BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This website is rather pointless

It provides ample time, but that's the problem. Debates are meant to show one's knowledge about a certain subject or many subjects. If you're given the extra time, as a result you'll collect information that is not of your own thoughts. For example with this debate. I would have had time to research many articles about the cons of Debate.org and articulate many rebuttals in the 72 hours that i gave. That wouldn't have been of my own knowledge and knowing and would have been destroying the whole point of the website, which can be exploited easily making it pointless. The initial statement was a base statement that consisted of the title, making your assumption of it being a base argument rather ridiculous.
This website is rather pointless

Although a debate in real life is more dynamic, a debate on this site allows for clear rules of debate with the added benefit that there is ample time and resources to research your material and present your case. Besides, debaters have the chance to present their rebuttal clearheaded and as close to real-time as possible. Unlike scientific papers or online essays (or articles) which can take a long time between debaters, this site lets you debate anyone who challenges anyone else in fast-mode if you will. The initial statement seemed to be your entire argument. But if you have more to add, please, I am curious.
Bionicle is better than Hero Factory

Hero factory is based for a specific age range, unlike bionical. Hero factory, yes had a low bar for story and merchandise, but do you really think that a 5 year old would care. Bionicle on the other hand was based for an older age group, past 8. They remember stuff more and play with toys more often. This would mean that, if you want to win, you would need to state what age group you are referring to, when you say which is better. The time periods that each came out in, the newer one had better CGI than the old one, so could be made into a better film/ story/ merchandise.
sex change

i never said that it was a resolution to the problems we stuble across, what i said was that it isnt for you to jugde or make arguements against another persons personal choice. if another person chooses to change thier body its their choice and the god statment wasnt that of religion i just ment however that we have free will in order to make our own decisions and if a person feels that they have been put in the wrong body then they must be allowed to fix it. individual rights gives each person to the rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and if its in a persons persuit of happiness to have a sex change thats there right.
sex change

my value for this debate is individual rights it is everyones individual rights to life liberty and the persuit of happiness how can you take away someones individual rights just because you dont belive that its right. you wanna eat a popcile eat a popcile (not sexual commit) and if someone wants to change their body because they feel worng in their skin they should be allowed to do it? would a man disagree with a woman getting a boob job? no off course not because thats an altering of a body they like. if it is legal for a boob job, lipo and all kinds of plastic sergery it should be ok for a sex change opperation. end of story
Assault Weapons Bans will not solve gun crime in the United States of America

Firstly, Assault weapons bans are not only constitutionally unsound, but they limit the ability of only those who will subject themselves to the law of the United States of America. Citizens are law-abiding people who do not have any criminal record or affiliation. Of course, as soon as you are convicted of breaking the law, you are technically a criminal; however criminals do who run amok in the streets of America shooting and killing innocent people do not subject themselves to the law and have no intention of following the law any time soon(1). To institute a ban on assault weapons would only prohibit the people of America from protecting themselves because only law abiding citizens would obey the ban. In America, over 60% of violent crimes and homicides are performed by firearms(2) . Less than four percent of all murders by firearms, however, are committed by what the government considers as "assault weapons" and .8% of them were performed with a military caliber bullet. (3) Banning assault weapons at that rate of frequency would be contrary to the burden of proof because it would not be effective in stopping gun violence in America. The assertion that an Assault Weapons ban in this day and age will do anything to prevent gun violence is absurd because if such a small amount of crime is currently being perpetrated at the time, the bans effectiveness in stopping the overwhelming 60% statistic would be entirely negligible and could not possibly be taken in consideration as a way to solve gun violence in this country. You also must take into account that even by the stroke of a near miracle that some criminals adhere to the ban and participate in some kind of government buyback of the weapons, you must still perceive the possibility of a black market. In the 1920s when the Prohibition movement started, alcohol of almost any kind was absolutely forbidden by the United States government. This caused a drastic increase in illegal alcohol shipping(4). A similar event could occur in America if the government were to forbid a specific species of weaponry. Black market availability would increase the amount of illegal weapons being produced and distributed to many criminals. When you consider that these criminals could have powerful, long range assault weapons and the people could be left nearly defenseless, it only puts the people of the United States of America in danger when such a ban is put in place. This would insinuate that an Assault Weapons Ban would be not only ineffective to stopping gun violence, but it could be a martyr to increased gun violence and detrimental to the citizens of the United States who actually OBEYED the ban. Sources: (1): http://billingsgazette.com... (2): http://www.fbi.gov... (3): http://www.guncite.com... (4): http://www.pbs.org...
Assault Weapons Bans will not solve gun crime in the United States of America

As pro in this debate, I will be arguing that the premise of assault weapons bans being nearly useless in ceasing gun crimes in the United States is one with merit and is valid. My opponent, con, will persist that an Assault Weapons Ban can solve gun crime in the United States, and is a DEFINITIVE answer to solving gun violence. BoP lies with both arguers; Con must prove that an assault weapons ban is both efficient and effective in stopping gun violence. Pro must insist with reasonable cause that an assault weapons ban is not effective nor efficient. RULES: First round is for acceptance Second round is for arguments and supporting details Third round is for rebuttals Fourth round is for closing comments. 8,000 Character Max (DEFINITIONS) Solve- to find a solution, explanation, or answer for [Location found: http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Gun crime- the overall amount of violence and deaths in the United States of America by way of firearms, limited to handguns, shotguns, and assault weapons. Assault Weapons Ban- the complete illegalization of all assault weapons that hold more than 20 rounds and have the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, with the ability to fire in fully automatic or burst fire methods.
Who is The best female rap artist alive. Not just by her raps but also her looks.

A debate is nothing but peoples opinions that have facts to them. We can put awards of both on here and others could take a poll. I say that Trina is better than Nicki because 1. She has been around longer. 2. She doesn't just rap about stupid things like Nicki does. um lets see some ignorant songs one of them would be called stupid hoe, also she doesn't make weird faces when she raps. And to correct you I am a She Not a He. You mentioned me as a He in your debate. Also in round 3 i will go thru her awards. Plus she doesn't make music back to back like Nicki does. She takes her time with her albums.
Who is The best female rap artist alive. Not just by her raps but also her looks.

Who is the best and most beautiful female rapper alive only comes down to who you ask. In other words, Pro's question is very subjective. If I would pick one, I would say that Nicki Minaj is the best rapper alive. This is just my own opinion, and it seems like saying my own opinion on this is all I can and need to do in this debate since my opponent just asked who I think is the best female rap artist alive. This is just all opinion based of course, so I cannot say objectively speaking that Nicki Minaj is the best female rapper alive and nor can my opponent say the same with Trina. I have done the only thing I can do in this debate, which is to answer my opponent's question 'who the best female rap artist alive'. My opponent has also given his opinion on this question, so why should I win this debate? The answer is simple: it was my opponent who created this debate challenge and apparently the challenge was only to answer the question 'who is the best female rap artist alive'. I have answered this question and therefore I have as a challenger successfully done my job.
The voting age should be reduced to 14.

Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.
The voting age should be reduced to 14.

Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).
pedophilia

Even though you have "scholarly sources", those"sources" have been chosen to be used to support your personal beliefs. All of my statements are facts and truth. Only a fool would lie in a debate. Debates are used to support a persons opinion and to get their side of the issues heard. I gave you proof of the conservative agenda but you chose to ignore me and dismiss my facts as "meaningless". I am not here to convince the people but to teach the people the truth. Age does not exist because there is no natural system to support it's existence. "Paedophile" does not exist because there is no natural system to support said existence. Both was created by people who desired to show bias towards others and divide/suppress the people. A persons feelings and opinions are important and that person deserves respect. People do not rely on "professional studies"to "determine what is right or wrong. We think for ourselves. It's called common sense. The law should not be used as a dictatorship and slave master of the people. Religion is not an excuse to dictate and force personal and conservative values and suggestions on people. The law shoud never discrimate or control someones sex life or any aspect of their lives. No to "big brother". People having sex is a good thing for both parties. Homosexuals are victims just like people who are punished for having sex. I have backed up my facts but you continue to ignore and dismiss them. People and professionals makes mistakes and that is why it is important to learn the truth and take control. This debate has nothing to do with mine or other peoples sex lives. I am not selfish for speaking out against this, but you are for not taking to heart and trying for a second to understand my position. There is nothing selfish about sex,equality and respect for others. "children and parents" does not exist. we are all human beings on this earth. we need to learn to get along.
pedophilia

Age does not exist and is not a excuse to force and promote censorship amongst the people. Human beings have sex. This is normal. What is abnormal is when people discriminate against people while hiding behind the term "age" and then attack people who do and think differently than them. This is madness. Like I said, age does not exist. The government has no right to force the people into the control of an dictatorship. we as human beings we can take care of ourselves as we have been doing for millions of years. we do not need the government spying and violating our rights to privacy. This "child" conspiracy is a result of conservative thinking that have been forced on us by "big brother". We are human beings who have sex with other human beings. Labelling people are wrong and violating our right to freedom of expression is wrong.
pedophilia

Your opening statement is ambiguous. Since this is a debate re pedophilia, are you saying that sex with kids should be acceptable regardless of the consequences to the child? You say nobody has the right to control someone else's life. Are you saying this is true regardless of the harm it does to the kid? Please explain your "freedom of choice" remark. If it means that one should have freedom to have sex with a minor, I must question your sanity. This is illegal & harms kids. Why even think this is debatable? Please state your purpose & position re pedophilia.
The Agnostic belief is not logical

Well, I have waited the longest time possible to post so my opponent can hopefully make a final argument. Here goes. My opponent hardly touches the extents of my arguments. While I will rebut what she has said, please do not forget all of the untouched information that I provided in the previous round. All of what my opponent has said is essentially that we cannot know there is a God just because we are created, and the definition of "create." She seems to just restate her position, rather than create arguments. I have already shown why there must be a creator. Read this ignored piece of information from the previous round: "There have been multiple explanations. A common one is the Big Bang Theory. This basically states that the universe sprang from a singularity that contains all matter. There are many variations of this, but this is widely accepted. No matter which version you look at, it states that the universe sprang from something. There is one main problem with this. We know that our universe is governed by certain laws. The main idea behind Newton's first law of thermodynamics is that, you guessed it, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Going back to the Big Bang, we must ask ourselves, "where did that singularity come from?" Scientists claim to know how the universe was made. (Or, for the sake of political correctness, *came into being*) They come so close, but admit to not knowing what happened at the VERY beginning. Even though I personally do not believe that the Big Bang actually happened, I cannot prove that it did not. I CAN prove that if it did happen, a God Must have created the singularity. We know that matter and energy cannot be created, so a supernatural God is NECESSARY to cause matter and energy to come into existence. Therefore, since we exist, there must be a God, since only a God could have created us and the universe. Affirmed." My opponent also goes to the trouble of giving the definition of "create." What she does not realize is that she has just affirmed the resolution. As has been stated, the universe is governed by certain laws. We know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Since we are here, we had to have been created. Since we cannot have been created through natural, law-obeying means, we must have been created. ONLY a supernatural God could have created the universe, since conventional methods are impossible given the governing laws of nature. So now to answer your question, "So energy and matter cannot be created, yet they can come into existance (existence?)?" Well I am sure that you know that you exist. You are here on this Earth. You must have been been brought into existence. You know the governing laws of nature. Since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, ONLY a supernatural being, or God, could have created the universe, and could have created you. The resolution remains affirmed.
The Agnostic belief is not logical

-We cannot see Creation, but we can see the effects it had. - So we do not see the creation as a whole, yet we see the effects? We need to know creation occured in order to know that is what caused the effects. -It had a start...what caused that? - I have no idea. Honestly, I do not. That is ,by your definition, an agnostic point of view. That is very reasonable indeed, because you have no proof of a creator. Your argument is saying " A creation oh-so-obviously needs a creator." But who? Who you may ask? Nobody knows. No facts, no evidence. That is why agnosticism is very reasonable indeed. Where is this creator? -Even though I personally do not believe that the Big Bang actually happened, I cannot prove that it did not.- Exactly. This is what agnostics feel about Gods. They do not think they exist, but they can never know for sure. -We know that matter and energy cannot be created, so a supernatural God is NECESSARY to cause matter and energy to come into existence.- So energy and matter cannot be created, yet they can come into existance? Wouldn't you define creation as coming into existance? Okay, maybe not. Lets turn to the dictionary for some nuetral definitions. Create:1: to bring into existence [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Ohh, I see. Thank you, dictionary! Have a nice evening and see you in 12 days, everyone!
The Agnostic belief is not logical

Hello, as I accepted I realized that I am leaving in the next few days to go to a camp, so I will only be able to post 2 arguments, that includes this one. Sorry , I go brain-dead sometimes. [Only a God could have made the universe] What? No,no,no,no,no. If there is a mold of clay clumped neatly onto a twig, I know, using reason, it simply must have been created. This is due to the fact that I have seen people make it and probablt made one myself. However, this is irrelivant to the universe purely because no one has made one, and because no one has seen anyone else make one. [Since we exist, there must be a God.] Is this even an argument? This is a statement based off of opinion. Why must their be a God? Science cannot prove any God's existance. Therefore agnosticism is very reasonable. [Because we are here, there must be a God.] Has it ever occured to you that all religion has done is drive us into wars and (literally) fly us into buildings? If this is a reason we need a God then I must be an idiot.
The Agnostic belief is not logical

Although I am usually for it, I do not want to argue semantics in this debate. I want to debate the belief behind the agnostic system. I am vouching that the agnostic belief is either not completely thought out, or that it ignores reality. I define an agnostic as one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. God- A supernatural being I will save my main arguments for later rounds, but will leave my opponent with the main point contending agnostic views. ==Contention 1== Only a God could have made the universe Agnostics are not sure about the existence of God. I propose that this belief is not completely thought out. Why? Because only God could have created the universe in which we live. I also propose that agnostic beliefs ignore reality. Why? Since we exist, there must be a God. The agnostic belief that there might not be a God ignores the reality that we are here. Because we are here, there must be a God. Good luck to my opponent, and I hope we have a good debate.
Pc vs Console

You bring up some goods points there so here is my rebuttal. First off using a mouse and keyboard as a controller sucks. I used to use a PC for a decade and switched to consoles. The wireless controller is way better to use then thumbing through Alt keys and arrow keys. The problem with PC's is that your operating system gets outdated every few years and then you can't play new games anymore because your computer is too slow. While I buy all the newest games and they all run the same on my PS4. The PC has almost no sport games, Which is my main gaming entertainment. Sure I can get all the adventure/point and click and old Sierra games on PC but all new games are not available for PC. I go to Gamestop and buy my games there and the PC shelf only has 10 games on it, While I have 100's of games for PS4 on the shelf. Now lets get down to the hard facts of why Consoles are better than PC's With console gaming, There"s essentially no installation process. You simply insert the disc or download the game and in a couple of minutes, You"re all set. There are no pesky drivers to worry about, Nor you will have to download a separate, Proprietary installation tool for a particular game. Sure, You may have to download updates if there are any, But this is a simple process. In addition, On a PC, You might also have to make a few adjustments specific to your machine"s specifications, Like the games graphics settings in order to avoid framerate drops. The bottom line is that on a console, You won"t have to face the majority of the common nuances of configuring a new game on a PC. It just works Another burden you can avoid by opting for a console is hardware specifications. There are thousands of options you will have to go through to find the right PC to suits your needs. You have to ensure the mouse is comfortable and the graphics card can handle the games you want to play, And check how high is the display refresh rate, And more There are more AAA games for consoles. For instance, Some of the most highly rated titles, Such as The Last of Us, The Uncharted series, God of War (2018), And Red Dead Redemption 2 are not even available on PC. Those are my favorite games! Therefore voters of DDO, Please vote for me in this debate as I have clearly shown more valid points of how consoles are better. VOTE FOR ME And just to prove my points are more valid voters, Here is a final thought before voting Console gaming is more affordable than PC gaming. You can buy one for as little as $250 and still play each and every available game at 1080p. That package will even include the controller, One or two games, And possibly more. New gaming PCs, However, Start at about $700 and that will only enable you to play the mid-tier games. CASE CLOSED