BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

I have to say that I agree with you that virtually all hate speech can be replaced by civilized and non-rude words. But the question is not whether we can or not talk a way or another, but do we have a right to express the way we want to. Prohibiting people from talking the way they wish will never solve the problem of insults and hate. It's just like Alcohol prohibition didn't solve alcohol consumption or the War on Drugs isn't solving drug addiction. Personally, I believe that if people are allowed to say whatever they want about whoever they want, their ideas can be proven wrong way more easily. A debate in a free society is the best way to get more people to understand the right or wrong position. If, and I'm using this as an example, white people were prohibited from using the word "niggar", they might not understand why and actually use it more as a sign of protest. But if the word is let in the wild, it can be more manageable. Finally, I don't think anyone has a right to prohibit other individuals from expressing their thoughts. Sure, some ideas are better kept inside but in a free society, there is a free marketplace of ideas that end up sorting out the correct terms through debates like this one, and we can't just expect to have ideas that are 100% agreeable with yours all the time. We only own our minds. Not that of others. So perhaps we do not have a right to prohibit others from talking a certain way...
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

I am of the view that an idea can be expressed effectively even without the need for rude comments,abusive language or swear words..in fact..by using these words you are showing disrespect for the other person`s views and establishing your superiority.English(or for that matter any other language) provides you with a variety of words to choose from so that you can effectively express your views and not hurt others sentiments.For an argument to go productively ,emotions should not be allowed to take over and using hateful ,racist speech you provocate the people into emotional thinking rather than logical thinking.
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

I believe the government has strictly no business in censoring any form of speech (besides, maybe, yelling FIRE in a movie theater). Some people might have different opinions about certain issues, but that does not make them scientifically inferior to the rest of us and entitled to have his mind regulated. Sure, hate speech and Nazi symbols are very harsh, wrong, and provocative, but we need to remember that for society to truly prosper, an idea should rather be debated down than forced into secrecy. I am waiting for a contender, to which I wish a very good luck for I hope that I will both learn more about the opposite side, but also finish by proving my point.
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

Since my opponent is keen on using appeals to emotion and consequences, I would like him to consider this: is it really the best idea to bring a child in a world where his parents did not want to have him and may not even be willing to love him? How about being born in a family that doesn't have enough money to provide him with enough clothing or even food? Many people who resort to abortion would rather not, but sometimes it is the only viable option.And I'm not ashamed of being pro-choice.
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

No matter how you try to deny it or justify it, abortion is murder and slaughter of innocents. How cold can you be to fool yourself into believing that terminating a pregnancy is not killing a baby? To the young female considering abortion...be a mother, not a murderer. To the man that planted the seed and then put the life if the baby in jeopardy by entertaining thoughs of killing it........shame on you, boy; shame on you.
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

I do not deny that the mother is carrying a human being, but I deny that it (the foetus) is a PERSON in the sense that it is yet unable to think and is not yet conscious. A foetus is alive in the same sense that a cancer is alive (I'm not pushing the comparison further), the difference between them is that a foetus has the potential to BECOME a person. I'm not "excusing" abortion, I'm simply defending women's right to choose. I agree that I wouldn't be here if my mother had an abortion... So?
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

aborting is slaughter of the innocent and murder.....you have to make a lot of denials to excuse abortion. You have to deny that the unborn baby is a baby. You have to deny it of it's life. You have to deny that the mother is carrying a baby. You have to deny that the mother is a mother. You cannot deny that you could not have been anybody other than you from the moment you were conceived, and if you were aborted, you would not be here.
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

Abortion is not "child murder"; the primary focus of a murder is to end the life of the subject, while the primary focus of an abortion is the termination of the pregnancy, which unfortunately leads to the death of the foetus. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with being a "pervert", that is an ad hominem. Just to be clear, no one is in " favour of abortion", pro-choice are in favour of "the right to abortion". I do not see how the whole " Hitler in power" argument is even close to relevant.
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

so all this makes it ok for you to make a baby and then kill it before it can scream, right? Uh huh, sure. Perverts always think it's ok to kill the baby before it's born so nobody has to look at the results of what the pervert did, and nobody has to take care of the pervert's baby, escecially the pervert........that's the main thing. Just murder the innocent baby before it can grow up and argue that abortion would have murdered it when it could not have been more innocen
Abortion is slaughter of the innocent and child murder

Abortion is granted in many countries as a recognition that women should have the right to bodily autonomy. In other words, women (and men) should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, without limits and free of scrutiny AS LONG as it does not affect other people's right and freedom. Since forbidding abortion forces a women to remain pregnant, I believe that it is an infringement on her right to bodily autonomy; it puts the government in control of her body (like slavery).
CryptoCurrency will likely replace traditional currency.

Final StatementsMy opponent has provided no real reasoning as to why Cryptocurrency will not become more popular in the future other than "It isn't that popular now. " I have provided many reasons why Cryptocurrencies will in the future become the most popular form of curency, as I have shown the many varied benefits that can be accrued through using cryptocurrency. -Commodity trading-Decentralization-Precise value trades-Ease of accessMy opponent has not shown any compelling evidence to suggest that these benefits are unreal or even unlikely. My opponents argumant also, is not constructive in any form or fashion, and therefore does not meet the burden of proof.
CryptoCurrency will likely replace traditional currency.

Relative to traditional money today, not it's not "massively popular." It is, however, massively popular in the sense that millions of trades are made daily. False?http://blockchain.info...As of Feb. '14, there has been about ~62,000 transactions. As of right now, traditional currency is indeed the standard. The point of this debate is that it will be the standard in the future. Correct. It's just evidence to show that Bitcoin is already widely accepted, and invested in, and will one day become the standard of currency. I might disagree with the definition of "widely". However, this is a non sequitur. Even if there is ~1,000,000 users, they could lose faith in it.This graph suggests there is about 7.7 billion dollars in Bitcoin.http://blockchain.info...And it appears the graph is dropping.The arguments are absolutely relevant. They show that cryptocurrency shows excellent potential of replacing traditional currency. No, you don't need bitcoins today, but in the future, people will want to use them because of the benefits I have outlined in my R1 arguments. Except you need to explain how they will expand. Yes, they have benefits, but so does "normal" money. It's not too soon to tell, though. Canada has bitcoin ATMs already! Just because you've never heard of these website, doesn't make them irrelevant. The point is, you can buy real commodities/products with bitcoins. What's the use of an ATM if you cannot use the money easily? This is confirmation bias. It does stand with the money, though. The problem is prevented by replacing traditional currency with cryptocurrency. Baseless Assertion. Don't banks run most ATMs? If so, if there is bitcoin ATMs, Banks are sticking around.That's not for you to decide. Making currency easily divisible infinitely makes for convenience in transactions. If you want to price something at 23.4867$ at your store, you can't because of the flaws in traditional money. With bitcoins, this is not a problem. I don't really want to know why you would want to price a odd price to a item. But, you can in theory have a ".004" cent piece and and a ".0001" cent piece and have it blow away the benefit.But you can't carry your entire net worth in cash, which causes the necessity for banks. I have shown that the banking system is flawed in my previous arguments. I don't need to. I can just carry what I want. And nothing is really stopping me from keeping the cash under the bed. The Banking system is indeed flawed. But, that does not make bitcoin better than normal money.If you went to Taco Bell with japanese, yen (here in America) you would have a small problem as well...Of course. But replacing traditional currency fixes this problem.Baseless assertion. Tyler has made only baseless assertions and has not shown as to WHY Bitcoin will take over the money that we know of today, so, I urge voters to vote NIGHTCATS.
CryptoCurrency will likely replace traditional currency.

This is a debate regarding whether or not traditional currency will be replaced by cryptocurrency. Traditional currency is defined (by example) as currencies such as the US dollar, the Euro, and otehr forms of physical currency. Cryptocurrency refers to the various forms of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, or others.The Pro is asserting that Cryptocurrency will (in the future) become the most commonly used form of currency. The Con must assert that Cryptocurrency will not.The BOP is shared.Round one is for acceptance only.Round two is for construction only. No new arguments/rebuttals will be made in the final round.
Winter is the best season of all.

Well said Pro. Pro says, "I would be exposed to the cold if I walked or rode a bike but not long enough to actually do any damage, I could simply make sure that I am not exposed for a prolonged period of time." What if you have to travel the same distance that you would otherwise do with a car? It would be a very long time, since you won't be moving fast enough to match the cars speed. Also, let us just say that the distance you were going to be traveling was even long with a car, that means that you will definitely be exposed to the cold for a much longer time than any one of us thought possible. I know that you can say you would not make sure that you are exposed for a long period of time, but what if you had to travel that way and there aren't any rest stops or breaks? What then? Reasons against your reasons that were against my reasons that were originally against your reasons against my reasons: 1. 17 years old is considered a child. 2. Construction is to construct via parts. Construct (according to thefreedictionary.com) means to form by assembling parts. You can still repair by doing that because it is still in sense assembling parts. 3. I was talking in reference to oceans, lakes, or rivers. 4. Find a poll, then your information will be more convincing. 5. But for a season to be declared the "best season of all", it would truly have to show characteristics of what many should think the best season should have. Summer is the only one that has the capability of that right now. Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Winter is the best season of all.

I thank Con for his response. Granted I willbe driving soon, I am not a bad driver in snow, I have driven in heavy snow and it does not bother me. No, I dont care about them. I would be exposed to the cold if I walked or rode a bike but not for long enough to actually do any damege, I could simply make sure that I am not exposed for a prolonged period of time. Reasons against your reasons that were originally against my reasons against your reasons: 1. True, I'm only 17 and still in school but that doesnt make me care any more. 2. Those are repairs, not construction. 3. Outdoor pools have just as much chlorine as indoor pools do. 4. Im aware that Im stating what I think, and no, I cant find a poll. 5. I dont know about the rest of the worlds population, its all a matter of opinion really. I realize that I will probably loose this debate, you have supported facts and arguments and brought sources into this and have done an overall better job supporting your side. Good job.
Winter is the best season of all.

Pro said, "I don't drive so it's really no problem to me. " Are you going to be driving ever in the near future? If you won't be driving, will you be using a bike, or running/walking? Snow would be much more of a nuisance to you if you were directly exposed to the snow. Also, tires from cars have greater traction from snow than tires from bikes do. But lets go on and support the idea that you won't ever drive and that you will be doing some other type of transportation for the rest of your life, what do you feel about all the other millions of people that have to drive in the snow? Do you care about them at all? Here is a problem that I notice. .. You said, "Ok, now you said that colder tempatures means more temperature related deaths, which is true, but it only happens if you stay out side or are not smart about clothing or get yourself soaking wet. " If you aren't going to be driving a car, you will be directly exposed to the snow and temperature, therefore becoming cold and possibly dying. Reasons against your reasons that were originally against my reasons: 1. You say you don't care about children but yet you are one based on your profile information. 2. You say we don't need need construction, but what about all the damage that snow and rain do to our buildings every year? 3. Well in an indoor pool you have to have chlorine and other chemicals that are painful if swallowed in large amounts, and what about children that will swallow them? Also, you will need to have very large indoor pools to accommodate the population of people who like to swim since there won't be any outdoor swimming. 4. You are only stating what YOU think. Can you get a poll showing that most people don't like vacations? 5. You mention that your only more active in the winter, but what about the rest of the world's population? For most of these arguments, you are only stating your personal likes and dislikes, but for a season to truly be "better" than the other season, don't you think you would need more people preferring this season over the season(s) that I support and not just only what YOU think?
Winter is the best season of all.

Its not that I dont want spring and fall to exist, I just dont want to deal with them. Now you mentioned that snow is a big problem with cars, I don't drive so it's really no problem to me. Ok, now you said that colder tempatures means more temperature related deaths, which is true, but it only happens if you stay out side or are not smart about clothing or get yourself soaking wet. The summer has temperature related deaths as well, heat stroke is a very serious problem. Now, all of those holidays you mentioned, how many of them do you celebrate? One maybe two, and you dont celebrate as big as Christmas and NewYears. Reasons against your reasons: I dont care about the children. We dont need any more construction. Indoor Pool Vacations are annoying. I'm more active in the winter than in the summer, its way too hot in summer, It sucks the want out of me, and I like wearing heavy clothes.
which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

***Anaxagoras(400-500BC) asserted centuries before the Qur'an was revealed that: "The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun This knowledge was also known by Thales centuries before that*** Abraham and his people were the first ones to discover that the moon has has a reflected light, and Abraham had his own book to called ms'haf, Abraham existed 2000 or 1000 years before the torah, some of the scientific verses in the quran came from the bible and the bible came from the torah, so Abraham knew that the moon has a reflected light from his book , so this rule that you created***Revealed knowledge cannot exist before Muhammad's time*** won't apply on this because they all the books came from one god, first came Abraham and his book, then torah and zbor, then the bible, then quran *** The Qur'an says no such thing as the Big Bang but speaks of parting the actual Earth and the heavens. The Earth didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang*** Sir this is a fail, because you didn't pay attention to * were* so it's not saying that earth existed at the time of the big bang, but it's saying that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, it's like saying that you were a part of your mother, and not only that but you even changed the verse, you probably got the verse from some untrusted website, so you broke the rules, and you even got this explanation probably from wiki so you broke the rules twice the original verse is this ****Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30)**** , so now it makes more sense when i got the original verse, not this verse you got from some fake website , so now clearly it's talking about the big bang, what else could it be ? if it's not the big bang so my opponent: changed the meaning and played with the verse and he got this explanation from wiki islam which is the worst website like my opponent said you voters choose what punishment does he take in Sumerian literature which precedes the Qur'an, we find the same claim in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "When the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens..."[4] again there was the bible, and the torah before the quran which mentions the big bang **How are the Big Bang and the solar system skies*** it doesn't mean skies like literally skies, i told you what it means in my other arguments ***Hipparchus(190"120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the sun, and Babylonian astronomy, centuries before Hipparchus, spoke of the sun's orbit*** i already answered you twice about this i'll be waiting for your replay.
which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

Hello my name is hamza my friends call me hamzay, and were gonna be debating about what makes more sense ?, i'm going to be standing for islam, christianity, and judaism, but the main one i'm focusing on is islam so lets begin Rules: 1_ everything you say needs a proof 2_ You can't link to untrusted websites like wiki,yahoo answers,etc ,etc 3_Respect 4_ No offensive or disrespectful arguments 5_ Read the second one 6_ You don't know what are you talking about or you're not 100% sure don't type it 7_ Introduce your self for this round *And* begin first with your argument
Britney Spears " Unusual You Zippyshare torrent mp3

My opponent claims that "Britney Spears cemented her title as the Princess of Pop with the release of Circus in 2008." however, this statement completely ignores the FACT that Britney Spear's 'Blackout' released in 2007, had already assured Britney's status as the Princess of Pop a full YEAR before the release of Circus.
The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished

"excuse me i guess i have to a little more specific for your thick skull huh. "This is simply just a personal attack, and isn't worthy of rebuttal""death is never the answer" for other people to punish others. "Why not? There is no reason why the life of a murderer who cannot be curred should be held in higher regards than a society which would be better off without this person living in it. Even in a cell, this person would suck up tax dollars. "implementing that money is worth more than someones life? "It depends on the person, but yes I would say money is worth more than a pedophile's life. Since my opponent didn't meet his burden of proof, and I arued that it would be humane to end the life of one who is suffering, and it would beneficial to the tax payers to have this person killed. .. .The resolution has been negated. .
The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished

excuse me i guess i have to a little more specific for your thick skull huh. "death is never the answer" for other people to punish others. let me put it this way it's no ones decision to be put to death except themselves, at which their own god or if they don't believe in that, their own thoughts will follow through with that decision. and your reasoning is that it would cost less to kill the person the rather than throw them in the jail cell? implementing that money is worth more than someones life?
The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished

"So killing them is the answer for their murderous acts?"In some circumstances, it would be better for a murder who cannot be curred to die, yes. It costs tax payers more money to keep people imprisoned than it does to kill them, and their lives are pretty much worthless at that point regardless."While throwing them in the jail cell of any kind no one has any control over what happens to them and for people to say they are better off dead what has our world came to? let them decide if they live and God will follow it through. Death is never the answer."If death is never the answer, then obvioulsy this contradicts my opponent's claim that it's ok if God decides who dies or not. If death is never the answer, then this applies to God's choice to kill as well. Also, there is no proof God exists anyway. My opponent is saying the word "God" like this being actually exists, for no reason.
The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished

The death penalty certainly is not cruel and unusual punishment. There are people on this Earth who are simply better off dead than alive as far as society is concerned, because some people are just not curable when it comes to their mental issues which lead them to murder and to other horrible acts. Also, I would argue that death is an escape from suffering. You cannot suffer if you are dead, because all the organs and nerves which are in place that allow you to suffer wouldn't be working anymore. Terminiting the existence of someone who would have to spend the rest of their life in a cell thinking about their actions, or getting raped and beat up in prison, is actually more humane in some circumstances. My opponent has not bet his burden.