BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Opening Statement: Tobacco kills kills and keeps on killing, how you may ask because its a addictive little stick that cause's cancer. Smoking is similar to crack, both are addictive substances and both kill you. They make you dependent on them, and you keep smoking and you keep hurting yourself until you die. It is hypocritical to say tobacco legal , crack illegal; when they do the same thing. Not to mention tobacco targets kids, with the tobacco signs put at kids eye level, and before it was illegal they had flavors like tropical blast. Now they even appeal to the women with the slim sexy cigerette with the pink packaging. Also they have a smokers diet? Come on they say ever 6 seconds someone dies from tobacco, and they make billions of dollars a year how can this be? how can this be? Points 1. tobacco companies are the same as crack dealers. 2. tobacco targets kids. 3. why is tobacco legal yet crack isn't when they are the same thing?
I am the best actor ever

What my opponent has failed to realize is that in his effort to reverse-psychology us all into inflating his ego, he created a troll debate. Troll debates do not operate in the same fashion that normal debates do, whereas the normal conventions of side-picking do not apply (i.e. he picks one side, I pick the other). In a troll debate, sides are a free-for-all, everyone takes whatever side they do and it comes down to who is funnier. Since my opponent has not explained how his case is better than mine, and has left all of my points untouched, vote for me.Also, a vote for me ensures the following things:1. The world will not end in December. Voting for him will mean armageddon on 2012. 2. Chuck Norris dislikes troll debates. A vote for me ensures Chuck Norris will not hunt you down and munch on your spleen. 3. A vote for me is a vote for the Illuminati (who already control your vote).4. KfcThus, I strongly urge you to vote for me :D
I am the best actor ever

I argue that my opponent is, indeed, not the best actor ever. First argument: my opponent is not better than Matt Damon. Thus, my opponent cannot possibly be the best actor ever. Second Argument: My opponent is not better than Bradly Cooper. Thus, my opponent cannot possibly be the best actor ever. Third Argument: My opponent is not better than Sandra Bullock. Thus, my opponent cannot possibly be the best actor ever. Fourth Argument: My opponent is not better than Megan Fox. Thus, my opponent cannot possibly be the best actor ever.
Vaccines are Dangerous!

Apparently Con isn't understanding what I'm trying to say so I'm going to give a quick overview of what I've said said throughout the debate, and my evidence. Con said "So instead of a actual debate, this has become a debate of sources." Why would you think that? In round 2 all Con really said was "Vaccination has decreased the rate of disease dramatically." and "In regards to autism, the CDC has roundly rejected this claim. The studies brought forth by the Pro were largely discredited amongst the academic community." You were making statements about my evidence as if they were fact so of course I had to check your sources. Con is not making much sense here. Con said "Correlation doesn't mean causation. Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism because the correlation between the two may exist. Therefore, Pro argument falls. This is actually false. The saying is "correlation does not imply causation" what you did was a classic example of the straw man fallacy. You attempted to discredit my first link by misrepresenting what I said in that last round. The reason I said that correlation does not imply causation is because your "proof" that vaccines worked was that many diseases were declining during the period that vaccines were being used. The problem with this logic is that those diseases were already declining before the introduction of the vaccine. Further proof that it wasn't the vaccines causing the decline would be that diseases with no vaccines were also declining at this time. You said my second source has the "Same discreditation as the first source." but I don't even think you read what it said. The Hill's criteria used in the study is arguably the best way to find causal relationships, so no it is not discredited. My third study Con doesn't even address, and just tries to dismiss it. Then Con went on to say "Which doctor is credited with writing this? Oh wait. A doctor didn't write this. So this is baseless and unprofessional. You should lose conduct off that for using sources that aren't accepted scientifically. Rookie mistake." The link was to an article that had graphs in it. Tell me, does it take a doctor compile a list of death records? Also do you even know who wrote the article in the first place? I would urge all voters to look at Con's groundless accusations and judge accordingly. "My medically accepted CDC sources still stand." but if your sources only prove that thimerosal free vaccines and regular vaccines are the same, then your source are irrelevant in this debate. The debate isn't over which vaccine ingredient is more dangerous. It's about whether vaccines are dangerous. "Therefore Vote Pro. I win this debate." First off, you haven't won this debate, and if you had why would you still need votes? Oh, and by the way I'm Pro so please vote Pro. I would like to thank Con for staying in the debate and not forfeiting. I have given a few studies that show vaccines are not safe and effective. Con has not given me any studies showing that vaccines have worked or that they are safe. For this reason I would advise you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Vaccines are Dangerous!

So instead of a actual debate, this has become a debate of sources. Alright, let's do this. Time to discredit his sources. First Con Source: Correlation doesn't mean causation. Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism because the correlation between the two may exist. Therefore, Pro argument falls. Second Con Source: Same discreditation as the first source. The 11 page study doesn't prove causation, there Con's stance that Vaccines cause autism is untrue and is not based on facts. Third Con Source: Same (verbatim) as 1 Fourth Con Source: Which doctor is credited with writing this? Oh wait. A doctor didn't write this. So this is baseless and unprofessional. You should lose conduct off that for using sources that aren't accepted scientifically. Rookie mistake. Fifth Con Source: Money has nothing to do with "net-benefit gain", therefore disregard these sources. -- -- -- My medically accepted CDC sources still stand. Therefore Vote Pro. I win this debate.
Vaccines are Dangerous!

Vaccination has decreased the rate of disease dramatically. DiseaseBaseline 20th Century Annual Cases2006 CasesPercent Decrease Measles 503,282 55 99.9% Diphtheria 175,885 0 100% Mumps 152,209 6,584 95.7% Pertussis 147,271 15,632 89.4% Smallpox 48,164 0 100% Rubella 47,745 11 99.9% HiB 20,000 29 99.9% Polio 16,316 0 100% Tetanus 1,314 41 96.9% Data from . http://www.immunizeforgood.com... This data shows that on an net-benefit analysis, vaccines have done more good than bad for the world. Therefore, I am winning this debate right on the offset. If we look at a net-benefit anaylysis, giant reductions in diseases outweigh the mere possibility that autism may be created by vaccines, therefore you should Vote Con off that In regards to autism, the CDC has roundly rejected this claim. The studies brought forth by the Pro were largely discredited amongst the academic community. . https://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.iom.edu... . http://www.jpeds.com...(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf . https://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.iom.edu... . https://www.cdc.gov... . https://www.cdc.gov... . https://www.cdc.gov... I'm going to ask my opponent to read these articles before he continue spouting random fallacies in his refutation rounds. Thank you. Moving along to the rest of the Con case: According to "Immunize for good," Vaccines are cost effective. Not only do vaccines save lives, they save money too. It is always cheaper to prevent a disease than to treat it. The routine childhood immunization program in one birth cohort saves $13.6 billion in direct costs. Every dollar spent on childhood immunizations saves $18.40. In Colorado, the cost of treating 538 children hospitalized for vaccine-preventable diseases in one year totaled $29.2 million. Vaccines are safe. Vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing prior to being approved by the Food and Drug Administraton (FDA) and are continually monitored for safety. Vaccines are also studied to be administered together to protect children. In January 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, and the report uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the CDC-recommended childhood immunization schedule. (end quote) Simply put, it is riskier to not immunize. Vaccines are both cost-effective and bring more good than bad.
Vaccines are Dangerous!

You stated that vaccines had a "net-positive benefit." This means that what they give to society has to be better than what they take away. I disagree. Even though vaccines may offer some protection and may help some people, humanity as a whole has been hurt by vaccines. Definitions: ASD: Autism Spectrum Disorder SLI: Speech and Language Impairment We are told that vaccines are safe and yet studies done have shown otherwise. A survey of 1997-2002 data showed that those never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month were 200% less likely to have autism. [1] According to the Journal of inorganic biochemistry aluminum adjuvants in vaccines correlates with the rise in ASD. Hill's criteria to the data indicates that Aluminum in vaccines may cause ASD. [2] Mystery of of the rise autism from the 1990's. A 1% increase in vaccination a is associated with 680 children having ASD or SLI [3] We are told that vaccines led to the decline of diseases such as smallpox, when the truth is that these diseases were already declining and would have been eradicated anyways. [4] Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry so if anyone is really benefiting it"s the pharmaceutical companies, not the people. In conclusion I don't think that vaccines are safe and I don't think that they are very effective. [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2]http://omsj.org... [3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4]https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com... [5]https://www.nytimes.com... http://www.globalresearch.ca...
Vaccines are Dangerous!

I will be arguing that vaccines are dangerous and have not been the blessing people think they are. Con will argue that they are safe, and that they work as well as we are told. Con may choose to use the first round as acceptance or use it to give his/her defense of vaccinations. Safe: not threatening danger Dangerous: involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss: able or likely to inflict injury or harm. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate.org is an extremly flawed site

I agree that the profile setup and the inability to have more than two people speak in one debate isn't as great as it could be. However, this does not make Debate.org flawed. From the general standpoint, the site is the first of its kind - an organized database for people to argue topics of interest. Topics that are important and that the public care about will get more attention and more feedback - this is a good thing. Do not candidates debate in the same manner? The general public decides what is the important issues. Now specifically your attack on the voting system. The voting system does not grant a winner based on what is more popular or who agrees most with a certain position. The people on this site want others to vote for them based on their debating skills and their arguments, so they do the same. Look at most of the completed arguments on this website. The vote mostly isn't for the person who has been a member of Debate.org for the longest time, or the most popular. The vote goes to who argues the best, the one who is able to argue the best course of action or best able to support his opinion, which is the singular logical purpose of debate - the search for the best arguments, not the best opinions. In conclusion, some of your indicts are not strong enough to claim Debate.org as an "EXTREMELY FLAWED SITE." Even if everything you said was true, none of it is ground enough for one to deem Debate.org as illegitimate or extremely flawed.
Debate.org is an extremly flawed site

In the Big Issues section of a profile the user is forced to pick one of two choices, In favor of or against. This is contrary to the nature of decision making. Topics this broad more often then not require a broader explanation of the decision. A more useful tool would be to have a sliding scale from 1-10, and a text box allowing the user to elaborate on their decision. The debate style is also restrictive. A single debate can have but one opponent. This is contrary to an online community. There are also a limited number of rounds. This could leave the debate finished without the topic being resolved. However this pales in comparison to the greatest flaw. JUST BECAUSE AN IDEA IS POPULAR DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! Declaring a winner based on votes doesn't make the debater any more right. It just means he or she is the most popular. Finally the debater may invite their friends to vote on the debate. That clearly skews the results.
Calling out trolls

I don't know what that means. Also, my point stands. I see no reason why we should not call out trolls. I only see reasons why we should. If I made a mistake in reasoning, then I did. But that doesn't mean that my claim is wrong. You still need to prove that it is wrong. So far, I believe I have given good reason to. Trololololol! See my point ;) I just like using humor, this site needs more humor
Calling out trolls

I am Pro for calling out trolls. We live in a country of trolls. We need to call out the trolls and spread the word. I am not elitist. My source is the Illuminati. They are the ultimate source of all trolls. Troll=LOL LOL has 3 letters ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED!!!!!!! ... ... ... Now this is my undeniable position. I just represented what a troll truly is. An internet user who uses his connection for "LOL's". Shouldn't people, like myself, be called out? It is not that trolls are lower then those who point them out, but to keep and to sustain the mentality and sanity of the internet, and those who use it. The best way to do that is too, call out trolls! I did not uses outside sources. So your roasting is no power for the illuminati. I shall determine myself to be a troll in this situation, and my own source. It is correct to attempt to point out the fault in the trolls, and protect the sanity of mankind. _____________________________________________________Pro Troll Smasher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calling out trolls

Calling someone a troll is a name calling tactic a bully would use, 3rd grade mentality. Somehow, in the land of elitist politically correct and Ivory Tower educated scholars of reason, in their own minds, this is an acceptable term, as I have never heard of anyone from the world of defining political correctness decry the naming of trolls. That's just how it is. Your sources cannot be proven, without daddy's Warbucks, I bet.
Roman Catholicism is False

Roman Catholicism has five major points that point out that it is filled with heresy and false doctrine, as a Christian it is important to point out the false teachings in order to shed truth to those who are blind. 1). Justification: Catholics teach that justification involves works not just faith. They teach that in order to obtain salvation one must do good works. Whereas Christians like myself believe that salvation is a gift and comes through faith, you can not obtain salvation through works. According to the Council of Trent 9 states," if anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified, let them be anathema". The bible clearly states in Ephesians 2:8-9, ' For by grace you have been saved through faith, not by your own doing, but a gift from God, not a result of your works should any man boast". Other bible verses that support faith alone- Romans 5:1, Romans 3:28. So its obvious that Catholics believe that good works equals salvation, but the bible clearly states that justification/salvation are a gift by God through faith. 2). Pope as the head of the church: Catholics use the pope as a authority to which to look to for spiritual advice, but the bible doesn't support a pope figure, for Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Collosians 1:18 clearly states that Jesus is the head of the church, According to the Unam Sanctum(1302) no one can achieve salvation without the pope which is in complete contradiction to the bible. Even look at Pope Francis today he spews fallacy from his mouth. 3). Mass/Communion: Catholics teach that the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine is actually the real blood and flesh of Christ which is a heresy called transubstantiation. 4). Mary: Catholics pray and even worship Mary, and even treat her as a sinless mortal, Catholics recite Hail Mary's which in itself is an example of paganism. Catholics teach the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which is to say that she was sinless and she did not die a natural death but ascended into heaven just like Christ did and now is the queen of heaven. Christians like myself would come to reason that Mary was only a mortal and didn't actually believe in Christ till around his death which is justified in Mark 3:30-33. 5). Purgatory: Catholics teach that purgatory is a place that Catholics go to atone for their sins a place that is not eternal, but one that is necessary to go to heaven. If this is the case then Christ's sacrifice on the cross would mean nothing!. The bible clearly states in John 3:16 that Christ came to give us eternal life. These are some of the main problems with Catholics they deny Christ's finished work on the cross and then believe that they can achieve salvation through their own good works. The belief that Christians and Catholics believe the same thing is deceitful at best, and it undermines the true Jesus Christ that came to give us eternal life. Roman Catholiscm is a work base religion that denies the truity of Christ and the what the bible actually says on these issues. Sources include: http://www.worldviewweekend.com..., https://carm.org....
Roman Catholicism is False

I will be arguing that Catholiscm is a flawed denomination/religion that is full of heretical theology and doctrine and has led millions to believe in a fallacious faith. First round will be used as a intro and explanation of your stance defending the Catholic faith. Second round is the main argument. Third round should be your rebuttal to the main argument. Fourth and final round is your summerization and conclusion to your arguments made and a brief persuasion.
Microagressions and safe spaces

I am looking for someone who would like to debate that microagressions are a real issue and one that requires "safe spaces" in places like collage campuses. This person should be prepared to argue what qualifies as a microagression, how and why they are a real issue, and what the consequences of a microagressive statement might be.The first round of the debate will be used to explain our side of the debate, the second round will be used for a rebuttal, and the third round should be used to reply to the rebuttal as well as pose questions for the voting audience of this debate to ponder before taking a stance. Use your first spot to claim that you will participate.
Microagressions and safe spaces

I think the definition of microaggressions accounts for a number of words or expressions that people may use in their everyday lives which hurt people inadvertently, this was found with scientific studies and a new word definition was coined for it, showing it is a real issue. The term "safe space" is applicable to anybody who doesn't associate themselves with any other group of person, which can account for anybody. This term I believe is useless. However using one as an excuse to prevent someones right to free speech is not a good thing I can agree. This isn't something everybody does though, and are only the actions of a few that get highlighted in the media, which is also morally questionable. I think microaggressions also can count for a lot more, such as the effects on an individuals lives. More than enough study has shown the psychological trauma victims of bullying at any age, more specifically at a young age to be more than enough proof for people to know not to.
Microagressions and safe spaces

In conclusion, the concept of a penalty for a "microagression" is absurd. This term is used to describe lines or sayings that overly sensitive individuals find offensive. I am in no way saying that people should slander each other, but I believe that each person has the right to the freedom of speech. in opposition to my opponent, I do not believe that the term microagression to describe something is a mode of bringing awareness to an issue, but rather a way to limit people from saying things that certain groups may not want to hear. I believe that political correctness is overdone, and that the terms "microagression" and "safe space" should not exist. My arguments are in favor of free speech for all as well as the idea that each person has not only the ability but the right to choose whether a statement is worth their time. Everyone should have the right to share their opinion and everyone also has the right to determine how valid the opinions of others are to them.
Microagressions and safe spaces

http://www.apa.org... We can see in that story people are often unaware of the damage their words have on people, and while it doesn't mean you can no longer say it, they are trying to raise awareness of why you probably shouldn't if you were aware of the harm it causes. Microaggression definition first came about through the study of racism and the slurs people use without noticing in some cultures. You may think it is ok, but to someone not accustomed to your culture you could be found very insulting. You are free to continue. The awareness is so hopefully you wouldn't want to. It can also backfire on liberals also. Many liberals are in "safe spaces" that allow them to think change can happen without problem and don't care to understand why it has problems, they are more female based and amass a cult following PC male crowd. This is what South Park parodied as "P*ssy Crushing". Remember "P*ssy" is now PC, Donald Trump and the left said so.
Microagressions and safe spaces

Where you are wrong is your claim that my free speech can somehow limit yours. I am arguing that everyone should have the right to share his or her opinion, and that everyone who hears it has the right to decide how seriously it should be taken. I believe that society should rid itself of the idea of a "microaggresion". If something says anything, it could potentially offend someone. It is up to the offended person whether or not to accept this statement. Your last paragraph does not make sense; the constitution doesn"t have to "accommodate" for anyone; everyone has freedom of speech. I am in no way supporting bullying. I am saying that everyone has the freedom to say what he or she think, and likewise, everyone has the freedom to accept what others say or decide that it is irrelevant or untrue. However, if we as a society are going to limit what people can say because there is a chance that it offended someone, we are limiting their freedom of speech, and doing them a disservice.