BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anything Can Be Funny

NOTEI will begin this argument by showing how my opponent's argument is flawed. Firstly, I did not accept to a definition in R1 so therefore my arguments opponent strongly relies on me accepting their definitions.R1 - Definitions I do not accept to my opponent's definition of funny because it gives him an unfair advantage in the debate. I propose that funny is defined as the following: Funny: Something that makes you laugh because you find something amusing. I will now define can so that it is defined. Can: Highly Possibly is (50%+) With these definitions in place my opponent's arguments are flawed since they must actively demonstrate (as part of their burden of proof) that my scenario genuinly made him (and/or others). R2 - Fantasy Scenario The only part of my opponent's argument that isn't really refuted by the new definitions propsed is the fantasy scenario of jokes (that apparently I participated in). Firstly, as part of my opponent's burden they must prove why this is funny. They may have created a (bad) joke that they (apparently) laughed at. However their burden requires them to prove that they laughed and that they found it funny. Even if they do manage to prove that they laughed they must also prove that they laughed and (geniunly) found it funny. R3 - Scientific Studies I don't really need to cover this however just for clarification I will. The studies provide 3 requirments. My opponent states that my scenario can be believed by anybody but this is a violation of two things. a) The new definition of canb) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now).Now onto arguments ... C1 - Death is saddeningOur loved ones play important roles in our daily lives, and their deaths leave gaping holes. Often, we want more time with them — more joy, more laughter, more healing — and death makes those hopes impossible to fulfill. We remember our good times with the deceased, knowing that they are now over; memories can be crushing (1). C2 - Watching your parents suffer is torture Torture is unethical. [Torture] dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain. Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves. It treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons. Torturers often explicitly dehumanise their victims to make it easier to torture them. It uses the physical body of the victim not as a component part of a person of value, but as a tool to achieve the aims of the torturer. (2)Sources(1) http://www.seattletimes.com...(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk...;
Anything Can Be Funny

Thank you for (eventually) telling me your goals. These goals really should have been posted in R1 alongside definitions so amongst acceptance it would be necessary for them to argue according to your terms. My opponent technically concedes (twice) and I will highlight this in my conclusion My opponent's concessions: " we have both lost this debate in my eyes. I agree that he has lost. I disagree that I have lost. Since we both agree that he has lost, this is a concession. Another more imporant concession is when my opponent states this: "this debate to the point where it is no longer fun for anyone." This is a concession. Even if you do buy all of his terms and arguments he just said that it is no longer fun for anyone. His burden requires him to prove that anything can be funny and if he states that nobody thinks that this is funny then his burden is at fault. I agree that this debate is no longer fun for anybody and therefore my burden is met. It is not enought to state that you are subjectively disappointed with me for not agreeing to the definitions that were NOT presented in R1. This is allowed in debate. Definitions are allowed to be debated on. A rebuttal is insufficient when it is solely based off one debaters subjectivity which conflicts with the others. Subjectivity is personal and therefore my opponent must make arguments that everyone will agree upon (using objective facts). My opponent has dropped all my contentions so I extend them out again and I strongly urge voters to vote Con! Thanks.
Superpower nations and/or organisations and their influence on conspiracy matters.

Yeah well it's not a hoax because the Russians would have proved it a long time ago if it were true. It would be impossible to perfectly fake the conditions of the moon landing with the film technology back then, and the USSR had the means and the motive to discover a hoax and tell the world about it if it were really fake. I'm assuming this is what we are debating about because I can't figure out how to make the title into a resolution.
This website I just found is a horrible idea.

I'll go a little further. please, more than just one sentence in your next round. This book is going to be a catastrophe. Trolls will jump on it like wildfire. Already, a guy just wrote a long list of profanity. I get that it's supposed to be a wild party, but, for gosh sakes, there's got to be some kind of limit. This novelty book will be unbearably incoherent and full of a mangled, bizarre plot that I don't think anyone will want to read. If a million people write it, it will be constantly changing from one writing style to another. One guy will write it like a romantic novel, one guy will write it like a hour novel, another guy will write it like a comedy. It's a bad idea and it's going to fail.
This website I just found is a horrible idea.

So, first off, the guy says he was too lazy to write his own frickin' novel, so he asks OTHER people to write it for him! That's stealing other people's intellectual property! I guess it does kinda promote teamwork, but he's lazy if he can't write a few thousand words. And he wants it to be a novelty. I bet this novel will be so much of a novelty that it won't even have any point. It will come out looking like gutter rubbish! There will be a hundred different people, all trying to weigh in, all wrecking the story in some way or another, making it sound wrong, taking it in bad directions, making it incoherent and bizarre. And what if the people are idiots? They'll go nuts! And what will he say on the cover? How do you talk about a book that written by a million people? Would he say, "Written by a million people?" I mean, this is a new experiment that nobody's tried before. There will be a lot of problems with it. Bad idea all around, really. Horrible idea. When this thing comes out, if it ever does, it's going to be so strange that nobody in their right minds would ever pick it up.
This website I just found is a horrible idea.

OK, so I was surfing the web, which I do pretty often, and I came across an interesting looking link, so I clicked it, and some stuff popped up. It was the stupidest fricking website I think I've ever seen. Awful. Really stupid. This debate is for anyone who disagrees. Go there, look around, so you'll be ready to debate me. Here's a link: https://nsequeira119.wixsite.com... After you accept in round 1, I'll give you some points as to why I think it's dumb. Only accept if you genuinely disagree with me, and think it's great. I don't think it's great. It's gutter rubbish. I'll wait.
Canada Exists.

Hmmmmm, You take a ballsy approach... Ignore my previous comments as if they don't exists, much like the conceptualized canada.... You've stumped me.. I don't think I can offer anything else to this arguement. DAMN YOU ONE SIDED ARGUMENTS!! Well, a more realistic view of the world would one without borders and boundries. But, it's useless..... Your perspective triumpths mine through the simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge me. :( Well played.
Canada Exists.

I shall ignore all points you made. You can repost them if you would like. I urge the voters to take points off for conduct during the votes. Now for my points:1. Canada exists, because according to the definition above, it is a nation in North America which takes up 3,690,410 sq. mi. Therefore, as the definition of exist given is "To have actual being; be", and the definiton of be is "To occupy a place or position", Canada must exist. Here is it's location:
A hard Riddle for anyone :D

Firstly: No, I didn't. This riddle, as noted by a commenter, is not difficult. Secondly: It is poor conduct to call someone a cheater without any evidence, although, "cheating" usually requires some kind of rule breaking, which brings us to... Thirdly: Even if I had looked it up (again, hardly necessary), why would it matter? The point was to debate the question. You aren't on "Riddle.org". I take it, though, that you concede the debate?
A hard Riddle for anyone :D

There is a blind man. The man has been blind since he was born. A mysterious man comes out and says to the blind man" since you are blind, I have a potion that can make you see again." The blind man takes the potion and then he can see. The misterous man goes away and Sherlok Holmes comes. He holds up a red hand cuff and says to the man that was blind but not now," what color is this?" The man looks at the hand cuff very carfully and says "red". Sherlok Holmes says that the potion is fake. How is that possible? YOu cheater you checked it up ;(
A hard Riddle for anyone :D

Well, presumably, the argument would be that the blind man should have no way to define colors. Therefore, by holding up handcuffs that are red (an uncommon color for handcuffs), the blind man should say "blue", or "black", or really "I don't know". But by saying "red", the blind man betrays knowledge he shouldn't reasonably have, and must have obtained in some fraudulent manner. However, I think this is an unfair puzzle, as it doesn't provide enough information; Holmes would not theorize based solely on the limited data you've provided. For example, the answer I provided presumes that the blind man is the potioner's confederate, however, the riddle says specifically (lists as a premise) "The man has been blind since he was born", and also gives no indication that there is any opportunity for fraud on the part of the potioner. Therefore, we cannot actually make ANY inferences as to how the blind man knows the correct color. Could be a guess, could be information we have not been provided. There may be other reasons besides cheating for the blind man to know: Perhaps someone once told him all handcuffs are red, and so when he sees the handcuffs, he assumes they must be red. That assumes facts not in evidence, but so does "the confederate somehow told him", when there is nothing to that effect in the story either.
A hard Riddle for anyone :D

There is a blind man. The man has been blind since he was born. A mysterious man comes out and says to the blind man" since you are blind, I have a potion that can make you see again." The blind man takes the potion and then he can see. The misterous man goes away and Sherlok Holmes comes. He holds up a red hand cuff and says to the man that was blind but not now," what color is this?" The man looks at the hand cuff very carfully and says "red". Sherlok Holmes says that the potion is fake. How is that posible?
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Thank you Beta, given my background in philosophy and my research into this subject I understand I came into this debate with the deck stacked in my favor, but thank you for staying civil and being a good sport. I do appreciate you staying civil, and I hope you and anyone else reading this found this very informative. If anyone else is interested in hearing more controversial issues I've discussed or wishes to debate with me, by all means send me a challenge and/or befriend me. Other controversial political topics I've debated so far include: Gun Control Banning Assault Weapons/High Capacity Magazines The Need for Guns to Defend Against Tyrannical Governments Legalizing Gay Marriage The Immorality/Morality of Homosexuality from religious and natural theory perspectives. I would also welcome any debates in regards to: Concealed Carry/Concealed Weapons on College Campuses Morality/Immorality of Vegetarianism Hunting Rights Terrorism Torture
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

That's some very convincing arguments. Even though I'd like to come up with a good case against you, I really don't think I can. Having looked and found nothing that can match your philosophical arguments with reference to Michael Huemer (http://spot.colorado.edu...) who presents some very strong arguments for the legalization of marijuana, I hope it is acceptable for me to skip the third round - thus losing the debate.Anyway, good debate.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

I would argue that marijuana, and probably some additional drugs, should be legalized because legalizing them would create more benefits than keeping them illegal has. I am not arguing for the complete legalization of marijuana, but rather the regulated use of it. My opponent: Round 1) acceptance & arguments 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) rhetorical statement of choosing. Me: Round 1) terms and conditions 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) conclusion May be done through political, medical, economic, or philosophical arguments. No plagiarism.
Abortions should be legal

"Losing debate"We'll see when the votes roll in! I mean you lost in R1 alone. I briefly checked out your link. Your opponent clearly won, And all the words you were saying didn't make sense, And your "points" were trash. Looks like it's going to happen again this debate. "Should Abortions Be Legal? "If it's a "simple" question, Why are abortions legal in certain parts of the world and illegal in other parts of the world? If it was simple, It would be either legal or illegal in all parts of the world. So what do you think about that? Enlighten me. Of course it isn't difficult to answer because it's a matter of opinion, But you must look at things through all aspects and angles rather than troll or say things that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. "And you did not even answer if it should or should not be. "In my second point I stated that I'm against abortion, Meaning that I'm insisting that abortion should be illegal. I thought that was pretty self explanatory. Your second point. "That is the price of a new PlayStation" "Flavor enhancement of soft drinks from Pepsi. " Lol. . . "At no point will baby murder ever be moral. Even pro-abortion people don't claim baby murder to be moral. "That's interesting. Be careful because you're contradicting yourself. Consent. I mentioned consent because it has something to do with sex and thus getting pregnant. A lot of women have consensual sex and still have an abortion which is wrong. You basically asked to have a baby, Yet you're killing it? No. Rape. Just because there's something you didn't bring up does not mean I'm prohibited to say it. I'm bringing up my own points from my brain, I'm not piggybacking off of you. Your R1 was idiotic, So I had to show a contrast between your R1 and my intelligent R1. In case you weren't aware, Rape has something to do with abortion because it has something to do with sex and thus getting pregnant. Conditions. Are you serious on this point or are you trolling big time? Why would parents in China not want a girl? By them keep killing females, Wouldn't that only stops the chances of the population, Since girls grow up into women and can birth children? Pro choice angleI guess all that matters to you is the money made. Would you support murderers killing innocent people and making money off of it? Enlighten me. I ignored your point about "blacks and Hispanics" because that made zero sense. I never heard of that. Instead of expecting me to flesh out your points, Why don't you do it yourself. Also, I see you're a racist. Great job on your other debate. I'm black by the way. So make sure you tread very lightly. Would you like this to be a civil mature debate about abortion, About black people, Or about you being a troll?
Abortions should be legal

Let's pose the question: "Should abortion be (il)legal? "This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states "Man shall not kill". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.
Abortions should be legal

Simple debate I want to argue that late term abortions (up to 324 months) is both perfectly acceptable as a way of birth control and eugenics to control minorities. Reasons for abortions to be discussed. *Less black and Hispanics *Less poor people *Abortions is a never ending supply of income $$$ *Less pregnant women more sex *Baby parts can be used for research without harming anyone as they have no human rights.
Death Penalty

I've set this debate up with LegalizedProstitute because it's been a while since I've had a serious debate, and I saw that his opponent in his last death penalty debate was new to the site and probably wasn't giving him a satisfying debate. So, should LegalizedProstitute choose to accept, here are the terms. I, Con, shall be arguing that death should not be a punishment for any crime. Pro will argue to the opposite.
Death Penalty

So now I suppose I'm on to counter-counter-rebuttals.Deterrence, Counter-Counter"The lack of conclusive evidence for something implies its opposite? NO!"The idea expressed in this quote is only true sometimes. I will be using an example to illustrate why this quote doesn't apply to deterrence.Ex: There's a dog in front of you. You check for a pulse. There is none. Having no pulse means you have no evidence of life. And thanks to an absence of evidence of life, we can rest that the dog is dead. This is a scenario where the absence of evidence for one thing, automatically qualifies as evidence for the opposite. Now if you refer up to my opponent's quote, you will see that if applied to this situation, it would look quite silly, as it is claiming the dog isn't dead, even though it is without a pulse. Likewise, since non-deterrence is simply the absence of deterrence, if we can find no evidence that there is no sign of deterrence (no pulse) then we can call that evidence of non-deterrence (the dog's dead).Getting the Wrong Guy, Counter-CounterMy side is not un-sourced, I used a statistic representing the number of mistakes the system realized they made since 1973, in regards to men on death row. The bottom line is this: with the death penalty there is zero chance for rehabilitation and less chance for correcting a mistake a court could've made.Price, Counter-CounterI think my opponent is dodging my point here. Most of us won't be on juries, and most of us won't be in the government. What we can do as the common people is call for an end to this costly procedure, and use the money on funding our schools and roads. We can put the pressure on our governors and senators, making it a big issue.If the price is the big turning point for some people, I'd ask that they consider this: The price is so high because it is intended to minimize room for error. It would be virtually impossible to get your government officials to go to a 'swift justice' type of death penalty, because with a less lengthy process comes more mistakes, and more dead innocents, and that is a very unpopular platform to run on, as a politician. So instead of trying to change the price/process, just try to get rid of the entire thing! That would be a much safer route for your elected official to take, seeing as 18 states don't have the death penalty[1]. Again, thanks for reading.Sources: [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Death Penalty

Rebuttals Detterence The lack of conclusive evidence for something implies its opposite? NO! If there is no conclusive evidence for AND against something, then I guess both sides are equally compelling (Can be not compelling at all, very compelling, etc). But, if a side is most likely true, then that assumption is more prefferable from the other.A Moral Argument Yes. We have different viewpoints on morality. I believe it is moral to penalize someone by death IF they committed a crime that is equally severe enough as murder (In which, murder (I believe) warrants the death penalty), then killing than person in retribution of their crime is morally justifiable.Getting the Wrong Guy Yes, indeed. My claim is un-sourced, thus lacking conclusive evidence. However, like my rebuttal on "Detterence", both sides are un-sourced, thus being equally compelling. Price Governments set the price (In which, you are sanctioned AND obliged by law to pay) for penalizing a life by death without parole case. However, if a jury, per say, didn't want to pay the price, I guess they would resign, wouldn't they? A risk. However, they tend to approve of the death penalty. So, although the government is accountable for the price, the juries chose to accept. So...I await my opponent's next set of arguments.