BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

Hi! Thanks for the response. I will begin by outlining why I think sexuality, both homosexual and heterosexual, can have some virtue, and I will invite the opponent to refute this in the case of homosexuality if he can. In the next round, I will refute his arguments. I imagine that you would probably agree that heterosexuality has some virtue. Even if we leave aside its reproductive functions, sexuality brings people together, makes them engage with each other on a deeper level, learn about each other, express affection, alleviate each other's loneliness, and grow and develop in all kinds of ways, and we can probably agree that these kinds of social bonds created and reinforced by sexuality can be beneficial both for the individuals involved and for others. Presumably, you would agree with this with regards to heterosexual coupling. In order to sustain your resolution, you would also refute these virtues could not be found within a homosexual relationship. You have not done this at all so far; you have simply listed a number of things which you find to be distasteful with regards to homosexuality. Even if you can sustain the arguments that some things about homosexuality are bad, it does not logically follow that homosexuality has no virtue. For example, I could mention some what you and many others would regard as non-virtuous aspects of hetrosexuality: promiscuity, spread of venereal disease, heartbreak, or even if we limited ourselves to monogamous married couples, which I suspect that you hold as the ideal, we could find non-virtuous aspects such as unhappy marriages, unsatisfying sex lives, and jealousy and so on. But that would not prove that a heterosexual relationship has no virtue. So with regards to sexuality of either or any type, I would assert that it is all the same: it has some vices and some virtue. So, in order for the for my opponent to sustain his resolution, he needs to completely refute the argument that I have put forth, namely that Homosexuality can have exactly the same or similar virtues as heterosexuality. Since my opponent has resolved that homosexuality has no virtue, it is not enough to establish the desirability of heterosexuality over homosexuality; he has to demonstrate that homosexuality is entirely devoid of virtue, and none of the arguments he has put forward have done this, since he has simply selected some aspects of homosexuality which he considers to be non-virtuous. If my opponent cannot refute the argument put forward in the previous paragraph, he forfeits the debate. At any rate, I look forward to refuting the opponent's weak arguments in the next round, as I believe them to based mostly on bald assertions, logical fallacies and prejudice. Okay, I think I have already refuted the opponents arguments. Over to you.
Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

Anybody is allowed! Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue. I am FOR this argument. *This is not a question that someone who is homosexual has no virtue. I think all have some virtue and lack virtue. The question is does homosexuality itself have virtue? . http://dictionary.reference.com...... The common definition of virtue is: Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness. Conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles. Chastity; virginity. A particular moral excellence. With good admirable quality. Rounds: 1. Accpetance 2. Arguements 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals/Conclusion Rules: 1. Debate must stay on topic. 2. All links and information for references must be provided. 3. All material must be in a respectful manner. I agree to these terms if my opponent does then GL to them
Best Super Smash Bros Character

I believe that Fox McCloud, leader of the Star Fox team, is one of the best characters in SSB. He is one of the fastest characters in the game (espiecially when he sprints) and also is one of the character that jumps the fastest(http://supersmashbros.wikia.com...(SSBB)) In this article, this paragraph explains some of his movesets: (note, this next paragraph is from the article, and dont be saying i plagiarised, because if you say the article it comes from, it's ok to do it) "Fox is a very light character who moves at very high speeds, clocking in as the third fastest runner and 2nd fastest walker in the game (with Marth being the fastest). Almost all of his attacks come off quickly and combine with each other. Fox's excellent speed is counterbalanced by the small and short reaching hitboxes in most of his attacks. This can complicate approaches, and his Blaster doesn't make up for that because it doesn't make opponents flinch. However, it is able to force approaches, unless the opponent has a lasting reflector, PSI Magnet, or low enough crouch to avoid it. " So basically, everything counterbalences one another to create one special character that I have loved since the first Star Fox game. This, also from the article (SmashWiki), tells some info about his speed: "Fox's most notable (and notorious) attribute is his quick falling speed in relation to the rest of the Brawl cast (much like Jigglypuff having the slowest falling speed in the game). His falling speed acceleration is the fastest, and his falling speed is the third fastest in the game, which is unusual for a character as light as he is. It has advantages and some hindrances, all of which must be known to make the best use of Fox. One advantage of such speed is that it makes him more difficult to hit in midair." Basically, Fox is a glass cannon. He can dish out some attack, but can't take much. But his speed and blaster both counterbalance the glass part, as it keeps people away from him to do any harm except projectiles (but he can easily dodge them with his speed, and with the Fox Illusion, he can speed right past somebody and hurt them at the same time!) There is a downside to the Fox Illusion though: if you accidently get thrown off a cliff by doing it, it wont let you jump back up... automatic death. (https://answers.yahoo.com...) This website has a person that says that Fox was the best person in Melee, but not the best in Brawl, which is Pikachu/Kirby. Even though he isn't the best in Brawl, he was the best in Melee. As you can see, Fox is a very superior character compared to others.
"Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment"

1: The death penalty will prevent murders from murdering again. Some will still break out and it costs a lot more money for a maximum security prison than for somebody in a grave.You state that people cannot break out of maximum security prisons. This costs money to put them in a maximum security prisons. You can either have a low cost or you can have prisoners breaking out. This is a lose-lose situation. My statement of 66% of people committing more crimes was for the people that break out. 2: You state that the cost of the death penalty in California is 4 billion dollars. This is an incredibly small amount of money for 35 years of the death penalty. Just look at this.(http://www.kpbs.org...) "More than 2600 juveniles are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 and if you calculate out the cost, using the 50-grand a year and then the 150-grand after they each reach the age of 55, you're going to be looking at $6.4 billion* to have those 2600 juveniles to serve out a life sentence in prison." For a mere 2,600 people It costs more than the death penalty has cost California in 35 years. The death penalty is far cheaper and this is easily proven by this fact. The guillotine will reduce costs and And to your court fees complaint i show you the 2,600 inmates costing more than the death penalty in California for 35 years. The death penalty is far cheaper. 3: Rebuttal to :: Accidental conviction is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread The outcome is the same no matter what. They get their lives taken away from them. Life without parole is what you are going for and the same thing will happen."we must also weigh the punishment that would be imposed." This is a debate about capital punishment and not sentencing of 10 to 20 years. If you are advocating this then look to my 66% marker. The positive is the money that we will not have to spend in prison. 4: "My opponent is correct that this problem affects poor people in every type of case." Like I said before Life in prison takes peoples lives away the same just at a higher cost. This case comes down to two main points. It comes down to cost and morals. The death penalty costs less as I have proven and the death penalty takes away peoples lives the same as life without parole. There is almost no difference. If my opponent states any statistics on cost that are not from a maximum security prison he must remember that the murders will break out and commit more crimes as per my first contention. The cost is not worth keeping them in a maximum security prison and any less of a prison and they can break free. I urge a pro vote.
"Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment"

I will be assuming by my opponents case that he is fighting for life in prison instead of death by guillotine. rebuttals 1:In my opponents argument 1 he states that the death penalty does not stop future people from committing murders. The death penalty is there to stop people who have killed from doing so again.(http://www.slate.com...) This says that 1 in 200 people in prison break out and are AWOL. My statistic earlier showed that 66% of people who get back out of prison commit serious crimes within 3 years. This is the point of the death penalty. We are trying to stop these people from killing again. 2: Remember that I am for death by guillotine and not using the current methods today. You are including this in your huge cost and this is why it is cheaper.$150,000 dollars per year for elderly people. This is not cheaper than the death penalty. This is even exaggerated more when I clearly stated that I would be going for death by guillotine and not by lethal injection or anything else like that. (http://www.phoenix.edu...) This is money that is coming straight out of hardworking taxpayers pockets. Once an inmate reaches the age of 55, you can basically calculate three times the cost. The cost is 50 thousand per year. The solution of life in prison will have far more negative effects than the death penalty.(http://www.kpbs.org...)"More than 2600 juveniles are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 and if you calculate out the cost, using the 50-grand a year and then the 150-grand after they each reach the age of 55, you're going to be looking at $6.4 billion* to have those 2600 juveniles to serve out a life sentence in prison." This is from a mere 2,600 inmates and they are costing us billions. This is not a cost efficient option at all. 3: They will still get life in prison anyway so this is not a problem to be debating in this debate but a problem with the judicial system. This is a problem that happens with every single punishment of the law. 4: This again is just a problem with the judicial system and not a problem with the death penalty. Poor people will still be subjected to life in prison, and the death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with this contention.This is a problem that happens with every single punishment of the law. Conclusion: The death penalty is a better option as we get rid of the killers chance to kill again and we save money in the process. The problems in the judicial system will happen no matter what and unless my opponent argues for no punishment of murders those two points are invalid.
"Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment"

I would like to state that I would be for the death penalty by way of guillotine in the death penalty laws that the United States have as of right now. 1: The exorbitant cost. The other option to killers is life in prison. (http://www.phoenix.edu...) The cost is just much and when they commit a crime causing the death penalty they are really messed up people. These are the people who go on killing spree's. We are not killing little miss perfect we are killing ruthless cold blooded killers who cannot help society as a whole. We cannot "fix" these people. We will be doing nobody any good if we let them live. 2: It saves lives. The people who get the death sentence have a 0% rate of crime afterwards."The report found that 67 percent of inmates released from state prisons in 1994 committed at least one serious new crime within three years." (http://www.patrickcrusade.org...)These people are going to get out and kill more people. The prison system is not working. 3: There are some people where there is no other punishment that fits. If a school is shot up and many people are killed there is nothing good that can become of the person that did it. In conclusion I would say we need to keep the death penalty.(sorry for the short points I am much better as a rebuttal debater)
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

My definition of white is the definition that everyone uses, no one considers i.e. black albinos to be white. Anyways, it does not really make a difference as albinos are discriminated and killed in africa due to their skin color. http://news.bbc.co.uk... You seem to think that racism is racism only against blacks. Bad news, racism can occur against everyone else. False premise: "blacks are not discriminated anymore, thus no one is being discriminated anymore" tell that to the 30 000 white women that are raped every year in America by blacks www.solargeneral.com/library/color-of-crime.pdf Now THAT is racism. Whites raping black women? zero percent now... why would terrorism increase? Terrorism is used as a method of warfare when a less powerful group is faced with an invasion that they cant resist by regular methods of warfare. Right now, the West is involved in a series of wars againt islamism in africa and asia. The western armies are obviously too powerful, so there is not way for the islamists to counterattack by traditional methods. Terrorism is the only option. Now, terrorism against our cities could be really difficult if they had no access to our territory, and could be limited to local attacks. But now, thanks to our open-borders liberal friends, we already have people from all over the world inside of our territory!! with no open borders, the terrorist attacks of WTC, London and Madrid could have been impossible things like the islamic riots in malmo and south france or the palestinian opened fire in fort hood could have never happened EVERY TIME WE ARE INVOLVED IN A MILITAR ACTION SOMEWHERE WE WILL BE FACING ETHNIC DISORDERS AND POSSIBLE TERRORISM now imagine the chaos that would start if we have a war with mexico or china, mexicans and chinese immigrants are far more numerous than muslims People are dying because of this policy. Thousands of lives are being destroyed. Yet you expect whites not to vote against it
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

I thank you for posting your next argument. ==================================== SIDE NOTE ==================================== Your resolution is ‘whites better start voting for prowhite parties.' You did not say anything about them having to be native European ancestry. You also did not leave a definition in your opening statement of what your version of white was. Therefore, I will continue arguing based off of the definition that I stated. ==================================== ARGUMENT ==================================== You claim that racism is growing larger than it use to be, hmm…. Well, this is not true. In the fifties, black women could not sit in the front seat of bus. Now, it is legal. In the sixties, a black man would not even want to sit near a white man. Now, most people have no problem with it. Yes, you can pick a few videos of black on white violence, but this does not mean anything! If there are ten people in a room, and one person jumps, does that mean everyone jumps? No. There is always going to be people fighting, but just because one Black man beats up a White man does not make all Black men evil. I could sit on youtube and find, White on Black, White on White, Black on Black, Hispanic on black, White on Hispanic, and so many other violence videos, but it would prove nothing. You have failed to explain exactly why terrorism and taxes would go up. You simply gave a list of crimes in certain countries. Did you know that all the things you said happen here to? Please explain more on how everything will happen. California did not go bankrupted simply because of immigrants; did you know that there are Whites on welfare? Also, the funny thing is that most of the people in government in California are indeed white! How come they did not fix it since they are so superior? No one can predict the future, therefore you can not truly say that we are going to be overtaxed, assaulted or killed in a terrorist attacks if blacks or any race other th
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

Your definition of race is too general. with whites I am referring exclusively to people of native european ancestry, skind color is not a requirement as shown by some southern italians, the wikipedia's definition of white http://en.wikipedia.org... ***Rather than a straightforward description of skin color, the term white also functions as a color terminology for race, often referring narrowly to people claiming ancestry exclusively from Europe*** "What is so bad about Whites becoming the minority?" Overtaxation, assaults and terrorism. You did not address my points about what has already happened in specific points that once had white majorities "America is moving on, and racists are getting left behind" America is moving towards ethnic identity politics. i.e. 92 % blacks voted for Obama, and a number of whites did so just because he was black. The number of recent racial attacks by blacks and mexicans prove you wrong. only "white racism" is being condemned http://www.youtube.com... http://www.rep-am.com... http://www.youtube.com... "if whites become the minority there would not be over taxation and terrorist attacks like you say" why not? it is already happening in the places I mentioned, why would it be different once we are a minority in the rest of oiur cities? "Most Prowhite parties are focused on making their race dominate instead of helping the people" please expand. You are just making that up without providing examples "Do you know why all those things that you listed happened?" because some dumb liberal thought it was a good idea to have open borders for muslims and everyone else "Do you think that if everyone in office is white then it will end Racism?" strawman "There are many blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other races that would see this and simply vote for their color because whites are doing it" they already do that. See Obama
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

=========================== DEFINTIONS =========================== Whites: Marked by slight pigmentation of the skin, as of many Caucasoids. [1] Minority: The smaller part or number. [2] Parties: A group of persons with common political opinions and purposes organized for gaining political influence and governmental control and for directing government policy. [3] ========================== ARGUMENT ========================== My argument will be small, since this is a five round debate. So what? It seems like a strange thing to say at the beginning of a debate, but….So what? What is so bad about Whites becoming the minority? America is moving on, and racists are getting left behind. To tell you the truth, if whites become the minority there would not be over taxation and terrorist attacks like you say. The very idea is quite amusing. In politics it is important to vote for those who you think are going to do something better for your country. It is time to leave racism behind; it's time to man up. Most Prowhite parties are focused on making their race dominate instead of helping the people. We do not need this right now, especially with the way America is these days. Racism is dying, the world is getting smarter. Do you know why all those things that you listed happened? Because of RASICIZM! Do you think that if everyone in office is white then it will end Racism? No, it will simply feed it. There are many blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other races that would see this and simply vote for their color because the whites are doing it. I await my opponent's response. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

white people all around the world better start voting now for prowhite parties like BNP, front national, Vlaams belang, etc, in europe, and, in america for paleoconservative candidates in the republican and constitution party why? because: 1) most, if not all other parties or candidate support open-borders that will make white people into minorities in all the countries that they established. The date for white minority in america is 2042, for most britain is 2100, Canada by 2060, other european countries have other dates, most of western europe before 2100 now, you would ask, how does it affect you if whites become a minority??? well, the answer is found in places in europe and america that once had white majorities but had lost it since then: Malmo, Sweden: Epidemic of gangrapes by muslim immigrants against women of nordic ethnicity. Antisemitic attacks and violence, constant riots Central Paris: Constant riots by african and arab gangs, burning of cars, generalized vandalism London: Wave of crime, racially charged assaults and gangbeating against whites, , groaming of white women, no-go areas for whites or other ethnic groups, terrorist attack by muslim extremists Caifornia: The state is bankrupted, having to support over 10 million illegal immigrants and their anchor babies, and millions of other nonwhites on welfare. Overtaxed whites are leaving the state so, unless you wanna be overtaxed, assaulted or killed in a terrorist attack, f you are white, you better start voting for prowhite parties, dont you think? *the tolerance of diversity is directly proportional to your distance from it* (note: the topic of this debate is not about how much race is about genetics or social constructs) sources: http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.liveleak.com...