BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: shoe companies should make more Velcro shoes and less shoe-lace shoes.

My opponent has listed sites where you can purchase shoes, That is fine but just because people make these items does not mean that they are good better or even equal to the vast number of laced shoes on the market. Velcro shoes had their shot they were alive in the early 1980's and they died the american public decided they did notwant to be lazy. They decided to lace their shoes as it is superior. There are several knots that will hold if you tie them properly. I know it takes a little attention to do it but here is a site wherein you can find knots that are extremely strong. Layhands.com Velcro is a product that is created with petroleum based plastics, when heated they give off chemicals that can and do cause cancer. The velcro must also be adhered with an industrial strength adhesive. These substances make it hazardous for the workers that would produce these items. At current I am unable to look up the economic reprocussions of this issue however from my opponents own source I will show several deficiencies. The strength of the Velcro bond is directly proportionate to the direction the force is applied. Paralell force allows the bond to be most secure however force appied from other direction on a non rigid surface can easily seperate the bond a few hooks and eyes at a time. "Velcro has several deficiencies: it tends to accumulate hair, dust, and fur in its hooks after a few months of regular use. The loops can become elongated or broken, however this only happens after a long time. Velcro often becomes attached to articles of clothing, especially loosely woven items like sweaters. Additionally, the clothing may be damaged when one attempts to remove the Velcro, even if they are separated slowly. The tearing noise made by unfastening Velcro makes it inappropriate for some applications. For example, a soldier hiding from the enemy would not want to alert the enemy to his position by opening a velcro pocket.[7] It also absorbs moisture and perspiration when worn next to the skin, which means it can become smelly if not washed." The preceeding was from my opponents own listed source of Wikipedia. There you have it Velcro collects debris weakening its hold, it becomes smelly and can damage other garments.
Resolved: shoe companies should make more Velcro shoes and less shoe-lace shoes.

First and foremost thank you for putting up this interesting and wacky debate topic. Though there are a few minor merits to the use of velcro I will show that lacing is vastly superior. CONTENTION 1: Ease. Though my opponent would have you believe it is easier to use velcro on all foot wear this is not the case. Shoes and boots designed to provide support to the ankle need the durability and varied tension of lacing in order to function properly. Velcro for this purpose would not only be unreliable due to slippage but it would require velcro the size of laces to vary the tension from the toe to the top of the boot. It would take the same amount of time to adjust all of the velcro as it would to lace and tie a boot properly with laces. CONTENTION 2: Annoyingness/Wear-and-tear/ugliness. First and foremost if you tie your laces correctly they will not untie without being manually untied. Second if you are worried about them becoming untied you can get lace in zippers for them that will keep them fastened and the support will remain. The fact that my opponent has referenced back to the future part 2 in itself speaks volumes as that was the lamest movie in the series. Shoelaces can and in fact sometimes lose caps and yes this is annoying for about 5 seconds while you create a new cap with tape. Hardly a major inconvenience. The look of Velcro should be reserved for toddlers the only true application that is warranted. My final point in this round is a look at economic impact of this debate. My opponent believes that shoe manufacturer's should spend hundreds of millions of dollars (this would be necessary in order to make their machines produce the velcro shoes) the massive loss of revenue caused by the expenditure would cause the stocks to tumble and could be the beginning of a massive crash in the global economy. Think of all of the shoelace manufacturers that would loose their jobs people would starve all because an inferior product laced with Velcro was forced on the populace.
Resolved: shoe companies should make more Velcro shoes and less shoe-lace shoes.

I ask that voters based on who made the better arguments, and that you put your personal opinion aside. With that said, let's explore the reasons why Velcro is better than shoe-laces. CONTENTION 1: Ease. It is extremely easy to tighten and pull over a peice of Velcro to the other side of your shoe. On the other hand, it takes years for a child to learn how to tie shoelaces. And all those methods! I mean you got your bunny ears, your loop-swoop-pull, and numerous other methods. Not to mention you have to learn about other kinds of knots too. It is much simpler just to use Velcro. CONTENTION 2: Annoyingness/Wear-and-tear/ugliness. First off, shoe laces untie so eaisly, it can get annoying. And what do you do? You keep having to re-tie 'em! It is simply annoying. What about Back to the Future, where Marty gets those cool VELCRO automatic shoes? Velcro stays fastened and is very srong. Another thing: what about when your shoe laces lose the caps at the end of them and they get all fraid? That's quite annoying. Then, when they come out of the hole, it's nearly impossible to get it back through there. Not to mention how ugly your shoe laces look when they're like that. Velcro would not have these problems. All in all, I have proven why Velcro is better, and I eagarly await my opponent's response. Just look at what the AVGN has to say: . http://youtube.com... funny.
LSD Should Be Legal for Recreational Use

I'd just like to make a couple of clarifications: To all the people who are viewing this, this is a DDO Olympics Politics Preliminary debate. Just type "DDO Olympics" in the search box and you'll know what I'm talking about if you don't already know. And I'm personally on the fence on this issue and don't have a solid opinion, but I'll do my best with the position I have. So anyway, I accept and good luck to Subutai.
LSD Should Be Legal for Recreational Use

This is for the DDO Olympics government and politics bracket. If you have any questions about the debate format below, mention them before you accept this debate.Full ResolutionLSD should be legal for recreational use. BoP is on pro.DefinitionsLSD: "Lysergic acid diethylamide: a crystalline solid, C20H25N3O, the diethyl amide of lysergic acid, a powerful psychedelic drug that produces temporary hallucinations and a psychotic state."[1]Legal: " In conformity with or permitted by law."[2]Recreational use: "Any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes."[3]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion

In my opinion, early abortions are preferable. Usually it would be a good idea to abort the baby in the earlier stages of pregnancy, but if there was a scenario where the mother found out late in her pregnancy, that the baby would be born with severe disorders, late abortions are also acceptable. I would like to specify that even as a few cells, the fetus is human. However, the mother does have rights to her body, especially if the baby will kill the mother. Forcing the woman in this situation to give birth would be murder as well. I would also like to repeat my point about teen mothers. If the teenager takes care of the baby themselves, there is a pretty good chance they wont do a good job. The teen will probably develop postpartum depression, and as the baby grows up they are also likely to develop issues such as depression. I would also like to point out the over population issues the world is facing. Consider the law in China that only allows parents to have one child. Would bringing an unwanted baby into an overpopulated world help this cause? No. In closing, I would like to remind my opponent that both the fetus and mother are human. If the mother is in a situation where she knows the baby will not live a long, happy life, doesn't have the money or time to take care of the baby, or if the baby will kill the mother, an abortion should be allowed.
Abortion

Yes, I also hope that this is a good debate, and I am for abortion, but in moderation. However, a pregnant woman does have rights to her body. For example, what if the baby will kill the mother? If denied an abortion, wouldn't making her deliver this baby be murder as well? Also, I must repeat that teen pregnancies are another case where an abortion should be performed. If the teen doesn't abort the baby, they will have to balance the stigma around being pregnant at that age, school, and employment. Whether or not they give the baby away, it can result in psychological problems for the teen. For example, teen mothers are twice as likely to develop postpartum depression as a normal teen. Especially if they raise the baby themselves, they will begin to feel trapped, their grades will most likely drop, they could get fired because their constantly late for work, and they will begin to feel deserted and alone. They also aren't as likely to succeed later in life, since they wouldn't have much time for anything other than the baby. The teenage mom will be stuck with a burden, one that quite possibly will destroy their entire life. And just to think all of these problems that occur in teen moms could all be avoided with an abortion. I would also like my opponent to know that I am a girl, not a boy, and I as well hope it is a good debate.
Abortion

Now, I couldn"t help but notice something he stated in his opening: "I am for abortion, but only in certain cases" He said this nonchalantly, but he really has forced me into a pickle. He hasn"t taken the stance that Abortion is okay, he is taking the position that Abortion is okay in moderation. So, I must argue the fact that abortion is murder, even from conception. This will be the stance that I will take and will attempt to prove today.
Abortion

I am for abortion, but only in certain cases. For example, what if the baby is going to kill the mother? Should a woman in this situation be denied an abortion? What if the baby is going to be born with severe mental or physical issues? Would it honestly be able to maintain a happy, and healthy life? Not to mention the extra financial, mental, and physical challenges of taking care of this child. That's a good case where abortion is an acceptable solution. Another case would be teenage pregnancies. There is almost no way a teenager could take care of a baby considering they have, school, work, friends etc. to worry about. The teen could put the baby up for adoption, but there is still no guarantee the baby would be happy. It would also be a very hard 9 months for the teenager, think of how much they would be judged and made fun of. Is a baby that probably won't be happy anyways really worth all that? Or should the teen get an abortion?
A woman has a right to an abortion .

Every woman has a right to her own body and what to do with it. If guys were to be told what to do with there body there would be OUTRAGE. any and all arguments based on moral grounds are unacceptable when it comes to this topic. Just because someone disagrees with youvr stance on sometnig doesnt mean you can tell them what to do. Dont like abortions? dont get one. What defines life anyways? its rather subjective not even all scientist can agree on when life starts. according to the meriam webster dictonary (that has SEVERAL defintions to fit all the needs of people who claim to know when life starts) a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual Both of these examples of defintions are very subjective and leave us with questions what is a principle or a force that is distinctive of animate beings? and what are these physical or mental experiences? several religious groups and persons have claimed to go against abortion because of their religion usually this religion is christiantity Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God"s intervention. "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally "abortion"? 2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be "ripped open". these are just a few examples from the bible that god himself wasnt even pro-life.
Gay Rights

My opponent has not treated point 1, 2 and 3 of my discourse, yet he claims that the large portion of my expose is on the bible. The bible neither condones nor condemns slavery; however, it makes it difficult to be practiced by setting up many roadblocks. Whereas, the bible is very clear with homosexuality. The homosexual to me is the same like someone who is perpetually living in sin. He or she will not be different from the person who is married but has a sancha or sancho. If he or she dies, his blood will be in his hands, and God will forget his righteousness. Nonetheless, they are not our enemies. They are our neighbors, and we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves. .
Gay Rights

A large portion of my opponents argument was about the bible. What about those who aren't Christian or don't even believe in God? Do I believe in God? Yes I do but I don't necessarily believe the bible. A bible is literally a book written a very long time ago. Things have changed a lot since then. Today our society is advancing in many ways. America isn't the same as it was many years ago so why are people still following exactly what the bible says if it was written so long ago? For example, many people say that the bible condones slavery. ( which in my opinion is completely untrue) But today, slavery in america is illegal. So if the bible says that Gays are morally wrong, who says that that that can't be changed like slavery was?
Gay Rights

I agree with my opponent that the gays have rights. I am not against them having rights. In so far as the law protects them, they should be given their rights. I am merely saying that it is legally right, but it is morally wrong. That is not only based on sex. 1. Anatomically, it is not every orifice of the human body that was made for sexual purposes. The anus was made only for defecating and perhaps taking in suppositories. 2. Logically, simply because two people love themselves does not make it right. Would it be right for a mom to be sleeping with her son or a 40 year old to marry a 12 year old because they love themselves? Simply because it is legal does not make it moral. In some countries, incest is legal, but it does not make it moral. Homosexuality has not been from creation. Consequently, it is a learned behavior. The argument that what two people decide to do in their bedrooms is none of the society"s business is untenable. Why then was Armin Meiwes convicted for killing and eating Juergen Brandes when both of them signed a pact that stated that the former should kill and eat the latter? 3.Privacy. My opponent invokes the issue of private taste. Equity may rule against him. Another argument that what someone decides to do with his love life is no one"s business. That is indefensible because in July of 2013, in Surprise, Arizona, the police fatally shot 52-year-old Joel Byne who was trying to kill himself. He was trying to kill himself which was no one"s business, yet they killed him because it was as if he was trying to kill someone else. The life is not his; he did not make himself. He was made by God. The cock that crows may belong to a household, but it crows belong to the community. 4. Biblically, the Bible is against homosexuality in many passages. I will ask my opponent to supply biblically that are explicitly for homosexuality . Furthermore, during the salvific diluvian incident, God asked Noah and his sons to come in male and female and to take in animals, male and female (Gen 7:1-4). Again, the Law of Excluded Middle will mean that by requesting for heterosexual couples, He was prohibiting homosexual ones. It was an endorsement of heterosexuality above homosexuality. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22). This is an injunction against Homosexuality and Lesbianism. Lot called it wickedness (Gen 19:4-8) and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for it. God calls it abomination rewarded with death (Lev 20:13). The Bible calls them sons of Belial (Judges 19: 22 but read the entire story: very interesting). The Apostle Paul says they are in error by practicing homosexuality and lesbianism (Rom 1:26-27). Paul tells Timothy that homosexuality and lesbianism are against sound doctrine (I Tim 1:10). The Bible says: "And, the Lord saw that it was good." At the time that God made this statement man has not yet fallen into sin. Looking into the author"s assertion that God was not against homosexuality per se in Romans (Rom 1:26-27) but against pedophilia tells us he has made up his mind to go astray.
Gay Rights

I mean yes, it's not usual. I know I think three gay people so I know it's not that common. But do you know what is common in every single relationship? Love. That's what a relationship is, love. Two people who unconditionally love each other no matter what and it's sad that people who don't want gays to have rights can't look past the sex of two people and see that they just want to be together like any other couple in love.
YouTube is better than Netflix.

It's a tough decision, but I would choose Netflix better than YouTube. Let's be real, both YouTube and Netflix involve payment. YouTube has the payment for YouTube Red, while Netflix is entirely needed to be paid for. The shows on Netflix are incredible. It involves tons of incredible genres, like Teen Classics, LGBT movies, and Kids shows. You can also find some of these shows on YouTube, but yet, they cost money as well. You can pay for at least 1 episode each payment, while Netflix pays for all until next monthly payment. YouTube may have YouTube Red shows, which you need a membership for, Netflix only needs an entire membership and you can watch its Netflix Originals, like "Fuller House" and "Stranger Things. " Who doesn't love these shows? I know I do, and so do others. Netflix has amazing shows and movies with interesting stories to tell, whereas YouTube has people either telling their own story or making a comedy out of life, like "nigahiga" and "Smosh. " It may be funny, but Netflix stories are addicting.
YouTube is better than Netflix.

Although I love them both, YouTube is better than Netflix. YouTube is free, so everyone who has Internet can go on it. Netflix has lots of movies and shows, but if you find the right video on YouTube you can also watch movies and shows. YouTube is also good for educational purposes. They show short, easy clips and it helps millions of students on the daily. In addition, YouTube allows you to watch AND create videos.... and if you become population enough, YouTube will even pay you to post more videos.
justin bieber is terrible

The proof is in the facts that he's had a couplecof sold out concerts already. The Believe it tour and the concert in the UK (which he was 2 hours late for) so you know that these people genuinlly enjoy listening to him.As for me, no I dont like Justin Bieber. hate almost all of his songs. The only few songs I like of his are never say never, overboard, and a few others. But thats my opionion. Someone else may say that they both love Justin himself, and his music.
Jesus existed, and was the son of God.

Uh, yeah, I saw the same thing too! I saw Jesus! In Mark 8:33, we see Jesus saying to Peter: "Get behind me satan!"That is quite possibly the worst thing Jesus could have called him. Yet Peter wrote that down. The "I saw Jesus!" insentive argument doesn't hold up because of the bad light that that would have put the diciples in.The people who wrote the gospels preached around the time and place of Jesus. If what they said didn't match up, they wouldn't have lasted long.People passing it on from person to person wouldn't have happened because there would have been enough people who know that they are wrong.is God causing His own demise then?incomprehendable God. So incomprehendable answer. Yes and no."the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies."Yes... the gospels were biographies...the only people who are going to help you promote your business is your company itself. People generally don't get themselved crucified upside down for their business. And I still can't see how the disciples profited from it. Just because there are many gospels saying the same thing doesn't mean it must be true as much as many fanfictions about Twilight doesn't mean vampires exist.compared to other things we know about the that time, 4, or even 3, is loads. Peter, who travelled with Paul, could have received the stories from him, and Matthew's gospel could have been based off Mark's. And they could have passed the stories on too. And there you have it, many storybooks with the same stories.and John?Because of this particular motive of providing evidence, gospels could have been written. The dawn of Christ could have required more evidence, and the followers of Christ may have come up with their books that reflect one another just so you can now say that the numerous gospels are all about the same thing.If so, they would have done a better job. reasons for forgery have been stated above.I can't see any.Any fictious concept could have had numerous independent stories, other than the Twilight fanfiction mentioned above, there could be retellings of Terminator, The Matrix, and other concepts that mix and match that essentially still retain the core idea, just like the gospels could have been the fanfiction, Jesus the idea. Show me one other religion where the God sacrificed himself/his son for everyone. I like tmbggr8 deb8 m8