BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Restricted abortion should be legal

As you said, this round is merely my opening arguments, not rebuttals to any of yours. Like Morgan from "The Walking Dead", I believe all life is precious. I believe that human life is worth protecting, even if it is just an unborn fetus. Contrary to what many pro-death (I refuse to use the term 'pro choice') people believe, abortion is not always used by women who have been raped, or children born of incest. In fact, less than 1% of all abortions are done out of rape/incest. And abortions done to save a mother's life represent an even smaller portion. More than 99% of all abortions are simply done by women who do not want to live with the consequences of their actions. This number should put things in perspective: 3,700. That's how many abortions are done in the US everyday. The pro-death lobby makes abortion seem like something that happens very rarely, almost never, but it's an epidemic. We lose more children to abortion everyday then we lost in the entire 9/11 attacks, totaling 63 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. There's a word for systematic executions of innocent people such as this; genocide. In fact, you'd be surprised how many similarities between the arguments put forth by the Nazis at the time of the holocaust and the pro-death in our times. "They (Jews/babies) aren't even human." "They will only cause problems for society." "What right do they have to live?" I'm sorry to make such a bold analogy, but I feel it's true; the similarities between pro-death and pro-Nazi rhetoric are astounding when you really stop to look at it.
The theory of evolution has problems that cannot be resolved using current scientific understanding.

===Resolution=== The Pro will have the primary burden of proof in formulating and defending his case. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. Pro does not have the burden of proving the existence of an intelligent designer, since he has not proposed any alternative theory to explain the origin of life. He has merely said that the theory of evolution has problems that cannot be resolved using current scientific understanding. Rules: R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.
The theory of evolution has problems that cannot be resolved using current scientific understanding.

Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. "Pro's case (stated in R2) clearly states that natural selection does not explain the origin of life. I have organized my case in terms of four points. Con has put forward his case (which was not required of him), but has not provided any argument directed against those four points. If Con cannot refute those points, then I'm afraid he'll have to admit defeat. Please note that as stated in R1, the resolution of this debate rests on Con being able to refute my case. Con was not required to put forward Con's own case, and therefore I did not have any burden to refuting it either.
The theory of evolution has problems that cannot be resolved using current scientific understanding.

Con has put forth an excellent argument for the existence of a common ancestor, but he has not answered my objections against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Con was asked to refute my case, which Con hasn't done. My contention is that natural selection fails to explain the origin of all of the diversity we see in life. The existence of a Universal Genetic Code, in and of itself, does not prove that the natural selection hypothesis (believed to be the main cause of evolution in the modern theory) can explain the origin of species. In particular, the existence of UGC does not answer my objections raised against the validity of evolution by natural selection. It could be that life evolved from a common ancestor, but still the mechanism of evolution was something other than natural selection. Or another possibility could be that UGC was arranged by a creator. I'm not endorsing any alternative hypothesis, but merely saying that Con has not answered my objections against natural selection.The resolution of this debate, as stated in R1, rests upon Con being able to refute my case, which he hasn't done. He must refute the four points that I have raised. Also, I would like to point out that Con had digressed from the topic of our debate when he started talking about the views of Stephen Hawking.
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

ok just to start out I'd like to defend the degrading argument. As my opponent said, this episode entails a lot of "generalization" and when it shows Cartman's mother getting literally crapped on, it makes the generalization that women are essentially slaves. Regardless of how small the actual number is, in the eyes of South Park, it's a very large number and so this is why Make Love, Not Warcraft is degrading. And also my opponent never hit on the degrading fat people thing, even though we discovered that in some cases, fat people are humorous. And I was not agreeing with him that the characters of South Park are funnier as fat people, in fact, it actually kind of saddens me seeing these young lads morbidly obese. Also my opponent states that Manbearpig is not accurate because it shows Al Gore with absolutely zero friends. This is simply another generalization and a metaphorical statement stating that Al Gore's message to the public is very commonly not accepted and a large number of people don't find him easy to relate to or appreciate and is simply comic relief. This also supports my point that Al Gore is an easier target. His views are percieved in public as comical and he is in most cases, not taken seriously so this makes him an easier target. When my opponent stated that a generalization that most WoW players are fat, I had to disagree with this because I personally know several WoW players and these people are typically not fat. In fact, only a small percent are fat so instead of trusting a television show's generalization, we must look to real world instances and realize that this is inaccurate and unfair to consider all world of warcraft players fat. so to re-interate my points: 1.) Al Gore is a much easier target than WoW players 2.) Manbearpig is a far more accurate episode than Make Love, Not Warcraft 3.) Make Love, Not Warcraft is harmful to society thank you judges for your consideration although in this debate I must urge a Con vote based on the arguments. and thank you my worth opponent for participating in this nautical debate.
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

I would just like to start off by saying that the entire "degrading" argument brought forth by my opponent should be completely disregarded because he has mentioned that it's no longer about "right and wrong" rather which one is far superior. In this he is basically agreeing that South Park is equally degrading to the different groups that are depicted in the different episodes. Therefore this arguement cannot be accepted. Moving on... My opponent says that the entire debate is in the "eye of the beholder" alongside Al Gore being an easier target. I will agree that this debate is in the eye of the beholder, but we are still using facts to support these arguments. Just because you say that Al Gore is easier to make fun of than World of Warcraft players is just your opinion since you don't explain why he is easier to make fun of. The creators of South Park had depicted a generalization of WoW players, NOT every last player on the face of the Earth. Yet when you look at the accuracy of the Manbearpig episode, the episode portrays him as having absolutely no friends whatsoever when in reality he has many delusional friends and supporters. If you look at the generalization of WoW players in comparison to the completely inaccurate portrayal of Al Gore, you can obviously see that "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is far better in this sense. Once again, on his degrading women argument, this should not be accepted as I mentioned in the first paragraph of this speech, but for the sake of this debate, I will once again refute it. This is not degrading to women because there is MAYBE 1% of women that would be willing to do something like this if not fewer. So, how is something, that doesn't affect a vast number of people, degrade approximately half of the population on the face of this Earth? It doesn't, thus you cannot accept this argument. I would also like to point out that my opponent has completely agreed with me on my orginal third contention that the characters are funnier as fat people. He has pretty much agreed with this when he makes fun of our classmate, Derek. As you can see, "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is a far superior episode in that it is more accurate, is equally degrading (yet equally, if not more, funny) as other episodes of South Park, and portrays the four main characters as funny, fat people. I thank you for all your time :-)
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

Allow me to first clarify that I think both of these episodes, along with all South Park episodes, are very funny and humorous. So in fact this debate becomes about superiority and is no longer about "this one is right, and this one is wrong" both these episodes are funny but my job is to prove that the manbearpig episode is funnier, and is more superior. To attack my opponents first contention in his last speech, he is saying that my point about Al Gore is "in the eyes of the beholder" well in fact this entire debate is based about "in the eyes of the beholder." my opponent also began attacking the factuality of my arguments but his arguments were full of holes also. When he is saying that "Make love, not warcraft" is completely accurate, this is incredibly false. In fact, I know two people in the real world who play World of Warcraft nearly religeously and they are actually very physically fit, fully functioning people and for him to say that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have accurately portrayed these people is a fallacy. (and also to clarify, when I said that all WoW players are fat, this was simply sarcasm aimed at one of our fellow debate classmates, derek) In my opponent's attack of my degrading woman argument, he stated that it is degrading mothers only who are willing to do this in the first place. Well I'm certain that 100% of mother are indeed women so this point stands. So clearly you can see voter, that manbearpig is far more superior to Make Love, not warcraft. And if you don't believe me, just watch them for yourself, you will discover the truth, I'm super cereal.
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

I would first like to start off by critiquing my opponent. In both the second and third arguments of his last speech, he mentions that "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is degrading certain people (women and fat people) and that it is certainly not funny. However, he also mentions in his opening that South Park is "A great TV show series about four adolescent children who face many of the world's problem in a comical way. Two of my personal favorite episodes are 'make love, not warcraft' and 'manbearpig'..." I have two things on this... 1) How can "Make Love, Not Warcraft" be one of his favorite episodes if it is certainly not funny and degrades people? That's exactly my point, he's lowering his standards for this debate only, giving up on his entertainment 'principles,' just to win an argument. 2) This show has been argued to degrade all types of people. In "Manbearpig," it is degrading enviromentalists, such as Al Gore. Now to single out "Make Love, Not Warcraft," saying it's degrading, is completely hippocritical and is devaluing the sake of this debate. Also, he laughs at the fat WoW players argument in his final argumentation, thus he believes that this too is comical. Now moving on the the specific contentions... 1) First of all, I want to say that the statement mentioned by my opponent, "manbearpig pokes fun at Al Gore, a much easier target than world of warcraft," is all in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, this is not an appropriate depiction of Al Gore because in the show, he has absolutely no friends. In real life, he has just as many delusional friends as there are. Therefore, "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is the far more accurate depiction of the group they are making fun of. 2) This episode isn't degrading to women, only degrading to mothers who would be willing to do such a thing. I'm pretty sure that you would have a hard time finding a woman that would be willing to bring a bed pan downstairs to their son/daughter just because they don't want to move and allow them to crap on them. However, pooping treaure is something that is horrible to laugh at. A man could get some serious intestinal damage from pooping treasue. Would it be funny to watch a man become a parapallegic? 3) Finally, this point has already been argued against my opponent by my opponent when he laughed at fat people. Furthermore, since I personally know my opponent, I can safely say that he completely cracks up anytime I make a fat joke about one of our classmates, Derek. Anyone can see that my opponent has disregarded this argument and thus it must go for the Pro side. In the end, you must see that out of the depictions of Matt Stone and Trey Parker, "Make Love, Not Warcraft" is superior to that of "Manbearpig." I'm super cereal!!! ;-)
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

Ahhh South Park. A great TV show series about four adolescent children who face many of the world's problem in a comical way. Two of my personal favorite episodes are "make love, not warcraft" and "manbearpig" (hence my user name) but upon further observation, these two episodes are not equal. In my opponents case, he sides with "make love, not warcraft" but on the other side i must say that "manbearpig" is a far more superior episode. 1.) manbearpig pokes fun at Al Gore, a much easier target than world of warcraft. Many of us have seen Al Gore's silly rants about global warming, mostly through his video "An Inconvenient Truth". The metaphorical approach that Trey Parker and Matt Stone take at Al Gore is far more humorous than the shots fired at World of Warcraft players. By having Al Gore try and warn the world about "manbearpig", we unveil Al Gore's true motivation for his global warming rants: a.) Al Gore seems to think the world is in grave DANGER because of manbearpig and he's trying to do the right thing. b.) Al Gore realizes that when the world is saved because of him, everyone will be super stoked at him. c.) Mr. Gore is just plain tired of being misunderstood and not taken seriously. poor fella. My opponents first point states that never in the history of television has there ever been a more accurate depiction of world of warcraft players. While this may be true, i definitely feel that their depiction of Al Gore is far more accurate and far more comical. In his second point, he states that in no other episode, will you ever see Eric Cartman pooping on him mom. This is certainly a terrible thing to laugh at because this is dehumanizing mothers and in general, woman. We cannot look to this as a humorous reference because of the social unrest it could cause. In the manbearpig episode, Cartman poops out fake treasure, this is clearly hilarious and safe for society. In my opponent's third point, he says that the characters of South Park are far more hilarious when they are fat. This brings up the obesity issue that our country has. It litterally mocks it and dehumanizes fat people. Regardless of what you may say, fat people are people too. (even though it just so happens that all WoW players are fat hahahaha) thank you and good night. ;)
"Make Love Not Warcraft" (Pro) vs. "Manbearpig" (Con)

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are geniuses in the field of cartoon animation. South Park has delivered many episodes that define our generation, but there is some controversy to which is the best episode. In many discussions of this topic, the top two episodes mentioned are "Make Love Not Warcraft" and "Manbearpig." I stand strongly in the fact that "Make Love Not Warcraft" is the greater episode for the following reasons: a)Never, in the history of television, has there been a more accurate depiction of the group being made fun of. Their characteristics were dead on to the people that truly play World of Warcraft. b)When else can you see Eric Cartman pooping on his mom? c)And finally, the four main characters are, in general, are funnier as fat people. Thank you
Transgenderism is bad

You've used subjective terms to define "bad," as in you define "bad" as "I don't like," And, well that is like...just your opinion man... You also never substantiated your claim that transgenderism is "bad," so what they have a higher rate of suicide? Your "argument" is a non-sequitur. Also, nice correlation-causation fallacy. Do you really think them being trans is the only thing that leads them to suicide? "Do you even logic bro" - Aristotle
Transgenderism is bad

To further define those terms first of all, I would recommend going to the google dictionary. I would like to debate why I disagree with the idea of transgenderism. The idea of transgenderism is that all of their problems will go away if people will accept their choices, which is obviously not true. The suicide rates of transgenders are astronomically high to the point where the only rate that is comparable with it is the suicide rates of people in the holocaust, which is a much worse issue. Even blacks under slavery didn"t have that high of a suicide rate. This obviously means that these people have a mental disorder and are suicidal. Instead of helping these people, the transgenderist movement is accepting this mental disorder and is indirectly therefore supporting suicide. Instead of cheering these people on for becoming the opposite gender, we should instead be trying to help these people overcome their suicidal tendencies. That is why I disagree with transgenderism.
Capybara betters than tapir.

Yo f***ing Capybara was a god damn fish? Even better. Does a Capybara eat 85 pounds of food in a day? That weighs more than one of your crappy Capybaras. Shi**y Capybaras have nothing on my smooth Tapir. Yours was a fish so it could get eaten by people. Tapirs spend more time in the water and attack people. Tapirs are predators, and Capybaras are pray.
Capybara betters than tapir.

Look a*s wipe, Tapirs have descended from f*****g Heptodons. While your little, "master of the grass," is walking aimlessly around on the grass, the Tapir is swimming in fresh water, munchin' on some mad vegetation, f*****g mad b*****s, attacking some humans, hiding from predators, and kicking some wratchet Capybara a*s. It doesn't just look for food, it uses its nose to sniff that f*****g vegetation and mixed berries up. These are some things the mother- f*****g Capybara wish it could do.
Capybara betters than tapir.

Listen motherfuker, in the native's language (natives of South America), capybara translates to "master of the grasses" and your stupid fuking little ant eater bich ain't the master of chit! Also, capybaras communicate by clicks, purrs, and barks, something your little bich (who I'm sure loves beetles with a side of pornography) will never do. Fuk tapirs.
Capybara betters than tapir.

First and for most, the Animal Planet has no relations to the common STI, Syphillis. It has wonderful programming and I am one of its frequent viewers. Furthermore, Tapir's have attacked people. Take that b***h! They are a threat to the top of the food chain? The capybara certainly isn't. Lastly, Tapir's are GIANT F*****G AARDVARKS MIXED WITH ANT-EATERS!!!!! No more proof needed.
Capybara betters than tapir.

Capybaras are superior for many reasons. The first I will cover is that the capybara is literally a giant guinea pig. Genetically, it's half rabbit and half guinea pig, and these are two of the most kick-butt animals on the planet (not Animal Planet, that network is the embodiment of Syphilis in television). Anyway, it looks awesome, and that's enough to make it better than a tapir.
The word "homophobic" should be banned

If statistics are worthless then why do we have them? You used statistics for your argument. I can't remember the source of my statistics, but it is easy to see that they are true. if you think about child molesters. . . Most children that get abused are boys. There are few female child molesters; it doesn't take much figuring out to see that the vast majority of child molesters are gay men. This fact alone should be enough to ban gays in the interest of safety for our children. I don't care if that hurts anyone's feelings. The safety of all the children on earth should take precedence over the feelings of a small minority of adults. I feel that anyone who argues against this is not of sound mind, to say the least. If I am to be labeled a homophobe because of this point of view, then I think political correctness is a vile thing invented by powerful people who aim to control the world with evil intention. My argument is simple and clear cut and needs no evidence to back it up. It is simple logic. As for racism. . . I feel that this too is a word that needs to be banned. In Australia the government has just tightened its laws on safety for electricians. The absurd thing about that is that Chinese electricians don't have to follow the safety laws; they no longer even have to prove that they are qualified. When the electrician union complained that this absurdity is not only dangerous, but clearly aimed towards bringing in cheap labor at the expense local workers, the government declared that such a view is racist against Chinese workers. This is a clear example of political correctness being used by parties to manipulate society for their own benefits. It is not racist to want equal treatment of workers just as it is not homophobic to dislike potential child molesters. This is why these sorts of words need to be banned. It is in the interest of a better, safer and more balanced world.
The word "homophobic" should be banned

Firstly, fear of homosexuals is not irrational. 44% of all murders are committed by homosexuals, one third of all child molestation is committed by homosexuals, and 90% of Aids is transmitted by homosexuals. If people did their research instead of being blindly lead by the media, the majority of people would conclude that gays should not have rights. As a parent I have the right to protect my children from potential child molesters. If homosexuals are overwelmingly the main perpetrators of child molestation I as a parent have a right to not allow homosexuals near them. If I am to be labeled homophobic because of this then I am being discriminated against in the worst possible way. The word homophobic is being used to outcast responsible parents like myself. The whole world has gone mad. There are a few sane, sound and natural people like me who think sexual deviation is just that - sexual deviation. Anyone who agrees with homosexuals are also deviates and probably also agree with child molestation. it is not difficult to ban words. There are lots of words that have been banned, such as "faggot" and "nigger"; you could go to jail for calling someone those words. I would like to see people go to jail for calling me a homophobe. I the right to protect my family without being demonized for doing so.