BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soft porn serves no useful purpose.

Many thanks to my opponent for joining this debate. I took the opportunity to examine his profile and discovered that his profession stated "student" rather than "escaped convict" or "prisoner on the run". From this, we must conclude that he is a decent, law-abiding citizen. I also noted that he was only 17 years old, which means, as a law-abiding citizen, he will not have previously viewed pornography, as minors are prohibited to do this by law. Therefore, dear voters, any comments my opponent makes on the subject in hand must be considered as no more than conjecture, speculation and hearsay. My opponent googled "softcore porn" which resulted in 2 million results. I would suggest that most of these sites were dedicated to campaigns against softcore porn and I defy my opponent to provide a link to a genuine soft porn site without getting this debate cancelled by support! In the course of his research, my opponent also googled "wild frogs porn", which resulted in no results. I expect my opponent was getting confused with "wild frog spawn", which just underlines his lack of understanding of adult entertainment! I do agree, however, that the more weathered porn actresses lack the sexual appeal of the more fresh-looking girls but consider this: say the teen lovely that lives next door to you came round and offered to do a striptease for you and got to the point where she was completely naked except for her knickers, would you tell her to stop there and go home? I suspect not. It's the same with porn, though I can't prove it by providing a link for obvious reasons, but there are some nice young porn actresses that go the Full Monty, when my opponent reaches the age of 18 he will be able to discover this for himself!
Soft porn serves no useful purpose.

First let's clear up the definition of softcore porn. Will you accept that it's porn without clear views of the genitals, boobs permitted? "People who like porn don't like soft porn" First of all I'd like to see some statistics, or something to back that up. I prefer softcore porn over hardcore, therefor I am an anomaly according to your statement. I shouldn't exist. There a obviously others that share my opinion, because a simple Google search for "softcore porn" provides nearly 2 million results (http://www.google.com...), and that's searching for the term in quotes! Clearly there's a demand for it. Whereas if I search for "wild frog porn", no results are given, meaning little or no demand. Since my opponent gave some anecdotal evidence of him and softcore porn, I will do the same. I prefer softcore porn because the models tend to appear more innocent, where most hardcore models look like they've been around the block more than a few times. There's also the teasing aspect, which in my opinion is more arousing than full frontal hardcore sex. You can picture people you know in those situations, while for most people it'd be kind of hard to see a girl they like being pounded by some huge guy that dominates her. On softcore porn serving no purpose, it certainly serves a purpose for those that enjoy it. The purpose of porn is to arouse, and soft core porn arouses me, thus giving it purpose.
Soft porn serves no useful purpose.

People who like porn don't like soft porn and people who don't like porn don't like soft porn. So what's the point of it? It's not as though parents can watch it with the kids, is it? I mean they don't even show full frontal nudity on some of them. As far as I know, there are no religions that have doctrines like "Thou shallt not look upon moving images depicting the private parts of a woman, nor shall thee view any "think of the money" shots, however, thou art permitted to view topless women, that's alright". I know a bloke who went into the newsagent and bought a DVD entitled Asian Babes in the Wood which had "Red-hot XXX girl-on-girl action featuring the most stunning girls in the Eastern hemisphere. This film will blow your socks off" written on the back. Anyway, when he got it home it turned out to be a load of old rubbish, all the interesting bits were out of shot. Apparently. I mean, you can see more nudity on a Mediterranean beach. What a flipping rip-off! So, is there a place in society for soft porn? I think not.
Abortion: right or wrong.

You pulled out the big guns there trying to get voters to sympathize with something that cant feel or think or even be considered more than a clump of cells which was in all honesty brilliant honestly i feel i need to give you this one but seeing that is not how i am i shall go down with my ship and express that it has been declared legal by the highest powers and they (supreme court) saw it unconstitutional to restrict this practice and i say why disagree with them my partner in this debate said he was for the choice of the unborn child and says he sees no reason why he would want to not be born but then again i dont think he suffers from depression or neglect or being abandoned by his parents in all honesty i dont know he very well might suffer from all of them but look at the number of suicides of teens who have been neglected even the number of suicides where the person who committed it was well taken care of the point im trying to make is that when the abortions we have narrowed our argument down to take place the would be child has not even developed a heart brain or a body like mine or yours so i feel the mother being the one who cares for it and thinks, breaths, eats and whos heart beats for that clump of cells if she feels that its not the right time to bring a life into the world it is her decision and no one else's simply because it is technically hers at that point in time it is a possession and that is why i should win this debate forget the sob stories and all the empathy that is being dumped on this debate that clump of cells has no way to think feel or even live with out the mothers support and is infact attached to her so it is hers to do what she wants with it it would be like my competitor saying that since its illegal for you to smash a plate of yours against the wall if you want to true not many of us would do that but its our freedom as Americans do what we will with our possessions and though it may seem heartless and destructive it is still not our place to say whether or not someone should have to go through with a birth if they dont want to as long as they make the decision before the second trimester when the the clump of cells has effectively developed into a living being. My competitor stated at the beginning this was going to be a legal dispute and thats what it needs to come down to not whether it is morally right but whether it is constitutionally wrong for the government to tell us what we can not do with our bodies and our property and since in the constitution it states we shall have our freedoms that allow us to do what we want with our possessions which includes ourselves they have no authority to restrict abortions durring this stage of pregnancy I give thanks to my rival for inviting me to debate this topic and i give thanks to the voters for actually reading our long arguments and finally i apologize for my horrible grammer and spelling on this one
The Holocaust was a conspiracy set up by the Jewish population.

The Jews are NOT Jews! Approximately 90% of all the "Jews" in the world are Khazars, Caucasian barbarian Mongol-Turks, from Khazaria, a nation that occupied what is now Western Russia. In the 8th century, this nation of Mongol-Turks arbitrarily embraced the religion and culture of Judaism. Therefore, the "Jews" have NO "semitic" ancestry, they are NOT descendants of the Biblical Israelites (who were of no special ethnicity " they were called "Israelites" because they worshiped the same God as their ancestor Jacob " who was given the SPIRITUAL name of "Israel), and they are NOT "Jewish," except by the Culture that they borrowed, accepted, and embraced as their own. Therefore, the "Jews" have no right to the area of Palestine, they have no right to call their nation "Israel," and they have no right to claim the Biblical promises for the "Israel" of the Old Testament. In short, the nation of "Israel," and the "Jews" themselves, are BOTH gigantic Frauds. They are IMPOSTERS of the worst kind! The TRUE Israelites of the Old Testament were CHRISTIANS. They worshiped the One True God of the Bible, and they were looking forward to the Messiah " Jesus Christ. Judaism did NOT begin until AFTER the Pharisees (the "Jews") murdered Christ and subsequently were taken into captivity where the Pharisees wrote down the abhorrent "Oral Traditions" that became the Talmud " the "holiest" book of Judaism." These "Oral Traditions" that eventually became the Talmud, were the very "traditions" that Jesus strongly rebuked, saying that they (the "traditions") made the Scriptures (the Law of God) of "none effect."
The Holocaust was a conspiracy set up by the Jewish population.

First of all, good luck on getting even 1 gun away from the american people. It is going to be a hard fight. Plus, Everyone knows that it is the illuminati that set up all of these strange occurances, tragic occurances, not the jews. or should I say "jews". Your points are invalid because theyre is no evidence that it actually happened. If you have not presented any evidence of people saying that they were there and nothing was happeneing, then dont waste my time. There were and are too many people that were there for them all to be a part of this conspiracy. Some one would slip up. And next time you debate me, write your own arguments, no more copying and pasting. :P
The Holocaust was a conspiracy set up by the Jewish population.

FACT: Mind-control slaves, clandestinely trained by the Jewish-controlled CIA, have been programmed to shoot citizens randomly, in stores, office buildings, public places, such as subways, and especially shooting of children in schools. Legislators are hard at work, getting gun-control legislation passed to disarm every citizen in the U.S. That has already taken place in Australia. Every country would have to be disarmed under the guise of bringing about "World Peace." Then the One World Government " the elitist, evil group " would be the only group to have control of all weaponry, including nuclear weapons. No country would be able to defend itself. FACT: This is the World disarmament plan of the United Nations. So, eventually, ONLY the United Nations will have weapons. The Jews were the founders of, and provided the original funding for, the United Nations. The United Nations continues to be controlled, from behind, by the Jews.
The Holocaust was a conspiracy set up by the Jewish population.

What exactly is your evidence to back that up? Do you have a reliable source there? I mean, did you see the news story with the last surviving member of the holocaust? If you were that old and about to die, I think you would probably tell someone that "Hey, this is all just one big joke by the liberals to scare you into treating people as equally as you would treat yourself". I want you to go up and tell her to her face "YOU ARE AN IMPOSTER OF THE WORST KIND". If she said, "Hey, ya caught me!" then I will give up my arguement. until then, your argument is invalid. And dont even try to bring up the diary of Anne Frank, its obviously a made up book that was well put together!
There is no perfect goverment.

It's not the best of arguments, but I would have to say that - as with defining perfectness, most of the 'problems' mentioned are relative or at least highly personal. For example, I consider American society to be very stable, with comparativly little widespread conflicts, especially compared internationally. In terms of the equal distribution of wealth, this is less so, but both (material) wealth and poverty depend on the person and situation asked. A Somali might regard living in a trailer park not to be a sign of poverty. However, the 'it's worse overthere'-argument is not a true argument, still, I would say that the US or western democracies in general are on the 'perfect' side of the spectrum than the 'worst'. In a democracy, it is virtually impossible to satisfy all as the system is based on majority rule. So I would regard that as an impossible goal. What I would most like to advise in this case, is to truly look at international alternatives. Because if perfection is unachievable by definition, to aim the 'arrows' of improvement at the US government might not be the most helpful at the moment.
There is no perfect goverment.

The root of a bad government is the inability to create a stable society that consistently keeps the good of the people in mind, while respecting the rest of the world. There are many things that can interrupt this process of decision making. For practical purposes, I will name the first four that come to mind. Corruption can lead to a skewed objective in the government, thus changing the goal from an overall well-being to the well being of a certain group, which can either be a local group or national group. An example of this would be the rich poor gap in America (source: http://academic.udayton.edu...) I know many good people barely getting by, and this rich poor gap sickens me. The political process, this one is a little harder to explain, and is better to use an example, when gun legislation was trying to make its way through in America, both groups agreed on background checks, but it was not passed, as democrats attempted to rope it in with a ban on assault weapons. Sometimes politics gets in the way of progress. Media unaccountability, the media will often lose attention to an issue, or just not report on it as it is unentertaining and or difficult to explain. An example of this would be horse race reporting on elections. This is when instead of reporting on policy issues, you report constantly on who they think is going to win, and any recent bloopers; as these are more entertaining. The last issue is un-educated authorities. When politicians go for office, they don't need to learn how the economy works, they only need to know how to regurgitate a speech and kiss a few babies. A perfect society would have to work around all of these four things (and probably a few others I have not thought of) in order to remain a stable society that works for the good of the people and respects the rest of the world. I do not believe this is possible, as I have not yet come upon a decent example.
There is no perfect goverment.

Let me start by saying I'm very glad that you are not literal-minded. It would have been a very short and meaningless debate if the challenge meant that I were expected to provide the blueprints for utopia as my burden of proof. The first thing I would like to ask if you would agree with me in saying that many of the requirements you have listed are relative in respect to personal and/or cultural background. For example, I suppose that an American will generally judge 'petty corruption' differently from, say, a West-African, in whom's country such forms of bribery might be socially accepted norm. In the same manner of thought, would you concur that the concept of 'civil liberties' too varies? In that the western norms on freedom of speech and emancipation might not meet equal approval within the mindset of the contemporary Middle East? If you do, then I suppose that you'll also grant that what constitutes the 'ideal' or 'best possible' government varies according to population or locale. That said, I assume the 'perfect government' we're looking for in this case doesn't need to be universally applicable in those respects and is to be found in the western world, is that correct? I too consider myself to be a realist. In that respect I believe that as long as humans have free will, it is impossible to rule out corruption. In the same line of thought, I also consider it impossible to consistently find solutions to problems that will always benefit the people as a whole and that stability in a government system does not always have to be a positive thing. What worked two hundred years ago, might not work today and vice versa. In that respect, I think that 'stability of government' might prove a ruse in the long run. I tend to agree with Winston Churchill who once remarked that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried." How that democracy is to be realized however is another matter. For example, I personally do not think every inhabitant of a democratic state should automatically have the right to vote. However, even with that being so, I am very glad I live in a western democracy which I consider to be (in respect to all current and past alternatives) the 'best' form of government yet devised. My question to you would be; in what respect does your government not measure up to the requirements (corruption, decision making, stability, civil liberties) you listed in the previous round?
There is no perfect goverment.

Thank you for catching this misunderstanding. There is no perfect form of government if you use the literal form of the word, shown by such distopian texts such as "The Giver" and "Brave New World", texts where a group attempts to make a perfect government, but only succeeds in making it Utopic for those who do not understand how the government works, and what we have lost (ex. ignorance is bliss) thus making it a distopian world. thank you for helping me clarify my topic, when I say perfect I mean free from possible corruption, reliably and consistently making decisions that will benefit the people as a whole, while remaining stable, and keeping our civil liberties and our right towards the pursuit of happiness. If your opinion of a perfect government differs from mine, I would be interested to hear it. Thank you for responding to my debate, I am very interested to hear your ideas on the topic.
There is no perfect goverment.

In 1877 Leo Tolstoy wrote "If you look for perfection, you'll never be content." This remark has a lot of truth in as for human beings true perfection is often an intrinsically unachievable goal. What is perfection if not personal? Perhaps such a thing as a perfect government exists, but it will require definition. Therefore I would like the instigator to define his personal view of perfection. In other words, what would constitute a perfect form of government?
There is no perfect goverment.

There is no perfect government. This has been proven again and again throughout history, through rebellions, corruption, the poor in the streets, while the economy booms. We see this every day, we know it is happening yet are helpless to do anything about it. I challenge the opposition to think of a single government type, or system of policies that can fix this. And no I am not a pessimist, I am a realist.
Charity is important

The whole society is a puzzle which consist of different small parts. Pro only looked at one small part of the puzzle, but not the whole thing. Respond to pro in round 1: Why would the smallest donation make a large impact on the society? Instead, a large amount of donation only make a small impact on the society. As I have mentioned before, many charities spend a lot of money on administration, rather than helping the people in need. The Autism Spectrum Disorder Foundation spends nearly 85% on overhead, instead of helping people. It is the government's duty to provide goods and services to people who don't have them. Charity relies on donations. Donations are affected when the economy is unstable. So who is going to help those poor people when the economy is not good? With good government policies on social welfare, the people in need can be supported no matter what the economic situation is, unless the government is so poor that it cannot afford to give any social welfare. But in fact, the government has more stable income than the charity organizations. When the income of people decrease, they are usually very reluctant to donate any money, but they may still need to pay a bit of tax. The enjoyment of donating should never be a reason for the importance of charity. The purpose of charity is to serve the needy, not to make the donors happy! I don't mean charity is bad, but it's not that important. There are a lot of things that we can do to make us happy in long term, including meeting new friends and doing sports. Why do we still need charity? Without charity, people can still help people around them. Helping family members to do housework, taking care of the elderly. Why is charity so important then?
Charity is important

Donating to charity is a major mood-booster. The knowledge that you"re helping others is hugely empowering and, in turn, can make you feel happier and more fulfilled. Research has identified a link between making a donation to charity and increased activity in the area of the brain that registers pleasure - proving that as the old adage goes, it really is far better to give than to receive. Our own research into why people give supports this. We asked 700 of our generous donors to tell us what motivates them to give regularly to charity; 42% agreed the enjoyment they receive from giving as a key influence.
Charity is important

When we are considering whether one thing is important, we should not only consider its effect on individuals, but whether the society actually benefits. Also, donating money is like going shopping and having a big meal. People feel happier, but will this feeling actually last long? It will only last long if you donate again. So it's just as same as the pleasure from shopping and eating. Pro thinks that it is ok to lie to those donors and make them think they actually helped people a lot, but in fact only a small proportion of money will go to the people in need, and it only solve the very short term problem of the poor people for a short period of time. After they used up the money, they are poor again. If pro thinks that charity's purpose is to make donors happy, rather than helping people, then why can't the donors do something else to make themselves happy? Doing sports is the best way to increase long term happiness, and this is proved by many studies. It is also proved that making more friends will do the same. If there are other activities that can serve the purpose of charity better than it does, why do pro think that charity is still important? And where does the last research mentioned by pro come from? The 700 donors and 42% that one. What does it mean by "our" own research? It is done by pro himself/herself?
Charity is important

Many charity organizations spend most of the money on administration, rather than helping the people in need. Why we need charity? Because the social system is a mess, the poor people are not given enough help. So changing the social system is important, not charity. If you donate 10 dollars, after the poor people get that 10 dollar to buy food today, they have no money again tomorrow. So what should we do? Continue to donate? Charities cannot do much. They may be able to help some people in need, but never all of them. However, changing the government policy can help all of those people in need.
Game Boys > DS's

1. Game Boys are Classic Game Boys bring back joyous memories to older teenagers and adults throughout the world, reminding them of the hours on end becoming a Pokemon master or saving Hyrule from Ganondorf, among MANY other exciting adventures. What do you get with the DS? A boring pokemon adventure with way less imaginative pokemon, and a wimpy "toon" link riding on a small pirates' boat.I think its pretty apparent which is better. The Game Boys were HUGE in the 90s, which was an awesome decade. This just proves that game Boys were more popular, since there were a lot less available gaming consoles back in the 90s than in the DS's time. Other consoles that compete with the DS family are the Wii family, the Playstation family, the Xbox family, and others. As you can see, the Game Boy had less to compete with, thus giving it more time with people. With more time with people, things are better. More next round.