BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Link (Pro) vs Super Mario (Con)

Alright let's rap with your predetermined rules You've obviously set because you have no balls You'll get the last verse and I'll say 'no round' But I'm still going harder than my fkin ground-pound You're from the Legend of Zelda but that's not your name Your bich takes the credit and the title of the game I'm the only one here who's truly Legend-fking-dary You're just a f@g with a mother-fking fairy You look like you're dressed as a green ballerina You love to blow dik like it's your fkin ocarinaThis is Brokeback Mountain when you ride on your horse Then ride up on Ganon with the power of Triforce You carry a sword because you're compensatingBut Zelda still prefers to be masturbatingThe only Link she needs is on her internet browser: Find-A-Pimp-Dot-Com /Forward-Slash/ Bowser I beat fire-breathing dragons without any sword or shield While you prance around searching for some rupees in a field Your whole life's a joke mate, just look at yourself Smashing up pottery like some queer-azz elf You've never even spoken, you're literally a mute Fk knows how you're gonna attempt to refute Why don't you talk, has the cat got your tongue? Suffer anxiety from the way you're hung? I might be high on shrooms but I'm living the life Fkin a princess and my soon-to-be wife We're in Mushroom Kingdom and that's where I rule So take your lips off your dck and return to Hyrule
Escape the Fate was better with Ronnie Radke

Although ETF might have been better with Ronnie Radke, that still is your opinion. Some people might prefer Ronnie, some might prefer Craig Mabbitt. It is based on opinion, not on fact. As you are both the instigator and pro, you bear the burden of proof. You are in every way unable to give proper proof of the fact that you are right. In conclusion, it is based on opinion, not necessarily true, not necessarily false. This cannot be a fact.
Escape the Fate was better with Ronnie Radke

Escape the Fate (the band) is nothing without Ronnie Radke. He may have not been the best role model to young kids, but the band itself didn't seem intended for kids. Ronnie Radke carried the voice of Escape the Fate and when he left to Falling in Reverse, he took that amazing voice with him. His new songs in Falling in Reverse even reference his old band, example: "I have learned that my fate is something I can't escape..." (Raised by Wolves). These little references just help the song and the lyrics. That's about all I have to say.
Kim Kardashian is a hobbit, (DDO Olympics)

Ugh. Sorry Con, I'm clearly an idiot and accidentally deleted it, then my mouse broke. I hope you enjoy....1. Kim Kardashian stared in a show called: "Courtney and Kim take New York," a show with short fat people living in a fantasy world.In Lord of The Rings, Frodo, the main charecter, lives in a Fantasy world with his freind Sam. Both are very short and fat, which makes them Hobbits. 2. She lives in a room slightly below ground. Hobbit's tend to live in houses slightly bellow ground. This is her trying to keep a little bit of her "Hobbit Pride" while still staying in disguise as a human.3.Kim smokes a pipeThis is similar to how Hobbits tend to smoke a variety of items. And blow little rings around.http://i.imgur.com... 4. Kim has the body of a Hobbit. Kim literally looks exactly as a Hobbit would.That brings me to my next point...5. Kim uses magic.(And she's bad at it)In Lord of The Rings, Bilbo and Frodo use the ring to rid of their imperfections. We can compare this to how Kim Kardashian uses photoshop tools to make her look like a real human.Now you may be asking, "Is she really that bad at photoshopping?http://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com...And the answer is yes. In the picture above, you'll see Kim "Comparing butts" with another dedicated photo-shopper. You'll also get a glympse at her actual Hobbit body. If look to the left, it is severely clear that she photoshopped, and her butt is probably just a massive crater. 6. She razors hair off her Body.Clearly, she is making a feeble attempt to hide her secret race from us by shaving off her Hobbit hair. These eyes are to good for that though. So you see, Kim Kardashian bears to many similarities with a Hobbit to be ignored! For all we know, she's the next Baggins generation! Or maybe she's even going to be Frodo's future wife!There's to little information to know exactly how she'll use her Hobbit gift, but it's pretty clear that we'll be seeing more from her soon.And by that, I mean more of her photoshopping. Seriously, she cannot stop photoshopping.Therefore, Kim Kardashian is probably a Hobbit. Make good choices.
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

Sorry about the last round. I actually haven't been able to get on for a while. I took on this debate intending to finish, but I've been in the middle of a family crisis as of two days ago. Therefore, I forfeit this round as well. Sorry about this - I really just don't have the time right now to debate this. Hope you aren't too upset, Skeptic. =P --Sydnerella--
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

>>>It is not a third way - it is congenial with atheism and theism. <<< I intend to argue against those who individualize themselves against atheism and theism. =====Counterarguments===== >>>Recognizing the absence of absolute knowledge is recognizing humanity's flaws and the depth of the universe. <<< Of course, but this isn't the point I was making. Agnosticism say that the claim "God exists" can't be fully known. They state that no one has absolute knowledge on the existence of God, and yes I agree. But this is pointless to say because EVERYTHING that is known empirically can't be known 100% by virtue of skeptical hypothesis (brain in a vat, etc. ). We can't be 100% is fairies exist, because while most people say they don't, they could exist in some far off planet on the edge of the universe. God is no different, so having a distinct position called agnosticism is redundant and pointless. >>>Agnosticism is not heralded as a separate position. <<< Yes, I am aware that agnosticism isn't always held as a peartrees position. However, there ARE those who distinguish themselves from atheists/theists by saying they are agnostics. Effectively, there are people who view agnosticism as the "third path". >>>Also, you would be technically correct in stating that you can be agnostic about many things, but this is irrelevant. <<< Untrue. Pointing out that every empirical claim can't be known 100% shows that it's pointless to have a position that says "entity X can't be known 100%". Of course it can't. But practically every "entity X" can't be known 100%, so to make a distinct position is ridiculous. =====Conclusion===== My opponent praises agnosticism for helping one embrace the limits of human knowledge, but so does atheism. So does so many religions and ideologies. My main point is that agnosticism makes a redundant claim on the existence of God because all empirical claims are subject to never being 100% correct.
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

I affirm the resolution: atheism is the more logical and supported position than agnosticism. If one had to either be an agnostic or an atheist, than given the current evidence and amount of scientific and philosophical progress, one should choose atheism. [Definition - Atheism] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity [Definition - Agnostic] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god The latter part of this definition =====Arguments===== 1. Agnosticism is Epistemology At best, agnosticism should be described as a position in epistemology, which is the part of philosophy that is concerned with truth and knowledge (to be broad). Agnostics believe that absolute knowledge about God is impossible unless we had absolute knowledge of the universe. And this is true - but also pointless to state. Because ANYTHING that is not a posteriori can not be known with 100% certainty unless one has absolute knowledge of the universe. For example, what if I argued there are no such thing as fairies? Someone might go up to me and say "well you don't know! There could be fairies in some far-off distant star that we haven't discovered yet! Do you know everything about everywhere in the entire universe?! NO, didn't think so. Kiss the foot". Now if we can agree with this person's statement, than this means we have a whole new mess on our hands? That we have a-fairiests and agnosti-fairiests? Of course not. When one says the don't believe something is true, they aren't saying that it's 100% impossible - unless it's a prior statements, which are claims that are fulfilled by definition (All bachelors are unmarried). God's epistemological position should be no different from any other thing out there, which is why Agnosticism shouldn't be heralded as a separate position. If this were valid, then we would have a million more things to be "agnostic" about. 2. Evidence collected thus far I argue that since believe should be based on how PROBABLE or LIKELY something is to be true/exist/etc., the scientific and philosophical evidence we have at our disposal right now speaks more for the side of atheism than agnosticism. We can explain the diversity of life with evolution. We can start to explain how life begins with abiogenesis. We can explain the formations of planets and the beginning of our universe with the Big Bang and cosmological evolution. Now, advances in quantum cosmology are helping pave open the door for what possibly existed or happened pre-Big Bang. The evidence speaks.
On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

1. .. >> Collectivism- the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount. >> Individualism- the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount. 4. The definition of "preferable" is up for debate, but Con may not make the argument that there is no objective framework for deciding which philosophy is preferable. 5. Burden of Proof is shared. I must show the Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism. Good luck, Krit!
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive Foriegn Policy Objectives

I want this to be in LD Style. If you don't know LD please don't accept this debate. Also please plan on finishing the debate. Since in LD the Affirmative speaks first, my opponent will post first. This also keeps the regular speeches intact giving the Aff 3 speeches and the Neg 2. However I ask the third Aff to make the 3rd speech much like a real 2AR.
Should abortion be legal

Alright I guess since con has forfeited this round and has not expanded on his argument, I win. But I will just sum up what I have to say. I believe that abortion is morally wrong, but I don't think the government should be able to take away such personal and close rights to Americans no matter what. Taking away abortion would violate traditional American ideals and values, the basis that this country was built upon. Abortion needs to be discouraged, but when there are no other ways, abortion needs to be that last option. Basic Democracy ideals make it so abortion needs to stay in place and government should not get involved in such a personal decision.
Should abortion be legal

First off, rape is a totally different situation. Abortion is a very personal decision made by a women that she feels is correct a majority of the time. It is pretty difficult to compare rape and abortion. Lying to your parents under most circumstances is morally wrong, yet it is not illegal. See? You just can't compare things like that. Adoption is a great way if that is an option. What if a mother doesn't want her child and the mother shuns her child throughout her life and the child commits suicide. Then the child dies anyway. I understand that we gave the child a chance to live, but there are bad mothers out there that can make a child feel like crap, especially when a certain mother wanted to get rid of a certain child in the first place. Unwanted pregnancies cause unwanted children. Finally think about this. If a government is permitted to force a woman to bear a child where will the government stop? This violates nearly every traditional American ideal and value.
Should abortion be legal

Yes you are right when you say that if we make abortion illegal abortion will still happen. It is the same scenario with rape. Rape is illegal, but unfortunately people still rape. Does this mean that we should make it legal...of course not! About giving them an option;they do have an option called adoption. Just because someone made a mistake doesn't mean a innocent bystander has to be killed. Instead they should give the child to a family who is capable of caring for the child. Before you argue that a child can't think research the facts first,because according to www.scientificamerican.com,www smithsonian.com...etc a "fetus" can have brain activity as early as three months after contraception. That is SIX MONTHS before birth!
Should abortion be legal

The Roe V. Wade case of 1973 still remains. An embryo should not get rights until it is born. An embryo can't disagree with me because it is not a child at that stage. Listen, abortion is going to happen. If we make it illegal, women are going to find ways to do it. Ways that are more difficult. Ways that might end up hurting women themselves. Most doctors say they have at least one patient, or know about someone, who has tried to end their pregnancy by themselves. They try things like mixing malt with aspirin or nutmeg, stuff like that. Some crazy people even try to fall down stairs or punch themselves. I we make abortion illegal, in some cases, it would lead to not only the embryo dying but could put the mother in a bad condition a well. Abortion should be discouraged, but it needs to be an option for women when they don't have any others. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Should abortion be legal

I believe the child (embryo) would disagree. You just admitted that the embryo is a child and therefore is human. As a human it is guaranteed the right to live. If a woman can decide who lives and dies in one case,why not in another situation. Should the mother be able to make that decision later in the child's life...of course not! So why is it okay for the child to be killed when he/she is still in the mother's womb,but it isn't okay when the child is five? As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal(emphasis added)."I think that abortion shouldn't be an option at all.
Should abortion be legal

Who says an embryo gets rights? A child does not get rights until it is born. Instead of focusing so much on abortion we should instead focus in better methods of birth control for young teens to reduce the need for abortions. The decision to have an abortion is extremely private and difficult for most women and there is no place for law there. There are times such as rape, when women feel they need abortion. Sometimes the woman's life is at stake. The decision to have an abortion is much to personal for law to get involved. You can not put so many limitations on the rights of Americans. We need to put more emphasis on other options but abortion. Women can always discuss with their doctors to decide what they want to do. But abortion needs to be there to be a last option. Have you heard of the case Roe V. Wade in 1973? The Supreme Court decided that an embryo and a fetus do not have rights themselves. I know I am sounding pretty immoral right now, but abortion needs to be a last option
Should abortion be legal

Yes you are right in the sense of protecting rights,but if this religion you used as an example also required that the first born boy was used as a sacrifice that would naturally be illegal. Even though people have freedom in America there is a limitation. If the individual rights take away the rights of another person it is wrong. A good example is cannibalism (which still exists in some primitive cultures).Even though a cannibal has the freedom of religion it is not okay for them to eat someone in their religious ritual because it violates the rights of the person being eaten. In the same way the right for the baby as a human being to live overrides the right for the woman to do with her body what she pleases.
Should abortion be legal

Should abortion be legal? Thank you for posting this question, I actually had conversation about this subject with my sister. I also believe that abortion is morally wrong, yet we live in a country that secures too many freedoms to take away abortion. If we take away the freedom for a woman to have an abortion, anyone can make the argument to take away any other freedoms. What if someone's religion is that you must have a male be your first born (which it is in some cultures). If abortion is illegal than that would contradict the 1st amendment in the constitution saying that we must have freedom of religion. If we don't have freedom of religion than what was the purpose of the founding of this country. Most of the people left Europe to the United States for freedom of religion. As much as I think abortion is a morally wrong thing, I don't get a say to what people have a right and wrong to do. People have to have their freedoms and without abortion, some might not get religious freedom.
Should abortion be legal

I believe that abortion is morally wrong in ALL cases except if the life of the mother is in danger.I think that an embryo is a human being the moment egg is fertilized.Therefore according to the Declaration of Independence all human beings are entitled to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"( first paragraph).The reason that I believe that a child is human at the first stage of its life because it was created by human reproduction,The embryo contains human DNA the second the egg is fertilized and because it has the potential to become a fully grown human being.Also when a doctor performs an abortion he/she has broken the Hippocratic oath,because it says"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and NEVER do harm to ANYONE(emphasis added).""Hippocratic oath
The Apple Watch Is Better Than The Fitbit Surge

You never defined better, so I assume you are open to any definition for better. In this case, better can be anything, so in this case, lets assume that better means morer battery life, something that Fitbit Surge is definitely better than the Apple watch at. (Surge can last for 5 days without charge, Apple Watch lasts 18 hours) http://www.alphr.com...
The Apple Watch Is Better Than The Fitbit Surge

The Apple Watch is a new, very advanced Smart Watch, it has lots of features, and you can download apps. It can come in very handy and help with a lot of things, like Siri for example, text, call, fitness. The Fitbit Surge is only for fitness. The Apple Watch has everything the Surge has, and if not, you can just download an app to get the Surge things. The Apple Watch is better than the Fitbit Surge.
Atheism Requires Faith

Me too m8. Prof. Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and one of the world's most popular atheists) even said the wisdom may even be good! I've seen lots of atheist Buddhists too. There is some reincarnation stuff, but unlike other religions they say they aren't forced to believe those. I've read the teachings, they seem to be better than any self-help book out there. Just one example: Some people are sitting at a banquet. Their stomachs are growling, the hunger is painful. But they don't eat. The food is not stale in any way, so why don't they eat and stop the suffering? Because they don't connect that pain to be the urge to eat. We have all the things we need. The food is right there. You just have to realize you need to eat. This took me a few days to realize what it meant. You'll know.
Atheism Requires Faith

Hello. My opponent (Pro) will attempt to prove that atheism requires faith. I (Con) will attempt to refute my opponent's arguments and demonstrate that atheism does not require faith. Definitions Atheism: the lack of belief in god or gods Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something without the need for evidence Format 4 rounds No acceptance round, Pro may begin upon entry Time per round: up to 48 hours Characters per round: up to 10,000 characters Rules Opponent must have completed 3 debates to enter Serious debaters only please No forfeiture If there are questions, please write in the comments. Thanks!
Male circumcision is a blessing for mankind.

Bs'd You want me to do your research? It just doesn't work like that. So far you only come up with unsubstantiated claims. I bring sources to prove my point. And my sources say that for sex it makes no difference. Of course you might find people who regret it, just like you can find people who regret having won the lottery. And about Uganda, you think there are no human beings living in Uganda? Circumcision there has saved many millions of lives: November 18, 1999 http://www.ucsf.edu... A preliminary analysis by Halperin and Malcolm Potts, MD, PhD, Bixby Professor of Population and Family Planning at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, estimates that the practice of male circumcision has so far prevented at least 8 million HIV infections in the 15 African and Asian countries cited in the editorial review alone. http://www.who.int... Medical male circumcision for HIV prevention offers excellent value for money. Recent modelling studies found that reaching 80% coverage among men 15 - 49 years old in the priority countries " by performing approximately 20 million circumcisions - would cost US$1.5 billion and would result in net savings of US$16.5 billion by 2025 due to averted treatment and care costs. Achieving, and maintaining, 80% coverage through 2025 would avert 3.4 million new HIV infections. http://www.who.int... Compelling evidence for recommendations In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS issued recommendations on medical male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy based on strong and consistent scientific evidence. Three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda, and Orange Farm, South Africa have shown that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by approximately 60%. The most recent data from Uganda show that in the five years since the Uganda trial was completed, high effectiveness has been maintained among the men who were circumcised, with a 73% protective effect against HIV infection. And considering the fact that about 1 in every 3 Americans is running around with a STD, circumcision can also there make a big difference. https://www.lifesitenews.com... So circumcision has no drawbacks, only benefits. Big benefits.
Male circumcision is a blessing for mankind.

Heh. Right, only ONE person has ever said they regret their decision to be circumcised. If you did a little bit of research you'd see how plenty of men who got circumcised when they were older regret their decision. Also, I'm going to be completely honest, I stopped reading as soon as I saw Uganda. Are you really going to try and base your argument off Africa where disease is very common?