BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

okay. basically homosexuals are those we call as "gays, lesbians, etc" in the other hand, marriage is a sacred sacrament that needs to be respected. if we would allow this homosexuals to marry, we would actually deprive the culture of the society with which, they are used to men-women marriages. with the given explanations. i believe that it's best set in the Philippines since homosexual marriages here are not yet allowed
Taiwan Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

Devaluing the UNTaiwan is democratic nation which has a much better human rights record than most members of the United Nations. When Taiwan is dismissed as a rouge state by the UN it devalues the credibility of the UN.Standing Up to ChinaFrom my understanding the main reason why Taiwan is no longer recognised by the UN is because China (and to a lesser extent Japan) claims sovereignty over Taiwan. If Taiwan was given UN membership this would show China that it cannot always get its way diplomatically and might stop China throwing its weight around.FinanceTaiwan is the worlds 18th biggest economy (GDP not PPP) in because of this it is highly important for international trade. It is ridicules that a nation which has such a powerful and important economy should be excluded from talks which will ultimately effect Taiwan and its people.
Taiwan Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

Definition: Taiwan: The Isles of Formosa, Penghu, Xiyu, Baisha, Qimei, Wang'an, Kinmen, Lieyu, Dadan, Erdan, Nangan, Beigan, Dongyin, Xiyin, Dongju, Xiju, Daqiu, Xiaoqiu, Taiping Island, Pratas Island, North Vereker Bank and South Vereker Bank. (Here's a map . http://myriad234.files.wordpress.com...)
Mushrooms are not plants.

Oh, right. I shouldn't have used the term "Vegetable". Vegetables are a term invented by man. There is no such thing. Everything produced by a plant is a fruit, because it has seeds in it. The difference between vegetables and fruits is that vegetables aren't sweet and fruits are. But everything is a fruit. It has a seed, it helps to preserve its species. I just meant that mushrooms are generally considered to be "vegetables," even though they can't be since they aren't even a plant. You said earlier that mushrooms are a thing that "grows in gardens." They cannot. They must be grown in a plastic bag filled up with dirt and which has a lot of mycelium in it. Otherwise, mushrooms can only be grown naturally. Thus, they are not even a thing which can be grown in a garden. This is how it works: Plants: Fungi: Vegetables (really fruits), Fruits Mushrooms They aren't related at all. I await your next argument.
Mushrooms are not plants.

Mushrooms are not plants. Not everything that grows from the ground is a plant. Mushrooms are fungi. They are not vegetables, either, as vegetables can only be plants. It is not that you classify things differently in the south. Biological classifications are a universal law. They cannot vary from one region to another. People in the south, perhaps just do not understand how biological classification operates. This would be a reasonable explanation. Mushrooms are not plants. I await your next argument.
A soul mate can only be a romantic partner.

Now, Google defines "soul mate" as "a person ideally suited to another as a close friend or romantic partner. " [. https://www.google.com...] Note the "OR". Therefore your soul mate can just be merely your very best friend and still be accounted for as a "soul mate". The "best friend" part of the definition and the "romantic" part are both separated by an "or" on Google. com, therefore they have equal value by definition. Soul mate can also be a best friend, not only romantic.
The United States is not a democracy but a republic.

Democracy is a broad term, democracy is the fair representation of the ideas and wishes I the people, either directly represented in a council or by electing leader and member of their local group. For instance not all democracies are republics, such as the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, neither are all republics democracies, such as the Democratic Republic of North Korea or the former United Soviet Socialist Republics, which are/were firmly Communist and dictatorships, a country or Nation led by one leader who has the right to make laws without having to pass it through any other cdemocratic system e.g. A congress or parliament. The definition of Republic is a Nation led by a President, which many countries, democracies or not. The term President it's self is a loose term as it can represent any leader who is not Monarch, the Furer of Germany, was technically a president with the rights of the chancellery directly controlled by him. By looking at the USA, which is foreign country to me as I'm from the UK so forgive me if my overall knowledge is a bit sketchy as I'm studying my A-Levels at this moment in time. But it seems to be a Democratic Republic that elects it's president by seperate states voting for a representative to be president. This seems to be a fair and working democracy, I this system I democracy works is a different argument but it is democracy.
Euphonium Is Way Better Than Tuba At Solo Playing

Euphonium may get more music written with solos for them, But Tubas can be the same or better. When you do here a tuba solo, You will know what instrument it is opposed to the confusion of trombone vs euphonium. In addition, When you do hear a tuba solo that sounds good, It feels better because of the idea that tubas are just used for bass lines. For example, The video attached to this link is a tuba solo that is way different than the normal idea. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=fYOsNp4O7AU
The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

Hello The Chaos HeartThank you for this challenge.I put my reason for voting at the time. I thought it was very clear. Your opponent was ten years old. It was her first debate. She did actually set up the debate and I thought (and still think) that your tone and language were completely inappropriate to the point of being bullying. Although of course that was probably not your intention.You did still win the debate, though.My public messaging is not disabled as far as I'm aware. Certainly, a month ago Wallstreetathiest put a message up and I haven't changed it since then.Anyway, there was nothing to stop you friending me and sending a message that way. You could also have put something in the comments.However, you have chosen this way. And it is a debating site after all.I can't see, though, how this debate will change my opinion about voting the way I did. I wasn't particularly engaged with the content of the debate; it was more that I considered you disqualified for the reasons already outlined.But I'm delighted to debate with you. Thank you again for the challenge.As you have burden of proof, of course you go first.
The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

I would not typically challenge someone to a debate, but this particular situation is peculiar, and is something that has been bothering me for quite some time. Awhile back I found myself engaged in this debate on the topic of a female president, shown here:http://www.debate.org...Now from my perspective, I think it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that my arguments were demonstrably stronger when compared to that of my opponents. And yet, rross voted against me when it came to arguments, and her reasoning posted on the debate hardly supports such a vote. Normally I would have simply sent her a message to discuss the matter, and better understand her reasons for voting and her beliefs on the subject, but in her case, she has public messaging disabled.So here I am, left with what I can only view as a flawed, biased vote, made not based on the contents of the debate, but by some predisposed bias towards the pro stance of said debate. But I cannot be certain this is what it is. So here I invite rross to affirm or deny my beliefs, and explain her thoughts on the subject, in the form of a debate against me. The debate is the same as before: Should a woman be president of the United States of America? This first round is for acceptance, should rross accept. We will begin arguments in the rounds to follow.
The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

Con has the Burden of Proof When I accepted Con’s challenge (round 1), I assumed she had burden of proof. Specifically, I said: “As you have burden of proof, of course you go first. ” Con did not challenge this until the final round (round 5). She did not refer to it at all in rounds 2,3 or 4. Because she was silent on the issue, I assumed that she agreed and accepted the BoP. The final round is far too late to challenge BoP when it was expressed directly in round 1. Therefore, Con definitely has the BoP in this debate. Con has failed to meet the Burden of Proof Con’s case, in her own words: “For just as you advocate for someone to be president based on their sex, you then tell the other sex "you should NOT be president". This is oppression. This is corruption…we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex. To say anything less is sexism and unjust discrimination. ” Con has decided that “should” means a duty or obligation. She has offered no defense for this interpretation except that "as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended. ” This explanation is inadequate. A more natural interpretation of "should" in this context is as an expression of desire or expectation. If men and women had equal access to being elected president in a non-discriminatory environment, then there is a chance of less than one in a trillion that there would be 44 male presidents in a row. It’s a simple calculation: odds of 44 male presidents in a row = 0.5^44 = 5.68434E-14 Although I provided this calculation in the last round, Con chose to ignore it and resorted to ad hominem attacks. In particular, she said: “My opponent… is making up numbers, and acting as if they are true. .. ” Not at all. Con said: If we wish to maximize freedoms, and limit harms, we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex. I absolutely agree. Women should be elected President sometimes and men should be elected President sometimes. It is not discriminatory to men to say so. The USA should have free and fair elections, men and women should both have chance at high office, and one day in the future, the USA should elect a female President. Con has failed to prove otherwise, therefore she has lost this debate.
The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

My opponent has chosen to reframe the resolution, most significantly adding the word "should" and formally restricting the discussion to the United States. keke2002's original resolution was simply "Women for President".Should modal verb (3rd sing. should) [1] used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions indicating a desirable or expected state used to give or ask advice or suggestions Using the second definition of "should", the resolution can be read as: It would be lovely if The United States were to elect a Female President This is, I think, an interpretation more true to keke2002's original argument. She said, "give women a chance", and "women have a right to be president". She did not in any way imply that the United States be obliged to elect one type of candidate over another. For her, it was a desirable or expected state. My opponent goes on to claim that sex has no bearing on one's capability in a position of leadership. She then argues that Americans have an obligation to elect the "best qualified" president, and that sex does not have anything to do with this quality of being "best qualified". In a democracy, the "best qualified" candidate must be the one who most truly represents the people of the country. There are no other criteria by which to judge how qualified presidents are. Therefore, my opponent has already conceded that a woman could represent the country as truly as a man. So why has a woman never been elected? I'm sure my opponent agrees that the process by which Americans elect their presidents is not necessarily perfect. For instance, it's regrettable that candidates need so much money to have any chance at being elected. When it comes to the election, there's only a short list of candidates to choose from and I'm guessing that - in the past - it was a list of middle-aged, white, wealthy men. Even in the most recent election, men vastly outnumbered women on the ballot. And yet, there are more (51%) female than male Americans [2]. The President of the United States is an extremely powerful position, obviously, but it is also a symbolic role. Keke2002, no doubt, is learning at school that there have been 44 Presidents of the United States: a long, long chain of men. This has meaning. She quite rightly protests. There should be women in there too. Since women can represent the country as truly as men, and since there are more women than men, at least sometimes the President of the United States should be a woman. To my mind, Keke2002's argument is absolutely compelling. 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://quickfacts.census.gov...
The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

I will take no more space in this debate for the discussion of the vote. I can discuss that in the comments. Now then...Let us first properly understand what the resolution states, by defining the key term, 'should'. 'Should' is defined as follows, by the American Heritage Dictionary[1]:Should1. Used to express obligation or duty.The resolution then can be stated as follows: The United States of America has an obligation to elect a female president. This is what I intend to negate, and what my opponent must affirm. The problem is, of course, sex has no bearing on one's capability in a position of leadership. In fact, being of either the male or female sex has no bearing on any relevant criteria. And in fact this is the exact line of argument used by Feminists and Humanists for why women should be allowed to be president to begin with, i.e., the fact that they are a woman has no bearing on their ability, or inability, to lead the country. So if being of the female sex is not a reason to prevent someone from running for president...why then should it be a reason to MAKE someone president? What the resolution is truly claiming, and my opponent by extension, is that we should be choosing our president based on irrelevant criteria. No, worse than that; that we have an OBLIGATION, a DUTY, to choose our president based on irrelevant criteria. The very notion is asinine.None of this is to say, as I am certain my opponent will attempt to frame it, that a woman cannot or should not be president (in other words, we do not have an obligation to prevent women from becoming president). Certainly if the more qualified candidate happens to be female, that female should become president. But what I am arguing is that their being female should not be a reason to elect them, as it qualifies them for...nothing. We have no obligation to prevent women from being president, but we have no obligation to make one president either, just as we have no obligation to make any man a president simply because they are male. To be male should have no bearing on one's choice of president, so why should it be said to have a bearing on one's choice when the sex is female? No, we have no such duty, no such obligation. We have no more obligation to elect a female president than a male president; what we have is an obligation to elect the best qualified president, regardless of sex.Sources1. http://ahdictionary.com...;
God more likely than not exists

My opponent has decided to forgo the last round because he probably has nothing left to say. My opponent has offered essentially no argument, offering instead a copied and pasted, recycled bunch of text which, to my great dismay, cannot even be deciphered by the other great minds on this site. However, many points have been decoded from their nonsensical background and have been plucked out, and decimated. It can be seen that I have replied to and countered every single explanation and argument my opponent made outside of that initial post (although the explanations themselves were not logically structured and did not follow all the way through to a sound conclusion) I have also made an argument as to why it is much more possible for God to have been created by Man as opposed to the other way around. This was at the bottom of my first response and my opponent has chosen to completely ignore it. In any case, I have a standing argument and my opponent has absolutely none. So I rest my case and wait for the voters.
God more likely than not exists

your's has been one of the most block headed, idiotic posts i have ever seen. a big wall of text with no substance. ******* you cite no evidence. And you use the word presumption, but don't state any presumption. Presumptions don't really work in debate. I don't like uncertainties as premises. Please clarify the evidence and presumption. ******* you first say that miracle looking things occur, but that science has other explanations. then you ask for me to show them. do you accept the premise or don't you? look at the congregation of hte doctrine of the saints. i have a story that is pretty compelling of a healing at a church. that miracle looking things occur or not is not a debate i'm going to have. even richard dawkins would admit they occur. he's never given an adequate response, so that's why i'm here. basically, since theists have well documented miracle looking things, that occur in religous situations... it'd seem they are a special group of people. control group, etc, scientific theory that any third grader would know. but of which you are incapable of understanding. so, where's the well documented miracle looking things with theists? the flaw with athestis and agnostics is hat they assume they occur, simply assume it. you'd think they'd be wondering if they're left out in the cold. the definition of proof can simply mean evidence. this is common knowledge. something i realize you are lacking. if you don't accept my premise for how i define proof, then you should not hav taken my debate. we'd just be talking past each other and the only way you'd win is to attack something i didn't agree to from the beginning. you sure are a fool.
God more likely than not exists

God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation. as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law. (proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense. theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc. you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists) if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption. the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case.
All Citizens should be required to vote

We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.
Abortion

I was too busy to answer. I apologize for that. intro: Is a fetus a living human? 1: Why this is killing. "In the past two years, a number of states have considered or enacted legislation designed to protect fetuses and punish individuals who injure them or cause their death. The ACLU recognizes that a woman may suffer a serious physical and emotional injury if her pregnancy is ended by an assault, a drunk driving accident, or other criminal or negligent acts. But we have serious reservations about legislation designed to protect fetuses, because it can endanger women's rights by reinforcing claims of "fetal rights" in the law. " https://www.aclu.org... 2: Must prevent this. "The responsibility to protect is a principle which seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to act in the face of genocide and other gross forms of human rights abuse. "R2P," as it is commonly abbreviated, was adopted by heads of state and government at the World Summit in 2005 sitting as the United Nations General Assembly. The principle stipulates, first, that states have an obligation to protect their citizens from mass atrocities; second, that the international community should assist them in doing so; and, third, that, if the state in question fails to act appropriately, the responsibility to do so falls to that larger community of states. R2P should be understood as a solemn promise made by leaders of every country to all men and women endangered by mass atrocities. " http://www.ipu.org... 3: Morally wrong. God himself gave the commandment of thou shalt not kill. It is morally wrong! http://www.sciencechatforum.com... Conclusion: Vote with me
Abortion

Introduction: The claim of morality of abortion may be disputed but the facts are not. Abortions did not begin with roe vs wade. Safe abortions did. There is a Central American study done in countries that stopped abortions. More loss of life occurred. More women committed suicide. More women drank bleach or had coat hanger abortions that resulted in (most of the times) death. And the women who did give birth just threw their babies into trash cans. So in the end, according to the study, more babies and MORE women died. I suggest you study this pdf, might change your mind: . https://www.guttmacher.org... Rebuttal: While the zygote,fetus, or whatever stage it is in it is not a human PERSON. While it may be a human it is not a recognized person and therefore should not be given the rights that a PERSON should have. As stated above abortion actually saves more lives. . http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... . http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com... Dont be emotional, stick to facts.
Abortion

If you accept you accept all rules, terms, and conditions. Rules: 1: Use sources 2: Be respectful 3: Stick to rounds 4: Have fun 5: Breaking a rule results in automatic forfeit to me Rounds: 1: Acceptance 2: Opening statements 3: Questions 4: Answers 5: Closing statements and why the viewers should vote for you. Good luck and let the debate begin whenever my opponent is ready!