BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Five Nights at Freddy's 2 is the best game of the trilogy

I will not only explain the positive aspects of Five Nights at Freddy's 2, but I will also discuss why both the 1st and 3rd games don't even compare to the 2nd one in terms of quality. That being said, I will begin my argument: Reason 1) Variety- Five Nights at Freddy's 2, without a doubt, offers the most variety out of any game in the trilogy. There are 4 toy animatronics , 4 regular animatronics, (which are distorted a way that gives me a creepy vibe, and I like to see tese kind of things in a Five Nights at Freddy's game) Balloon Boy, The Puppet, and various hallucinations like Golden Freddy, Purple (or Shadow) Freddy, Shadow Bonnie, a recolored Balloon Boy hallucination, and probably even more that I missed. Five Nights at Freddy's 1 has Bonnie, Chica, Freddy, Foxy, and Golden Freddy. Five Nights at Freddy's 3 has only one legitimate animatronic, and that's Springtrap. The Phantoms are simply hallucinations, and since they are not real, they cannot kill the player. This ruins the mood, thus, killing the scary vibe involving animatronics actually trying to kill you. More characters can build up the plot more, and make the gameplay challenging and enjoyable as a whole. 2) Difficulty- Five Nights at Freddy's 2 has the perfect balance of entertainment value and difficulty. FNAF 1 was rather easy for the 1st 4 nights, and Five Nights at Freddy's 3 was way too hard. (with the exception of Night 1, since it was boring and had no action) 3) Plot- Five Nights at Freddy's 1 had a good plot, however, it doesn't even compare to Five Nights at Freddy's 2 in terms of quality. Five Nights at Freddy's 2 has a lot of mini games that tell you about events in the storyline, and how they happened. Five Nights at Freddy's 3 only showed 4 of the main animatronics get torn apart, a rather anticlimactic ending, and mini games that involve giving cake to children. FNAF 1 is too small and could've had a little bit more features, and FNAF 3 is way too complicated and downright confusing. When CON sets up his/her argument, I must ask if you can state which FNAF game is your favorite.
Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

Resolution: All Animals Should be Released From Zoos This is a team debate. Famousdebater and TheProphett will be going up against Lee001 and SolonKR.Rules: 1. No semantics. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.2. The burden of proof is shared.3. Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.4. Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.5. No forfeiting of any rounds, unless approved by both parties (Pro and Con)6. No new arguments in the final round.7. Maintain a civil and calm discourse.8. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)9. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate.11. Failure to meet any of these specified rules will be taken into account during the voting period.Definitions: Should: Indicates moral desirabilityReleased: Returned to the wildAnimals: a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli [excluding humans and bacterial life -- animals that are commonly kept in zoos]. Since R1 is acceptance we will be beginning the debate. Remember that failure to abide by the rules will result in the automatic forfeiture of the conduct point and possibly other points if this lack of arguments puts one side at a disadvantage.
Congressional Term Limits

1. You lose. 2. The people support term limits when on the ballot? For Congress? Where is your evidence of this? I have strong evidence to the contrary -- the extremely high congressional re-election rate. People want term limits for OTHER people's congressmen, because OTHER people's congressmen do not bring home the pork for THEM. This is just another example of why democracy is at least as bad as any other form of government. As far as the pork/beef thing: How about Congress just follows the Constitution? If that were the case, the federal budget would be about 1/100 of what it is. 3. The direct election of senators does not empower people. It empowers the power elite who run massive statewide campaigns for votes. A decentralized, originalist senatorial election system in which the direct representatives of the people (state legislators) elected senators to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES versus the centralist impulses of the federal government, would clearly put more power in the hands of the people by retaining more power at the state level, versus the federal level. You say the senate is "more democratic" as if that's a good thing. I don't think it's very "democratic" that someone in Wyoming gets 55 times as much voting power, per capita, as someone in California. But that's the least of the Senate's problems. 4. How about we take away Congress's ability to "please the special interest." The prescription is pretty clear: THE CONSTITUTION. "Also, many people in the private sector are heads and shoulders above our current politicians as far as learning ability, leadership, negotiating" -- I can't disagree with that! 5. My comments are not about feasibility, they're about effectiveness. Yes, it is totally feasible to do the pointless "reforms" you speak of -- which you admit yourself (point #1) would be only "window dressing." It may be entirely unfeasible for Congress to actually follow the Constitution; I admit this. Which is why we should perform our Jeffersonian duty to alter or abolish the government. I'm for the latter. Finally, you obviously don't believe that the U.S. Senators represent the interests of the people, and yet you act as if they do on this point. Senators, like their peers in the House, represent the interests of the centralized state and its corporate paymasters. Far better for them to represent the individual states, thereby causing friction and gridlock in a legitimate test of will between the states and federal government. THIS WAS THE FOUNDERS' DESIGN FOR OUR GOVERNMENT, and our country has fallen completely to hell with the passage of the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, as well as the Federal Reserve Act, all of which are repugnant to Jeffersonianism.
girls should be able to join scouting

Okay, First of all. Please correct your spelling. I's should be capital when not paired with another letter. I find this very concerning since you are a scout group leader. Also, the additional information of the instruments that you play and the additional sports is irrelevant. Although I do admire your adoration for the founder of Scouts. I believe though that when he was alive that the idea's on the genders were different from now. Of course, he may have wanted girls to join, although it depends on his view on girls. Then again, he is dead. Nothing will change that. If you want to though. Contact a necromancer. Thank you for your time. Until the next round Sav.
girls should be able to join scouting

I would like to start this with a little information about myself, i am a female teenager from Victoria, Australia, i have attained the Australian scout medallion, i am my troop's troop leader, i play 3 instruments and i play hockey and basketball. i would like to express my gratitude towards Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the scouting movement, he is truly inspiring. do you think that he would have liked women to be excluded fro this great opportunity. i know that he founded the scouting movement to help prepare boys for the challenges of life, including war. at the time that he was around, women would not have fought in war, but they do now so why should they not be allowed to be a scout as well?
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S.

Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.
Look You

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been on debate.org many years, and in all my days I have never encountered such a vile, slanderous onslaught of deceit and duplicity, bursting at every seam with logical fallacies, character assassination and circular reasoning. The fact that you could even consider yourself a man after such a loathsome, proud showing of speculative, question-begging, ad-hoc nonsense quite frankly is an embarrassment and a disgrace, to yourself, your family, the human species, the universe as a whole, and even the mighty hismutep himself. You will burn for your unceasing, flagrant insolence in the face of powers greater than you can possibly fathom, you do not even have the right to call yourself a person, your brain should be dissolved in acid, sealing in concrete and dumped in the Atlantic ocean, it has proven it's self to be a danger to it's self, it's surroundings, and the fabric of reality it's self, and it must be forever dismantled and removed for the safety of all. You will regret the day you ever set foot on this planet, eyes blinking in the face of a doom racing to meet you with every passing moment, you shall be melted down, solidified again, smashed into pieces, blasted into subatomic particles and cast into a black hole, for the stupidity of your reasoning, for the overwhelming offence you have caused to million of hismutepians, for the irrationality and illogicality of your "argument, and I use that in the LOOSEST possible sense of the word, for your flagrant and unabashed lies and for the slanderous, libelous grot that infests every syllable that comes dragging it's knuckles out of your obscene, profanity spewing mouth. Hismutep loves you
Look You

Calling me out then, eh? Alexander1, IF that is your real name, you need not utter one more syllable of persuasion, a glib, blase tautology as it would indubitably be, for I, bossonethousandfivehundredandninetytwo, am no coward, and accept your challenge without reservation. Hismutep, and my case for defending the existence thereof, like a ladder, rests on two legs, with lots and lots of rungs ascending skyward as an apt metaphor for metaphysical truth. I shall demonstrate, without ambiguity, that Hismutep exists, and shall then elucidate upon not only why he is unavailable for questioning, but why such a proposition is so holistically riddled with fallacious reasoning and logical incoherence that it can not even be examined under the lens of human discovery without redefining science and philosophy into utter meaninglessness. On we go then, to a long, rambling speech only tangentially connected to the topic at hand Kilo-Alpha-Lima-Foxtrot was the missions codename, and Captain Donaldson, on a blazing hot, December afternoon, was tired. The British forces, lead by Donaldson who was clothed only in a beret, one finger-less rubber glove, and a copy of the Wall Street Journal, pulled into the small, quaint seaport of Falklands, Mississippi, before disembarking the HMS Prince and immediately launching a full scale assault upon the Falk headquarters, slaughtering everyone inside before sailing home, the end. East might not be as north as west is,, but you don't need to be a geometer to know that if you stand outside in the rain, without an umbrella, you're going to catch a cold, and you don't need to be a meta-physician to understand that Hismutep is a logically necessary component of reality, if he doesn't exist, how Alexander, how, how, HOW could you possibly explain the wind? Or the blooming of a flower? Or that The King's Speech beat Inception AND The Social Network to win Best Picture? It makes NO sense, except in the piercing, illuminating and eternal light... of Hismutep. So Alexander, you better start training, you better start eating your vitamins, and you better start saying your prayers brother, because debate.org, the internet, and reality it's self shall be turned totally upside down, the fabric of reality shall rip and bend around us as we leave entire galaxies burning in the wake of our conflict. You may have sought me out, but what you will receive instead... is war. A war spanning all of space, and all of time, the universe it's self pushed to the very brink of destruction as it's future rests upon the victor of this debate, this... this very debate. Gods will cower, monsters shall flee, and even the Devil May Cry as the underpinnings of existence are rocked to their very core. Lest I be misunderstood... war will never decide who is right. Only who isn't not that. Are you ready? Make ready your arrangements and kiss your loved ones goodbye, for destiny calls to us Alexander and he is not a patient one. Show me what you've got!
Look You

The following is nonsense, vote for whom you found the funniest. ------ Good day, hello and well met. As a tyrant seeking conflict in all forms, like a Heroin addict seeking cocaine, arguing with people I cannot see on a text based forum is a favourite past time of mine. After casting my insidious, thousand yard gaze across the accounts of Debate.org, I have singled out Boss1592 as the individual whom I shall engage due to my absolute and palpable loathing of the number one thousand, five hundred and ninety two " as well as the fact that we"re all dying and there"s nothing we can do about it. You, Boss1592, I summon you for an intellectual battle of brain, and garnish it with taunts in the hope it adds to your case to accept my challenge " you udder-less cow. The Debate shall be: Does Hismutep exist. With myself as Con, it shall be my responsibility to demonstrate without error or capitulation that Hismutep does not exist. As Pro, Boss1592 must demonstrate that not only does Hismutep exist but he is also unavailable for questioning. Terms of the engagement are as follows: A) Opening round is acceptance only. If Boss1592 accepts he must do so with a verbose, opulent speech with reference to the HMS Prince, a Warrior class Battleship launched in 1982 and committed to the Falkland"s war, serving a remarkably uneventful tour of duty and is also something I made up. B) Round three will be forfeited as a gesture of respect to the onlookers. C) Final round is reserved for screaming because round five is green coloured. I will mention the other rules just for formalities sake: 1)Both participants surrender the option to use taxi"s in the daylight hours between 8am and 8pm for the duration of the debate. 2) Wilful use of the word ********* is not acceptable at any time in the debate. If ********* is mentioned even once the user forfeits the entire debate, regardless of voter opinion. For those of you curious ********* will be disclosed in a comment, the very first of the comments, in the comment section marked "comments". 3) Algebraic method must be used with the reverence it deserves. 4) Perchance Jesse Eisenberg relinquishes his role as Lex Luther in the upcoming and unimpressive looking Batman and Superman film at any point during the debate a haiku reflecting the authors sentiments is to be added to that rounds text (unless, of course, this conflicts with round three"s forfeit gesture) (if this occurs in the final round the haiku is to be in block capitals because round five is in green). 5) Spelling a funny word with the first letter of each new paragraph ought to be lauded by the onlookers. I now turn the floor over to Boss1592. Let you come beneath the spot light. Let our minds meet and, with such intellectual kindling, begin a roaring furnace of wise and dazzling discourse. Our great owls of willpower shall land gracefully on each of our heads and lay eggs of everlasting and resplendent wit behind our ears. Unless, of course, you fear what may hatch from them Boss1592 - you glue-less postal stamp.
Legalization of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is also known as "Physician-assisted suicide" because doctors are the ones doing the killing. Since doctors are the ones performing Euthanasia, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath is very important. Unless my Opponent is advocating someone other than doctors doing the killing, which carries extreme implications. A violation of the Hippocratic Oath by doctors specializing in Euthanasia is not important. using that logic we would also be helping depressed people by killing them. Furthermore, Euthanasia gets abused, as the doctor Herbert Hend tells us (speaking of Euthanasia in the Netherlands): This is why centers would be government run, easier to make sure there is no abuse by doctors. Guidelines such as these could not be enforced, again take the Netherlands as an example according to BBC: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked."[2] Once again the centers would be government run, making it easier for the government to monitor and prevent abuse. =Response to Cross Examination= 1. A simple check of medical history and their criminal record looking for signs of insanity would be required. 2. Today family members have the choice to the right to life for hundreds of "vegetable" patients. 4. You need to pass the qualifying test checking for insanity or have the family say yes. 5. If someone does not wish to live they should not be forced to live. No matter the value of their life. 6. Closely monitored, government run centers. 7. Yes because they wish to die. 8. I am trusting the government with the choice. A comparison to the Nazi government is a bit extreme. 9. No, only doctors in government run euthanasia centers can. =Rebuttal= C1. you speak of dignity quite alot, so I really must ask, how exactly is Euthanasia "dignified"? To me it seems like the easy way out, not dignified at all. It is dignified because it is helping a person out of their misery. Instead of forcing someone who wants to die to live, which is wrong, the person is given a way out and to carry out their wish to die. same with mental hospitals, should we kill them too? Not without the families consent. C2. No solvency, money would still be spent on Euthanasia in the "government run centers". Yes but it would likely outweigh $50billion dollars spent over 2 months in a hospital. Valuing money over the sanctity of life, clear miscalculation in my opinion. This does not value money over life it simply helps people carry out their wish of death. It just happens to save moeny at the same time. His plan is likely to be more expensive with his "multiple appointments" requiring Physciartrists, Doctors, ect. It would not be nearly as expensive as sitting in a hospital for two months. After all According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08. This is not to say lethal injection would necessarily be the way of death but this just shows how cheap it can be. And to my opponent I ask, how can you justify forcing a person to live when they do not wish to?
Legalization of Euthanasia

First I would like to say that I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here. I actually don't fully know my view on Euthanasia yet, so hopefully this will help me figure it out.=Rebuttal="People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity"- While this would seem to be a good thing, (and it would be) however it is not-feasible. I will elaborate more in my case and my Cross Examination."I believe about 60% of medicare is spent in the last 2 weeks of a patients life."-try to find a source for this, it has the potential to become an extremely compelling argument, however with no evidence it is invalid.=Cross Examination=1. You state that people of sane mind would choose this, how can you deduce who is sane and who isn't?2. In the situation of an incapacitated person, who gets to decide if they die then?3. Who pays for this Euthanasia?4. Under what conditions or situations is Euthanasia acceptable under your system, and who mandates it?5. If I can prove that legalizing Euthanasia undermines the value of life, do I win this round?6. Who performs these operations?7. Is it ever justified to kill an innocent person outside of self defense? (even if they wish for it)8. While mercy killing those who are "hopelessly sick or injured" sounds compelling, who decides if they are that sick/injured?9. Isn't it the job of a doctor to do all they can to help save life, not end it?=Case=C1. Euthanasia violates the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath is the code that lays out the ethical boundaries of the Medical Profession. In one of its lines it states: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." and it also states: "Above all, I must not play at God."[1] Euthanasia violates this. To change this oath is foolish.C2. Euthanasia is not the right choice for terminally ill patients. We should not try to kill the terminally ill, we should do all we can to help them. As Margaret Somerville (professor of Medicine) states: "How a society treats its weakest, most in need, most vulnerable memebers best tests its moral and ethical code."[2] By not helping these people, we are abusing the gift of life. One of the main problems with my Opponents plan is that he mentions Euthanasia as solely the choice of the individual involved. Initially this seems to be a good plan, but it ignores the fact that suicide is usually made as a hot-headed, emotion based decision. Somerville tells us that under Oregon's legal Euthanasia "46% percent changed their minds after intervention, only 15% did without intervention." This shows that often people do not think of the consequences of their actions, and so Euthanasia should not be legal, and certainly not legal in my Opponent scenario where "people of sane mind could come and provide in writing and in video something showing they wanted to die.". That's all I have to say for now. Good luck to my Opponent.=Sources=1. http://www.pbs.org...2. http://nusser.files.wordpress.com...
Legalization of Euthanasia

To start out I am not a good debater but I just had this idea and want to see both sides of the argument. Euthanasia should be legalized in the United States. Euthanasia would help the US and its citizens in many ways. As defined by Merriam-Webster Euthanasia- the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy: 1. People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity. Instead of becoming vegetables in their old age and wearing adult diapers or suffering throught a terrible disease they could have a way out. 2. I don't remember where I got this fact but I believe about 60% of medicare is spent in the last 2 weeks of a patients life. With Euthanasia hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars could be saved and spent on things such as education or simply reducing the multi trillion dollar deficit. Euthanasia could be set up rather easily. There could be government run centers where people of sane mind could come and provide in writing and in video something showing they wanted to die.