BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bronies are Homosexual Part 2

Okay! Here is the rematch to the some-what popular debate, Bronies are Homosexual. All arguments are extended from the last debate. I would like to ask Imabench to post his last argument in the last debate in Round 1 to make it a bit easier for me to respond in round 2. For those who have not seen the last debate here is the link http://www.debate.org... Definitions Brony - "A name typically given to the male viewers/fans (whether they are straight, gay, bisexual, etc.) of the My Little Pony show or franchise."(1) Homosexual - "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex"(2) And for the sake of the debate, Gay - "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."(3) Rules No trolling, semantics, lawyering, strawmanning or anything that the average DDO member would not approve of. Have fun with the debate and good luck! (1)http://www.urbandictionary.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3)http://education.yahoo.com...
Sexual harassment/sexualization/rape culture has gotten out of hand

I apologize sincerely to my opponent as well as the voters. I know this was my debate but something has come up and I did not get the chance rebut his arguments. Again I am deeply sorry, and hopefully, when things die down, we can try this again. I encourage you vote for my opponent as he has been able to reply. I am sincerely sorry that I was not able to reply. Have a good night :)
Naruto: The Rasengan is clearly better than the Chidori

Just because Sasuke is faster doesn't mean the Justu itself is powerful. the jutsu is powerful, but the con to being faster is he can only go in a straight line if he moves really fast. I don't want to say it again, Naruto can expand his Rasengan. Also, Naruto has the RasenShuriken which is even more powerful. Don't say that's not a Rasengan. IT IS! It's a Rasengan in a wind enhanced shuriken form. Sasuke doesn't have any advanced form of the Chidori except Black Chidori, but that's nothing compared. Seriously, if Naruto hits Sasuke with that indirectly or directly, he can still die instantly or he can still get hurt badly depending where he hit him. Also he can throw it too. Can Sasuke throw his Chidori, I'm afraid not. I will give Sasuke this, he uses his Chidori sometimes for Tactical purposes like his Chidori Semdon. But, I think Naruto can do more with his Rasengan especially when he has a lot of variations of the Rasengan.
Naruto: The Rasengan is clearly better than the Chidori

The first Thing I want to notate is what we are debating. It is the Rasengan vs the Chidori. The resolution is"The rasengan is clearly better than the chidori"This is not saying that it is just better, but a lot better. The first thing I want to clarify is what I have to do to win. All I have to do is show that it Chidori is just as good as the Rasengan or that the Rasengan is just slightly better than the Chidori. If I do either of these per the resolution I win the debate. Errors in my adversaries argumentsHe keeps comparing naruto and sasuke. The power of a spell is determined by the person using it. Comparing two different people with two different levels of power is not enough to determine which spell is more beneficial. That is like saying if Kakashi used the chidori vs Naruto when he first started training, we can logically conclude the Chidori is a better spell. Again this is a fallacy. We do not need to compare sasuke and nartuo but the actual abilities in question. RasenganA spiral of energy that explodes through an enemy. It enters with a small gaping hole and exits with a massive blast. Downsides. Requires a lot of energy to useHarder to controlRequires Tremendous FocusChidoriA lighting Jitsui that engulfs the casters hand. The high amount of chakra produces a sound like birds chirping which is where its name is derived. This is a speed attack and is an assassination move because of the speed at which is required to use it. It is often a single thrust that goes through the enemy and is fatal. It is a swift and deadly technique. upsidesLess focus requiredEasier to move around when using (Versatility)Speed and concentration is higher than the rasengan. It can be applied to weapons and the energy can be sent into swords and other objects ConclussionThe Chidori is probably better than the rasengan because of the aforementioned reasons. If it is not better, it is just as good.
Naruto: The Rasengan is clearly better than the Chidori

Dude, like literally. Every fan should know that the Rasengan is clearly better. 1. It can completely blast you away. LITERALLY! 2. Naruto can expand his Rasengan into a Massive Rasengan and completely obliterate. Which is my main point. 3. Sasuke cannot expand his Chidori. He can make it stretch out, but that doesn't change the fact that the Rasengan can still expand and obliterate stuff. Seriously though, just think of it this way, BIG MASSIVE RASENGAN or Chidori. Which one is going win? That's like having an 18 wheeler going against a Fiat in a demolishion derby.
NSA Surveillance

I dislike instigating debates from the Con position, but I wasn't entirely sure how to frame the resolution. My opponent, should he accept, has agreed to debate this issue from either side. I will be standing in opposition to the extent of NSA Surveillance. A brief overview: The NSA has the capability to collect massive amounts of data on traffic over switched phone networks and the internet. Recently they gained the ability to capture and store data en masse, and retain it indefinitely. In addition to internet monitoring, the NSA has call data records on the time and length of calls, the phone numbers involved, when the call was made, and location data for mobile devices among other things. We will not be debating whether or not the government legally has the authority to implement this extent of surveillance, as the government can essentially give itself the power to do anything. Instead we will be discussing whether or not the NSA should have this legal capability.Regarding the scope of the debate, I imagine two issues may come up that blur the intent of the resolution: what extent of surveillance the NSA should have (if any), and to what extent could the NSA dive further into a slippery slope to complete totalitarianism. For this debate, I contend that my opponent and I may touch upon those topics if facilitating the discussion, however, the current framework of NSA technology as outlined above will be the standard of opposition. In other words, I can't argue that the U.S. will undoubtedly become a completely authoritarian regime, and my opponent does not only have to defend minor or minimal surveillance, but at the very least the surveillance that is currently in place. Many thanks in advance to YYW for accepting this debate.I will start the discussion by posting an opening argument in R2. If Pro wishes to present the first argument, then he should forfeit R4 so that we both get 3 rounds of formal debate.
are online friends more effective then imaginary friends

It may be easier to send words through messaging systems, however, without the subtleties of facial features and body language, a large amount of meaning is lost, and the possibility of a miscommunication is highly greatened. This will, and I'm sure, in most people reading this' experience, leads to having to overly explain each word of a sentence (exaggeration) in detail, as though (bigger exaggeration) analysing a passage of Shakespeare.
The victory progresses opposite an attendant.

Oh what love flows with this gracious pen. Tilted against the windmills of your victory progress. Disarranged to a magnitude of such purity. Tilting blindly with this lance of absolute faith. Transgressions forgiven, honour redeemed. Once more this shield of lustred definition, thwarts your thunderous blows with time honoured clarity. Let's raise judgement and let's offer praise to their absolute sincerity.
The Bible doesn't forbid Tattoos

The most important note to this debate from my side this round should be fairly simple. Christanity has many customs and illogical traditions, yet no one follows these, in the modern world. Why? Simple, because Christians realize that the god from the Old Testament is a genocidal, jealous, murderous bully who teaches hatred and ludicrous customs that most people just don't feel like following. My opponent keeps stating things similar to: well If that's true why do we do this? That's because no one follows the verses that are a nuisance to there life and instead decide whitch verses to follow and whitch to discard. It's not my fault very few people actually follows every word of the bible, I'm only stating what the bible says itself not its followers. Rebuttal. Argument1/Romans 14:13- having a tattoo can be judged because the bible clearly states not to tattoo yourself. The only way to get out of this statement is by coming up with excuses to justify it. Argument 2: Yes Christ gave forgiveness, so does that allow you go break all his rules? of course not. My opponent basically argues : if it's in the New Testament too keep it, if its not trash it. Keep all of gods word if u believe him to be a diety! Argument3: it does not matter what context it was in because it still has the same meaning... "Don't have a tattoo!" Wether it's for the dead or for your own liking... Sure I don't think it would be a big deal to god, but rules a rule. Argument4: my oponnent make a good argument here, about his cross tattoo. I think that tattoo might slide with god considering its a symbol representing christanity, but tattoos in general would not be accepted by god. For its says its forbidden. I enjoyed the debate, may the best man win. Conduct goes to pro for forfeit
The Bible doesn't forbid Tattoos

First I would like to apologize for forfeiting the second round. .. , I hope I can still have a fair chance at winning the debate, but I urge voters to give pro the point for conduct. My opponent has stated " why should u care your an atheist" we'll this is true, but it's irrelevant to the debate and I feel I don't need to answer it. REFUTING------- Romans 14:13- well this is not the first time the bible has contradicted itself: Christians have judged certain people for thousands of years, for example Christians would find homosexuals immoral. That should be no different for people tattooed for a bible verse openly states not to have tattoos. I don't fully understand my opponents sixth paragraph or should I say "line" of words. .. Some grammatical mistakes there. . "Out of context rebuttal" (being rebutted) It's true that most Christians don't follow these rules but never the less it's agianst the rules. .. Christians over time have selected the verses that are acceptable to modern Standards and rejected the barbaric and inconvenient verses, to make things easier. "The not under law" supposedly Jesus died for our sins but that does not mean that every law in the Old Testament is no longer in function. The verse isn't very clear to me and I doubt it actually translates into: "forget everything I said before". MY ARGUMENT We were built in gods image, so why would humans change there appearance by engraving symbols into there bodies? God reminds us that he is perfect over and over so why should we add on to his perfectness? There is no reason, the bible even states that its agianst the law, although most Christians believe we are no longer in old testement law we keep half of the values that it teaches. .. Further more I thing god meant that the sacrificing laws were done, but not the values and principles. For christains all still live under the influence of the commandments and certain verses.
The Bible doesn't forbid Tattoos

Before I begin this third round, I would like to point out a few facts for those that will be voting on this debate. I would like to point out that con has had 48 hours to post his argument for round two, and has failed to do so within that time frame. Con did mention in the comments that he forgot to hit the submit button, and wishes to post his argument in the comment section. I am not allowing this however because 48 hours is more than enough time to post your argument correctly to this debate. Second, while certainly not attacking con's religious beliefs, I would like to point out that con has changed his religious belief from Christian to Atheism in his profile. Let's look at the term Atheism for a moment: Atheism "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." http://en.wikipedia.org... If con truly believes in Atheism, why would he care what the Bible states on this issue? For this round, I would like to look at two more passages that are commonly used in the argument against tattoos. The first is I Cor 6:15 "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" I fully agree that our bodies are made in the image of Christ, and in that fact, we should take care of, and respect our body. I would like to state however that I do feel someone with tattoos is more likely to come up to me, someone with a tattoo as well, than they would go up to someone in a nice dress shirt and pants holding a Bible. I have more of a chance to be a witness. The second verse I would like to point out is Romans 14:13 "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way." Christ is the only person that can judge what is truly correct in the matter, but we must do everything in love. The verse states not to be a stumbling block to our brother. If I had a friend over to my home that is a strict vegan, I would certainly not sit there and eat a nice steak in front of them. I would go about fixing a nice vegan meal that we both can enjoy in fellowship. I would, even though I may disagree with their position, show love and respect toward my fellow brother. I do hope that con will post his arguments, and rebuttals toward to position I have given. I am giving con 48 hours to post his arguments. I believe, at this point, if con fails to post an argument this would be a forfeit of this debate. I look forward to hearing what con as to state on this matter.
The Bible doesn't forbid Tattoos

I look forward to the debate. Lev. 19:28 Let me start this round by stating that con has already pointed out the ONE verse in the Bible that mentions something in reference to tattoos, or marks on the body. “Do not cut your bodies for the dead, or put tattoos on yourselves. I am the LORD. ” This is the one verse he thinks makes an open and closed case. If we stop and look at this one verse by itself, scripture seems to be very clear that tattoos are wrong, and are a sin against the LORD. However, I will now show that the ONE verse he is using, has been taken out of context from the passage. Out of Context Rebuttal As I have already mentioned, con has used the main verse in his argument out of context from the passage. Let’s stop and look at some of those surrounding verses. Lev. 19:19 “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. ” Lev. 19:26-28 “Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or seek omens. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead, or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. ” When the verses are taken into context, we have a problem. If we are to obey Lev 19:28, we must follow all the other verses as well. I am sure con has eaten a steak before. I am sure he has cut his hair. I am sure some of his clothes are mixed materials. History of Lev 19:28 The LORD was talking to his people in reference to not following this common pagan practice of cutting oneself to mourn for the dead. It was very common for the pagans to make deep cuts in themselves, or engrave pictures of the dead in themselves during the period of mourning for lost ones. The LORD is reminding his people not to take part in this. Not Under The Law Today, because of the LORD’s death on the cross for us, we are no longer under the Old Testament Law. Romans 10:4 states “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. ” We no longer need to live under the Old Testament laws and practices. So What Now? Since we no longer live under Old Testament law, we need to look at under scripture in the Bible for guidance in this issue. We need to seek wisdom as James 1:5 informs us to do. I Cor. 10:31 states ". .. do all to the glory of God. " I believe that a Christian tattoo of a cross with a verse can be used as an excellent witness tool. Someone that has tattoos on them is more likely to come up to me and ask about about my tattoo than they would to go up to someone in a dress suit. Paul's Word'sPaul states in I Cor 9:22-23 "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel. "I would urge con to put his verses in context, and not just choose a verse, and make it fit what he wishes that verse to state.
Committing homosexual acts may lead to God killing you.

ALERT! ALERT! This debate will be strictly for Muslims, Christians, or Jews. Any other religions or atheists out there should not accept this debate. Reasons being that this is strictly a religious, moral matter involving Yahweh, the Trinity, and/or Allah. If you are not in this category, know that I'm not discriminating. I simply want the point of view of someone who worships the same God as me. This debate is also not open to any people who feel that homosexual acts are allowed by God's law. If you accept my challenge without being eligible, you lose automatically. There will be four rounds, and my job is to explain why those who violate the law of God are not exempt from fatal justice. Your job is to explain why those who commit this grave sin are free from guilt and possibility of punishment. (Please note to all those who think i want to murder homosexuals: I do not. I am not arguing that they SHOULD be murdered. I'm simply saying that going against God's commands opens you up to God's wrath. It's the same as if a murderer is killing straight people: the muderer is at the mercy of God.) For those who do not meet the qualifications of this debate, feel free to leave a comment. I understand I will be viciously attacked for this, and I'm honestly a little worried. But bring it on.
Students Should Not Be Punished For Walking Out For Gun Reform.

Hey, thanks for starting this debate about the punishments that students received for walking out for gun reform, and whether those punishments were justified. This is my first debate, so please, be nice! As Pro, I am arguing that students shouldn't have and shouldn't be in the future, punished for walking out. Please, try not to swear, and state your sources. Use facts, not opinion. Thanks so much, and I look forward to learning more about the issue at hand. Try and change my mind!
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

If media is glorification, and glorification plays a big role in electing congress that the South had glorified it a lot! Here is a list of southern KKK congressmen Orval Fabus Benjamin Travis Laney John Stennis James Eastland Allen Ellender Russell Long John Sparkman John McClellan Richard Russell Herman Talmadge George Wallace Lester Maddox John Rarick Robert Byrd Al Gore, Sr. Bull Connor Only a few congressmen were KKK members up in the North. Yes there was the KKK in the north but the South glorified it by far. You only have two options did the North glorified the KKK or did the South? You say the south but as stated before this statement is ridiculous.
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

Key word. "Subjugation" is not the same as "separatist." I'm trying to say that both the North and South were in on it. Both created their own ways of subjugation. It's not that the North was self-segregation or separatist or preference or any sweet innocent term you could throw at them. The North, like the South, also tried to subjugate blacks, and yes Griffith was a Northern. The Klan was glorified in both parts of the country, and soon in the entire country. Oh, key word, ex-Confederate state of Georgia. Georgia was US territory again.
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

In the second round my opponent says, "Anyways, the KKK that came about in 1915 was indeed a Northern invention...' Unfortunately for him, the "second KKK" that was created in 1915 was actually a second invention created from William J. Simmons in the southern ex - confederate state of Georgia: http://www.infoplease.com... Again, his second premise does not hold wait. Then he gets into if whites want to not racial mix blah blah blah. This is subjective, personally I don't care what a person wants to do. If a black only wants to date blacks, Hispanics with Hispanics etc. that is fine by me, but that is not his thesis. Getting back to the facts, if the claim is the South shouldn't get blamed for glorifying the KKK then he is incorrect. Sure there was Northern KKK members, but the mass majority of people participating and glorifying were from the south.
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

Don't forget, northern Kentucky is still Northern. The KKK that came out in 1915 is different from the original Klan, which wasn't even a Klan, just a buncha guys going around terrorizing black people for fun, quite evil if I might add. Anyways, the KKK that came about in 1915 was indeed a Northern invention. Here's the thing, separatist and subjugation is not the same thing. Racial seperatists are not bad people. If white people want to survive I have nothing against that, just like any race that wants to survive and marry with their own kind. It's their preference. Just like if they want an interracial marriage. Also their preference. But the North was not about "Oh they prefered their own kind, or it was self-segregation." They were about subjugation of another group. So the North was just like the South. There was no personal prejudice. It was institutionalized and de jure in the North. Griffith was a Northerner. Northern Kentucky is still Yankee.
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

My opponent makes a claim that the south is blamed for glorifying the KKK, but that this isn't in the case. He then used just ONE example from a guy, ironically in a southern state. The fact is no matter if this one guy lived 1 inch from the border, if he lived in Kentucky he is from the South. However this is besides the point. The KKK was started from 4 ex confederates from the South. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com... 4 guys created the KKK and today we still have people from the Klan. Obviously the south glorified the KKK
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

The creator of "Birth of a Nation," which made the Klan a national phenomena, was a Northerner. DW Griffith was a Northerner. Even if you consider Kentucky a Southern state, northern Kentucky is considered Yankee. Plus, he almost was not born in Kentucky. He was born right next the state border of Indiana, in Crestwood, which can be considered Yankee territory. Anyways, this shows that to blame the South for this is wrong. Mind you the South did f--ked up things too, but it was a Northerner that made the Klan a national phenomena.
Claim: the South is to blame for glorifying the KKK

http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(political_movement) (Northern invention) http://en.wikipedia.org... (Northerner; led the largest Klan invasion of Indiana in politics) Also Missouri, a Northern state, had slavery. And you can't blame the Irish or Catholics for it, because Missouri, even if we are to use the standard argument that the South is Scots-Irish, it would technically make the English Protestants responsible for slavery in Missouri.