BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games, Bad or Good

Without him none of these arguments could have been possible. I would also like to thank the moderators, Mr Ferret President, his secret administration, the Voters Union, non-affiliated voters, those who lost their voting rights, as well as the general DDO community. Thank you to the forums and the polls and the opinions. Thank you to the readers and the random passerbys. Thank you to the dozens and dozens of people who will consider reading my arguments and everyone who will not. Thank you to those of you who reported my votes, where would I be without you? Thank you Peepette, thank you vi_spex, thank you CodingSource and Blade-of-Truth and ViceRegent. Thank you to Whiteflame and famousdebater and lannin13. And while I simply don't have the character space - well, I probably do - to name you all by name. It's getting late and I'd just much rather wrap this up and get to the drinking some beer in celebration of this hard earned and rather spectacular victory. Thank you to the tournaments and the countless games of mafia that we've all played. Thank you to the Google Hangouts where I've met all of you by name. But most of all I would like to Thank God. Thank you God for making me and all of my arguments inherently awesome. It's been one hell of a debate. It's been one hell of a ride. Let's drink beer! Sincerely, U. n P. S. WLII PWNS DDO
Video Games, Bad or Good

I am thankful you accepted this debate. I don't pick noobs to debate unless it is a subject I am knowledgeable about. And having some but not a lot of experience with this I will challenge my skills to find good info and websites to use. Video games are good for the mind as they will challenge the mind to figure out puzzles and they do help with coordination. Now, it is known that video games that are extremely violent and there is some but almost no correlation between people who do bad things in real life and those who do it in video games. Proper use of video games, such as to alleviate stress. http://www.makeuseof.com... This article helps illustrate what I am stating. I don't mean shooter games like halo or assassins creed. What I mean is somewhat more on the level of the Lego games. With puzzles galore and it includes heroes and villains it is perfect for those who are mentally ill, people who just want to exercise their brain, or people who just want to relax with something that is both challenging and fun.
Video Games, Bad or Good

I would like to point that this was a direct challenge. I'm not sure why. Because I don't know this dude. Nor have I even been active on this site for the last week or two. I'm sorry, do I know you? Have we met in a past life? Is there some kind of agenda or rationale as to why I was directly challenged to such a random debate? I don't recall offering strong dissidenting opinions against video games either on this site or another. Or is this one of those double secret tournament debates where you think that you've stumbled upon some easy win noob to cherry pick. Because if that's the case I will kindly recommend that you first preread the beatdown I gave ObiWan. I'm sorry Obi, I think you're a good guy and all but you insulted my pride when you sent me that challenge. Regardless... Sure, I'll argue the opposite of whatever the heck you argue. But don't think this won't get weird because it already has.
My 150th Debate: Animal Rights

PrefaceThis will be my 150th debate! Having advertised for competitors and topics, I am thrilled to have FT as my opponent, given his record of debating success on the site. It should be an intense challenge, and I'm truly looking forward to it. To vote on this debate, you must have at least 3,000 ELO. Full TopicJustice requires the recognition of animal rights. TermsThe following definitions were influenced by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster, and Encarta:Justice - giving each their dueRequire - to demand as necessary or essentialAnimal - any organism of the Kingdom Animalia, as opposed to those of the Kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaeabacteria, and EubacteriaRight - something that one may properly claim as their due' and/or 'a moral or legal entitlement to (not) perform or have others perform certain action(s) and to (not) be in certain statesRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. )7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP will be assumed to be shared unless debaters make arguments to the contrary, in which case judges may evaluate the arguments to decide the burdens of the debate; Pro must only affirm that some animals are due rights10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks.
should pitbulls be banned from the u.s.

First I will introduce arguments.Contention 1: Pitbulls are dangerousPitbulls have killed and harmed many humans and animals. This has occured for pitbulls more than any other animal.Rebuttals "It is the owner's fault. The dogs will do it if not stirred in the right direction." Well, if it is that case, then tell me Con. Why does this happen only with pitbulls all the time? Perhaps the owners of other dogs are all nice and pitbull owners just happen to be that way?"Banning doesn't work - didn't work with alcohol, doesn't work with drugs, doesn't work with prostitution, won't work with "pit bulls"."Please provide sources or proof. In fact, banning does work. According to a study, a school who banned cigarettes found significantly less smokers."Education and peer pressure works."I agree, and banning helps."Owners of all vicious dogs should be required to have a 1 Million dollar insurance policy on their animals to cover the damage it does."Okay, but a dog killing a person is still a problem."Once again proving that it is the owner's fault. Heck No! Pit bulls are NOT natural born killers."Once again, why does this only happen with pitbulls? Do you see any other dogs doing this?"I think that people who own Pit bulls should have them registered, and owners of dogs who attack people should be fined/some other legal action against them because its their fault for not training the dog."I agree they should be fined. But again, why is it that this does not happen with other dogs?Conclusion I have proved that it is completely the owners fault because this does not happen with other dogs.http://www.higheredmorning.com...;http://en.wikipedia.org...
should pitbulls be banned from the u.s.

First of all, be choosy with your words. It is the owner's fault. The dogs will do it if not stirred in the right direction. And you ain't dismissing no debate, at all, let that be known. I feel bad for you because you spent your precious time copying and pasting my statement for nothing. Banning doesn't work - didn't work with alcohol, doesn't work with drugs, doesn't work with prostitution, won't work with "pit bulls". If you ban pit bulls, then another dog breed will take it's place. Then you ban that breed, and the next breed, and the next... Education and peer pressure works. It worked with child labour, with child and spousal abuse, with the reduction in smoking, with the reduction in drinking and driving, in the use of seatbelts and it will work with pitbulls.Owners of all vicious dogs should be required to have a 1 Million dollar insurance policy on their animals to cover the damage it does. And then be sent to prison if it mauls a child or any person. I have no time or sympathy for the useless idiots that own animals like that, and aren't smart enough to know how to deal with them. Once again proving that it is the owner's fault. Heck No! Pit bulls are NOT natural born killers. They are animals. Dogs. They should be restrictive in who they sell them to so they do not end up in the hands of dog fighters. I think that people who own Pit bulls should have them registered, and owners of dogs who attack people should be fined/some other legal action against them because its their fault for not training the dog.
should pitbulls be banned from the u.s.

"They shouldn't be banned because it's not their fault how they act."It's not a zombies fault it wants to eat people either!"They are very loyal when raised correctly. Their history leads back to dog fights. Is it really their fault that they are doing what they were raised to do. Lets put some blame on the owners. Why? They need a licence because for me, seeing a dog being raised like that is a nuisance."It's not their fault terrorists behave the way they do! They were raised that way! They are really kind when you treat them properly!Again, no sources, argument dismissed.
JAMIE SPEARS PREGNANT AT 16!!!!

You don't have a right to boss Nickelodeon around. If they want to withdraw their sanction from those who display behavior they disapprove of (such as becoming pregnant at 16, usually an irrational behavior although I don't know the details,) they have every right to do so. There are consequences of employment as a public figure, and those consequences are, you have to become what your employer deems as worthy. If you are dissatisfied, start your own television network, PTN for pregnant teens network. See what kind of profits you make :D.
JAMIE SPEARS PREGNANT AT 16!!!!

WHO EVER THOUGHT THAT JAMIE LYNN SPEARS WOULD BE A MOTHER AT 16. PEOLPE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ARE SHOCKED, WHEN THEY JUST DONT REALIZE THAT IT'S REAL LIFE. OUR TEENAGE GENERATION IS THE HIGHEST GENERATION IN THE WORLD TO HAVE TEENAGE PREGNANCIES. MY GENERATION IS NOW MAKING IT A TREND TO BECOME PREGNANT AT AGES 14, 15, AND 16 YEARS OF AGE. AND NICKELODEON IS NOT MAKING IT ANY BETTER BY TRYING TO TAKE THE SHOW OF THE AIR. WHEN THEY THINK THEY HAVE A BAD PROBLEM THEY CAN MAKE IT BETTER, BY TELLING YOUNGER KIDS IT'S NOT RIGHT TO GET PREGNANT AT AN EARLY AGE, THEY SHOULD ENCOURAGE KIDS INTO NOT HAVING SEX AT AN EARLY AGE. THEY SHOULD HOW SOME OF THE HARDSHIPS INTO BEING PREGNANT. AND MAKE IT INTO A REAL LIFE TELEVISION SHOW!!!!!
Capitalism is dying

First, I would like to point out my opponent has not used any sources to show data regarding the fall of jobs, the increase in solar panel usage and its benefits, and breakdowns of the next decade of the "Fall of capitalism".Now to quickly respond to any jobs lost over the recent years, those were mostly do to the Recession and the Industry Crisis from 2008-2010. This was not a result of technology impeding into the workplace to replace human labor.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent claims you can learn "anything" on the computer. Therefore formal training is seemingly useless and unneccesary. Therefore, almost anyone with a computer has a chance to make millions of dollars, for the simple fixed start-up cost of a computer (300-800 USD) an Internet connection 50-100 USD per month, and the cost of a website domain name.No other goods, services, or education is necessary because you can teach yourself online and sell your product/idea for millions.This is clearly not the case.What I also fail to understand...My opponent is arguing that a Zero Marginal Cost is going to be the end of capitalism. However, Pro stated:" In capitalism, the goal of every business is to decrease their marginal cost so that they can maximize their profit, put out cheaper products for customers, and become more competitive against other businesses."Now, if the goal of business operating in a capitalistic economy, is trying to reduce their marginal cost (ideally near or at zero $), then how would their success in decreasing this marginal cost be the end of capitalism.Any "jo-shmo" with a computer does not have the resources to compete with business using more funded, better technology to produce their good/service. So while my opponent believe capitalism is dying, the reality is the companies in this capitalistic economy are shifting. Computer/Software companies are on the rise. While some companies may one day be able to operate solely on technology, and solar panels may help people save money, the people who sell and operate this technology are the new businesses.Apple, HP, Samsung, Google, et al. are the new "automobile industries. Back when cars were first becoming popular, sales for cars went through the roof, and car makers were the kings of business. Now the Internet, smart phones, computers are becoming the newest must-have and very needed product in today's society. New companies are at the top of the food chain producing the products needed in today's society.Capitalism is not dying, it is merely changing to a different standard of businesses that rely heavily on the use of the most up-to-date technology.
Capitalism is dying

Pro will argue that capitalism is dying. Con will argue that capitalism is not dying. Capitalism Definition (Investopedia)A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy). Capitalism is generally characterized by competition between producers. Other facets, such as the participation of government in production and regulation, vary across models of capitalism. Good luck to the opponent.
Humanity cannot progress any further as a species.

As evidence for the failing state of humanity I put forth the following examples. Racial Tension in the United States post-civil rights movement in the 60s. The following source shows a very recent example of the lack of cooperation and inability for people to remember their roots and the reasons for which there was a large civil rights movement forty years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Attacks on Freedom of Speech. The source for this gives a pretty concise summation of how one of the supposed bastions of free speech which is supposed to be a sign of our continued progression and improvement as a species is regressing into bigotry. http://www.theatlantic.com... ISIS. One look at their motivations proves both that they themselves are part of the problem, not to mention the fact that developed countries have not managed to find a way to thwart them. http://www.theatlantic.com...
Humanity cannot progress any further as a species.

Humanity as a species has reached its climax. I don't believe that any further progress can be made by us, since we have begun to regress as a society while many of us have not even reached the same standard of living as our developed contemporaries. The upward trend of technological growth will I think, crash and burn us in the end. And even as original and unique ideas are being silenced by loud outcries of old and broken ideologies, so too am I beginning to think that all of our great achievements will be torn down as we fall into disrepair.
people who abandon their pet should go to jail

I'm not your brother i'm just a little boy who is 3 and that doesn't mean crap to me terroist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
people who abandon their pet should go to jail

i think you have a point brother, but what will we use to test our bombs?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?/????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!??/
people who abandon their pet should go to jail

Animal abandoning is killing the animal and showing you don't care for the animal and who does this should go to JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
people who abandon their pet should go to jail

I will capture evey dog in usa and use them to test bombs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You here me ?! I WILL doit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution: Philosophically stupid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com... - Definition of stupid. http://www.youtube.com... The first round of mine won't be that long, just an introduction. I want to place emphasis on how do species evolution into new species. I have just thought up, what I think is a valid piece of philosophy. Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features. So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb. So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species. Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude. Species = features. Macro limb perhaps. Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps. For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail). And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs, but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features. My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.
Same Sex marriage should be lagalized in the US

My opponents whole case is basically saying marriage is about love... >_<R1: Marriage is not about "making babies"Marriage in the states eyes only cares about 2 major things: A procreative type relationship and child rearing. This is the only reason the state gives heterosexual couples the benefits the goverment gives them. The goverment makes laws due to their interests, and they are giving away benefits to heterosexual couples. This indicates they have some interest in these couples, or have some service they can utilize. The service they want is more people. Due the fact they can create children, the goverment ought to give them some recognition, should they not? The most common state interest discussed in the debate over SSM is the states interest in marriage. [2] The courts have held that the only reason they are involved in the SSM debate is because the states interest in marriage is to ensure the future of the human race, and a procreative-type union. [1,2] One common pro SSM argument is that marriage is about love, not procreation. Well this argument is totally false! The majority of relationships that are heterosexual marriages end up with children. If marriage is about love, then why would the goverment regulate it? IF they cared about love any relationship that involved this quality would be regulated! If you had a girlfriend, and the goverment cared about love, then it would be regulated. Further more what interest does the goverment have in ensuring love? None, therefore this common claim is false, and marriage should not be legalized as the state cares about ensuring procreation, not love. Also ask this: If marriage was about love, then bestiality, polymory etc. would be allowed. So marriage is not about love. Conclusion:I have refuted my opponents arguments and he has only refuted 2 of mine. He also drops my refutations to his arguments. The state has no reason to legalize SSM, therefore it should not be allowed. He claims "it is fine" Well sure they can be together, but not in marriage as marriage is in nature between a man and a woman. Historically, and by its nature, marriage is between a man and a woman, as this is the case, no right is being deprived. It cannot be discrimination unless we find the definition of marriage, as historically and naturally (procreation) it is one man and one woman, then it is not discrimination as nothing is being deprived. So his arguments are false, NO SSM VOTE CON!"THE STATE INTERESTS IN MARRIAGE" William C. Duncan, AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW, 2004, PDF. [1]Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 [2]
Same Sex marriage should be lagalized in the US

Why does it matter if people want to get married? ? Marriage is a union by law but still, how does it cause harm? Same sex couples commonly have fertilization and adopt so they can raise children. I think encouraging the union of two people who want to start a family is perfectly fine. Your argument is how its not "Beneficial" to society. Two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together and raise a family and live like everyone else is wrong? My opponent does not seem to understand that marriage is not about "making babies" its about bonds.