BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MTV show Teen Mom Should Be Banned Because It Promotes Teen Pregnancy.

MTV's show Teen Mom, promotes teen pregnancy all around the world. This show allows young girls to think that if they become pregnant, they too can end up with a TV show deal and become famous. This show has been on for many years now, and I feel as if the teen pregnancy ratings have largely increased. This show glamorizes the fact that these young girls are getting pregnant and it is okay to be sexually active at such a young age. While some may think that "Teen Mom" shows the hardships of being a teenager and dealing with a newborn, it is merely a show that attracts attention where it is not needed. I think many of these shows are very dramatic and do not show the real true person. Many of these girls that are on Teen Mom, are "famous" now, and would easily be recognized if they were walking down the street. I do not think this is the type of show that should be promoted on a highly watch channel these days. By keeping this show on TV, it simply shows a young girl, who has little or no structure in their lives, that if they go out and get pregnant that they will be able to be a TV star and will gain money from being on that TV show. I do not think this is right and I think it should be taken off the air. There are too many young girls, who don't even know how to take care of themselves and they are bringing another innocent human being into the world. This is wrong and should be stopped before this problem becomes even worse than it already is.
Implicit atheism

Well, I would like to point out that an invisible pink unicorn is contradictory and that's why one doesn't exist. If it's invisible, it has no color to it so it can't be pink. As for the other examples, we can be confident those things do not exist on the earth since we have likely searched sufficiently on the earth and found evidence they do not exist, however when it comes to the universe as a whole, it would be too early to conclude leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster, etc do not exist. Just because it seems like a no-brainer that something doesn't exist doesn't in fact mean that something does not exist. Let's take the earth for a moment. Several millennia ago it would have been a no-brainer to believe the earth was flat. It was a no-brainer to believe that an earth which was globular is non-existent since people's experiences told them the earth appeared to be flat since they couldn't get far enough away from the earth to see it is in fact a globe and didn't have the math to figure it out yet. However, those people have been proven to be wrong. The correct position would have been to have no position at all about the earth's shape until we were able to see the earth as a whole. Thus, the correct position to take on leprechauns, flying spaghetti monster, etc is no position, unless we are talking about the earth. We can conclude that no such creatures exist on the earth, for the reason I've said before in that we've likely sufficiently searched for evidence and found none of their existence on earth. The same can be said of a god: we've sufficiently found evidence of a god not existing on earth so we can conclude this god does not come on earth or directly interact with people on earth. I'd like to point out, that the gods we find silly to believe in are ones that most humans claim to exist. The Abrahamic god can be concluded not to exist because in order for it to exist, everything written about it has to be true and there are so many contradictions in the Bible, Torah, and Quran that it can't possibly exist with how it is written about them. However, I would to also point out that a deistic god isn't such a silly belief now is it? Would you claim that a god which doesn't interact with humanity, and merely created the universe is such a silly belief? Maybe you can conclude that because we have yet to find evidence of such a god, but we've also not found evidence to the non-existence of such a god.
Implicit atheism

My opponent has pointed toward the lack of direct evidence one way or another as an indication of uncertainty as to the existence or non-existence of a god.There are certain types of claims which we can be confident are false even though there isn't evidence for them one way or the other. The existence of the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot, leprechauns and invisible pink unicorns are some examples. The existence of a god falls in to the same category as these other claims. We can be similarly confident as to god's non-existence.
Implicit atheism

I'm doing this debate again since my previous debater forfeited. I'll first define implicit and explicit atheism as provided by wikipedia: "Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). 'Implicit atheism' is defined as 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it', while 'explicit atheism' is 'the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it'.[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further." [1] In addition, there are two different types of explicit atheism. There are strong and weak explicit atheists. Strong explicit atheists assert that no god exists, weak ones reject the belief in deity. Implicit atheists are often called "agnostics", and have not rejected the belief in deity. I'll accept a debate from either an explicit atheist or any type of theist. The primary reason why I see implicit atheism as the position that makes most sense, is because there is a lack of evidence one way or the other in terms of whether a god exists. If there is no evidence a god exists and there is no evidence a god does not exist, why would it make sense to have a stance at all? The default position is therefore, to have a lack of belief one way or the other. I'll leave my first argument at this for now, and will continue once an opponent has accepted. Source: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
God Most Likely Does Not Exist

I believe this debate will prove to be worthwhile in the end.Since my opponent has not listed anything referring to the Bible, I assume using references from it is not restricted. If my opponent does not agree with or believe in the Bible, that is their problem and do in fact still have to present proof God does not exist. I would ask my opponent to present solid evidence for the absence of God. Since I have not found any myself, I find this to be interesting.My main points are as follows:1. Assumption of God's existence2. God reveals Himself in A. General Revelation B. Special Revelation3. God's intervention through history
God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Important definitions are provided below: God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Exist - To have actual being; be real. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Rules: 1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit is strictly prohibited. 2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden. 3) The burden of proof is actually shared. I will present a case to support the proposition that God most likely does not exist. Con will present a case to support the proposition that God most likely does exist. Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules. We will be debating over whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlikely based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. If there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, then God is unlikely to exist. This means that belief in a God is unjustified and irrational. The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists. I would prefer one to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also like to point out that I do not want one to negate the resolution through semantic ploys. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable God. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.
Religions do the world more bad than good

Pro seems to drop several of my arguments and state he "doesn't see the point of them" even though I have been very clear in all of them. Nevertheless, I will address what I've been given.MoralityPro concedes that the Bible And the Quran encourage moral behavior but states that it depends on whether people follow them or not. That's the point of religion: to help people better themselves by listening to the words of God and becoming humble and virtuous. My opponent admits that not following these holy books will not encourage moral behavior, which is completely correct. Religion has helped people follow a moral code and is often the only basis for the goodness that they portray. I fail to see how this, in any way, shows that religion has been harmful to society.Of course one can be moral without being religious, but when it comes to historical moral progress, religion has often been the fuel for the fire. Having elaborated on this in the second round, I don't think I need to do so again.On the concept of hell, my opponent states it "makes them ethnocentric and makes sure they follow the wicked morals showed in the books." What does this mean exactly, and where is the evidence for this claim? Again, examples for such arbitrary assertions are highly needed here.I agree that forcing people to act good is not right, and this is not what religion teaches at all. So far it seems as if Pro has taken a bunch of baseless assertions and thrown them together in order to make an argument that seems decent from the surface.Charity My opponent seems to miss the point completely about how charity has benefitted the world and helped millions of poor people. Even if churches have done it "to spread their faith", it doesn't mean that the effects of them doing so have been harmful. Further, evidence for this claim is seriously lacking and can indeed be properly dismissed. There are many verses in the Bible and Quran where people are taught to give what they have to the poor. Figures such as Mother Teresa were religiously motivated to dedicate their lives to helping the less fortunate and needy.Many of my contentions have gone unanswered, so I will extend all of my previous points again. Other than that there is nothing else to rebut. Over to you Pro for the final round.
Religions do the world more bad than good

I didn't see the point of your arguments. The bible and the quaran encourage moral behaviour. Whether people follow them or not is another point. Your charity argument is completely wrong. Churches do charities to try and spread their faths. That is it. You do not need religions to be moral, and the concept of hell, even though it does make people act goodly, it also makes them ethnocentric and makes sure they follow the wicked morals showed in the books. Also, making people act goodly by threatning them is not right. I have very little time, so thank you.
Religions do the world more bad than good

I will adress your points individually. C1- one can do charity without religion, and many religion stitutions in Africa for example try not only helping them but imposing their faith upon them, so in this case, not charity, just interest. C2- there are just as many people not inspired by religion (Freud, Benjamin Franklin, Einstein (pantheist), Napoleon) C3- you can believe in a god or heaven and not in religion. Also, it doesn't make sense that all these horrible laws and orders and the image of hell tranquilizes people. To restate my points: -Religions have been base to wars like the Crusades and the Islamic State; -Religions discriminate women, gays and non-believers in a world where discrimination is prohibited; -Religion is not needed to have morals or a purpose; -Religions terorrize people with the image of heel and inpurity. Just name a few. Also, anyone who really wants to see why religion does suck, see this link, which talks about christianity in specific: http://www.seesharppress.com...
Religions do the world more bad than good

So, I will start with this link here: . http://www.lesbian-crushes-and-bulimia.com... If you go to that site, you will see many quotations from the bible about how homosexuals should be put to death. Since I respect homosexuals and think they are natural (here is a link to sustain my argument: . http://www.exposingtruth.com... ) I obviously can't accept this. As you can see, a religious book is punishing something natural with death. This leads to discrimination from true bible believers, and is obviously unacceptable. This is a way in which religion is damaging society. Take, for example, the Islamic State. No matter how wrong their interpretation is, it is still an interpretation, and wouldn't exist without the religion in the first place. The crusades are another example; they put thousands to death just to get their holy city back. Moving on, some say religions build morals, but I disagree. Buddhism, which, if you look closely is not a religion, but a philosophy, has morals even without the belief in god (and no Buda was not a god). Besides, what kind of morals does religion sustain in the first place? Back to the first link, Christianity is saying something natural is immoral, even though it obviously isn't. (Here is a link on things the christian god did that I find unacceptable [as well as bible mistakes]: . http://www.evilbible.com... ) And just because someone is not religious, doesn't mean that person doesn't love or care about others, so obviously religions are unnecessary to achieve morality. I could continues but have decided to continue gradually in my other rounds after I see what you are aiming at. Thank you again.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

I am sorry for not having been here yesterday and Saturday. I would like to end my argument by stating simply that, with the broken steel dlc the end of the game is extended into infinity. Yes you can debate that, it being dlc it is not an original part of the game and had to added later, it still increases the game time significantly. Also to say that NVs story is longer is almost nill if a story doesn't make sense. To go from being a courier to suddenly being a key point in the war is far too rapid and, should it have been smoother, would have made a better game. Also to touch on NV having more locations, although it may, many are empty and have very little to offer the player. One is a ruined shack with nothing more than a radio. I thank you for accepting my very first challenge and must say you posed a significant challenge, but if you will claim a game that is rather small and rather barren even with its amount of locations is better, then I feel that this debate is very near to its close.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

I will admit that Fallout 3 is a darker experience. However, Fallout NV is a better experience. First of all: quantity! According to HowLongToBeat.com, F3 main story lasts 25 hours, while NV lasts 29.5 hours. In addition to longer playtime, NV contains multiple storylines and choices. complexity is not bad. It creates a richer experience And more than 3 times of replayablility simply due to the choices. Only at the end are there choices in the storyline, and that one decision has little impact. The F3 storyline is linear, with no real choices that are crucial for any RPG. NV has 183 locations instead of the 163 locations in F3. The size of the map is irrelevant if it doesn't have enough content in it. The Underworld was a very good example, but that was one example. The war taking place in DC was high-tech organized military armies fighting against eachother. The Mojave is filled with unique factions fighting eachother for few resources and power in this wasteland. you may think that Rivet City and Megaton are also good examples of the desperation, but NV has so much more. Nipton being burned down, with crucified powdergangers all around. Caesar's main base is a bunch of makeshift tents surrounding a battle arena! Even the prestigious casinos are run down. Every building and interaction evokes a feel of everyone just trying to make it.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

However in 3, the story is very smooth and easily understandable. From living in the vault to your father leaving to the awesome "ending" at the battle of project purity. In nv the story is relatively odd. One moment you are a courier who, because of what you are carrying, is shot in the head. When you kill Benny you are suddenly and for no apparent reason dropped into the middle of a war. This didn't flow. If there was an explanation the story would have been much better. Also to say that there is more of a sense of struggling to survive in nv you must have competent forgotten the extremes people have gone to to fight for survival. I present to you underworld. A city of ghouls that is basically falling apart. They are in such a struggle that during outside of their city could kill them, due to how close the brotherhood of steel is to them. And you claimed that decisions are more great in nv, and, while there re may be more none are quite a big of choice as whether or not to blow up (quite literally) megaton. Caesar's crucifixions are far too few to claim that they provide a more horrifying experience than the metros. Also I find it hard to be afraid of something in the middle of a bright, sunny desert. The only place you can really find horror in nv is if you look into game lore at line wolf radio. There is almost nothing besides lone wolf radio that is "scary" in nv. In Fallout 3 we have the serious seclusion of the metros and the (shudders) Dunwhich building. I personally feel both games are great and ask that sets 3 ahead is the mood in which the locations create.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

you stated that the storyline and mood is why fallout 3 is superior. However, fallout new Vegas an even greater form of 3. NV has a sense of desperation and survival. I agree that the desolate DC is more impressive than the Mojave wasteland, but NV is better in the interaction and people. The simple feel of everyone struggling to survive. Every step you take you feel it, and you have to make a decision that will impact everyone. This is seen in Goodsprings vs powdergangers, Great Khans vs NCR in Boulder city, The Kings vs NCR. Caesar's crusifixions created a horrifying atmosphere, more than any of those metro stations in Fallout 3. Each city that you pass makes you delve into the world of the wastelander. There are so many sidemissions along the way. Also the choices you make are so impactfull and common. From choosing to help the bright followers to killing Mr. House yourself, you are in control of the New Vegas's future. There are some decisions in 3, but they pale in comparison to NV. This is where true RPGs shine, in the ability to create your own character and choices.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

First off, thank you for accepting my challenge. You claim that 3 crashes far more than new vegas while I have had more issue with new vegas crashing than with 3, so in that department they both are equal. On the topic of weapons I would agree that new vegas is superior. As you can see in my picture I am a fan of both games, which made picking a side difficult. My choice for three came simply from the mood of the game and the setting of the two. First, in New Vegas, the mood is to be set in revenge which, for the beginning it works. The further you progress in the story however the mood and the gameplay no longer work together. In 3 however, the entirety of the game is dark and gives a feeling of loneliness and a constant drive for survival. As you progress from losing your father to fighting against the enclave at project purity, overall color choice does nothing but make the mood even more pronounced. Secondly, after a nuclear war you would expect large amounts of destruction and damage to the world, as we see in fallout 3 with the city of Dc in ruins. In New Vegas we basically get the Mojave desert. That's it. No true signs of massive damage. I also would like to disagree with you on account of locations between the two games. Due to 3 being a larger map and being set in and around DC, it has more locations. Also to say that new vegas expands on lore, the original games took place on the west coast and the NCR has been a focal point in previous games. 3 expands more on lore for showing what the other cost of the country has become falling the war. If I am not mistaken, 3 also added the commonwealth and the institute, which, if rumors are true, will be a major portion of the next fallout game.
Fallout 3 (pro)vs. New Vegas (con)

Both games are great and have brought the Fallout series to new heights. However, Fallout New Vegas is a superior game due to its general graphics, game-play, and story. I have played both, and Fallout 3 crashes much more than NV. Although you may seem like this doesnt entirely relate to it being a "good game," it is very important to the gamers. A great game can easily become very annoying after a couple crashes. Some people don't have this problem, but I think that this is something that needs to be brought up. In general, Fallout NV has more locations and lore than 3. People may dislike the fact that it doesn't take place in DC, but it shows that the franchise is expanding more and more, and this game was the first big step. Fallout NV expands on everything. From guns (the feel and sound) to the further growth on leveling up(new perks and skills). Even new modes like the Hardcore mode, which creates a more immersive experience. Fallout New Vegas expands on everything that Fallout 3 did, and more.
The death penalty should be imposed for those found guilty of rape.

As my first counterargument I'd like to raise the question as to why exactly rape, among other criminal offenses, would be given priority for the death penalty over (arguably) more severe crimes to which the death penalty does not currently apply (i. e. attempted murder/grievous bodily harm, pedophilia etc. ). Secondly, I would like to bring to attention the possibility of assailants having mental defects or issues; are cases of rape in which this would be a factor be treated with equal consequences? Lastly I would like to address the fact that often in courts of law those accused are often wrongly judged, framed and sentenced for numbers of different reasons including lack of substantiating proof or alibi for example. Bearing in mind that in these cases those accused would be wrongly and unjustly sentenced to a grim fate, I believe that the margin for error is too large for such a severe punishment to be applicable for this crime. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
The death penalty should be imposed for those found guilty of rape.

I’d like to greet my opponent and thank them for creating a provocative resolution. As Pro, I will be arguing that the death penalty is a logical punishment for rape, albeit with a few caveats. The death penalty should only be applied to rapists who were violent or sadistic in their attacks. Statutory rapes, or rapes where both or one party was incapacitated without violence, should quite clearly not be punished by execution – although they should still be punished severely. I look forward to addressing Con’s numerous reasons for why violent rapists should not be executed. Good luck!