BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The benefits of the Mongols and their empire outweighs the harms.

Well, sadly you forfeited the last round and thus, I suppose the debate has come to a screeching halt. I suppose I will take this last round to summarize my position on the debate as briefly as I possibly can for those of you who do not wish to read the debate at length.Why Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire Were Harmful Beyond ReconciliationReligion: They generated no additional religious benefits, and allowed a Islam to take on an extremely oppressive form in areas like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that continue to this very day.Feminism: They conferred no additional rights to women, and allowed Confucianism and Islam to take on extremely oppressive forms towards women.Trade: They crippled trade and the intellectual golden age of the East by conquering Baghdad. They destroyed one of the most economically advanced civilizations in history. Furthermore, they spread the bubonic plague across Eurasia and beyond, which racked up a death toll of 170, 000, 000 people. Worldwide Massacres: Not only did Genghis Khan ruthlessly and mercilessly kill over 40, 000, 000 people, he heavily influenced the military methods of mass slaughter in both Mao Zedong and Adolph Hitler (this is thoroughly proven through evidence and documentation from both leaders).Based on the influence and plague he carried, as well as his own exploits, we can rack up his figures to:Final Total Death Toll: 310 MILLION PEOPLE Hardly worth his maintenance of the status quo in administration and decimation of intellectual trade. **Note: I would also like the voters to call attention to the fact that not only did my opponent forfeit twice, but he also posted blatantly false information. Any voter who wishes to fact check can verify this.**Thank you for your time,Cheers!
There is no objective basis for morality.

I have shown how morality is objectively existent and I do not know how I can get Pro to accept this. The fact that hypocrisy is backwards to reality is made apparent by my arguments but even though this undeniable my opponent has labeled it as "subjective". Just as a double standard is not a working system, a society without regard to morality is not a working system. This means that some rules for acting civilized must exist. Whether they were created by God or exist along side the laws of physics, laws of economics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology, and laws of psychology is up for debate. However, it is very obvious that there is morality on a certain level of reality. This debate has been enjoyable and I am glad I participated in it, thank you to AGluttonousAscetic and to the voters of this debate.
There is no objective basis for morality.

Pro said, "if Con lived in ancient Rome were slavery was widespread and accepted (2), and Con owned slaves, and Con's neighbors owned slaves, then Con would conclude that, since we all live by the same moral standard, i.e. slavery is moral". This is both correct and not correct. It is correct in the sense that people would believe that slavery is moral in a society where it is accepted. However, it would not be moral, nonetheless. I apologize for this misunderstanding, I said, "If I live by the same moral standard that my neighbors lives by, there is an objective standard. Or at least, it is a more objective standard than would exist under a lack of morality or support of morality" as a supporting statement, not as a self-supporting statement. To clarify, there is a set of objective rules in which we live, and that is what real morality is based on. These rules are not subjective (like the ten commandments) but are facts that add up objectively. Something along the lines of "do not initiate force against some other individual as it would prevent him from living peacefully, and you would not want some other individual to initiate force against you as it would prevent you from living peacefully." This statement exists independently of anyone's personal convictions as it does not require interpretation: "any unwarranted action that infringes on another individual's ability to act independently" is sufficient. Actions as described above are immoral because they prevent another individual from living independently of the perpetrator. Morality is objective because being immoral does not make sense and does not work. Hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect because it would mean setting a double standard and therefore would mean violating itself twice. If you set a double standard (as you do if you do not follow a moral code) you are violating your own system. Therefore it is objective to act morally.
There is no objective basis for morality.

Before I continue, I must revise my statement, as Pro did not understand them: When I said that the only purpose to life is to enjoy life, and also to survive, I meant those as the same thing. "To survive, thrive, and preserve your ability to survive by raising your standard of living through the accumulation of wealth and thus the ability to enjoy life as well as passing on your DNA to future generations" would be a consolidated definition for the reason for being alive. My opponent obviously overlooked the fact that killing someone for self-defense is not murder and therefore does not violate laws of reason, and was confused by that. Let me clarify that it is objectively incorrect to kill someone for a purpose other than the prevention of that person killing you. This is because that would be hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is mathematically incorrect (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2 but 2 - 1 = 0?). If an action violates the laws of reason it is violating the human equivalent of the laws of physics. Not only does morality provide the safety of being a human being, it also is the only objective way to live. If I live by the statement "Since I do not want someone to kill me I had better take care and see to it that no one kills me but that does not mean that it is wrong for me to kill someone else." as Pro said, that would be subjective as it does not reflect reality, only someone's warped views of reality. Morality is a collection of ideas that allow people to live objectively! How could this be objectively incorrect? If I live by the same moral standard that my neighbors lives by, there is an objective standard. Or at least, it is a more objective standard than would exist under a lack of morality or support of morality. Pro also was confusing my arguments in favor of morality as swaying away from the real issue. I can assure you that I was not trying to change the debate's subject. I was only enforcing my argument in favor of morality's objective existence by proving it's worthiness as an idea, and it's ability to self-sustain and not rely on circular logic. I will not change the subject of this debate to a theist/atheist argument but I must point out that God represents all thing objectively true and universally correct and morality is definitely an idea that is supported by theism in general.
Any topic

Only 2% of the world speak Japanese, meaning that 98% of the world probably don't appreciate Japanese culture as much as the Japanese does. Anime broadcast and dubbed in Japanese are necessarily targeted more specifically to the Japanese audience.How many people who don't speak Japanese actually view subbed anime over dubbed anime? It is extremely likely that subbed anime fans who don't speak Japanese number significantly less than the Japanese themselves. In fact, when you look at the statistics here: http://en.wikipedia.org...;Only 1 million people in diaspora bother to learn Japanese as an additional language. These are one million non-native speakers who actually care about Japanese culture. Even if we consider non-Japanese speakers outside this diaspora who enjoy subbed anime, how many do they number? Sure the online community has given several polls in favor of subbed anime, but how many people actually do these polls? How many viewers are actually watch anime online versus watching dubbed anime on TV?Behold:http://www.escapistmagazine.com...;^250 prefer subbed, 157 prefer dubbed, 22 who dont care, but total number of pollers number less than 500.http://www.escapistmagazine.com...;^321 for subbed, 124 for dubbed, 35 who don't care, but total number of pollers again number less than 500.The anime community online is tiny. And only a fraction of this tiny fraction care about subbed anime. The subbed fanbase is only a majority online and it is a tiny part of an even tinier number of people.Compare that to the 57.1 million viewers in India alone who watch dubbed anime. In India alone, the total number of viewership for just one dubbed anime is about half the number of total Japanese speakers in the world.There is no contest here."I do understand why you bring up that newer anime fans would want it dubbed,"Old PointAnime's popularity can be attributed almost entirely to dubbed anime. There is simply no contest between dubbed and subbed here.New PointEven with subbed anime's being favored by an online majority, the online community is absolutely nothing compared to the dubbed-watching community.My opponent's only affirmative case is that subbed anime is easier for producers to make. There are much less producers than viewers. Producers probably number in the thousands at most. Viewers number in the billions.[1] As a quantitative impact, dubbed anime's portion of influence far outstrips that of subbed anime.[1] http://www.answers.com...;
Any topic

"Dream Theatre, the licensing agency for the series in India, has announced that the Hungama TV airings of Pokémon anime have been doing very well in India. The Pokémon anime debuted on Hungama TV with Pokémon: Indigo League in May of 2014 with a new Hindi dub cast. Since its premiere, the respective time-slot consistently ranked on top among all kids and younger boys. The channel also observed an increase of 15% in total viewership. Furthermore, the anime has been getting an average audience of 57.1 million viewers, 24.2 million of which are children."[1]Here is an example of dub being responsible for an anime's wild popularity in non-Japanese environs.It is true that the statistic I provided in my last round gave figures on the video game specifically, but it doesn't negate the fact that Pokemon as a franchise, both anime and game, is doing very well because of its global marketability. Dubbing is the reason anime even got to where it is today, and without dubs, wildly popular anime like dragon ball Z and Pokemon would not have as much viewership as it currently does.Again, people may prefer sub as their time as a fan/member of anime culture increases, but dub is the way anime is first introduced to the non-Japanese. Without dubs, there wouldn't even be the demand for anime or subbed anime for that matter.It's easier to sub: true, but without the non-Japanese demand for anime created by dubs, which you've implicitly conceded, there would be no demand for subbed anime and thus subbed anime would not even be significant." anime is commonly subbed by the animation company themselves, and is broadcasted IN JAPAN subbed"The fact remains that a) only 2% of the world speaks japaneseandb) Even less than that 2% actually live in Japan.So what if it's easier to produce and sub in Japan? If anime like Pokemon or Yugioh were never dubbed, we would not have an anime culture for producers to live off of anyway. Easier to produce? Sure. But profitability, marketability and popularity would not be anywhere near where it is today. Dub has had a much greater significance and influence to anime culture than sub ever had and will ever have. Any success of subbed animes among non-japanese speakers must be attributed to the dubbed anime's indoctrinative effects which are responsible for the creating of the non-Japanese anime community.[1] http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net...;
Any topic

I'll start of by saying that, as you said RIGHT THERE in your argument, Pokemon isn't just an Anime franchise, but a game franchise as well. When anime is dubbed, it has to be sold to a company, and that company has to spend upwards of 6 months to create the dubbed version. On the other hand, anime is commonly subbed by the animation company themselves, and is broadcasted IN JAPAN subbed. Subbed anime is also easier to fan produce, so when someone makes an anime and it isn't given a subtitled version, it can easily be subbed by fans. Plus, fansubs of animes can barely ever be messed up, if at all. The worst they can do is use a crap translator or use Comic Sans. On the other hand, most fan subs include quiet voices using quiet microphones they got for 2 quid.
Any topic

Dubbed Anime includes much more than just Anime dubbed into English. English dub is one language dub, but it doesn't constitute all dubs. My arguments will be based on this fact. There are a total of 123 million people who speak japanese, that's less than 2% of the world population. [1]Dubbing is necessary to spreading anime to those who don't understand or appreciate Japanese culture. Personally, I prefer subbed anime, but I was introduced to anime via Mandarin dub beforehand. I would not have joined anime-culture if these dubs did not exist. While Subbed Anime is better for longtime viewers, Dubbed anime is better for indoctrination. Since 98% of the world does not speak japanese, this indoctrination is very important to gaining audiences. Anime culture would not be what it is today without the indoctrinative dubs. Pokemon is one such example of a massive dub-project which has netted millions of Pokemon fans. "Pokémon is a media franchise owned by Nintendo and created around 1995. It is the second best selling game franchises and as of April 2008, the series has reached more than 260 million copies. "[2][1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] . http://vgsales.wikia.com...;
Any topic

Bring it on. No making me argue against truisms, otherwise, anything will do. Bring it on. You are not allowed to troll. If I decide that my opponent is trolling, I reserve the right to call it out and request the debate be considered a full 7 point forfeiture by PRO. My opponent agrees to these terms. Whether or not my judgment is correct will be decided fairly and objectively by the judges who decide to vote on this debate.Bring it.Present your case and definitions R1 and leave your last round emptyBring it on. >:)
Jueteng should be eradicated rather than legalized(Philippines)

I'm hoping that i presented this right(me new here). .. Jueteng as we know it is a game of luck and chance (and maybe probability to some nerds…) thus it is a form of gambling. The Philippines already has lottery and the last thing it needs is more games- Legalizing Jueteng promotes a culture of gambling. As a Christian country, it should be mentioned that the majority of the people living in it would question the moral choice made- but before we debate whether it is moral or not, it will be ignored unless deemed significant, but economically speaking, it wouldn't matter if it is moral or otherwise because in the end, it would depend on the administration on how they use that game as an advantage(right now, it is filled with corruption and legalizing Jueteng would only add more corruption- some people may resist temptation but why take the chance when prevention is better than cure? ). For quite a while now, a lot of politicians and other powerful figures had used illegal gambling(Jueteng in particular) as funds for vote buying, and also funding other games (ex: Small town lottery)*. Now, if ever Jueteng was legalized, therefore regulated and taxed, Philippines, as a third world country, consists of mostly poor people who lacks the time and resources to painstakingly investigate if the money was actually used for good. The money collected by the taxed game will most likely be used in corruption- this is in assumption until proven otherwise. More often than not, it is the politicians, who rely on gambling as a source for funds and are out in an attempt to clear their name, would be the ones to supervise/regulate it. As one who relies on a game of chance/luck, it reflects poorly on the credibility of our representatives that promotes gambling (imagine a person running a country, making choices by rolling a dice…). And if the nation is concerned about its money(something I agree must be done), there are a lot of other alternatives: instead of using it in a win/lose game, why not save it in the bank for the mean time- it worked for Japan's advancement in the 1970's; more money in the bank, more money to borrow to start businesses and projects** But even though this has negative effects at present, it helped a lot in the progress of Japan. This is not a flawless solution but it is a step towards the better. Jueteng could indeed bring more money to the government but instead of it helping the country, it will only help the corrupt to get more power and resources to feed their personal interests. -------------------- * . http://newsinfo.inquirer.net... Some words are in Filipino but it is easy to understand using google translate ** . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jueteng should be eradicated rather than legalized(Philippines)

Since he has not laid down any arguments, I'll wait for Round 2 to make mine. Just some quick definitions. Jueteng: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Eradicated: To remove or destroy utterly; extirpate [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Legalized: To make legal; authorize. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] I presume by the title of the resolution that my opponent must argue that Jueteng ought to be completley eradicated and no aspect of it should be legalised, and I the opposite. I await my opponents arguments.
Most people on antidepressants are being duped

I think other person on the link you had in comments said everything I would say. I have the burden of proof in regards to proving that there is a single, rational, benefit to taking them. My opponent has to anti BOP meaning that she has to counter ALL my points so that even if there is a SINGLE benefit she has not disproved by round 5, I will win. The reasoning behind this dynamic is her definition of being duped means that people taking antidepressants (for the obvious purpose of being less depressed) would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off. I would like us to stick to people who stick to prescribed doses and not people who overdose or under-dose since they are not qualifying as test subjects as they have not obeyed rules of the test. I accept.
Most people on antidepressants are being duped

I started this debate before, but got LatentDebater who was banned, so we couldn't finish. I really want to do this debate, so I'm putting it up again. I'll put the link to the other debate in the comments so you can see the arguments I'll probably start with (but may not. It depends). In the suburb where I live, I've noticed that being on antidepressants is almost as common as not being on them. People are on them and long term and I have SO MANY issues with this. By "being duped" I mean that they would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off. antidepressants: SSRIs, SNRIs. Of course, if you want, you can try to include other drugs, but they have to be proper antidepressants meaning drugs that doctors would be likely to prescribe for depression. Rounds 1. acceptance 2-3 arguments and rebuttals 4 conclusion no new arguments. 5000 characters per round.
Glimbozonous

I have invented my own peculiar religion: Glimbozonous. I call it that for no reason.Con has to say why my religion would not work.(If such a religion really exists, please tell me and I can convert to that belief)I believe....approximately 15 billion years ago...there was nothing. Nothing at all. But as the environment cannot be forever like this, based on the quantum mechanics that "if something can happen, no matter how unlikely the chances are, it is bound to happen sometime." So, something happened, something of such a small chance of happening that it took a billion years for it to happen--energy was somehow created from "nothing." (However, this does not go against the law of physics, because nothing happened for one billion years, and because so much potential energy is stored in one placed, it formed a huge ball of energy, which I call "glimbo energy".) This energy is not normal--it has a sense of consciousness within it. It took the shape and form of what Christians know as "God". Because of its consciousness it created earth, (basic) life, and etc. etc. in merely six planck time similar to how god created earth in six days.However, because each reaction has an equal reaction, this glimbo energy lost its consciousness, and became pure energy.A billion years passed, and the pure energy became very very massive within a condensed space, and because such, it collapsed upon itself and created....THE BIG BANG.Thank you, thank you. I think my belief makes sense because of quantum mechanics, and evidence of the big bang. I believe "god" did create earth, but only in six planck time, and he lost his sentience in the process of spending so much energy, and after a billion years of attempting to get his consciousness back, he (now an "it") failed, collasping on himself, creating the big bang, explaining both the Christians' belief and the Athiests' belief.Congrats to myself. Now the two religions no longer have to argue over who is correct.(You could point out "well why didn't it just collaspe on itself and Big Bang?" Well, I point out our Earth is the only "Earth-like" planet in hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions of light years. I wanted to ensure the planet's safety.Earth is protected from the massive explsoion because a tiny part of the sentience of "God" remains on earth. But it got destroyed within the big bang, explaining why God is so cruel, letting the population die without helping us or answering our prayers, AND explaining the Big Bang.)Good luck countering my belief!
Glimbozonous

This debate is annoying. BTW I'm 15.I didn't say god was infinite. I basically said "in Christianity, God has inifite power".Why do people follow god?They want something to believe in, and my religion has yet to be widespread. Try asking your Christian friends if they would support this religion that puts Christianity and science together.How ridiculous is "God destroyed himself"--God doesn't want life to be all depending on him, and he collapsed upon himslef after spending too much consciousness and energy creating earth. Hey, Christians didn't explain how God created the other septillion planets in the Bible, so I explain it.I'm sorry for not having enough evidence. I still believe in Glimbozonous. I just like respecting all the best religions that make sense at the same time. If con wins, I bow to him. Even though this was probably the hardest and most frustrating debate I have yet to participate in, I still thank con for taking so much effort into his first debate.
Glimbozonous

I understand that you are getting frustrated, and I greatly apologize, but that was too absurd to reply to, and I would like to know your age. I would love to continue this debate with you, so If you will reread your last debate, you will find that you said God is infinite. Then you said God is not infinite. Let's ask this question. If God is not real, why do so many people follow him? We are called Christians because we understand that we will never understand God. He can do anything, even create a world logically so that the ignorant, tiny humans he has made can attempt to pull what HE has made and try to make it into something else, like Glimbozonous. I am terribly sorry that you cannot fathom the God that created you. You say that infinity cannot be calculated. God cannot be calculated either. God said, "let there be light." there's your "Big Bang" right there. God created it. It is impossible to understand who or what God is, and you are incapable of understanding Him, just like I am. That is why you have created "Glimbozonous". You say God destroyed Himself? Do you understand how ridiculous that is? You have contradicted the things you've said multiple times. Please gather what you are trying to say and then debate with me further. Thank you :)