BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Only True Bronies should be allowed into the fandom

Okay, this is getting absolutely nowhere, and a little bit annoying. I need an actual debatable opinion from you. I need a serious, acceptable opinion on what kind of Brony should be of the highest recognizance. For instance, what would you do in any situation where you find ponies in real life, such as, I don't know, any situation at all, like waking up to see a pony in your bed, or seeing them something like everywhere you go, everything you do in your regular daily basis. It is possible, you know. I don't care what anyone says, not even my autism counselor, but I believe it is absolutely definitely possible for the ponies to exist in real life. And somehow, sometime, they'll come for me, or at least, they'll show themselves to the whole world and look for the right one, nothing else to say. And that right one, the one that they will come to, just has to be me. I've been feeling it for some time now. Most of the content and visions are made up by me, but somehow, I just know that my current life just isn't the right life for me, and that somehow I'm meant to be, well, the one. You know what I'm trying to say? Anyhoo, I'm just saying, I can't spend my current life around so-called Bronies who are so just because they want to be something else. If they are so, then they need to take it seriously, and actually like it as much as they say they do. To me, that is the definition of a soon-to-be "True Brony". Please try not to be wishy-washy. If you are truly against me, give the audience what they want. If you think that not only True Bronies should be recognized in the fandom, then you know what to do. Nothing further, thank you.
Only True Bronies should be allowed into the fandom

Okay, okay, all right. I do kind of understand your point there, although I would understand it better if you had used proper grammar and spelling. But that's not the point. In my mind, a true Brony is someone who actually, really, truly likes the show and is not lying about it at ALL. And a true Brony is someone that doesn't clop or do any of that bad stuff. Someone who takes it at least about 25% seriously and tries their best to follow the so-called Bronism religion. Now I know that I don't meet every single bit of those criteria, but believe me, I am definitely trying to try. The problem is, I've been in the same place, the same school for eight years, and I need to be in a sort of fresh, new place that's as close to, say, Canterlot High, as possible to let my good self shine. You know, the spark to ignite, and the fuse is waiting. Also, I didn't mean to intentionally surrender, I just couldn't find the time to do my argument a little more. But you probably should have used that opportunity to study and think about my argument a little more to see if you actually have something valid. Just saying. So once again, we should probably be careful when looking at the fandom to make sure there are no "fake" Bronies or bad-thing doers. And I am looking forward to finding that spark.
Only True Bronies should be allowed into the fandom

I once read that Bronies are just sad internet low-lifes who only show an interest in MLP: FiM just to get in with the better, 20% cooler of people. That's fine with me. But I believe that a true brony should be the only type that exists. I know that there are many different types of Bronies, but a true one is someone who actually, truly likes the existence of Ponies and takes the subject at least a little seriously. Anyone that doesn't either like it or takes it seriously should not be worthy enough to be called a Brony. Because bronies are more than just what you think we are. We are somewhat of a religious group, trying our best to convert everyone to us with a message of Love and Tolerance, and the Magic of Friendship. Unlike other religion sorts, I truly believe this one is the best one, and quite possibly, the truth! Anyone that says otherwise should not be liked. Anyone that has a true vision of Love and Tolerance, and the Magic of Friendship, and refuses it just because they think that Ponies is a stupid way of teaching that message, are the ones that SHOULD be truly damned to the outer stars. Ponies are way more than 20% cuter and cooler and better than anything else in the whole universe. BRONIES RULE!
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Hello again, slave: ---------------- The circumstances I propose that non-citizens should be allowed to vote in the US are as follows: 1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here 2) The government has jurisdiction over them. ------------------ I took the debate because, pursuant to your original talking points, I did NOT agree. If anything, you wound up agreeing with me that Americans should get their rights first, if not concomitantly. I win.. excon
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Well, like I said, why not do both? Just because we might want to give suffrage to all citizens first, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for non-citizens. Please note, that the resolution is not that this is the first thing that should be done. I am not saying we should first grant non-citizens suffrage, but that they should be given it at some point. I don't see why we couldn't grant them the right to vote the same time we grant all citizens the right to vote.
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Hello again, slave: I probably shouldn't have taken up your debate because, as noted, we mostly are in agreement.. However, given the narrow parameters of this debate, or at the very least, your very narrow REASONING for your position, I can only restate the obvious.. If we're gonna GIVE the right to vote to non citizens, we should give it to American citizens FIRST.. Nuff said. excon PS> We can talk about our families in the next segment, cause we ain't covering any new ground here..
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Rebuttal to opponent's argument:It seems my opponent mostly agrees with me, but is only concerned about how not all citizens have the right to vote and that needs to be taken care of before we allow non-citizens to vote. I agree that we need to expand voting to all citizens. I know there are some circumstances in which citizens are denied the right to vote, such as if they are prisoners, or in some states, if they are ex-felons. I can't think of another instance where citizens are denied the right to vote.At any rate, I did have a debate on this before, and I agree we need to extend suffrage to prisoners. Why not do both extending suffrage to all citizens, including prisoners, and to non-citizens? Main arguments:1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting. 2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once states, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]I'll leave it at this for now, since it seems I won't need to do much convincing of my opponent that non-citizens should vote.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

Hello slave: I'll take you on. I hope I live up to the standards I've seen in other debates. 1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here 2) The government has jurisdiction over them. First off, I believe in EXPANDING our voter pool, not in reducing it. Plus, I don't disagree with what you said above. But, those statements are TRUE even for citizens, and WE don't have a right to vote. Let's make voting for citizens a right FIRST, and then we can consider spreading it around to others.. That's all I got. excon
Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US

The circumstances I propose that non-citizens should be allowed to vote in the US are as follows:1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here2) The government has jurisdiction over them. Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults, be civil2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us since I am not using round 1 for argument.3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments allowed in this round. New information and facts are allowed, if they are brought up in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to award the point in conduct to the side that did not violate them, or who did so to a lesser degree.I look forward to this debate, and have fun!
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

You seem to misunderstand my point. By saying I was "confused" with your criterion, I meant you have 2. *probably because you just hit command a on my case, without thinking about editing anything out.* And I told you that, saying I accept the first one of these two. Also, in a debate, one must make it clear to the Judge or Voters that they have refuted. You simply put out your points, and didn't say if or how they refuted mine. Also, my opponent has not said anything that cross-applies to my third contention, about water, take this into mind. My opponent makes the claim that his source is more valid than mine, but with no reasoning or basis for this claim. First of all, he does not provide a link from GM Foods to Colony Collapse Disorder, he just says they are bad. I agree. However, GM technology is not the cause for this. My opponent has no source for the link of GM Tech to Colony Collapse Disorder, in fact he doesn't provide the link in the first place, therefore I win the source battle with both Grist, which is an international news organization, and a member of the Santa Clara University. My opponent says that I am "trying to fool Mother Nature, trying to play God". However, he seems to forget that there is no proof for a God. Humanity has created the genetic modification technology. If God was upset, he would intervene. Also, the precautionary principle does not apply to genetically modified foods. As previously stated, GM Foods are one of the most tested products in HISTORY. Shall we ban cars next? No. Cars are practical. So are GM Foods. They feed more people and help save water, as well as allowing people to have more nutrients in their foods. To say that humanity "playing God" is immoral is equivalent to saying that drawing a Unicorn is immoral because secretly, a Unicorn is out there, and they don't like it, even though they have the power to say "stop". My opponent finishes their argument by saying that his impact has more logic. This is completely false. First of all, the herbicide is not harmful to humans. Second of all, my opponent is arguing that GM Foods increase herbicide use, while I prove that not only are herbicides not harmful to humans, but GM Foods actually decrease not just herbicide use but also pesticide use. Voting for Con would be voting for a side that is pure speculation, with no links other than "byproducts" and false evidence from conspiracy sites. Voting for Pro would be voting for a logical, clear case with distinct advantages and proven facts. So, Voters, I ask of you one thing. Make the right choice.
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

Firstly, I would like to start by saying that all three of contention crossapply to refute my opponents contentions, therefore have not dropped any of my opponent's contentions. My opponent also said that he was "confused" by my standard. To be "confused" is not an excuse to drop a value, or fail to provide one. Now to refute my opponent's response, firstly he said that there is no actual link between the bees collapse and the gm foods, but my source is more reliable than his, so you can ignore that refutation. As for his first refutation, the precautionary principle of bioethics states that to do somethings that has the potential to create deadly diseases and viruses isn't the best thing to do, voters, my opponent is trying to fool Mother Nature, trying to play God! It is immoral, wrong and I won't stand for it. His second refutation does nothing to his advantage because we both have evidence which cancels each other's impacts. But mine has more logic. If you put herbicide on a plant and it doesn't kill it, than this toxic plant is going to grow and eventually be added to the food supply. Vote opp
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

First of all, I'm a little confused about your criterion. I'll accept your first one, which is the life of the environment as well as the people. Besides that, my opponent has not refuted any of my points. Extend. Moving on to refute my opponents case. My opponent, in their contention 1, states that genetically modified foods have extreme potential danger. However, this is simply ridiculous. As stated in my contention 1, gm foods are completely safe. Take this quote: "The GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. " You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. " See, the person who said this quote was Mark Lynas, british environmentalist. Mark was anti-gmo in the early 90s. The thing is, being an environmentalist, Mark had access to all of the facts. Because of this, Mark is now an advocate for GM Foods and encourages people to spread the word about GM Food safety. My opponent also says in his first contention that the herbicide use has increased, and that herbicides are bad, however it is the opposite. GM Foods actually decrease herbicide and pesticide use. This is because GM crops can be modified to allow more targeted use of herbicides and pesticides, provide more intrinsic pest resistance, and allow GM plants to compete more effectively against encroaching weeds. In fact, a German meta-study published in PLoS One concluded: "On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide and herbicide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. " Voters, take this into mind. My opponent, in his second contention, states that GM Foods hurt many animal species. I have two things to refute here. First of all, in my opponent's first paragraph of their second contention, is information from the Natural News. Natural News is widely known as a complete conspiracy website, with false information and radical ideals. . http://grist.org... The second thing I have to refute is this idea of CCD, or Colony Collapse Disorder. There is actually no link to GM Foods and the bee death and colony collapse. "On one hand, you have the proponents who are talking about the benefits of genetic engineering in terms of science. "On the other, you have people in butterfly costumes. " Martin Calkins, S. J. , assistant professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University, 2016, says that GMOs were completely not responsible for this epidemic.
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

Hello, my name is Ben. I am on the Pro side of this resolution, and I personally believe the same. I challenge mmelaku to this debate as he is my friend and peer. Some rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. First round is for acceptance only 7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss First round is for acceptance only. Thank you.
Misleading charts in debate: Global warming

In the following debate, my opponent and I shall use misleading charts and flawed arguments to prove our own cases. The voters should vote for the side which had the most persuasive and convincing case, without considering its accuracy or factual merits. I hope that this debate would demonstrate how people can be fooled into believing incorrect claims through deceptive means of persuasion.I will be arguing that global warming as proposed by the majority of mainstream science does not exist, while my opponent will be arguing that global warming is so catastrophic that we would all burn and die.=========Despite misleading propaganda from the scientific establishment, the Earth is actually cooling; there is no evidence to suggest that man made global warming is actually occurring at all, in any way, shape, or form.There is no evidence of any warming since 1998. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) click="document.location='/Leugen9001/photos/album/5555/38059/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5555/255661-5555-abbd8-a.jpg" alt="" /> Scientists agree that global warming is not real. A whopping 3% of scientists don't believe in global warming. 3% is a majority. click="document.location='/Leugen9001/photos/album/5555/38167/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5555/255661-5555-c5a9x-a.jpg" alt="" /> Belief in global warming is correlated with insanity. Hannibal the Cannibal believed in climate change.
Jehovah is a just and loving God

Ah, I see. God loves the good kind of slavery. See, I was confused and thought that the forced labor of humans was bad under all circumstances but you are so right. Selling your daughter and preventing her from being free or having any choice in marriage (Exodus 21:7) is completely different from selling conquered people's and preventing them from being free (Leviticus 25:44). And why are the daughters kept forever and not the sons? Why does god think women should be quiet and never rise above a man (1 Timothy 2:11)? Does your mother ever pray without her veil (Corinthians 11:13)? Did a group of children taunt you from a distance so you sent bears to kill them (2 Kings 2:23)? Or should I just kill the men and non virgins (Numbers 31:17)? Last Saturday I picked up sticks and on Sunday I mowed my lawn. On which day was the sabbath for which I should be put to death for my working on it (Numbers 15:32)? "Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock."" (Psalm 137:9) how do you justify that? "Well you see, the children represent the future generations." 1) why be confusing and 2) doesn't god not want future generations to be punished (Ezekiel 18:20)? Or wait, doesn't god punish people for generations (Exodus 20:5)? Why does every Gospel have conflicting accounts of the life of Jesus? Look at the Resurrection. In Mathew it says Mary Magdalene and another Mary visit Jesus' tomb. In Mark it is both Mary's and Salome. In Luke it's the Mary's, Joanna, and "the others." And in John, only Mary Magdalene comes. In Mathew, an angel rolls the stone away and sits on it before their eyes. In the other Gospels, the stone is already gone. In Mark the women were so afraid they told no one. In the subsequent Gospels they told at least the disciples. Also, is The Father greater than Jesus (John 14:28) or are they equal (John 10:30)? Moses is told by Yahweh to judge your neighbors in righteousness (Leviticus 19:15) but Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount not to judge others (Mathew 7:1). Oh, well newer books can override older orders. Well then why have the older laws? And Jesus did not come to abolish or destroy the old laws but to fulfill them (Mathew 5:7). In America we don't still reference the 18th amendment because the 21st specifically repealed it. Also, I know Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed to research their church's history or that of any other religion, for fear they may leave, but I have looked into your religion's history. It appears that there are a few dates that stick out. Firstly, did you know that Jesus took control of the Earth in 1914? Specifically October 24/25. The first link below will give you some information on some certain dates your elders have predicted. Ever heard of rapture anyone? http://www.jwfacts.com... http://www.reddit.com... http://www.jwfacts.com... "So that you may not be mixed with these nations left here among you, or make mention of the names of their gods, or swear by them, or serve them, or bow yourselves down to them, but hold fast to the LORD your God, as you have done to this day. (Joshua 23:7)"
Jehovah is a just and loving God

I would firstly like to point out the old trick that even literalists like to pull when presented with moral questioning of their god. "Why would a just and loving God condone slavery (Ephesians 6:5) killing people for nonexistent things like witchcraft (Exodus 22:18) slaughtering children with bears if they insult you (2 Kings 2:23) and allowing your concubine, who doesn't want to be with you, allowing her to be raped and then, since she has been defiled and is in shock, you then kill her, slice up her body into several pieces, and send them each to different regions (Judges 19:22)? Why does god think it's ok to be a psychopath?" Just look at what my opponents excuse is for these things that secular ethics deems reprehensible. He says that the Bible was recorded by humans who made errors and that's why rape is fine if you marry the victim (Deuteronomy 22:28). Well what are errors in the Bible? Things which are now commonly unacceptable. Well if some parts of the Bible are wrong then what makes it divine? Why say it came from god if god allowed mistakes to be made? Why would god allow his word to be tainted? Even if there is a god there is no reason to believe it is the Biblical god. And if it is the Biblical god, then he either thinks it's ok to rape, murder, mutilate, and be a sociopath or he thinks it's ok to mislead his chosen people and all those who read his book. That's another thing. Why did god make one group of people better than everyone else? Why does god allow them to win battles against their foes under clear dictation that he wants them to win? And why did god pick a group of wandering middle easterners from 5000 years ago? Why not the Native Americans, or the Greeks, or the Chinese, or the Egyptians? Each of these groups had a vastly superior understanding of sciences, while now primitive, at least compared to the Stone Age Hebrews. This god not only picked a sore lot of ancient people, he encourages xenophobia and discrimination on grounds of worship (Deuteronomy 23:1). Jehovah, as you call him, is in no way a kind or benevolent god. He is cruel, manipulative, dishonest, angry, lazy, and incompetent. All of which are not attributes of an all loving deity.
Jehovah is a just and loving God

As you are a Jehovah's Witness I will be using the Bible and referring to the deity presented in it. You believe in a literalist interpretation of the text. You believe it is Jehovah's word and could not be subject to error of the scribes writing it down. For you, there is no bad morality or teachings or anything like that in the Bible. Anything that is close to that is justified because your god is a loving and fair god. Just take all his words to heart and worship him. I will allow you to present first, maybe make some clarifications if I have said something false about what you believe.
Jehovah is a just and loving God

Injustice is abundant in today's world and many wrongly blame God. However, the Bible teaches us a heartwarming truth: "Jehovah is a lover of justice" (Psalms 37:28). In this debate we will take a look at how Jehovah has proved these words true. We wil also take a look at the dominant quality Jehovah posseses, love. As we examine beautiful facets of His gem-like quality, we will see why the Bible says, "God is love" (1 John 4:8).