BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Farts are not bad.

I should have explained more in detail; I believe "letting it rip" is not bad. 1. To some people, it may smell nice. Also some people ignore the smell of farts since some farts' smells go off unnoticeable. 2. holding in farts are not bad. I hold in farts all the time (mostly because I want to build up a big one) and I don't get stomach aches. You will get stomach aches if the gas pressure builds up that your stomach can't handle. The gas pressure it takes for farts to give you stomach aches require enormous amounts of flatulence. 3. The component in farts that makes it ignitable is the very flammable compound called methane (formula=CH4). Pro said that it is very cool. It is only dangerous in large amounts and with a flame source. So it would only be dangerous if you intentionally try to set your fart on fire by farting into a flame. 5. Farts may contribute to global warming, but not a lot. Farts contribute to a very small percentage to destroying the atmosphere. Also, the atmosphere is slowly regenerating thanks to modern technology, it regenerates faster than farts are destroying it. 6. Making a spot turn brown by farting too much is irrelevant to whether farts are bad or not. This is if you like or dislike the color brown. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to this debate. 7. Inhaling farts can't cause dizziness if you're inhaling massive amounts of farts in an enclosed room where gas cannot escape, which won't matter because you will soon run out of oxygen and you can't breath anyway. Here are some reasons why farts are not bad. 1. Farts have been used in many generations in classrooms to make people laugh. Farts are funny, so they are not bad. 2. Awkward moments are bad, farting eliminates awkward moments. 3. Farts are funny to say. 4. There are many websites and apps that make funny fart sound; it contributes to the fact that farts are not bad, they are awesome. 5. To a person who likes to troll, farting in public can confuse people who try to figure out who farted, so it is good for the person who farted. 6. Farting can be used to catch spies trying to infiltrate the government when they accidentally fart in a stealth mission. 7. I think farting is not bad. Citations: www.heptune.com/farts.htmlR06; http://www.coolquiz.com... healtheatmosphere.org
Farts are not bad.

1. it smells 2. science has proven that holding farts is bad (stomach ache from gas pressure) 3. there's a slight chance you might also release something other than just air (if ya know what I mean) 4. YES fart is indeed ignitable (cool but can be very dangerous) 5. New Zealand researchers has proven that cow's and sheep's farts contribute to global warming 6. too much farts on a spot can change it's color to brown (not joking, ewwww) 7. inhaling fart can cause dizziness
Abortion is wrong

Abortion is not killing. Is it killing to not let a man dying of thirst use your water? No. Is it killing to not let a man dying from kidney failure use your kidney? No. Is it killing to not let a fetus use its mother's body against her will? No. These may be cruel, unkind, tragic, etc., but none of them are killing. Life certainly does begin at conception; however, that is irrelevant. The man dying of thirst and the human needing a kidney are also alive, and it's not murder to not help them. If you drive down the street, get into a fatal car accident, should you just "take responsibility for your actions" and not go to the hospital? After all, you knew the risks of driving, yet you still did it. No, of course not. Just because someone receives a bad consequence, e.g. an unwanted baby, doesn't mean they need to go through with it. As for life being unfair for the fetus, yes, I agree. Welcome to life. It's very unfair. However, what would be even MORE unfair would be forcing the mother to use its body to protect a life that's not even a human, nor entitled to use the body of someone else.
Abortion is wrong

Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
Open. Im pretty much up for anything as long as it is legitimate. put it in the comments.

Believe it or not but the United States and its Allies killed quite a few civilians on their march to Berlin and when Island hopping in the pacific. About 19,000,000 to 30,000,000 of the whole casualties in WWII were civilian. Japan had 500,000 civilian deaths and Germany with 1,100,00(All numbers rounded to the nearest hundred-thousand). These casualties were because of the Allies bombing, executing, shooting, or otherwise killing civilians. The Allies were not the knights in shining armor we may think they are. Take the Barbara Pit for example.Investigation of the Barbara Pit site began in August 2008. On March 3, 2009 investigators removed concrete walls built after the war to seal the cave. Behind the walls were found between 200 and 400 unidentified bodies. The victims, among whom there appear to be also women, were stripped naked before being killed, so identification is difficult. By November 7, 2009 there were 726 bodies removed from the site. According to eyewitness accounts, the victims were mostly Axis soldiers and their families. There were several other incidents like this, with axis men and families killed and buried. One thing that both the Axis and Allies realized was that this was a total war. This means that this a war to the last man standing and the whole country is in the war effort, including civilians. This was true for all countries in WWII including the U.S. The Government seized factories for military production and hired people for the war effort. This by effect makes no one truly innocent. Sure, they are not shooting the guns but they are making the guns, bullets, planes, tanks, bombs, etc. They had very good reason to kill them because as a fascist regime, they needed to keep complete control of their people, which meant if you do not like what is happening, you die. Simple as that. The Jews were killed off because they needed, as I said before, to not have an overpopulation and because the whole world was in a state of total war. Killing "innocent" was not just something Germans did but EVERYBODY else too. They all understood the stakes of losing and allowing citizens to live is like taking away the gun from the soldier but then just walking away. The soldier is still alive and capable of killing. Taking out innocents was a way to send the message that you surrender or die. This is why we dropped the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They did not surrender, so we completely annihilated two cities. They then decided lets not all die and surrendered. While the nuclear bomb sped up this process, what everyone else was doing(killing innocents) was to the same effect. This has been the most interesting and hardest to debate on my side of the topic so far. Thanks for an interesting debate:) sources(also realize that the Wikipedia pages had at least 15 reliable sources each and you may check out if so inclined) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open. Im pretty much up for anything as long as it is legitimate. put it in the comments.

The holocaust was a tragic incident that caused the world to go viral. Yes, wars do have to happen, but this one in perticular was uncalled for. Hitler, who started the war, was a great artist. But when he applied for a art college and they didn't take him, everything went downhill from there. It was also based of revenge in world war 1 when the Jews were allies with their (Germany's) enemy. Things are going to happen, like we are still waiting for world war 3 to happen! But this war was totally unessesary to have taken place on 2 small reasons. The jew population has officially gone down since world war 2, and is still lacking progress to this day. And not only Jews were killed! Anyone, even the other Germans who turned against them would be punished for no reason. The Jews did not deserve to get killed off, but at least there was a target for one main group of people. But then they started to kill the people who were not their targets! So innocent people were getting killed for no reason!
Open. Im pretty much up for anything as long as it is legitimate. put it in the comments.

Okay just to start I am going to make this as plain as possible that I mean no offense to anyone and i do NOT agree with the opinion I am using. It is purely for debating purposes and not to be taken literally. I hope you understand and do not take this seriously. The Holocaust was seen by many as a horrid event and one of the greatest signs of racism and hate. While people may have seen it as just Hitler being racist it was actually a needed event. Without the Holocaust, Germany would have fallen under itself with trying to provide protection, food, and shelter to thousands of Jews and the Jews have also had a record of rebelling against those who have occupied them. During the Roman occupation and the Egyptian before it the Jews rebelled against their over-bearers. Hitler simply took the simple path and eradicated them. This was also true for the Slavs, not just the Jews, further proving that it was not a racist conquest but a way to keep his empire under control. The idea that Germans were the best was not just aimed at the Jews, but was their universal theme against all nations. This idea also helped them in their conquest because it gave them a sense of purpose that the world should be under German superiority because of their racial dominance. Back to the topic, the Holocaust caused something that was not uncommon which was crowd control. There were thousands upon thousands of Jews and, just as America did with the Japanese, locked them in camps for fear of rebellion. As I said earlier, sometimes it would have become too taxing on their resources and so they had to lower their numbers. This was not their idea of "MUST KILL JEWS!!!!" but more "Hey there are too many here for us to take care of but we can't release them." To finish, Germany was charging in all directions on a two front war and so could not afford an internal problem within Germany and the Holocaust was just a way to ensure that no problems occurred within Germany itself. Again, this is NOT to offend or to make anyone feel less about the Holocaust. This is simply for debating purposes only.
Marijuana should become legalised

I accept this challenge and thank Stephen_Hawkins for setting up this debate; however, I would like to ask a question. If no one forfeits throughout any of the rounds, then will we use the fifth and final round to argue, or shall we simply pass them? Furthermore, I would like to point out that this debate is for weirdman's tournament, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...I look forward to a fun and challenging debate!
Marijuana should become legalised

This debate is on the issue of the legalisation of Marijuana. The legalisation shall be to legalise the drug, also known by its technical name Cannabis Sativa and street names "weed, marijuana, green, hash, skunk". The first round is for acceptance. The fourth round is not for presenting new arguments. The fifth round is in case anyone forfeits, we can simply use on of the "spares" in order to finish the debate.
Abortions Should A Viable Option For Women

I was supposed to go into detail about my point in this round. However, I find that virtually useless now due to Pro's forfeit, for a few reasons. Firstly, my opponent, having not been on in the three days, is likely to not be on for much longer after that. Which makes the debate pointless. Secondly, my third round is also wasted because I will have nothing to rebut. Thirdly, my opponent can't properly make a case whilst adhering to the rules. And, lastly, this debate is pretty much a waste. Therefore, I urge a Con vote.
The legal drinking age should be changed to 18

After another forfeit from my opponent, I shall continue and resolve. At the age of 18, the brain is not yet fully developed and can be more easily impacted by substance usage than at age 21. This may not completely prevent those who are underage from drinking, but it limits their access to it. Setting the legal drinking age at 21 has shown to significantly decrease fatal car accidents for those in the age range of 18-21 by 13% saving approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008. With the legal drinking age at 21, I personally believe that it gives a responsible person at least 3 more years before a potential dependency can develop, and those three years are precious.
The legal drinking age should be changed to 18

My opponent has forfeited. I shall continue my argument. 100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. [19] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that a legal drinking age of 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008. http://drinkingage.procon.org...
The legal drinking age should be changed to 18

"Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior." The ability to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations does not prevent those who are 21+ from participating in binge drinking or other unsafe behavior. While an 18-year-old has other rights and privileges as a legal adult, their brain is not yet fully developed until the age of 21. Therefore, the drinking age should remain unchanged.
The legal drinking age should be changed to 18

Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military - which includes risking one's life. Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior. 18- to 20-year-old adults should not be denied that enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal at age 18. http://drinkingage.procon.org...
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

We should incarcerate this individuals that harm youth on a terrifying way which can change the life of the victim on a horrified matter. Why give treatment to pedophiles were they have freedom and the victims see no justice and has no hope in seeing this individual pay for what they did. Treatment may reduce pedophilic addiction and the chances of recidivism. But prison will stop them from hurting other children. " Studies show that not all pedophiles complete treatment before they hurt another children. "
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

We ought to give treatment to pedophiliacs on the grounds that it can change the progress of how they see society and providing for them another opportunity among society It can modify their elements of how they see society and provide for them another opportunity among society, will be helpful Other negative outcomes of treatment, for example, expense issues, the danger of denying treatment and symptoms are adequate in light of adjusting their notion of how they see society and providing for them another opportunity. Treatment may decrease pedophilic dependence and the shots of recidivism, the correctional framework may not be a decent thought of transforming a criminal, in light of impact in the jail. Study demonstrates that cost funds would just increment about whether, as the quantity of rehash wrongdoers diminished after effective treatment. Therefore, we should not incarcerate pedophiles because theres a second opportunity in life for them. taxpayers" dollars can be save. the chances of recidivism will go down dramatically.
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

I would say, pedophiles are the well on the way to submit their offenses when they feel that they don't have anything striving for them in their lives and that thusly they don't have anything to lose. Individuals are destined to do the most frantic things when they feel the most urgent. Lamentably, a significant part of the current social frameworks enormously expand instead of abatement these individuals' emotions of distress. Conventional medications for pedophiles have generally been focused around medicines at first intended for addictions, utilizing a model called Relapse Prevention. It has been extremely hard to evaluate the adequacy of the model (or any model), in light of the fact that we can't randomize individuals into treatment and placebo bunches. My most prominent trust is less about treatment, on the other hand, and all the more about counteractive action. Notwithstanding the way that numerous individuals envision sex guilty parties to be unquenchable predators or ticking time bombs, just 10W22;15 percent of sex wrongdoers submit new offenses. I accept we can keep a much more noteworthy number of victimized people on the off chance that we put more noteworthy energies into ahead of schedule discovery and give help before the first offense happens, instead of depending just on stronger and stronger disciplines afterwards.
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

It is to a great degree critical not to befuddle pedophilia"significance the sexual enthusiasm toward kids with real youngster attack. Not every individual who encounters sexual attractions to youngsters follows up on those attractions. Individuals who are pedophilic however who work to stay chaste their whole lives are in effect progressively perceived as requiring and meriting all the help society can provide for them. Having a individual incarcerated gives them a chance to analyze all the harm they committed also by taking away there freedom it will show them that they are loosing a privilege because of there act, and by this they would seek for psychological help in becoming better persons and what better way but to do it while serving the time they were giving.
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

It is to a great degree critical not to befuddle pedophilia"significance the sexual enthusiasm toward kids with real youngster attack. Not every individual who encounters sexual attractions to youngsters follows up on those attractions. Individuals who are pedophilic however who work to stay chaste their whole lives are in effect progressively perceived as requiring and meriting all the help society can provide for them. Looking for treatment for a dependence or misuse issue is basic to creating a solid way of life for what's to come. At the point when contrasted with jail or penitentiary, treatment would appear to be an easy decision move on the grounds that it handles a helping variable to the wrongdoing and it costs less in the long haul. The expenses of imprisonment are amazingly high as seems to be, considering all the parts of keeping a jail or penitentiary running, (for example, staff, structural support, extra security, and so on.)
Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to a child, while a pedophile is someone who preys on or does sexual things to children generally the age 11 years or younger. 2. Pedophiles often feel attracted to children because they are innocent and are less likely to harm them. 3. We should incarcerate pedophiliacs because by this act they will harm less children. 4. With them being incarcerated they could be supervised at all moments. 5. By them being incarcerated they will learn that what they do is not justified by the law and there freedom is taken away. 6. Even though treatment is less expensive than incarceration pedophiles have less chances of harming children. 7.Because it"s a waste of taxpayers" money and may increase the chances of being more dangerous, which is good. 8.Other negative consequences of extinguishing pedophiliacs from being incarcerated such as victims" revenge, root cause isn"t treated and rises in prison population. 9. Because incarceration would put a stop to pedophiles parents would be less worried about innocent children being abuse . 10. Pedophiles are addictive and this wont change it takes time, plus medication and clinical space treatment is also expensive . 11.By a pedophile being incarcerated they are put on a website were everyone can see what there charges the community will know to stay away from them 12. Is imprisonment higher in security than treatment? 13. Study shows that treatment only works for a certain period of time not forever. Even though treatment is less expensive; we should incarcerate pedophiles individuals it will keep victims secure. "