BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Beauty pageants

I accept. As Pro, I am arguing that beauty pageants should not be banned. I would first like to define some of the terms. 1. Pageant: 1. a : a mere show : pretense b : an ostentatious display 2: show, exhibition; especially : an elaborate colorful exhibition or spectacle [1] 2. Ban : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something [2] I await Con's arguments. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Game sites should not be blocked in school

I accept this challenge. I first say since this is a 1000 character limit-- i'll attempt to keep it short. I'll take the liberty to define the terms in the comment sectionI believe that game sites should not be banned in school for many reasons, one of them being that if kids get work done early they have something to do."Kids may have something to do, but if there are game sites they would probably finish the homework terribly, because they would be wanting to play the games really badly. Second school is for learning-- not for playing. When your done with work, there are other things even more productive you can do. There is reading, catching up on other homework, or writing essay for the fun of it. It can also be a great way to encourage kids to do there workIt can also be a fantastic way to encourage kids to finish their work quickly and sloppy, so they can play their games.
Christianity-undertones in society.

Hello, everyone. I would like to address a problem in American society. Well, to word it more correctly, an error. An error that built America to what it is today, one of the strongest countries in the world. Religion. To be precise, Christianity. Though it has been the building blocks of American society, now is the age of free thought, of the return of transcendental thinking. The old laws and ways of religion are loosing their power in law, and are becoming displeasing to see. Maybe it's time that we stop using God in certain aspects. If our president mentions God as a way to explain his doings, that is wrong. God did not grant us the ability to think and reason. That was given to us by the marvel of evolution. No deity in the sky gave us that power. So why should we put him into a society that should be free. Free of any limitations, as religion is one. Minorities should not be decided by religion, but of culture. However, as many cultures have been founded on religion, this would be difficult. I would only like to see a bit more open thought to the world in truth, not the world ruled by God. In my opinion, there is no god. Before I end this, I would really like to say that I do not want this to be an argument on religion. That is a grinding wheel that only serves to chip away our sanity. I only want to discuss the affect of religion in modern day society. I believe that it should be minimized to as small as possible.
Traditions prevent progress

I am Pro for "Traditions prevent progress." There are two main types of traditions that prevent progress; religion and history. Religious traditions have two main ways in which they prevent progress (I am assuming progress of human-kind, society, and in general progress itself). In this case, when I speak of religion, I am mainly speaking of the Abrahamic religions (no Scientology, Buddhism, Atheism, etc.). Prayer prevents progress. To rely on something, that most likely does not exist, for one's own problems is illogical, as it stops us from improving on our problems by ourselves and resorts us to stop socially evolving (stopping Social Darwinism). Another example is how the Bible and the Koran (Qua'ran) and how ancient they are. Even though I believe them to be fake, they still represent a time of ancient society, where by exercising the principles of that society will stop our evolution, as we are taking on the ancient laws of a society. For example: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. This is from Leviticus 25:44-46. Taking on the idea of slavery, especially from ancient time, devolves a society socially. It is these religious traditions that will prevent progress in our society. Historical traditions can also be bad for our society (mainly dealing with government and patriotic traditions). Presidents of the past were faced with very individual problems that could not be implemented in a different time. Such as the Cold War. The way Reagan dealt with it, I ended up being peace between USSR (nowadays Russia) and the USA. But George Bush trying to implement the same tactics that Reagan did for the Cold War, ended up being a total disaster. The USA in trillions of more dollars in debt, the US is more poverty stricken than it was 6 years ago, and the healthcare system has gone to the dumps. Another example, such as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, keeps us back in a time when a Pledge of Allegiance was needed. It applied to a more conservative time, which nowadays society is more liberal. This trance we have been stuck in, in the past, is having a negative affect on us. These two traditions prevent us from progressing.
Money should be in politics

Pro is obviously going for a fallacy. I said at the beginning of the debate "Also, by "Money in politics" I mean money influencing politicians and people. This does include PACs and Super PACs. This does not include government spending for things like health care. (All of this is just to be clear. )""If we go with your plan, we remove all money from politicians and politics, effectively removing our government and causing anarchy. " Very false. Again, refer back to my previous quote. It has become quite clear that you are going for a fallacy in order to cover up the tragic flaw in your previous arguments that you are now unable to fix. "Without money, NOBODY has a voice. "You have a voice right now, don't you? Again, you do have a voice without money. Everyone isn't a mute person who needs surgery in order to speak! Human beings, by nature, have influence over other human beings. It's called REAL LEADERSHIP. It isn't puppets that corporations nominate in order to gain influence in the government to manipulate legislation, it's people that can actually lead a nation into the right direction with the ideas that the American people approve. This system can actually work for ANY nation.
Money should be in politics

It has everything to do with how money influences politics. I'm not talking about the money that the government pays politicians to do their job, that's how they make their living. They need that money in order to feed their families and buy food. "Politics are no different from the rest of society on their need for money to function. They buy arena's to speak in with money, pay campaign workers with money, buy advertising space with money, as well as using money to acquire the basic amenities of life (food, water, etc.). Without money, there would be no politics. Politicians wouldn't be able to travel all over the country, supporting their platform and racing for election."Yes, of course, but with your argument you are saying that politicians won't be paid for their work. Once a politician is elected, they obviously receive a salary. That is how they should make their living. Today, politicians are among the richest Americans because lobbyists essentially bribe politicians to sponsor their bill.Riddle me this, batman: If money remains in politics, how will the independents who possibly could lead the country better than Mitt Romney get their word out? Simply: They can't. Because they don't have money from huge donors. There are thousands of small family donors who donate to independents. You can argue that there are more small donors that donate to other candidates, but those candidates got a jump start from large donors so that they could gain the name recognition to get the small donations too. I say that we take a lesson from the Germans. There are 6 parties in Germany, and there are laws prohibiting the mass promotion of a candidate, including TV commercials. What we should improve on from German politics is that there should be national government sponsored open forums for these 6 parties, in which candidates for the 6 parties are chosen by their popularity within the actual party(people would vote for that person based on their influence). That person would not gain influence through money, rather they would have that influence through being active within the party and playing an active role in advocating their stance. That is basically how the forefathers did their elections, and I believe that is how it should be today.If someone has the potential to run and win, then they should have the opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, and Rick Santorum are all sponsored mainly by the rich few. You have not refuted my argument from before, still. I said that there should not be money influencing politics and people, and you have not argued that it should influence politics and people. Why would politicians still need massive amounts of money if they would be paid for their work once elected and if they do not need massive amounts of money to reach out to the American people to give their stances? Vote Con, keep the government transparent.
Money should be in politics

Only a twisted, contorted interpretation of it that couldn't be farther from the truth. Let's go through the resolution, word-by-word. Money: I'll agree to his definition. Should: of preference, something we ought to doBe in: Be included, involved inPolitics: We both know what this is, so no need for a definition. This has nothing to do with how money influences politics. It's the simple question of should politics be free to play, or should we have to pay to play. By twisting the resolution, my opponent is trying to, basically, get me to defend "Bribery and corruption is good". I'm not gonna bite. Instead, I'll actually debate the resolution. I contend that because our society operates around money, taking money out of politics would be a ridiculously stupid idea. Our society has been set up around the entire concept of money in trade. We buy food and supplies with money, start businesses with money, pay workers with money, sell goods and services for money, the list goes on and on. But the one thing that they all have in common is the exchange of money. Politics are no different from the rest of society on their need for money to function. They buy arena's to speak in with money, pay campaign workers with money, buy advertising space with money, as well as using money to aquire the basic ammenities of life (food, water, etc. ). Without money, there would be no politics. Politicians wouldn't be able to travel all over the country, supporting their platform and racing for election. It would be the start of absolute anarchy, as it would remove the government right out from under us. For this reason, we should allow money to be in politics. Now let's go through my opponent's argument of how money should not influence politics. I agree, money playing an unnecessary influence on politics is bad. But this doesn't mean that we need to take all the money out of politics right this second. Nor does it mean that money ALWAYS influences politics. Taking money away from politics would prevent politics from actually functioning, effectively taking away the American government and plunging our nation into anarchy. So, to put things basically:1. Your argument doesn't actually adress the resolution.2. By negating the resolution, we strip our country of a government and cause anarchy.
is hockey better than american football

Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.
if i win this debate, I will stop posting debates here.

Usually, I would ask for the conduct vote when my oppponent forfeits. Since my opponents forfeits serve the purpose of proving my point (check round one), I'd prefer if this vote were a tie. The video above was not a spam. It showed what I think about my opponent. I think that ultimately all my opponent did to this site is "dumb it down" and I like Lupe don't like stupitidy. If you disagree with the logic of my argument, you still ought to vote for me beacause it would be unfair to vote based on your own arguments rather than my opponents (that being constant forfeits). For I am not debating you ; I am debaing allretardsshoulddie. Thank you.
if i win this debate, I will stop posting debates here.

For those of you who have seen my earlier debates, most have had a comical essence in them with intention to offend. Let this show that those were all lies and I do not believe any of the things I have posted nor have I done any of the things I have posted (aka the seven abortions haha there were actually some people who believed it haha). Now before I (hopefully) win this debate I would like to bring up three points for why I have actually been beneficial. 1: I have raised the win loss percentage of every person that has debated me. Since I have raised your wins, I have helped you with your confidence in debate here which will help you with later debates. If you were able to find flaws with my topics that weren't even true, you can debate anyone and anything :). 2:I have increased comic relief for this website's users. Most people that have read my debate topics have found them funny minus the ones that actually thought they were true (seriously how obvious could I have been? lol) which is very helpful on this website since most people here are very angry from previous debates. 3: I have raised (some) debate topics that are serious in the world today and brought them to the extreme. This helped people that were undecided on subjects such as abortion find out how they really feel about those specific subjects. So to those who hate me I am sorry I either annoyed you or you were too gullible to realize it was fake. And to the people that though I was funny thank you for the support :). So If I win this debate I shall see you later. But if I lose you shall see many more controversial subjects with a hint of comedic essence. Good bye everyone :) Oh and as my final note: OMGCAPSLOCKS OVER 9000 BEL AIR BATTLETOADS FOR THE WII COME AT ME BRO THE GAME PUDDI PUDDI POKER FACE FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU HIDE YO KIDS HIDE YO WIFE HOW DO MAGNETS WORK PEDOBEAR HAS ANYONE REALLY BEEN FAR EVEN AS DECIDED TO USE EVEN GO WANT TO DO LOOK MORE LIKE SON I AM DISSAPPOINT ZOMG DOUBLE RAINBOW DERP DERP DERP TRIFORCE MUDKIPS WHAT IS THIS I DONT EVEN I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH LEEEEEEEEEEEEROY JENKINS TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
debate on what to debate

As you state we are 'already debating' this topic, I provide that as proof that I have convinced you to agree to debate my chosen topic, namely, this topic.As for what to debate now, I argue that you should use round 3 to continue to debate this topic, "Debate on what to debate". My reasoning is that you want to avoid forfeiting which would result in an automatic loss.Specifically, I suggest you focus on why my choice of topic is not valid, or does not align with the spirit of the original premise of the debate, and argue that I need to choose a topic other than this one that we are debating now.
debate on what to debate

I will gladly take up the challenge. My chosen topic: "Debate on what to debate"You should debate "debate on what to debate" (i.e. this debate). The reason you should do this is because if you don't, then you will forfeit and will lose this debate. I look forward to hearing my opponent's reasons why (s)he should not debate this debate, or why a topic of his/her choosing is a better topic to debate.
Debate.org should not demand your cell phone number to access certain features.

(Although I do think it necessary to point that it would appear that I am actually Con to this resolution, and my opponent is Pro. ) I will however stand in favor of the stance, that Debate. org Should demand your cell phone number to access certain features. so for a bit of clarity, I will offer the reasons behind the Pro stance, and then refute my opponent's statements. 1. Security- As with many websites, Debate. org is going to have problems with people starting accounts, which they never use. This is without question, extremely frustrating. but not only that, it greatly slows the sites bandwidth to the members who would actually like to use the site. The simple solution of asking for a cell phone number is no great harm to this site's constituents, and should at the utmost be considered as a minor annoyance. 2. The number is not used for anything- To all those who have actually sent in your Phone number to this site, I ask you; when even once have you received a message from this site? the simple fact is, you have not. Once Debate. org has determined that you're not just some spam-happy individual they probably just forget your number altogether. In fact why should we believe that Debate. org ever even keeps your number? 3. Limited usage is not the end of the world- I can attest to this, I have not registered my number on this site, and I seem to be able to do as I please just fine. The primary purpose of this site is to (wait for it. .. wait for it. .. ) Debate! and even if you never send in your cell-phone number, you can still do just that! your primary purpose is satisfed. so now if I may, I will move onto my opponent's points. 1. Some people may not have a cell phone- While this is true, it would be a bold faced lie to say that a vast-majority of people did not have cell-phones. especially if they have access to the internet enough to need to exercise the functions that your cell-phone number is needed for. they will most likely have a cell phone. and if not, they may just need to determine what they want more, internet access, or a cell phone. 2. Having to borrow the cell phone of a friend/family member is an outrageous solution My opponent gives you no reason to believe this, or even warrant it as a legitimate problem, I simply ask you to disregard it. Borrowing another's cell phone is a perfectly acceptable solution. 3. What will they do with my number? As I said before, they really do nothing with it. And if you're really so suspicious of this site, then leave. there is nothing keeping you on this site, and there in no reason to believe that the admins have ulterior motives. an so in conclusion, it is not only fine to give your cell-phone number to this website, but it's even beneficial to the website's bandwidth, and ultimately you.
Debate.org should not demand your cell phone number to access certain features.

In this debate, I will argue that needing to provide your cell phone number to access certain features is inappropriate for a website such as Debate.org. 1. Some people may not have a cell phone Not everyone has a cell phone, contrary to what most Americans (who are all close-minded in this respect) think. There is not a need for some people to have one. 2. Having to borrow the cell phone of a friend/family member is an outrageous solution This is just an unnecessary and outrageous solution to a superfluous problem. Why burden someone I know just so I can access features on a website? 3. What will they do with my number? Send me messages? Why? Call me? I doubt it, but why give them the chance? I have no idea who anybody here is; for all I know, I could be given a paid subscription or some such thing. It says the won't send me unrequested messages. How do I know they're not lying? It's been done, and is just an unnecessary risk.
IVF Debate

There are some pros of genetic screening but there are also problems surrounding excess embryos. A couple is faced with the decision and many postpone, deciding to freeze their eggs until later. Some couples view these embryos as humans and cannot face "killing" them. Couples have the option to donate the eggs to another couple or put them up for adoption. Another choice is medical research. A form of research is for stem cells however that is also controversial. Some parents let the eggs that as they do not want to use the eggs but cannot afford to keep them frozen. Lastly excess embryos is a problem because most people put off the decision. The eggs just sit for sometimes years at a time. What Happens to Extra Embryos after IVF?" CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

So we kind of already covered this but the next question has to do with Genetic Screening. But this is a beneficial idea because you can detect down syndrome and to make sure the embryo has the right amount of chromosomes. New technologies such as Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) allows to give an accurate comparison to the IVF embryo with what the normal genes of embryo looks like. The error rate for this is only 2%. A Trophectoderm biopsy can also be done which takes only 5 cells off of the embryo. This has significantly improved successful pregnancy rates because it takes off bad cells. -Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago Amy Klein kept having miscarriages and so she went to IVF as a solution. She wanted PGD done or Pre-Genetic Diagnosis to help with her chances of having a child. She writes about a woman named Gina Kolata who had a Gerstmann-Str"ussler-Scheinker syndrome gene in her family but she didn't want to pass that on so she decided to use IVF. This shows that they are able to discontinue a disease that was bad and they did not want. The PGD process also screens out embryos that have a 45-65% chance of being cancerous. -Slate, Amy Klein
IVF Debate

However, the use of these eggs can also lead to ethical issues. One ethical issue is how many embryos should be implanted. If more than two is implanted then it can lead to multiple pregnancies which is dangerous. But many women opt to have more embryos implanted because IVF is so expensive they do not wish to go through the procedures again. Another issue is what to do with the eggs that aren't used. Parents must decide if the eggs should be kept frozen, donated to medical research or donated to other couples. As technology advances they are also able to do genetic screening, many have issues with being able to choose what gender your baby is. IVF parents are able to choose what embryo they receive, healthy or not healthy, boy or girl, when other parents do not get the choice. Some religious groups also have a problem with how IVF and donor sperm takes reproduction out of the marital contract. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)."Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Jan. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

While all of that has to be considered, no one is guaranteed a pregnancy. This process also it also points out the issues in of why people/couples aren't able to reproduce. It also helps to identify diseases and illnesses when used with PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis). (Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago) Many unused embryos are frozen and preserved for other couples and uses later on and so therefore it is the least wasteful. (Mayo Clinic)