BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

This is going to be a pretty short round because again, my opponent hasn't said anything related to the resolution. First off, my opponent's point about Gravity Falls is worthless. How does this relate to the resolution? The resolution is whether or not anyone remembers League of Super Evil, not what it's reputation is. Remember, I only have to prove that one person remembers the show, which would negate the resolution as the show isn't "forgotten. " After this my opponent talks about the show's revival, and how it won't air a sequel. Again, not relevant to the resolution. Who cares that it won't have a sequel? What matters is whether or not people remember the show, which is the only thing relevant to this debate. The point of the website I provided is to show that there are people running that website, if there weren't the site wouldn't be up. My entire contention there was that the people who run the website still remember the show, or they're reminded of it every time they have to pay to keep the site going. This contention is enough to win me the debate, because that small group of people who keep the site running still remember the show. My opponent says that I don't know how many people visit the site. That's true. But remember, he hasn't refuted any of my points about the wiki page, which gets 1500 vists per month. My opponent ends off saying that no one would remember the show without reminders. Again, this doesn't matter. The resolution states "the show League of Super Evil is forgotten," not "the show League of Super Evil is forgotten without reminders. " Even if it takes a reminder like this debate, people who read and participate in this debate remember the show. Which again, negates the resolution and is enough to award me the win.
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

Think about Gravity Falls. Do you know the characters? Have you watched at least one episode of Gravity Falls? Its preety obvious that you do. I can assure you that when Gravity Falls ends in February it will still have a higher reputaion than League of super evil. I also said in the first round about the show's impossible revival. So it could never air in television again. Do you even think that this show will have a sequel? Some fans has already given up about this revival. I also said the following "It may have a good start and got a lot of attention but it's now in the ashes forever. " So more and more people will find this irrelevant as that's what happens in ended shows. But there will be (ended) shows that have toppled other shows. If you observed properly in the site you have given . The news was last updated on June 6, 2013. The site wasn't updated ever since. This people who were trying to run the site are wasting their energy. Do you even know how many peoples are trying to "stay up " the site ? Does it even reach 1,000 peoples? The only reason you remembered this show is because of this debate. If I haven't started this debate you shouldn't have remeberd this show. I know you're focusing in other TV shows and video games. Do you even think parents who did watched the show will tell about the show the first time his / her baby was born? We are now focused on different things that's why some of us finds this show irrelevant. Without the reminders about this show, we should have forgotten this show. So basically, the peoples who forgotten the show is a majority which makes other people not knowing the show in the first place some must have searched for this show in order to know it. The peoples who remebers the show will obviously deplete.
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

First off I'd like to briefly examine what my opponent said. It will not take long. First off, my opponent pretty much conceded the debate with the following statment. "The show itself may haven't been completely forgotten"I ask voters to take this into consideration. Moving forward, the BOP is in fact on Pro. He must show that no one remembers this TV show, if I can prove that even one person does remember, then the resolution is negated and I will have won the debate. My opponent's entire 2nd round arguments are not really relevant. Because he is still talking about revivals of the show and the show's popularity. This doesn't relate to the resolution at all. In his 2nd round arguments, my opponent hasn't said anything of worth. He is only saying that there will be no sequel, which is irrelevant to the debate. Now I will answer my opponents questions here.1. ) Did you remembered this show because of this debate or were you thinking about the show before you have replied to my argument and saw this debate? ( Please be honest in this wet)The fact that I even accepted the debate is a point against my opponent. First off, throughout this debate, it is certain that neither my opponent nor I have forgotten about the show. If we had, we wouldn't have been having this debate. So that's one point that negates my opponents entire resolution. WE haven't forgotten about the show, and we probably won't forget until after this debate has ended. This point alone is enough to award me the win. 2. ) Were the views in the League of super evil wiki adds until now? If yes does it add slowly or fastly? I don't know what my opponent means by "adds. " But the 1500 views stat that I gave were views over the past month. Again, my opponent has not refuted this point at all throughout this debate. All of those people haven't forgotten about the show. Again, this point alone is enough to award me the win. I will throw in one more argument before this round ends. There is still a site dedicated to League of Super Evil. The link is as follows. . http://leagueofsuperevil.ytv.com...Now my opponent will most likely say I can't prove that anyone visits this site, which is true. However I don't have to. The fact that this site is up is again, enough to award me this win. The people who work on and pay for that site, in order for it to stay up, have not forgotten about the show. The resolution is negated.
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

Thanks for joining this debate worthy opponent. The show itself may haven't been completely forgotten but considering many cartoon shows appearing its safe to say that viewers may forgot this show . Also I admitted that this show isn't completely forgotten because of this debate which makes people remember the show) Once again, many shows are popping out (ex: Gravity Falls , Adventure Time, Steven Universe and many more) even video games popping out will make you forget this show(ex: Until dawn, Last of us and many more) . It can also be said ended shows like Dexter's laboratory ( which has a higher rating ) d. Let me remind you again that there hasn't been any revivals on this show which makes it easier to forget. With time passing by this show no longer has the stage light focused at the show itself. Unless if you're a true and loyal fan checking the wiki everyday and hoping for a sequel which doesn't help the show's popularity at all with people who are focused on other media. However, when haters pick on this show the popularity might increase but negatives the show's reputation. I also ask you this questions if you don't mind. 1.) Did you remembered this show because of this debate or were you thinking about the show before you have replied to my argument and saw this debate? ( Please be honest in this wet) 2.) Were the views in the League of super evil wiki adds until now? If yes does it add slowly or fastly? Back to you Con. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://watchmojo.com... http://www.imdb.com...
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

Since my opponent gave arguments in his opening round I will do the same. First I'll start off with definitions that my opponent failed to provide. Forget - Fail to RememberI'll break my case up into two sectionsContention 1: We RememberIt's clear evidence that league of super evil, the TV show, hasn't been forgotten because both me and my opponent haven't not failed to remember it. My opponent remembers it, obviously that's why he started the debate. And I remembered it as well, which is why I took the debate.Contention 2: WikipediaAccording to the link [1] provided below, close to 1500 people visited the league of super evil wikipedia page. Now we can assume that some may have clicked on it by accident, but it's pretty clear that there are obviously people, likely 1000 of them, who haven't forgotten the show. If they had they wouldn't have been on Wikipedia looking for info about it. 1. http://stats.grok.se...And that concludes my opening round. I will now toss the ball back to Pro.
The show "League of super evil" is now forgotten

This show has clearly no chance of reboots or sequels. It may have a good start and got a lot of attention but it's now in the ashes forever. Presumably, this show is remembered because of this debate. Anyone who wishes to challenge me will be defeated as this is already a fact. Channel: Cartoon Network, YTV, CBBC, Disney XD Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Should people show more respect to deaf people

Although we can sometimes feel alone and mistreated in the world, it isn't fair to expect special respect from someone. Of course the handicapped should have help living their lives, that doesn't give them the right to demand anymore respect than other humans. My opponent has stated the fact that his/her family neglects to include him/herself in conversations and doesn't bother to learn how to communicate with their own family member. I believe this to be an inhumane act of his/her family. However, this has nothing to do with anyone else in the world. As I stated in my first round, just because the handicapped are mistreated doesn't mean non-handicapped people aren't. All humans should be treated with the same respect, and no one is above anyone else in our modern civilized society. I thank my opponent for creating this debate and I wish my opponent luck on resolving family matters. I also apologize for not being able to post my second round and in conclusion end this debate.
Should people show more respect to deaf people

They are trying to show respect, the problem is that the deaf and blind they are confused. When you talk to them to get something you can tell by the expression on their face when they are confused. Doesn't matter if they are deaf or blind they have the disabillity to be able to listen or communicate with the hearing people. You said,"they are not exactly qualified to be called as higher members of our society that should be treated specially." That is not true because you can't expect them to read your mind and automatically know what you're trying to tell them. The only way we can understand y'all is by communicating with ASL or by writing notes. You can't just leave them standing there with no clue of what's going on.
Should people show more respect to deaf people

My opponent makes a good point. However, I shall start with my opening remarks first. In our society nowadays, it is easy to find cruelty in every aspect of life. Every error of all kinds are picked on or made fun of by friends, strangers, governments, and even families. My opponent is stating that we should show more respect to deaf people. My argument is that although deaf people are handicapped, they are not exactly qualified to be called as higher members of our society that should be treated specially. It is true that it is cruel and disrespectful to pick on such members of society, but it no reason to give them respect. Necessary attention, yes. Respect, no. First of all, I believe that all people should be treated with respect, not just the handicapped. Although the deaf and blind are targets of disrespect, they are not the only ones teased. So, I say that all members of society should be treated with respect. Secondly, the deaf and blind can use this to their advantage. In society, people have the right to ignore people they do not wish to speak with. Just because someone is deaf doesn't mean that everyone should inform them on every conversation in the vicinity. If someone truly wishes to speak with them, they will. And although it is rather impolite, people also have the right to ignore others. Thirdly, as I mentioned before, what deaf people really need is attention, not respect. Although they have the right to be respected as a human being, it doesn't mean they should receive furthermore respect. Deaf people may need attention so that they can understand what someone is trying to tell them, and that can be achieved through a translator. *I have no intended offense to my opponent or any handicapped people anywhere. Please forgive any offensive content that may have been included in my argument( this goes for my following arguments as well).
Should people show more respect to deaf people

I'm deaf myself, mostly I am tired my family forcing me to wear my cochlear implant. It doesn't even work very well at all. Because my parents are constantly having to repeat themselves over and over again. Its actually reaching to the point where I just want to move to a different family. A family that does actual ASL, most importantly they get me involve in different activities than just sitting around and and watch them chat away happily ever after it feels as if they are thinking that i'm not even there in the room. Every time I tried to participate into their conversations they most of the time they would respond, "Were not talking about that" and then they would just go back to their regular thing and laugh at me. It's insulting!!! I wish it can stop now!!!
God doesn't care about homo-sapiens

If their is a God, why would this entity care about us? We know that billions of galaxies exist, and within those galaxies there are billions of more planets that could potentially be hosts of advanced life like us. The numbers are staggering to fathom. So what makes us special that God would have a specific interest in our actions? Furthermore, if you look at the way humanity behaves, with all the horror and atrocities committed in God's name, wouldn't God be ashamed of all this? No. Because God does not deal in simple humanistic emotions like shame. If God exists, it works in a realm that we cannot fathom; our attempted interpretation and understanding of God is impossible. If God exists, it created the elements that science has proved and let everything else unfold naturally. We are a very unique result out of trillions of other results. God is a scientist. We are the result of God's experiment. And this experiment will continue when homo-sapiens are gone. New experiments will appear, and we will be forgotten.
Masturbate your shame away

Masturbate your shame away Isn't it interesting how fully grown people Feel shame when they masturbate How they are ashamed of their naked body So much that they have sex in dark And under the blanket I used to feel shame too When I was touching myself One of the side effects of having religious parents Is that they put shame on your sexuality They manage to do it in a lot of different ways When you watch a movie and a sex scene comes up You can see shame on their faces And you will get a special lesson If you get caught watching porn I don't feel shame anymore I have masturbated so many times I think I am incapable of feeling it anymore Religious tricks have not worked on me They just made me masturbate my shame away It is questionable what damage was done I don't know, Because I can't go back And I am already over it No more shame for me I will masturbate at the day I will masturbate at the night I will never stop masturbating
Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

I accept, and will provide a few definitions. We are arguing about how I voted for "spelling and grammar", "best argument", and "most reliable sources". Misinformed: to be provided with incorrect information. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Reality: quality or state of being true http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Wrong: not in conformity with fact or truth, incorrect or erroneous. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

In the debate between myself, Dorb, and another debater, whatledge, Yvette voted that we had tied in all categories except the "Made more convincing arguments," in which she voted that whatledge had done better. I argue that Yvette's vote was misinformed, and that she voted against the reality of the situation. How she voted for the categories, "Agreed with before the debate," "Agreed with after the debate," and "Who had better conduct," are irrelevant to this debate, as I am not challenging them. I do challenge the other three. To win this debate, however, I propose that I will only have to show that one of the three votes was chosen against the reality of the situation. In doing so, I will have proved that Yvette cast the wrong vote. Because I am Pro, I accept the burden of proof for this debate. Yvette's only task will be to defend. Because Yvette's other debates show her dislike of semantics, I will appease her by making semantics not part of this debate. And finally, the way this debate will proceed: in Round 1, Yvette will accept the debate, and if she feels the need (although I do not see any here), she can proffer some definitions. In Rounds 2 and 3, we will present arguments.
Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills

"Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills" assumes that cannabis is better for treating medical conditions than man made pills. While medical Cannabis is proven to help with much pain management and as been proven very useful in some fields it leaves others void of any treatment in which man made pills prove their use. If a woman needs birth control should she take man made pills instead of using cannabis to protect against unwanted pregnancy? No this is foolish If someone has a bacterial infection that requires antibiotics they should use pills instead of cannabis? Of course not. If someone has schizophrenia they should take man made pills instead of just using cannabis? There is good reason why we don't. To say medical marijuana is the be all and end all for medicine is a blanket statement that shows a lack of understanding of empiricism.
Incest should not be illegal (meaning it should be legalized)

Thank you for responding relatively quickly to the debate, it saves everyone a great deal of waiting. Now to the rebuttal: You have conceded to one of my points- that if the incest is accidental, they shouldn't be held responsible. But you then go on to say "... everyone who gets arrested for incestuous relations would claim that "They didn't know".", just because someone claims to not know something doesn't mean they don't know. If I was knowingly in an incestuous relationship and knew that me and my partner would be excused if it was accidental incest, of course I would say I didn't know it was incest! But the prosecutor and the police would work to find evidence to the contrary, like the fact that I was raised with/by my partner. And in a court of law, evidence is always more convincing than testimony. All I am saying is that claiming it was accidental incest and proving it are two completely different things, and even if everyone who committed incest claimed it was accidental, they would still have to prove it in criminal court. Your next point was as follows: "I, personally, love my brother more than I love anyone, but that doesn't give me a reason to think I'm IN love with him. If it is okay to have a family with someone you are closely related to, then many people may get confused on which kind of love they feel for a person they are closely related to.", I don't just think that people will still be able to tell the difference between familial love and romantic love after incest laws are nullified, I know so, and it's all because of this little thing called the westermarck effect(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Here is the definition: "The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.", as you can see, this prevents a sexual attraction to your brother(or anyone else you are raised with/by for that matter), regardless of whether or not there are incest laws. Therefore, your point is not a valid argument against the legalization of incest. I agree with your next point: "If everyone in the world has kids with their own family members, there would be a short amount of different families, and there would be no new families being started.", but I don't see the harmful effects of there being a shortage of families. I think the point you were trying to make was the one I mentioned in my last post: "... if everyone reproduced with their brothers and sisters we all would be genetically screwed up.", but as I stated earlier, the westermarck effect would stop this from happening often enough to cause serious harmful effects throughout the human gene pool. Once again, thank you for responding to the debate quickly, and I hope to see an interesting rebuttal.
Incest should not be illegal (meaning it should be legalized)

There are many people that do, for many reasons, have accidental incestuous relationships, and in my opinion, no, they should not be arrested if they didn't know better. It wouldn't be their fault and they should not be punished. But if that were the case, everyone who gets arrested for incestuous relations would claim that "They didn't know". You stated that "But it is no reason to keep two people who love each other and are of age and consenting from having sex or starting a family, it shouldn't matter whether or not they are closely related or not. " I, personally, love my brother more than I love anyone, but that doesn't give me a reason to think I'm IN love with him. If it is okay to have a family with someone you are closely related to, then many people may get confused on which kind of love they feel for a person they are closely related to. If everyone in the world has kids with their own family members, there would be a short amount of different families, and there would be no new families being started.
Incest should not be illegal (meaning it should be legalized)

Incestuous relationships where one or both of the individuals is under aged and/or not consenting should remain illegal, but not because they're incestuous the kind of incest I am arguing for the legalization of is sexual relations between two of age, consenting individuals. Now I will define things: Incest- sexual relations between two people of the same bloodline who are at the very least as genetically related as first cousins, which means they share 12.5% of their DNA. This would include siblings, half-siblings, first cousins, parent/child, grandparents and grandchildren as well as aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews. But would not include adopted or step siblings, step parents or in-laws which have no genetic relation. Or anything beyond the 12.5% genetic similarity line like second cousins or great aunts/uncles. Illegal- anything against the law Sexual relations- sexual behavior between two individuals Consent-permission for something to happen or agreement to do something Of age- At or above the age of 18, which is generally considered the age of consent for sexual relations No trolls please.