BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harry Potter vs Percy Jackson

Therefore good luck and let's get to it. Rebuttals: "Ron didn't even know a single spell" If you were refering to The Philosopher's Stone, then notice that Hogwarts is a wizarding SCHOOL as a place for you to learn spells. Had Ron actually practiced magic at home, there would be a risk of having at least something blow up. Now let's also look at another factor, age. Grover was taught he was a saytr ever since he was born. The same went to Ron who knew he was a wizard. However Grover was 16 (in human years) and Ron was eleven so critisizing Ron for his spells is out of the question. "Hermione only knows a lot about magic, while Annabeth knows a lot about a lot. " Hermione's world consisted mainly of magic and Hogwarts so that didn't give her much opportunity to show her knowledge of the muggle world. Even when the left Hogwarts in the Deathly Hallows, you may see that all they went to was a thick forest, Diagon Alley and back to Hogwarts once again so there was absolutely no muggle cities (Actually there was one however all you will see during that take are a couple of old buildings and no attractions. Also it was night. ) and therefore your point on Hermione not knowing much is now invalid. Points: Like Grover and Annabeth, Ron and Hermione are the protangonist's besties. The one thing that makes them better though, is how they have always been together. In the Percy Jackson series, it is mainly Annabeth and Percy now without Grover mostly. As soon as the series took a romantic theme, Grover was out of the picture. Not once had he went on the adventure in the Blood of Olympus series. The only time we saw him was in Jason's dream as he was plummeting down the ship. After that, we hardly ever saw Grover again. He wasn't even there when Percy and Annabeth were getting Hermes's staff back from the giant Cacus. Meanwhile Ron and Hermione had taken the path Percy and Annabeth had but Harry is still with them. Even when asked to fight death itself, Ron and Hermione still remained loyal to Harry which shows absolutely how these three are a prime example of 'loyal'.
Harry Potter vs Percy Jackson

Rules: Pro is Harry Potter, Con is Percy Jackson. Although I personally believe Harry Potter would win, I decided to try and practice defending a side I wouldn't normally support. I love both of the books and have read the main series of both. No personal attacks, only things about characters. This will be divided into 4 rounds. The first round will be about who has the better friends (Ron & Hermione or Grover & Annabeth), the second about who has the better magical home (Hogwarts or Camp Half Blood), the third about who has the better villain (Voldemort or Kronos), and the final being about who has the better hero (Harry Potter or Percy Jackson.) Good luck to both me and my opponent, and may the best debater win. Argument: I believe Grover & Annabeth are better friends to Percy for many reasons. Grover has been Percy's friend ever since he was sent to become Percy's friend. He's smarter than Ron, because Ron didn't even know a single spell, despite being raised in a magical home, while Grover seems to know how to fight monsters since page 1. At the same time, he is goofy as well. Both Grover and Ron are funny, so there's no arguing that. However, Grover has saved Percy countless times in the first year of camp, while all Ron did on the first year was stick a wand up a troll's nose. But Ron did "sacrifice" himself in the chess room, so points to him there. Still, Grover makes the better male friend for those reasons. Evidence: http://riordan.wikia.com..., http://harrypotter.wikia.com... Now, onto Annabeth. Annabeth and Hermione were both rude to the main character when they first met. However, Hermione didn't respect Harry at all, while Annabeth has some form of respect when she found out Percy's power. Hermione got emotional during the Halloween incident, while Annabeth is tough no matter what. Hermione now respects Harry a little too much, while Annabeth still teases Percy, despite them now being in a dating relationship. Both of them are smart, knowing a lot. However, Hermione only knows a lot about magic, while Annabeth knows a lot about a lot. Personally, this makes me think Annabeth is the better female friend. Evidence: http://riordan.wikia.com..., http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
Should Gay marriage be legalized

In order to find out if someone has a right to do something, we need to define what the "something" is that we are discussing. In this debate, we are debating the topic of "marriage." Indeed, my opponent and I seem to have very different interpretations of marriage. my point is that the legal aspect of marriage was established for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. Although the purpose is not necessarily met in all cases, the laws of marriage should uphold the purpose to fulfill the purpose in as many cases as possible. The opponent's point does not address the matter at hand My arguments have been indirectly replied to and have ultimately remained unrefuted. Therefore, we can conclude that gay marriage should remain illegal, because homosexual partnership is not compatible for the institution of marriage or its legal significance in contemporary society.
Should Gay marriage be legalized

It is obvious that Con"s purpose does not fit very well at all within the current structure of marriage, while mine fits perfectly. Regarding my happiness argument: Con has addressed this argument as if it were independent of my previously stated purpose of marriage. It is not. The reason he cannot marry his car for happiness is because a person and an intimate object cannot engage in the institution of marriage. My argument is that gay marriages can fulfill the purpose of marriage, therefore gay people should not be denied this happiness. In conclusion, I have clearly shown that there are numerous positives to legalizing gay marriage. Con has not provided any reasons why it should not be legalized. Same-sex marriage should be legalized. I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, as well as the astute readers and voters of DDO. I rest my case.
Should Gay marriage be legalized

As this debate will discuss the reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage compared to the reasons not to do so, in this round I will discuss some of the most important reasons to recognize the practice. A primary question that must be asked in this debate is what does it mean for a society to have marriages that are recognized legally? Marriage is not only the formal union of a man and a woman which recognized by law, and by which they get status as husband and wife but also the essential part where people can express their love and became a family. From the past until now traditional family includes a wife, a husband and their children. However, not everyone is legally able to get married. A love shared by two people of the same sex cannot get such status as married because same- sex marriage is prohibited and our society cannot understand gay's position. The first argument for legalizing gay marriages is that gay marriages do not hurt or affect any society neither physically nor emotionally. It is well- known fact that marriage is a relationship between two people and it cannot influence on the others. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." According to study published on April 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly "laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage , divorce, and abortion rates, or the percent of children born out of wedlock...". Indeed gay people choose their partner amongst people with their point of view that is gays. This statistics shows that heterosexual marriage is positively effect on homosexual marriage. Moreover, the adoption rates will be increased. Because gay people have not got an ability of reproduction they resort to adoption. As every family gay people also want to form a family with their own children so they go to orphanage and receive the child which they are not able to have. This adoption helps not only homosexual men but also help children who left in orphanage to fulfill their lives. The second reason for permitting gay marriages is that people all over the world have the same rights. Gay people are not "second class citizens" and they should have the same freedom, opportunities that heterosexual people have. Moreover homosexual people's right should be written into Constitution of every country. Our society prohibit gay people's right to marry, to make decision about their relations and do not let them establish their own family. On the contrary, heterosexual people have the right to get married or not and they do not have any restriction from government's side. Everyone despite his color of their skin, nation of origin, marital status, income level or sexual orientation should ensured with personal immunity, right to vote, enjoyment of his civil, social and economic rights. Furthermore, gay marriage can bring financial gain to state and local governments. If gay marriage will legalize it can bring in an income from marriage licenses, rent, utilities and high income taxes. I await my opponent"s response.
Chewing Gum in Middle Schools

Since my opponent's argument relies upon a hypothesis she will be testing, she has no arguments just yet. --Con Case-- 1) Gum is a distraction. Too often, gum smacking is something that takes students away on day dreams of sugary pleasantry, and the noise is a distraction to other students. You can read about some of the problems more in detail here http://www.ehow.com... 2) Gum is problematic for the school. I don't need to prove that students stick their gum to the bottom of their desks in school. This is extremely unsanitary; moreover, gum is often found thrown around on the floor. I contend that this is detrimental for health reasons, and, simply put, it takes away from the "comfort" one would expect in a learning environment, if everywhere you step you are being careful not to get stuck to the floor beneath you. See the video. http://www.youtube.com... 3) Gum can be used to bully. Also seen in my previous article from ehow, bullies often stick gum in other students' hair. No need to explain the harms. 4) Gum is costly in schools. ALSO from the ehow article; the cost to a school for cleaning up the littered gum is rather high and unnecessary. Another nice article to read regarding all of this: http://www.parliament.uk... I urge a con vote.
Chewing Gum in Middle Schools

I believe that middle school students should be allowed to chew gum in all of there classes except for P.E., Chorus, and Drama. I will be doing test to see if chewing gum actually help students focus more. If my hypothesis is true then I will be running it by all schools in the district. If any thing I believe that all schools should be allowed to chew gum during school as long as they are not sharing there gum or handing it out. If students do bad on there test then it proves that students should not be allowed to chew gum in school. If a child chooses to do it out of school then that should be perfectly fine. In school students should still be allowed to chew gum unless there is a problem with gum sticking.
Water Boarding is indeed torture.

I will assume that my opponet has not been water-boarded by the U.S. Military. I can say honestly that I have never been water-boarded. With that being said my opponet and I cannot use personal accounts on this issue. To determine if Water-Boarding is torture, I present two things to ponder. 1: The history of Water-boarding During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well as the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred, which included waterboarding consisting of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. (Wikipedia) Early in history the name water-boarding didn't exist. In fact it had a vareity of names. During the Spanish-American War it was called "Chinese Water Torture". 2: A Personal Account I cannot say that Water-Boarding from my own personal account (I have not gone through this procedure). But I can use the words of someone else who in fact was water-boarded. I turn to Henri Alleg, a journalist. In 1957 he was captured by French forces and tortured. In his book he describes the water-boarding experiance: "The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably." Then we look at a more recent case from a man named Daniel Levin. This man who was the acting assitant attorney General, decided the only way to judge whether or not the meathod of water-boarding was in fact torture he went to have it done upon himself. Since 2004 when he had himself water-boarded he has spoken out against the technique calling it "Torture". I trust his word over anyone on this site. And so it stands. Levin said it. Alleg said it. And now, here on debate.org, I speak for these men. Water Boarding is Torture.
Water Boarding is indeed torture.

Chinese Water Torture: Why are we debating this? It's totally irrelavent, and honestly, you're misinformed. The fact that they both have to do with 'water' is not a connection. "Chinese water torture is the popular name for a method of water torture in which water is slowly dripped onto a person's forehead, driving the victim insane. This form of torture was first described under a different name by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in Italy in the 16th century. This has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH WATERBOARDING. Now, to move on to the actual debate: Waterboarding is not torture because it does not cause any physical pain, or any long lasting damage. In fact, its almost a joke with terrorists, who just sit through it. The purpose of waterboarding is an empty threat - to scare the victim. Thats why we don't use it anymore - know that its commmon knowlege that noone is actually being drowned, the terrorists just laugh it off! Its inneffective! It causes no harm to them at all, and scares them a bit, and even that is not enough to do anything! That's why we've stopped using it. I admit that it may be uncomfortable, and even unpleasant or scary, but if we are to constitute torture as "uncomfortable or unpleasant" then nearly everything (including parents spanking children, falling off a bike) can be considered torture. If anything scary was torture, then Halloween means we're the US is a torture fest. I ask my opponent two things; Is there ANY evidence at all (you've provided none) that Waterboarding leaves a permanant, harmful, crippling impression on the people it is done to? When you realize that is no, I move on to my second question: If Waterboarding was really a terrible torture that left long lasting permannt impressions on the victim, then why do we do it to our own soldiers? The answer is again that Waterboarding is an empty threat - it scares the people without doing any actual damage at all. And once the soldiers know this, they can merely ignore the Waterboarding Waterboarding is many things: Unpleasant. Frightening. Uncomfortable. But most of all? An empty threat. I know that the common sentiment is to want to vote Pro on this, but use common sense; can something that has almost become a joke in the intelligence community, something that WE SUBJECT OUR OWN SOLDIERS to, be considered torture? The answer is a clear and resounding no. Please vote Neg.
Water Boarding is indeed torture.

Tortrue:anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain(. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Chinese Water Torture. This was the first step in what we now call water boarding. Slowly a new cloth was placed over the nose and mouth with the addition of some water until eventually the suspect felt as if they were drowning. Both CWT and waterboarding have the same goal: They both simulate drowning. See I belief that torture does not have to be physical, but I want to make it clear that waterboarding is physical torture as well as menatal. I just want to say that things like flushing a koran down a toliet is torture to the captives at Gitmo as well. Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding. The international community to this day stands against waterboarding. I'm not going to put up a "He said-She said" argument here. The accounts I gave are just as valid as my opponets and I respect his sources. But the words of those water-boarded are very strong. To quote Henri Alleg one more time: "I felt I was drowning and I was in terrible agony" The reason why our troops go through this is because it is part of a "Torture Resistance" training to help troops resist TORTURE. Why is waterboarding part of this if it is not torture? This isn't about comfort. Are you comparing waterboarding to writers cramp? The world over agrees this is torture, and history is relevant to this discussion because for the Inquistion is Spain, To the Gestapo in WW2 it is deemed torture. Why should we call this just another interrogation technique? When one drowns, we call it death. When one goes through a process where they feel that they are drowning, that they are going to die, we call it agony.
Water Boarding is indeed torture.

As for his points: 1) A history of waterboarding is irrelavent to this debate. 2) Waterboarding was never known as Chinese Water Torture (CWT), which is an entirely different proceedure. CWT was a psychological stressor that combined repeated action of a waterdrop being dropped on the subject while being tied down. The water emphasized the feeling of bondage, which compelled the subject to speak. Waterboarding is entirely different. It simulates the feeling of drowning within the subject. TO better explain, I'm going to define torture: "the infliction of severe pain". From RWN: . http://www.rightwingnews.com... According to a high ranking naval official: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to this interrogation technique and was able to resist much longer than would have been expected from an individual who had not been trained to resist waterboarding" A non-trained individual easily resisted waterboarding. I now direct you to Newsmax: . http://www.newsmax.com... "Furthermore, waterboarding should not be considered torture, as some are claiming. Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain. In fact, U. S. special forces are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training in case they are captured and experience the procedure. Waterboarding was used only when the CIA believed a second wave of terrorist attacks was imminent. But once the media began disclosing that the CIA was using the technique, it became useless, because if terrorists know they will be subjected to fake "drowning," they will not respond to it. " While I am not detracting from the testimony of the waterboarded that my opponent gave, the truth is that they were merely just frightened. Yes it was uncomfortable, but so are many things in life. Ironically, waterboarding is so inneffective at causing harm that many terrorists (as per my article) ignore it entirely. We even subject our OWN soldiers to it. I'll admit that while it may be mean, uncomfortable, or morally wrong, Waterboarding in and of itself cannot be considered torture because it does not inflict severe pain upon those that it is done upon - from terrorists to our own soldiers.
More People Should Fat-Shame Women

Closing statements The youtube links now work. No idea why they didn't work before. Ultimately Pro has failed to provide evidence that fat shaming does any good whatsoever. Meanwhile I have shown that fat shaming causes obese people to become depressed and more obese. What both Pro and Con agree on. Both Pro and Con agree that obesity and morbid obesity are unhealthy. We both seem to have the same goal to reduce obesity. What Pro and Con disagree on. Method of reducing obesity. Pro argues that fat shaming is the correct angle of attack. I argue that education is the correct angle of attack. Fat acceptance One issue that my opponent brought up is the idea of fat acceptance. I never seriously addressed the issue, because I know almost nothing about the subject. That somehow fat shaming will destroy fat acceptance. My opponent also implies that fat acceptance leads to obesity. Yet, my opponent never shows the link between fat acceptance and obesity risk. Nor does my opponent provide evidence that fat shaming reduces fat acceptance. Bottom line My opponent's arguments are almost entirely speculative. My opponent implies that fat shaming is helpful, fat shaming reduces fat acceptance, and fat acceptance leads to obesity. Yet, fails to back up these claims with proof. Meanwhile I show that fat shaming causes greater obesity in already obese people. Finally, I offer evidence that education helps reduce obesity. "In 2007-2010, higher levels of education among the head of household resulted in lower rates of obesity among boys and girls 2-19 years of age. In households where the head of household had less than a high school education, 24 percent of boys and 22 percent of girls were obese. In households where the head had a bachelor’s degree or higher, obesity prevalence was 11 percent for males aged 2-19 years and 7 percent for females." [13]Links13. http://www.cdc.gov...