Bang theory. Even if Science doesn't know how it started, doesn't prove a God did it. Even if the entire Big Bang theory is wrong, that still doesn't prove a God exists. The third paragraph is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. My opponent has the burden to prove there is a God. His question, "please explain to me how we could have gotten here from "nothing" is irrelevant. I have no burden of proof to explain that.
God exist

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. How did we get here? Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9 Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10 The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. Now please explain to me how we could have gotten here from "nothing". http://www.everystudent.com...
Sex selective abortion is misogyny.

Evidently you cannot read and are incompetent. If you take the time to read my first paragraph and have an IQ above 12, you would understand that I said that sex-based abortion is sexist? I'm not sure what you don't understand about that. Evidently you're a middle-aged woman who has nothing better to do with her life then to start debates on the internet without even reading the other person debate. The topic is "Sex selective abortion is misogyny" you are "con" which means against meaning you disagree that "Sex selective abortion is misogyny" I am pro, meaning I agree that is is misogyny. Before you start a debate make sure your IQ is above 12! Kind Regards, Someone with an IQ above 12.
Sex selective abortion is misogyny.

" I'm a progressive egalitarian. I believe it is sexist and wrong to murder baby girls for their gender. Why should gender or race matter whether someone has the right to live? What about an unborn woman's right to choose. It is possible to choose the gender of your child through sperm seperation if you want to do that. Let's not kill little women." Your argument is pretty much not even legible or even understandable. You're supposed to be arguing that you are not for the abortion of children based on their sex, however it would seem as if you are?
Sex selective abortion is misogyny.

Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." The topic of abortion is already extremely controversial. The fact that a parent will choose whether or not the child is allowed to continue its growth and life depending, and based on gender is 100% misogynistic. The child regardless of gender should be allowed to continue to grow and to live out it's life regardless of their gender. The child's gender can be determined usually between 16-20 weeks of pregnancy. ( see) [https://www.babycenter.com...] This is late on in pregnancy when the child is already developing. This is not only misogynistic, but also is extremely sexist and prejudice.
Failed Nations are a greater threat to the US than stable nations

My opponent says that I have refused to counter that stable nations like Russia have no reason to attack the US. However, I reiterate again that just because most stable nations have no reason or intention of attacking the United States, the debate is over whether or not stable nations are a greater threat to the US than failed nations. My opponent has failed to give in reasons throughout this entire debate to make us believe that any failed nations are a greater threat to the US than Russia. I agree also that China has no reason to manipulate our economy. But this does not take away the fact that they are the largest threat to manipulate us by means of economic pressure. The US is so reliant on China if the case ever did arise that they decide to manipulate us, then China could easily do so. However, this is not a two way road. China is not reliant enough on the US economy that the US could make demands of them. They export most of their goods to the US, but they import most of their goods from countries other than the US. My opponent has failed to refute that their is any other country that is a greater threat, meaning has the ability to inflict damage, economically to the US other than China. The National Forensics League may have classified North Korea has the 17th most failing nation, but according to the definitions of this present debate, I remain firm that North Korea is not a failed nation because they have physical control over their own territory. And therefore any reference to North Korea has a failed nation is invalid. My opponent is correct that terrorism is able to exist more prosperously in failed nations. But has still made no arguments that terrorists are a larger threat to the US than stable dangerous nations such as Russia. Any largescale attack by a terrorist group would be substantially smaller than any largescale attack by a stable nation. Again, I cite Norway and Sweden has having the ability to inflict more damage if they chose to but I agree they have no motive to and it would indeed have drastic consequences for their respective countries. Thank you, vote neg.
Failed Nations are a greater threat to the US than stable nations

My opponent has not countered the fact that Stable nations like Russia have no reason to attack us, and they wont because they know that if they were to attack us Japan, most european countries and China will defend us. China has no reason to attack us either because they rely heavily on our economy, us paying them for labor is a huge factor to their economy and them to defend Russia, if Russia attacked, would hurt them far more in the long run. that is why China would be on the defense of America if Russia were to attack. Unstable nations like Afghanistan and Somalia have very small ties with other strong countries. And I'd like to stand by my statement that North Korea is a failed nation. You can not deny the facts, according to the National Forensic league the 17th most failed nation is North Korea and this list is out of a list of 177. They may be stable in some ways but overall they are a failed nation. since Afghanistan is unable to make collective desicions they are unable to prevent the terrorists in their country to attack us. and it is seen in the past through attacks like the 9/11. Sweden,France, Great Brittan... have strong central governments so if unstable gangs or terrorists were to come in it would be stopped immidately by their police force. Norway and Sweden may have an "ability" to attack us but they know quite clearly if they do attack us it will affect their country in drastic terrible ways. Also why would a country that has everything they have (i.e. a stable nation) attack the U.S. you are completely correct that stable nations have the "ability" to attack us and any logical person would agree with you but my point is that it is a very slim chance of happening I stand in the firmest affirmation that "Stable Nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than Failed nations" Thank you, once again