BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men are better than women.

I want to stress that this is a purely scientific discourse that will address the apparent differences in the male and female sex of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. This is not a sexist discussion. We are all human beings thus all equal. However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race. We are still creatures of nature. We are not necessarily buillt to be able to do the exact same thing! Having a baby is something spectacular. A man can't have a baby even if he wants to. I in no way believe that women are not moral equals to us. I am not saying that women are not entitled to the same rights and opportunity as men. I just want to make this clear. I plan to give a logical and well thought out argument based on scientific and historical reasoning as to why I make this claim. I am not a sexist. I am merely looking at things from a purely rational aspect. My opponent is welcome to make what ever comments they choose and even open with an argument if they so choose in the acceptance round. Burden of proof lies on me to assert said claim. Best of luck to my opponent and thank you for joining us. Being that this is a rather sensitive topic, as a request to my opponent and reader I ask you to consider that attempting to negate the validity of scientific research and facts with arguments based on nothing but feelings and the opponent's supposed interpretation of reality, is not a particularly sound argument. I look forward to this debate and hope we will be able to carry it out in a respectful, civil, and well thought out manner.
Conservative/liberal Christianity is unbiblical

There I have convinced you that Conservative/liberal Christianity is unbiblical. Also people back then had believes but was represented with religion. Politicos were for the Romans and High Priests. You I assume are a liberal or somewhat on the left side of things. I do not know if you are a hardcore Humanitarian or Authoritarian Liberal. But as long as you agree with the left and if you reside in America will vote Democrat until a better left-wing gets a hold to hopefully extricate the Elephants and Tea party people. I wrote about a 12 page short Magazine draft of Why Donkeys are better than Elephants. It is short read for a beginner and whip some cool facts and they flip out. Fun read.
Conservative/liberal Christianity is unbiblical

America is not chosen by God, no real evidence supports that The Bible is historical and scientific but the book of Mormon. The problem is with Mormons they have prophets after Jesus. Jesus warned of all future prophets. Prophets have the ability to speak with God from thought. example: Muhammad, 1 Joseph Smith 1830-1844 2 Brigham Young 1844-1877 3 John Taylor 1877-1887 4 Wilford Woodruff 1887-1898 5 Lorenzo Snow 1898-1901 6 Joseph F. Smith 1901-1918 7 Heber J. Grant 1918-1945 8 George Albert Smith 1945-1951 9 David O. McKay 1951-1970 10 Joseph Fielding Smith 1970-1972 11 Harold B. Lee 1972-1973 12 Spencer W. Kimball 1973-1985 13 Ezra Taft Benson 1985-1994 14 Howard W. Hunter 1994-1995 15 Gordon B. Hinckley 1995-2008 16 Thomas S. Monson 2008-Present These are supposed men to have communication with God? Conservatives are wrong on many things, the ideology is pure greed and Old Testament. I am thee biggest liberal you'd ever come across. Very much I lay just under the humanitarian Liberal, but close to Authoritarian as well. Very towards the left on all issues basically. How ever devout is a loose word today but I have great fundamentals, and amazing speaking skills, I am dyslexic so I type awful. I accept the Bible as The truth but from all different perspectives. All the four = 100% true and there so close but so different it seems as though they all saw but from different angles. Luke was a traveling muckraker and picked hue from he huge story of Jesus. After he was told he believed and thought he might write down the most amazing story in Modern human history. So his must be thee lest reliable because he never met Him, Jesus, he came much after ascended. Mark is the most, wrote quickest, while Mark never met Jesus, Peter did. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to Heaven. And he died upside down for a Church. The catholic church truly is the true church. But was corrupted later much later after Peter. When Romans adopted Christianity they should of done much better. I accept all Old Testament as well. But God said Gays were an abomination. Yes, to the Jews, so not every one would choose not reproduce and not create life for the tribes. Bad = Homo. Then with Jesus you love everyone like yourself and if you believe and learn you can enter the kingdom. Good = Homo. Back to you!
Conservative/liberal Christianity is unbiblical

I will begin with an opening argument From my experience, many conservatives claim thatAmerica is a Christian nation when in reality, no sufficient evidence to be supplemented.they also claim that America is chosen by God, when it was in fact Israel who was God's chosen nation. conservative ideals support things such as anti abortion, antislavery, gun rights, anti gay marriage, and many other things. The problem is that these things are not supported by Scripture. God did not command us to engage in politics and to change our political system, but preach the gospel to every living creature. there's also a lot of emphasis on dress and music when it's not scriptural. while yes the Bible commands us to dress modestly, some take this overboard. neither are we to be too liberal with the Bible as some Christians reject miracles, claim homosexuality is not a sin, deny Jesus resurrection, etc. to do that is to simply deny God's work in the world.
I would beat your up

< > It means you're a liar, i.e., someone who doesn't tell the truth. A liar can never be trusted so anything you say can not be handled accountable. < > Actually, my profile only goes down to my city which has hundreds of thousands of people living in it. I seriously doubt you could find me in it. < > Not just that but the fact that I found them using generic search terms any person could type in looking for an easy picture of a "private jet" and the fact that they're different planes does prove it. <> I would like to turn attention to the word "could". No one says "It could be me" they say "That's me". Once again, you are a liar who can't be trusted and not only that, it's impossible to keep that much muscle mass at the age of 99 or if you're a woman. < > A. Not your picture B. You don't know how big I am <> A. You don't know where I live B. Even if you did, I'd either not be alone or have the doors locked <> I don't have enough space on my schedule to do debate. By that definition, you are also a nerd, as you are debating me right now. So if I can't be that big, by your logic, than you can't be that big. ::CONCLUSION:: My opponent bases his claim of a bunch of "ifs" that I have proven he can't accomplish. He has continually lied and I have given plenty of circumstantial evidence to prove that he is wrong. P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't post a link for the woman's muscle mass fact. My internet is messed up right now and I don't even know how I'm on this website right now. I'll post my link in the comment section later for those of you who are interested. Thank you for a great debate.
I would beat your up

Point 1: Putting misleading information on my profile does not mean I am a perpetual lier, it just means that I don't want people to know my information. B. I will be able to look you up very easily, since your name is on your profile, I look at your name, location, and it is very easy to find you. Just because it's on the front page on Google images, does not mean they are not mine. Again that could be me, and I am not 99. It doesn't matter how much you work out, I would still beat you, if you simply look at the picture of me. I wouldn't go to your school to beat you up, I would go to your house, and it would be a surprise. Also your probably do debate, and many debaters are nerds.
I would beat your up

<<1. The resolution says I will beat you up, so this assumes the fact that we are face to face. >> Agreed. <<2. I am extremely rich, I will go to you on my private jet, and fly to where you live, look you up on the internet, and go to your house and affirm the resolution. Here is a picture of my private jet. . http://www.blavish.com...; This statement relies on the fact that you: A. Truthful You said,"Well many people put false information of their profile, which I did. ", so it is obvious that you are not truthful. This means that anything you say cannot be held as true unless proven so. B. Able to find me on the internet Go ahead and look for me on the internet, you will not find me. You may know my city but there are hundreds of thousands of people living in this city and you will not be able to find my specific address. If you can't find me, you can't beat me up. You also claim that this link, . http://www.blavish.com......, is your private jet. I find this extremely unlikely because: A. It is the first picture to come up on google images when you type in "private jet" (. http://images.google.com...) B. The interior of "your jet" is the fourth picture to come up on google images when you type in "private jet" (. http://images.google.com...) If you look even closer you realize that the two pictures are of two different jets. Also, the pictures are of private jets which can be rented out from two differen companies at two different prices. 3. Once again, we cannot tell if you're telling the truth. Not only is that women obviously not 99, she is also a man judging by the bulge in the bikini. All you did this time was go on google and type "buff women" and choose the second result. (. http://images.google.com...) < > That picture was taken almost 2 years ago and I have grown much then and worked out a lot. I am not the same person and so I am sure I would adequately be able to defend myself. 4. This is just proof that you are a liar. <> How do you know they are no match for you? I have many friends, and we could easily overwhelm you. Many of them are in sports as well. Not to mention the fact that there's teachers, janitors, and adults around everywhere in my life. To top it off police officers patrol my school and there's only one way in which is guarded by a police officer which won't allow you access unless you're a parent or school employee. 5. Look to point 4. 6. You did not refute this point and so you concede it. ::CONCLUSION:: My opponent bases everything off pictures from google which mysteriously come up on the front page when generic terms are typed in. He didn't even take care to check that the two planes were the same one which he claims is his and he also calls himself a liar. He cannot find me and even if he did he couldn't hurt me because of the support of the masses around me. I await your response.
I would beat your up

Con's points 1. The resolution says I will beat you up, so this assumes the fact that we are face to face. 2. I am extremely rich, I will go to you on my private jet, and fly to where you live, look you up on the internet, and go to your house and affirm the resolution. Here is a picture of my private jet. . http://www.blavish.com... Here is a picture of the inside. . http://universeofluxury.com... 3. My opponent assumes that I would not be able to physically harm him, that is a laugh. I drink 5 protein shakes a day, and I lift also. Here is a picture of me. . http://www.yousaytoo.com... Here is a picture of my opponent. . http://www.debate.org... If you look at my opponent, he is much smaller, and I would be able to affirm the resolution. 4. My opponent states that I am 99, and would nt be able to fight. Well many people put false information of their profile, which I did. If you look at logical master's profile, it says he is 100 years old. I highly doubt he is 100. As I said I have a private jet, I would get to you. Also who would help you? Teenagers? That's no match for me. 5. Look to my attack on point 4.
I would beat your up

My opponent claims that "I would be able to beat you [me] up." I assume by taking this debate that you mean to physically beat me up. If not, please specify how you could beat me up in the next round and do not count this round against me. beat up- to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) For this to happen, a couple of requirements must be met: 1. She must know where to find me. If she does not know where I am, she can't beat me up. 2. She must be able to get to me. If she knows where I am, but can't physically reach me, she cannot beat me up. As my opponent lives in Venezuela, not only would it be hard for her to find me, but it is also unlikely that she could get to me. 3. She must be able to physically harm me. If she is not physically strong or mobile enough to harm me, then she can not beat me up. 4. She must be able to get past any defenses of mine to harm me. Defenses can range from anything from my own ability to fight back, to people around me who would help me out, or to our widely spread out geographic locations that would make it hard for her to reach me. Since she is a 99 year-old female there is no way she would have the physically strength and mobility to beat me up. 5. She must be able to continually harm me, not a one-shot sucker-punch. If all the first 4 requirements are met she still must be able to continually beat me down. It can't be a one-shot thing and she must have the stamina to make the beating last. It is unlikely she does as, once again, she is a 99 year-old woman from Venezuela. 6. She has to be able to catch me. I could simply choose to run away at the sight of her and avoid being in physical contact with her. I await my opponent's response.
Modern Pop Music is Inferior to Classic Music

I see you have decided to forfeit your round, therefore instead of refuting your arguments I will simply move on to my second argument. My second argument is about the sound appeal of music. 30 or more years ago big band instruments like trumpets and saxophones were often incorporated into music. Some songs featured full orchestras, or even cow bells and church organs. On top of all this 4 part harmonies are often incorporated. These days you"ll be lucky if you can find a 2 part harmony. The simplistic nature and similarity of today"s music has been a big disappointment to those of us that have been exposed to music from earlier eras. In fact, only 6 different chord patterns can be found in the list of top most listened to songs in America today. Older music has more diversity, so it naturally gains more appeal. There is actually scientific proof to back this up. When a person listens to music, a chemical reaction called the Dopamine reaction occurs, releasing "feel good" chemicals into our brain. Studies show that the simplicity and predictability of pop music actually reduces the amount of these chemicals that are released.
Modern Pop Music is Inferior to Classic Music

"I try not to turn on the radio often, but when I do I feel very sad for humanity, my future children, and the soul, or, the lack thereof, of the music industry." ~Jordan Taylor Modern pop music cannot be an improvement upon older music because pop music is a stretch of the definition of music. Music is defined in the dictionary as vocal and instrument sounds combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion. So how can a collection of sounds lacking real instruments, harmony, true emotion, and any beauty at all be defined as real music? So here I use the term "music" very broadly. Just because they are two different genres of music does not mean one can not be superior to the other. When you place the two types of music side by side, comparisons and conclusions can be made. In this debate I will prove that modern pop music is inferior to classic music using two main categories- sound appeal and lyrics.
Solarman1969 should be removed from Debate.org

Well Solarman, I see I'm once again marked a Stalinist, which again, proves my point. But I again see that your only implied definition of a Stalinist seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. Here's the thing: so what if I am? What difference does that make to the argument at hand? Does this further make any intelligent point as to whether or not I am right or wrong? Absolutely not. This is my main point: Attacking the person does not add to the topic on hand. It is unnecessary, unneeded, and unwanted. There should never be any reason for a person's own integrity to come into question just because the topic is disagreeable to another individual. It does not matter who the person is that is saying it, all that matters is what they say. No one personally needs to be beat down simply for who they are. Similar acts: slavery, the Holocaust, KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, War, Terrorism, and generally all things that are bad simply because the people could not look beyond their own ignorance and felt that persecution was the answer. Ladies and Gentlemen, and especially Solarman1969, this is not the answer and never has been and that is exactly why this site set up the rules that it did. It is not a style to call people names it is pure hate. I does not amount to anything other than hurt. One is not a great antagonist for causing pain, but merely for opposing someone. This is the fundamentals of a good debate! Prove your point better, in a logical, knowledgeable, well thought out way. Does saying I'm a "marxist" prove that my debate topic is automatically wrong simply because of who I may or may not be? One does not deserve fame for these things! Name calling is not a strategy! It is simple unquestionable ignorance! This is a place of peaceful argument not fighting, and yes, there is a very distinct and clear difference between the two. I will make this perfectly clear: I DO NOT WANT SOLARMAN'S VOICE TO BE EXTINQUISHED. I ONLY WANT HIM TO STOP THE SLANDER OF THE RESPECTABLE MEMBER'S OF THIS SITE. Absolutely no one deserves to be mistreated by any single person on this site, and I fully acknowledge this is a direct hypocrisy to my entire point. I apologize to you Solarman, if I have indeed insulted you in any way, but I truly do not mean it. I have tried many a time and asked you to please stop harassing people, and yet you continued to do so. I felt the only way that I might be able to make you understand is to call you out on it. This is a simple request: STOP ATTACKING PEOPLE, RATHER ATTACK THE POINTS. That is all I have to say. I beg the readers forgiveness for the entirety of this "debate". It was a fool's errand. The outcome of the voting matter's not to me. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Solarman1969 should be removed from Debate.org

I think you should be banned! !!!! (/ hysteria) I think that you are afraid of free speech, despite all your lofty rhetoric Name a debate topic , other than this inane of from you, and I will be happy to debate you I need not defend myself to you or anyone else And plain and simple, if you want speech you disagree with ended, you are a stalinist. that is all the bandwidth I am devoting to this subject goodbye
Solarman1969 should be removed from Debate.org

All I have to do is say one thing You are a stalinist and afraid of the truth grow up you are just like the liberals who want Conservative talk radio shut down by fiat becuase you cant argue facts or history or science, and you are completely wrong on every single issue and liberals are complete failures on radio- theyre BORING! so whats your solution, darth ? SHUT DOWN THE OPPOSITION this is called STALINISM, and you are one, if youre really trying to shut me down. You are probably just joking. I will whoop your little 18 year old butt on ANY TOPIC- pick one- as you can see I have already had over 30 debates on a number of topics, and have commented on over 100. you probably would have been happy to stuff the Jews in the ovens 60 years ago- those troublemaking Jews! I love how you liberals are always trying to paint conservatives as nazis- nothing could be further from the truth- they were SOCIALISTS, much akin to the modern democrat party, the party of slavery. I cut my teeth with fools like you at Berkeley when I was 18, where loudmouth cocky Stalinists like yourself and the other little girl on this site, who tries the same tactics, would try everything under the sun to try and shut down my point of view, caling me every name under the sun RACIST! SEXIST ! HOMOMPHOBE ! WARMONGER! NAZI! Guess what ? I prevailed every single time the leftist mobs tried to take me on, and have me removed from , to stop whoever was trying to excercise FREE SPEECH (which to liberals means only speech they agree with) Why? becuase liberals have NO IDEAS, NO LOGIC, NO INTELLECT and NO CONDFIENCE in what they were saying , they only have the MOB MENTALITY, which is WEAK Thus , I always defeated them, and made it possible fo conservtives like Ayn Rand and others to speak on Campus Your ilk are the ones on campii now shutting down conservatives like Horowitz, and Coulter and Savage and Hannity when they come to talk What are you afraid of? Simple You are afraid of someone challenging your anti-US. anti-family anti-religion anti-business anti-caplitaist anti-freedom anti-military pro-communist viewpoint have a nice day solarman
Solarman1969 should be removed from Debate.org

Well Solarman, you challenged me to debate you, and here I am. Defend yourself, oh mighty knowledgeable, unquestionable elder. Solarman1969 should be removed from this site. I will first clarify that I am not saying this our of contradiction to his opinions, as I do respect them. we have a 52.63% disagreement ratio, which means we agree on something. No, rather my "beef" is the presentation of his topics. His purposes for being on this site do not seem to be to inspire change, add to the public knowledge, or better the world, though I'm sure he'll contest. It seems from the debates of his I've read (yes, all of them, in full, including comments) which can be found here: http://www.debate.org... , that he does have potentially good topics, including hydrogen fuel and man made global climate change. However, all are ruined by his undeniable rudeness, calling people, and I quote: shmucks, Stalinist's, liberals (derogatorily), fools, morons, evil, dummies, and losers to only name a few. This is a direct violation of debate.orgs statues which were clearly set up when everyone signed up for this site as to hopefully avoid this infantile behavior. Another peevish move this man makes is to constantly criticize the intellects of the youth, liberals, and democrats of this site, simply because he is old, conservative, and most likely Republican, though his site says "Marijuana Party". This is the modern era, the 21st century, and people do not deserve to be treated like gum on the bottom of your sneakers. If age has taught you anything, it should be that there is way to much hatred and persecution in this world for more to sprout from someone who had to live through it. Yes, perhaps young people aren't as well versed in many area's as those who have lived longer had, however this is not a basis to belittle the minds of those individuals. I am 18 years old, legally an adult. I can go to prison, I can vote, and I can now get a drivers licence in some states. I know full well what I am talking about. Your behavior proves many times, more so than not, to be more childish and juvenile than those who were born at a later date than you. I will not touch on your direct debates, as they are all as legitimate as mine, a neo-nazi's, a buddhists, or a 6 year olds. You do try to make a point, I will say that right now, but the mannerism in which you do is disgraceful. Read your past posts and try to prove me wrong. I challenge all readers of this to not vote on who you liked the most but which point was better made. If Solarman best's me, as I'm sure he thinks he will, vote for him. If you do agree he should be thrown out, then go to his page and "Report Him". As your so fond of saying cheers.